VIGTTJIAE CHRISTIANAE LVIII
Vigiliae
Christianae A
Review
of
Christian
Early and
Language VOLUME
LVIII
2
'
s
16 8
BRILL LETJF.EN* BOSTON 2004
Life
Editors-in-chief J. den Boeft, Amsterdam van Oort, Utrecht/Nijmegen J. W.L. Petersen, Pennsylvania D.T. Runia, Melbourne C. Scholten, Koln J.C.M. van Winden, Leiden AssociateEditors A. Le Boulluec (Paris) - A. Davids (Nijmegen) - R.M. Grant (Chicago) Marguerite Harl (Paris) - J.-P. Mahe (Paris) - Elaine Pagels (Princeton)
G. Rouwhorst (Utrecht)- R. Staats (Kiel)
? Copyright 2004 by Koninkljke Brill NV, Leiden,TheNetherlands All rightsreserved. storedin No part of thispublicationmay be reproduced, translated, a retrieval in anyform or by any means,electronic, system,or transmitted or othrwise,withoutpriorwritten mechanical, photocopying, recording permission of thepublisher. to photocopy Authorization itemsfor internalorpersonal use is grantedby Brillprovidedthat the appropriate fees arepaid directlyto Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive,Suite910, Danvers,MA 01923, USA. Feesare subjectto change.
ISSN 0042-6032
CONTENTS I ARTICLES Virius NicomachusFlavianus,Der Praefectusund Consul .......... des Carmencontrapaganos ........................................ 152 Gratien Une d'Ambroise a l'Empereur Y.-M., DuvAL, (CPL reponse 160A): tdition, Traduction, Commentaire .................................. 407 GARTNER,Th., Die Musen im Dienste Christi: Strategien der RechtfertigungchristlicherDichtung in der lateinischenSpatantike 424 HARRISON, J.R., In Quest of the Third Heaven:Paul & his Apocalyptic 24 Imitators .......................................................................................... S.M., A Reconsiderationof the Development of Basil's HILDEBRAND, Trinitarian Theology: The Dating of Ep. 9 and ContraEunomium 393 H., Tyconius' Rules of Chronology:An Innovation ...... 203 JACOBSON, T., Die Wahrheitsbezeichnungendes Clemens von KLIBENGAJTIS, Alexandrien in ihrem philosophischenund theologischen Kontext 316 LEE, D., In the Spirit of Truth: Worship and Prayer in the Gospel of John and the Early Fathers ...................................................... 277 LOSSL, J., Sallust in Julian of Aeclanum ............................................ 179 N., NHC 11,2 and the Oxyrhynchus Fragments (P.Oxy 1, PERRIN, 645, 655): Overlooked Evidence for a Syriac Gospelof Thomas .... 138 RANKIN,D.I., Class Distinction as a Way of Doing Church: The Early Fathers and the Christianplebs .............................................. 298 RODES, J.N., Barnabas4.6B: The ExegeticalImplicationsof a Textual 365 Problem ......... ........................................................ in the of the Saints Commemoration H.G.E. ROSE, (Els), Liturgical MissaleGothicum (Vat.Reg.Lat.317). New Approachesto the Liturgy 75 ......... of Early Medieval Gaul ........................................ 56 RoUKEMA, R., The Good Samaritan in Ancient Christianity .......... RUNIA,D.T., Eric Osborn: a Tribute .............................................. 242 RUNIA,D.T., Clement of Alexandria and the Philonic Doctrine of ......... 256 the Divine Power(s) ........................................ SPAT, E., The 'Teachers' of Mani in the Acta Archelaiand Simon 1 Magus .............................................................................................. in St as Role The of STEENBERG, M.C., Co-recapitulator Mary 117 Irenaeus of Lyons ......................................................... COSKUN,A.,
vi
CONTENTS
II Reviews ATHANASIUS von
ALEXANDRIEN,
Epistula ad Afros(J. Leemans) ........
Die philosophische Lehredes Platonismus (D.T. Runia) ...... and Paul. KENNETH, BERDING, (B. Dehandschutter) ............ Polycarp Der Gott BERGJAN,SILKE-PETRA, fiirsorgende (A.P. Bos) ...................... entrePierreet Simondans les PseudoCOTE, D., Le themede l'opposition Climentines (L. Cirillo) ...................................................................... a la litterature relgiusejudo-hellenistique DENIS,A.-M., Introduction (P.W. van der Horst) ................................................................................ K., GregorvonNazianz,De humananatura(J. Leemans) .... DOMITER, BALTES, M,
455
227 98 214 341 452 449
EMMEL,S., M. KRAUSE,S.G. RICRHER,S.
SCHATEN (Hgg), Agypten undNubienin spatantiker undchristlicher Zeit (J. van Oort) ............ Architektur in Agypten GROSSMANN, PETER,Christliche (S.G. Richter) .................................................................................. LARCHET, J.-C., Saint Maximele Confesseur (B. Roosen) .................... LENSKI, N., Failureof Empire(J.W. Drijvers) .................................... LEEFMANS, J, CorpusChristianorum (1953-2003) (J. van Oort) ..........
467 101 462
107 221
DE MAGNESIE,Le Monogenes(P.W. van der Horst) .......... MACARIOS
332
MANN,F., LexiconGregorianum (J. Leemans) ...................................... A. The Didache MILAVEC, (W. Rordorf) ............................................ PAULINO
(J. den Boeft) ................ NOLANO, (Ps.-) OSBORN,E. Irenaeus of Lyons(C. Kannengiesser) .............................. PERRIN, N., Thomasand Tatian(G. Quispel) ...................................... SEVERO, S., Vitadi Martino(J. den Boeft) ........................................
218 447 459 353 205 471
A. (ed.), The Life of Polcarp (B. Dehandschutter) .... STEWART-SYKES,
209
J.D., A. McGuire (eds.), TheNag HammadiLibra?yafterFifty Years(M. Scopello) ........................................ 222 ........... derAntike Gemeinden VOLP, U., Tod undRitualin denchristlichen (G. Rouwhorst) ................................................................................ 206 TURNER,
Books received ........................................................
111,231, 356, 473
Christia A
of
Review
Early
Christian Life
and
Language VOL.
LVIII
NO.
I 2004
www.brill.nl
BRILL LEIDEN-BOSTON
VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE a review of Early Christian Life and Language J. DENBOEFT,Amsterdam, J. VAN OORT,Utrecht/Nijmegen, W.L. PETERSEN, State College, Pennsylvania, D.T. RUNIA,Melbourne, C. SCHOLTEN, Koln, J.C.M. VAN WINDEN, Leiden ASSOCIATEEDITORS: A. Le Boulluec (Paris) - A. Davids (Nijmegen) - R.M. Grant (Chicago) Marguerite Harl (Paris) - J.-P. Mah6 (Paris) -Elaine Pagels (Princeton) G. Rouwhorst (Utrecht) - R. Staats (Kiel) SCOPE: This quarterly journal contains articles and short notices of an historical and cultural, linguistic or philological nature on Early Christian literatureposterior to the New Testament in the widest sense of the word, as well as on Christian epigraphy and archaeology. Church and dogmatic history will only be dealt with if they bear directly on social history; Byzantine and Mediaeval literature only in so far as it exhibits continuity with the Early Christian period. The journal will also contain reviews of importantstudies, published elsewhere. Each volume appears in 4 quarterly issues. MANUSCRIPTS: All manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be sent to the Secretary of the Editorial Board, Professor J. den Boeft, Commanderijpoort4-6, 2311 WB Leiden, The Netherlands. Books for review should be sent to Professor J. van Oort, Department of Ecclesiastical History, P.O. Box 80105, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. PUBLISHER: Brill Academic Publishers PUBLISHED: Four times a year: February, May, August and November SUBSCRIPTIONS: The subscription price of Volume 58 (2004) is EUR 195.- (US $ 244.-) for institutions, and EUR 99.- (US$ 124.-) for individuals, inclusive of postage and handling charges. All prices are exclusive of VAT in EU-countries (VAT not applicable outside the EU). Subscription orders are accepted for complete volumes only. Orders take effect with the first issue of any year. Orders may also be entered on an automatic continuing basis. Cancellations will only be accepted if they are received before October 1st of the year preceding the year in which the cancellation is to take effect. Claims for missing issues will be met, free of charge, if made within three months of dispatch for European customers and five months for customers outside Europe. Once the issue is published the actual dates of dispatch can be found on our website: www.brill.nl. Subscription orders may be made via any bookseller or subscription agency, or direct to the publisher. OFFICES: The Netherlands U.S.A. Brill Academic Publishers Brill Academic Publishers Inc. P.O. Box 9000 112 Water Street, Suite 400 2300 PA Leiden Boston, MA 02109 Tel: +31 71 535 35 66 Tel: 1-800-962-4406 (toll free) Fax: +31 71 531 75 32 Fax: (617) 263 2324 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] BACK VOLUMES: Back volumes of the last two years are available from Brill: please contact our customer services department. For back volumes of the preceding years please contact: Swets & Zeitlinger. P.O. Box 830, 2160 SZ, Lisse, The Netherlands. BACKISSUES: Back issues of the current and last two years are available from Brill. EDITORS-IN-CHIEF:
VISIT THE BRILL WEBSITE: WWW.BRILL.NL
BRILL LEIDEN BOSTON
THE 'TEACHERS' OF MANI IN THE ACTA ARCHELAI AND SIMON MAGUS' BY
ESZTER SPAT
ABSTRACT: This paper aims to provethat the biography of Mani in the Acta Archelae of Hegemonius,whichcontainsa greatnumberof completelyfictitious elements,was in fact drawnup on the file of Simon Magus,pateromnium and the apocryphalacts, espehaereticomm, using the worksof heresiologists as a ciallythe Pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones, model and source.There are a greatnumberof elementsin this VitaManisthat beara strongresemblance to the well knownmotivesof Simon'slife. ProjectingSimon'slife over thatof Maniservesas tool to reinforcethe imageof Mani that Hegemoniustriedto convey:that of just another'runof the mill'heretic,one in the long line of the disciplesof Simon,and a fraudand devoidof any originality.
The ActaArchelai of Hegemonius,2composed between 330 and 348 in Syria,3 was the first Christian work written against Manichaeans. The text of the Acta,as a whole, has survivedonly in the Latin translation,though a great part of its Greek text has been preserved in the Panarion(or 'Medicine Chest') of Epiphanius, who seems to have often copied his source almost word for word in the chapter on Manichaeism.4Besides being the first it was also, in many respects, the most influential. It was a source of material, both on Manichaean mythology and on the figure of Mani, for a long list of historians and theologians who engaged in polemics against the I expressmy thanksto ProfessorJ. van Oort for his advice and for providingme access to his library.I also thank Dr. B. Schoemacherfor his valuablecomments. 2 The authorshipof Hegemoniuswas ascertainedby CharlesHenry Beeson in his critical edition of the work: ActaDisputationis Archelai,Die GriechischenChristlichen der erstendreiJahrhunderte(GCS) 16 (Leipzig:J. C. Hinrichs'sche BuchSchriftsteller ActaArchelai, handlung,1906). For an Englishtranslationsee MarkVermes, Hegemonius, with a commentaryby SamuelLieu, ManichaeanStudies,4 (Turnhout:Brepols,2001). 3 SamuelLieu, Manichaeism in Mesopotamia andtheRomanEast,(Leiden:Brill, 1994) 136. 4 Since the text of the Actasometimes appearsto be corrupt,the text of Epiphanius can also provide help in trying to reconstructthe originalsense of some of the more obscuresentences. ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Christianae 58, 1-23 fVgiliae
2
ESZTER
SPAT
Manichaeans,like Epiphanius,Cyril ofJerusalem, Socrates the Church hisMaroniticum torian, Theodoret of Cyrus, Theodore bar Koni, the Chronicon and finallyeven PetrusSiculusand Photiuswho wrote againstthe Paulicians,5 and even the Anathema formulas, the SevenChapters againsttheManichaeans of Zacharias of Mitylene, and through it the Greek LongFormula.6 These authors and the content of their works practically constitute an independent line of tradition in anti-ManichaeanChristian writings. The ActaArchelaiis the account of two public debates between the heresiarch Mani and the bishop of Carchar, Archelaus. The debate was occasioned by Mani's attemptto convert the noble citizen of Carchar,Marcellus, to his own teachings. It starts with the meritorious deeds of Marcellus, whose fame reaches even Mani in the lands of the Persians. He sends a letter to Marcellus exhorting him to join the faith founded by him. This imprudence incenses Archelaus, Marcellus' friend, who invites the author of the letter to a theological contest. Prior to the arrival of Mani we are given a-rather ridiculed account of Manichaean mythology.When Mani arrives he is easily defeated in the debate by Archelaus, takes flight and runs to Diodorus, where he hopes to find proselytesfor his religion among the unsuspectingpopulation.However, the presbyterof the town, also called Diodorus, immediatelysees through his designs and sends to Archelausfor help. Archelauspromptly,and unexpectedly,appearsagain and duly defeats Mani in the second debate as well. After Mani flees again, Archelausmakes his victory over Mani complete by telling the assembledaudience the "true origins" of both Mani and his teachings. The work basically consists of three parts: the theological refutation of Mani's system, the account-and simultaneouslyrefutation-of his mythology and teachings, and the "biography"of Mani (plus the introductory part, that tell us of Marcellus'acts). Of these three parts the last one, the biography (c. 61-66) achieved the greatest "career", appearing in many other heresiological works, profoundly influencing the image of Mani in Christian literature till the nineteenth century.7This bibliography serves 5
H-Ch. Puech Le Manichiisme.(Paris: Civilisations du Sud, 1949), 99. N.10. This list comprises only extant works. Socrates mentions, as authors utilising the Acta Archelai, Diodorus Cilicensis, Georgius Laodicenus and Eusebius. 6 Lieu, Manichaeismin Mesopotamia,224-5. 7 That is to say until the section on Manichaeism in the Kitabal-Fihristof an-Nadim, in Gustave Fliigel, Mani, seineLehreundseineSchriften (Leipzig, 1862), and the LiberSchliorum of Theodore bar Koni, in H. Pognon, "Liber Scholiorum de Theodore bar Khoni"
THE 'TEACHERS'OF MANI IN THE ACTAARCHELAI
3
the same end as the whole work itself: to discredit Mani and show him up as a fraud and pseudo-prophet, and his religion on a par with all the other heresies of the age, anathematized and thoroughly refuted.8 Mani's life and acts, as presented by Hegemonius, fit neatly into the tradition of anti-heretical writings as it developed through the centuries during the incessant fight of the Church against heretics.9 In the "biographical deeds" that are used to depict Mani we meet with numerous classical motifs of antihereticalliterature. For Hegemonius Mani was just one in the long list of heretics, as he himself does not hesitate to declare on several occasions. Accordingly all the basic ingredients of anti-heretical polemics are represented in the vita:the motifs of false Christianity,taking the name of Christ, plagiarism,compiling their system from all sources after the fashion of patchwork,hunger for power and attemptsto trick and corrupt the mind of simple men. In Hegemonius' account Mani starts his religious career as a heresiarch by stealing from Scythianus, that is, taking his book'? and after inserting his own ideas in it, which resemble some old wives' tales, and deleting the name of their earlier owner. He continues by "stealing"from Christianity,plagiarising from the Scriptures, bits of which he then combined with the books of Scythianus and whatever phantasmagorias sprang from his distorted mind." Finally Mani is also accused of not only pretending to be a Christian, but also calling himself the Apostle of Christ and the Paraclete, partly out of ignorant vanity, but mostly with the aim of misleading people. These 'incidents' of Mani's life in fact constitute an attack on an ideological level against Mani's religious system and correspond to Archelaus' accusations during the earlier theological dispute. The ingenuity of Hegemonius lies in the fact that this ideological attack is realized not so much through open statements as to the execrable nature of the heresy (as in Mandaitesdes coupesde Khouabir(Paris: 1898) were published, the Acta was the Inscriptions sole known account of Mani's life in the Christian world. 8 Puech calls it a "caricature" and "contre legende" (Le Manichiisme,24). 9 On the traditions and tools of heresiological literature, see A. Le Boulluec, La notion d'hiresiedans la littiraturegrecque,IIe-III" siicles (Paris:Etudes Augustiniennes, 1985). 10 Which, in its turn, was based on the teachings of Pythagoras. Heretics stealing their ideas from the pagan philosophers is another commonplace accusation; see Le Boulluec, La notionvol. I, "Le plagiat des heretiques," 123-4. " The traditional nature of this accusation is appreciated even by Hegemonius: he makes Diodorus write to Archelaus: Nosti quia moremhunchabentqui dogmaaliquodadserere voluerintde scripturisadsumere,haec propensiussui intellgentiadepravent. volunt, ut quaecumque Hegemonius, 44.5 GCS 16.64.27-9.
4
ESZTER SPAT
"regular"anti-hereticalwritings),but through "biographical"elements that convey the same message. As if the attack on this ideological level were not enough, Hegemonius adds a number of other biographical elements that present Mani as a slave and failed miracle worker, who finally ends his life as a criminal, in a way that is absurd and humiliating at the same time.'2 It must also be mentioned that all these motifs have a grain of truth in them: some of them are based on real facts from Mani's life,'3 but so distorted as to present a completely inverted image of Mani, while some others reflect the way Mani saw his own mission and religiousmessage'4the way a Christian would have interpreted this, of course.'5 There is only one curious motif, or rather group of motifs, which is hard to fit into the tradition of antihereticalwritings, and which, furthermore, can in no way have any factual basis: the detailed and completely false biographiesof Mani's predecessors,who appear as the "founders",or "real authors" of his religious system. The first of these forerunners, Scythianusis said by the Actato have lived in the time of the Apostlesa sheer chronologicalimpossibility,consideringthat Mani was born in 216 AD. No even remotely similar statement can be found in the Manichaean writings or even in Christianwritings not based on the Acta,among them the numerous anti-Manichaeanworks of Augustine, a former Manichaean himself. In all other writings Mani clearly appears as the sole source of his ideology.'6 12 As Puech
writes,the aim of this polemic piece of writingwas to paint the image of Mani in the possiblemost dire colours,to makeridiculeof an adversarywho appears as "un esclave,un plagiaire,un imposteur,un criminel"Le Manicheisne, 24. 13 E.g. His activityas a "doctor",the enmityof I. Bahramtowardhim, or his imprisonment at the order of the shah. For a detailed analysisof Mani's life, see L. J. R. Ort, Mani:A Religio-Historical of his Personalit.Leiden:Brill, 1967. Description 14 That is, his to a found universal attempts religion,his use of Christianscriptures, belief to be the last one in the line of Apostlesof Light, and seeingJesus as his forerunnercould easily be open to such interpretation. 15 We may safelyassumethat Hegemoniusdrew his caricatureupon a "Manichaean in biographyor hagiography,"see Puech, Le Manichrme,26, and Lieu, Manichaeism 151-52. Mesopotamia, 16 Even some of the authorswho used the Acta-but had other sources as wellspurnthis version.Theodoretof Cyrus,who reliedon the Acta,but evidentlyhad access to other channelsof informationas well, even takes a short cut, and solves this problem by declaring,in his very first sentence,that Scythianuswas just the originalname of Mani. "Mani,of Persianorigin,as they say, bore the yoke of servitudefor long, and was called Scythianuswhile a slave." Theodoretos Cyrensis, Haereticarum Fabularum I. 26, PatrologiaGraeca (PG) 83.378. Compendium
THE 'TEACHERS' OF MANI IN THE ACTA ARCHELAI
5
How are we to interpret Hegemonius' claim that Mani was not the author of his own religion?What can we do with the figure of his alleged teachers, Scythianus and Terebinthus, and the detailed account of their life, acts and death that Hegemonius presents us with? Evidently this is one further device to make Mani even more ludicrous by depriving him of any originality, and showing him up as the thief of another thief. But if the image of a "doubleplagiarist"was all Hegemoniuswanted to achieve, he seems to have put a disproportionateamount of energy into detailing the curious lives of Mani's forerunners.We must seek the clue of this puzzle by lookingat the traditionsof heresiologicalliteraturethat, as we have seen, lies behind the drawing of Mani's figure in the Acta. SimonMagusand the Traditions Literature of Anti-Heretical Our first clue toward solving this perplexing question is the expression in the time of the Apostles, when Mani's spiritualancestempore apostolorum, the first and real author of this dualist system pursued his activities. tor, The expression "time of the Apostles"immediatelycalls to mind the notion of Apostolic tradition, which linked the Church of the day to Christ, and justified the validity of its teaching.'7 The notion of apostolic succession served not only to prove the authority of the Catholic Church and its direct descent from Christ, but also to refute any new teachings and reject secret traditions.18 This notion soon led to a furtherdevelopment:the notion of "demonic succession".'9Just as the Apostolic Church could be traced back to one source, Christ, forming a continuous link between Christ and the present Church, so its counterpart, the 'deviant Church' or community of heretics could also be traced back to one source: Simon Magus of Samaria. Simon's figure first appears in the Biblical Acts of theApostles,and soon a whole apocryphaland anti-hereticalliterarycorpus developed around his figure. While in the apocryphalworks we can read about the life of Simon, 17 The ideology behind this idea is closely connected to the threat posed by heresies. see Henry Chadwick, The Early Church41-2. (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books,
1967). 18Archelaushimselfrefersto this Apostolicsuccession,as opposed to the "doctrine of error"representedand propagatedby Mani (c. 61). On the contrastdrawnbetween "la successionapostolique"and "la fileriede l'erreur",see Scopello,"Veriteset Contre6 (1995):203-34. Verites:La vie de Mani" 209-11 Apocrypha '9 On the notion of "succession"see Le Boulluec,La notion,84-91.
6
ESZTER SPAT
his magical arts and nefarious deeds and about his debates with Peter and Paul, the Church Fathers concentratedon refutinghis system and his dualist ideology. Besides attributing to him a complicated Gnostic system of thought and a Gnostic creation myth, the Church Fathers added further interestinginformationabout the figure of Simon. They made him not just the first Gnostic, but the father of all heretics, the ultimate source of all heresies professing dualist ideas, the first link in the chain of demonic succession. The idea that Simon was not only the first heretic, but the source of all other heresies as well, and the revolutionarynotion of a master-disciple of Justin, relationshipmay have first appeared in the, sadly lost, Syntagma the first collection of heretical doctrines.20The first Church Father to call is Irenaeus,21 Simon explicitlythe fatherof all heresies,pateromnium haereticomm, in asserts that "all his AdverusHaereses.Irenaeus perhaps followingJustin, heretics drew their impious doctrines from Simon,"22and "all those who in any way corrupt the truth and hurt the glory of the Church, are the disciplesand successorsof Simon Magus."23This sentimentis often repeated by Irenaeus in his work. Other writers followed suit, and it soon became a commonplace that just as all sins stemmed from Satan, all heresies were born out of the teaching of Simon. This tradition resulted in drawing up genealogies of heresiarchs.Heretics were depicted as the inheritorsof their predecessors'doctrines, teachers and disciples, forming a chain that theoretically ended in Simon.24 How prevalent and far from forgotten the figure of Simon, as the father and ultimate source of all the heresies, still was in the days when the new enemy, Manichaeism, appeared is demonstratedby anti-Manichaeanwriters, who keep mentioning the names of the two together. In the De Trinitate 20
21
Ibid. 36-7, and "Maitre et disciple: les h6ertiques Simon et Menandre," 80-2.
III. Pref. (eds.A. Rousseau,and L. Doutreleau.SC 211. Haereses Irenaeus,Adversus
Paris: Cerf, 1974.) 22 Ibid. II. Pref. 1. (eds. A. Rousseau, and L. Doutreleau. SC 294. Paris: Cerf, 1982): omnesa Simonehaereticiinitia sumentesimpia et irreligiosadogmatainduxerunt. 23 Ibid. 1.27.4 (eds. A. Rousseau, and L. Doutreleau. SC 264. Paris: Cerf, 1979): omnesqui quoquomodo adulterantveritatem,et praeconiumEcclesiaelaedunt,SimonisSamaritani sunt. Magi discipuliet successores 24 Thus Simon was said, for example, to be the source of Menander, Saturinus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Cerdon, through Valentinus the father of all the Gnostics, through Saturninus the origin of the Encratites, through Cerdon the predecessor of Marcus, the Gnostic Magician who himself was said to be the spiritual ancestor of the Priscillianists in Spain.
THE 'TEACHERS'OF MANI IN THE ACTAARCHELAI
7
Liber,writtenin 398 and attributedto Didymus Alexandrinus,Mani appears plainly as a heir of Simon's teaching, who presents no novelty: "this dogma is the emanation of the dirty mud derived from the Samaritan Simon Magus."25Simon was also the yardstick to which all heresies were compared: Cyril of Jerusalem, wishing to prove that the depravityof Mani was so enormous, that he even "excelled"Simon Magus, says "if Simon, wishing to acquire the power (of the Spirit) for money was damned to perdition, how much more is Mani guilty of impiety, he who boasted of being the Holy Spirit."26 Thus Hegemonius'claim that Scythianuslived at the time of the Apostles [however unlikely this sounds from the rational point of view] would make an immediate connection between Simon, the "fatherof all heresies,"and Mani, for the only heretic whose name is connected with the Apostles is Simon. If Mani had teacherswho can be traced back to the time of Simon, this would fit him into the 'Simonian succession' of heretics, as tradition demanded, and thereby reduce him to the level of the countless pseudoprophets and religious founders who abound in the anti-hereticalworks of the Church Fathers, and both he and his system could be deprived of any originality and primacy that he and his followers claimed. The idea of 'Simoniansuccession'would also explainwhy both Scythianus and Terebinthus, and consequently their heir, Mani, strove to become experts in the science of the Egyptians,that is, magic. As Simon was known to dabble in black magic, using his expertise in the magic arts to manipulate people, so are all his 'descendants'versed in witchcraft.27This also makes it understandablewhy Hegemonius 'sent' Scythianusto Egypt:Egypt was known (besides Babylon) as the cradle of magic. Most Gnostic teachers accused of magic, like Basilides,Carpocrates,Marcus the Magician and 25
LiberIII.42. PatrologiaGraeca (PG) 39. 989: DidymusAlexandrinus,De Trinitate
TovxoTzovuvX6 ya keicpoia xt oxinTOV ?eXo6vto p3op]36pou & abZipovoS , Tov cK la{mpe0iaS
Mayou. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, CatechesisXVI.10 PG 33.931: El oAv 6 ?itov, 09Xoaag x a&yiov, gotrqv eXetTqvaaoe3etav; 27 Irenaeus, AdversusHaereses,1.23.4 SC 264: Igitur horummysticisacerdotes... magias autemperficiunt,quemadmodum utuntur. potest unusquisqueipsorum.Exorcismiset incantationibus Amatoriaet agogimaet qui dicunturparedriet oniropompi, et quaequnque sunt alia periergaapud eos studioseexercentur. VI.20.1 (ed. Marcovich. Berlin: De Gruyter, Cf Hippolytus,Philosophoumena vx( aOqai TeXobotiKatiERtaotlSia; (<6vxca), pihtpa xe Kail ?eh xaa0t yeio5 1986): 01 oUOvToxou t To apdaoaetvoiv u 8ailovac itnti goov xnpo, ardylipa Kical ToVi;Xoyopevou;6vetpon6Opinoo poNiXovtat. 26
to HvetaLaeivat ptoOip XMpetvTlv itouoiav, ei; adtCXeiaviot, MavlS 6 eauitobv
8
ESZTER SPAT
Homilies, Cerinthus,were Egyptians.Some sources, like the Pseudo-Clementine even mention Simon as being of Egyptian, Alexandrian origin.28 But there seems to be more to the story than making the traditionaland almost obligatory-connection between Simon and any heresy worth its salt, with the help of insertingsuch motifs as the practice of black magic, or the rather forced genealogy that would trace the origin of Mani's movement back to the time of the Apostles, that is, Simon's era. Reading the Acta,it almost seems a revised addition of incidents in Simon's life, which was well-known to any man with a basic education in the fourth century. Simon'sFlight Perhaps the most important motif pointing towards Simon is the story of Terebinthus falling, or rather being thrust by an angel on divine command, off the rooftop of a house where he ascended at sunrise to perform some magic rites: "Finally,early one morning he ascended to a high roof top, where he began to invoke certain names ... the most just God decreed that he be thrust beneath the ground by a Spirit, and at once he was hurled from the heights, and his dead body fell headlong down."29 Actsand from the writingsof the Church As we know from the Apocpyphal in his sad Simon met Fathers, (or their opinion deserved) end, when after being ousted by Peter in every debate, he finally tried to prove his divinity before the people of Rome and Nero by trying to fly up through the air toward the heavens. He did indeed rise from the earth, to the astonishment of the crowd, when Peter startedpraying to God not to let Simon distract human souls from the true religion by such a fraudulentmiracle, and God struck down Simon, who smashed to the ground. The magic flight of Simon and his utter failure was one of the favourite themes of early Christianliterature,and we have a great number of slightly differing accounts of the event. Though some versions like the Acta Petridescribe Simon as taking off from the ground, there are other versions depicting Simon as taking off (or jumping off if we like) from the top of a high edifice: In the highly 28HomiliesII.22.2. PG 2.89.
29Hegemonius, ascendit solarium maneprimn 63.5-6.GCS 16.92.8-15: excelsum, quoddam iubet Deussub terraseumdetrudi ubi nominaquaedam invocare perspiritum coepit... iustissimus est. See also Vermes,Acta et continuo de summodeiectus, exanime corpusdeorsum praecpitatum Archelai,143.5-6.
THE 'TEACHERS' OF MANI IN THE ACTA ARCHELAI
9
fabulous ActaPetriet Pauli30Simon requests Nero "to build for me a lofty tower of wood, and I, going up upon it, will call my angels and order them to take me in the sight of all, to my father in heaven" so that Nero "may know, that these men (that is, Paul and Peter) are liars, and that I have been sent from the heavens." Arnobius, writing around 300,31tells us that the chariot and the four fiery horses of Simon were blown away by the mouth of Peter; and Simon, falling off, broke his leg. He was then "takento the town of Brundawhere, exhaustedby his pains and the shame, he again threw himself headlong into the deep from the top of a very high roof."32
The angel as a divine vehicle preventing such an impious enterprisealso appears in both stories. In several accounts Simon is not simply said to have fallen, but to have been thrown down by an angel or angels: a near contemporary of Hegemonius, Philastrius, in an elliptical reference to Simon's death, says that "defeatedeverywhereby the prayer of the sainted Apostle, he was stricken by an angel (percussusab angelo),as he deserved to perish."33SimilarlyTerebinthus is thrust off the rooftop by an angel at the order of God: Deusper spiritumeumdetrudiiussit. It is obvious how closely this account resembles Simon's death, both regarding the exact manner of their death and even the motivation for attempting to fly. As we can see, Simon used his magical ability to fly as the last resort to convince people of his divinity. Though Hegemonius gives no direct reason for Terebinthus' early morning exercise climbing up the roof, other than in order to perform some rites (at least in the extant version), it must be noted that previous to this incident the Actadescribe how Terebinthus was bested in all argumentswith the priests of Mithra.34It is worthwhile, however, to take a look at Epiphanius,who seems to have followed the original version of the Acta quite closely, though occasionally Fathers8, 484. Transl. by Tischendorfand ed. Acta Petri et Pauli, in Ante-Jicene Coxe A. Cleveland (GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans,1995). by 30
31 L. Thorndike, History of Magic and ExperimentalScience. 1. Vol. 423. (London:
MacMillan,1923). et pudoredefes32 Arobius, AdversusGentes11.12PL 5.829: PerlatumBrundam,cruciatibus sum ex altissimiculminisse rusumpraecipitasse fastigio. 33 Philastrius, Liberde Haer. 29 PL 12.1141: devictusundiqueorationebeati apostoli,atque percussusab angelo,sic meruitinterire... 34 The text of Hegemoniusmentions a prophet named Parcus, and Labdacusthe son of Mithras, but Epiphanius (Panarion66.3.15) and Cyrillus (CatechesisXVI.23) Note 315, understoodthis to mean priests of Mithra. See also Vermes, ActaArchelai, 142-3. pp.
10
ESZTERSPAT
elaboratingon the original text. In Epiphanius'version (where, suggestively enough, he doubles the story of falling off, and makes Scythianusmeet his death by similarly falling off a rooftop as well) both Scythianus and Terebinthus climb to the top of a house to perform some magic rite with the intention of convincing people or gaining some power over them. Scythianus failed to accomplish anything in his debates with the learned men ofJudea, "As he could not achieve anything, rather he left defeated, and attemptedwith the help of the magic books he had-as he was a sordeceive them [to play a trick on them with the help cerer as well...-to of miracles], and ascending to the top of a house, and failing to achieve what he wished again, he fell off into the deep and left this life."35 This explanation, performing some obnoxious magic rite with the aim of winning a debate or proving his divine nature, is repeated in the case of Terebinthus.Epiphaniussees these magic rites as an instrumentto make people believe him. When Terebinthus proved to be ousted in the continual debate with the priests of Mithra and "was not able to resist the chief priests of idolatry, but was defeated by them in the debate and made to flee in a most shameful fashion, he followed Scythianus' example and ascended to the rooftop of a house, and there with magic art he tried to achieve that no one dare contradict him anymore, and thrown off by an angel he fell off."36 But can we assert that we have enough reasons to suppose that all this climbing on rooftops should somehow be brought into connection with flying? Taking all the evidence into account, it seems likely that we can do so. 1. The fact that Terebinthus has to climb to a high spot in order to perform the rite or magic, indicates that it was somehow connected with the demons of the air. Hegemonius, in fact, makes an obscure reference to the demons of the air, stating that Terebinthus "had climbed up alone, to avoid being detected by anybody, because if he had pretended or treated
35 Epiphanius, Panarion66.3.7-8 (eds. K. Holl and J. Dummer. (GCS) vol. III. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1985): 'Qi(68 oAiK'lioX) xt aavioai, &X&xT IrTTov AtXov &alveCaxo, ?6' Xv eXle layti&v ai yap Kai y6lS vv...--pavraoiav iptkiCov-K etin6eloje xtva. eit 86gaxoS (yap) aveX8iov cKaiEt1im6Eo aS,Oao);o' v6ev ia1Xsxc. a,Xa iaxaneocav EKxto 86axos, rkniXt Toi6 IMou Xp1ioaTo. 36 jtie KiavtPosxois; Tfi; ei&okoEpiphanius, Panarion66.3.13-14: [icai] lit uvwOeit;g XatpeiaS; apuvxaveS 6itaXexizvat, a&k' (Ev) e&'X(p KcaraoT&;cap' a6Tt6v, Kai TOaloXog l"a bojotia(povioaS;, ei TXOoUanltOV ,OlU)T(O Tq 7tpoetpnL.eVqv?TCZDOI6av( &aceveyTCKalevo;, no, Tb!il XzvaaTp aX aveX0ov, gaye'etv Tt 'fiOevnapOq &vutiyetv tirnX1SeM6'oa, a/yy'Xou Kaxcteae. KaaXXOei;
THE 'TEACHERS'OF MANI IN THE ACTAARCHELAI
11
it as unimportant, he thought he would be subject to punishment by the princes of the air."37Cyril clearly understandsthe text to refer to magic performed with the help of the demons of the air: "then he ascended to thedemonsof theair... stricken at divine the top of the house and invoking order he fell off the roof and gave up his soul."38 Similarly,the traditiondeveloped around Simon's figure often attributed Simon's flight not simply to his magical capabilities, but to the help of demons, who carried him through the air. Cyril of Jerusalem claims that "Simon promised to rise up into the heavens, and he was carried through the air in the chariot of the demons.39In the Greek Constitutiones Apostolorum, Simon is said to have "mounted aloft into mid-air, borne up, Peter says, by demons."40Similarly Theodore bar Koni says that when the crowd wanted to stone Simon, for failing to resurrect a dead man as he had promised, "the demons lifted him in the air, but the demons were driven away by the prayerof the leader of the Apostles,and they droppedSimon."41 2. Mani himselfcan easilybe linkedwith the notion of flying.Manichaean texts attest that he used "magic flight" as a means of conversion and initiation. In the account of his conversion, he takes him up high in the air: "The Apostle led the righteous man (Turan-shah)through the air" thus showing him that nothing was bigger, higher and lighter (that is, more filled with the divine Light) than Wisdom (the gnosis brought by Mani) and converting him from his religion: "When Tfran-shah and his noble men heard his words they... accepted the belief, and became friends of the Apostle and the religion."42In another account of the same event (unfortunatelythe text is very fragmentary)it seems to be Mani who rose above the earth: "When Tiiran-shah saw the Apostle rise higher, then he fell on his knees from afar."43 37Trans. Vermes,ActaArchelai,143.5. 38 CyrillusHierosolymitanus, Catecheses VI.23. PG 33.579: Etza eCi &iaxo; a&vEX&v, l0 'yv6ivoq KaiicalatapkiSOeI iKainpoKcaX?aa!EvoSxoi; &aepiovu; Sa{lzova ... Oet0.'qico; 6 aroS, a&Xo Troi v*rie. 39 Ibid. VI.15. PG 33.564: 'Einayyeopvou y&pToDViROvoSleTeo)pieo6alt ei<;Toi; &apo; ppogevo). atlovov e' i;, iKal ' o6xinLaTxoS o6pavo 40Thomdike, Historyof Magic,422. 41 Theodorebar Koni, Liber Scholiorn,MimraXI. 14. CorpusScriptorumChristianorum Orientaliumvol. 432. tom. 188.223, transl.by Robert Hespel and Ren6 Draguet. 42 frystg 'w 'rd'w pd 'ndrw'zw'st... kd twr'n s'h 'wd "z'd'n 'ym sxwn 'snwd... w'wryftpdgryft,'wd 'w friytg 'wd dyn syrg'mgbwd 'hynd. M 48, in Mary Boyce, A 34-5. (Leiden:Brill, 1975.) Readerin Manichaean MiddlePersianandParthian, 43 'wd kd twr'n s'h kw 'br 'x'st, 'dy'n wxd 'x dwr pt z'nwg 'wyst'd.M dyd gyrbkr 48, in Boyce, A Reader,36.
12
ESZTER SPAT
TheHelenaMotif There is another interesting element, which seems out of place (or at least hardly relevant enough to be mentioned) in the descriptionof the life of an heresiarch (especiallyof an imaginary one). Hegemonius speaks of a whom Scythianus married. captive, prisoner woman, captivamquamdam,44 The meaning of captivais not quite clear in this context. Socrates, in his HistoriaEcclesiastica, uses the term aijnlXaAxoS"45denoting prisoner of war, or someone taken captive by arms, a booty of war. It is also feasible that the original Greek word in the Acta might have had a connotation that referredto a prostitute.At least Epiphaniusspeaks not of a slave girl, but of a beautiful prostitute, "Scythianusfound a certain ruined woman, with a beautifulbody, by whom he was completely smitten, and whom he took away from the brothel, where she worked as a prostitute,and having freed her he tied her to himself in marriage."46 The mythology attributedto Simon Magus also speaks of a woman, in whose person the double roles of a prisoner of war and a prostitute are inseparably intertwined.47One of the most important, and at the same time singular, features of Simon's mythology is that on his journeys he took about with him a woman called Helena or Sophia, whom he rescued from a brothel,and whom he claimed was the fallen First Thought of God (Epinoia, or sometimes Sophia, the Wisdom of God). The story of the fallen Epinoia is a typically Gnostic myth of the creation, the imprisonment of divine light in matter and the final redemption of this light, that is of the human soul. Epinoia is the First Thought of the Godhead; she sym-
44 Hegemonius62.4 GCS 16.90.23. 45 Socrates, Historia 1.22 PG 67.135-6:yuvaiica etXEVaiXgXAortov,in the Eccclesiastica, habuitcaptivam. Latin translation:uxorem 46 Epiphanius,Panarion 66.2.4: E)pxv Kei y6vatovEtcoiomaxov,(ica't iKcdX oawtlao o vO0 tp6ooxCov,gKi(lav re av'iroi Vvdouveooiav,&veX6OLev6 0 To0D0 &bxo) ayoIS ({oTKcE e x KOIVPoeXVO6TXt) avkot, ineKca0iO* T( yuvaiv, yap ii Totasrr ev Toi tovi) , Kcaieuvepaaaas auri4inposyaLov. cnuvTipOl 47 The following account above is an abridgedversion of the Simonian myth of Helena. Though the Simonianmyth was describedby great many heresiologists,our Haereses most importantaccountscome fromJustin (1 Apologia 26, 1-3),Irenaeus(Adversus 21.2-3). For a VI.9-18) and Epiphanius(Panarion 1.23-24),Hippolytus(Philosophoumena modem treatmentand interpretationof the Helena myth, see R. M. Grant, "Simon ed. David M. Scholer. Magusand Helen, his Thought,"in Gnosticisin theEarl Church, 70-96. (New York and London: GarlandPublishingInc., 1993.) And Gyula Rugasi, "SimonMagus,"Thekme2.1 (1998):7-38.
THE 'TEACHERS'OF MANI IN THE ACTAARCHELAI
13
bolizes His generative power. She was the one who set the creation in motion by descending to the lower regions and indirectly generating the angels, the powers by whom this world was then made. After creating them, she was captured by her own creations, dragged down, and had to suffer all manner of abuse from them. She was enclosed in human flesh and had to migrate from female body to female body. And since all the powers contended for her possessions,enamored of her exceptional beauty, war and strife broke out wherever she appeared. One of her forms was that of the beautiful Helena of Troy, and this was the real cause of the Trojan War. As a final degradationof her divine nature she was enclosed in the bodyof a prostitute, and Simon, who descended for the sake of rescuing her, encounters her in this form in a brothel, from which she is rescued by him. What this myth really signifies is the imprisonment and humiliation of the human soul, a parcel of the divine light, in the body. The freeing of Helena (or Sophia), 'the lost sheep', symbolizesthe redemption of the human soul by the divine Saviour, Simon. This myth exercised a great fascination over the imagination of the Church Fathers. "It is the fall, suffering,degradation,and eventual redemptionof this female hypostasis of the divine that the older reports on Simon are alone concerned with."48The fact that she was a prostituteworking in a brothel, who was bought by Simon, is mentioned by all the sources as a sure sign of Simon's depravity. It might be worthwhile to compare the words of Hippolytus describing the 'lost sheep' of Simon with the descriptionsof the girl Scythianusmarried. Hippolytus says "She was prostitutingherself in a brothel in Tyre, a Phoenician city, where he found her when he descended. Because he said that he came to search for her so that he would free her from her chains, and when he set her free he took her around with himself saying that she was the lost sheep. This liar, having fallen in love with this woman, named Helena, bought her...".49 This reminds us of Scythianus' captivain Hegemonius' Acta Archelai, and even more of the prostitutein Epiphanius' interpretationof the original text.
48HansJonas, TheGnostic Relgion,107. (Boston:Beacon Press, 1958). 49 Hippolytus, Philosophoumena e Tp(p riS oltvilcrSi6kei VI. 19.3-4: iSxepov i 3hyouxS oAtvat, ijv Kiarc.tov etpev. 'Eit yap'lIv otavlS Icpm; rAllOtv Eqt rxapaye'yovevat, oiito Tdxv Eaurq) spteflye, (paoicKv TOVToeivatl x , inv Xurpa(oolaevo;&4ala ptOrnlatavdv saoTiV np6Oa .ov ... 'O 6& WVSp;epaoeid; roMyuvaiozuTxovo, 'EXZvl KiaXooueLvn;, a&cXoXXo; dval7oatevoqetxe...
14
ESZTER SPAT
The similaritiesare striking:a beautiful woman, working as a prostitute in a brothel, who is rescued from there and kindles love in her 'saviour' and is finally married by him. It is noteworthythat Scythianus'prostituteis rememberedas "a woman with a beautifulbody", for Helena's main characteristicwas her irresistible beauty, which made the archons covet her50and led to the famous Trojan War. Furthermorewhile Helena is a prostitute, she is at the same time a prisoner, a captive of the archons. Words that refer to this 'captive' condition are often used to refer to her.51Similarly, the captivaof Scythianus can be seen as a prisoner, or prisoner of war, as is attested by the interpretation of Socrates. In summary,the similaritiesbetween the two female figures, Helena and the wife of Scythianus, are far too numerous to be considered mere coincidences.52 There is one more small 'biographical'detail that can perhaps be connected with Simon. Terebinthus in Persia, besides calling himself Buddha, claimed that he was born of a virgin and brought up by an angel in the mountains.53Simon, in the apocryphalRecognitiones, says "do not think that I am a man of your kind. I am neither a magician... nor am I the son
50 For, according to the interpretation of the different Gnostic trends, the Trojan war was, in fact, the work of the archons wishing to capture and possess her. 51 For example, Irenaeus writes of her as haec detentaest ab ipsis (i.e. the archons), AdversusHaereses,1.23.2 SC 264. The words used by Hippolytus, of freeing Helena from her chains (bonds, pniornlt) and legally setting her free also brings to mind a captiva (the original meaning of X)TpoaogIevo; is the freeing of a prisoner of war with the help of ransom, ransoming). 52 After having written the first draft of this article I found that the similarity between Simon's Helena and Scythianus' prostitute in Epiphanius' version had already been noted by Baur in his since sadly neglected book (Friedrich Christian Baur, Das manichaischeReligionssystem nach den Qyellenneu untersucht und entwickelt.Tiibingen: E. F. Osiander, 1831. pp. 467-475). His interpretation is, however, completely different. He does not see the similarity as a possible literary model for drawing the figure of Mani in the Acta, but rather interprets it as a part of the original Manichaean myth. In his understanding this prostitute or prisoner is no other than the Manichaean "world soul" (Weltseele)-mentioned in the Acta c. 9-who was modelled on the Gnostic Sophia or Epinoia by Mani himself. He even connects it with the Indian notion of "Maia", which he sees as a possible source of the idea. Furthermore, he even fleetingly mentions the similar circumstances of Terebinthus' (and Scythianus') death and divine birth, actually to support his hypothesis of Indian and Buddhist influence on the Manichaean-Gnostic myth, but does not follow up these motifs. 53 Hegemonius 63.3 GCS 16.91.18-9: ex quadamauten virginenatumse esse simulavitet ab angeloin montibusenutritum.
THE 'TEACHERS' OF MANI IN THE ACTA ARCHELAI
15
of Antonius his alleged father]. Because before my mother, Rachel, came together with him, she already conceived me while still a virgin."54 The notion that an attempt was made to draw parallels between Mani and Simon Magus, or to project the figure of Simon, the arch-heretic,onto Mani, could also provide an explanation for the intriguing fact that only two alleged teachers were ascribed to Mani, although it would be chronologically impossible to bridge the time gap between the Apostles' era and Mani's childhood55in two generations. Simon, in his attempt to delude people into believing him a god (or God), is said by the Church Fathers to "have taught that he is the one who appeared among the Jews as the Son, among the Samaritansas the Father, and among all the other nations as the Holy Spirit."56Mani with his two teachers could form just such an 'Unholy Trinity'. Though Hegemonius only mentions the fact that Mani claimed to be the Paraclete or Holy Spirit, the idea of an 'Unholy Trinity' is implied. In any case, this is how the relation of these three persons is interpreted by Photius, according to whom Mani called himself the Paracletein his impious teachings, while Scythianus called himself the Father, and Terebinthus claimed to be the Son of God.57This would also explain the chronological impossibilityof ascribingto Mani only two teachers, although it would take quite a few more generations to count back to the time of the Apostles. TheApocrypha as Literary Models The hypothesis of Simon's life serving as a model might perhaps be expected, if the previous argumentationis proved valid, as an explanation for those motifs of the Acta that could not be otherwise explained or accounted for. This explanation, however, leads to further questions. Did Hegemonius insert the motifs of Simon's life into Mani's biography con54 Recognitiones II.14.1-2 GCS 51.59 (eds. B. Rehm. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1965): Simon... ita respondit: Ne putetis, inquit, quodgenerisvestrihomosim; ego nequemagussum... cum eo, adhucvirgoconcepitme. nequeAntoniifilius. Ante enim quammatermea Rachelconveniret 55 Mani was born in 216/7. 56 Irenaeus, AdversusHaereses1.23.1 SC 264: Simon... docuitsemetipsum esse, qui inter Iudaeosquidemquasi Filius apparuerit,in Samariaautemquasi Pater descenderit, in reliquisvero gentibusquasi Spiritussanctusadventaverit. 57 Photius, ContraManichaeos1.42 PG 102.38. os KaXI IIapaKXrqxov Eiautxv cKal vexia aytov e iulavlt ovonaoal ... 6 IaV ?icvu0av6; IHiarpa avrouv,6 5E Tepkptvo5; Yiov xTO
Oeo ...
16
ESZTER SPAT
sciously?Did he intend to make Simon a predecessorof Mani, either literallyor in the spiritualsense?If so, why did not he do it in a more obvious fashion? Why did not he invent a (more plausible) genealogy connecting Mani with Simon? Admittedly,Simon Magus' vitawas well known to everybody in the age of Hegemonius, and hints the modem reader might consider obscure were quite clear to the contemporary reader. Still, this popularity of Simon's life does not fully explain the drawing up of such a strange biography. Possibly a-partial-solution to this puzzling question can be sought in the sources that might have served as a literary model for the Acta (besides the anti-hereticalwritings of the Church Fathers). The ActaArchelaiis a curious piece of writing. Lieu58compares it to the De RectaFidein Deumof Adamantius,59an orthodox Christianwho debated in turn and always victoriouslywith followers of Marcion, Bardesanesand Valentinus. However, the Dialogueof Adamantius,just like the debates of Augustine with Manichaeans described by him a century later, is strictly restrictedto the doctrinal content of the debates. There are no 'extras' as in the Acta. We learn nothing of the personal background of the contestants, there are no scenes off-stage (no crowd to express its agreement or disapproval),no letters exchanged, no running around, let alone even more exotic elements. Everythingis deadly serious.6 In the Acta,beside the descriptionof the characterand deeds of Marcellus (rather hagiographicalin its nature), which is not really connected to the debate with a Manichaean in any essential way, we have a great number of other superfluousdetails. We learn how the Persianswere captured, and the details of their sufferings;even one of their religious rites is described in detail. We can read about all the difficultiesTurbo had to face during his voyage to Carchar. In short, the Acta is like a traditional description of doctrinal debate between an orthodox and a heretic interpolated with the elements of a romance. These romance elements call to mind the popular readings of the age, the Christian offspringof the antique novel: the apocryphalliterature. Or rather, in this case, the various apocryphalActs of Peter.The earliest literary monuments of debates with heretics are probably constituted exactly 58
Lieu, Manichaeismin Mesopotamia,133. AdamantiiDialogusde Recta Fide in Deum. PG 11.1711-1884. 60 Another possible comparison can be made with the anti-Manichaeanwritings of Augustine (though of course these could not have served as possible models). The result of such a comparison would be the same: these dialogues between Augustine and his Manichaean opponents contain no such 'romance' elements. 59
THE 'TEACHERS' OF MANI IN THE ACTA ARCHELAI
17
by these Acts61that describe the contests of the Apostle Peter with Simon Magus, and the sad end of the latter. The most striking feature that can be found in any apocryphal Acts concerning Simon and Peter, is the fact that the debates are repeated, as is the manner of the repetition. The apocryphal Acts build on the fact that Simon had alreadybeen defeatedin a verbal fight by Peter in Palestine. Simon then travels to other lands to continue his vicious preaching, but he is soon followed by Peter (who either arrives there by chance or at the request of others to fight Simon), who defeats him again and again in the renewed debate. In the ActaArchelai,Mani, defeated in Carchar, flees to Diodorus, to deceive the simple souls there, believing that he will find no one there capable of opposing him, but Archelausappears and defeats him again. It is therefore hardly surprising, that Archelaus is likened to an Apostle, when he suddenly appears in Diodorus to undertake the second debate, "The multitude that listened to the debate considered the arrival of Archelaus as something like the advent of an Apostle."62 As a further similarity,both Mani and Simon are nearly lynched by the crowd, when they fail to fulfil their expectations. In the Acta, the crowd, upon hearing the glorious refutation of Mani's doctrines by Archelaus, attack Mani, once during the first debate, and then again at the end of the same debate. On both occasions they are restrainedby Archelaus.63In the Acts of Peter,6when Simon, despite his boasts, fails to resurrecta dead man, the crowd wants to bur him at the stake, and has to be restrained by Peter, who warns them not to sully their hands with such a sin. Another interesting detail is Archelaus' mocking remark that if Mani were really the Paraclete he should have foresight of future events and Acta Petri,Acta Petriet Pauli, Acta Petri et Pauli Orientalia,Acts of SimonCephas,and we (Homiliesand Recognitiones). might even include the Pseudo-Clementines 62 adventum ArchelaivelutaposHegemonius 53.4 GCS 16.78.15-6: Multitudoveroauditormn toli praesentiamopinataest. 63 gavisae Hegemonius 23.1 GCS 16.34.30-2: His auditis, turbaequae aderantvehementer sunt, ita ut paene manus inicerentin Manen, quos vix Archelauscohibenset reprimensconquiescere fecit. And Hegemonius, 43.1-2 GCS 16.63.18-28: Tunc vero infantes,qui forte convenerant primi, Manen pellere ac fugare coeperunt,quos turba reliquainsecutaconcitavitse ad effgandum Manen. Quod cum pervidissetArchelaus,elevatain modumtubae voce sua, multitudinem cupiens in die iudicii:scriptumest enim cohibereait: Cessate,fratres dilecti neforte rei sanguinisinveniamur de talibusquia "oportetet haeresesesse intervos, ut qui probatisunt manifestifiant intervos" (Ep. Cor. 11.19) Et his dictis sedataesunt turbae. 64 "Peter R6omaban," (Peter in Rome) 28, in Az apostolokcsoddlatoscselekedeti(The 61
WonderfulActs of the Apostles).trans. Klara T6th. (Budapest:Telosz, 1996) 69.
18
ESZTERSPAT
should also be able to see into people's minds, as he evidently failed to do, when he hoped to convert Marcellus,a staunch Christian,to his dogma. As he says, "It does not seem to me excusable that he knew not what the future would be, for he should have known beforehand who his people would be, if the Spirit of the Paraclete really dwelled in him."65Similarly, in the Actsof PeterandPaulPeter mocks Simon in the course of their debate for not knowing what he was thinking of (he asked for a barley loaf): "Simon said... for the thoughts of men no one knows but God alone. And Peter said to Simon: Certainly thou feignest thyself to be a god; why, then, dost thou not reveal the thoughts of every man?"66 As was demonstratedabove, the apocryphalActs resemble the Acta on severalpoints.There is a very significantdifference,however.The Apocryphal Acts contain a number of romance elements that could have influenced the narrative part of the Acta, but they are pure romances. No doctrinal debates are described between Peter and Simon. So, while in anti-heretical debates, like that of Adamantius, we have a literary model solely for the debate part of the Acta, the apocryphal Acts could serve as models only where the romance element is concerned. There is one possible source, however, which combines the elements and structureof the antique novel with long doctrinaldebates similarlyto the Actaand which seems to resemble the Acta both structurallyand in a great number of motifs employed for the descriptionof a heresiarchand the debate with him: the Recognitiones. TheRecognitiones The Recognitiones is a theologicaland philosophicalromance67that describes the travels of Clement in search of his lost family. In the course of his travels Clement makes friends with Peter and witnesses several verbal contests between Peter and Simon. These debates between them are the main theme of the first three books. The provenance and especially the date of the work are highly debated.6 65 Hegemonius, 53.8 GCS 16.78.32-5: Non enim mihi venia dignusvideturqui ignoraverit quodfuturumest, oportebatenim eumpraenoscere qui sunt propriisui, si quidemspiritusparacletus habitatin eo. 66 "Acta Petri et Pauli," in Ante-NiceneFathers8.481. 67 For an see Oscar Cullmann, Le analysis of the romance nature of the Recognitiones Probleme Litteraire et Historiquedu RomanPseudo-Clmnentin: Etude sur le Rapportentrele Gnosticisme et le Judio-Christianisme. (Paris: Librarie Felix Alcan, 1930). "Le Cadre Romanesque," 132-141. 68 The many and often conflicting theories on the origin of the Pseudo-Clementine
THE 'TEACHERS'OF MANI IN THE ACTAARCHELAI
19
The Recognitiones belong to the Pseudo-Clementine corpus, a series of apocryphalwritings,which circulatedunder the name of Clement of Rome, and consists of three writings:the Recognitiones, the Homilies,and the Epitome, an extract of the Homilies.The Recognitiones in its present form might be quite late, but the basic document probably goes back to the second century. It was born in a Jewish-Christianmilieu, and is probably an Ebionite writing, whose orthodox view on the Mosaic Law and the Old Testament is reflected in the debates between Peter and Simon Magus.69In exactly what form and at what stage of its development it could have served as a model for the Acta,we cannot tell, for the exact nature and dates of this development are not quite clear, but its influence seems very likely. The Recognitiones has a double character, combining romantic narrative concerning Peter, Simon Magus and the family of Clement with long argumentative, didactic and doctrinal discussionsand dialogues. It recounts the journey of Clement in search of his family, but the opposition between Peter and Simon becomes the leading motif of the story. The story begins with the narrative of Clement's life, the description of his character and his ambitions, and his search for religious identity. It continues with his arrival at Caesarea at the same time as Peter, who arrives at the request of Bishop Zachaeus to contest Simon, who is seeking adherents for his movement in the city. From here the story of Clement'sjourney alternates with the accountsof long debatesbetween Peter and Simon. The Recognitiones can be said to resemble the Acta, inasmuch as long doctrinal discussions are mixed with the elementsof a romance. In both cases the debate between Peter and Simon, the real theme of the religious romance (writtenin the first case against Pauline, in the second against Manichaean tenets) is embedded in the life of someone, who has no real relevance from the start with the description of point of view of the debate. The Recognitiones the youth and pious nature of Clement and his search for truth, while the Actastart with the descriptionof the pious character of Marcellus, and his writings have recently been summed up by F. StanleyJones in his article " The Pseudo Clementines: A History of Research," The SecondCentuy:A Journalof Early ChristianStudies is dated by some to the early fourth (1982): II.1. (1-33) and 11.2 (63-96). The Recognitiones or even to the third century, while others are in favour of a later date, with 410 as an in its present form ante quem.In any case, all the researchers agree that the Recognitiones is the result of a long literary development that may date back as far as the second century and should be located in Syria. It is possible that the author of the ActaArchelai, also from this region, was familiar with an earlier version. 69 Jean Danielou, Thiologiedu Judo-Christianisme:VisageInconnude l'EglisePrimitive,7172. (Paris: Desclee and Cie, 1957).
20
ESZTER SPAT
noble deeds. Following this, however, the texts concentrate on the doctrinal debate, in which neither of them plays any relevant part. Besides the general structuralsimilarity, there are a number of details concerning the debate and the contestants that the two works have in common: Peter is sent to Caesarea to dispute against Simon because Zacchaeus, bishop of Caesarea, dispatched a letter complaining that Simon, claiming to be God, has confused the minds of many people.70Similarly,Diodorus turns for help to Archelausin a letter when Mani startspreaching his doctrine in his town. The 'preparations'for the debate present us with some strikingsimilarities. Both Peter and Archelaus demand to know beforehand the teaching, the character and the conduct of their opponents. Peter asks before the first debate: "I would like to know about his ways and about his deeds, if someone knows it, let him tell me,"71and goes on to explain why and what he would like to know about the life and morals of Simon. Archelaus and Marcellus also make their inquiries before the arrivalof Mani: "They asked about Mani with the greatest interest, desiring to learn who he is, where he comes from and in what manner he argues."72 In both cases the informantsare two former, converted disciples of the heresiarch,who, for some not clearly defined reasons, convert to the 'true religion' and are later included in the retinues of Peter and Archelaus it is Nicetas and Aquila, two former accomrespectively.In the Recognitiones of Simon's wicked deeds, who turn on him and come to admire plices Peter instead. In the Actait is Turbo, the messenger of Mani, who decides to stay with Marcellus and Archelaus, though we never hear the reason for his conversion, and who manifests all the contempt of Nicetas and Aquila against his old master. To make up the number of two (so it seems at least), Archelaus forces another convert into his tale, a certain Sissinius, of whom we have heard nothing before Archelaus embarks on recounting what he had heard of Mani.73
70 Recognitiones 1.72.3 GCS 51.49: quia Zacchaeusde Caesareascripserit... Simonemquendam Samaraeum subvertere... magumplurimosnostrorum 71 Ibid. 11.3.3 GCS 51.52: Scireenim velin, quibussit moribuset quibusactibus,quodmihi, si quis scit, indicarenon cesset. 72 Hegemonius, 6.5 GCS 16.9.8-9: valdeenimstudioseuterquede Manis studiisperquirebant, scirecupientesquis et undevel quid verbiferat. 73 Sissinos was, in fact, one of Mani's disciples he sent out to spread the new religion.
THE 'TEACHERS'OF MANI IN THE ACTAARCHELAI
21
The way the two heresiarchs appear for the public debate that is to take place in Zacchaeus' and Marcellus'house, surroundedby their adherents, is also describedin similarterms. A great crowd collects for the debate in the court of Zacchaeus, "in the midst of whom stands Simon, supported by many of his followers... looking like a standard bearer".74The same military appearance, where the heresiarch appears surroundedby his followers, resurfacesin the Acta:Mani approaches "leadingwith him twentytwo elected youths and virgins... and his countenance was like that of an old Persian magician or military commander."75 Peter's debate with Simon ends, naturally,in the crowd, acting as a lay jury in this case as well, chasing Simon out of the court. Again it is Peter who restrainsthe crowd, reminding them that if "God tolerates and suffers their existence until the Day of the Judgement, then why should not they endure what God endures as well."76This is somewhat reminiscent of Archelaus'words, when he stops the enraged crowd from attackingMani: "Stop, dear brothers, lest you be found with blood on your hands on the Day ofJudgement. For it is written about his likes 'there have to be heresies among you, so that those who are tried become manifestamong you'."77 Both of them speak of the Day of Judgement, and both remind the audience that even the existence of heretics is a part of God's scheme in the world. The mysterious birth of Simon from a virgin has already been mentioned in the last chapter as a possible source for Terebinthus' birth from a virgin. The similar structure,and the number of motifs shared by these works is perhaps enough to argue for the hypothesis of the apocryphalActs and the Recognitiones (either in its present or an earlier version)78as possible litmodels for this strange anti-hereticalwork. erary
74 te operitur II.19.4-8 GCS 51.63: turbaenim multa in atrio domuscongregata Recognitiones, quorumin mediomultisfultus adseclisconsistitSimon... vidit et magumSimonemin medioeorum velutsigniferumstantem. 75 Hegemonius, 14.2-4 GCS 16.22.21-23.1: adventavitManes, adducenssecumiuveneset virgineselectasad vigintiduo simul... vultusverout senisPersaeartificiset bellorumducisvidebatur. 76 Recognitones,III.49.2-3 GCS 51.129: Patienter,fratres, malosferre debetis,scientesquia Deus cumpossit eos excidere,patitur tamendurareusquead praestitutamdiem, in qua de omnibus iudiciumfiet. Qomodo ergonos nonpatiemur,quospatiturDeus? 77 See above, note 63. 78 Though it would be hard to ascertain at exactly which point of its literary development. See above, note 68.
22
ESZTER SPAT
Conclusion The aim of the Life of Mani in the Actais to insert Mani (and thus his followers) into the traditional view taken of heretics, by attributing him biographical elements that conjure up the figure of a typical heresiarch and pseudo-prophet. Besides using the more traditional tools of heresiology, this aim is achieved by establishing a close connection between the person of Mani, and the "fatherof all heretics,"Simon Magus. Establishing this connection is realized through attributingtwo 'predecessors'to Mani and through the completely fictional biography attributed to them: the motifs of this fraudulentvita are clearly taken from the life of Simon, well known to everybody in this age. The possibility of such a connection has already been noted by F. C. Baur nearly two centuries ago, and also recently by Maddalena Scopello, in her article "Simonle mage, prototypede Mani selon les Acta Archelai."79 Baur seems, it must be noted, to have followed up a completely different line of thought, seeking the explanation in a shared Gnostic-Manichaean, or even Indian-Gnostic-Manichaeanmyth.80Scopello, on the other hand, presents Simon as the literary archetype of Mani, but does not, in my opinion, support this claim sufficiently.She puts forwardher theory on the basis of a number of similar motifs used to describe Mani and Simon.81 However, as these accusationsare commonplacesof the contemporaryantiheretical literature,as Scopello herself admits, we cannot be sure whether these similaritiesare not simply coincidental, and they do not seem to be profound enough in themselves to prove that Simon served as an archetype for the figure of Mani. In this article I have endeavoured to point out and detail further, and perhaps more substantial,similaritiesbetween the biographies in the Acta and the well-knownversions of Simon's life: the motif of the magical flight;
79 Maddalena
Scopello, "Simon le mage, prototype de Mani selon les Acta Archelai," Revuede la SociiteEnest-Renan, 1988: 67-79. 80 See above, note 52. 81 They are both voyagers, itinerant missionaries. They are both fugitives (although for different reasons). Both of them seek out representatives of the official power, in order to implant their doctrine. The same qualities are attributed to both of them: pseudo-prophet, false apostle, Satan's accomplice. Both of them are given to fraud. They are both said to caim to be God or equal to God. The unfortunate "flight"of Terebinthus is also mentioned, but Scopello fails to follow up this line. (These motifs are discussed on pages 77-8 of Scopello's article).
THE 'TEACHERS' OF MANI IN THE ACTA ARCHELAI
23
the motif of Helena; the divine birth; the completion of an Unholy Trinity between Scythianus, Terebinthus and Mani; the structural similarities (romanceelements, repeated debates)between the Acta,the apocryphalActs and the Pseudo-ClementineRecognitiones; and finally a great number of similar motifs concerning the debates in all these works. These findings seem to prove that such similaritieswere not mere coincidences: they suggest that they were the result of consciously using the Simonian literature as a literary model both for the whole ActaArchelaiand for drawing the figure of the "teachers"of Mani, and through them of Mani himself. Dept. of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary
IN QUEST OF THE ''kTIRD HEAVEN: PAUL & HIS APOCALYPTIC IMITATORS BY
J.R. HARRISON is an irony of history that by late antiquityPaul had become the authority figure he never was during his lifetime. However, by the subapostolic and patristic periods Paul's apostolic authority was no longer considered quite so controversial.From 200 AD onwards Paul's letters were regularly cited alongside the Gospels and the Old Testament as 'Scripture'.It is therefore no surprise that the premier apocalyptic theologian of the New Testament would spawn several apocalyptic imitators. Two 'Apocalypses of Paul' have come down to us from antiquity, one gnostic, the other Christian. After discussingeach work, the article asks to what extent the historical Paul would have agreed with these later works written in his name. The article will demonstrate how differing ecclesiastical traditions appropriatedPaul for their own theological and social agendas instead of allowing the apostle to the Gentiles to speak to his first-centurycontext ABSTRACT: It
It is an irony of history that by late antiquity Paul had become the authority figure he never was during his lifetime. Paul's letters provide ample evidence that his gospel and apostolic authority were under serious challenge
while he was alive.1 Even Paul's supporters admit that elements of his ' In the undisputedlettersof Paul, thereis evidenceof concertedoppositionto Paul's gospeland apostolicauthority.A brief summarywill establishthe point. At GalatiaPaul is accusedof being a trimmerof the gospel(Gal 1:10),deceptivein his preaching(5:1112), and a promoterof a law-freegospel (Gal 2:3-5; 11-14;cf. Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23). Some Corinthiansbelieversdismisshim as rhetoricallyunimpressive(1 Cor 2:1-5;4:1920), inferiorto the more eloquentApollos (1 Cor 4:6-7) and other church leaders (1 Cor 1:12; 3:21-22),as well as not possessingthe requisiteapostoliccredentials(1 Cor 9:1-2). The so-calledinterloping'superapostles'at Corinth(2 Cor 3:1; 11:5, 13b, 2223) agree with this assessment.They caricaturePaul as shifty (2 Cor 1:15-24),weak and rhetoricallyuntrained(2 Cor 10:1, 10; 11:5-6; 13:1-3),duplicitousin his handling of the Jerusalemcollection(2 Cor 7:2b;8:20, 23; 11:7-9;12:13, 17-18),and inferiorto themselvesas far as apostolicgifts (2 Cor 11:5-6;12:11).In the epistleto the Romans, there is evidencethat many dismissedhis understandingof 'justificationby faith'as ethicallylibertine(Rom 3:8).In the letterto the Philippians,there is also evidenceof opposition to Paul and his gospel (Phil 1:13-17;3:2, 15-18). ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
58, 24-55 VgiliaeChritianae
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
25
teaching were not easily accessible to members of the early house churches (2 Pet 3:16). It would be inaccurate, however, to say that there was little contemporary support for Paul. Luke idealised the missionary apostle for the edificationof a rapidlyexpandingchurch (Acts 7:58-28:31).Furthermore, if the Pastorals, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians are pseudonymous, we are witnessingthe creation of a Pauline school that interpreted Paul for a new generation after his death.2 But by the sub-apostolicand patristic periods Paul's apostolic authority was no longer considered quite so controversial.3From 200 AD onwards Paul's letters were regularly cited alongside the Gospels and the Old Testament as 'Scripture'. The letter to the Hebrews entered the Canon on the mistaken presumption that it came from Paul's hand. New works the corwere both attributed to Paul (e.g. Prayerof Paul, ThreeCorinthians, him Acts Paul and and about written of (e.g. respondence with Seneca) Theca).4Orthodox Christians and sectarian gnostics could simultaneously appeal to Paul as an 'apocalyptic seer' in order to justify their (vastly different)understandingsof eschatological existence. It should be no surpriseto us that two 'Apocalypsesof Paul' have come down to us from antiquity, the one gnostic, the other Christian. There is the brief and fragmentaryApocalypse of Paulthat forms part of Nag Hammadi Codex V, 2.5 This Coptic apocalypse elaborates on the ascent tradition of 2 For coverage of the critical issues in regard to the Pastorals, see M. Harding, What Are They SayingAbout the PastoralEpistles?(New York-Mahwah 2001). For the sake of completeness, I will assume the Pauline authorship of the canonical epistles, regardless whether some may be pseudonymous or written by a secretary. 3 We must be careful not to overstate the case in regard to the early patristic acceptance of Paul. V. Hovhanessian (ThirdCorinthians [New York 2000], 136-137) has argued that gnostic circles had so effectively 'kidnapped' Paul by the mid second century that the early fathers found it difficult to appeal to Paul as an authority. This explains the scarcity of reference to Paul's letters in the early patristic literature. Thus pseudonymous works such as Three Corinthianswere written to reclaim and re-appropriate the apostle's teaching for a new generation. 4For general discussion, see especially M.C. de Boer, 'Images of Paul in the Post42 (1980), 359-380; V.P. Furnish, 'On Putting Apostolic Period', CatholicBiblical Quarterly Paul in His Place', Journal of BiblicalLiterature113/1 (1994), 3-17; E. Pagels, The Gnostic Paul GnosticExegesisof the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia 1975); M.F. Wiles, The Divine of St. Paul's Epistlesin the Early Church(Cambridge 1967). Apostle:The Interpretation 5 For an English translation, see G.W. MacRae and W.R. Murdock (eds), 'The Apocalypse of Paul (V, 2)', in J.M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag HammadiLibraryin English (Leiden 1979), 256-259. For discussion, see F.T. Fallon, 'The Gnostic Apocalypses', Semeia 14 (1979), 123-158; M. Krause, 'Die literarischen Gattungen der Apokalypsen
26
J.R. HARRISON
2 Corinthians 12:2-4. The original provenance and date of the work is impossible to determine. It may belong to the world of second-century Valentinian gnosticism, but equally it could be as late as the mid fourth century AD. There is also the highly popular Apocalypse of Paul which has been preserved in eight languages.6While the Latin introductionprovides a precise date (388 AD) for the (purported)discovery of this Christian apocalypse at Tarsus, the introductiondid not necessarilybelong to the original text. 7.9 that the However, it appears from a quote in Barhebraeus'Nomocanon apocalypsewas known to Origen. It is safe to conclude that the work must have appeared no later than the mid third century AD.7 Like its gnostic counterpart,this apocalypseuses the ascent traditionof 2 Corinthians 12:24 as a point of departure for its own theological convictions. Upon examination of each apocalypse, an intriguing question emerges: to what extent would the historicalPaul have agreed with these later works written in his name? The question certainly exercised the minds of the Church Fathers. Epiphanius (AgainstHeresies38.2.5), discussingthe gnostic sect of the Cainites, states that its members falsifyanotherlittle book in the name of Paul the apostle,full of things which the so-calledgnosticsuse, which they call the ascentof unspeakable, Paul;the pretext[forso callingit] they find in the fact that the apostlesays he ascendedinto the thirdheavenand heardineffablewords,whichit is not for a manto speak.Andthese,theyclaim,arethe ineffablewords. permissible von Nag Hammadi',in D. Hellholm(ed.),Apocayptwcism in theMediterranean Worldandthe NearEast(Tiibingen1983),621-637;G.W. MacRae,'TheJudgementScene in the Coptic Apocalypseof Paul', in G.W.E. Nickelsburg(ed.), Studieson the Testament of Abraham (Missoula1972), 285-288; B.H. Young, 'The AscensionMotif of 2 Corinthians12 in Jewish, Christianand GnosticTexts', G7T 9/1 (1988), 73-103. 6
For an Englishtranslation,see H. Duensing,'The Apocalypseof Paul', in
E. Hennecke(etal, ed.), New Testament Vol. 2 (Philadelphia1965), 755-98. See Apocypha A also T. Silverstein,TheApocalypse Critical Editionof ThreeLongLatinVersions New Paul of (Geneve 1997).In this article,I confinemyselfto the Latinrecensionof the Apocalypse. For discussion,see A.E. Bernstein,TheFormation in theAncient of Hell:DeathandRetribution andEarlyChristian Worlds(London1993),292-305;R.P. Casey,'The Apocalypseof Paul', JTS 34 (1933), 1-32; H. Duensing,'EpistulaApostolorum',in E. Hennecke(etal., ed.), Vol. 2 (Philadelphia1965), 189-227; M. Himmelfarb,'The New Testament Apocrypha Experienceof the Visionaryand Genrein the Ascensionof Isaiah6-11 and the Apocalypse of Paul', Semeia36 (1986), 97-111; A. Yarbro Collins, 'Early ChristianApocalypses', Semeia14 (1979), 61-121. 7 Accordingto R.P. Casey (art.cit.),the work is datableto AD 240-250.
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
27
Likewise, Tertullian (AgainstHeresies20.30.7-8) argues against those who claim Paul as their gnostic brother in Christ: For that there are spiritual beings in the heavenlies is loudly proclaimed in all the scriptures.Paul testifies to this when he was caught up into the third heaven, further,and carried up to Paradisewhere he heard unutterablewords which are unlawful to speak. What would that have profited him-to enter Paradiseor the third heaven-if all these are under the realm of the Demiurge, yet, as some would hold, he was a participantin mysteriesthey say are above the Demiurge? Irenaeus brings his argument to a resounding conclusion regarding the primacy of Paul's visionary experience over against its gnostic counterfeits: But since he reports his assumptionto the third heaven as something exalted and privileged it is impossible that these are able to ascend above the seventh heaven since they are certainly not greater than the apostle.8 This article will focus on the descriptions of the otherworldly regions and their inhabitants provided by the gnostic and the Christian apocalypse, as well as the theological, social and hortatory purposes that drove each work. A final section will concentrate on the writings of the historical Paul. To what extent would Paul have endorsed the conclusions of his later apocalyptic imitators regarding heavenly ascent, the intermediate state and the activities of the inhabitants of the otherworldly regions? This article will demonstrate how differing ecclesiastical traditions appropriated Paul for their own agendas instead of allowing the apostle to the Gentiles to speak in his own right to his first-century context. As V.P. Furnish notes: Paul's place in the church was won at the cost of his place in history. The more firmly he was put in place as an apostle for the entire church-as the prototypical convert, the exemplary Christian, the model martyr-the more he was being isolated from his own historical place: from his cultural and religiousheritage, from his social world, and even from the church of his own day, including the congregationsthat he himself had founded.9
8 in Its GrecoPaul'sAscentto Paradise I am indebtedto J.D. Tabor, ThingsUnutterable: Contexts Roman, (Lanham-NewYork-London1986), 2-3 for the judaic,andEarlyChristian referencesof Epiphaniusand Irenaeus. 9 V.P. Furnish,art.cit., 7.
28
J.R. HARRISON
The GnosticApocalypse of Paul The gnostic Apocalypse of Paul begins with an epiphany scene staged at the mountainofJericho.'0The epiphanyis loosely modelledon the Galatians account of Paul's apostolic call (Gal 1:15-16)and the 'revelation'(&arolcahk)Vt;) which impelled him to visit the 'pillar' apostles at Jerusalem twenty years later (2:1-10 [cf. 1:18]). In the epiphany Paul encounters the risen Christ in the form of a child guide. This child guide, who is the agent of heavenly revelation, is henceforwardcalled either the 'Spirit' or the 'Holy Spirit' as soon as the ascent section of the Apocalypse starts (Apoc.Paul 19:21, 26; 20:4; 21:24; 22:11, 15 ['Holy Spirit'], 22; 23:5, 22). With an allusion to the commissioning of Jeremiah and the Isaianic Servant (Apoc.Paul 18:16-17;cf.Jer 1:5; Isa 49:1, 5; cf. Gal 1:15), the child hails Paul as one 'blessed from his mother's womb'. Paul is ordered to go up to Jerusalem and meet his fellow apostles (Apoc.Paul 18:18-19; cf. Gal 2:1-2).Just prior to the heavenly ascent, the child exhorts Paul to 'awaken' his mind to 'the hidden things in those that are visible' (Apoc.Paul 19:1014; cf. 18:22). This alerts the audience to the gnostic colouring of the Apocalypse in its emphasis on other-worldlyrealitiesas opposed to the visible created order. The transitionto the heavenly ascent is signaled by the mention of the 'elect spirits' of the twelve apostles. Seemingly the twelve apostles had started their heavenly ascent before Paul, indicated by the fact that Paul raises his eyes and sees them greeting him. In the Apocalypse,Paul entirely bypasses the third heaven-the destination of Paul's heavenly ascent in 2 Corinthians(2 Cor 12:2-4)-and arrivesinstead at the fourth heaven. The uncertainty of Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:2-3 as to the state of heavenly ascent ('in body' or 'out of body'?) is resolved in favour of the gnostic worldview of the Apocalypse. It is clearly an 'out of body' experience because the ascending apostle looks down and sees the likeness of himself and the twelve apostles on the earth." Thus our author ignores the 'unut10 It is interesting that our author avoids any allusion to Mount Sinai as the place of divine theophany (Ex 19:12-22; cf. Heb 12:18-24). This is probably because Mount Sinai was strongly associated with the God of Israel. Such an association would have conflicted with the author's portrayal of Yahweh as the Demiurge figure of the seventh heaven (Apoc.Paul 22:23-23:28). Undoubtedly, the location of Jericho was chosen to lend an air of verisimilitude to the Apocalypse. Galilean pilgrims to Jerusalem, in order to avoid passing through Samaritan territory, would have followed the route down the Jordan valley to Jericho. " B.H. Young (art. cit., 98).
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
29
terable' experience of the historical Paul in the third heaven (2 Cor 12:4) for the superior revelation accorded the gnostic Paul in the tenth heaven (Apoc.Paul 23:29-24:9).12 It is worth mentioning here that it is difficultto determine whether Paul has primacy over the twelve apostles in the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse may well exhibit a Valentinian form of gnosticism if Paul is glorified in the text.13As support for this position, scholars have noted that Paul's experience is the main focus of the work. But this is probably due to the fact that 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 is the startingpoint for our author's gnostic reflections. More importantly, Paul sees himself standing at the center of the apostles on earth (Apoc.Paul 19:26-20:5).Paul is led by the Holy Spirit ahead of his fellow apostles into the sixth heaven (Apoc.Paul 22:16) and it is Paul who overcomes the Demiurge figure of the seventh heaven by means of a secret sign (Apoc.Paul 23:25-26). These features, it could be argued, seal the issue of Paul's apostolic primacy in the work. But, in my opinion, such indicators are not necessarily determinative. The twelve apostles still manage to reach the Ogdoad ahead of Paul. Further, in the final scene, Paul is greeted by his fellow spirits, the transformed Twelve, as an apostolic colleague among equals rather than as a superior(Apoc.Paul24.1-8).In this respect,the gnosticApocalypsedifferentiates itself from its Christian counterpartwhich decisively accords Paul primacy of place in apostolic history (Apoc.Paul 46-51). More likely, our author's focus on Paul is motivated by the desire to present the apostle's visionary revelation as a paradigm for the gnostic believer's ascent. Whether the text is ultimately Valentinian in its gnosticism should not be unduly pressed. The next scene focuses on the judgement and punishment of souls in the fourth and fifth heavens. Here the syncretisticnature of the work is particularly evident. The toll-collectorsat the fourth and sixth heavens (Apoc. Paul20:16; 22:20) belong to the traditionalfare of Babylonianand hellenistic astrology.14The angels who, whip in hand, goad souls on to judgement
12 B.H. Young (art. cit., 97) argues that it is only at the seventh heaven with its liberation of the spirits at the Ogdoad that our author actually considers to heavenly journey to have begun and counts the heavens from that point. 13 For gnostic evidence of Paul being the founder and patron of the Valentinian acaA demic tradition, see 'A Prayer of Paul The Apostle', in B. Layton, The GnosticScriptures: New Translationuith Annotationsand Introductions by BentleyLayton(London 1987), 303-305. 14 See F. Cumont, Astrologyand ReligionAmongthe Greeksand Romans(New York 1960: orig. 1912), 106.
30
J.R. HARRISON
are reminiscent of the Erinyes of Greek mythology (Apoc.Paul 22:5-10). The mention of a book recordingthe soul's lawless deeds (Apoc.Paul 20:2425) reflects traditionalJewish apocalyptic,'5as does the extended description of the heavenly realms (20:5-22),16although there is precedent for this in hellenisticliterature.'7However, the referenceto the angels casting down sinful souls to the body of death prepared for them (Apoc.Paul 21:19-21; cf. 20:18-20) clearly reflects a gnostic distaste for the material creation. In the final section of the Apocalypse (Apoc.Paul 22:23-23:28), Paul and the twelve apostles encounter a Demiurge figure in the seventh heaven, prior to the completion of their heavenlyjourney. This figure is portrayed as an old man who dwells in intense light (Apoc.Paul 22:23-30; cf. 22:1719) and who controls access to and from the seventh heaven by means of the angelic principalitiesand authorities at his disposal (23:19-21, 26-28; cf. 19:1-5). Although his description is reminiscent of the God of Israel (Dan 7:13; 1 Enoch 46-47), the Demiurge figure is viewed unsympathetically by the gnostic author. Perhaps the gnostic thrust of the Apocalypse is best encapsulated in Paul's statement that he is going to the place from which he came (Apoc. Paul 23:8-10). As B.H. Young observes,'8this expresses a central tenet of gnostic salvation:namely, that the divine sparkwould make its ascent back to the highest deity, that is, the true Creator as opposed to the inferior Demiurge. The point is reinforcedby way that Paul overcomesthe attempts of the Demiurge to block any furtherprogressto the ninth and tenth heavens. Paul accomplishes this by giving the Demiurge a secret sign, probably revealed to the apostle by the Spirit (Apoc.Paul23:22-28). The author's point is clear. Since only gnostic initiates know what the sign is, they alone can expect reconciliationwith the highest deity of the tenth heaven. Thus the heavenly ascent of Paul and the Twelve becomes the touchstone of gnostic redemption from an evil world. What are the theological, social and hortatorypurposeswhich drove this 15 See TJ. Sappington (Revelation and Redemption at Colossae[Sheffield 1991], 100-110) for discussion of the heavenly book(s). 16 B.H. Young (art.cit., 97-98) argues that the Apoc.Paul is dependent upon the longer recension of the Apocalypse of Abraham. 17 H.W. Attridge, H.W., 'Greek and Latin Apocalypses', Semeia14 (1979), 159-186; P.G. Bolt, Plutarch's'Delayof Divine Vengeance' and PaulineEschatology (unpublished MAHons thesis: Macquarie University 1994); id., 'The Philosopher in the Hands of an Angry on Paul's God', in P. Bolt and M. Thompson (eds), The Gospelto the Nations:Perspectives Mission (Leicester 2000), 327-343. 18 B.H. Young (art. cit., 98-99).
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
31
work? At a theological level, there were strong exegetical and polemical motives. B.H. Young suggests that our author has the exegetical purpose of filling in the missing details of an obscure passage in Paul's corpus. But Young does not volunteer any specific reason for our author adopting such a strategy. In my opinion, the inability of the historical Paul to articulate the content of heavenly mysterieshe saw in the third heaven (2 Cor 12:3) provides our author with a unique opportunity. He is able to reveal the hidden reality to which Paul's original heavenly ascent points. Beyond the third heaven, our writer implies, lies reconciliationwith the highest deity in the tenth heaven, provided that the gnostic initiate is able to escape the malevolent Demiurge of the seventh heaven. The polemical portrait of the God of Israel as a Demiurge is intended to undermine the positive estimate of the material creation found in Judaism-and perhaps its widespread tradition of heavenly ascent-as well as to emphasise the availabilityof a secret gnosis to the believer.19 The anti-Jewish bias of the Apocalypse and the way that the author supplements Paul's visionary experience with a superior gnostic revelation points to the work's pastoral and social purpose. The author is summoning gnostic believers from UpperEgyptto maintain their true heavenly identity in face of the challenge posed by orthodox Christianityand rabbinic Judaism of late antiquity. With the conversion of the Roman Empire to an orthodox form of Christianity,the survival of gnostic Christianitywas especially imperilledby zealous bishops such as Epiphaniusof Salamis. He published his expose of gnostic Christianityin AD 375 and ensured that 80 members of a licentious gnostic sect in Egypt were expelled from their church and city by their local bishops.20The Apocalypse of Paul, with its his Christ the child of leading apostles safely back to their gnostic portrayal 19On heavenlyascent in Judaismand hellenism,see J.A. Davila, 'HeavenlyAscents in the Dead Sea Scrolls',in P. Flint andJ.C. Vanderkam(eds),TheDeadSeaScrolls After e Assessment Vol. 2 (Leiden 1999), 461-485; M. Himmelfarb, Ascent 50 Years:A Comprehensiv to Heavenin Jewish and ChristianApocalypses(Oxford 1993); id., 'The Practise of Ascent in
the AncientMediterraneanWorld',in JJ. Collinsand M. Fishbane(eds),Death,Ecstasy, and OtherWorldlyJourneys(New York 1995), 123-137; M. Dean-Otting, Heavenly ourneys: A Studyof theMotif in HellenisticJewish Literature (Frankfort-New York 1984); G. Scholem, MerkabahMysticism,and TalmudicTraditions(New York 1960); A.F. Segal, Jewish Gnosticism,
'HeavenlyAscentin HellenisticJudaism,EarlyChristianityand Their Environment',in der RmnischenWelt. PrincipatII 23 (Berlin 1980): W. Haase (ed.), Aufstiegund iMedergang
1333-1393;M. Smith, 'Ascentto the Heavensand the Beginningof Christianity',Eranos 50 (1981), 403-429;J.D. Tabor, op. cit. Jahrbuch 20 Epiphanius, AgainstHeresies26.17.9. For selections from AgainstHeresies,B. Layton, op. cit., 185-214.
32
J.R. HARRISON
heavenly Creator, would have encouraged embattled gnostic believers to maintain their faith in the face of increasing persecution. Finally, the Apocalypse has the hortatorypurpose of encouraging gnostic believers in the task of mission. This is inferred from the way that the author of the Apocalypse, in contrast to the historical Paul (2 Cor 12:710), does not provide a narrative conclusion to the work. The only hint of an ending comes in Paul's desire to return to the world of the dead and 'lead captive the captivity that was led captive in the captivity of Babylon'(Apoc.Paul23:12-17).21 The gnostic auditorof the text, it is implied, inherits Paul's mission of returning the enslaved terrestrialexiles to their heavenly home. The Christian Apocalypse of Paul The ChristianApocalypse of Paulis as much interestedin the administration of divinejustice and mercy beyond the grave as in the geographyof heaven and hell. Like its gnostic counterpart, the Christian Apocalypse uses the ascent traditionof 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 to illustrateits own theologicalconvictions. The writer emphasises the nexus between sin and punishment, righteousnessand reward. This was especiallypertinent because the thirdcentury church of the author, as presented in the Christian Apocalypse, comprised a mixture of sinners and the righteous, a fellowship of those who had compromised with the world and those who had renounced its pleasures, but who still lived and worshipped side by side.22 In chapters 3-6 of the Apocalypse, Paul is addressed regarding God's mercy and forbearance, notwithstandingthe fact that human sin continually provokesthe divine wrath and the rest of creation demands that judgement be executed. Chapters 7-10 set the scene for Paul's otherworldlyjourney (Apoc.Paul 11-51). Every day the angels who are assigned either to the righteous or the wicked present the deeds of each group to God for His eschatological reckoning. In the first stage of his journey, recounted in chapters 11-18, the apostle is caught up in the Spirit to the third heaven and is accompanied by an angelic interpreter during his entire ascent (Apoc.Paul 11, 19, 21-22, passim).Upon his arrivalin the throne room of God, the apostle witnesses God's review of the righteous and wicked souls before their respective angels. The souls, having left their earthly bodies, are assigned to different 21 22
F.T. Fallon, art. cit., 138. M. Himmelfarb, art. cit., 106.
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
33
destinations.The souls of the wicked are handed over to the angel Tarturus (Coptic text: Temeluchos; Greek text: Tartaruchus), who then consigns them to the abyss until they are reunified with their bodies on Judgment Day. Michael, the archangel of the covenant, leads the souls of the righteous to paradise, where at the eschaton they will be clothed with their new resurrectionbodies. How does the Christian Apocalypse of Paul differ from its gnostic counin this the Whereas Christian terpart regard? Apocalypse envisages a soulin the intermediate it state, nonetheless subscribes to a body separation physical resurrectionat the eschaton. The gnostic Apocalypse permanently separates the souls of the righteous from their bodies after death; however it consigns the souls of the wicked once again to their bodies of death after the angelic judgement. Even more intriguingis the clemency which God displaysin His review of the wicked souls (Apoc.Paul 17). God offers the wicked soul opportunity to confess its sins; moreover, He only permits the last five years worth of sin to count as evidence for eschatological conviction, as opposed to the previousfifteenyears. The theme of the heavenlybenefactor'smercy towards the wicked reappearsin Paul's tour of the abyss (chapters31-44). In chapters 43-44 Christ descends to listen to the prayers of archangel Michael for the deceased sufferingin the abyss. In a rhetoricallymoving text (Apoc. Paul 44), the glorified and reigning Christ graciously grants the damned limited but perpetual relief from their suffering: Now, however,for the sake of Michael,the archangelof my covenant,and the angelswho are with them, and for the sakeof Paul,my dearlybeloved, whomI wouldnot sadden,and for the sakeof yourbrethrenwho are in the world and presentofferings,and for the sake of your children,becausemy are in them, and even more for my own goodness-on the commandments very day on which I rose from the dead I grantto you all who are being punisheda day and night of ease for ever. No such clemency, however, is afforded the wicked souls in the gnostic Apocalypse. They are cast down into the body of death preparedfor them. The second stage of Paul's heavenly journey to view the souls of the righteous is recounted in chapters 19-30. Paul enters the gates of Paradise in the third heaven, crosses Lake Acherusia in a golden boat, and arrives at the city of Christ. It is at this juncture of his journey that Paul learns of the tripartite dimension to the afterlife.23First, there are the blessed 23 A.E. Bernstein,TheFonnation in theAncientandEarly of Hell Deathand Retribution Christian Worlds(London 1993), 295-296.
34
J.R. HARRISON
who, having humbled themselvesby serving God all their life, have already entered Christ's celestial city. They include the antediluvianheroes, patriarchs, kings and prophets, as well as the innocents of Herod. Outside the city gates, scattered among the trees before the city doors, is found a second group. They comprise the genuinely repentant but whose sorrow over their sin is vitiated by their pride. They are left in this intermediateplace until Christ re-enters the heavenly city with all His saints after His parousia. We are probablywitnessinghere the emergenceof theologicaltendencies that would eventually develop into the full-blown medieval doctrines of penance and purgatory.Finally, there is the third group which consists of the damned described in chapters 31-44. We now turn to the third stage of Paul's heavenly journey where the apostle reviews the desperate plight of those in the abyss. As noted, our Christian author emphasisesthe offer of divine clemency to the damned. Related to this are the graduated series of punishments appropriate to and commensurate with the crimes of the damned (Apoc. Paul 31, 37).24To some extent, the graduatedpunishment reflects elements of Pauline tradition in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and the Lukan parable of the 'faithful and unfaithful stewards' (Lk 12:41-48). Also intriguing is the way that our author adds a range of ecclesiasticalsin-centering on church officials (Apoc.Paul 34-36), the sacraments(31), and heresy (37, 41-42)-to his list of the more conventionalsins. This clearly reflectsthe growing institutionalisationof the third-centurychurch and the hypocrisy of some of its hierarchy.25Especiallysignificant,as A.E. Bersteinobserves, 'is the introduction of a new punishmentfor a new class of offenders:the false monastics' (Apoc.Paul 40).26 It underscoresthe positive light that ascetic piety is seen in throughout the Apocalypse (Apoc.Paul 9, 24, 26, 39, 40). We are possiblywitnessinghere the monasticsympathiesof our authorand the desire for ecclesiasticalmoral reformwhich informshis depiction of the damned.27 How typical is the ChristianApocalypse of Paul of other apocalyptic traditions?A seriesof conventionalapocalypticmotifs, hellenisticand Christian, can be discerned in our Apocalypse. A few examples will suffice. First, in similar vein to our gnostic Apocalypse, the pitiless angels responsible for the wicked souls are reminiscentof the Erinyesof Greek myth (Apoc.Paul11): 24
25 26
Ibid., 297, 298-299. Ibid., 297.
Formin Jewish Ibid.,300. Contra, see M. Himmelfarb,Toursof Hell An Apocalyptic Literature (Philadelphia1983), 18-19. 27 For additionalmonastic elements,see R.P. Casey, art.cit., 20.
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
35
their faces were full of wrath and their teeth projected from their mouths; their eyes flashed like the morning star of the east, and from the hairs of their head and out of their mouth went forth sparks of fire. Second, the conflict between the angelic and demonic powers over the souls ascending to third heaven outlined in chapter 13 is echoed in the Apocalypseof Isaiah 7:9-12.28 Third, as we saw with the gnostic Apocalypse, traditionalJewish apocalyptic ideas of the heavenly book and tablets appear (Apoc. Paul 17, 19). Fourth, elements of Orphic eschatology may well lie behind the depiction of the Acherusian lake, the fiery stream and land of the blessed watered by four rivers (Plato, Phaedo 113).29 Nonetheless, we should not underestimate the degree to which our author transforms his apocalyptic sources by using elements of the biblical tradition (e.g. Apoc. Paul 23 [ie. Gen 2:10-14; Rev 21:10-27]). Finally, a brief comment about the anti-Jewish sentiments in the Christian Apocalypse of Paul is apposite. The Jews are unilaterally blamed for the crucifixion. Moses, after recounting the exile of Israel due to its sin, sums up Jewish culpability thus (Apoc.Paul 48): And, I tell you, brother Paul, that at the hour when the people hangedJesus, whom you preach, that the Father, the God of all, who gave me the law, and Michael and the angels and the archangelsand Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the righteouswept for the Son of God as he hung on the cross. And all the saints turned their attention to me at that time, looking at me and saying: See, Moses, what those of your people have done to the Son of God. Therefore you are blessed, Paul, and blessed is the generation and people who have believed your word. Further, that a new 'race' now believes through Paul's agency (Apoc.Paul 49) points to a supercessionist theology: the precedence of Israel over the Gentiles in salvation history is usurped by a third race, the Christian church. What are the theological, social and hortatory purposes which inspired this work? We have pointed to the ecclesiastical dimension of the Apocalypse 28 A. Yarbro in the Collins, art. cit., 86. For allusionsto the Apocalypse of Zephaniah ChristianApocalypse of Paul,see R.P. Casey, art.cit., 12-13, 20-21. For the dependence of the ChristianApocalypse of Peter(or a strand of Paul upon elementsof the Apocalypse of apocalyptictraditioncommon to both works),see M. Himmelfarb(1983),op.cit., 1618, 140-147. 29 R.P. Casey, art.cit., 19. Later Christiantradition,as reflectedin our Apocalypse, modifiedand theologicallyaccountedfor the varyingfates of the dead, as they were traditionallydepictedin Orphiceschatology(Plato,Phaedo113d-114c).On Homericele9.51 ff; 11.157),see ments in the Apocalypseof Paul (e.g. Iliad8.14; cf. 8.481; Odyssey, A. E. Bernstein,op. cit., 297.
36
J.R. HARRISON
and its warning against abandoning orthodox incarnational doctrine and living hypocriticallyrather than authenticallyas a believer. The difficulty of the righteousliving alongside the unrighteousin the church is addressed by a call to ascetic moral behaviour on the part of all believers, including the clerical hierarchy.The monastic flavour of the work animates its social expression. The text reflects a latent Christian triumphalismin its depiction of the Church as the successor of historical Israel and-in its contemporarysetting-of the rabbinicsynagogue. Finally, the writer gives considerablerhetoricalforce to his exhortationwhen the story ofJesus' passion is retold in order to evoke repentance. The stories of the other Old Testament saints (Apoc.Paul 44-45, 49-51) are employed to similar effect.30 We now turn to the writings of the historical Paul. To what extent would the apostle have agreed with the later Apocalypses written in his name? Three areas of comparison will be investigated:Paul's understanding of the intermediate state; his presentation of the angelic and demonic realms; and finally, the function that 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 plays in its rhetorical context. In each case it will be argued that the concerns of the historicalPaul radicallydiverge from those of his later apocalypticimitators. Paul and theLaterGnosticand Christian Apocalypses 1. Paul and the intermediate state Paul does not engage in the elaboratespeculationof the later Apocalypses regarding the intermediatestate of the believer. The apostle either speaks of believers being 'with Christ' immediately after death (Phil 1:20-23; cf. Lk 23:43) or looks forward to the general resurrection at the eschaton (Rom 8:18-25; 1 Cor 15:12-58; Phil 3:20-21; 1 Thess 4:13-18). It is often argued that the image of being 'naked' in 2 Corinthians 5:3 (o{ yugvoi refers to a bodiless intermediate state preceding the endevpenlooCe0za) time resurrection.The Christian Apocalypse of Paul certainly subscribes to this general understandingof the afterlife. But Paul's imagery is by comparison very restrained-if indeed 2 Corinthians5:3 speaksabout the intermediate state. How then is this puzzling verse to be understood? In 2 Corinthians5:1-10 Paul contraststhe corruptibilityof the old Adamic age with the incorruptibilityof the eschatologicalage of Christ.31Vv. 1-10 30 31
A. Yarbro Collins, art. cit., 86. On the theology of the 'two ages' implicit in our passage, see E.E. Ellis, 'The
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
37
are still part of Paul'sapostolicdefence in 2 Cor 2:14-7:4which he launched against his Corinthian detractorsand the interloping apostles (cf. 1:15-17; 1:23-2:10;2:17; 3:1-3).32Paul has already emphasised the fact that he does not lose heart in his apostolic ministry (2 Cor 4:1, 16). Rather, as he dies and rises with Christ each day in service of His Lord, he discovers God's transcendentpower in a series of paradoxical experiences (2 Cor 4:7-12). God calls His apostles to a radical dying to self (2 Cor 4:10a, 1la, 12a) in the adverse circumstancesof ministry (4:8-9: 'afflicted', 'crushed', 'perplexed', 'persecuted').But simultaneouslythere is an encounter with the eschatological resurrectionlife ofJesus, which not only brings deliverance to the suffering apostles (2 Cor 4:10b, lb; cf. 4:8-9: 'not crushed', 'not driven to despair', 'not forsaken', 'not destroyed')but also spirituallife to their converts (4:12b) and renewal of the apostles themselves (4:16b). In saying this, Paul keeps his focus on the believer's resurrectionat the eschaton (2 Cor 4:14). A progressionfrom glory to glory has already begun in the lives of believers who, through faith (2 Cor 4:18; 5:7), are being transformed into the image of their heavenly Lord by the work of the Spirit (3:18; cf. 5:5). Moreover, the suffering of the present age (2 Cor 4:16a: 'our outer nature is wasting away'; 4:17a: 'this slight momentary affliction')pales in comparison to the eternal weight of the future glory (4:17b).But, in the present, there is the tension which arises from the overlap of 'the two ages'. The renewal of our inner nature continues relentlessly notwithstandingthe progressive decay of our outer nature (2 Cor 4:18; cf. 5:17). Thus in 2 Corinthians 5:1 Paul continues to speak of the vulnerability of the body and the assurance of a perfect replacement for its dilapidated shell.33The fragility of 'our earthly tentike house' (2 Cor 5:la: ii cinyelto ilivovoiida Toi oaivoig; cf. 4:7a ['earthen vessels']; 4:1lb ['mortal flesh']) stands in contrast to the permanence of our future dwelling.34As Paul and the Futurein New Structure of Pauline Eschatology (II Cor 5:1-10)' in id., Christianity TestamentHistory(Leiden-Boston-Koln 2000), 147-164, esp. 162-164. This is a revision of Ellis' original article ('II Corinthians V. 1-10 in Pauline Eschatology') in JITS 6 (1959-
1960), 211-224. 32 V.P. Furnish(II Corinthians [New York], 301) observesin regard to 2 Cor 4:155:5: 'Paul is concernedto refute the false idea that hardshipsand sufferingare proof that his apostolateis invalid.It is likely that his rivalswere pointingto more generally acceptableevidence of apostleshipin their own case'. 33 A.C. Perriman,'Paul and the Parousia:1 Corinthians15:50-57and 2 Corinthians 5:1-5', JVTS35 (1989), 518. 34
A.T. Lincoln (ParadiseNow and Not ret' Studiesin the Role of the Heavenl Dimensionin
38
J.R. HARRISON
from God, an eterexplains (2 Cor 5:lb), we have a building (oiKcoSonli) nal heavenly house (oidia) not made with human hands. In w.2-4 there is extensive use of parallelism(w.2a/4a, 2b/4b, 2c/4c), set out below. The 'iva clause (v.4d) brings the parallelismto a resounding conclusion. OldAge in Adam
New Age in Christ
v.2a For in this (tent) IKatyap ev Txomx v.2b we groan, oTeva&ogLev
v.2c longing to be clothed with cEv6voao9aateitoOoivxre v.3a
our heavenly dwelling, xOoicitfptov il&OV6O oUpavo) if indeed,havingput it on (NIV,RSV), ei ye IcatlE?Vuod
vot
(Westernvariant [D, Marcion, Tertullian]: 'having put it off' [i?Kxcuacevoi: NRSV]) we will not be found naked. 0Dyujvoi epeTio6Ceoe8a.
v.3b v.4a For while we are still in this tent, Katyap oi ove; ev Tq
v.4d so that what is mortal iva boOvlT6v
but to be further clothed, &aU'?tXev&6oao0at may be swallowed up by life. :campoei I)o At;S,(riS.
The main problem lies in discerningthe relation of v.3 to the overall flow of Paul's argument in w.l-10. The issue is clouded by the presence of a variantin a few Westernmanuscripts(c:KSuocapevot instead of EvSuoa&gevot).3 The latter problem need not detain us. Since EvSoagevot has superior
Paul'sThought withSpecialReference to His Eschatology [Cambridge1981], 61) cites Wisd. 9.15 (LXX) for icijvos ('tent')being a metaphorfor earthly existence:'a perishable body weighs down the soul and this earthlytent burdensthe thoughtfulmind'. 35 The other variantin 2 Cor 5:3-etiep (P46, B, D, F, G 33 1175) instead of ei' ye-is not importantas regardsthe interpretationof the verse. More importantly,the particlee' ye ('if then', 'if indeed','thatis to say', inasmuchas' [NASB],'so that' [RSV], 'because'[NIV]) conveysan impressionof suretyregardingwhat follows.It emphasises the conditionintroducedby the subjoinedclause(v.3):that is, preciselybecausewe have been once and for all clothedwith our heavenlydwellingat the eschaton(v.3a:evauoagevot; cf. v.2), we shall no longer be naked in the resurrectionage (v.3b).
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
39
external support,it is the preferablereading.36As regardsthe primaryissue, v.3 probably functions as an afterthoughtof Paul.37It clarifiesthe fact that when we are finally clothed with the resurrectionbody in the future (v.3a: vvaua,hevot),the 'nakedness'of our present earthly condition will be permanently a thing of the past (v.3b:oivyutvoi eipe9Oa6o6ia).38 The metaphor ov yutvoi, I would argue,is synonymouswith Paul'swish not to be 'unclothed' in the present (v.4c: Kic6iaoaal)and explains his existentiallonging 'to be clothed' in the future (v.2c: kRev&6aaoOat). Each verb in w.2c/4c underin the present age and proor 'nakedness' scores-directly indirectly-our vides the contextual clue for interpretingot yu[voi in v.3. It is worth noting that a loose parallel might be found in 1 Corinthians 15:37. There to describe the Paul uses the image of a 'naked kernel' (yutlvvv IKO6COV)
'present, death-riddenbody' over against the body to come.39 rTev8aoaBy contrast,the 'clothing'referencesin w.3a/4c (EvS8uoaaavot, o0at) are clearly eschatological.40The parallelism of w.2a-4c is summed 36 See the extended discussions of R. Penna, 'The Apostle's Sufferings: Anthropology and Eschatology in 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10', in id., Paul the Apostle:Jew and GreekAlike Vol. 1 (Collegeville 1996), n.21 241-242; H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outlineof His Theology (Grand Rapids 1975), n.41, 501-502. 37J. Lambrecht, SecondCorinthians (Collegeville 1999), 83; H. Ridderbos, loc. cit.J.-F. etudeexigetiquede 2 Cor.2:14Collange (nigmes de la deuxiemeepitrede Paul aux Corinthiens: 7:4 [Cambridge 1972], 199) sums up the place of 2 Cor 5:3 in Paul's argument thus: 'un premier jet (v.2) est interrompu par la parenthese du v.3 et repris (complete ou transforme) au v.4'. J. Dupont (EYNPIZTI L'unionavecle ChristsuivantSaintPaul. Premiere partie: "Avecle Christ"dans la viejfiture[Paris 1952], 136) says in regard to the parallelism (w.2/4) that v.4 does not explain v.2 but rather repeats it. Consequently, in the view of Dupont, v.4d restates v.3 in different terms. 38 The use of the two aorists (v.2c: kev?6eaofaalt; v.3: Ev&voaaivot) emphasises one act of putting on the heavenly dwelling. oi yupvoi thus underscores the permanency of the future resurrection state in comparison to the fragility of our present bodily existence (2 Cor 4:7a, llb, 16a; 5:1, 3b). 39 V.P. Furnish, op. cit., 298. L. Cerfaux (The Christianin the Theologyof St. Paul [New York 1967], 196 n.3) argues that Paul is referring to the 'inner nature' (cf. 2 Cor 4:16) in 2 Cor 5:3, whereas he is speaking of the body awaiting resurrection in 1 Cor 15:37. This imports an unnecessary hellenistic dualism into 2 Cor 4:16 and 5:3. Paul's thought here more draws upon the Jewish 'two ages' doctrine, seen in the contrast between the earthly body of humiliation and the glorified body of the resurrection. The same criticism can be levelled against the view that 1 Cor 15:35-38 refers to the intermediate state (R.P. Martin, 2 Corinthians[Waco 1986], 106). 40 For a different understanding-based on the interim state-of the relation between the verbs cTXev86xaa9act, BKcoaoeat and Ev8w6aoait, see B. Witherington III, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World(Downers Grove 1992), 206.
40
J.R. HARRISON
up with different imagery in v.4d: the nakedness of our mortality will be swallowed up by immortality.The 'further'clothing of v.4c (kev&uaaoeat) does not envisage the replacement of a bodiless intermediate state (purportedly v.3b) with the resurrectionbody, but rather the replacement of with immortality(v.4d).F.W. Danker has posited an Old Testament mortality for Paul's imagery in w.2-4 over against the body-soul dualism of origin hellenismand sectorsofJudaism.41In Danker'sview, Paul may have derived his imagery from Ezekiel's metaphor of God's 'clothing' of the 'naked' Israel (Ezek 16). This is possible but not provable.42 In sum, the 'nakedness'of v.3b does not refer to the intermediatestate but describesbodily existence in the present age under the reign of death.43 If this is the case, Paul provides us with no clue as to our condition in the intermediate state other than that we are with Christ. Nor should v.8 be misconstruedas a contrast between the bodiless intermediate state ('away from the body') and the glorifiedbodily existence of the eschatologicalresurrection ('at home with the Lord').44Paul's use of the language of 'exile' establishesa differentpoint. While we remain at home in our earthlybody, Paul says, we will be away from our Lord (v.6b). Only when we put off our earthly body will we be permanentlypresent with the risen Lord in heaven (v.8b). Although we groan in the body during the present age (oaevaogtev: w.2b, 4b; cf. Rom 8:23), we are of good courage (w.6b, 8b) because the cf. 2 Spirit is the downpayment of the future resurrection(v.5: &ppapic)v; For referencesto the intermediatestate and the disembodiedexistenceof the soul in Judaism, see 4 Ezra 4:35-42; 7:78, 100; 1 Enoch39:4; 71:14ff;Test.Job 52:2ff;Jub 23:31; Test.Asher6.5-6; 2 Apoc.Bar.30:1-5;50:1-51:16;Josephus,BJ 2.163; 3.374-375; [Nashville1999], 256 n. 665) id.,AJ 18.14. I am indebtedto D.E. Garland(2 Corinthians andJ. Osei Bonsu ('The IntermediateState of the New Testament',SJT 44/2 [1991], 186) for these references.See also Wis 8:19-20; 4 Macc.18:23. 42 F.W. Danker,II Corinthians (Minneapolis1989), 71. E.E. Ellis(art.cit., 157-160)has argued from LXX referencesthat yugv6oand ecK6wao9at refer to our moral nakedness in Adam at the eschatologicaljudgement. But the idea of moral shame at the eschatologicaljudgementdoes not suit the assuredtenor of our passage:on two occasions Paul emphasiseshis 'good courage'(2 Cor 5:6a, 8a) in servingChrist and waiting for His Parousia.For furthercriticismof Ellis' views, see R.H. Gundry,SOMAin 41
Biblical Theologywith Emphasison Pauline Theology(Cambridge 1976), 149-151. 43 A.C. Perriman,art.cit.,519. Similarly,H. Ridderbos(op.cit.,n.47 503) sees 'nakedness' as a referenceto our body of humiliation(cf. Phil 3:21):'gymnos here does not denote a stateof incorporeality, but the lacking(still)of the gloryof God, even in thisbody'. 44E.g. 0. Cullmann,'Immortalityof the Soul or Resurrectionof the Dead: The Witnessof the New Testament',in K. Stendahl(ed.), Immortality andResurrection. Death
in the WesternWorld:Two ConflictingCurrentsof Thought(New York 1965), 41-42.
IN QUEST
OF THE
THIRD
HEAVEN
41
Cor 5:17). As noted, Paul avoids any speculationregardingour post-mortem state other than saying we are with the risen Lord. There is a considerable distance between the restraint of Paul and the lurid accounts of the intermediatestate recountedin the later gnostic and ChristianApocalypses.45 There are two other views of Paul's eschatology in 2 Corinthians 5:110 which merit close attention.First,the presenttense 'xoLevin 2 Corinthians 5:1, it is sometimes argued, indicates that the apostle expected that believers would be immediately clothed with the resurrectionbody upon death rather than at the Parousia.46If this view accurately interprets Paul, the apostle would again be at odds with the body-soul distinction of his later apocalyptic interpreters.However, eXogevmight simply be a futuristicpresent (i.e. 'we will have'), thereby excluding the idea of the immediate reception of the resurrectionbody at death. Nonetheless, this remains a very attractiveview, especiallygiven the clear sequence of ideas in 2 Corinthians 4:14-5:10 (death [4:16; 5:la]; resurrection[4:14; 5:lb, 2b]; transformation [5:4a: 'swallowed up']; immortality [5:4b: 'with life']).47 Second, many scholars believe that Paul, as a hellenistic diasporaJew, endorsed the idea of a body-soul separation in the intermediate state,48 either as a development of Old Testament beliefs about Sheol,49or as a counterblast to an incipient Corinthian gnosticism or to an over-realised eschatology.50There was certainly a widespread belief in disembodiment Note,however,the commentof R. Berry('Deathand Life in Christ:The Meaning of 2 Corinthians5:1-10', SJT 14/1 [1961], 76): 'Howeverinadequatelythey conceived of it, patristicand medievaltheologianswere not utterlywrongin tryingto give expression to hope of individualblessednessat death and at the same time regardingthe soul as disembodieduntil the Parousia'. 46See especiallyMJ. Harris,'2 Corinthians5:1-10:A Watershedin Paul'sTheology?', TynBul22 (1971),32-57;D.E. Garland,op.cit.,245-256.F.F. Bruce('Paulon Immortality', SJT 24 [1974], 471) also speaks of 'immediateinvestiturewith the new body' upon death.Contra,J. Osei-Bonsu,'Does 2 Cor 5:1-10Teach the Receptionof the Resurrection Body at the Moment of Death?',JSNT 28 (1986), 81-110, esp. 86-89. 47 R.N. Longenecker,'Is There Developmentin Paul's ResurrectionThought?',in id., Lifein theFaceof Death(GrandRapids 1998), 195. 4 Among recent commentatorson 2 Corinthians,supportersof this view include P. Barett, TheSecond Epistleto theCorinthians (GrandRapids 1997),L.L. Belleville,2 Corinthians(Leicester1996),M.E. Thrall, TheSecond Vol.1 (Edinburgh Epistleto theCorinthians. andCommunity in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical 1994)and B. WitheringtonIII, Conflict Commentary on 1 and2 Corinthians (GrandRapids 1995). 49 R. Penna, op. cit., 253. 50For Gnosticism,R. Bultmann,TheSecond Letterto theCorinthians (Minneapolis1985: Gmn. orig. 1976), 134-138.A.T. Lincoln(op.cit.,59) arguesthat Paul is combattingan 45
42
J.R. HARRISON
as a state of nakedness in the ancient world (e.g. Philo, De Virtutibus 76; Plato, Cratylus 403B; Republic577B; Gorgias523D, 524D). Furthermore,the of late antiquity speaks of 'nakedness' and the 'earthly CorpusHermeticum tent' in a manner reminiscent of 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 and of the gnostic of Paul.In the formerwork, the soul in its heavenly ascent through Apocalypse the seven planetary spheres became naked when its cast aside the earthly tent that surroundsit. The following extracts point to the dualistic worldview of the Hermetica in speaking of the afterlife: And then, stripped (yuivw0oei;)of the effects of the cosmic framework, the human enters the region of the Ogdoad; he has his own proper power, and along with the blessed hymns the father (1.26)... In an earthly body occurs the combining of these garments,my son, for the mind cannot seat itself alone and naked (yuvpv6;)in an earthly body. The earthly body cannot support so great an immortality,nor can so great a dignity endure defiling contact with a body subject to passion (X.17)... This tent (aicfvos)-from which we also have passed, my child-was constituted from the zodiacal cycle (XIII.12)... That you hasten to strike the tent (oicfrvoS) is good, child, for you have been purified (XIII.15).
It is possible that Paul as a hellenisticJew may have subscribed to a body-soul dualism. In that case, Paul holds to a belief in the intermediate state (2 Cor 5:3, 8) in conjunction with an eschatological expectation of the resurrection of the dead (2 Cor 4:14; 5:1, 10).51 R. Penna has drawn
attention to the juxtaposition of conflicting ideas about immortalityof the soul and the bodily resurrectionof the dead found in Pseudo-Phocylides, an early first-centuryAlexandrianJew.52The same, conceivably, could be said of Paul. But even if we grant that Paul espouses a bodiless interim state, he still regards the body positively as the appropriate arena in which believers Toi a(otaxoo [v.10]), while please God at the present (2 Cor 5:9b-10: cf. bta& living in expectationof eschatologicalrecompense(5:10b).Of crucialimpor-
over-realisedeschatologywhich depreciatedthe body and exalted the Spiritmanifestations of the 'super apostles'at Corinth.In the view of J. Dupont (op.cit., 145), Paul employs language of 'provenancehellenistique'in 2 Cor 5:1-5, showing dependence upon popularphilosophicalthemes in v.3. 51
Ibid, 70.
52
R. Penna, op. cit., 253-254. J.N. Sevenster ('Some Remarks on the GUMNOS in II Cor. v. 3', in id. and W.C. van Unnik (eds), StudiaPaulina in HonoremJohannisde Zwaan
[Haarlem1953], 202-214)claimsthat for Paulit is the 'innernature'(2 Cor 4:16)which is found 'naked'at death,not the soul. See our criticismsof a similarview in n.39 above.
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
43
tance, too, is the absence of any mention of vX/I ('soul')in 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, a key differencebetween the apostle and popular hellenisticanthropology (and, indeed, the later Apocalypses).53 Finally, Paul's christologically modified monotheism (1 Cor 8:6 [cf. v.4]; 15:28; Eph 4:5-6; Col 1:15-16) precludes any Demiurge figure in his view of creation and the afterlife.54 2. The angelicrealmand the afterlife Paul does not attributeto the angels any revelatoryor juridical role (Gal 1:8; 3:19-20; Col 2:18), either during the intermediatestate or at the eschaton. The angels are merely the creationsof Christ (Col 1:16;cf. 1 Cor 8:6b). The risen Christ, not the angelic host, fully embodies the presence of the divine glory (Rom 6:4; 1 Cor 2:8; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4, 6; Phil 3:21; Col 1:27; 2:9-10; 2 Thess 1:9-10). Consequently, Christ mediates a worship of God vastly superiorto anything the angels offer in the heavenly courts or which visionaries can access through self-abasement on earth (Col 2:16-3:4).55 Whereas the later Apocalypses assign revelatory or juridical roles to the heavenlyangels, Paul assignsto the church the exalted role of makingknown God's hidden wisdom to the angels in the heavenly places (Eph 3:8-10). For Paul, angels are ultimately generic beings.56They are simply the 'holy ones' (Eph 1:18; Col 1:12; 2 Thess 1:10), 'angels' (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 4:9; 6:3; 11:10; 2 Cor 12:7; Gal 1:8; Col 2:18) or 'elect angels' (1 Tim 5:21). In unison they offer unceasing praise both to God and His ascended Christ (1 Cor 13:1; Phil 2:10-11; 1 Tim 3:16);57they oversee the sanctity of divine worship in heaven and on earth (1 Cor 11:10);they radiate the divine glory (2 Cor 11:14b); and they watch the paradox of God's foolishness and weakness being displayed in the cruciform suffering of His
53
Ibid., 247, 257. 54 Note the astute comment of C.F.D. Moule ('St Paul and "Dualism": The Pauline
Interpretation Conceptionof Resurrection'in id.,EssaysinNew Testament [Cambridge1982], 221): 'Paul has no use for a dualism of matter and spirit, no room (despite his elaborate demonology) for a demiurge creating an evil world'. 55 See C.C. Newman, Paul's Traditionand Rhetoic (Leiden 1998), passim. Glory-Christology: 56 H. Schlier, 'The to the New Testament', in id., The Relevanceof Angels According the New Testament(New York 1968), 176. 57 On the basis of the angelic 'hierarchies' (allegedly) found in Eph 1:21 and Col 1:16, the Church Fathers classified up to ten orders of angelic choirs. Such hierarchical speculation is absent from Paul. For the patristic evidence, see F. Prat, The Theology of Saint Paul Vol. 2 (Westminster 1927), 414-416.
44
J.R. HARRISON
apostles (1 Cor 4:9-10 [cf. 1:25]). The angels accompany Christ at the eschaton, but they do not seem to play any role in the judgement other than acting as heralds and witnesses (1 Thess 4:16; 2 Thess 1:7). This radicallydiverges from the 'accusing'and 'justifying'roles assigned to the angels as eschatological book-keepers in the later Apocalypses. Believers, Paul observes, are the ones who participate in God's eschatological judgement of the fallen angels (1 Cor 6:3). Paul also avoids naming any of the archangelsin apocalyptic contexts (1 Thess 4:16: 'with the archangel'scall'; cf. 2 Thess 1:7), in contrast to many early Christianwriters (Michael [Jude 9; Rev 12:7; cf. Dan 10:21; 12:1]; Gabriel [Luke 1:19, 26; Dan 8:15, 16]) and the ChristianApocalypse of Paul. The one exception might be a veiled allusion to Michael under the guise of 'the restrainer' in 2 Thessalonians 2:7.58 Over against the detailed demonology of the later Apocalypses, Paul unifies the demonic world under one figure, Satan, whose end-time defeat has been prolepticallyannounced through the cross (1 Cor 2:6-8; Eph 1:2022; 4:9-10 [cf. 1 Peter 3:18-22]; 6:12-20; Phil 2:10; Col 2:15, 20 [cf. 1:13]). Paul more concentrates on Satan's threat to believers than on the activities of his demonic cohorts (Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 4:4; 6:15; 11:3, 14; 12:7; Eph 2:2; 4:27; 6:11, 16; 1 Thess 2:18; 3:5; 2 Thess 2:9; 3:3; 1 Tim 1:20; 3:6, 7; 5:15; 2 Tim 2:26). In this regard, it is probably a mistake to attribute an 'elaborate demonology' to Paul, as does C.F.D. Moule.59Only occasionallydoes Paul 58 C. Nicholl, 'Michael, The Restrainer Removed (2 Thess. 2:6-7)', JTS 51/1 (2000), 27-53. E. Ferguson (Demonology of theEarly ChristianWorld[New York and Toronto 1984], 151) also suggests that behind Paul's reference to rulers and governing authorities in Rom 13:1 and Titus 3:1 lies the Jewish idea that 'each nation had an angel ruler and guardian which personified it'. See, too, 0. Everling (Die paulinischeAngelologieund Versuch[Gottingen 1888], 77-82) who discusses the Damonologie:Ein biblische-theologischer
ParousiaofJesus with 'archangel'and 'mightyangels'(1 Thess 4:16; 2 Thess 1:7)against the backdrop of intertestamental archangel traditions. Finally, Paul refers to the destroying Angel of the Lord in a non-apocalyptic ethical context (1 Cor 10:10 [b 6Op?0peu)T;: Num 16:41-50]; cf. Exod 12:23; 1 Chr 21:12, 15). However, the attempt of C.A. Gieschen (Angelomorphic Antecedents and Early Evidence[Leiden 1998], 325-329) Christology: to identify the Angel of the Lord (1 Cor 10:10) with Paul's preexistent Christ of the wilderness wanderings (1 Cor 10:4) is misplaced. It ignores the rhetorical strategy that Paul employs in citing several examples from Israelite history in w.5-10 as ethicalwarnings to the Corinthians (v. 11-12). V.10, therefore, does not resume or expand upon the christological argument of v.4. 59 C.F.D. Moule, art. cit., 221. Similarly, S.G.F. Brandon, 'Angels: The History of an Idea', in id., Religionin AncientHistory:Studiesin Ideas,Men, and Events(London 1973), 365.
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
45
mention the activity of the demonic world (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 10:20-21; 2 Cor 12:7; 1 Tim 4:1).60To be sure, Paul regularlyrefers to principalities, powers, authorities, thrones, dominions, world rulers, spiritual hosts, and elemental spirits (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 2:6, 8; 15:24; Gal 4:3, 9; Eph 1:21; 2:2; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:8, 10, 15, 20).61But this does not necessarily suggest an apocalypticpreoccupationwith angelic or demonic hierarchies.62 More likely Paul's language of power is either polemically occasioned by local issues-such as the presence of magic at Ephesus and Jewish apocalypticism at Colossae-or by his desire as a hellenisticJew, schooled in the LXX, to interact with the cosmology of popular philosophy.63 Finally, whatever influence angelic principalitiesand powers may have over life and death (Rom 8:38), they cannot separatebelieversfrom the love of Christ. For Paul it was inconceivablethat any Demiurge or intermediary figure could block access to God. The evil spirit-powerswould be overthrown at the eschatologicaljudgement (1 Cor 15:24; cf. Rom 16:20). Nor is there any evidence of angelic intercession for the dead, as was the case in the Christian Apocalypseof Paul. There is, admittedly, the report that some Corinthian believers had undergone baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29). 60 Note the astute comment of E. Ferguson (op. cit., 146-147): 'Paul does see the evil spiritual forces as subordinate to Satan and functioning as one under his leadership. Otherwise, he pays no attention to the interrelationship of spiritual beings'. 61 For discussion, see G.B. Caird, Principalitiesand Powers (Oxford 1981); W. Carr, and of thePaulinePhrasehai archai Meaningand Development Angels Principalities.TheBackground, kai hai exousiai(Cambridge 1981); P.T. O'Brien, 'Principalities and Powers: Opponents and the Church:Text and Context of the Church', in D.A. Carson (ed.), BiblicalInterpretation in theNew Testament(Edinburgh H. and Powers Schlier, Principalities (Exeter 1984), 110-150; and London 1961); W. Wink, Namingthe Powers:the Languageof Powerin theNew Testament (Philadelphia 1984); id., Unmaskingthe Powers: the InvisibleForces That DetermineHuman and Resistancein a World Existence(Philadelphia 1986); id., Engagingthe Powers:Discernment For the see C. Forbes, Domination most discussion, of up-to-date (Philadelphia 1992). 'Paul's Principalities and Power: Demythologising Apocalyptic?', JSVT 82 (2001), 61-88; id., 'Pauline Demonology and/or Cosmology? Principalities, Powers and the Elements of the World in Their Hellenistic Context' (JSNT 85 [2002], 51-73). 62 Note the cautious comment of D.G. Reid regarding Paul's language of power ('Principalities and Powers' in G.F. Hawthorne [et al., ed.], Dictionaryof Paul and His Letters [Downers Grove 1993], 747): 'The names themselves suggest some possibility that they refer to eschalons of power within the spiritual world, but if that is the case, the evidence is insufficient to determine their ranking'. Contra, J.D. Tabor, op. cit., 119-120. 63 For Ephesus, see C.E. Arnold, Ephesians:Power and Magic. The Conceptof Power in in Ephesians Light of Its HistoricalSetting(Cambridge 1989). For Colossae, see id., The ColossianSyncretism (Tiibingen 1995); TJ. Sappington, op. cit. On the cosmological background, see the two articles of C. Forbes (arts. cit.).
46
J.R. HARRISON
But Paul is definitely not endorsing the ritual: he merely cites the practise to illustrate the incongruity of the Corinthians denying the resurrection. 3. The divinecomedyof 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 We have seen how the gnostic and Christian Apocalypses used 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 as a springboardto further their own theological and ecclesiasticalagenda. In its original context, Paul's reference to his heavenly ascent belongs to the 'Fool's Discourse' in 2 Corinthians 11:1-12:18. There the apostle is respondingto the threat posed by the interlopingapostles at Corinth.64In a wide-rangingattack, the opponents claimed that they had superior charismata to Paul. They asserted that he was deficient in rhetorical skill (2 Cor 10:10; 11:6), personal presence and integrity (10:1, 2b, 9-11; 11:6; 12:1, 16-18), Jewish pedigree (10:2b; 11:22-23), and the requisite apostolic signs-be they miracles (12:12) or visionary revelations (12:1-5). Given the heavy emphasis on boasting in 2 Corinthians 10-13 (2 Cor 10:8, 13, 15, 16, 17; 11:10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 30; 12:1, 5, 6, 9), the phrase 'visions and revelations' (12:1) was probably an important feature of the intruders' self-promotion.65As a blanket expression, it summarised the content of the intruders'supramundaneexperiences and enabled them to enter into a comparison of credentialswith Paul on equal terms (2 Cor 10:12 [uyKcpivat]; 11:12, 22-23).66 In 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 Paul was forced
to defend himself in an 'apologia' (12:19)over against the intruders,though unwillingly (12:11; cf. 10:18; 11:21b, 30; 12:la).67 64
The language of foolishness (appo
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
47
It is crucial, therefore, that 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 be interpreted in its rhetoricalcontext if Paul's referenceto his heavenly ascent is to be properly assessed. Indeed, Paul's rhetorical response to his opponents' boasting is so rich and varied that 2 Corinthiansis more accuratelylabelled a 'mixed' genre than strictly an 'apologia'.68In what follows the rhetoric of Paul's argument in 2 Corinthians 11:16-12:10is examined, with special reference to the role that Paul's heavenly ascent (12:2-4) plays in the pericope. In 2 Corinthians 11:16-29 Paul adopts a variety of rhetorical tactics to expose the foolishness of his opponents' self-commendation(2 Cor 10:12). First, he ruthlesslyparodies Graeco-Roman boasting conventions,69regardless of whether they are based on the standardeulogistic conventions70ormore specifically-modelled on benefaction,71Socratic,72Stoic,73military,74 68 Pseudo Libanius, EpistolaryStyles45 speaks of the tlKTcl epistolary genre as a 'style in which we compose from many styles'. 69 On the issue, see E.A. Judge, 'The Conflict of Educational Aims in New Testament Thought', Journal of ChristianEducation9 (1966), 32-45; id., 'Paul's Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice', AustralianBiblicalReview 16 (1968), 37-50; H.D. Betz, Der ApostelPaulus und die sokratischeTradition(Tiibingen 1972); S.H. Travis, 'Paul's Boasting in 2 Corinthians 10-12', SE 6 (1973), 527-532; C. Forbes, art. cit., (1986); J.P. Sampley, 'Paul, His Opponents in 2 Corinthians 10-13, and the Rhetorical Handbooks', andJudaism(Philadelphia in J. Neusner (et al., ed.), The Social Worldof FormativeChristianity in D.L. Balch art. (et al., 162-177; cit., ed.), op. cit., 190-200; L.L. 1988), J.T. Fitzgerald, Welborn, 'The Runaway Paul', HTR 92/2 (1999), 115-163. We must not overlook the pioneering articles of A. Fridrichsen, 'Zum Stil des paulinischen Peristasen-Katalogs 2 Cor 11:23ff', SymbolaeOsloenses7 (1927), 25-29; id., 'Peristasenkatalog und Res Gestae: Nachtrag zu 2 Cor 11:23ff', SymbolaeOsloenses8 (1929), 78-82. 70 E.A. Judge, arts cit. 71 F.W. Danker, II Corinthians (Minneapolis 1989), 178-181; id., 'Paul's Debt to the De Coronaof Demosthenes: A Study of Rhetorical Techniques in Second Corinthians', in D.F. Watson (ed.), Persuasive Artisty: Studiesin New TestamentRhetoricin Honourof GeorgeA. Kennedy(Sheffield 1991), 262-280. Decrees in honour of benefactors used numerical and catalogue patterns similar to Paul's boasting in 2 Cor 11:22-33. For examples, see F.W. and New TestamentSemanticField (St. Danker, Benefactor: EpigraphicStudyof a Graeco-Roman Louis 1982), ?18 (IGR III.739: e.g. Chs. 53, 55, 59, 63); E.H. Warmington, Remainsof Old Latin Vol. 4 (London 1967), 'Inscriptions on Public Works' ?6 (CIL 1.2.1529); ?11 (CIL 1.2.638). 72 H.D. Betz, op. cit. and art. cit. For a critique of Betz, see E.A. Judge, 'St. Paul and 14 (1973), 106-116; M.E. Thrall, 'Paul's Journey to Paradise: Some Socrates', Interchange in Issues 2 Cor 12:2-4', in R. Bieringer (ed.), The CorinthianCorrespondence Exegetical (Leuven 1996), 346-363, esp. 349-351. 73 J.T. Fitzgerald, Cracksin An EarthenVesselAn Examinationof the Catalogueof Hardships in the CorinthianCorrespondence (Atlanta 1988), passim; B.K. Peterson, Eloquenceand the Proclamation of the Gospelin Corinth(Atlanta 1998), 116-118. 74 For military honorific inscriptions using numerical and catalogue patterns similar
48
J.R. HARRISON
athletic,75 gladiatorial,76 charioteer,77 or imperial forms of eulogy.78 Paul's
rhetoric would have registeredwith audiences familiar with one or several of these eulogistic types. He replaces the carefullytabulated honours of the eulogistic tradition (2 Cor 11:22-23a) with an equally carefully tabulated catalogue of his own humiliations and sufferings(11:23b-29).79By means of his self-derision,Paul underscores his weakness (2 Cor 11:21, 29, 30), the very issue for which he is criticised by his opponents (2 Cor 10:10: 'his bodily presence is weak'). By inverting the content of his opponents' claims, Paul exposes the hollowness of their pretensions as 'servants of Christ' (2 Cor 11:23). to Paul's boasting, see E.H. Warmington, op. cit., 'Honorary Inscriptions' ?1 (CIL 1.2.25); ?5 (CIL 1.2.652). Similarly, R.K. Sherk, Rome and the GreekEast to the Death of Augustus (Cambridge 1984), ?48 ('avoiding no danger or suffering'). For literary evidence, see Dionysius of Halicarassus, RomanAntiquities,10.36.3ff and V.P. Furnish, op. cit., 515. Plautus, the Roman comic playwright, presents his soldier, Pyrgopolynices, boasting in similar manner to the military honorific inscriptions in The BraggartWarrior40-60. 75 For decrees in honour of athletes using numerical and catalogue patterns similar to Paul's boasting, see S.G. Miller, Arete:GreekSportsfrom AncientSources(Berkeley and Los Angeles 1991), ?150, ?153. 76 For epitaphs of gladiators using numerical patterns similar to Paul's boasting, see New Docs 4 (1987), ?4. Note especially I. ikia I. 277: 'They say that Heracles completed 12 labours; but I, having completed the same (number), met my end at the thirteenth'. See also V. Furnish (op. cit., 534) on the boasting of the gladiator Tiberius Claudius Zopas (L. Robert, Les gladiateursdans l'orientgrec [Amsterdam 1971], ?152). 77 For an inscription in honour of a charioteer using numerical and catalogue patterns similar to Paul's boasting, see N. Lewis and M. Reihhold, RomanCivilisation. Sourcebook II: The Empire(New York 1966), 230-232. 78 For the use of numerical and catalogue patterns similar to Paul's boasting in Augustus' Res Gestae,see A. Fridrichsen, art. cit. (1929); B. Witherington III, op. cit. (1995), n.45 451-452. For an inscription boasting in the provisions made for the imperial cult at Galatia in the reign of Tiberius, see R.K. Sherk, TheRomanEmpire:Augustusto Hadrian (Cambridge 1988), ?38. 79 R.C.H. Lenski (I and II Corinthians[Minneapolis 1937], 1292) aptly speaks of a 'boastless boast'. V.P. Furnish (II Corinthians[New York 1984], 533) observes that 'Paul ends up parodying the claims of his opponents, much as he had in 10:12'. By contrast, M.E. Thrall (II CorinthiansVol.II [Edinburgh 2000], 757-758) denies that Paul is engaging in a parody of Graeco-Roman boasting because his sufferings are depicted as Txo Xptoxob (2 Cor 1:5). It is certainly true that Paul's presentation of his sufferings in 2 Corinthians is not negative (e.g. 2 Cor 1:3-11; 4:7-12, 16-18; 6:4-10). But Paul's catalogue of his weaknesses in 2 Corinthians 11:23b-12:10 is intended to provide a theological critique-by means of its satirical touches-of the agonistic and triumphal mores of the Corinthians.
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
49
Second, Paul partially retrieves this highly unflattering portrait of his apostleshipby presentinghimself as an endangeredbenefactorwho selflessly risks everything for his dependents (2 Cor 11:26; cf. 11:29).80 Third, Paul draws upon the familiar image of the tyrant to characterise the hubristicbehaviour of his opponents towards the Corinthian church (2 Cor 11:20).81
Fourth, Paul cuts an independent path across the hellenistic conventions of comparison, self praise and irony.82He turns his opponents' invective on its head by alluding to the stock characters of hellenistic oratory and literature.He was neither the hypocriticalself-depreciator(6 etipov)nor the deceitful flatterer (o6icXa) that his opponents had insinuated (2 Cor 10:1 [cf. 10:10b]: 'humble when face to face with you').83Nor was he, as his who exagopponents had also implied, the pretentious man (6 &Xa&cov) 10:1 to his Cor 'bold 2 [cf. 10:10a]: you when gerates importance (i.e. in as a man Christ Cor 10: Ia, 7b), Paul's (2 away'). On the contrary, behaviour is consistent rather than inconsistent (10:11; cf. 1:17-22). He does not arrogantlyover-reachhimself (2 Cor 10:13-17;cf. 5:12; 10:8);but neither does he insincerely underplay his status and abilities (11:5-6, 9-12; cf. 1 Cor 15:9-11). The clue to Paul's paradoxicalbearing and radical status reversal lies in the career of Christ. Christ was crucified in weakness, but he was eschatologicallyvindicated by God's power (2 Cor 13:3b-4a). So, likewise, Paul dies and rises in Christ each day (2 Cor 13:4b), simultaneously experiencing cruciform weakness and resurrectionpower as he selflessly serves and disciplines the Corinthians (2 Cor 4:8-12; 11:20-21a; 13:1-4, 9-10 [cf. 1 Cor 4:21]).
80 On the endangeredbenefactormotif, see F.W. Danker, Beefactor: Study Epigraphic andNewTestament Semantic Field(St. Louis 1982),363, 417-435. Strangely, a of Graeco-Roman Dankerleaves 2 Cor 11:26 entirelyout of his discussion,even though Paul'sterminology is that of the inscriptions(ibid.,363: ?12, ?30; OGIS229). Other benefactors,too, had riskedtheir necksfor Paul and the gospel (Rom 16:4;Phil 2:30). On Epaphroditus as endangeredbenefactor,see F.W. Danker,op.cit.(1982),426. For additionalexamples in theHellniicPeiod& of the endangeredbenefactormotif;see C.B. Welles,RoyalCorespdence A Studyin GreekEpigraphy o
50
J.R. HARRISON
In 2 Corinthians 11:30-33 Paul offers a strikingvignette of his humiliation which, as A.T. Lincoln notes, functions as 'a reductioad absurdum'84 The significanceof Paul's escape in a basket through a window in the wall at Damascus continues to generate lively debate. What was Paul intending in singling out this unusual event with a divine oath as to its veracity (2 Cor 11:31; cf. Acts 9:23-24)? E.A. Judge has interpreted the episode against the backdrop of the coronamuralis,that is, the wall-shaped crown awarded to the first soldier to scale the enemy's wall. Thus Paul depicts himself as a coward who chooses the easy path of escape down the wall when the heat was on.85 In a recent tour-de-force, L.L. Welborn argues that throughout 2 Corinthians 11:21b-2:10 Paul is drawing upon the stock 'foolish' characters found in the productions of itinerant mime troupes, which performed regularlyin streets or market places.86In the case of vw.30-33, Paul is presenting himself (among other roles) as the 'runaway fool' of Greek and Roman mimic drama. The triumphal theology of the opponents is again lampooned through Paul's self-derision. A final possibility is that Paul is contrasting his creditable role as the 'endangered'benefactor(2 Cor 11:26)with his discreditablerole as the 'cowardly' benefactor who (like Demosthenes) abandoned his city in the time of crisis (11:30-33).87The latter figure was well known from the caustic response of the oratorsAischines and Dinarchus to Demosthenes' demands for coronal honour in De Corona.88 If the benefaction context is primary,
A.T. Lincoln,op. cit., 75. E.A. Judge, art.cit. (1996), 45. 86 L.L. Welbom, art.cit. 87 See forthContext, J.R. Harrison,Paul'sLanguage of Grace(Xdpig)in Its Graeco-Roman coming,JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck),Tubingen,?7.4.2. 88 Aeschines (In Ctes.150) depictsthe 'cowardly'Demosthenesthus: 'A politician,the man who is responsiblefor all our disasters,desertedhis post in the field, and then ran awayfromthe city:this man is callingfor a crown,and he thinkshe mustbe proclaimed'. Dinarchus(Against Demosthenes 71, 80-82) drawsa telling conclusionregardingthe runaway Demosthenes:'Is it fittingthat... you are orderingothersto take the field when you yourselfdesertedthe battle-line?... For when (Demosthenes)heardthat Philipwas intendingto invade our land afterthe battle of Chaeroneahe appointedhimselfenvoy in order that he might escape from the city... In a nutshellhe is this sort of man: in the battle line he is a stay-at-home,among those who remainat home he is an envoy, and among envoys he is a runaway'.Demosthenes,of course, claims that he 'did not desert the post of patriotismin the hour of peril' (De. Cor.,173), 'neithershirkingnor even counting any personaldanger' (ibid.,197: o/)leva Kiv&uvov). See also Plutarch's 84 85
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
51
Paul illustratesthe paradoxical nature of ministry by means of his experience as an apostolicbenefactor:that is, strengthfor others impartedthrough his own weakness (2 Cor 11:29a; 13:9). Whatever the rhetoricalcontext, Paul brings the cavalcade of his humiliations to a powerful crescendo in a singular boast that concentratesupon his weakness (2 Cor 11:30). As before (2 Cor 11:16-29), Paul refuses to provide the praiseworthycredentials that would reinvigoratehis apostolic curriculumvitae in the eyes of his opponents. Finally, we come to Paul's heavenly ascent in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. What is the significance of this event in its literary context? First, it is flanked on either side by an example of humiliatingweakness from Paul's ministry (2 Cor 11:30-33; 12:6-10).89Second, Paul's descent down the wall of Damascus in a basket finds its counterpointin Paul's ascent to the third heaven.90Third, the unutterable revelation which Paul is divinely forbidden to unveil in 2 Cor 12:4 is counterbalancedby the message that the risen Lord imparts to his sufferingapostle in 2 Cor 12:9.91In other words, the descending apostle of weakness is also the ascending apostle of apocalyptic power. The intruding apostles have misconstruedthe transforming role that weakness plays in the lives of the apostles and their converts as God humbles, teaches, comforts and empowers His servants through their trials (2 Cor 1:1:3-10;4:7-12, 16-18; 6:3-10; 12:6-10; cf. 1 Cor 4:6-16). More importantly,the passage continues the savage parody of his apostolic credentialsthat Paul has began in 2 Cor 11:16-33. At times scholars overly focus on 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 as a first-centuryexample of heavenly ascent in Judaism and the Graeco-Roman world.92In so doing, they can minimise the 'grim humour' and irony which characterises Paul's comparison of Agesilaus' stout defence of his city over against Pompey's cowardly abandonment of Rome ('Comparison of Agesilaus and Pompey' 3.3-5 in Vit. Vol. 5 [Loeb]). Pliny the Elder's summation of Augustus' reign (NH 7.45.147-150), cited in P. Marshall (op. cit., 361-362), is relevant here as another example of the cowardly benefactor topos. 89 A.T. Lincoln, op. cit., 84-85. 90 P.E. Hughes, The SecondEpistle to the Corinthians(Grand Rapids 1962), 422. 91 P. Barett, op. cit., 563. 92 For example, see J.W. Bowker, "'Merkabah Visions and the Visions of Paul', JSS 16 (1971), 157-173; C.R.A. Morrey-Jones, 'Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate. Part 1: The Jewish Sources', HTR 86/2 (1993), 177-217; id., 'Paradise Revisited (2 Cor 12:1-12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul's Apostolate. Part 2: Paul's Heavenly Ascent and its Significance', HTR 86/3 (1993), 265-92; P. Schafer, 'New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkavah Mysticism', JJS 36 (1984), 19-35.
52
J.R. HARRISON
account in its rhetoricalcontext.93In the Graeco-Roman world there were Lucian'sIcaromenippus) satiresof heavenly ascents (e.g. Seneca'sApocoloyntosis, and it is likely that Paul is parodying elements of his experience in order to marginalisethe apocalyptic claims of his opponents.94 What then are the comic elements of Paul's heavenly ascent? First, Paul signals that his visionary experience would contribute nothing to advancing his apostolic credentials(2 Cor 12:1: 'there is nothing to be gained by it'). But, ironically,this is precisely the issue for the Corinthians:they were insisting that Paul demonstrate the requisite apostolic signs (2 Cor 12:1112). Once again, Paul appears as a hostile witness at his own apologia! Second, Paul's uncertainty as to whether his ascent was 'in body' or 'out of body', repeated twice for emphasis(2 Cor 12:2, 3), is neither polemical nor a diplomatic compromise.95Although Paul's uncertainty is genuine,96his indecision regarding his bodily state stands in contrast to other Jewish heavenly ascent accounts which were always very clear on the issue either way.97It is a fatal admission:Paul casts himself as a rank amateur on the apocalypticstage. The absence of an angelic interpreterwould have reinforced the point for his Jewish auditors. The mention of the Satanic ayyeXos(2 Cor 12:7; cf. Job 1-2) who was given divine permission to torment Paul would have furthereroded confidence in his apocalypticcredentials.98F.W. Danker sees in this another instance of Paul making himself a butt of his own jokes: The humourin Paul'sreferenceto Satanlies in the fact that Satan,who is knowninJewishtraditionas God'sarch-rival, witha colossalego, wouldcross the rhetoricalstageas a competitorwho wouldsendPaulan antidoteto possible pride and arrogance.Since God is ultimatelyresponsible,the humour is doublysharp.99 93 P. Barett,
op. cit., 563.
94For discussion,see L.L. Welbor, art.cit., 147-149. 95For the polemicaland diplomaticcompromiseviews,see respectivelyD.E. Garland, op. cit., 513 and R.P. Martin,op. cit., 400. 96 J. Lambrecht,op. cit., 201. D.E. Garland, op. cit., n. 384 513. It might be argued that 2 Cor 12:7 more reflects the type of visionary ascent of R. Aqiba. Upon his arrival in heaven and prior to his invitation to behold the divine glory, Aqiba faced 'angels of destruction (who) came forth to do (him) violence' (Hekhalot Zutarti[M] ?346 C2b). For the full text of HekhalotZutarti(M) ?346, see C.R.A. MorreyJones, art. cit., (1993: Part 1), 196-198. However, Paul's Satanic &'yYoqs (2 Cor 12:7) is encountered during his apostolic ministry upon earth. 99 F.W. Danker, op. cit., 193. D.E. Garland (op. cit., 511) argues that Paul does not 97 98
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
53
Third, Paul's use of the oxymoronic 'unutterablewords' (2 Cor 12:4) for what he heard in Paradise captures the grandeur of the heavenly revelation and the elation it caused him (2 Cor 12:7a).But the apostle'simpotence to articulate what he heard or saw leaves him defenseless at his apologia. It exposes him again to a familiar criticism of the Corinthians (2 Cor 10:10; 11:6):namely, that he does not have sufficientrhetoricalskill to defend himself, either as the founding apostle of Corinth or as an apocalyptic seer. Jewish auditors, expecting the detailed description of Paradise characteristic of apocalyptic literature, would have dismissed him as a 'visionless visionary'.'1?Ironically, even if Paul were capable of revealing what he heard and saw in the third heaven, God refuses His apostle the right to do so (2 Cor 12:4b). Paul is not allowed to boast in his experience as an apocalyptic seer (2 Cor 12:5a, 6a, 7a), even though his vision was true. Seemingly, having silenced Paul's apologia before it had begun, God parades His weak apostle as a 'fool for Christ' on the cosmic stagea spectacle for his opponents and the angels alike (2 Cor 12:7-8; cf. 1 Cor engage in parody in 2 Cor 12:1-10 because the heavenly ascent (w.2-4) and God's subsequent lesson (w.7-10) is a treasured experience of grace for the apostle. M.E. Thrall (op. cit. Vol. II., 777-778) also writes: 'Is it at all probable that Paul would refer to Christ in the satirical fashion which the parody theory would demand-with the intention, that is, to evoke laughter?'. This position, however, isolates 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 from its wider rhetorical context (ie. the Fool's Discourse: 2 Cor 11:1-12:18). It overlooks the likelihood that boasting in visions was part of the eulogistic repertoire of Paul's opponents (2 Cor 12:1a). AsJ.A. Loubser ('Paul and the Politics of Apocalyptic Mysticism: An Exploration of 2 Cor 11:30-12:10', Neot 34/1 [2000], 198) notes, '(Paul's) primary aim is not against mystic experience as such, but against those boasting of it'. Paul's boasting in his heavenly vision and miraculous signs was not 'foolishness' because they were true (2 Cor 12:6a, llb-12; cf. 10:8, 13-18; 11:5, 10). But the adulation of the interlopers by the Corinthians drove Paul to 'play the fool' (2 Cor 12:1 a; cf. 1 Cor 4:10a). Thus Paul exalts 'weakness in Christ' as the true locus for an epiphany of divine power (2 Cor 12:9-10; 13:3-4, 9) and elevates 'foolishness in Christ' as the source of all wisdom (2 Cor 10:3-5; 11:6a; cf. 11:1, 16-17, 19, 21b; 12:11a; cf. 1 Cor 1:18, 2127, 30). Finally, the momentum of Paul's apologia in 2 Cor 11:22-12:10 is robbed of any laudatory impact by the apostle's repeated disavowal of boasting (2 Cor 11:16-18, 21b, 23a, 30; 12:la, 5b), notwithstanding the fact that Paul here adopts a conventional rhetorical topos (B.K. Peterson, op. cit., 113-114). Moreover, the rhetorical use of anticlimax in 2 Cor 11:30-32 and 12:4b (J.A. Loubser, ibid., 193, 195) deflates any expectation of personal boldness (2 Cor 10:1Ob)or a grandiose revelation on the part of the apostle (12:1b). In sum, Paul spoofs his opponents' boastful appeal to mystic-apocalyptic experience 'by introducing the critique of weakness, of the cross' (J.A. Loubser, ibid., 198). '00 P. Barnett (op. cit., 563) speaks of the irony of a 'revelationless vision' as regards 2 Cor 2:2-4.
54
J.R. HARRISON
4:9-10). Nonetheless, God's imposition of suffering results in the apostle humbly learning to boast in his weakness (2 Cor 12:5b, 6b, 7b, 9b). Above all, he experiences the total sufficiency of divine grace, because Christ's resurrectionpower is mediated in weakness (2 Cor 12:9-10). Fourth, the divine comedy of 2 Corinthians12:1-10 is intended to accentuate God's sovereignty and transcendence. God catches the apostle up into Paradise (2 Cor 12:2); God alone knows Paul's bodily state during ascent (12:2, 3); God gives him the thorn in the flesh (12:7); the risen Christ answers prayer as He sees fit, preferring to unveil His power in weakness (12:8-9). The ironic contrast between the weak and foolish apostle whom God commends (2 Cor 10:13-18) and the super apostles who commend themselves (10:12) could not be more stark. This portrait of a powerless and humiliated apostle is not easily reconciled with the apostolic hero of the later Christianand gnostic apocalypses. Indeed, it is very likely that the premier apocalyptictheologian of the early churchwould have rejectedmuch of the Christianapocalypticismof late antiquity. Furthermore,he would have been uneasy about the supercessionist of Paul is representaApocalypse theology of its proponents, if the Christian tive. While Paul assertsthatJudaism finds its fulfilmentand transformation through the work of the risen Christ and the Spirit,?10he still affirms the continuing validity of the promises made to Israel (Rom 1:16; 3:1-4; 9:45; 11:28b-29a)and his own Jewishness (Rom 9:3; 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Gal 1:13-14; Phil 3:5). He encourages Gentile believers to remain humble because God had mercifullygrafted them into Israel (Rom 11:18-22, 25a; Eph 2:12-13) and would restore Israel at the eschaton as a sign of His faithfulnessto the covenantal promises (Rom 11:11-12, 25b, 28-32). On that occasion, the reigning Messiah would come from the heavenly Zion and turn away the godlessness from Jacob by saving 'all Israel' in a glo101On the fulfilment and transformation of Judaism, see Paul's references to the 'Shekinah' glory (1 Cor 2:18; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4, 6); Israel (Gal 6:16); Abraham (Rom 4:1-2, 9-25; Gal 3:14), Moses (Rom 10:5-12; 2 Cor 3:3, 7-18), and David (Rom 4:68); the fulfiment of patriarchal promises (Rom 15:8-9; 2 Cor 1:20; Gal 3:14); the covenant (2 Cor 3:6); circumcision (Rom 2:28-29; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11-12); Passover (1 Cor 5:6-8); the Law (Rom 7:6; 8:4; 10:4); the sacrificial cult (Rom 3:24; 12:1); the temple and its priesthood (Rom 15:16; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19); and, finally, gospel 'newness' in a variety of contexts (Rom 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6; 5:17; Gal 6:15. In polemical contexts (e.g. Phil 3:2; Gal 2:4-5, 11-13), however, Paul occasionally speaks in a supercessionist manner about his new identity in Christ (Phil 3:5-11; Gal 2:16). See especially H. Raisanen, Jesus, Paul, and Torah:CollectedEssays (Sheffield 1992), 112-126.
IN QUEST OF THE THIRD HEAVEN
55
rious demonstration of divine grace (Rom 11:25-26). The anti-Semitism which has periodically infected Christian theology should not be traced back to the apostle to the Gentiles. Conclusion The triumphalapocalypticismof orthodox Christiansand sectariangnostics in late antiquity differed markedly to the cruciform a&olcakXtyi; that Paul had earlier sought to impart to his house churches. Paul sought-at the expense of his credentials and credibility-to summon his Corinthian converts back to the gospel of foolishness and weakness displayed on the cross. To this end, Paul played the fool and boasted in his weakness as he served the weak, thereby overturning the icons of Graeco-Roman honorific culture in the process. Humility has been entrenched as a virtue in Western culture ever since. In late antiquity, however, Paul's cruciform anoicakuvtS was progressivelytransformedinto a Christianvision of separation from an evil world-either by subduing the flesh through asceticism, or by escapingthe body throughgnosis and attainingthe heavenliesthrough angelic intermediaries. Paul would have resisted the false dilemma. For him, the earthen vessels of believers are fragile:but inside lies treasureand ahead the resurrectionglory to come. School of Theology, Wesley Institute, Sydney
THE GOOD SAMARITAN IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY BY
RIEMER ROUKEMA ABSTRACT: For modem
readersthe parableof the Good Samaritanclearly has an ethicalmeaning.Althoughin ancientChristianity this tenorwas not the Samaritan fullyneglected,the parablewas usuallyinterpreted allegorically, seen as Christ the Saviour of who had been robbed sinners, being by the devil. The presentarticlegives a surveyof the variousinterpretations and elaborationsof Irenaeus,Clementof Alexandria,an anonymouspresbyter, the Gospelof Philip,Ambrose,Augustine, Origen,GregoryThaumaturgus, and Ephremthe Syrian.It concludeswith some remarkson Christiancharity in the firstcenturiesC.E. whichmayin parthaveprovidedthe hermeneutical context of the allegorizationof the parable.It is arguedthat before Christianswere readyto identifythemselveswith the Samaritan,they first, before their conversion,had identifiedthemselveswith the woundedman helpedby the Samaritan,who was represented by otherChristians. In present-day commentaries on the Gospel of Luke it is taken for granted that Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan has an ethical meaning. According to Luke, Jesus told this story in reaction to a lawyer who pretended not to know who was the neighbour he had to love (Lk 10,2529). In fact, the lawyer's question 'Who is my neighbour?'meant: 'Whom do I have to love?' Jesus answered by telling a story about a man who had been robbed and left half-dead on his way fromJerusalem to Jericho and who, after being neglected by a priest and a Levite, was helped by a Samaritan who brought him to an inn (Lk 10,30-35). As a conclusion, Jesus confronted the lawyer with another perspectiveof the question about the neighbour by asking the counter-questionwhich of these three had been a neighbour to the victim, in other words: 'Who loved him?' The lawyer's recognition that the one who had shown mercy on the robbed man was the one who had loved him, elicitedJesus' answer: 'Go and do likewise' (Lk 10,36-37). The ethical purport is clear indeed.' Apart from 1 See, for
to Luke(X-XXIV),AncB 28A example,J.A. Fitzmyer,The Gospelaccording II, HThK 11,2 (New York etc. 1985), 882-885; H. Schurmann,Das Lukasevangelium ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 56-74
THE GOOD SAMARITANIN ANCIENTCHRISTIANITY
57
that, Jiilicher and Bultmann may be right that it was Luke who skilfully connected Jesus' story to the lawyer's question.2 In ancient Christianity,however, this parable was often interpretedallegorically, in the sense that Jerusalem stood for paradise and Jericho for the world into which man had fallen by the agency of the demons, whereas the Samaritan represented Christ. Although Jiilicher considered the allegorical interpretationas 'tasteless',3this did not prevent Barth, Danielou, and Gerhardssonto maintain at least the interpretationof the Samaritan as Christ.4Danielou even supposed that the allegorization of the parable dates back to the earliestJewish-Christiancommunity. This paper examines the different interpretations,and thus allegorizations, of the parable in the first centuries, and concludes with a hermeneutical evaluation.5 Marcion It is doubtfulwhether Marcion included the parable of the Good Samaritan in his Gospel. Tertullian'sfourth book against Marcion does contain Jesus' discussionwith the lawyer, but not the parable.6Likewise,other witnesses of Marcion's Gospel do not refer to the Good Samaritan either.7 However, the BritishMuseumpreservesa Syriacmanuscriptfrom the seventh century (cod. Add. 17215 fol. 30), which says in the name of Marcion that: Our Lordwas not bornfroma woman,but stolethe domainof the Creator and camedownandappearedfor the firsttimebetweenJerusalemandJericho, like a humanbeingin formand imageand likeness,but withoutour body.8 nachLukas(Lk9,51-14,35), (Freiburg/Basel/Wien1994), 148; F. Bovon, Das Evangelium EKKNT 111,2(Ziirich/Diisseldorf1996), 98-99. 2 A.Jiilicher,Die Gleichnisreden JesuII (Tiibingen21910),596; R. Bultmann,Die Geschichte Tradition dersynoptischen (Gottingen81970), 192. 3 586. Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden, 4 K. Barth,Die kirchliche 1,2 (ZollikonZurich 1945), 462; ibidemIII,2(1948), Dogmatik rediges 250; ibidemIV,1 (1953), 115;J. Danielou, 'Le Bon Samaritain',MilangesBibliques deAndriRobert(Paris 1955), 457-465; B. Gerhardsson,TheGoodSamaritanen l'honneur TheGoodShepherd? (Lund/Copenhagen1958). 5 Anotherversionof this paper appearedas 'De barmhartigeSamaritaanin de oude en hun Schrift.Een kerk', in C. Houtman, LJ. LietaertPeerbolte(eds),Joden,christenen van C.J. denHeyer(Baarn2001), 59-73. bundelopstellen bj hetafscheid aangeboden 6
Tertullian, ContraMarcionemIV,25,15-18 (SC 456).
Gott(Leipzig21924,Darmstadt Das Evangelium vomfremden A. von Harack, Marcion. 1985), 206*. 8 Th. Zahn, 'Ein verkanntesFragment von Marcions Antithesen',NeueKirchliche 21 (1910), 371-377; Harack, Marcion,362*. Zeitschrft 7
58
RIEMER ROUKEMA
Most probably this text alludes to the allegory according to which it was essentially Christ who, disguised as the Samaritan, appeared on the way fromJerusalem to Jericho. The docetic view on the Lord's body manifested in this fragment was indeed shared by Marcion. If he really wrote this text, for example in his Antitheses, this would imply that Marcion made use of the story of the Good Samaritan and that, as a consequence, he included it in his Gospel. The scholars who have studied this text, however, do not agree about the reliability of this testimony. Zahn and Monselewskiaccepted the tradition ascribed to Marcion as authentic, but Orbe and Sfameni Gasparro rejected it.9 Orbe points to the fact that according to Marcion, Christ came down from heaven to Capernaum in the fifteenth year of the emperor Tiberius (cf. Lk 3,1; 4,31).10This does not square with the Syriac fragment, which says that the Lord appeared for the first time betweenJerusalem andJericho. Moreover, Orbe correctly states that anti-marcionitetendencies in the patristic interpretationof the parable of the Good Samaritan do not inevitably lead to the conclusion that Marcion had included this story in his Gospel. In addition to this, Marcion rejected the allegorical interpretationof Scripture." So it seems preferableto conclude that this late Syriac fragment should not be attributed to Marcion himself in contradictionto the older tradition. Irenaeusof Lyons In his five books AgainsttheHeresies,Irenaeus refers to the story of the Good Samaritan only once.'2 In the chapters that precede this reference, he discusses the gnostic view on the Spirit whom, according to the four gospels,Jesus had received after his baptism in the riverJordan. Irenaeus makes mention of the gnostic teaching that at that moment the heavenly Christ had descended, in the shape of a dove, on the man Jesus, and that 9 Zahn, Fragment,371-377; W. Monselewski,Der barmherzige Samariter. Eine auslezu Lukas10,25-37 (Tubingen 1967), 18-21; A. Orbe, Pardbolas gungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung Evangelicasen San IreneoI (Madrid 1972), 105-108; G. Sfameni Gasparro, 'Variazioni
esegetichesulla paraboladel buon Samaritano:dal "Presbitero"di Origene ai dualisti medievali',in E. Livrea, G.A. Privitera(eds.), Studiin onoredi A. ArdizzoniII (Roma 1978),951-1012 (966-968).See also H. von Soden'scriticalremarkin 'A. von Hamacks Marcion', Zeitschrif 40, NF 3 (1922), 191-206 (199). ftir Kirchengeschichte '0 See Hamack, Marcion, 184*. " See E.C. Blackman, Marcionand his Influence(London 1948), 114-117. 12 AdversusHaereses111,17,3 (SC 211); see Orbe, Partbolas, 123-137.
THE GOOD SAMARITAN IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY
59
this Christ had revealed the unnameable Father to Jesus. In the gnostic view, Christ who descended upon Jesus was not a real human being, which implies that he had not really suffered.13Irenaeus argues, on the ground of the four gospels and of the epistles of Paul, that Jesus and Christ may not be distinguishedin this way since they are one and the same person, upon whom descended the Spirit, who figured so often in the Old Testament.'4Thus he contests the gnostic theology according to which the Old Testament was supposed to testify to a lesser God. With regard to the Spirit he says that the Lord gave the same Spirit to the church by sending the Paraclete,'5so that mankind would not only have an accuser, to wit the devil, but also an advocate. He continues by saying: That the Lord commendsto the holy Spirithis own man, who had fallen and boundup his wounds, amongrobbers,whomhe himselfcompassionated, so that two we, receivingby the Spiritthe image and royaldenarii; giving the Father and the of Son, mightcausethe denariusentrustedto inscription us to be fruitful,countingout the increaseof it to the Lord.'6 In this text Irenaeus apparently refers to the Good Samaritan, whom he interprets as the Lord, Jesus Christ. The wounded man is mankind fallen prey to the robbers,who stand for the devil. Irenaeus highlightsthat the Lord had mercy on man and entrusted him to the Spirit, who takes the place of the innkeeper of the gospel story. Alluding to Matthew 22,20, Irenaeusinterpretsthe two coins as the image and inscriptionof the Father and the Son, which man receives by the Spirit. Thus he points on the one hand to the restored image and likeness of God in which mankind had originallybeen created (Gen 1,26);17on the other hand he emphasizes the unity of the Father, who is the God of the Old Testament, and the Son Jesus Christ, of whom the gnostics said that he had been sent by a higher God. It is remarkablethat, perhaps in order to stress even more the unity
13 AdversusHaereses111,16,1 (SC 211); cf. 1,7,2; 1,26,1; 1,30,12 (SC 264) and Mt 3,1617 with parallels. 14AdversusHaereses 111,16,1-17,3 (SC 211). '5 John 14,16; 14,26; 15,26; 16,7. 16AdversusHaereses 111,17,3 (SC 211); for the translation, cf A. Roberts, W.H. Rambaut, The Writingsof IrenaeusI, ANCL 5 (Edinburgh 1868). 17 See AdversusHaereses111,18,1 (SC 211); cf IV,38,4 (SC 100); V,2,1; V,12,4; V,21,2; V,36,3 (SC 153). Sometimes Irenaeus distinguishes between God's image, which he considers as man's free will and which has not been lost in his fall, and God's likeness, which has been lost but which is restored by the Spirit and the Logos: AdversusHaereses
V,6,1; V,16,1-2 (SC 153).
60
RIEMER ROUKEMA
of the Father and the Son, Irenaeusfuses together the two denarii into one; but also that in his descriptionthis denarius is entrustedto 'us', the Christians, and not to the Spirit, who stands for the innkeeper. Since Irenaeus continues by speaking about bearing fruit and paying out the increase to the Lord, it appears that his association has shifted to the parable of the talents (Mt 25,14-30). Moreover, he may also have been influenced by the one denarius of the parable of the labourersin the vineyard (Mt 20,9)."8 The fact that Irenaeus refers to the story of the Good Samaritan only in passing, without accounting for its allegoricalinterpretation,implies that he considersit as self-evident.According to this interpretationthe wounded man is mankind in general, who by the agency of the devil lost its original image and likeness of God, and received it back thanks to the compassion of the Lord, Jesus Christ. The two denarii are considered as the image and inscription of the Father and the Son, and the innkeeper as the Spirit, to whom Christ entrusted the saved human beings. Clement of Alexandria In his treatiseon the rich man from Mark 10,17-22 Clementof Alexandria also deals with the Good Samaritan.'9With regard to the question about the love of God and one's neighbour, Clement's wording of the lawyer's question in Luke 10,29 reads: 'Who is a neighbour?' Paraphrasingthe parable of the Good Samaritan,Clement explains thatJesus did not define the neighbour in terms of blood relationship,or fellow-citizens,or proselytes, or the circumcised, as the Jews did. He emphasizes that, in contradistinctionto the priest and the Levite, the Samaritandid not pass along 'by chance' (Lk 10,31), since he was equipped with wine, oil, bandages, a beast, and payment for the innkeeper. In this initial exposition Clement highlights the ethical purport of the story. But immediately after that, he says about the neighbour of this parable: And who else can this be but the Saviour himself? Or who more than he has pitied us, who have been almost done to death by the world-rulersof the darknesswith these many wounds-with fears, lusts, wraths, griefs, deceits and pleasures?Of these wounds Jesus is the only healer, by cutting out the passions absolutely and from the very root. He does not deal with the bare results, the fruits of bad plants, as the law did, but brings his axe to the roots of evil. This is he who poured over our wounded souls the wine, the blood 18
Orbe, Parabolas,142.
19 Quis divessalvetur28-29 (LCL 92); cf. Orbe, Pardbolas,110-116.
THE GOOD SAMARITAN IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY
61
of David'svine; this is he who has broughtand is lavishingon us the oil, the oil of pity from the Father'sheart;this is he who has shown us the unbreakablebandsof healthand salvation,love, faith and hope; this is he who has orderedangelsand principalities and powersto serveus for great reward,becausethey too shallbe freedfromthe vanityof the worldat the revelationof the gloryof the sonsof God.Him thereforewe mustlove equally with God.20 In this exposition Clement makes it clear that Jesus the Saviour is the neighbour par excellence. Whereas Jesus' question in Luke 10,36, 'Who has been a neighbour?',amountsto the question:'Who has loved?',Clement here emphasizes that we must love this neighbour, Christ, as we must love God. This means that he aligns his interpretationwith the perspective of the lawyer who asked: 'Who is a neighbour?',in other words: 'Whom do I have to love?' In order to underline his assumptionthat because of their love for Christ, Christianswill also love other people who believe in Christ, Clement quotes Matthew 25,34-40, where Christ identifieshimself with the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the prisoner helped by the righteous.21 In Clement's allegoricalinterpretationthe wounded man stands for 'us', that is, mankind which, by the agency of the world-rulersof the darkness (cf. Eph 6,12), has fallen to sinful passions. This designation of the evil powers of the world as 'robbers'also occurs in gnostic texts.22For Clement, the Samaritan is Jesus, whom he calls 'healer' because, in contradistinction to the law of Moses, he removes the passions out of man.23This reference to the law of Moses points to Clement's interpretationof the priest and the Levite. He explains the wine as the blood of David's vine, which calls to mind the wine of the eucharist and Jesus' blood shed for the forgiveness of sins.24The oil, iXatov, is associated with pity or compassion, EkXov(the accusative of eXeoq),which is pronounced similarly.The aim of LCL Quisdivessalvetur 29; translationby G.W. Butterworth,Clement of Alexandria, 92 (Cambridge,Ma/London 1919), 331-333. 20
21
Quis divessaletur 30 (LCL 92).
For example in the Apocyphon of John,Nag Hammadi Codex 11,21,11;111,26,22 (NHMS 33); SophiaofJesus Christ,Nag HammadiCodex II1,101,15;107,15 (NHS 27); e Theodoto Clementof Alexandria,Excerpta 53,1; 72,2 (SC 23). Ecclesiasticalauthorsalso used to representdemons as robbers;see GJ.M. Bartelink,'Les demons comme brig21 (1967), 12-24. ands', VigiliaeChristianae 23 For Jesus as a healer (iartpo), cf. Ignatius,Ad Ephesios7,2; ActaJohannis22; 56; 108 (CCSA 1);ActaThomae10 (ed. Bonnet). 22
24
Cf Didache9,2 and Clement, Paedagogus11,19,3-4; 11,32,2 (SC 108).
62
RIEMER ROUKEMA
healing and salvation is, according to Clement, love, faith, and hope (cf. 1 Cor 13,13). The innkeeper to whom the saved man is entrustedis interpreted as the angels and principalitiesand powers that should serve 'us' (cf. Heb 1,14). We see that, whereas Irenaeus opposed the devil and the holy Spirit,Clement opposesthe world-rulersof the darknessand God'sgood angels. The two denarii he interpretsas the rewardthese angels will receive for their service, which means that, like mankind, they will share in the eventual deliverance from the vanity of the world (cf. Rom 8,19-21). Although Clement's allegoricalinterpretationof the parable of the Good Samaritan deviates from Irenaeus' in various respects, one may conclude that there is an agreement between the two in that essentially the story deals with salvation that Christ offered to fallen mankind. A presbyter quotedby Origen In 391-392 Jerome made a Latin translationof 39 of Origen's Homilies on the Gospelof Luke,which Origen had delivered in 233-234 in Caesarea. In his homily on the parable of the Good Samaritan, he quotes an interpretation which he ascribes to 'one of the presbyters'.Orbe was right in saying that it is impossible to establish the identity or provenance of this presbyter,so we have to content ourselveswith the conclusion that he preceded Origen and probably lived in the second century.25Origen quotes his interpretationas follows: The man who was going down is Adam,Jerusalemis paradise,Jerichothe world,the robbersare the hostilepowers,the priestis the law, the Levite representsthe prophets,the Samaritanis Christ,the woundsrepresentdisobedience,the beast the Lord'sbody, the inn shouldbe interpretedas the the two denarii church,sinceit acceptsall thatwishto comein. Furthermore, are to be understoodas the Fatherand the Son, the innkeeperas the chairman of the church,who is in charge of its supervision.The Samaritan's promiseto returnpointsto the secondcomingof the Saviour.6 It appears that some elements correspond with the interpretationsof Irenaeus and of Clement, but that other parts of this allegorization are new, like the explicit explanations of Jerusalem, Jericho, the priest, the Levite, the beast, the inn, and the return of the Samaritan.The innkeeper does not representthe Spirit, as for Irenaeus,or the angels, as for Clement, 25 Orbe, Parabolas,137-139. Origen, Horn. in Lucam34,3 (GCS 49; SC 87); cf. Orbe, Pardbolas,116-119.
26
THE GOOD SAMARITAN IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY
63
but the chairman of the Christian church. It is striking that the oil and the wine are not interpreted at all; this may be an omission of the translator. The interpretationof the Samaritanas Christ appears to be an abiding feature. For the first time we read that the wounded man represents Adam who leaves paradise, but basically this explanation correspondswith Irenaeus, who spoke about mankind having fallen prey to the devil (cf. Gen 3), and with Clement, who spoke about 'us'. Origen'shomily In his homily, Origen first pays attention to the obvious sense of the pericope, that it deals with love towards God and one's neighbour. He says that the robbed man had been a neighbour only for the one who was willing to keep the commandments and to be neighbour for everybody who is in need of help. Thus, Origen underscoresJesus' injunction: 'Go and do likewise'.27 Next, Origen quotes the above-mentioned interpretation of the presbyter. He says that for the most part he agrees with it, but he denies that everyhuman being goes down from Jerusalem to Jericho.28We may infer that, without saying so explicitly, Origen, as a Platonist, supposes that this descent to the earth refers to the fall of the pre-existent rational creatures from heaven. In his view, not each rational creature had descended to the on the Gospel earth because of his own sin; for example, in his Commentary the an considers as incarnated of John Origen John Baptist angel sent to the earth in order to bear witness to the light (Jn 1,6).29We may assume that, by way of precaution, Origen does not speak overtly about these things in his homily, in order to prevent misunderstandingson the side of It is also the simple believers and criticism on the side of his adversaries.30 possible that Jerome omitted some elements from Origen's text. In the text as we have it Origen emphasizes that the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho deliberatelywanted to go down, that is, as we may deduce, to the earth. Origen does not account for this element of his interpretation,but for other elements he quotes several texts from 27
Horn. in Lucam34,1-2. Hom. in Lucam34,4-9; cf. Orbe, Parabolas,119-123; Sfameni Gasparro, Variazioni, 962-966. 29 Comm.in Johannem11,175-192 (SC 120); cf. Orbe, 120. Jacob is another example of an incarnated angel; see Origen, Philocalia23,19 (Comm.in Genesin111,19; SC 226). 30 12,4 (SC 7b"). Cf Hom.in Genesin 28
64
RIEMER ROUKEMA
Scripture.For the robbers-the hostile powers-, he refers to the 'thieves and robbers'who, according to John 10,8, came beforeJesus. The wounds they inflicted are faults and sins. The priest stands for the law, the Levite for the prophets. Origen explains that they may have done good things for other people, but not for this man who went down to Jericho. The element that the priest and the Levite passed by the victim makes Origen conclude that Providence apparently wanted to entrust him to someone who is stronger than the law and the prophets, that is, to the Samaritan whose name means 'custodian'.About this custodian Origen reads in Psalm 120,4 (LXX): 'The guardian of Israel will neither slumber nor sleep'. This Samaritanhas descended in order to save mankind who was bound to die. Origen finds confirmationof this identificationof the Samaritanwith Jesus in John 8,48, where Jesus is called a Samaritan and is said to have a demon; he points to the fact that Jesus denies having a demon, but not that he is a Samaritan.31It appears that Origen related the designation 'Samaritan' (somronin Hebrew) to the participle somer, 'guardian', of the Hebrew text of Psalm 121,4.32 Taking up an element of Clement'sfirst expositionof the parable, Origen says that the Samaritan did not go down 'by chance', like the priest and the Levite (Lk 10,31-32), but that he had been sent by God's providence, since he had bandages, oil, and wine with him. As a contrast he quotes Isaiah 1,6b (LXX): 'There is neither an emollient to apply, nor oil, nor bandages'. The function of oil is 'to gladden the face with oil' (Ps 103,15 LXX) and, with the wine, to cleanse the wounds. The beast points to the body of this Samaritan, who 'bears our sins and suffers pain for us' (Is 53,4 LXX). He takes the half-dead man to the inn, the church, which accepts all people and does not refuse help to anyone, since Jesus says to all: 'Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest' (Mt 11,28). Origen explains the two silver denarii as the knowledge of the Father and of the Son, and as the insight into the mystery how the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. The denarii are the reward for the innkeeper, who is interpreted as the angel of the church, 31
Cf. Comm.in JohannemXX,316-320 (SC 290). In his Comm.in JohannemXX,321 (SC 290) Origen mentions the Jewish tradition that the Samaritans were called by this name because the king of the Assyrians sent them to the land of Israel in order to serve as guardians after the Israelites had been deported (cf. 2 Kings 17). See, for the relationship between their name and the Hebrew verb snr, M. Kockert, 'Samaria', Theologische Realnzyklopidie29, 744, and F. Dexinger, 'Samaritaner', Theologische 29, 752. Realenzyklopidie 32
THE GOOD SAMARITAN IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY
65
whose task is to take care of the injured man and to heal him. This element of the angel reminds us of Clement, who spoke about 'angels and principalities and powers'; the Apocalypse of John inspired Origen with the idea that each church has an angel.33The return of the Samaritan, which the presbyter had explained as the second coming of the Saviour, is lacking in Origen's interpretation. Origen concludes that this guardian of the souls, who showed his compassion to the wounded man not only in words but also in deeds, has become a neighbour for him, and was closer to him than the law and the prophets. He finishes his homily by exhorting the audience to the imitation of Christ as Paul said: 'Be imitatorsof me, as I am of Christ' (1 Cor 11,1). This means that, according to Origen, each Christian is called to have compassion for those who fell prey to robbers, for Jesus said not so much to the lawyer as to all of us: 'Go and do likewise'. It is noteworthy that Origen does not say that Christians should show compassion only for fallen sinners who had not yet been saved, although he would certainly maintain the spiritual aspect of his application.34One may conclude that his final appeal deals both with the primary and the spiritual meaning of the parable. Origen'sotherworks Sometimes Origen's referencesand allusions to the parable of the Good Samaritanin his other works deviate from his interpretationin the abovementioned homily. He identifies the wounded man with Adam who has been driven away from paradise in order to live in exile in this world,35 and whose situation applies to 'us'.36In his Commentagy on the Epistl to the Romans(of c. 246) Origen suggests that the innkeeper stands for Paul, or for everyone who is in charge of the church. Although we depend here on the abridged and free Latin translationof Rufinus (of c. 405 C.E.), it is quite possible that this new element originatesfrom Origen himself, since it also occurs in Ambrose's interpretationof the Gospel of Luke (of 380 33
Apocalypse2-3; see Origen, De Princpiis1,8,1 (ed. Gorgemanns/Karpp);Horn.in Jumeros11,4,5 (SC 442); Horn.in Lucam23,8 (SC 87); Comm.in Johannem X,269 (SC 31,5 (GCS 2) and C. Blanc, 'L'anglologie d'Origene',StudiaPatristica 157);De Oratione 14 (1976), 79-109 (102). 34 See Contra Celsmn111,61,which will be discussedin the next section. 35 36
Horn. in Jesu Nave 6,4 (SC 71); cf Comm.in MatthaewnXVI,9 (GCS X). Comm.in CanticumI prol. 2,30 (SC 375); Comm.in RomanosIX,31 (AGLB 34).
66
RIEMER ROUKEMA
C.E.), which is clearly inspired by Origen's. Likewise, the interpretationof the two denarii as the old and the new covenant, which occurs both in Rufinus'version of Origen's Commentary on Romansand in Ambrose's Treatise on the Gospelof Luke,most probably goes back to Origen himself, even though it does not appear in Jerome's translationof the latter's homily on Luke 10,25-37.37Theoretically it is also possible that in these instances Rufinus drew on Ambrose, but since he was making an abridged translation of Origen's Commentary this is far less probable. In his apology AgainstCelsusOrigen points to the Christianvocation 'to bind up others' wounds by the Word, and to pour the medicines of the Word upon the soul festering with evils, like the wine, oil, and emollient, and the other medicinal aids which relieve the soul'.38Here Origen applies Jesus' injunction in Luke 10,37 with regard to the spiritual help that Christians are supposed to offer to those who do not know the Word, which is Christ or the gospel. Furthermore,there is a fragment from the catenae which is ascribed to Origen and which does indeed show the characteristicsof his interpretation.39Yet it is not clear whether the complete text goes back to Origen himself; it may be that later Origenists elaborated on his interpretation.40 This fragment confirms that the parable is about Adam, or mankind in general, about his pre-existentlife and his descent to the world because of his disobedience. As a new element, the fact that the robbers stripped his cloths is interpreted with regard to 'the stripping of incorruptibilityand immortality and the loss of all the virtues'. That the man was left halfdead would mean that death had proceeded to half of his nature, since the soul is immortal. The innkeeperis interpretedas the apostles and their successors,to wit the bishops and teachers of the church,41or as the angels who are in charge of the church. For the two denarii three interpretations
37 Comm.in RomanosIX,31 (AGLB 34); Ambrose, Tractatusin LucamVII,80-82 (SC 52). 38
ContraCelsum111,61 (SC 136); for the translation, cfJ H. Chadwick, Origen:Contra Celsum(Cambridge 1980), 169-170. 39 Ed. M. Rauer the relatedtext on 297.
(GCS 49), 296; cf.
p.
40 Rauer, op. cit., viii, assumes that, in spite of the catenist's careless attribution of the fragments to the respective authors, it is rather rare that a scholion which does not originate from Origen is ascribed to him, since it was preferred to conceal his name, in order to avoid a conflict with the orthodox Church. 41 J.H. des Origenes, BBK 4 (Koln/Wien 1974), 22-23, doubts Vogt, Das Kirchenrerstindnis whether this view of the bishops goes back to Origen himself.
THE GOOD SAMARITAN IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY
67
are given: the old and the new covenant, or love towards God and the neighbour, or knowledge of the Father and the Son. The return of the Samaritan is considered as the second coming of Christ. Gregory Thaumaturgus A creative echo of Origen's interpretationof the parable of the Good Samaritancan be heard in Gregory Thaumaturgus'Addressto Origen,delivered at the end of his studies in Caesarea. Since time had come to leave, Gregory compares his studies under Origen's guidance with paradise, from which he is being removed like a second Adam.42However, alluding to Origen's emphasis on man's free will he declares, with a good sense of humour, that he does not leave this paradise unvoluntarilybut voluntarily. He feels as if he departs from a safe and peaceful city and says he is aware that the journey may be dangerous and that he might come across robbers who will seize, strip, and beat him, so that he will be left halfdead. Yet Gregory intends not to complain, since he knows about the Saviour of all, who is the protector and healer of all those who are halfdead since they have been robbed. He is called the Logos, the watchful guardian of all people.43 Although it would not be wrong to conclude that even after graduation young theologians may fall prey to demons, it seems wiser not to deduce too much from this playful element of the eulogy. In any case it demonstrates that the allegorical interpretationof the parable could be used on several occasions and for several purposes. The Gospel according to Philip to Philipsays, after an exposition on The third century Gospelaccording the gnosisof truth that inspires one to love those who are not yet able to attain to spiritualfreedom: Spirituallove is wine and fragrance.All thosewho anointthemselveswith it takepleasurein it. While thosewho are anointedare present,those nearby also profit (fromthe fragrance).If those anointedwith ointmentwithdraw fromthem and leave,then thosenot anointedwho merelystandnearby,still
42
43
Panegricusad Origenem16,184-185 (SC 148). Panegyniusad Orgenem17,198-200.
68
RIEMER ROUKEMA
remainin theirbad odour.The Samaritangave nothingbut wine and oil to the woundedman.It is nothingotherthanthe ointment.It healedthe wounds, for love coversa multitudeof sins.44 The Samaritan appears to be the model of the advanced or gnostic Christians who should lovingly care for the simple believers by offering them their spiritual love inspired by gnosis,which is allegoricallydepicted as wine and fragrance, and as oil and ointment. The wounded believers who lack gnosisand spiritual freedom seem to stink figurativelybut perhaps even literallyin comparisonwith the anointed Christians.45It appears to be the latters' task to share their own spiritual ointment with the former. Although the wine of Luke 10,34 is mentioned twice, it does not receive a distinct allegorical interpretation;together with the oil, the wine is allegorically explained as the healing ointment with gnosisand as love that covers a multitudeof sins (cf. 1 Peter 4,8). This implies that the wounds of the victim are allegoricallyinterpreted as his sins. It is not said explicitly that the Samaritan also represents Christ, but this interpretation is not to be excluded.46 In that case the advanced Christians should behave according to the example of Christ who came to anoint wounded mankind with gnosisand love. However, the wounded man, his wounds and the wine and the oil are the only elements of the parable that are undisputablyapplied allegorically. This interpretationreminds one of Origen's remarkin his apology Contra Celsum,that Christiansshould take care of the wounds of other people, by pouring the medicines of the Word upon their souls. Yet the difference is that Origen speaks about the attitude of Christianstowards those who do not yet know the Word, whereas the Gospelaccording to Philipsuggests that the advanced or gnostic Christiansshould love the simple, deficient believers of their own community.47 44
to Philip(Nag Hammadi Codex 11,3),77,35-78,11;translationby Gospelaccording B. Layton,NagHammadi Codex11,2-7,NHS 20 (Leiden1989), 199; countedas fragment 111 by H.M. Schenke,Das Philippus-Evangelium 11,3).Neuherausgegeben, (Nag-Hammadi-Codex iibersetztund erkldrt,TU 143 (Berlin 1997), 478-480. 45 Cf my interpretationin 'Gnosis in het Evangelie volgens Filippus',in R. Roukema (ed.),
Het andere christendom. De gnosisen haargeestoerwanten (Zoetermeer2000), 13-31 (22-24). 46
See Orbe, ParAbolas,108-109. In addition to this sole witness of gnostic exegesis of the parable, one may point to the medieval Cathars, who shared Origen's view that Jesus spoke about Adam's fall from heavenly Jerusalem; their interpretation is expounded by Monselewski, Samariter, 21-27 and by Sfameni Gasparro, Variazioni, 951-958; 979. However, Monselewski, Samariter,49-51, suggests that the Cathar interpretation goes back to the early gnostics, 47
THE GOOD SAMARITANIN ANCIENTCHRISTIANITY
69
Ambrose In a foregoing section it was already noticed that Ambrose's Treatiseon the Gospelof Lukeis clearly inspired by Origen. However, this is not true for his explanationof the literal sense, which he calls simplicishistoriaueritatis. This section does not deal with the lawyer's question who is the neighbour he has to love, but contains an expositiononJericho in the time ofJoshua.48 In his allegorical interpretationAmbrose notes that Adam went down because from heavenly Jerusalem, or paradise, to the underworld (inferna) is not to descent be understood of his own fault, but he explains that this as a change of Adam's local position, but as a change of his conduct. This means that Ambrose hesitates to adopt Origen's Platonic interpretation with regard to the fall of pre-existent rational creatures from heaven. He points to the fact that Adam met the robbers ('the angels of darkness') only after he sinned, and that he would not have met them if he had not transgressedthe heavenly commandment. Thus Ambrose underlines that the man's descent from Jerusalem was not the robbers' fault. In his elaboration, which remains close to Origen's exposition, Ambrose reproduces the interpretationof the Samaritan as the guardian, Christ, but he does not refer to Psalm 120,4 LXX, as Origen did in his homily, but to Psalm 114,6 LXX, 'The Lord guards the simple'.49In his conclusion, Ambrose exhorts his readers to love Christ as our neighbour since he healed our wounds, and moreover, to love everyone who imitates Christ by showing compassionfor someone else.50It is remarkablethat in this treatiseAmbrose does not pay any attention to the obvious meaning of the pericope, which holds that the readers or listenersthemselves should act like the Samaritan of the parable. Augustine
Like Ambrose, Augustine draws on Origen's allegoricalinterpretationof the parable of the Good Samaritan, but it is most probable that he first onLake.Sanchis' came to know the allegorizationthroughAmbrose's Treatise and that the Churchadoptedthe early gnosticinterpretationwith regardto Christ,but adapted it in order to combat the gnostics on their own territory.This far-fetched hypothesisis refutedby SfameniGasparro,ibidem. 48 Tractatsin Lucam VII,71-73 (SC 52). 49 Tractatusin LucamVII,73-83. 50
Tractatusin LucamVII,84.
70
RIEMER ROUKEMA
detailed analysis of the numerous texts in which Augustine refers to the parable makes it superfluousto reiterate his survey,51so we will limit ourselves to a passage of De doctrinachristiana and to one of Augustine's sermons, on John 6,54-66. In De doctrinachristiana Augustine makes it clear that we should behave like the Samaritanto everyone who is in need of compassion. He adds to this that we should consider as our neighbour someone who has compassion for us.52It appears that Augustine is fully aware that by means of this parableJesus gave a moral injunction. In his sermon onJohn 6,54-66, which dates from 417, Augustineacknowledges that mankind was created with a free will, but he emphasizes that man lost his free will when he started to sin. After the robbers had left their victim half-dead along the road, he was found by the Samaritan, whose name means guardian; Augustine assumes that this significance is so well known to his audience that it is unnecessary to dwell on it. He interpretsthe oil and wine as the sacramentof baptism, which gives remission of all sins. In reaction to the Pelagian view that after baptism man has got back his free will, Augustine says that the man of the parable first had to recover in the inn, which is the church. This means that during one's earthly life one should be healed in the church before one will enter the kingdom of heaven. Augustine deems it a fatal sign of haughtiness to boast of one's health, as if one's free will was alreadyhealed after baptism.53 From this sermon it is clear how the controversy with the Pelagians inspired Augustine to develop new elements in the allegorical interpretation of the parable. Ephremthe Syrian Up to here our investigation was devoted for the most part to the Alexandrian approach to the parable, which came to light most clearly in the interpretationsof Clement, Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine. As an
51 D. Sanchis, 'Samaritanus ille. L'exegese augustinienne de la parabole du Bon de ScienceRelgieuse49 (1961), 406-425. See also R. Teske, 'The Samaritain', Recherches Good Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37) in Augustine's Exegesis, in F. van Fleteren,J.C. Schnaubelt (eds.), Augustine. Biblical Exegete, New York etc. 2001, 347-367. 52 De doctrinachristianaI, 80/31 [67-68] (ed. R.P.H. Green); this book dates to 397
C.E. 53 Sermo131,6 (PL 38); for the date, see Sanchis,Samaritanus,422.
THE GOOD SAMARITAN IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY
71
example of Antiocheneexegesiswe will pay attentionto Ephrem'sCommentary on theDiatessaron, which dates from 363-373 C.E. With regardto the two commandments(Lk 10,27),Ephremfirstexpounds that God himself, by his descent from heaven, made it possible for us to love God and our neighbour. Then Ephrem explains that the wounded man of Jesus' parable must have been a Jew, since otherwise the story would miss the point. For if the wounded man had been a gentile, this would not have changed anything for the Samaritan, because, being an enemy of Jews, 'the Samaritan is an enemy of the gentiles as well'. But had the wounded man been a gentile, then the priest and the Levite would be justified to pass by, 'forJews had no compassion for gentiles', whereas now they are covered with shame because they neglected a fellow-Jew. Ephrem concludes that the Lord did justice to the Samaritan,who did not behave like the others who did not show compassion, and that for Christ the term 'neighbour' is not limited to one's compatriots.54 In comparison with the Alexandrian exegesis the lack of allegorization in this exposition is striking.However, in Ephrem's Hymnson the Churchhe appears to apply the r6le of the Samaritan to Jesus, when he praises the One who bent down to the wounded one, and whose mercy bound it with wine and oil.55 Still, in contradistinctionto the Alexandrian interpretation Ephrem does not have a detailed allegorization. The contextof the allegorization Although the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, and even of the parables of Jesus, occurs already in the New Testament,56there is no hint whatsoever that Luke understood the parable of the Good Samaritan as an allegory of Christ's salvation of lost sinners, let alone that Jesus himself intended to speak allegoricallyabout his own activity. Since Irenaeus proposed his allegorical interpretationwithout accounting for it as something new, the allegorizationof the parable has originated most probably halfwaythrough the second century, or perhaps even earlier.Irenaeuscame 54 XVI,23-24. French translations in L. Leloir, SaintEphrem. Commentayon theDiatessaron Commentaire de l'lJvangileconcordant.Versionarminienne,CSCO 145 (Louvain 1945) and ou Diatessaron.Traduitdu syriade l'tlvangileconcordant L. Leloir, tphremde Jtsibe. Commentaire que et de l'arninien,SC 121 (Paris 1966). 55 Hymnide Ecclesia33,3 (CSCO 198-199). See K.A. Valavanolickal, The Use of theGospel Parablesin the Writingsof Aphrahatand Ephrem(Frankfurt am Main etc. 1995), 248-252. 56 For example in Mt 13,36-43; Mk 4,14-20; 1 Cor 9,9-10; Gal 4,21-31.
72
RIEMER ROUKEMA
from Smyrna and worked in Lyons, so it seems that the allegorizationdoes not have an Alexandrianorigin. Although it proves impossible to establish the provenance of the presbyterquoted by Origen, one may suppose that his allegorizationof the parable is related to Irenaeus' source. Most ancient Christian authors give a specific twist to their interpretation of the parable in order to insert it into a broader argumentation. Irenaeus quotes it in his refutation of the gnostics in order to show that the Spirit of the Old Testament is the same as the Spirit who descended upon Jesus at his baptism. Clement quotes the parable in his argument that rich Christians can be saved. He assumes that someone who loves Christ as his neighbour will also keep his commandments of love, which will lead to salvation. Although in his allegorical interpretationClement seems to limit the neighbour to be loved to other Christians,this impression is removed by his previous statement that Jesus did not define the neighbour in terms of blood relationship,or fellow-citizens,or proselytes, or the circumcised.Origen elaboratesthe allegorizationof the anonymous presbyterwith regard to his own theology of a premundane fall and subsequent salvation by Christ, which he proposes as an alternativeto gnostic theologies. His explanation of the two denarii as the old and the new covenant, by which he emphasizes the unity of both covenants, also has an anti-hereticalemphasis. The Gospelaccording to Philipalludes to the parable in order to stress the responsibilityof the advanced Christianstowards those believers who were supposed to lack the spiritual ointment. In one of our two examples of Augustine's allegoricalinterpretationwe saw how he exploited the parable in his conflict with the Pelagians. Although the specific allegorizationsof all the elements of the parable of the Good Samaritan may be considered as rather far-fetched,the principle of the respectiveinterpretationsis very simple:basically,the Samaritan is Christ the Saviour. Even the Antiochene exegete Ephrem agrees with on this, although he does not mention this interpretationin his Commentamy the Diatessaron. In the brief text of the Gospelaccording to Philipthis interpretation was not given explicitly either, but it need not be excluded. Several expositions made it clear that the allegorical interpretationwas not meant to neglect the injunctionthat Christiansshould love their neighbour, even if this neighbour does not belong to their own group. The sociologist Rodney Stark argues that in the first centuries the propagation of Christianitywas to a considerablepart due to the charity which Christians showed not only to each other but also to non-Christian relatives and
THE GOOD SAMARITAN IN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY
73
acquaintancesin difficulttimes, for example during epidemics.57He shows the plausibilityof this thesis both in an arithmeticaldemonstrationand by referringto written sources, such as one of Dionysius of Alexandria'sPaschal Letters.58 With regard to the parable of the Good Samaritan,we can infer from Stark's argument that the Christians'motivation to love their neighbours was not only the divine commandment that Jesus had given them.59 For many of them, an extra incentive may have been that first they had recognized themselvesin the robbed man who was left half-dead along the road to Jericho. Their bad luck may have been related not only to an epidemic, but also to illness, poverty, or spiritual distress in general. When people who were in need of help came to know Christians who helped them because of their religious motivation and offered them a social network, these people were likely to become Christians as well. This means that, before they were ready to identify themselveswith the Samaritanwho showed his love towards a wounded man, they first had identified themselves with the wounded man helped by the Samaritan, who was represented by other Christians.But who else could this Samaritanbe, for these victims of bad luck in late antiquity,than Christwho inspiredthe Christians to behave in this way?60In this vein Origen writes: 'If we love this neighbour [namely: the Samaritan, Christ], we fulfil the whole law and all the commandments out of love for him'.61 In De doctrinachristiana Augustine argues that love is the purpose of the After referring,among other texts, to the parable of the Good Scriptures.62 Samaritan, he writes:
57
a sociologist R. Stark,TheRiseof Christianit: reconsiders history (Princeton1996), 73-94. Preservedby Eusebius,HistoriaEcclesiastica VII,22 (LCL 265; SC 41). One might also refer to Julian the Emperor,Epistulae 22 (LCL 157; Ep. 84 ed. Bidez),who witnessesto Christiancharitytowardsnon-Christians.Cf also Tertullian,Apologeticum 39,7, who testifiesthat even the Christians'charityamong themselvesgave rise to wonder, as outsiderssaid: 'See how they love one another(and)how they are ready even to die for one another'. 59 Of course,Jesus deducedit from Lev 19,18. 60 For similaridentificationsin LatinAmerica(Solentiname)and in South Africasee L.W.Mazamisa,BeatficComradeship. An exegetical-heeneutical studyonLuke10:25-37(Kampen 1987), 94; 158; 162; 172-173. 61 Comm. in Romanos IX,31 (AGLB34). 62 De doctrina christiana 1,22-40/20-44 [39-95]. 58
74
RIEMER ROUKEMA
So anyone who thinks that he has understood the divine Scripturesor any part of them, but cannot by his understandingbuild up this double love of God and neighbour, has not yet succeeded in understandingthem. Anyone who derives from them an idea which is useful for supporting this love but fails to say what the writer demonstrablymeant in the passage has not made a fatal error, and is certainly not a liar. (...) If, as I began by saying, he is misled by an idea of the kind that builds up love, which is the end of the commandment, he is misled in the same way as a walker who leaves his path by mistake but reaches the destination to which the path leads by going through a field. But he must be put right and shown how it is more useful not to leave the path, in case the habit of deviating should force him to go astray or even adrift.63 Although we cannot expect Augustine to say that an exegesis of Scripture should first of all be historically correct, he appears to be aware of the necessity to faithfully reproduce what the writer demonstrably meant to say. Yet in spite of this awareness, according to his hermeneutics the upbuilding of love is more important than historical correctness. Undoubtedly, however, all the authors of this survey who offered an allegorical interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan were convinced that the spiritual meaning with regard to salvation by Christ revealed the most profound and essential intention of the divinely inspired text. Theologische Universiteit Kampen P.O. Box 5021 NL-8260 GA Kampen
63
De doctrinachristiana1,36/40-41 [86; 88]; translation R.P.H. Green (Oxford 1995).
LITURGICAL COMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS IN THE MISSALE GOTHICUM (VAT.REG.LAT. 317). NEW APPROACHES TO THE LITURGY OF EARLY MEDIEVAL GAUL BY
ELS ROSE SUMMARY: The liturgicaltraditionsof pre-CarolingianGaul are transmittedin a handful of sources from various regions, forming only a fragmentarypicture of the phenomenon. In the past, several scholars have tried to trace back the developmentof 'the Gallicanliturgy'to one particularorigin,for instanceRome, Milan, or 'the East' (Cappadocia,Ephesis).In this article, an attempt is made to outline the diversityof traditionswhich contributedto the Gallican liturgy. In this endeavour, the liturgicalcommemorationof the saints is taken as point of departure. On the basis of one particularsource, the MissaleGothicum (Burgundy, ca 700 AD), the origin of the saints' cults and the way they came to Gaul is presented. By studying the saints and their place in the liturgy, it becomes clear that the liturgy of pre-CarolingianGaul was enriched by the influence of many traditions,both Western and Eastern. Moreover, as regards the local, Gallic saints, it must be stated that there is a strong connection between the liturgical and the hagiographicalveneration of the saints, so that it seems hardly appropriate to consider one of these fields while ignoring the other. 1
Introduction:the Gallican liturgy
The phenomenon called 'Gallican liturgy', which denotes the 'style of worship' in Gaul before the Carolingian era,' is a complicated matter. The liturgy of early medieval Gaul has been transmitted in a handful of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts, of which the origin and destination are often unknown. It is difficult to come to a clear picture of the Gallican liturgy on the basis of this evidence. It is clear that many pieces of the jigsaw are lacking, although it is not always known exactly which pieces these are. The fact that the sources are often difficult to localise and to date leaves large parts of the liturgical map of early medieval Gaul blank. Moreover, An introduction to thesources (Spoleto:1983), 275. liturgy. i Cyril Vogel, Medieval ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
58, 75-97 VgiliaeChristianae
76
ELS ROSE
it is difficult to speak of the Gallican liturgy as a unity. In the absence of a leading ecclesiastical centre in the province of Gaul during the early centuries of Christianity,the freedom of the dioceses was considerable.2In liturgicalmatters,local authorityhad more to say than the provincialcouncils. There was a certain pursuit of unity as far as the ordoof the mass was concerned, but the exact content of the liturgical calendar as well as the choices of prayers and scriptural readings was something decided on by the local bishop.3 As a consequence, there was a good deal of variation from place to place, in particular with regard to the Sanctorale. The student of early medieval Gallican liturgy must, therefore, realize that what is found for one town in Gaul is not necessarilyapplicableto another place. This is even more true with respect to the liturgical veneration of the saints. The cult of the saints is by nature a local event,4 and this is likewise true of the liturgical cult of the saints.5Another important problem is that, even if it is possible to ascribe a certain source to a particular region or even a city at all, the sources do not always provide a definite answer to the question of the type of community in which they were used. Therefore, the character of the community for which a particular source was made often remains wholly or partially in the shadows. It is not only the fragmentarycharacterof the transmissionof the Gallican liturgy which makes this field of study difficult.The approach of the material by historiansof liturgy in the past has not always shed a clearer light on the phenomenon. The wish to lump together the Gallican liturgy and to trace back its development to one particularorigin often dominated the work of liturgical scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.6 Consequently,an inadvertentlyconfinedvision on the Gallicanliturgydeveloped. In this kind of research, the search for uniformity outweighed the endeavourof delineatingthe diversityof the rite. Also, there was one aspect 2 Elie Griffe, La Gaule chretiennea l'epoqueromaine(Paris: 1964-1966), vol. 1, 330; A. Heinz, "Altgallische Liturgie," LexikonffirTheologieundIKirche VI (Freiburg: 1999), 984; Theodorus Vismans, "Oud-gallicaanseliturgie,"Lucas B. Brinkhoff(ed.), LitugischWoordenboek (Roermond: 1965-1968), vol. 2, 2084-2094, here 2085. 3 Yitzhak Hen, "Unity in diversity," in Robert N. Swanson (ed.), Unity and diversity in the Church(Oxford: 1996, Studies in Church History 32), 19-30, here 26-27. 4 Raymond Van Dam, Saints and theirmiraclesin Late AntiqueGaul (Princeton: 1993), 13: 'Cults differed and cults changed over time'. 5 Hen, "Unity in diversity," 24. 6 A clear survey of the various theories is given by Archdale A. King, Liturgies of the past (London: 1959), 78-84; W.S. Porter, The Gallicanrite (London: 1958, Studies in Eucharistic faith and practice 4), 11-18.
LITURGICAL COMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
77
of the liturgy on which this approach focused, the eucharistic liturgy, whereas other components received less attention, such as the liturgicalcalendar and the liturgical commemoration of the saints. In this article, an attempt is made to outline other possible ways of exploring this period in the history of the liturgy. 2
The Missale Gothicum
An excellent example of the way in which the sources of the Gallican liturgy provide some pieces of the jigsaw while, at the same time, leaving or Gothic Missal. a considerable number of gaps is the Missale Gothicum, The Gothic Missal is a sacramentary, written around 700 and handed down under a misleading name. For this book, now preserved in the Vatican Library (Vat.reg.lat.317) is neither a missal nor Gothic. The title was added to the manuscript by a late medieval or even MissaleGothicum post-medieval scribe (f" 1R)who clearly had some difficultiesin classifying this book, so differentwas it from contemporaryliturgicalpractice.Whatever that is, its title, the Gothic Missal belongs to the genre of the sacramentaria, the eucharisticliturgy, a collection of prayers used by the celebrant during and following the entire cycle of the liturgical year. The book must have been written after the death of St Leodegar, bishop of Autun from 663 to his martyr'sdeath in 679/680,7 as a mass is included for his anniversary. Paleographicallyspeaking, the manuscriptcannot have been written much later than the beginning of the eighth century. The script seems to point to Burgundy as the book's region of origin, more particularlyto the school of Luxeuil, with which the manuscriptbears many similarities.8In general, the origin of the manuscriptis dated to between 790 and 810, and ascribed to a scriptoriumin the northeast of Gaul, where the Luxeuil script was current.9 The question as to which church or religiouscommunityused the Gothic Missal as a sacramentaryis less easily solved. In order to find an answer to this question, various scholars have analysed the list of saints venerated 7 Ian Wood, TheMerovingian kingdoms450-751 (London: 1994), 78, 199; G. Bianchi, "La fonte latina del 'Sant Lethgier'," StudiMedievaliSeries III.13 (1972), 701-790, here 703. 8 I: the VaticanCity (Oxford: 1935), 34. Edmund A. Lowe, CodicesLatini antiquiores 9 (London: 1917Henry M. Bannister (ed.), Missale Gothicum.A GallicanSacramentagy 1919, Henry Bradshaw Society 52 and 54), vol. 1, xlvii-lviii; Leo C. Mohlberg, Das gallikanischeSakramentar (Cod. Vatican.Regin. Lat. 317) des VII.-VII. Jahrhunderts(Augsburg: 1929), Textband,100.
78
ELS ROSE
in the Gothic Missal. Most of them chose the church of the Burgundian city of Autun as the most plausible match to the saints occurring in the sacramentary. Both Symphorian and Leodegar, for whose anniversaries masses are included in the Gothic Missal, served this city as bishops. Moreover, churches in Autun were dedicated to several other saints for whose natalea mass is found in the Gothic Missal, such as Stephen and Martin. The only problem as regards the ascription of the Gothic Missal to the church of Autun is the lack of a mass for the nataleof this city's cathedralpatron since 542, St Nazarius.'0Several scholarsin the past proposed a southern destination of the Gothic Missal, such as Mabillon, one of its first editors. In doing so, Mabillon was possibly misled by the manuscript's title, which he connected to the (visi)gothicliturgy of the South of Gaul and the North of Spain.1 From a differentperspective, Germain Morin suggested that the Gothic Missal belonged to the community of monks in Gregorienmiinster,an Alsation monastery. Morin based his proposal on the expressionpatronusnosterby which pope Gregory I is addressed in one of the prayers in his honour included in the station liturgy for the Rogation days, three days of fasting and penitence preceding the feast day of Our Lord's Ascension.'2There are, however, more saints in the Gothic Missal indicated as patronusnoster,and the lack of a special mass in honour of Gregory's nataleseems to weaken Morin's hypothesis. Although the 'Autun-hypothesis'suffers,by lack of mention of St Nazarius'sname, from a similar weakness, there seems to be no decisive need to turn down this proposal sustained by the communisopinio. It must be noted that the ascriptionof the Gothic Missal to 'the church of Autun' does not say anything about the character of the community by which the sacramentarywas used. Nowhere in the manucript are there any clear indications of the kind of community for which the book was destined. Although the significantattention given to the celebrationof baptism during the Easter Vigil seems to point to episcopal use of the book, the assumptionthat the book was used in the environmentof a bishoprather than in a community of monks or nuns cannot be more than a supposition, as the manuscriptitself gives no definite answer to this question. 10
107. Sakramentar, Mohlberg,Das gallikanische vol. 1, lxvi. Bannister,MissaleGothicum, 12 Germain ecclesiMorin, "Surla provenancedu 'MissaleGothicum',"Revued'histoire 37 (1941),24-30. Morinis followedbyJoseph A.Jungmann,Themassof theRoman astique Rite:its originsand development Westminster:1992), 46; (repr./transl.MissarumSollemnia; PierreSalmon, Le lectionnaire de Luxeuil(Rome: 1944), lxxxv.
LITURGICALCOMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
79
As far as content is concerned, the Gothic Missal enables us to get a rather clear picture of the annual cycle of the liturgy in early medieval Gaul. The sacramentaryfollows the circle of the liturgicalyear, startingin the middle of the vigil preceding the celebration of Christ's birth by the feast of Christmas. Christmasmight have been preceded by some Advent masses, but as the first four quires of the manuscriptare lost, this can not be ascertained.'3The vigil and mass of Christmas are followed by the Octave (period of a week following an important liturgicalfeast) of Jesus's birth, filled with feasts in commemorationof several Biblical saints. On the eighth day after Christmas,January 1, Our Lord's Circumcision is celebrated, followed five days later by the feast of Epiphany.Between Epiphany and the beginning of Lent, masses in honour of the Virgin Mary and of the apostles Peter and Paul are included. Also, a series of other saints' masses is included in this part of the manuscript.Lent is introduced by a mass In caputieiunii.After five masses for Lent, Holy Week is started with Palm Sunday. Then follow Holy Thursday (In caenaDomini)and the prayers for Good Friday and Holy Saturday,indicated together as Biduana.During the Easter Vigil, the new Easter candle is brought in and the praise of the reborn Light is sung in the famous Easter hymn Exultet,of which the Gothic Missal provides one of the earliest versions. Subsequently,the candidates are baptized. The resurrectionis celebrated by a mass for each day of Easter Week, which is closed by the mass In clausumPaschae.In the period between Easter and Pentecost, a mass is included for the celebration of the Finding of the True Cross, as well as a mass for the apostle and evangelistJohn. Ascension is preceded, as mentioned previously, by and followed by Pentecost. After Pentecost, again a series of the Rogationes, saints' feast is included. Subsequentlya number of general masses for the commemoration of one martyr or a group of martyrs and one confessor or a group of confessorsis given, followed by six general Sunday masses.
13 The mass for the vigil of Christmas, with which the incomplete manuscript starts, is numbered m by a contemporary scribe. There are, therefore, two mass forms lacking. The four lost quires must have contained more than only (Advent) masses, as one mass form needs an average of one quire. Possibly, some general material was collected at the beginning of the sacramentary, such as the Roman Canon (which is given at the beginning of the Bobbio Missal, a related manuscript of the same period) and perhaps a liturgical Calendar. That the first four quires were lost at an early date is indicated by the 4 in the first folio of the manuscript (fo 1R),which script of the remark desuntquaterniones is of the same date as the hand which wrote down the book's misleading title.
80
ELS ROSE
This overview shows how the masses for the saints' anniversariesare interwoven in the feasts of the annual cycle. Although there is no sepain this type of liturgicalbook, for convenience's sake the sum rate Sanctorale of martyrs' and saints' feasts in the Gothic Missal is termed the book's in this article. The Sanctorale of the Gothic Missal and, more genSanctorale erally, of the Gallican liturgy, is a hitherto largely unexplored field.14Still, the study of this part of liturgical life is extremely important for, at least, two reasons. As was explained above, it is difficultto determine the character of the community in which the Gothic Missal was used as a sacramentary.It is, however, possible to picture an essentialpart of this community's piety by examining the manner in which it commemorated its saints. As was pointed out recently by a number of outstanding scholars, the cult of the saints was an essential part of the religious and social life in the late antique and early medieval period.'5The annual liturgicalcommemoration of the saint's migration from this world was of central importance to the practice of venerating the saints. On this special day, the entire community gathered round the saint's grave or relics and celebrated his or her remembrance.The commemorationof saints brought the faithful together and, thus united, they were reconciled with each other and with God.'6 By studying the liturgical celebration of the saints, one of the cardinal aspects of medieval religious life is brought to attention. In the second place, the liturgicalcult of the saints is a particularlyadequate means to explore the diversiyof the Gallican liturgy. Although several scholarsin the past have tried to pinpoint one particularcity or region as the cradle of this liturgical tradition, it is important to stress the broad variety of influences that have contributedto the richness and diversityof 14 Philipp Harnoncourt & Hansjorg Auf der Maur, Feiernim Rhythmusder Zeit II.1 (Regensburg: 1994, Gottesdienst der Kirche. Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft VI. 1), 197, footnote 87. Auf der Maur mentions two authors who give a summary: King, Liturgiesof thepast, 133-143; id., Liturgiesof theprimatialsees(London: 1957), 68-75; Achille M. Triacca, "Teologia dell'anno liturgico nelle liturgie occidentali antiche non romane," Anamnesis,6 (1988), 311-363, here 340-343. Both summaries are, however, very confined and incomplete. See also Louis van Tongeren, "Transformations of the calendar in the early Middle Ages," Paul Post et al. (eds.), Christianfeastandfestival.The dynamicsof Western liturgyand culture(Leuven: 2001, Liturgia condenda 12), 287-317. 15 Peter Brown, The cult of the saints (Chicago: 1981); id., "The saint as exemplar in Late Antiquity," Representations, 1.2 (1983), 1-25; Raymond Van Dam, Leadership and communityin LateAntiqueGaul (Berkeley: 1985); id., Saintsand theirmiraclesin LateAntiqueGaul (Princeton: 1993). 16 Brown, Cult of the saints, 100.
LITURGICALCOMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
81
the tradition under discussion. This will become clear as we concentrate in this study on the saints as they appear in the Gothic Missal and try to explore the origins of their veneration and liturgical celebration. This endeavour will take us on a journey through all of the various segments of the Christian world at the time. 3 'Liturgie comparee' In a study such as the present one, in which an attempt is made to trace and summarize the various influences on a liturgical tradition, it is necessary to study the sources of this tradition, in this case the Gothic Missal, in their relation with contemporary liturgical and non-liturgical sources. Research of this kind leads the researcherinevitably to the work of undeniably the greatest practitionerof the study of comparativeliturgy, which was first published Anton Baumstark.Baumstark'sLiturgiecomparee, more than fifty years ago, is a product of its time, and Baumstark'sideas and theories cannot be applied without a criticalnote.17However, the comparative method as such is an important and often even indispensable instrument for exploring the liturgy of the early Middle Ages, which has been handed down in such scarce and fragmentary sources. Therefore, liturgicalsources of all kinds are opened in this study in order to compare them with the Gothic Missal. Liturgicalcalendars,lectionariesand martyrologia from all over the Christian world of the early days can contribute to a better understandingof the Gothic Missal and the Gallican rite. The method of comparativeliturgy has one importantdrawback.Baumstark's approach to liturgical traditions and developments risks regarding the liturgy as an autonomous entity, detached from the surroundingsin which liturgical documents came into being and functioned. The study of early medieval liturgy can hardly be significantwhen the environment
17
A clear explanation of Baumstark's method and a survey of moder criticism is Liturgyof AntonBaumstark(Bramcote: 1995, Alcuin given by Fritz West, The Comparative Club and The Group for Renewal of Worship; Joint Liturgical Studies 31); see also Paul Bradshaw, The searchfor the originsof Christianworship.Sourcesand methods for the study of earlyliturgy(Oxford: 1992), 56-79; Robert Taft, "'iber die Liturgiewissenschaft heute," Quartalschift,177 (1997), 243-255. In 1998, fifty years after Baumstark's death, Theologische an international congress was held on the theme in Rome. Proceedings of this congress were published as Robert F. Taft & Gabriele Winkler (eds.), Acts of theInternational Congress Liturgyfifty years afterAnton Baumstark(1872-1948)"; Rome, 25-29 September, "Comparative 1998 (Rome: 2001).
82
ELS ROSE
in which this liturgy played its role is not taken into account. This conviction has led me to a pluriform approach to the liturgical texts of the Gothic Missal. Elsewhere,I paid attention to linguisticaspects of the sacramentary, regardingthe Gothic Missal as a source of early medieval, liturgical Latin.'8 In this study, the liturgical commemoration of the saints enclosed in the sacramentaryis compared with other, non-liturgicalaspects of the veneration of saints in the early medieval world. Hagiographical of the Gothic Missal material of the saints that play a role in the Sanctorale is laid alongside the liturgical prayers. By studying the relation between liturgical traditions and the hagiography of the period under discussion, the Gothic Missal, which is nothing more than a little piece of a complicated puzzle, is put in a broader perspective. Thus, a clearer light might shine on the long-forgottenworld to which this manuscriptbelonged. 4 Liturgical commemoration of thesaintsin the GothicMissal The saints to whose commemoration a mass is dedicated in the Gothic Missal can be divided into three groups. The first group consists of Biblical saints, mostly martyrs from the New Testament. The second group contains the martyrsof the early Church, drawn from Rome and North Africa. The last, but not least important group is formed by local saints:the martyrs of the Gallic church, including Gaul's most famous saint, Martin of Tours. In the following, the origins and development of the cult of these saints are outlined, as well as the beginnings of their veneration in the Gallic region. 4.1 Biblicalsaints In the Gothic Missal, masses are found for the nataleof nine Biblical (groupsof) saints. First of all, the evangelical martyrsare commemorated: St Stephen, the Holy Innocents and St John the Baptist. In addition to the apostles Peter, Paul, Andrew, and James and John, the Virgin Mary has her place in the Sanctorale of the sacramentary.This group of Biblical saints is the most interestingof the three groups in light of the attempt of this article to map the external influences that contributed to the development of the Gallican liturgy.
18 Els in commemoratione. LiturgischLatyn en liturgische Rose, Communitas gedachtenisin het a in Missale Gothicum Utrecht: with 2001, (Vat.reg.lat. 317). (Diss. summary English: Com-
LITURGICAL COMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
83
Following the circle of the liturgical year, the martyr Stephen, who is often mentioned as the prototype of the Christianmartyrs,is the first saint we come across in the Gothic Missal. Stephen's nataleis celebrated on the day after Christmas. The feast of this saint originates in Jerusalem, where the martyr'scommemorationwas celebrated in the last week of December even before his relics were found in 415 AD.19 After the inventioof the martyr'sremains in a little village near the city (Caphar Gamala), the cult of this saint spread to the West. The church of North Africa was the first in the West to which Stephen's relics were moved. The Spaniard Orosius, who had received some relics from his fellow countrymanAvitus of Braga, was stranded at Augustine's in Hippo on his way home from the Holy Land.20Starting from North Africa, the holy remains of Stephen found their way to Europe, via the trade centres of the Mediterranean,and also along the Rhone river inland.2'In all extent sources of the Gallican liturgy, as in the other Western traditions,22the saint's feast day was celebrated in commemoration in theMissaleGothicum Latinandliturgical munitasin commemoratione. Liturgical in this is An edition of 179-318. study preparationfor Corpus English (Vat.reg.lat.317)), serieslatina.See also Els Rose, "LiturgicalLatin in the Missale Gothicum Christianorum, (Vat.reg.lat.317). A reconsiderationof ChristineMohrmann'sapproach,"SacrisErudiri, 41/42 (2002/2003; forthcoming). 19The finding of Stephen'srelics is reportedby the priest Lucianus,EpistolaLuciani de revelatione ad omnemecclesiam martyris primiet aliorum(transl.into Latin corporis Stephani by Avitusof Braga).Migne, PL 41, 805-818. A criticaledition is availableby S. Van4 (1946), derlinden,"Revelatiosancti Stephani(BHL 7850-6),"Revuedesetudesbyzantines also B. Altaner, "Augustinusund die NT Apokryphen, 178-217. See on this inventio Bollandiana, Untersuchung,"Analecta Sibyllinenund Sextussprache.Eine quellenkritische du cultedesmartyrs 67 (1949), 236-248; HippolyteDelehaye, Les origines (Brussel:19332), in in derAntikeunddasPilgerwesen religiosa. 80-82; BernhardKotting,Peregrinatio Wallfahrten of Saint "Claims on the bones A. Elisabeth deraltenKirche Clark, 260; (Munich:1950), History,51 (1982), 141-156. In Stephen:the partisansof Melaniaand Eudocia,"Church the late fourth,early fifth century,liturgicalcelebrationsof St Stephen were also perwhich is supposedto formed in Asia Minor, accordingto the Maryrologium Syriacum, Hans Lietzmann(ed.), reflectthe liturgicalpracticeof Nicomedia.Martyrologium Syriacum. Die dreialtesten (Bonn: 1911), 7-15, here 7. Martyrologien AD 312-460 (Oxford:1982), 20 E.D. Hunt, HolyLandpilgrimage in thelaterRoman Empire. 213. 21 MatthiasZender,Raume in ihrerBedeutung undSchichten mittelalterlicher Heiligenverehrung und in Kultgeschichte undderRheinlande Maaslandes Die Heiligendesmittleren fir die Volkskunde: Kultverbreitung (Diisseldorf:1959), 181. Lietzmann(ed.), Die Martyrologien, 22 North Africa: Calendar 4-6, here 6; of Carthag. 119-127. Marius Ferotin (ed.), LiberMozarabicus Sacramentorum Spain: LiberMozarabicus 137-145.AngeloParedi Sacramentorum (Paris:1912),58-60;Milan:Sacramentarium Bergomense,
84
ELS ROSE
the Octave of Christmas, on the day of the translation of the relics from the place where they were found to Jerusalem: December 26.23 James and John, the sons of Zebedee and brothers in life and martyrdom, are commemorated in the Gothic Missal with a mass in the Octave of Christmas. Again, the oldest traces of a liturgical commemoration of these saints are found in Easternparts, in this case, on the oldest Calendar This document is a testimony of Asia Minor, the Martyrologium Syriacum.24 of the early fourth century liturgy of Nicomedia. Likewise, other fourth century sources of this region attest the liturgicalcelebration ofJames and John in the last week of December, such as Gregory of Nyssa's panegyric on the protomartyrStephen.25Accordingto the documentsoriginatingfrom Asia Minor, the commemorationof Zebedee's sons took place on the 27th of December. In Jerusalem, on the other hand, a liturgical celebration of these apostles existed at this early time on the 29th of December.26Both traditions can be found in the liturgy of early medieval Gaul. The tradition of Asia Minor, of a celebration in honour of James and John on December 27, is reflectedby the Gothic Missal, whereas the Bobbio Missal, a related sacramentary,puts the brothers on the 29th of December, after the celebration of the Innocentes (December 28) instead of before.27In the latter, the Jerusalem traditionis visible, which possibly reached the Gallican liturgyvia Spain, a countrythat had strongties with the Holy Land through pilgrimage.28
(ed.), Sacramentarium Bergomense (Bergamo:1962),67-69; Rome: Sacramentarium Gregorianum Hadrianum(Fribourg: Hadrianum,62-66. Jean Deshusses (ed.), Sacramentarium Gregorianum Gelaswnm Velus,30-35. Leo C. Mohlberg (ed.), Sacramentarium 1971), 106-107; Sacramentaiwm GelasianumVetus(Rome: 1968), 11. 23 EpistolaLucianide revelatione, 9. PL 41, 815. 24 Syriacum.Lietzmann (ed.), Die Martyrologien, 8; cf. note 19. Martyrologium 25 Gregoryof Nyssa, "In praiseof the holy protomartyrSt Stephen."Migne, PG 46, 721-736, esp. 726, 730. 26 in which the fifth centuryliturgyof Jerusalem Lectionay, Accordingto the Armenian
is reflected. Athanase Renoux (ed.), Le codexarminienJerusalem121 vol. 2: 1dition comparee du texte et de deux autresmanuscrits,F. Graffin, PatrologiaOrientalis36.2 (Turhout:
1971), 359-361. See also the introductionto this edition;id., Le codexannmien Jerusalem 121 vol. 1: Introduction aux originesde la liturgiehieosolymitaine. Lumieresnouvelles,F. Graffin, PatrologiaOrientalis,35.1 (Turnhout: 1969), 103-106. 27 BobbioMissal 96-100. Edmund A. Lowe, (ed.), The BobbioMissal a GallicanMass-
book(London:1920), 31-32. 28 Anton Baumstark,"Orientalisches in altspanischerLiturgie,"OriensChristianus, 32 (1935), 1-37, here 17.
LITURGICALCOMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
85
It is noteworthy that the celebration of the brothersJames and John in the Octave of Christmas is, in the Gothic Missal, not the only commemoration as far as the apostelJohn is concerned. A separate celebration of this saint is found between Easter and Pentecost. The question as to the subject of this commemorationis one of the enigmas of the Gothic Missal. Possibly, there is a connection between this celebration in the sacramentary and the Roman feast in commemoration of John's legendary submersion in boiling oil, to which event the early medieval Roman church of San Giovanniad portamlatinamrefers. However, although this legend was already known by Tertullian,29both the church dedicated to the event and the liturgical commemoration of the tradition were founded during the papacy of Hadrian I (d. 795), in other words, almost a century after the Gothic Missal was composed. Another possible origin of the separate commemoration of John the Evangelist could be found in the Greek celebration of the opening of the saint's grave in Ephesis, a legendary event handed down in the apocryphal writings on St John. According to this legend, a kind of white dust, called 'manna' was found in the saint's grave when it was opened, a miracle which was commemorated annually on the 8th of May in such locations as Constantinople.30In the prayers of the Gothic Missal, however, no reference is made to this tradition. It is interesting to see that the prayers of this mass do not refer to John's death at all-the texts present important aspects of John's life: how he was called to be a disciple of Jesus, how he preached the Gospel of 'the Word that was with God' and how he rested on the Lord's chest during the Last Supper. Moreover, the commemoration is indicated as natalicia(Go 326), a word which does not occur often in the Gothic Missal, but when used, is meant as the earthly birthday of Christ or a saint.31Thus, it is possible that the community in which the Gothic Missal was used as a sacramentary celebrated, in the month of May or early June, the earthly birthday of the apostle and evangelistJohn. This suggestion, however, is difficult to 36.3. Raymond Refoule (ed.), Traitede la Tertulianus, De praescritionehaereticorum, contresles hIrtiques,SChr 46 (Paris: 1957). prescription 30 S.A. Morcelli, MenologionecclesiaeConstantinopolitanae (Rome: 1788), vol. 2, 97. Cf. R. van Dooren, "Johannes de Evangelist," LiturgischWoordenboek, vol. 1, 1167; Louis Duchesne, Orginesdu cultechritien(Paris 19255), 298-299; K.A. Heinrich Kellner, Heortologie von den altestenZeitenbis und der Heiligenfeste oderdie geschichtliche Eniwicklungdes Kirchenjahres zur Gegenwart(Freiburg i.B.: 1911), 223; also Auf der Maur, Feern, vol. II.1, 220, in which the date is (mistakenly?) given as May 12. 31 For instance, Missale Gothicum,2 (birth of Christ), 373 (birth of John the Baptist). 29
86
ELS ROSE
substantiateas there is lack of material for comparison, the Gothic Missal being the only Western source in which this commemorationhas a place. The incorporationof apocryphalelementsin liturgicaltexts of the Gallican tradition is not unusual. To this practice, the prayers in honour of St Andrew in the Gothic Missal bear ample witness. The texts for the feast day of this saint, on November 30, are clearly influenced by the apocryphal writings concerning the apostle.32Possibly, the liturgy played an important role in the process of transmissionof these originallyGreek traditions, despite the pronounced aversion the ecclesiastical authorities displayed to this genre from the fifth century onward.33 Life and death of John the Baptist are celebrated in the Gothic Missal Dominiis strongly by two separate feasts. The earthly birth of the Precursor connected with Christ's birth and is celebrated in the West on June 24, six months before Christmas.34In Egypt, where Christ's coming into the flesh is celebrated on January 6, the birth of John the Baptist is likewise situated in the month of January.35The origin of the liturgical commemoration of John's birthday in the Gothic Missal is clearly Rome, in view of the great number of similaritiesbetween the prayersin the Gothic Missal and Roman material. The mass in honour of John's martyr death, however, was celebratedin Gaul and Spain earlier than in Rome. Perhaps the liturgyofJerusaleminfluencedthese early Westerntraditionsin this respect.36 In Jerusalem, a liturgical celebration of John the Baptist existed as early as the fifth century.37 The liturgical commemoration of the apostles Peter and Paul in the Gothic Missal is given shape through various feasts with different backgrounds. The death of both saints is commemorated by a joint feast of Roman origin, celebrated on the 29th of June. Additionally, both saints 32
Cf. Els Rose, "Apocriefe sporen in de liturgie van de heilige Andreas," Millennium, 16 (2002), 17-37. 33 Innocent I, 405 AD; Leo I, ca. 447 AD; DecretumGelasianum,late fifth, early sixth century. See Jean-Marc Prieur (ed.), Acta Andreae,CCSA 5 (Tumhout: 1989), 111-116.
34Cf. Luke 1,36. 35
Auf der Maur, Feiem,vol. II.1, 119; Mario Righetti, Manualedi storialiturgica(Milan: 19552), vol. 2, 336. On 6 January as birthday of Christ, see J.F. Coakley, "Typology and the birthday of Christ on 6 January", Symposium SyriacumV (Rome 1990), 247-256; Thomas Talley, The originsof the liturgicalyear(New York 1986), 91; Susan Roll, Toward the originsof Christmas(Kampen 1995), 101. 36 Baumstark, "Orientalisches in altspanischer Liturgie"; Duchesne, Originesdu culte, 298-299. 37 ArmenianLectionaty.Renoux (ed.), Le codexarmenien,vol. 2, 359-361.
LITURGICALCOMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
87
have their own feast day, both in the period between Epiphany and the beginning of Lent. In Gaul, the commemoration of Paul's conversion (Act 13) was celebratedon January 25, whereas the annual celebrationof Peter's Petri,took place on February 22. The latter feast is of episcopate, Cathedra Roman origin, and was being celebrated in the Eternal City by the beginning of the fourth century. Later, however, the feast disappearedfrom the Roman calendar for unknown reasons, while the commemorationsurvived in Gaul. From here, the feast found its way back to Rome in the tenth or eleventh century.38The liturgical commemoration of Paul's conversion, on the other hand, most likely originated in Gaul. This celebration was likewise incorporated in the Roman calendar in the tenth or eleventh century.39 The Sanctorale of the Gothic Missal contains only one feast in honour of the Virgin Mary: the celebration of Assumptio Mariaeon January 18. We are dealing here with a typically Gallic date for the celebration of Mary's assumption, which might be of Egyptian or Syriac origin: both traditions celebrate a general feast in honour of Mary the Mother of God in the month of January.40Jerusalem had a liturgical celebration in honour of on the 15th of August.41The texts for the liturgical celebrathe Theotokos tion of Mary's assumption in the Gothic Missal deal not only with the Virgin's miraculousdemise; they also pay attention to her Divine Motherhood42and to important events in Mary's life such as the Annuntiatio.43 The liturgical celebration of the Holy Innocents, in conclusion, has its origin in the Church of the West. Long before the children received their own feast day on the liturgical calendar, their fate was remembered during the festivitiesof Epiphany. Their praises were sung in poems and sermons by Paulinus of Nola, Prudentiusand Leo I. From the beginning of the sixth century, a separate liturgical commemoration was incorporated in the Calendar of Carthage.44In all of the Western liturgical traditions, the passion of these children was celebrated on December 28, except for 38 Pierre Jounel, Le culte des saints dans les basiliquesdu Latranet du Vaticanau douxinme siecle(Rome: 1977), 225-226. 39 Ibidem. 40 Bernard Capelle, "La fete de 1'Assomption dans l'histoire liturgique," Ephemerides Lovanienses,3 (1926), 33-45, here 35. theologicae 41 ArmenianLectionary.Renoux (ed.), Le codexanninien,vol. 2, 335. 42 Missale Gothicum,94-103. 43 Missale Gothicum,103. 6. 44 Lietzmann (ed.), Die Martyrologien,
88
ELS ROSE
Spain. In the Spanish tradition, the children's death was commemorated in the shadow of Epiphany (January 8).45 The Biblical saints whose nataleis commemorated in the Gothic Missal provide a wonderful insight into the various traditionsthat influenced the liturgy of early medieval Gaul. Several traditions of the East as well as the West added to the pluriform and richly-varied entity which is the Gallican liturgy. In the next part of this study, a closer look is taken at the commemoration of saints in the Gothic Missal whose origin is found nearer home. 4.2 Romanmartyrs The second group of saints commemorated in the Gothic Missal consists of a considerablenumber of Roman martyrs:Agnes, Caecilia, Clement; Sixtus, Laurent, and Hippolyte; Cornelius and his African friend and colleague Cyprian; and the less well-known martyrsJohn and Paul. The origin of these saints' liturgicalcult is found nearer home: they were venerated by the Roman church from a fairly early date.6 In many cases, the Gothic Missal is the oldest testimony of a liturgical cult of these saints in Gaul. In the Gothic Missal, the illustriouschorus is opened by Agnes, a young maiden martyred during the reign of either Valerian or Diocletian.47In Rome, two liturgicalcommemorationsof the virgin martyrwere celebrated: one in honour of her death (January 21),48and one in honour of her earthly birthday (January 28).49 Although the Gothic Missal, which is the only Gallican liturgical book in which a commemoration of Agnes is included, gives only one feast day in honour of this young martyr, Agnes of occupies a prominent place among the Roman martyrsin the Sanctorale 45 LiberMozarabicusSacramentorum. Ferotin (ed.), 97. 46 The oldest survey of the liturgical commemoration of Roman martyrs is found in
the calendar of Philocalus, dating from 354 AD, including the Depositioepiscoporum et maryrum.Lietzmann (ed.), Die Maryrologien,2-4 (cf. note 19). 47 P. Allaard, "Sainte Agnes," DACL I, 905-918, here 913. 48 Lietzmann (ed.), Die Martyrologien, 3. According to the Depositiomartyrum. 49 This second festival dates from a later is period. The MartyrologumHieronymianum the oldest document bearing testimony to this festival, thus indicating that the celebration of Agnes's earthly birthday was already being practiced in the fifth century. The commemoration is also mentioned in both the Sacramentarium GelasianumVetusand the Hadrianum. Sacramentarium Gregorianum
LITURGICALCOMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
89
this sacramentary.Several allusions to Agnes's earthly birth are found in the opening prayer of this single mass, the praefatiomissae.5In this prayer, the celebration of the day is indicated as beataemartyrisnatalicia,a word that, in the context of the Gothic Missal, seems to point to a saint's earthly birthdayratherthan being synonymouswith natal, meaning 'day of demise'.51 This assumption is reinforced by the repetitive comparison in this prayer of Agnes's prodigious death with her life on earth.52Here again not only the saint's death, but also her birth and life are the subject of celebration, Mariaein the Gothic Missal. as is the case in the mass for Assumptio is Agnes accompanied by Caecilia, who, like Agnes, had to suffer martyrdom because she refused to enter into a worldly marriage. For both Agnes and Caecilia, as well as their male companions in the list of Roman martyrs,the Gothic Missal is the eldest liturgical source in Gaul in which a commemoration of their nataleis incorporated. In most cases, traces of veneration of these saints in Gaul outside the liturgy are scarce. Agnes and Caecilia play a role in the poems of Venantius Fortunatus. This Italian poet had been a student in Ravenna, where these virgin martyrswere venerated, and possibly introduced their cult into Gaul when he travelled north. The martyr Clement, one of the first bishops of Rome, who was drowned in the Black Sea after his exile to Cherson, is a well-knownfigure in Gallic hagiography as well. Clement is seen as one of the first missionaries sent to Gaul by the apostles, and forms an important traitd'union between the Gallic and the Roman church.53In Gaul, the martyrLaurentius is undeniably the most popular martyr of those venerated in the Gothic Missal. Both historiographicaland hagiographicalsources of early medieval Gaul bear witness to a lively veneration of the deacon-martyr.Also, many churchesin Gaul were dedicatedto this saintfrom the fifth centuryonwards.54 Whereas the masses for Agnes, Caecilia and Clement pay comparatively much attentionto the storiesof life and passion of their subjects,the prayers
50 Missale Gothicum,106. 51 Cf. ? 4.1. 52Rose, Communis in commemoratione, 414-416; see also Leo Eizenhofer, "Die Prifation fiir den Geburtstagder hi. Agnes,"Archiv fiir Liturgieisenschaft, 11 (1969), 59-76, here
67-68. 53 tlie Griffe, "Les origines chrtiennes de la Gaule et les legendes clementines," vol. 1, 104-115. Bulletinde littiratureecclsiastique,56 (1955), 3-22; id., La Gaulechretienne,
X.31 and 11.20. Bruno Krusch & Wilhelm Levison Gregory of Tours, Historiae, (eds.),MGH SRM I.1 (Hannover:1951), 530 and 66. 54
90
ELS ROSE
of the masses for Sixtus, Cornelius & Cyprianus, and John & Paul are of the mass in honour of Hipremarkablyshallow. Only in the immolatio55 is the influence of the the Passio of polyte martyr visible. As this prayer is not of Roman origin, the Passioof Hippolyte was apparentlywell-knownin Gaul, either because the text itself was circulated here, or through an unknown or now-lost Roman collection of prayers which was used in the region where the Gothic Missal was composed. If the other masses refer to the life and death of the saints at all-the prayers in honour of Sixtus, Cornelius & Cyprianus,and John & Paul are very short and superficialthey draw on Roman material. Even the more elaborate and certainly more expressiveprayers for Laurentiusare all of Roman origin. Thus the masses of most of the Roman martyrsin the Gothic Missal have no strongly pronounced features; the liturgical commemorations of these saints were not given a specificallyGallican character.In this respect there is a remarkable difference in the Gothic Missal between the masses in honour of the Roman martyrs and those which venerated the Gallic saints. 4.3
Gallicsaints
The third group of saints of the Sanctorale of the Gothic Missal consists of saints of Gallic origin, most of whom died a martyr's death. It is, of course, not surprisingthat a liturgicaldocument of Gallic origin pays ample attention to Gallic saints. However, it is interesting to see how the commemoration of these local saints is given shape. In the prayers in honour of the Gallic saints, the influence of hagiographicaltraditionsis considerable. Therefore, it is necessaryto take a closer look at the relation between liturgy and hagiographyin this section. The comparison of the liturgical prayer texts for the Gallic saints and martyrsin the Gothic Missal with the hagiographicalmaterial concerning these saints shows a close connection between the prayers with which the saints are honoured on their feast days and the texts in which their life and death are described. This connection is not equally close in the case of every saint. When looking at the mass of the largely unknown martyrs Ferreolusand Ferrucio,only few parallelsbetween the Passioand the prayers in honour of these brothers can be found. With regard to other saints, such as bishop Leodegar of Autun or Martin of Tours, the most impor-
55 The immolatio or contestatio in the Gallican liturgy is the part of the eucharistic prayer preceding the Sanctus.
LITURGICAL COMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
91
tant saint of early medieval Gaul, it is clear that the hagiographicalmaterial played a more important role. In some cases, the prayers are difficult to understandif the reader is not familiar with the content of the vita or passiowhich is at the foundation of the liturgical text. In a few cases, the liturgical text has influenced the development of the later hagiographical tradition. Examples of these situations are discussed in the following. The first example of a close connection between hagiographyand liturgy is the mass in honour of St Symphorianus,bishop of Autun in the second or third century.56Some passages in the prayers of this mass are incomwritprehensible for the reader who does not know the PassioSymphoriani, ten by bishop Eufronius of Autun in the middle of the fifth century. A of the mass of Symphorianus(Etfausti remarkablephrase in the immolatio in leuatur culmine...)57plays with the name of fausto martyrii fJugidusgenere, the saint's father, Faustus, which can be found in the Passio.58In addition to the saint's father, his mother also plays a prominent role in the Passio. She is depicted as a strong woman, encouraging her son to be perseverant in martyrdom,as his earthly life will not be taken away, but changed of the mass for Symphorianusin the Gothic for the better.59The immolatio Missal includes an elaborate reference to the 'admirablefaith' (0 admiranda of the mother. In addition to his own parents, his 'godpargratiarumfides) ents' played a crucial role in Symphorianus'slife: Benignus of Dijon and Andochius of Saulieu. Both martyrs,who baptized the little Symphorianus according to sixth century additions to the original Passio,6are mentioned of the Gothic Missal. It is clear that the composer of the in the immolatio liturgical prayers in honour of St Symphorianus must have known the hagiographicaltexts of this martyr in great detail. Various particulars,also concerning the saint's martyrdom,return in the liturgicalprayers. Without knowledge of the hagiographical texts, the prayers in the Gothic Missal are difficult to comprehend. The same attention to detail is visible in the mass for St Maurice and his companions, the martyrs of Agaune. The Gothic Missal follows the 56
vol. 1, 152. Griffe,La Gaulechretienne,
57 MissaleGothiaum, in commemoratione, 418. Rose (ed.),Communitas 148;Leo C.
Mohlberg
(ed.),MissaleGothicn(Rome: 1961), 102. 58
Passio Symphoriani,c. 1. T. Ruinart (ed.), Acta primorummartyrumsinceraet selecta
(Amsterdam:17132),79-83, here 80. 59 Passio Symphoriani, c. 7. Ruinart (ed.), Acta martyron,82. 60
Passio Symphoriani AugustiIV (Antwerpen: interpolata. J. Bollandus (ed.), Acta Sanctorum
1643-1940),493-494.
92
ELS ROSE
Passiowhich bishop Eucherius of Lyon (d. 450/454) wrote in commemoration of this group of martyrs, and which stresses the large number of victims of the persecution:the first prayer of the mass even mentions the rather precise number of 6600 martyrs.6'The liturgical prayer follows the Passioverbatim where it mentions the great courage (audax)of the soldier-martyrs.62The immolatioof the mass in the Gothic Missal is a very important example of a close connection between Passio and liturgical tells the story of the saints' sufferingand death prayer. Where the immolatio and the elongated process of the decimating of the troops and the steadfast faith of Maurice's soldiers, the liturgical prayer often uses the same words as the Passio.The comparison of these two texts shows more than 'eine gewisseinhaltlicheAhnlichkeit'between Passioand immolaio,as Zufferey puts it.63At many points, the prayers of the Gothic Missal correspondliterally to the Passio. The relation between hagiography and liturgy is somewhat more complicated in the case of Saturninus,the first bishop of the South Gallic city of Toulouse whose natalewas celebrated on November 29. According to the bishop'sPassio,writtenin the fifth century,64Saturninussufferedmartyrdom during the persecution of Decius in the year 250.65It is interesting to see that the Gothic Missal does not follow this Passioin some important aspects, such as the descent of the saint and his mission to Gaul. First of all, the Gothic Missal does not adopt the Passio'sdating of Saturninus's death in the third century,but followsthe alternativetraditionwhich regards Satuminus as one of the first missionariesof Gaul, travellingfrom Rome up north in the first generation after the apostles.66Clearly, it is this tra61
Missale Gothicum,419. Rose (ed.), Communitas in commemoratione, 149; Mohlberg (ed.), Missale Gothicum,102. 62 Dens qui sanctis tuis Acauninsebus(..) audaiam sustulsti:Missale Gothicum,420. Rose in commemoratione, 149; Mohlberg (ed.), Missale Gothicum,103. (ed.), Communitas 63 Maurice Zufferey, "Der Mauritiuskult im Friih- und Hochmittelalter," Historisches Jahrbuch,196 (1986), 23-58, here 40. 64 Elie Griffe, "Une messe du Ve siecle en l'honneur de saint Saturnin de Toulouse," RevueduMoyenAgelatin,7 (1951), 5-18, here 6-7; id., La Gaulechretienne, vol. 1, 148; A.-V. Gilles, "L'evolution de l'hagiographie de saint Saturnin de Toulouse et son influence sur la liturgie," Liturgieet musique(IX'-XIVesiecl) (Toulouse: 1982), 359-379, here 361. 65 Passio Satumini episcopiTolosaniet martyris,c. 2. Ruinart (ed.), Acta maryrum,129-133, here 130. 66 On this 'Arlesian vol. 1, 104-108. Regarding legend', see Griffe, La Gaulechr6tienne, the early dating of Saturninus's life and martyr death as one of the seven missionaries, see Caesarius of Aries, De mysteriosanctaetrinitatis.Germain Morin (ed.), RevueBendictine, 46 (1934), 190-205.
LITURGICAL COMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
93
dition of the so-called Arlesian legends, the search for a foundation of the Gallic churchin Rome, which influencedthe prayersin honour of Satuninus in the Gothic Missal, as is obvious in the contestatio: For this bishopof yours,originatingfrom the East, and out of Rome destined for Toulouseon the Garonne,accomplishedboth bishopricand martyrdomas a substituteof your Peter.67 The Gothic Missal not only carries on the tradition of the apostolic mission which founded the church of Gaul, but also adds an enigmatic remark on Saturninus'sdescent. On this theme, the Passiois rather reticent. The of the Gothic Missal, however, seems to suggest that the saint contestatio was from the East (aborientis According to De Gaiffier,this remark partibus). was prompted by the confusion of material composed for an Advent Mass with a prayer in honour of St Saturninus.68Gilles even states that this liturgical confusion caused the later hagiographical tradition regarding Saturninus'sEastern origin.69Unfortunately, Gilles does not mention any concrete examples of this legendary tradition,leaving her statement unsubstantiated. The mass for the Spanish martyr Eulalia of Merida, treated here along with her Gallic companions, is another instance illustratingthe importance of knowing the hagiographicalsources when dealing with the liturgy of the saints. The oldest hagiographicalwriting dedicated to this saint is the hymn written around 400.70All in honour of Eulalia in Prudentius'sPeristephanon, other hagiographicalwritings on the Spanish martyr, the PassioEulaliaeas well as Gregory of Tours's chapters on Eulalia in his Gloryof themartyrs,71 find their informationin this poem.72The problem with the mass in honour of Eulalia in the Gothic Missal is that it is, together with four other saints whose feast days were celebrated in the months of November and December (Caecilia, Clement, Saturninus,and Andrew), included between Pauli (January 25). The the mass for Agnes (January 21) and Conversio 67 Siquidemipsepontifextuusab orientispartibusin urbemTolosatiumdistinatusRoma Garonnae Missale Gothicum,127. Rose (ed.), inuicemPeti tui tam cathedram quammartrum consummauit. in commemoratione, Communitas 54-55; Mohlberg (ed.), Missale Gothicum,37. 68 B. De Gaiffier,"A propos d'un passage du "MissaleGothicum".S. Saturin de 66 (1948), 53-58. Toulouse venait-ild'Orient?,"Analecta Bollandiana,
Gilles, "L'hagiographie de saint Saturnin," 363-364. Loeb Classical Library III. HJ. Thomson (transl.), Prudentius. Prudentius, Peristephanon 398 (London: 19612), 142-157. 71 Gregory of Tours, Liber in gloria matyrum,90. Bruno Krusch (ed.), MGH SRM I (Hannover: 1885), 484-561, here 548. 72 0. Engels, "Eulalia," Lexikondes MittelaltersIV, 92-93, here 93. 69
70
94
ELS ROSE
displacement (of which cause and reason are unclear) is particularlyconfusing in the case of this martyr, as there were in fact two saints Eulalia in early medieval Spain. The name of Eulalia of Barcelonahas been known since the seventh century, and her feast day was celebrated on the 12th of February.73 Comparisonof the prayertexts with the hagiographicalmaterial is a means of finding out which of the two Eulalias is celebrated in the Gothic Missal. In the prayers, some details can be found which point in the direction of Eulalia of Merida, most markedly the reference to the closing passage of Prudentius'shymn of Eulalia,in which the poet describes the martyr'sdeath at the stake and the ascent of her soul to heaven: Thence all at once a dove whiterthan snow springsforth;they see it leave the martyr'smouthand makefor the stars.It was Eulalia'sspirit,milk-white, swift,and sinless.74 This image of a pure and swift dove is found in the immolatio of Eulalia's in mass the Gothic Missal: And by a prodigiousmiracleyourmajestyacceptedthisvirgin'sspiritthrough the flamesand receivedit througha dove.75 Thus, the comparison with hagiographicalsources contributesto a better understandingof the liturgy. The last martyr of the Sanctorale of the Gothic Missal, bishop Leodegar of Autun, became victim of a political controversy. The presence of his feast day in the Gothic Missal is a key as to the dating of the manuscript76 and is one of the most importantreasons for suggestingAutun as the place of destination of this sacramentary.The detailed description of the cruelties Leodegar had to undergo, the mutilationsto his face as referredto in the immolatio of the mass, as well as the reference to the quick distribution of the martyr'srelics to various places in Gaul in the same prayer, could be read as an eyewitness report, as Mohlberg states:
73 H. Moretus, "Les saintes Eulalies," Revuedes questionshistoriques,89 (1911), 85-119, here 86. 74 emicatinde colunbarepens// martyrisos nive candidior// visa relinquere et astrasequi;// spiritushic erat Eulaliae // lacteolus,celer, innocuus.Prudentius, Peristephanon III, 161-165. Transl. Thomson, Pudentius, 153. 75 ... miraculomaiestastua exalatumuirginisspiritum,quemadsumpsitperflammam, ingentique in commemoratione, suscepitper columbam... Missale Gothicum,142. Rose (ed.), Communitas 60; Mohlberg (ed.), Missale Gothicum,42. 76 Cf. note 7.
LITURGICALCOMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
95
Die ihm [Leodegar]gewidmeteMesseenthaltvor allemin ihrer"Immolatio" Einzelheiten uberdasMartyrium, die an das ZeugniseinesAugenzeugenerintalem ner. Die Worte"utnos famulostuosomnemqueplebemreminiscentes pastorem"weisen deutlich darauf hin, daB die Messe im bischoflichen des Heiligenentstandenist und fiirdiesenbestimmtwar:nach Wirkungskreise Autun.Wo sonstlebt er im unmittelbaren AndenkenseinesVolkesweiter?77 Still, Leodegar is not the only saint that is honoured with the title pastor noster.This honour is also granted to the Gallic saint par excellence; St Martin of Tours, the only saint in the Sanctorale of the Gothic Missal who did not die a martyr'sdeath. The opening prayer of Martin's mass in the As one of the best docuGothic Missal indicates Martin as patrisnostri.78 mented saints of Western Christendom,Martin's feast day was included in most of the sources of the Gallican liturgy.79His cult spread quickly after his death in 397, and did not remain confined to the borders of Gaul. It was already during the lifetime of Martin's hagiographerSulpicius Severus that the VitaMartinihad become a popular book in Rome. Also, a church was dedicated to the Gallic monk in this city as early as the beginning of the sixth century, whereas masses for this saint can be found in the SaHadrianum as well as in the Spanish LiberMozarabicus cramentarium Gregorianum As far as the Gallican liturgical sources are concerned, the Sacramentorum. in honour of St Martin are clearly influenced by the hagiotexts prayer documents concerning this saint. In the prayers of the Gothic graphical Missal, many quotations of the Vitaby Sulpicius can be found. The first in which it is asked 'that Martin may obtain through is given by the collectio, his prayers, what the faithful cannot achieve with theirs'.80This phrase is a reference to Sulpicius's second letter, in which he informs his friend Aurelius of Martin's death and, at the same time, tries to find comfort for Aurelius and for himself in the thought that Martin lives on in heaven of the mass in the Gothic where he prays for his admirers.81The immolatio 77 Mohlberg, Das gallikanischeSakramentar, 103. 78 in commemoratione, Missale Gothicum,472. Rose (ed.), Communitas 163; Mohlberg (ed.), Missale Gothicum,112. 79 See Els Rose, "Celebrating Saint Martin in early medieval Gaul," Post et al., (eds.), Christian feast andfestival, 267-286. 80 Tribue,quaesomus, ut quod nostrisobtinerepraecibusnonpossumus,ipsius mereamur obtinere in Communitas Missale 473. Rose commenoratione, 163; Gothicum, (ed.), Mohlberg sufragiis.
112. (ed.),MissaleGothicum, 81 Spes tamensuperestilla sola, illa postrema,ut quodper nos obtinerenonpossumus,saltimpro nobis oranteMartinomereamur. Sulpicius Severus, EpistolaII.18. Jacques Fontaine (ed.), Vie
de saintMartin.SChr 133 (Paris:1967) 316-344, here 332-334.
96
ELS ROSE
Missal, rightly called 'la grande preface' by the liturgistAndre Wilmart,82 is a fine example of how people learned of a saint's life through the liturgical texts which celebrated his or her death. This prayer, which found its way into many liturgical books, but was also included in the thirteenth century collection of saints' lives Legendaaurea,83concentrates mainly on Martin's most famous deed: the sharing of his mantle with the poor man at the city gate of Amiens.84The prayer refers to the vision which Martin received the following night, and which showed him Christ, dressed in his own mantle, and proclaiming:'Martin,still a catechumen, covered me with this vestment.'85The liturgical text praises Martin who was worthy 'not only to clothe, but even to behold God.'86In addition to this 'charite de saint Martin',other feats are mentioned,such as Martin'sloyaltyto Catholic Christianitydespite the pressure of the Arians, whom he fought succesfully;87his obedience to a life of (monastic)discipline;88his healing power89 and his ability to even raise the dead:90a man, in short, equal to the apostles.91 The prayers in honour of St Martin in the other sources of the Gallican liturgy add to this picture of a close connection between liturgical texts and hagiographicalwritings.92Thus, the liturgical celebration of St Martin in early medieval Gaul is one of the best examples of a strong connection between hagiography and liturgy.
82 Andr6 Wilmart, "Saint Ambrose et la legende doree," Epheeides liturgicae, 50 (1936), 169-206, here 202. 83 Legendaaurea, 166. Ed. Th. Graesse (Osnabriick: 1969) 750. 84 Sulpicius Severus, VitaMartini, 3.1-3. Fontaine (ed.), SChr 133, 256-258. 85 hac me uestecontexit. Sulpicius Severus, VitaMartini, 3.3: Martinus,adhuccatechumenus 86 ... tantaeratgloriaciopassionis,ut per quantitateuestisexiguaeet uestiredeummeruitet uidere. Missale Gothicum, 476. Rose (ed.), Communitas in commemoratione, 164; Mohlberg (ed.), Missale Gothicum,113. 87 Cf. Vtta 6.4. 88 Cf. Vita 10. 89 Cf. Vita 16-19; Sulpicius Severus, Dialogi 11.4, III.6-9. Ed. C. Halm, CSEL 1 (Vienna: 1886), 152-216; Gregory of Tours, Libri IV de virtutibussancti Martini episcopi. Ed. Bruno Krusch, MGH SRM I (Hannover: 1885), 584-661. 90 Cf. Vita 7-8.
91Cf. Vita10.1:In soloMartinoapostoica auctoritas Fontaine(ed.),SChr 133, pernanebat. 294. 92 See Rose, "CelebratingSaint Martin,"278-282.
LITURGICAL COMMEMORATION OF THE SAINTS
5
97
remarks Concluding
The communityin which the Gothic Missal was used as a sacramentary was a community that centred around the commemoration of the saints. Until now, little attention has been given to the liturgical veneration of the saints in early medieval Gallican liturgy. However, this perspective seems to be a useful approach to the liturgical tradition of pre-Carolingian Gaul. Whereas scholars in the past used to look for one certain city or region as the cradle of this enigmatic entity, the exploration of the liturgicalcommemorationof the saints points to a wide range of influences that played a part in the history of the Gallican liturgy. The Gothic Missal, with its elaborate Sanctorale, provides vivid insights into this matter. The of the saints of the cult commemorated in this sacramentarymakes study it clear that we must not, with respect to the development of the Gallican liturgy, look for one particularplace of origin, but for a loom of influences, weaving the various strands of tradition. On this loom, the veneration of local, Gallic saints forms one of the brightest and most vivid cords. Not the search for uniformity,but the contemplation of diversityis fruitfulfor the study of a period such as the early Middle Ages. For this period is marked by the scarcity and fragmentarycharacter of sources. Therefore, it seems more appropriateto ask an open question,which places the sources in bold relief, than to try to straitjacketthe sources for the benefit of one closed theory or hypothesis. Such a straitjacketrisks the exclusion of information that does not fit into the theory, thus obfuscating the material, which is inaccessible enough to begin with. Detailed study of the liturgicaltexts composed to venerate the saints has shown that these texts cannot be consideredwithout looking at their hagiographicalcounterparts.In particular,the liturgicaltexts for the local, Gallic saints reveal the close connection that exists between liturgy and hagiography. Other interesting traces lead to the influence of the apocryphal literature on the apostles in the prayer texts of the Gothic Missal, an element that comes to the fore predominantly with regard to the apostle Andrew. All of this makes it clear that the liturgicaltexts of early medieval Gaul are not isolated from the rest of cultural and religious life. The broader context of the cult of the saints is crucial to the study of the liturgy, as is the liturgy to a better understandingof the importance of the saints in daily life of this remote period. Faculteit der Letteren uu Muntstraat 2 A NL-3512 EV Utrecht
REVIEWS
andTheological andPaul.An Analysisof theirLiterary Kenneth Berding,Polycarp Extra-Biblical Literature Use Biblical and in Relationship Light of Polycarp's of Koln: Brill Boston to Christianae Leiden LXII). (Supplements Vigiliae 2002, vii + 230 pp., ISBN 90-04-12670-8, e 91 (bound). La Lettre de Polycarpe aux Philippiens a suscite reguli/erementl'interet des etudiantsde la periode post-apostolique,sans doute parce qu'elle constitue le premier temoignage a propos d'Ignace d'Antioche et ses Epitres (PolPhil1,1;9,1;13). Mais le contenu de la Lettre Polycarpienne tel quel prete d'ordinairea des qualificationspeu encourageantes.On pourraitciter ici le sommaire de Berding: "Scholars have tripped over each other to paint Polycarp as a simpleton"(p. 5). Autrement dit, on charge Polycarpe d'une manque totale d'originalite, aussi bien dans le style que dans les idees. Le but de Berding est de prouver le contraire:considerantla Lettre a la lumiere de l'imitatiode Paul, il s'agit de la comprendreselon les normes de son temps. La methode de Berding sera donc d'etudier en detail la reception du CorpusPaulinum,pour decouvrir l'originalitedans l'imitation, et cela selon les theories litterairesde l'epoque. Avant de continuer notre presentation du livre de Berding, il est important de signaler que simultanement une autre monographie sur Polycarpe a ietiepublie, avec un but The Occasion, similaire:Paul Hartog, Polcarp and theNew Testament. Rhetoric, andits Allusionsto New Testament Themeand Unit of theEpistleto thePhilippians Litterature (WUNT Reihe 2, 134), Tiibingen 2002. De maniere ou d'autre, la comparaison des deux livres s'impose. Et il est important de signaler tout de suite une difference. L'ouvrage de Berding se rallie a la solution assez repandue des deuxLettres: Berding accepte l'hypothese bien connue de P.N. Harrison qui voit dans le ch. 13 de PolPhilune "covering note" accompagnantl'envoi par Polycarpe au Philippiensd'une premiere collection de lettres d'Ignace, tandis que les autres chapitres de PolPhilconstitueraientune autre lettre, ecrite beaucoup plus tard. Berding, comme la grande majorite des savants, corrige Harrison quant a la date de PolPhil: ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 98-101
REVIEWS
99
celle-ci est a dater vers 120, au lieu de 135 comme le voulait Harrison. Hartog de sa part commence par etudier patiemment tous les aspects du contexte historiquede Polycarpe et de sa Lettre, dont il aboutit a defendre a nouveau l'unitAII nous faut avouer que Hartog nous a confirme dans nos convictions (voir notre Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians:an Early in Early Example of "Reception",dans J.M. Sevrin, ed., TheNew Testament Louvain 1989, 275-291). Mais il n'y a pas seulement la quesChristianity, tion de l'unite qui divise les deux auteurs, aussi leur methode s'oppose. Berding met tout le poids sur la comparaisonminutieusedu texte de PolPhil avec ses sources pour discuterpar apres la question de l'imitation (de Paul) et de l'influence de la theologie paulinienne sur Polycarpe. Hartog prend en main tous les aspects du contexte historique de PolPhil,pour n'arriver qu'a la p. 170 aux "New Testament Allusions in Philippians",ce qui est specifie encore par un chapitre sur "Polycarp and Scripture",pour finir avec "Polycarpand Paul". Cette difference de methode est accompagnee par une difference de perspective:Berding se concentre sur l'influence de Paul, Hartog se soucie de l'usage du Nouveau Testament. Le premier aboutira a la question de la continuite de la theologie paulinienne dans PolPhil,le second s'occupera davantage du role que joue PolPhildans les theories sur la formation d'un canon scripturaire.I1 faut ajouter que les deux auteurs sont bien conscients des difficultesde la matiere. Comment etablir qu'il s'agit d'une citation, d'une allusion etc.? Comment etablir un degre de certitude, de vraisemblance,de possibilite vis-a-vis l'usage de tel ou tel texte? L'examen rapide de leurs conclusions sur la connaissance et l'usage de la part de Polycarpedes textes bibliquesrevele que: selon Berding il y a certitude en ce qui conceme les Psaumes,Matthieu,Romains,1-2 Corin1 Pierre,1 Jean (et 1 Ckiment); 1-2 Timothee, thiens,Galates,Ephesiens, Philippiens, il y a probabilitepour Proverbes, Isaze,Jrmie, Tobie,Luc,Actes,2 Thessaloniciens (et les lettresd' Ignace);influencespossiblesviennent d' Ezechiel,I'Ecclsiastique, et Hebreux.Berding souligne que la Marc,Jean, Colossiens,1 Thessaloniciens moitie des citations, allusions ou reminiscences viennent de Paul. S'il est impossible a prouver que Polycarpe possedait une collection complete des lettres de Paul, il en connaissait certainement la majorite (et on supposait de meme chez les Philippiens),toute theorie a propos de l'ignorance ou de la negligence vis-a-vis de Paul (au debut du deuxieme siecle) s'averant fausse. Quel est le resultatde l'enquetede Hartog?Pour l'AncienTestament, les allusions a Jeremie et Tobit sont acceptables(voir les commentairesaux pp. 174-176). Pour le Nouveau Testament Hartog accepte avec certitude: 1 Timothieet 1 Pierre;avec Romains,1 Corinthiens, Galates,Ephisiens,Philippiens,
100
REVIEWS
2 Timothie,1 Jean; possibilite pour: Luc, probabilite Matthieu,2 Corinthiens, Actes,2 Thessalonciens (comme pour ainsi dire personne, Hartog ne doute de 1 Clment;pour Ignace, il est plut6t prudent: "If Polycarp usually cited from memory, he did not yet have time to completely digest the Ignatian letters which he had just recently received", p. 177). Malgre les differencesles deux auteurs s'accordent sur deux points: il y a "emploi" des Evangiles, et pas la reference a une notion de "tradition synoptique". II y a aussi convergence pour les Epitres Pastorales: elles appartiennentau CorpusPaulinum,et surtout Berding met l'accent sur leur autorite, obtenue par le procede de "clustering"(pp. 142-155; voir deja Christianae 53 (1999) 349-360). Pour lui, ni pour Hartog, il y a lieu giwliae de dater les Pastoralestard dans le deuxieme siecle, encore moins de s'associer a des solutions comme celle de von Campenhausen, qui voudrait considerer Polycarpe lui-meme comme l'auteur des Pastorales. Comme il est notre devoir de presenter l'ouvrage de Berding, concentrons nous encore un instant sur sa methode (cf. pp. 27-32). Berding ne semble pas s'apercevoirdes limites de la methode de la comparaisonminutieuse. Il neglige trop le probleme de transmissiondes textes. Pour PolPhil la question est suffisammentconnue: il s'agit d'un texte malheureusement mal transmis, avec meme une serieuse lacune a la fin du texte, ofu l'on doit se confier a la traduction latine. I1 y a la donc un probleme que Berding ne souleve pas. Encore moins qu'il n'indique pas avec precision quelle est l'edition qu'il utilise: est-ce Lightfoot, ou Fischer, ou Lake? (Pas de renvoi a Funk, ni a Bihlmeyer ou Camelot, meme pas dans la bibliographie.) Mais il y a plus. La base de comparaison est le texte biblique, surtout Paul. II faudrait bien en savoir plus sur la situation de transmission textuelle de Paul au debut du deuxieme siecle; celle-ci s'eclaircitpeu a peu au cours du deuxieme siecle, mais il est important de se rendre compte du fait que ce que nous lisons aujourd'hui dans nos editions ne correspond pas necessairementa ce que Polycarpe avait sous les yeux. Je dis bien: ce qu'il avait sous lesyeux, parce que Berding, avec beaucoup d'autres pense qu'il va de soi que Polycarpe cite de memoire (p. 30). De l'autre c6te, Berding, tout comme Hartog, est convaincu de l"'art" de Polycarpe dans la "re-edition"des textes qu'il emprunt, et observe a travers PolPhildes allusions subtiles a Paul, p.ex. l'aux Philippienspaulinien. Cela nous semble supposer une connaissance assez directe des textes, voir un corpus de textes ecrits! Nous voudrions maintenir que le phenomene d'imitation decrit par Berding est seulement expliquable avec recours a une texte ecrit, meme si celui-ci n'est pas encore compriscomme "Ecriture".
REVIEWS
101
Berding lui-meme souligne le fait que Paul fait autorite pour Polycarpe et pour ses adresses,tout comme l'AncienTestamentet les Parolesdu Seigneur. Cela implique une autorite commune, ecrite, sans qu'il soit necessaire de parler deja de "scripturaire"ou "canonique" (cf. notre Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians).D'ailleurs, Berding est d'accord de situer Polycarpe en dehors de toute polemique anti-marcionitequi aurait pu entrainerune discussion sur la "canonicite"(voir aussi Hartog). En fin de compte le livre de Berding n'a pas manque de nous obliger a une reconsideration de nos idees sur PolPhil, sans arriver pourtant a nous convaincre. Qu'il nous soit permis d'exprimer un dernier regret. La bibliographie nous offre une orientation quasi exclusive vers la litterature anglophone, d'autreslangues font presque totalement defaut. De telle sorte les donnees deviennent aussi egarantes. Dans le cas de la monographie connue de E. Massaux on ne trouve que la traduction anglaise de 1990, sans qu'il soit clair qu'il s'agit au fond d'une etude de 1950. Faculteit Godgeleerdheid,
B. DEHANDSCHUrrER
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, St. Michielsstraat6, B-3000 Leuen
in Agpten (Handbook of Oriental Peter Grossmann, ChristliheArchitektur Studies/Handbuch der Orientalistik,Section One, The Near and Middle East, Vol. 62), Leiden - Boston - K6ln: Brill 2002, XXX + 605 S. + Karte der wichtigstenchristlichenDenkmlilerin Agypten + 193 Abbildungen und XVI Tafeln auf Glanzpapier, ISBN 90-04-12128-5, e 125 (Geb.). Die inhaltlicheQualitatdes neuen Handbucheszur christlichenArchitektur in Agyptenvon der Spatantikebis in die Zeit nach der arabischenEroberung basiert auf der uiber 35-jahrigen Grabungserfahrungdes Autors, der ab demJahr 1965 als Referentfir Baugeschichteam DeutschenArchaologischen Institut in Kairo tatig war. Somit flieBen neben neuen Ergebnissen auch eine groBe Zahl fruherer Arbeiten in das Buch ein. Im ersten Kapitel zu den Besonderheiten der christlich-agyptischen Baukunstwird vorab noch einmal deutlichhervorgestellt,daB der Kirchenbau in der Tradition der urbanen Architektur des Romischen Reiches steht, wie es zum Beispiel der Bautyp der Basilikazeigt, der auf die entsprechenden Vorbilder forensischerBasilikenriickfhrbar ist. Ubemahmen aus dem ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
fVgiliaeChnstianae58, 101-107
REVIEWS
101
Berding lui-meme souligne le fait que Paul fait autorite pour Polycarpe et pour ses adresses,tout comme l'AncienTestamentet les Parolesdu Seigneur. Cela implique une autorite commune, ecrite, sans qu'il soit necessaire de parler deja de "scripturaire"ou "canonique" (cf. notre Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians).D'ailleurs, Berding est d'accord de situer Polycarpe en dehors de toute polemique anti-marcionitequi aurait pu entrainerune discussion sur la "canonicite"(voir aussi Hartog). En fin de compte le livre de Berding n'a pas manque de nous obliger a une reconsideration de nos idees sur PolPhil, sans arriver pourtant a nous convaincre. Qu'il nous soit permis d'exprimer un dernier regret. La bibliographie nous offre une orientation quasi exclusive vers la litterature anglophone, d'autreslangues font presque totalement defaut. De telle sorte les donnees deviennent aussi egarantes. Dans le cas de la monographie connue de E. Massaux on ne trouve que la traduction anglaise de 1990, sans qu'il soit clair qu'il s'agit au fond d'une etude de 1950. Faculteit Godgeleerdheid,
B. DEHANDSCHUrrER
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, St. Michielsstraat6, B-3000 Leuen
in Agpten (Handbook of Oriental Peter Grossmann, ChristliheArchitektur Studies/Handbuch der Orientalistik,Section One, The Near and Middle East, Vol. 62), Leiden - Boston - K6ln: Brill 2002, XXX + 605 S. + Karte der wichtigstenchristlichenDenkmlilerin Agypten + 193 Abbildungen und XVI Tafeln auf Glanzpapier, ISBN 90-04-12128-5, e 125 (Geb.). Die inhaltlicheQualitatdes neuen Handbucheszur christlichenArchitektur in Agyptenvon der Spatantikebis in die Zeit nach der arabischenEroberung basiert auf der uiber 35-jahrigen Grabungserfahrungdes Autors, der ab demJahr 1965 als Referentfir Baugeschichteam DeutschenArchaologischen Institut in Kairo tatig war. Somit flieBen neben neuen Ergebnissen auch eine groBe Zahl fruherer Arbeiten in das Buch ein. Im ersten Kapitel zu den Besonderheiten der christlich-agyptischen Baukunstwird vorab noch einmal deutlichhervorgestellt,daB der Kirchenbau in der Tradition der urbanen Architektur des Romischen Reiches steht, wie es zum Beispiel der Bautyp der Basilikazeigt, der auf die entsprechenden Vorbilder forensischerBasilikenriickfhrbar ist. Ubemahmen aus dem ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
fVgiliaeChnstianae58, 101-107
102
REVIEWS
RepertoirepharaonischerTempel beschrankensich dagegen nur auf Details, wobei sich aber immerhin Eigentiimlichkeitenwie die teilweiseAusrichtung der Kirchen am Nil und die intensive Verwendung alter Tempel als Steinbriiche fur Baumaterial auf die lokale Baukunst zuriickfuhrenlassen (S. 14, 172). Der DenkmalerbestandAgyptens wurde insgesamt durch Faktoren wie kontinuierlicheBesiedlung, Bauausfiihrungmit verganglichen Materialien wie Lehmziegeln,Verwendungder Erde antikerStadthugelals Diingemittel, aber auch den verantwortungslosenUmgang fruherer Ausgraber mit aus ihrer Sicht uninteressantemspatantikenMaterial dezimiert. Besonders in Unteragypten und Alexandrien nimmt sich der erhaltene Bestand relativ diirftig aus. Bereits bei den Themen dieses ersten Kapitels (u.a. werden auf schriftlichenQuellen beruhendeDatierungen,Stiftungenetc. besprochen) zeigt sich, daB sich das Buch nicht auf die architektonischeBeschreibung des Materialsbeschrankt,sondem auch mit fundiertenkirchengeschichtlichen und historischenKenntnissen aufwartet. Die folgenden vier Kapitel befassen sich mit dem Kirchenbau, wobei die Nrn. 3 bis 5 im Prinzip als Unterkapitelvon Kapitel 2 betrachtetwerden konnen, da sich der Autor in ihnen mit Details wie den raumlichen Bestandteilen,der baulichen Ausbildung und der Ausstattungder Kirchen beschaftigt. Kapitel 6 behandelt das Thema sonstiger fruhchristlicher Bauanlagen in Agypten. Daran schlieBt sich ein topographischgeordneter Katalog der wichtigsten agyptischenKirchenbautenan: zu zahlen sind 71 stadtische/dorfliche und 42 Klosterkirchen.Den im Buch beschriebenen Denkmalern sind 193 Abbildungen mit neuen oder uberarbeitetenPlanen (zumeist Grundrissen,aber auch Rekonstruktionen)beigegeben, die sich, wie nicht anders zu erwarten, in bester Qualitat zeigen. Gemessen an diesem Standard hatte die an den Anfang des Buches gesetzte kleinteilige und fur das Auge strapazioseKarte besser als groBeresFaltblatt oder auf mehrere Seiten verteilte topographischeUbersicht gestaltet werden sollen. Im zweiten Kapitel werden zunachstdie erhaltenenDenkmalerdes urbanen Kirchenbaus aus dem 4. Jh. betrachtet. Als vorherrschender Typ fungiert die nach Osten gerichtete dreischiffigeSaulenbasilika(finfschiffige Bauten sind ebenfalls bereits ab dem 4. Jh. nachgewiesen), die als agyptische Besonderheiteneinen westlichen Umgang, einen ostlichen Umgang, der fur die weitere Entwicklungwichtigist, und ein mehrteiligesSanktuarium aufweist. Letzteres Merkmal ist ein Bauelement, das auch im syrischen Kirchenbau zu finden ist, sich aber wahrscheinlichauf agyptischemBoden friiher durchsetzte (S. 27).
REVIEWS
103
Ohne hier Abhangigkeiten oder Vorbilder implizieren zu wollen, soil doch hervorgehoben werden, daf diesen Besonderheiten ahnliche Raumgliederungen in den agyptischen Tempeln entsprechen (vgl. S. 22) und im 4. Jh. auch noch gut bekannt waren (entgegen der Aussage auf S. 24), da SchlieBungenund Zerstorungenin die Zeit vom 4. bis 6. Jh. reichen (S. 43 if.). Es bleibt ein bemerkenswerterZufall, daB gerade in Agypten mit den Umgangen in der BasilikaBesonderheitenausgepragtwerden, die bereits in den Umgangen der Tempel (Hypostylhallen)zu finden sind. DaB zum Beispiel Baustiicke als heidnisch und damit feindlich bewertet wurden, wird allein deutlich durch Zerstorungen oder Obertunchungen von Bildnissen in Tempeln. Ob eine solche 'Aversion' unbedingt auch gegen abstraktereElemente wie die Anordnungvon Saulenstellungenoder Angliederung von mehreren Raumen gegolten haben muB (S. 27), ist nicht sicher abzustreiten,aber prinzipiell sind derartige Fragen vielleicht doch nicht so eindeutig zu beantworten.DaB sowohl Pastophorienals auch der westliche Umgang eher im Suden des Landes (S. 19, 28) zum festen Bestandgehorten, lieBe sich sogar mit einer vom Mittelmeerraumnicht so stark beeinfluBten Eigenart lokaler Traditionen begriinden. Zum Westumgang, dem keine eigentliche Funktion zugedacht wird (S. 19), konnte angefiihrt werden, daB, da er nun einmal vorhanden war, eine Raumgliederung vorliegt, die es gestattete, verschiedene Gruppen (Kleriker,Laien untergliedertin Manner und Frauen)in einer Art Verteilerfunktionzu sammeln und direktin die ihnen zugeordnete Zone der Kirche zu ftihren (z. B. den Seitenschiffen,vgl. S. 110). Dieser Funktion als neutralerSammlungsortentspracheder Umstand, daB ein vorgelagerterNarthex in Agypten nicht so haufig anzutreffenist (S. 101). Die Anbringung einer Seitenkonchein der Sergioskirche(letztesJahrzehnt des 7. Jh.) zeigt zumindest fur die spatereZeit, daB der Westumgangals eigenes Raumglied aufgefaBt werden konnte und durchaus mit einem Narthex hinsichtlich seiner Funktion in eine Verbindung gebracht werden kann (vgl. S. 105). Voll als dreischiffige agyptische "Umgangsbasilika"(S. 20) ausgebildet zeigt sich jedenfalls die den Ausgrabernnach in die erste Hilfte des 4. Jh. datierte und damit alteste erhaltene Kirche in Agypten, namlich die Siidostkirchevon Kellis (Abb. 85). Der Autor fuhrt aus, daB dieser Bautypus im 5. bis 6. Jh. seinen Hohepunkt erreichte. Bei der Beschreibung der Entwicklungwird detailliertuiberdie Umformung verschiedenerRaumteile wie dem ostlichen Umgang (z. B. der Aufnahme eines Triumphbogens) gesprochen. Ab dem 5. Jh. treten vor allem auch eine Vielzahl weiterer Bautypen auf, die ebenfalls in ihren Entwicklungenbeschrieben werden.
104
REVIEWS
So kommt es zu Schopfungenfuinf-und siebenschiffiger,teils mit ungewohnlich kurzem Langhaus ausgestatteten Basiliken, Bauten, die durch ein dreischiffigesQuerhaus erweitert sind (Transeptbasiliken),Zentralbauten, worunter neben den aus dem MittelmeeraumwohlbekanntenTetrakonchoi auch ein einschiffigerkreuzformigerBau sowie die Umgangsvierstiitzenbauten fallen, deren Vorbilder noch nicht geklart sind. Als weitere Typen werden Kirchen mit Contra-Apsidensowie einschiffigeKleinkirchenvorgestellt. Die Entwicklungder Klosterkirchenfallt aus der urbanenBauentwicklung heraus, da sie sich in der Wahl der Bautypen konservatiververhielten und gerade im Falle der Kirchen von Anachoreten neben baulich durchaus eigenwilligenGebauden zum Beispielauch Schopfungenwie die Felskirchen hervorbrachten.Die durch historischeUmstande besser datierbarenKirchen der koinobitischenKloster sind insgesamt natiirlich groBer und bedeutender als diese. Im folgenden wird gezeigt, daB die arabische Eroberungim 7. Jh. auch in der christlichenBaukunsteine Zasur nach sich zog. In der Folge wurden die Bauten armlicherund Fertigkeitenwie die Erstellungvon Quaderund Hausteinbauten gingen allmahlich verloren. Eingehend wird die Entwicklung des Hums (gewissermaBeneinem Querraum im Ostumgang vor dem Sanktuarium)geschildert sowie die Typen der Langhauskuppelkirchen und mittelalterlichen Vierstutzenbauten bzw. Achtstiitzenbauten vorgestellt. Beziiglichder Datierungenist bemerkenswert,daB sich mehrereVorschlage an der Zeit der persischenEroberungorientieren.So argumentiertder Verfasser fur eine Datierung dreier Kirchen auf dem Gebiet des Legionslagers von Diospolis Magna in die Zeit der persischen Besetzung (S. 33 f.) oder setzt Zerstorungenwie in der groBenKirche des Schenuteklostersbei Atripe in die Zeit der Eroberung. Zu Bischof Theodor von Philae (S. 47), den Kirchen auf der Insel Philae und der angekiindigtenNeubearbeitung der Inschrift der Westkirche (S. 465) siehe inzwischen S.G. Richter, Studien zur ChristianisierungNubiens (SKCO 11), Wiesbaden 2002. Die dritte Phase der christlichenArchitekturlaBt der Verfasserin der Mamlukenzeit beginnen, die durch Repressaliengegen die Christen und den entsprechenden Folgen gekennzeichnetwar und vom Typ der Hallenkirchebestimmt wurde. Im dritten Kapitel widmet sich der Verfasser ubersichtlichin Einzeluntersuchungenden raumlichenBestandteilender Kirche, inklusiveAnbauten und Grabem. Es werden jeweils Definitionen der Bezeichnungen gegeben und sowohl die Funktion als auch die verschiedene Gestaltungder Glieder beschrieben.
REVIEWS
105
Im vierten Kapitel wird die Bautechnikbehandelt, also die verwendeten Materialien,Ausfiihrung,Dekor etc., wobei insbesonderedie Beschreibungen zum Gebrauch von Spolien und der Konstruktionder Dacher sehr umfassende Informationenbieten. Das fiinfte Kapitel beschiftigt sich mit den Einbauten wie Synthrona, Ambone etc. Hervorgehobenwerden kann an dieser Stelle die Moglichkeit der Interpretation von Befestigungsspuren kastenartiger Einbauten als Mumiengestelle. Das sechsteKapitelwidmet sich den sonstigenfriihchristichenBauanlagen in Agypten, wobei allerdingsbei den Ausfuhrungenzu den Pilgerheiligtiimern weitere Kirchen behandelt werden. Nach Vorstellungder Lokalitaten werden die baulichenBesonderheitenbesprochen,die sich aus den funktionalen Bedurfnissenergeben, die ein Wallfahrtsbetriebmit sich bringt (architektonische Gesamtkonzeption,Herbergen, Raume fur Heilungen etc.). Im Rahmen der Behandlung der monastischen Architektur fuhrt die Einfiihrung,die die Anfinge einiger wichtigermonchischerGemeinschaften beschreibt, in die unterschiedlichen Lebensformen in den Lauren der Anachoreten und in durch eine gemeinsame Regel gepragten koinobitischen Kloster ein. Dieser Unterschied driickt sich bereits in funktionalen Bauten wie den Klostermauer, gemeinsamen Vorratshausernund Gastehauser der Koinobiten aus. Eingedenk der Tatsache, daB das Monchtum eines der groBten kulturellenVermachtnisseAgyptens darstellt,gleichzeitig in der Sekundarliteraturauf einer begrenzten, teilweise sehr unscharfen schriftlichenQuellenbasis viele Theorien iiber dessen Anfange entstanden sind, ist es sehr erniichternd aufs Neue zu lesen, daB selbst beruhmte Statten wie der Wadi Natrun archaologisch langst noch nicht genugend erschlossensind (S. 258). Was aus der InterpretationarchaologischerFunde zur alltaglichenLebensweiseder Monche gesagtwerdenkann, vom Gebrauch von Gutern bis hin zu sozialen Beziehungen,zeigen unter den Aufihrungen zu verschiedenenLauren besondersdiejenigenzur besser erforschtenKellia. Der umfassende Rahmen dieser Untersuchungen enthalt neben der Beschreibung der Gebetsstattenin den beiden klosterlichenLebensweisen eine Vielzahl von Fakten und Beobachtungenzu einzelnen Elementen wie zum Beispiel den Ummauerungen oder verschiedenen Baukomplexenwie Refektorien oder Gastehausern. Im Rahmen dieser Ausfihrungen nimmt der Autor gegen die These von Wietheger-Fluck Stellung (S. 205 Anm. 11; 285), Raum 1772 N im Jeremiasklosterbei Sakkara,in dem die bekannten FuBabdriickeund eingravierte kurze Gebete gefunden wurden, als Gedachtnisstattefur Pilger anzusehen und schlagt stattdesseneher eine Deutung als Arbeitsraumvor,
106
REVIEWS
in dem gleichzeitiggebetet wurde. Unbefriedigendbei dieser L6sung bleibt, daB sich im Osten der nur durch Saulen und holzeme Schranken abgegrenzte Raum 1777, eine Kapelle mit Sanktuarium, befand, der vom angrenzendenHof (1772 S) durch eine Tur erreichbarwar. Die Inschriften von Raum 1772 N stehen in Bezug zu dieser Kapelle und vor allem Nr. 188, in der die Rede davon ist, daB an diesem OrtJeremias selbst betete, um die Sunden der Welt hinwegzunehmen, befindet sich nahezu mittig vor den Schranken zu dieser Kapelle. Dieser Befund (hinzu kommt die direkte Verbindung des Hofes zur Hauptkirche durch eine Gasse) deutet darauf, daB dieser Kapelle in Zusammenhangmit Jeremias ein besonderer Wert gezollt wurde, so daB die Funktionendes Hofes mit der kathedraals auch Raum 1772 N damit zu tun gehabt haben konnten.Der Interpretation als Gedenk- und Gebetsstattein Zusammenhangmit der Kapelle (auch ein auswartigerPilgerbetriebist moglich) scheint daher die wahrscheinlichere zu sein. Zu der von DescceudresjungstvorgetragenenAnsicht,daB die Turmbauten friiherer Monchssiedlungenin erster Linie als Wohnturme dienten, ohne allerdings die Existenz von Fluchtturmenabzustreiten,setzt der Verfasser (S. 303 Anm. 467) unter Anfuhrung auch schriftlicherQuellen entgegen, daB sie in der Regel doch als Fluchttiirme dienten und erst von einem spateren Zeitpunkt an der Bau von Turmen als Wohnbauten moglich ist. Von den folgenden Ausfuhrungensei hier nur noch auf die agyptischchristlichenGrabsittenverwiesen,die in vielfacherHinsicht in der Tradition der heidnischen Zeit stehen. Auf die Sitte der Mumifizierungund der mehr oder weniger offentlichen Aufbewahrung der Leichname wurde bereits hingewiesen.Auch hier zeigt sich wieder die Starke des Verfassers,der von einem aus schriftlichen Quellen gewonnenen Kontext ausgeht, um vor diesem Hintergrunddie archaologischenBeschreibungenund Interpretationen aufzunehmen.Ubersichtlichwerdendem Leserdie vorkommendenGrabtypen mit genauer Beschreibungder architektonischenGestaltungsmoglichkeiten von Mausoleenund Grabkapellenvorgestellt.Am Ende des sechstenKapitels werden noch militarische Anlagen, Wohnhauser und palastartige Bauten thematisiert. Der oben erwahnte Katalog stellt noch einmal die wichtigsten Kirchen Agyptens vor. Der Verfasser ist dabei in der Lage, jedem Bauwerk nicht nur in seiner Stellung in der architektonischenGesamtentwicklung,sondem auch seinen Besonderheiten,wie z. B. der Bemalung gerecht zu werden. Selbstverstandlichenthalten die Beschreibungen Ausfuhrungen zur genauen Lokalisation,Baustadien und die bereits erwahnten Plane.
REVIEWS
107
Die folgenden Indices sind nicht als benutzerfreundlicheZugabe, sondern als wesenticher Bestandteil des Buches aufzufassen,da es die unterschiedlichen Blickwinkel(Betrachtungder Bauten als Ganzes, Entwicklung einzelner Bauelemente und stetige Hinzuziehung von Vergleichsmaterial) mit sich bringen, daB Aussagen zu einzelnen Gebauden iiber das gesamte Buch verteilt sind. Das geographischeRegister und der Index zu Begriffen und Sachen ermoglicht so erst den umfassenden Uberblick zu den verschiedenen Themen. Die wenigen kritischenBemerkungen,die hier gemacht wurden, konnten mit gutem Gewissen niedergeschriebenwerden, da mit dem besprochenen Buch ohne Frage ein Standardwerk vorliegt, daB in dieser Form wohl niemand anderes als der Verfasser hatte schreiben konnen. Universitat Miinster
SIEGFRIED G. RICHTER
Institut fur Agyptologie & Koptologie, SchlaunstraBe2, D-48143 Minster
Noel Lenski,Failureof Empire.ValensandtheRomanStatein theFourthCentury A.D., Transformation of the Classical Heritage XXXIV, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 2002 (Universityof CaliforniaPress),xiv + 454 pp., ISBN 0-520-23332-8, $ 75.00. Was the emperor Valens the wrong man in the wrong place? Yes, according to Lenski's considered opinion about the reign of Valens (364378). Valens seems never to have been able to get in control of affairs, and crisis followed crisis in the period when this man from Pannonia governed the eastern part of the Roman Empire. The ultimate disaster was, of course, the humiliating defeat against the Goths at Adrianople, where Valens met his death. This is the first book-length study of Valens and his reign; it grew out of the author's 1995 Princeton dissertation Valensand the FourthCentury Empire.Fortunately,Lenski does not identify himself with the of protagonist his book. This study is therefore not an attempt to rehabilitate Valens, but a fair assessmentof the person and his times. Such an assessmentis possible thanks to the relative abundance of source material, Ammianus Marcellinus,in the first place. Lenski took the sensible decision not to write a biography-although there is little more to know about Valens than what is treated in this book-but rather a case study in the ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
rtgiliaeChristianae58, 107-110
REVIEWS
107
Die folgenden Indices sind nicht als benutzerfreundlicheZugabe, sondern als wesenticher Bestandteil des Buches aufzufassen,da es die unterschiedlichen Blickwinkel(Betrachtungder Bauten als Ganzes, Entwicklung einzelner Bauelemente und stetige Hinzuziehung von Vergleichsmaterial) mit sich bringen, daB Aussagen zu einzelnen Gebauden iiber das gesamte Buch verteilt sind. Das geographischeRegister und der Index zu Begriffen und Sachen ermoglicht so erst den umfassenden Uberblick zu den verschiedenen Themen. Die wenigen kritischenBemerkungen,die hier gemacht wurden, konnten mit gutem Gewissen niedergeschriebenwerden, da mit dem besprochenen Buch ohne Frage ein Standardwerk vorliegt, daB in dieser Form wohl niemand anderes als der Verfasser hatte schreiben konnen. Universitat Miinster
SIEGFRIED G. RICHTER
Institut fur Agyptologie & Koptologie, SchlaunstraBe2, D-48143 Minster
Noel Lenski,Failureof Empire.ValensandtheRomanStatein theFourthCentury A.D., Transformation of the Classical Heritage XXXIV, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 2002 (Universityof CaliforniaPress),xiv + 454 pp., ISBN 0-520-23332-8, $ 75.00. Was the emperor Valens the wrong man in the wrong place? Yes, according to Lenski's considered opinion about the reign of Valens (364378). Valens seems never to have been able to get in control of affairs, and crisis followed crisis in the period when this man from Pannonia governed the eastern part of the Roman Empire. The ultimate disaster was, of course, the humiliating defeat against the Goths at Adrianople, where Valens met his death. This is the first book-length study of Valens and his reign; it grew out of the author's 1995 Princeton dissertation Valensand the FourthCentury Empire.Fortunately,Lenski does not identify himself with the of protagonist his book. This study is therefore not an attempt to rehabilitate Valens, but a fair assessmentof the person and his times. Such an assessmentis possible thanks to the relative abundance of source material, Ammianus Marcellinus,in the first place. Lenski took the sensible decision not to write a biography-although there is little more to know about Valens than what is treated in this book-but rather a case study in the ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
rtgiliaeChristianae58, 107-110
108
REVIEWS
stresses of the late antique empire and the expectations that contemporarieshad of an emperor to deal with these strains.It is evident that Valens could not live up to those expectations. The throne came unexpectedly for Valens. On 26 February 364 his brother Valentinian was proclaimed successor of Jovian; a month later Valens was made co-emperor. Although each emperor was responsiblefor his own half of the empire, they often acted in unison, in particularwith regardto legislativeand administrativemeasures.Valentinianwas the senior emperor, and Valens always remained subordinateto his brother. Unlike Valentinian,who had a successfulmilitarycareerbefore he became Augustus, Valens had spent most of his youth on the family estate in Pannonia and was, according to Ammianus (31.14.5), trained neither in the military nor the liberal studies. The book's opening chapter sketches a wonderful picture of Valens' background,about his father Gratian, about Pannonia and its people. Valens is characterizedas strong, not very well educated and a man of countrylife;Ammianus even calls him boorish. Like his brother, he had a preferencefor appointing his fellow countrymen on key functions in military and administrativepositions. Lenski discussesthe main events of Valens' reign in chronologicalorder, starting with the uprising of Procopius in 365-6. This usurpation was a serious threat to Valens since Procopius was able to rally a lot of support. One of the centres of the revolt was Constantinople and after the suppression of Procopius, Valens' relations with the eastern capital remained feeble for the rest of his reign. To gain support Procopius made clever use of his family connections with the former emperor Julian and the Constantinian dynasty, and he emphasized Valens' obscure background. Although Valens tried to associate himself with the Constantinianfamily, e.g. by completingbuildingprojectsstartedby Constantineand Constantius and establishing marital bonds, Valens was acutely aware that he fell short of the expectations of the ideal emperor with respect to descent and education. The Procopius revolt was followed by Valens' first Gothic war (367369), which is discussed in chapter 3. The official excuse for this war was that the Goths had given offence by supportingProcopius.However, Valens' desire to prove himself as a general in the field was probably the real reason, as well as the mistaken idea that the barbariansformed a constant threat to the Roman Empire. After having sketched the background of Roman-Gothic relations in the fourth century, Lenski proceeds to describe
REVIEWS
109
the Roman campaigns against the Goths. In general the war was not very successful.The Roman-Gothic relations deteriotatedconsiderablyas a consequence of this war and the peace treaty drew a strong divide between Roman and barbarian. The next chapter focuses on Valens' eastern policy and conflicts with the Sassanians-in which Armenia, of course, fulfilled a key role (king Pap)-as well as with minor peoples as the Maratocupreni,Isaurians and Saracens. Very interestingis what Lenski has to say about the Breviariaof Eutropius and Festus (pp. 185-196). These historical discourses should be considered as representations of Valens' ideology of expansionism and instruments to prepare for and justify war against Persia. In chapter 5, which deals with religion, Lenski argues that Valens was in his heart a religiously tolerant person, but that the circumstances and the conflicts within the eastern church forced him to take a stand and persecute harshly those who were not of Homoian conviction. Part of this chapter is devoted to the magic trials in Rome and Antioch. The conspiracyleading up to the trials should, according to Lenski, not be seen as a proJulianic pagan opposition against Valens and his brother, as has recently been argued by FJ. Wiebe,' but as a plot, although overtly pagan in character, of people unhappy with Valens' rule. A field in which Valens received a good press is that of administration and finance, the subject of chapter 6. With regard to administrationfour areas had Valens' particular interest: corruption, civic administration,the masses (food supply),and agriculture.With regard to taxation and finances Lenski explains that Valens' measures were microeconomically a success but almost disastrous at a macroeconomic level. During his whole reign Valens, in spite of recruitmentlaws, was short on military manpower. The subject of the last chapter is the disaster at Adrianople. The introductory events, such as the Gothic immigration in 376, are elaborately described as well as, of course, the decisive battle. Lenski presents reasons for the disaster:lack of manpower, the lack of support from Gratian, tactical and strategic errors, and the troubles on the eastern border which demanded Valens' attention and prevented him from dealing with the Gothic problem immediately. Two-thirds of the eastern army was killed in this battle:the worst defeat since Cannae accordingto Ammianus(31.13.19). Valens' ingloriousdeath at Adrianopleis representativeof his unhappyreign, in which many of the problems and strainswhich the Roman Empirestruggled with came together. Four appendices conclude the book: on datable
110
REVIEWS
evidence for Valentinianic fortifications,on Shapur's administrativestructures in Armenia, on natural disastersin the reign of Valens, and on civic structuresbuilt under imperial sponsorshipbetween 364 and 378. The book contains some minor mistakes:e.g. Constantius'wife was not called Fausta but Faustina (p. 98), Julian did not besiege Ctesiphon (p. 160), and "as far east as Lycia",should be "as far west as Lycia"(p. 199). Furthermore, Lenski puts too much trust in the Christian sources with respect to persecutions of Christians duringJulian's reign (p. 214). However, these criticismsare just the pedantry of a reviewer. Lenski'sbook is a very welcome, detailed and well-writtenstudy of the tragic reign of Valens and the problems of the Later Roman Empire in general. Dept. of History, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 716, NL-9700 AS Groningen
JANWILLEM DRIJVERS
FJ. Wiebe, KaiserValensund die heidnischeOpposition(Bonn 1995). Lenski also argues
against the view of the Procopiusrevolt as being a pagan reaction against the new Christianemperors(pp. 110-111)as claimedby Wiebe.
BOOKS RECEIVED in theAncientWorld. Boeft, Jan den: UltimaAetas.Time,Tenseand Transcience Studiesin Honourof Jan denBoefi.Edited by Caroline Kroon & Daan den Hengst. Amsterdam:VU University Press 2000, xxi + 174 pp., ISBN 905383-725-6 (pb).-Thematic collection of essays for Jan den Boeft on the occasion of his retirement as Professor of Latin Language and Literature at the Free University Amsterdam: Preface (vii-viii); Jan den Boeft, S.R. Slings, Aere Bibliography 1968-2000 (ix-xxi); Part I: PaganLiterature: Perennius-WhichMonument? (3-12); Dirk M. Schenkeveld, The Olympic Victory of Yesterday: a Grammatical Problem in Ancient Grammar (1323); Rodie Risselada, The End of Time: A Perfect Future in Latin? (2539); Gert-Janvan Dijk, Present in Past and Future. The Relativity of Time in the Life of Apollonius (41-59); Daan den Hengst, Senium Imperii (61-70); H.C. Teitler,Julian's Death-bed and LiteraryConvention (71-80); Part II: Meetingof Cultures: Jan N. Bremmer, Paradise in the Oracula Sibyllina (8394); Pieter W. van der Horst, Wisdom from Time Immemorial. Ancient Speculationsabout AntediluvianKnowledge (95-106);Ton Hilhorst, Fourth Maccabees in Christian Martyrdom Texts (107-121);Jan Willem Drijvers, Cyril of Jerusalem and the Rebuilding of the Jewish Temple (A.D. 363) Literature: Gerard Bartelink,The Theme of the (123-135); Part III: Christian End of the World in the Works of Gregory the Great (139-146); A.A.R. Bastiaensen, 'The Day which the Lord has made' (Psalm 117:24a) in PatristicExegesis (147-162);M.L. Poll-van de Lisdonk,Erasmus'Annotationes on 1 Cor. 15,51: 'We shall indeed all rise' or 'We shall not all sleep'? (163-174). (The Boyarin, Daniel, Sparksof the Logos.Essaysin RabbinicHermeneutics Brill Reference Library of Judaism 11), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2003, X + 302 pp., ISBN 90-04-12628-7, e 89 / US$ 111 (hardback).-'There are two major themes running through the essays reprinted in this book: the first is the typological relation of rabbinicJudaism to Christianity,while the second is the re-animation, by going back to the roots, of a rabbinic Judaism that would not manifest some of the deleterious social ideologies and practices that modem orthodoxJudaism generally does'. and the Cerrato, J.A., HippolytusbetweenEast and West. The Commentaries Provenance of the Corpus(Oxford Theological Monographs), Oxford: Oxford University Press 2002, X + 291 pp., ISBN 0-19-924696-3, ? 50,00 (clothbound with book jacket).-Originally doctoral thesis Oxford University ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004
Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christianae58, 111-116
112
BOOKS RECEIVED
(supervisorEdwardJ. Yarold): Part I: Hippolytus in Christian Tradition; II. Hippolytusand EasternChristianity;II. The Asian Milieu of Apocryphal Sources; IV. The Asian Milieu of Controversies;V. The Asian Milieu of Apocalypticism.Appendices: The title list of the statue; Abbreviated textual references. Bibliography.Index. im ZeitalterdesHumanismus Classen, CarlJoachim, AntikeRhetorik (Beitrage zur Altertumskunde182), Miinchen-Leipzig: K.G. Saur Verlag 2003, IX + 373 S., ISBN 3-598-77734-5, e 96 (Gebunden).-Sch6n ausgestattete Ausgabe mit elf Studien zum Thema. Viele Verweise auf patristische Schriftsteller. Gnilka, Christian, Prudentiana III, Supplementum, Miinchen-Leipzig: K.G. Saur Verlag 2003, 100 S., ISBN 3-598-73009-8,e 60 (Gebunden).-Register zu Band I: Critica(5-42);Registerzu Band II: Exegetica(43-71);Epilegomena (zu Bd. I-II; und Indiculus zu den Epilegomena, 72-100). Gregorio di Nissa, Controil Fato. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento a cura di Michele Brandini(BibliotecaPatristica),Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane 2003, 201 pp., ISBN 88-10-42050-0, C 19,00 (pb). Hauser, AlanJ. & Duane F. Watson (eds.),A Histogyof BiblicalInterpretation. Vol. 1: TheAncientPeriod,Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans2003, xxi + 536 pp., ISBN 0-8028-4273-9, US$ 45.00 / / 32.95 (hardcoverwith jacket).-An excellently edited and finely produced book writtenby internationallyrenownedexpertsfrom the Englishspeakingworld and quite possible to become a standard resource on the history of biblical interpretationfor graduate and undergraduatestudents alike: Preface (vii-x); Abbreviations (xi-xxi); 1. Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, Introductionand Overview (1-54); 2. Esther Menn, Inner-BiblicalExegesis in the Tanak (55-79); 3. Leonard Greenspoon, Hebrew into Greek: Interpretation In, By, and Of the Septuagint (80-113); 4. Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandriaas Exegete(114-143);5. PhilipR. Davies, BiblicalInterpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls (144-166); 6. Martin McNamara, Interpretationof Scripturein the Targumim(167-197);7. Gary G. Porton, Rabbinic Midrash (198-224); 8. James A. Sanders, The Stabilizationof the Tanak (225-252); 9. James H. Charlesworth,The Interpretationof the Tanak in the Jewish Apocryphaand Pseudepigrapha(253-282); 10. Donald H.Juel, Interpreting Israel's Scripturesin the New Testament (283-303); 11. Joseph Trigg, The ApostolicFathersand Apologists(304-333); 12. FrancesYoung, Alexandrian and Antiochene Exegesis (334-354); 13. Dennis Brown, Jerome and the Vulgate (355-379); 14. Richard A. Norris, Augustine and the Close of the AncientPeriodof Interpretation(380-408);15. HarryGamble,The Formation
BOOKS RECEIVED
113
of the New Testament Canon and Its Significancefor the History of Biblical Interpretation(409-429); 16. Craig A. Evans, The Interpretationof Scripture in the New TestamentApocryphaand Gnostic Writings(430-456);Contributors (457); Index of Ancient and Modem Authors (458-465); Index of Subjects (466-517); Index of Primary Sources (518-536). as Partof Christian Literature. of theOldTestament Jonge, M. de, Pseudepigrapha The Caseof the Testaments andtheGreekLifeof Adamand of the TwelvePatriarchs Eve (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 18), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2003, VIII + 281 pp., ISBN 90-04-13294-5, e 75 / US$ 94 (hardback).-Important collection of essays written earlier by the author as well as a number of new chapters, all testifying to the author's well-substantiated thesis that, in great majority,the so-called 'Pseudepigraphaof the Old Testament' are in actual fact Christian documents incorporatingJewishtraditions: Preface (VII-VIII); Introduction (1-5); Part One: The so-called andEarlyChristianiy.SomeGeneralQestions: of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha the Testament': An Ill-Defined Category of of Old (1) 'Pseudepigrapha The Writings'(9-17);(2) 'Pseudepigraphaof the Old Testament'as Witnesses to the Authority of the Old Testament in the Early Church (18-28); (3) Developing a Different Approach (29-38); (4) The Christian Transmission of Pseudepigrapha. Some Cases (i.e., the Ascension of Isaiah; Vitae Prophetarum;4-5-6 Ezra; ParalipomenaIeremiou; the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch;Joseph and Aseneth; 1 Henoch; The Assumptionof Moses, 39of the TwelvePatriarchs: (5) Defining 68); Part Two: TheCaseof the Testaments the Twelve Patriarchs the Major Issues in the Study of the Testaments (71of as a Document Transmitted of the TwelvePatriarchs 83); (6) The Testaments and Related of theTwelvePatriarchs by Christians(84-106); (7) The Testaments to Testaments the conclusion: 'no (107-123, leading up Qumran Fragments in Aramaic Levi Document Levi the the Twelve Patriarchs at of Qumran');(8) and in the Testament of Levi(124-140); (9) The Two Great Commandments in the Testaments of the TwelvePatriarchs (141-159); (10) Light on Paul from and the New Testament Patriarchs? The Testaments the Testaments the Twelve of selection of passages that 'the other (160-177, among things concluding in the of from the Testaments Nestle-Aland's 26th edition is very margin limited, and unevenly distributed);Part Three: The Caseof the GreekLife of AdamandEve:(11) The Christian Origin of the Greek Life of AdamandEve (181-200); (12) The Washing of Adam in the Acherusian Lake (Greek Life of Adamand Eve 37:3) in the Context of Early Christian Notions of the Afterlife(with L. Michael White [and, like in other parts of the book, with the assistance of Johannes Tromp], 201-227); (13) The Greek Life of Adam
114
BOOKS RECEIVED
and Eve and the Writings of the New Testament (228-240, among other things concluding that 'the examination of the parallels between the writings of the New Testament and the GreekLife of Adamand Eve does not point to a direct relationship...; ... a case can be made for dating the GLAEat the end of the second century CE on the basis of a comparison with Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus and Tertullian').Bibliography(241256). Index of References (257-271). Analytical Subject Index (272-281). des Epiphanius vonSalamis.Ein Kommentar Kosters, Oliver, Die Trinititslehre zum Aelncoratus) (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 86), Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2003, 396 S., ISBN 3-525-55194-0, C 66 (Geb.).-Dissertation Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitat Minster (PromotorWolf-Dieter Hauschild;ZweitgutachtenBarbaraAland): I. Teil: Biographisch-historische Voraussetzungen; II. Teil: Der Ancoratusals Interpretationder biblischenAussagen-Gott als "Dreiheitin Einheit";III. Teil: Zusammenfassung-Epiphanius' Trinitatslehre als "Theologie der Namen". Literaturverzeichnis.Register. 'Wie die Untersuchungen in Teil I und die Interpretationdes Ancoratus gezeigt haben, gibt es fur das viel beschworene rigorose Altnizanertum des Epiphanius keine Belege. Seine Trinitatslehre steht in erster Linie in der Tradition des Athanasius (...) und ist nicht unbeinflusst durch das origenistisch-eusebianische Milieu Palastinas(...). Stark durch Athanasiusgepragt, entfalteter seine Trinitatstheologie in der Auseinandersetzungmit (neu-)arianischerund modalistischer Lehre markellischerArt. (...) Grundlegendfiir den Ancoratus ist die der mit der Theologie Namen, EpiphaniusEinheitund Differentziertheitbezeichnet und die ein Ersatz fur die spater ubernommene Redeweise von den drei Hypostasen und der einen Usia ist. Ausgehend von den offenbarten Namen (Mt 28,19) entfaltet er eine Begriffstheorie,mit der er den zentralen Sachverhalt der "Drieheitin Einheit"begriindet zum Ausdruckbringen will. Dieser Ansatz ist einzigartigund als Propriumdes Epiphaniuszu bezeichnen'. (370). Macarios de Magnesie, Le Monogenes. Introduction tragnirale, editioncritique, duction fanfaise et commentaire parRichardGoulet.Tome I: Introductiongenerale; Tome II: Edition critique, traduction franqaiseet commentaire (Textes et traditions 7), Paris: Librairie philosophiqueJ. Vrin 2003, 383 + 445 p., ISBN 2-7116-1647-9, e 80 (pb).-Etude sur l'Apocritos (ou le Monogenes, comme a rebaptise M. Richard Goulet le texte) d'un certain Macarios, ceuvre peu connue mais tres importante pour mieux connaitre le conflit entre hellenisme et christianisme dans les premiers siecles de notre ere. 'On pense generalementque Macarios a emprunte ses objections au traite
BOOKS RECEIVED
115
par le philosophe de la fin perdu en quize livres ecrit Contreles Chretiens du IeI siecle, Porphyrede Tyr. On auraitdonc la les vestigesde la poklmique dirigee contre le christianismepar son plus grand adversaire.-Les reponses apportees par Macarios pour defendre le christianismene sont pas elles non plus depouvues d'interet, car elles font appel a des vues theologiques originalesqui s'incriventdans les grands debats doctrinaux du IVesiecle et a des ressources rhetoriques que l'on voit rarement etalees aussi ouvertement chez les Peres de l'Eglise'. of Qumranand the Dead Sea Scrolls,Grand Magness, Jodi, TheArchaeology Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans 2002, xlvi + 238 pp. (incl. 66 fig.), ISBN 0-8028-4589-4, US$ 26.00 / ? 18.95 (hardcoverwith jacket).-A fascinating book, written in an attractive way with both specialists and non-specialistsin mind, and offering a number of fresh conclusions concerning life at Qumran. 'In the half century that Roland de Vaux excavated Qumran, the most important contributionsto its archaeology have undoubtedly been made by Jodi Magness'. undhistorisch-kritische Jesu. Patristische Metzdorf, Christina, Die Tempelaktion (WUNT, 2. Reihe 168), Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck 2003, Exegeseim Vergleich XIII + 289 S., ISBN 3-16-148190-9, E 59 (kart.).-Diss. FachbereichKath. Mainz (PromotorMariusReiser; Theologie,Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat ZweitgutachtenTheofried Baumeister).Die Autorin vergleichtdie Deutung der Tempelaktion Jesu bei den Vatern (insbes. Origenes, Johannes Chrysostomus,Theodor von Mopsuestia,Kyrillvon Alexandrien,Augustinus von Hippo) mit der Interpretation historisch-kritischerExegeten des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts(insbes.Heinrich G.E. Paulus, FriedrichLucke, David Friedrich StrauB, Adalbert Maier, Ed P. Sanders, Ben F. Meyer). Sie zeigt, daB die Vater mehr an historischenFragen interessiertsind als man gemeinhin annimmt and daB die historischenKonstruktionender Moderne vielfach auf fragwiirdigenVorannahmen beruhen. Palladius: Die lateinischeUbersetzungder Historia Lausiacades Palladius. Textausgabe mit Einleitung von Adelheid Wellhausen (PatristischeTexte und Studien 51), Berlin-New York: De Gruyter 2003, L + 758 S., ISBN 3-11-016710-7, E 198 (Leinen).-Eindrucksvolle Neuausgabe der lateinischen Ubersetzung der beruhmten Sammlung von Monchsgeschichten: Vorwort (V-VII);Sigelliste(XIII-XV);AlphabetischeListe der Handschriften (XVII-XXIII);Bibliographie(XXV-XLIV);Abkurzungsverzeichnis (XLV-L); Einleitung: A. Das Werk; B. Die lateinischen Versionen; C. Der lateinische Text der Version Ia/I; D. Die handschriftliche Uberlieferung des lateinischen Textes; E. Die Rekonstruktion des lateinischen Textes der
116
BOOKS RECEIVED
Version Ia (1-474). Historica Lausiaca:Die Kapitel der Historia Lausiaca (477-478); Synopse der Handschriften der Textrekonstruktion und der Version II (479-480);ConspectusSiglorum(481-482);Text (483-694).Indices (695-758). Sulpicio Severo, Vitadi Martino.Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento a cura di Fabio Ruggiero (BibliotecaPatristica),Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane 2003, 317 pp., ISBN 88-10-42049-7, E 23,00 (pb). Paul le Perse,logiciendu IVesiecle,Paris: Teixidor,Javier, Aristoteen syriaque. CNRS Editions2003, 152 pp., ISBN 2-271-06161-X, E 24 (pb).-(I) L'etude d'Aristote en syriaque; (II) La synthese logique de Paul le Perse; (III) Definition de la philosophie; (IV) L'Isagogeet les Catigories; (V) Le De interpretationed'apres Proba et Paul le Perse; (VI) Philosophie et science. Bibliographie.Glossaire. Index. BooksIVaught, Carl G., TheJourneytowardGodin Augustine's Confessions. + 193 pp., V7,Albany NY: State University of New York Press 2003, xi ISBN 0-7914-5792-3, US$ 17.95 (pb).-A philosopher's approach to the first six books of Augustine's Confessions, with comments reaching from Parmenidesand Plato to Hegel and postmodernism.'In this book, my way of responding to Augustine'sintentions is to retell the story of his journey toward God, to interpret it in terms of the philosophical frameworkthat I am about to introduce, and to indicate how Augustine's development finally brings him to the place where ecstatic encounters with God are possible' (3-4). delImperio deEuropa,Murcia: romano. Origenes Viciano, Albert, Cristianizacidn Universidad Catolica San Antonio 2003, 442 pp., ISBN 84-932989-5-6 (case bound).-(I) Cristianizaci6n del pensamiento y de la cultura; (II) Cristianizaci6nde las costumbresy de las instituciones;(III) Cristianizaci6n del espacio y del tiempo. Epilogo. Bibliografia.Indices. J. VANOORT
INSTRUCTIONS
TO AUTHORS
(1) Contributionsshouldbe submittedin duplicateand be accompaniedby a disk.Both WordPerfect and Microsoft Word are accepted word-processing programs. ASCII-formatted disks are also accepted. Contributions submitted should not have been published elsewhere. (2) Manuscriptsshould be printed with a wide margin and double space between the lines. Please use one side of the paper only. The first page should have ample space at the top around the title. (3) Titles should be as short as possible. (4) Italics should be used sparingly (but see below nrs. 6 and 7). (5) Latin quotations should be underlined to be printed in italics. Syriac, Hebrew and Coptic quotations should be transcribed. (6) References should be given in footnotes with continuous numbering. Titles of books and of journals (not of papers in journals) should be in italics to be printed in italics. For example: H.A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the ChurchFathers1 (Cambridge, Mass. 41964) 106-111. L.W. Barnard, "The Antecedents of Arius," VigiliaeChristianae 24 (1970) 172-188. Gregory of Nyssa, De hom.opif. 24 (PG 44,212D) - Greg.Nyss. Hom. opif.24 (PG 44,212D). Tertullian, Adv.Marc.4,28,1 - Tert. Adv.Marc.4,28,1. (7) Correction. Authors are requested to check their manuscripts,and especially their quotations, most carefully, and to type out all Greek, as later corrections in the proof stage are expensive and time-consuming. Corrections by which the original text is altered will be charged. (8) Offprints.Contributorswill receive 25 offprintsfree of charge for articles and 8 free offprints for reviews.
? Copyright 2004 by Koninkljke Brill JNV,Leiden,TheNetherlands All rightsreserved. No part of thispublicationmay be reproduced, storedin a retrieval translated, system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, withoutpriorwrittenpermission recording of thepublisher. to photocopy Authorization itemsfor internal personaluse is grantedby Brillprovidedthattheappropriate Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, fees arepaid directlyto Copyright Suite910, Danvers,MA 01923, USA. Feesare subjectto change.
ISSN 0042-6032 (print version) ISSN 1570-0720 (online version)
This journal is printed on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS E. SPAT, The 'Teachers' of Mani in the Acta Archelaiand Simon Magus ................................................................................................ In Quest of the Third Heaven: Paul & his Apocalyptic J.R. HARRISON, Imitators .......................................................................... R. ROUKEMA, The Good Samaritan in Ancient Christianity .......... H.G.E. (Els). ROSE,Liturgical Commemoration of the Saints in the MissaleGothicum (Vat.Reg.Lat. 317). New Approaches to the Liturgy of Early Medieval Gaul ...................................................
24 56
Reviews ................................................................................................
98
Books Received ...........
......... ..........................................
1
75
111
Gb
ristianae A
Review
Early
of
Christian
L3fr
Language
and
VOL.
LVIII
NO.
2
2004
www.brill.nl
BRILL LEIDEN-BOSTON
VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE a review of Early Christian Life and Language EDITORS-IN-CHIEF:J. DENBOEFT,Amsterdam, J. VAN OORT, Utrecht/Nijmegen, W.L. PETERSEN, State College, Pennsylvania, D.T. RUNIA,Melbourne, C. SCHOLTEN, Koln, J.C.M. VAN WINDEN,Leiden ASSOCIATE EDITORS:A. Le Boulluec (Paris) - A. Davids (Nijmegen) - R.M. Grant (Chicago) Marguerite Harl (Paris) - J.-P. Mah6 (Paris) - Elaine Pagels (Princeton) G. Rouwhorst (Utrecht) - R. Staats (Kiel) This quarterly journal contains articles and short notices of an historical and SCOPE: cultural, linguistic or philological nature on Early Christian literatureposterior to the New Testament in the widest sense of the word, as well as on Christian epigraphy and archaeology. Church and dogmatic history will only be dealt with if they bear directly on social history; Byzantine and Mediaeval literature only in so far as it exhibits continuity with the Early Christian period. The journal will also contain reviews of importantstudies, published elsewhere. Each volume appears in 4 quarterly issues. MANUSCRIPTS: All manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be sent to the Secretary of the Editorial Board, Professor J. den Boeft, Commanderijpoort4-6, 2311 WB Leiden, The Netherlands. Books for review should be sent to Professor J. van Oort, Department of Ecclesiastical History, P.O. Box 80105, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. Brill Academic Publishers PUBLISHER: Four times a year: February, May, August and November PUBLISHED: SUBSCRIPTIONS: The subscription price of Volume 58 (2004) is EUR 195.- (US $ 244.-) for institutions, and EUR 99.- (US$ 124.-) for individuals, inclusive of postage and handling charges. All prices are exclusive of VAT in EU-countries (VAT not applicable outside the EU). Subscription orders are accepted for complete volumes only. Orders take effect with the first issue of any year. Orders may also be entered on an automatic continuing basis. Cancellations will only be accepted if they are received before October 1st of the year preceding the year in which the cancellation is to take effect. Claims for missing issues will be met, free of charge, if made within three months of dispatch for European customers and five months for customers outside Europe. Once the issue is published the actual dates of dispatch can be found on our website: www.brill.nl. Subscription orders may be made via any bookseller or subscription agency, or direct to the publisher. The Netherlands U.S.A. OFFICES: Brill Academic Publishers Inc. Brill Academic Publishers 112 Water Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 9000 2300 PA Leiden Boston, MA 02109 Tel: +31 71 535 35 66 Tel: 1-800-962-4406 (toll free) Fax: (617) 263 2324 Fax: +31 71 531 75 32 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] BACK VOLUMES: Back volumes of the last two years are available from Brill: please contact our customer services department. For back volumes of the preceding years please contact: Swets & Zeitlinger. P.O. Box 830, 2160 SZ, Lisse, The Netherlands. BACK ISSUES: Back issues of the current and last two years are available from Brill. VISIT THE BRILL WEBSITE: WWW.BRILL.NL
BRILL LEIDEN BOSTON
THE ROLE OF MARY AS CO-RECAPITULATOR IN ST IRENAEUS OF LYONS1 BY
M.C. STEENBERG In this article, the author takes up the theme of Marian consideration in the thought of Irenaeus, long considered by many to have been exhaustivelyaddressedby past scholarship.But there is yet ground to be covered: this study addressesthe hitherto neglected theme of co-recapitulationas it applies to Mary in the Irenaean corpus. What to make of Irenaeus' assertions of an active, dynamic participationin the salvation process by the 'obedient virgin'?Arguing against the possibilitythat Irenaeus is driven primarily by aesthetic concers, the author posits a reading of Irenaeus that finds in Mary's person an integral and essential component of a theologicallycoherent system of personal and social recapitulation.
ABSTRACT:
When Jean Plagnieux wrote in 1970 that 'tout, semblerait-il, a ete dit, et depuis fort longtemps, au sujet de la doctrine mariale d'Irenee',2 he expressed a sentiment to which the paucity of Marian investigation in recent Irenaean scholarship has borne larger witness. Yet the role of Mary in the thought of Irenaeus may still be of interest to scholars, as there remain aspects of his 'doctrine mariale' which have not, in fact, received adequate attention. In particular, the aesthetic power and value of the cyclical Eve-Mary parallel, standing alongside that of Adam-Christ in a recapitulative conception of the salvation economy, has led scholars to address Irenaean Mariology primarily from this starting point. In other words, the usual beginning has been the assertion, prevalent throughout the Irenaean corpus, that Eve and Mary are contrastingly paralleled, are dramatically involved in the larger saga of the human economy, are integral to the recapitulative movements of the fall and redemption, and
I am deeply indebted to Fr Thomas G. Weinandy,OFM Cap., Oxford, and Dr CharlesWilson, St Olaf College, USA, for their thoughtfulcommentson earlierversions of this text. 2 Plagnieux, 'La doctrine mariale de saint Irenee', Revuedes sciencesrelgieuses,44 (1970)
179. ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 117-137
118
M.C. STEENBERG
reflections have then been laid upon this framework. Yet there is the antecedent 'why?' that must be the basis for these assertions, and scholarship has proven remarkablyquiet on this eminently relevant question. Irenaeus certainly provides a remarkable development of the Eve-Mary parallel as found in more primitive forms in earlier writers, but is there a coherent theologicalbasis for his powerfulstatementson the active influence of Eve and Mary upon the larger condition of all humanity? In the case of Mary in particular,is there a sound theologicalor anthropologicalmotive for the idea that the mother of Christ is herself recapitulative,dynamically involved in the salvation of humanity; or is Irenaeus simply moving backwards from the notable parallelismof the incarnateJesus, His mother and the first human couple, eisegetically reading a deeper meaning into what is essentially a doctrine of the aesthetic? In this paper I shall argue that, despite the genuine fact of the aesthetic value to the Eve-Mary parallel and Irenaeus' heavy use of it, there is an aspect of his anthropology which makes this parallel not only 'pleasing' and 'fitting',3but actually necessary and essential. In particular,I will suggest that Irenaeus'anthropologyprovidesfor a distinctionbetween the individual or essential aspect of human nature and that of humanity as social creature,typified separatelyand distinctlyin the persons of Adam and Eve, and will argue that from within such a context, a socially recapitulative 'new Eve' is in fact a soteriologicalnecessity. By the end of the paper, I intend to show that Irenaeus was not only the first Christian author to integrate the figure of Mary into his theology in an expansive and major way, but was also the first theologian whose anthropologywas developed in such a manner as to justify, warrant and require that the salvation wrought by Christ be worked out in concert with the society of humankind, typified first in Eve and later in Mary.
3 Characteristic terms in Irenaeus, e.g. 4.6.2; see Hoh, Die Lehredes hi. Irendusiuber das Neue Testament(Miinster: 1919) 112; Osborn, Irenaeusof Lyons(Cambridge: University Press, 2001) 18. Throughout the present text, references to Irenaeus are cited according to standard convention: '2.22.4' refers to Adversushaeresesbook 2, chapter 22, section 4; 'Epid. 15' refers to Epideixischapter 15. All quotations, together with their numercritical editions. References to the Nag ation, are taken from the SourcesChretiennes Hammadi Library: 'NHC (1,3) 16.31-34' refers to the Nag HammadiCodices,codex I, tractate 3, page 16, lines 31-34 (ed. J.R. Robinson).
THE ROLE OF MARY AS CO-RECAPITULATOR
119
Uses of Mary in Irenaeus Irenaeus' use of Mary in the course of both his anti-Gnostic polemic and positive theological development is extensive. The corpus as it is currently preserved contains no less than 65 passages that directly mention or obviously allude to the person of the mother of Christ (48 sections of the AH and 17 chapters of the Epid.),the majority of which fall into three broad categories:the anti-docetist,in which the person of Mary is used as partial or complete proof that the Son of God had become truly man in the Incarnation;the anti-adoptionist,almost always tied in with extensive Scripturalquotation in evidence of Mary's fulfilmentof prophecy and used to argue that the Christ was not an ordinary man adopted by God for the work of salvation, but in fact the one Son of God become man; and finally the recapitulativeor regenerative, in which context the Eve-Mary parallel and obedient virgin themes arise. It is this final category that will be most relevant to the present discussion,but its context can properly be set only through a brief examination of the other two. Both the anti-docetistand anti-adoptionistuses of Mary by Irenaeus are eminently Christological,as one would expect both of such discussionsand the general trend of Marian reflection in the first and second centuries. Prior to Irenaeus there seems to have been little interest in the figure of Mary expressed in writing, apart from any direct relevance she may have had upon the coming of the person of Christ.4While Irenaeus presents us with some of the first patristicpassages on a distinct role of Mary beyond that of God-bearer, he is nonetheless influenced by the more general tradition of Marian reflection and makes extensive use of her potential for providing counter-evidenceagainst what he perceives as the most common and ill-fated Christological errors of his Gnostic opponents. These latter
4
Mention of Mary in the Apostolic Fathers is addressed below. For a general survey of Mary in pre-Irenaean patristic thought, see Gambero, Mary and the Fathersof the Church:The Blessed VirginMary in PatristicThought(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999) 23-50. The person of Mary is elaborately treated in the Protoevangelion ofJames, of which a brief section (13.1) is devoted to a parallel with the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. The dating of the Protoevangelion is, however, now usually placed at the end of the second-century, either contemporary with or slightly later than Irenaeus; see Elliot, The A Collectionof ApocryphalChristianLiterature New Testament: in an EnglishTranslation Apocryphal (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) 48-57.
120
M.C. STEENBERG
did have their own views on the Mary figure as a part of their various cosmologies and anthropologies,but it was not so much their conception of her that offended Irenaeus'sensibilitiesas the 'logical'conclusionsregarding the person of Christ to which they led. Irenaeus saw in the late second century what various fathersand councils of the fourth and fifth would see during the height of the Christologicalcontroversy,namely that a flawed perception of Mary leads ultimately to a flawed perception of the person of Jesus Christ: either that He was not in fact made man, or that He was not fully or the same God as reigned in heaven. These two views are almost alwaysintrinsicallyintertwinedin the Gnostic systems with which Irenaeus was faced. That the divinity should in some manner come to effect the redemption of humanity was a common thread among most of the sects of the day; the manner in which this redeemer might come to work among men, however, was extremelyvaried.5Irenaeus incredulouslysets forth a number of the Gnostics' solutions to this question in AH 1:6from the Ptolemaean Valentinian assertion of the aeonic Saviour's possession of the spiritual seed from Achamoth and 'passage through' Mary 'as water passes through a tube', to exist among humanity and reveal to those of a spiritualnature the reality of their true selves;7to the Marcosian doctrine of a revelator-Christwho made the transcendent Bythos known to humanity for the first time;8to the belief of the followers of Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninusand Basilides that the divine Saviour had descended into the persons of these individualsor those whom
For an outline of Gnosticredeemersystems,see Jonas, TheGnostic Religon:themes(Boston:Beacon Press, 2001) 74-91; of Christianity sageof thealienGodand thebeginnings (Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1983) 113Rudolph, Gnosis:thenatureandhistoryof Gnosticism TruthandChristian 171;Logan,Gnostic Heresy-AStudyin theHistory of Gnosticism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996) 211-240. 6 For the purposesof the presentinvestigation,the questionof Irenaeus'accuracyas regardshis presentationof these systemsis of less importancethan his perceptionof them, for it is the latter that influencedhis response.E. Pagels has argued against Irenaeus'reliability:Pagels, 'Conflictingversionsof Valentinianeschatology:Irenaeus's treatiseversus the excerptsfrom Theodotus',HarvardTheological Review,67 (1974) 53. Her argumenthas been challengedby R.M. Grant, 'Reviewof TheJohannine Gospelin StudiesReview3 (1977) Gnostic Exegesisand The GnosticPaul,by Elaine Pagels',Religious 30-34; and Ferguson,'The Rule of Truth and Irenaeanrehetoricin book 1 of Against 55 (2001) 356-357. Heresies',VigiliaeChristianae, 7 1.7.2. cf. Gospel of TruthNHC (1,3) 18.11-21;20.23-21.2. 8 1.19. Marcuswas himselfa discipleof Valentinuswith many similaritiesof soteriological thought,see Rudolph, Gnosis196, 209. 5
THE ROLE OF MARY AS CO-RECAPITULATOR
121
they had identified, in order to bring the revelation of truth from above yet escape from the corrupted reality of the material order (e.g., suffering, death);9to the Carpocratian,Cerinthian and Ebionite doctrines of a good and steadfastman, Jesus, being adopted from above to bring revelation to the world.'?The list goes on, notably to include the Marcionites, Sethians, Encratites, Barbeliotes and others, most of whom (though not all) present a redeemer figure of some kind who brings about either the beginning or the fulfilment of the redemption process. The intensely dualistic cosmologies and anthropologies of the larger Gnostic framework"made it largely impossible to conceive of the coming of a saviour figure into the material realm by anything other than docetic or adoptionistic means. Gnostic soteriologies, in common with aspects of the larger Hellenic philosophical tradition, were wont to protect the transcendence of the divine and its complete separation from material corruptibilityby insisting that any divine activity within the lower order must be mediated either through an only apparent contact with materialityand its consequentialcorruptibility,'2or the divine inspirationand possession of a lower, material creature in order to achieve a desired direction of the human species.'3 For Irenaeus, neither of these views could be squared against his essentialbelief that the unique Son of the one God had become man and entered into the human economy in order to save it;'4 yet the mere fact of his objection to their conceptual schemes did not have the potentialfor swayingthe Gnosticsto a right belief.5 To this end he required some means of demonstratingthe logical impossibilityof their varied doctrines via a widespread, common point of departure, and he found this means in the person of Mary.
9 1.23-24. 10 1.25-26. " On the generaltendencytowarddualismin Gnosticthought,see Rudolph, Gnosis 42-47. That this dualismmay be overstatedin contempo59-67f;Jonas, Gnostic Religion is in "Gnosticism"-An for Dismantling rary scholarship argued Williams,Rethinking Argument a DubiousCategory (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1999) 49-50, 96, 116-138. '2 Hence the docetismof Simon Magus and Basilides;1.23-24. 13 Hence the adoptionismof Carpocrates,Cerinthus,the Ebionites,the Sethiansand others; 1.25-26, 30. 14 Irenaeus'cardinalthesis and centrepieceof his 'rule of faith':3.4.2; 3.16.6; 4.2.7; 5.36.3; Epid. 6. 15 Always Irenaeus' aim in his refutation of their doctrine: 2.17.1; 3.16.8; 3.25.7; 4.praef.2; 5.praef.
122
M.C. STEENBERG
The Gnostic picture of Mary's role in the bringing forth of the Saviour, where it exists at all, is characterisedby Irenaeus with an air of exasperation. That she was merely a conduit through which the divine Saviour passed 'as if through a tube' was apparently a commonplace belief and a typical demonstrationof Gnostic docetism.'6Irenaeus respondswith a refutation based on a differentinterpretationof the same birth event: the reality of Christ's true humanity is guaranteed by his birth from a human woman, who by conceiving and giving birth impartsher own human nature to her child. To those who deny such a transmissionof humanity from parent to offspring,Irenaeus responds: 'They err who allege that [Christ] took nothing from the Virgin'7 and insists that evidence of the humanity received by Christ is found, for example, in His 'fellowshipwith us in the matter of food',18 namely that He ate 'butter and honey' in the presence of the disciples. The 'extraordinaryenergy"9with which Irenaeus combats the docetism of the Gnostics is explained by his insistence that only the true Son of God made truly and wholly man could effect the recapitulation of human life necessary for the economy of salvation to advance, and further that only the true Son made true man could give meaning to the cross.20
Si enim non accepitab hominesubstantiamcaris, neque homo factusest neque Filiushominis.Et si non hoc factusest quod nos eramus,non magnum faciebatquod passusest et sustinuit.21 The list of attributes which Irenaeus believes Jesus 'took from Mary' (e.g. humanity with all its characteristicsof hunger, fatigue, sadness, pain, etc.)22is meant to show that His human birth guaranteed the fullness of His own humanity;but as anti-docetic argumentsthese statementsare not fully convincing. Certainly a deity seeming to appear as a man could also
Panarion 1.7.2,3.11.3, 3.16.1;see Rudolph,Gnosis148-158and cf. Epiphanius, 31.7.4. 16
17 3.22.1.
Is 7.15. 19Sesboiu, Tout de Lyon(Paris: dansle Christ:Christologie et sotiriologie d'Irenee recapituler 18 3.18.3, 3.22.2; cf.
Desclee,2000)71. 20 A theme later emphasizedby Athanasius, De Incarnatione 7, 9. 21 3.22.1(SC211 pp. 432-3): of fleshfrom 'Forif He did not receivethe substance a humanbeing,He neitherwas mademannor the Son of man;and if He was not madewhatwe were,He did no greatthingin whatHe sufferedand endured.' 22 3.22.2.
THE ROLE OF MARY AS CO-RECAPITULATOR
123
'seem' to. suffer, eat, be thirty or suffer pain, and Irenaeus is aware that the Gnostics argued as such.23His truly powerful anti-docetist arguments come rather in the context of his reflectionsupon the deeper realitiesindicated and made possible by these attributes:the flesh received from Mary made the Son of God's sufferingon the cross a 'great thing', for it was a true, corporeal suffering. The physical body made possible the resting of the Spirit upon Christ.24His hunger and thirst made possible the genuine temptationin the desert which was necessaryin the defeat of Satan.25Most importantly, the resurrectionof Christ's true flesh is the guarantor of the fleshly resurrectionof all humanity.26For Irenaeus, the starting point for these and all such reflections was in the Incarnation of the Son through the human Mary, which itself provided the basis for a refutationof Gnostic docetism. As intimated above, this anti-docetist polemic is almost always intertwined with an anti-adoptionistargument. Not only is the Son truly man, but the man Jesus truly is the Son. The Sethian Gnostics ('Ophites')and the Ebionites were the most vocal proponents of the doctrine that Jesus the man was born from Mary and Joseph 'in the usual way',27purified and sanctified,finally to receive the Christ by the descent of the Spirit (or the 'Saviour') at His baptism. Irenaeus was aware that such a doctrine conflicted with his recapitulativeunderstandingof salvation, and thus he was faced with the need to demonstrate that the birth of Christ was in fact the birth of the Son and not just a 'normal' man. Again, the person of Mary became an effectivetool in his polemic, and this primarilythrough her indicative value as the 'token' or evidence of the fulfilment of the prophecies of Scripture. The prophets, above all Isaias,28had clearly indicated, at least in Irenaeus' reading, that the advent of the Messiah would be identical with the advent of the Son of God and would be indicated by a miraculous birth from a virgin. Irenaeus is an ardent supporter of 23
5.12.1-6; cf. Apocalypseof James NHC (V,3) 31.15-26; SecondTreatiseof the GreatSeth
NHC (VII,2)55.14-56.5;Epistleof Peterto PhilipNHC (VIII,2)139.9-23. 24 5.1.2. 25 5.21.1-3. 26 27
5.7, 9, 13; and generallythe whole of AH 5. 3.19.1. This idea is also found in certain strandsof ValentinianGnosticism,cf.
Excerptsof Theodotus59.1-4, 60. Hippolytus recounts what appears to have been a dis-
pute between regionalforms of Valentinianismover whether the body born of Mary was psychic or pneumatic, Refutation35.5; see Williams, Rethinking"Gnosticism" 290 n. 27. 28 Is 7.14-16; see Epid. 53-4.
124
M.C. STEENBERG
the Septuaginttranslation's'virgin'(iap0evo;) and not 'young woman'29for precisely this reason: it was the virgin birth that made evidentJesus' identity as the promised Messiah, that made Mary the 'token' indicating the coming of the Son of God into the world.30The miracle of the birth bore witness to the miracle of the person; without the first miracle, one could not be certain of the second. Irenaeus is happy to quote Scripture ad nauseamin evidence of Jesus' identity as the Son of God, and it is revealing that a number of these quotations involve the role of His mother. In quoting Paul,31for example, Irenaeus draws attention to the fact that 'God sent forth His Son, made of a woman'; and the whole affair of the Annunciationis presented as evidence that Mary's offspringwas of divine as well as human origin.32The salutation of John the Forerunner to the unborn Jesus from within the womb of Elisabeth is given as further evidence of Jesus' divine character.33 One wonders, however, how effective these extensive Scripturalquotations will actually have been in persuading Irenaeus' opponents of his view, for they require as a foundation a belief in the true witness of Scriptureas it was preserved in the 'tradition of the Apostles',34and it was not uncommon for the Gnostics to edit or omit Scriptureof which they disapproved, or to exegete it in a manner that provided for wholly different interpretations than those to which Irenaeuswas willing to give service.35The sheer extent of the Scripturalwitness to the event of the virgin birth appears, however, to have convinced Irenaeus of its validity as an anti-Gnostic defence: where one or two supportingpassagesin a single book might have failed to persuade convincingly, multiple passages drawn from not only multiple books but multiple 'testaments'36that spanned centuries, yet all witnessed to the same miraculous event, held the potential for effective persuasion. In all, the anti-docetic and anti-adoptionistuses of Marian references combine into Irenaeus' view of the double-generationof Christ: the gen29 Is
7.14.
3.21.2-4; Epid. 57. 31 3.16.3 (ref. Gal 4.4-5). 32 3.16.2, 4.23.1 (ref. Lk 1.26-38; Mt 1.18-25). 33 3.16.4. 30
34
Epid.98.
3.14.(1-)4, 3.15.1-3. A modern classification, of course unknown to Irenaeus; see Behr, On theApostolic Preaching(New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997) 8 n. 1. 35 36
THE ROLE OF MARY AS CO-RECAPITULATOR
125
eration from the divine Father, and the generation from a human mother.37 Plagnieux contended that: Or la doctrine mariale est presentee comme pierre de touche et garantie de ces deux verites, poles de la christologie authentique:le Christ vrai homme, autrement dit chair, Verbe incarne, parce que ne d'une femme veritablement mere, ex Maria;le Christ vrai Dieu, par ce qu'ainsi n6 d'elle, il s'origine pourtant de plus haut qu'elle, de Dieu meme, de Dieu seul, par l'engendrement virginal,exMaria Virgine,--commeen temoignentles symbolesde la foi antique, resumant l'Ecriture.38 While Irenaeus never speaks of 'two natures' in Christ in the manner that would be current several centuries later in Chalcedon, he speaks of the 'two generations' of Christ to largely the same effect. He who has His source both in the divine godhead and the human species thus has both divine power and human limitation,39 and proof of the double-generation thus serves as proof of the incarnate Christ's true 'nature' as the Godman. Irenaeus emphasises this most directly in a passage which P. Galtier long ago called 'l'affirmation la plus expressive peut-etre qui se trouve aux trois [sic.] premiers siecles de la virginale maternite de Marie':40 qui eum ex Virgine EmmanuelpraedicabantadunitionemVerbi Dei ad plasma ejus manifestabant;quoniam Verbum caro erit et Filius Dei Filius hominis, purus pure puram aperiens vulvam eam quae regenerat homines in Deum, Tiv caOapavavoita;S itXpav 'lv quam ipse puram fecit (b Kca0apb;KaOapxiS et hoc facavayevvcoav TOi);davpd7rovS ei. Oe0V, lV 6T;KaOapav?re7coilcKE); tus quod et nos, Deus fortis, et inenarrabilehabet genus.41 This passage reveals not only the doctrine of double-generation which is the apex of Irenaeus' anti-docetic and anti-adoptionist arguments, its mention of the womb of the Virgin as that which 'regenerates men unto
37 38
73-80, esp. 75. 3.19.2, 5.1.2-3; Sesboiii, Toutricapituler 180. 'La doctrine mariale', Plagnieux,
39 Sesbotiu, Tout recapituler 75. 40 Galtier, 'La vierge que nous regenere', Recherches de sciencereligieuse,5 (1914) 137.
4.33.11 (SC 100 pp. 830-1): 'Those [of the prophets]who proclaimedHim as Emmanuel,born of the Virgin, manifestedthe union of the Word of God with His own handiwork,declaringthat the Word shouldbecome flesh and the Son of God the Son of man, the Pure One opening purely that pure womb which regeneratesmen 41
unto God-and which He Himself made pure. And having become what we also are, He is still the Mighty God and possesses an indescribable generation.' Galtier's article (op. cit.) corrects Massuet's erroneous assertion that the term 'virgin' refers, in this passage and in 4.33.4, to the Church.
126
M.C. STEENBERG
God' begins to reveal the third great theological use of the Mother of God: the regenerativeor recapitulative.The number of Marian referencesin the Irenaean corpus that fall into this category is smaller than for the two previous, due largely to the fact that there is no directly coordinate error among the Gnostic systems which they are called upon to refute;yet anyone who spends time with the works of this author cannot but be impacted by the weight these passages carry within his larger thought. Mary's role in the dual-generationof the incarnate Christ has, in one sense, a predominantlybiological cast: human woman yields human child. But Irenaeus expands upon this idea through what is at times a subtle, at others a direct comparisonwith the 'firstgeneration'whereby human productivity took its roots: the generation wrought of Adam and Eve. Since their sin and fall, human generation had been caught in the web of the consequencesof those actions. Though creatinglife, human generation also bound to death the thing generated, for it was generated from within the context of sin and into a world of sin (Ps 50.7 LXX), namely the archsin of disobedience, the consequence of which is death.42The disobedience of human life had brought corruption even to human generation, man's part in divine creation. To use language more typical of Irenaeus, human disobedience had turned the 'inheritance'of man from life to death, a fatal move only to be corrected in the coming of Christ.43His generation was distinctive and different: quod generatum est sanctum est et filius Altissimi Dei Patris omnium, qui operatusest incamationemejus et novam ostenditgenerationem(icatviv6ei4avuti, quemadmodumper priorem generationem(6ta Tq;xpoxtpaS xo; yEvvTrotv), yevvioeog;) mortem hereditavimus,sic per generationem hanc hereditaremus vitam.44
The 'former generation' and 'new generation' are the starting points of the explicit parallel between what Irenaeus considers the historical account of Adam and Eve, and the more recent historical event of Jesus' life and Marian parentage. The morbid offspring of Adam and Eve was a physi-
42 On the primacy of disobedience: 5.19.1, 5.27.2; Epid. 15, 16, 34. On death as consequence: 5.23.1-2, 5.27.2; Epid. 17. 43 3.5.3, 3.12.11, 4.11.1. 44 5.1.3 (SC 153 pp. 26-7): 'That which was generated [by Mary] is a holy thing, and is the Son of the Most High God, the Father of all and the one who effected the incarnation and showed forth a new generation, that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new generation we might inherit life.'
THE ROLE OF MARY AS CO-RECAPITULATOR
127
cal man (Cain) bound to death and corruption,45whilst that of Mary was likewise a physical man, yet one united to life, restoring the potential for human incorruptibility.Orbe is astute in assertingthis as the startingpoint for the whole schema of the Mary-Eve parallel and contrast: the evident fact of the difference in the persons generated by them, declared explicitly in Scripture.46Mariologicalreflectionin the early Church always began here, using considerationof the Scripturaland traditionalwitness to identify just how far the parallel might be expanded. Such was the method espousedbyJustin, who providesus with our earliestextant treatmentof this parallelism(the Marian referencesin the Apostolic Fathers and other preIrenaean authorsfalling into the anti-doceticand anti-adoptionist/prophetic fulfilmentcategories,but not significantlybroachingthe parallelismbetween Eve and Mary).47For Justin, St Paul's contrast between Adam and Christ (1 Cor 15.22, 45) had a direct parallel in Eve and Mary: [Christ] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destructionin the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary receivedfaith and joy, and when the angel Gabrielannounced the good tidings to her [...] she replied, 'Be it unto me according to Thy word'.48
There is no shortage of scholarly assertionof the similaritybetween this passage from the Dialoguewith Tryphoand Irenaeus' treatment of the same theme,49and it is certain that Irenaeus had in fact read Justin.50We need not necessarily accept with the enthusiasm of Orbe the idea that Irenaeus was directly dependant on him for this argument, as there is evidence that
The generationof Cain is compellinglytreatedin Orbe, Antropologia de SanIreneo (Madrid:Bibliotecade AutoresCristianos,1969) 246. 46 ibid., de San Ireneo(Rome: plus the whole of 244-253; and Orbe, Espiritualidad GregorianPontificalInstitute,1989) 315-330. See Gen 4.1f; Lk 2f. 47 E.g. Aristides,Apology (fragment)in PG 96.1108-24;Ignatiusof Antioch,Ephesians 45
7, 18; Trallians9; Smyraeans 1. 48 Justin, Dial. 100. 49 E.g. Orbe, Teologiade San Ireneo:comentario al Libro V del 'Adversus Haereses'(Madrid: La Editorial Cat6lica, 1985-1988) 326; Orbe, Antropologia 246; Ramos-Liss6n, 'Le r6le de la femme dans la theologie de saint Irenee', StudiaPatristica,21 (1989) 169. 50 Justin's lost TreatiseAgainstMarcionis quoted in 4.6.2, and an unspecified text by Justin, also lost, is quoted in 5.26.2. Familiarity with Justin's disciple, Tatian, is evidenced in 1.28.1. See Behr, ApostolicPreaching1, 11-13.
128
M.C. STEENBERG
the Eve-Marycomparisonwas appealing and evident to a fairlywidespread Christianpopulation from the second century onwards.5'But Justin is our first example of an author expanding the contrastingEve-Mary parallel to include a reflection upon the means of the engendering of their relative offspring:Eve heeds the serpent and thus disobeys God, thereby bringing forth corruption and death. Mary heeds the word of the angel and thus obeys God, thereby engendering a 'holy thing' that is the source of life and incorruption. These themes are taken up by Irenaeus and further expanded in an elaborate reflection upon the Scripturalwitness of the two women. Both both gave heed to an angel, Eve were espoused to men whilst yet virgins;52 to the fallen angel speaking in the serpent and Mary to the archangel both were faced with the decision to heed or abandon the will Gabriel;53 and charge of God.54And for each parallel, Irenaeus discloses a point of contrast: Eve's change from virgin to mother was the result of seduction, sin and disobedience to the command of God, while Mary's transition to motherhood was in perfect accord with the divine will, to such a degree that not even her virginitywas lost.55Eve was convinced, through her own lack of faith and the lie of the serpent, to disobey the charge of God, while Mary's faith in the word of the angel led her to obey God's command. For each point of paralleled dilemma, Eve and Mary respond and act in the opposite, each the antithesis of the other. This is epitomised in the contrast of obedience and disobedience, the supreme virtue and cardinal sin in Irenaean thought. Like unto Christ's obedience was Mary's, for just as Christ was obedient in a manner directly converse to Adam's disobedience,56so was Mary obedient in exact contrast to Eve's disobedience. Maria Virgo obaudiens (i nap0e:voSi)tiKicoog) inuenitur dicens: Ecceancillatua, Domine,fiat mihi secundumuerbumtuum. Eua uero inobaudiens (a&netfi): non
obaudiuit enim adhuc cum esset uirgo. [...] inobaudiens facta, et sibi et uniuerso generi humano causa facta est mortis (r, oan & avOpomr6lxi aitia eyvxro
51Includinglater writerswho will not have read Irenaeusor Justin, e.g. Jacob of Sarug, Homily 1 on the Motherof God, 625-631 (ed. Hansbury/Brock [1998], pp. 27-34); Ephrem of Edessa, Diatessaron2.2 (SC 121, p. 66); see Gambero, Mary and the Fathers 116-119. 52 3.21.4-6, 3.22.4, 5.19.1. 53 4.23.1, 5.19.1. 54 3.22.4; Epid. 33. 55 A point argued by Orbe, Antropologia 246-247. 56 Epid. 37, 98.
THE ROLE OF MARY AS CO-RECAPITULATOR
129
sic et Maria habens praedestinatumuirum, et tamen Virgo, obauOavdaToi), et sibi et uniuerso generi humano causa facta est salutis (rfpcda1p diens, avOpo6tq'rltaixia yeveto oaorlpia). Et propter hoc lex eam quae desponsata erat uiro, licet uirgo sit adhuc, uxorem eius qui desponsauerat uocat, ear quae est a Maria in Euam recirculationem (&valcUcXrlatS;) significans: quia non aliter quod colligatum est solueretur, nisi ipsae compagines adligationis reflectanturretrorsus,uti primae coniunctiones soluantur per secundas secundae rursus liberent primas [...].57
Here Mary is not only regenerative, but recapitulative. The contrast between her obedience and Eve's disobedience is extended to include an influence over other generations of men. In Eve's case this is eminently reasonable: she whose actions instigate sin and fallenness, and thus death and corruptibility, thereby has a direct influence upon those generations which shall come after her and be born into a world with such characteristics. In the case of Mary, however, the nature of the influence is less clear. Certainly she has an influence on future generations through her actions (as any human might), and on past generations through her Son, but this is not the limit of Irenaeus' exposition. He goes on to describe the 'knot' of disobedience engendered by Eve, which had bound humanity fast since the Fall, loosed by May (not by her Son) through her obedience to God.58 Mary is the 'advocate' of Eve,59 the one who herself 'destroys virginal disobedience' by her own virginal obedience60 and thus becomes the 'cause of salvation'6' for all of humankind. In a crucial passage of the Epideixis,Irenaeus asserts that is was necessarynot only for Christ to recapitulate Adam, but also for Mary to recapitulate Eve:
57 3.22.4 (SC 211 pp. 438-443):'Marythe Virgin is found obedient,saying, 'Behold the handmaidof the Lord;be it unto me accordingto Thy word'. But Eve was disobedient,for she did not obey when she was yet a virgin [...] and havingbecome disobedient,was made the cause of death both to herselfand to the entire human race. So also Mary, having a man betrothedto her yet neverthelessa virgin, was obedient and was made the cause of salvationboth to herselfand the whole human race. For this reason does the law call a woman betrothedto a man the wife of him who has betrothedher, althoughshe is yet a virgin,thus signifyingthe circlingback from Mary to Eve. For that which has been tied cannot be loosed unless one reversesthe ties of the knot, so that the firstties are undone by the second, and the second frees the first.'
58 3.22.4. 59
5.19.1;Epid.33.
60 Epid. 33. 61
3.22.4.
130
M.C. STEENBERG
enim recapitulari(&vaiceqxat6iooai)Adam in Christum, oportebat-et-conveniebat ?ut absorptum-deglutiretur (icxantvco)mortale ab immortalitate?,et Evam in Mariam, ut Virgo virginis advocata facta solveret-et-evacuaret(eKico) virginalem inobaudientiamper virginalem obaudientiam.62 It is here that Irenaeus' Mariology takes on a unique flavour and the contrasting parallelism between Eve and Mary goes far beyond anything offered in Justin. Not only is the Virgin Mary presented as the aesthetic counterpart to the first woman, she is also assigned an active and essential role in the recapitulation of man that extends beyond her role as bearer of the incarnate Son of God. The aesthetic of parallelism has been taken to new heights. But is this thematic expansion appropriate? Here one returns to the question of underlying motivation that Irenaean scholarship has never sufficiently addressed. Is the role accorded to Mary simply an expansion of what may have already been a 'traditional' Eve-Mary parallelism, worked out by an author whose love for aesthetic balance provided the impetus for such an expansive treatment?63 If so, it seems that Irenaeus' claims of the necessity of Eve's recapitulation in Mary and the latter's status as advocata and source of freedom stand on questionable theological ground, if they do not in fact contradict outright his own claims of salvation as offered uniquely in and by Christ.64 It is, however, possible to discover in Irenaeus a motivation for his Marian doctrines that extends past the aesthetic and rests upon foundational anthropological and theological beliefs, and which thereby gives some level of justification to his more radical attributions of influence to Mary. It is to this discussion that we must now turn.
TheEve-MaryParalleland SocialRecapitulation The Eve-Mary parallel, as described above, is based upon a correspondence of the persons of Eve and Mary in the same manner as that between Adam and Christ. Irenaeus presents a deeply holistic typology wherein type and antitype are connected in a real and ontological man62 Epid. 33 (SC 406 p. 130): 'It was necessary and proper for Adam to be recapitulated in Christ, that 'mortality might be swallowed up by immortality'; and for Eve to be recapitulated in Mary, that a Virgin, become advocate for a virgin, might undo and destroy the virginal disobedience by virginal obedience.' Quotations from the Epid. are throughout taken from the critical Latin translation of Rousseau, as accessible to a wider readership than the Armenian (as found in PO:12). This Latin edition contains no departures from the Armenian on points of key vocabulary in this study. 63 On Irenaeus' fondness for logical aesthetic, see Osbor, Irenaeus18-20, 173. 64 1.10.1-2, 5.36.1-3; Epid. 7.
THE ROLE OF MARY AS CO-RECAPITULATOR
131
ner, such that the activities of either one intimately effect the existence of the other. As such, the 'revivification'of humanity in the person of Christ is connected to the existence of Adam whose antitype He is, and thus Adam, too, is revivifiedin Christ.65So also with Mary, the antitype of Eve, is the existence of the two intimately interconnected. The lives of the two types (Adam and Eve) are, by both similarity and contrast, indicative of the antitypesto come, and by virtue of their antecedent date are influential in forming the human condition into which the antitypes will arrive. The latter (Christ and Mary) are recapitulativelyinfluential upon the former through the underlying ontological connection shared by type and antitype. Christ'slife is in some sense Adam's life re-lived, and so too is Eve's life re-lived in Mary. But it is precisely this 'so too' that is problematic. Is it really necessary?To state the question differently,is not Christ's recapitulation sufficientfor the salvation of humankind,without need for a coordinate recapitulation by His mother? If Adam is characterised as the type of human nature itself,66then it will logically follow that the recapitulation of Adam equates to the recapitulationof humanity, and that the recapitulationof Eve is in some sense an extraneousparallel wrought more for the sake of fitting beauty in the economy than for any inherently saving value.67 This view, however, does not square with Irenaeus' insistence
upon the necessity of Mary's recapitulativerole in the salvation story. Her part in the process of recapitulationis seemingly presented as both necessary and yet redundant-a dilemma which, if it holds, presents serious problems for Irenaeus' Mariology on a larger scale. It is, however, a dilemma that has not been addressedin any work of Irenaean scholarship to date, despite the popularityof treatingthe recapitulativeand parallelismoriented passages which give it rise. This dilemma of necessity and redundancy, this 'logical' conclusion to the traditionalinterpretationof Irenaeus'Eve-Maryparallel,takes its source from what, with respect to Irenaean scholarship,is an inherentlyinadequate 65
1.28.1,3.23.
3.18.1, 4.34.4, 5.1.3, 5.34.2, Epid.32, and repeatedlythroughoutthe corpus. 67 An argumentmight be made for such a view, based on Irenaeus'assertionin 5.21.1 that 'the enemy would not have been fairly vanquishedunless it had been a man born of a woman that conqueredhim', a thoughtwhich echoesJustin'sargument that the Virginbirth came about 'in orderthat the disobediencewhich proceededfrom the serpent might receive its destructionin the same manner in which it derived its origin'(Dial.100),both of which argumentsare predominantlyaesthetic.Yet, as I argue below, such a view alone does not adequatelyaccountfor Irenaeus'largerconceptions of the role of Mary. 66
132
M.C. STEENRERG
conception of humanity as typifiedin the persons of Adam and Eve. More specifically,the general conception of Adam as first human and Eve merely as a second human without further clarification,precipitatesthe problem outlined above, namely that an independent salvation (recapitulation)for the second human seems superfluousif humanity has already received its salvation in the recapitulationof Adam, unless it be prescribedthat every human individualrequiresa distinctand separaterecapitulationby another(!), which Irenaeus nowhere suggests. One is thus left with two possibilities: either the dilemma holds and Irenaeus' belief in the necessity of Eve's recapitulationin Mary is an over-extensionof his aesthetic ideal, or there must exist some kind of distinction in the human roles of Adam and Eve that warrantsa co-ordinaterecapitulationof each. There is, as I shall show below, ample evidence in the author's extant corpus to validate the latter possibility. The Epideixisproves an invaluable tool in assessing the character of Adam and Eve as types of humankind,especiallyin those chapters (11-18) where Irenaeusdescribesthe creationof humanityand its 'fall'.With respect to the former, it is extremelyimportantthat Irenaeushere gleans his details from the second creation account in Genesis, with its presentationof man and woman as created separately(Gen 2.7-25), rather than the first account with its simultaneouscreation (Gen 1.26-27). Man (6 av0poso;, humaniy)is fashioned by God in the person of Adam, set up in Paradise and made lord over the earth.68Irenaeus presents Adam's creation, up until chapter it is he who will develop into perfection, he 13, as human creation entiere: who will rule over the beasts of the earth and the angels set as servants in it, he who will walk with the Word of God as a prefiguring of the future Incarnation.69Only when this image of creation is wholly presented and man has alreadybegun the course of his existence, does Irenaeusspeak of the creation of Eve: autemfuit ei et adiutoriumhominifacere;sic enim dixitDeus: Beneplacitum : in aliis enim omnibus animalibus non inveniebatur par-et-aequale (iooS) et simile Adae adiutorium. Ipse autem Deus exstasim misit super Adam et insomnum-fecit et, ut opus ex opere perficeretur,non factus in paradiso somnus hic factus est super Adam, volente Deo. Et sumpsit Deus unam de costis Adae et replevitpro ea carnem,et costam quam sumpsitaedificavitin mulierem
68 Epid.11-12. 69 Epid. 12.
THE ROLE OF MARY AS CORRECAPITULATOR
133
et sic adduxit coram Adam. Is autem videns dixit: 70
Eve is created as Adam's 'helper', a term whose importance is stressed by its repetition three times in a single sentence of the above passage, drawn once from Scripture (Gen 2.18)71and twice of Irenaeus' own formulation. The character of her creation is therein substantially different from that of Adam: not only was she of Adam, since, coming from his rib, she had her nature as human directly from his and was not a new creation in the same sense as he had been; but she also was for Adam, made for his aid and companionship along the necessary pathway of human growth.72 Eve was, from her inception, a social creature, symbolically embodying not so much human nature(for Adam was avOpcooS and Eve EK&vOppoouv) as the human societyformed by God in light of the fact that 'it is not good for man to be alone'. Humanity, both in its individual, essential nature (embodied in Adam) and its social aspect as one body of many members meant for the mutual support of one another (embodied in Eve, Adam's helper, and later in the Church), was to 'receive growth and a long period of existence',73 that eventually humankind might come to exist wholly in the perfect image and likeness of God.74 But Eve's role as 'helper' was to take a disastrous turn in the fall. She who was created to aid Adam in his growth was instead persuaded by the serpent to lead him into the transgression of the one commandment that God had given for the maintenance of their incorruptibility: the prohibition on
Epid.13 (SC 406 pp. 100-2):'[God] was well-pleasedalso to make a helper (adiufor the man, for thus God said: 'It is not good for man to be alone, let us make torium) a helper fit for him' (cf. Gen 2.18), since among all the animalsno helper was found equal and like unto Adam. So God Himselfcauseda deep raptureto come upon Adam and put him to sleep, and, that a work might be accomplishedout of a work, sleep not being in Paradise,it came upon Adam by the will of God. And God took one of Adam'sribs and replacedit with flesh, and He built up the rib which He took into a woman, and in this way He broughther beforeAdam. And he, seeing her, said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;she shall be called "woman",for she was taken from her man' (cf. Gen 2.23).' in most instancestranslatedby the Latin adiutor/adiu71 The LXX employs 3or06S;, 70
torium. 72
Such pathwayas is describedin, e.g., 4.28.1-3; Epid. 12.
73
4.28.3. 4.28.4, 5.28.4.
74
134
M.C. STEENBERG
the Tree of Knowledge (Gen 2.16-17).75 In heeding the serpent and convincing Adam to partake of the fruit, the whole character of human society as a means of help and support was overturned:through the same virgin meant to be his greatest aid, 'man was struck and, falling, died'.76 Adam's own sin struck at the heart of human nature, and thus at Eve who had her nature in him; yet as embodiments of human and helper, Adam and Eve were disobedient in different ways and likewise were differentlyeffected by their disobedience.Adam, Irenaeus' own Everyman, sinned in becoming less than his nature-in turning away from the source of his essence. Eve, though effected by the above through her connection to Adam, sinned differentlyin turning from her own purpose, the aid to life becoming the 'cause of death'77-the one individualthrough whom 'the human race fell into bondage to death'.78There was a double fall in Paradise:the fall of man as manthrough the departurefrom the nature of that Irenaeussees most prominentlyin the disobedienceof Adam; &av9pcooS and the fall of man as men,as a community of adiutores, which Irenaeus associates most directly with the disobedience of Eve. Both were fatal, for interrelatedyet distinct reasons. The disruption of human nature meant death; the corruption of human interrelationmeant that the very character of the human society, intended to aid man in his growth into Godlikeness, would now lead to death. Through the corruption of human nature, man died. Through the corruption of the social role of human relationships,'wickedness,spreading out for a long time, laid hold of the entire race of men, to such a degree that there was very little seed of righteousnessin them'.79 It is necessary to note that the tidy categorisation of roles employed here is not Irenaeus' own. True to his overall style, Irenaeus never treats systematicallyof a distinctionof roles in Adam and Eve, nor does he speak categoricallyof a typologicalcast unique to each.80But it is equally important to consider that Irenaeus' polemic is not aimed at the definition of Epid. 15. Epid. 33, from the Armenian; see Behr, ApostolicPreaching61. The Latin lacks 'struck'. 77 3.22.4. 75
76
78
5.19.1.
79 Epid. 18. 80 On Irenaeus' literary style and method, see the cogent summary throughout Donovan, OneRightReading?A Guideto Irenaeus(Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1997) esp. pp. 14-17; cf. also Behr, ApostolicPreaching15 n. 7.
THE ROLE OF MARY AS CO-RECAPITULATOR
135
such precise typological categories, and it is not the present author's contention that he accomplishes as much. Rather, as the above references and discussion will have shown, there is a tenor to Irenaeus' polemic and discussion of these two individualsthat indicates a certain division of symbolism between them, and Irenaeus' reference to the necessity of the recapitulative activity of each substantiallyreinforcesthis division. Though the explicit delineation of the distinctionmay be only nascent in Irenaeus'writings, and perhaps was so in his mind as well, it is nonetheless evidenced generallyin his protologicaldiscussions,and, as we shall see, proves a fruitful ground for scholarly investigation into the more intricate aspects of Irenaeus' anthropologicaland soteriologicalthought. Hence one returns to Mary and Christ. In light of what has been said above, their charactersas antitypes of Eve and Adam may begin to leave behind a sense of duplication, of twin type/antitype relationshipsexisting side-by-side.As Adam and Eve embody interrelatedyet distinct aspects of human existence, so do Christ and Mary sum up in themselves distinct aspects of the human condition.Jesus Christ, as 'new Adam', recapitulates in Himself the human nature of which Adam was the primal exemplar, namely the very essence and being of av0po0cogwhich had been the fabric of Adam's existence and which had been corrupted by his fall. It is 'this man'8' that Christ recapitulates,'preservingthe analogy of man'82by taking on the full nature of Adam and vanquishing the foe 'in Adam'.83 As Adam is, in some sense, thehuman, Christ works the salvationof human nature by becoming 'Adam' and recapitulatingthe disobedienceof the type in the perfect obedience of the antitype.84The essence of human nature is healed and restored when the incarnate Christ reunites man and God from their artificialseparation, thus 'revivifying'the former.85 The person of Mary, then, stands in need of Christ'srecapitulativeactivity in the same manner as all other persons: as humanity is shared by all, so do all stand in need of humanity'shealing.86But as the antitype of Eve, 81 82 83 84
Epid. 32. 3.22.1.
Epid.31.
See 5.21.1: 'Therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, recapitulating in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned, in order that, as our species went down to death through a conquered man, so may we ascend again to life through a victorious one.' 85 Epid.40. 86 Epid.31.
136
M.C. STEENBERG
Mary is also in the unique position of being herself recapitulatory,not in the same sense as Christ whose recapitulationis of human nature, but as one whose role in the recapitulativeeconomy is to restore the proper character of human interrelatednessthat this nature requires. Irenaeus can see this as a role distinct from that of Christ inasmuch as the healing of social requires more than one person. Even relationshipsrequires a relationship, as Adam could not have been the cause of corruption to the purposed nature of human interaction without the presence and activity of another (Eve), so Christ could not have been the cause of a restoration of these relationshipswithout the presence of another person working in concert with His own recapitulativeactivities.This notion is tremendouslyinstructive for an interpretationof Irenaeus' passages on what might otherwise seem the 'independent' role of Mary in human salvation. His imagery of the 'knot'tied by Eve and requiringto be loosed by Mary,87refersspecifically to the fact that Eve's disobedience had bound the nature of human relationshipsinto a detrimentalstate bent on turningmen away from the intentions of God, a state that could only be cast off through the life of one who again established human social interaction as an assistance and aid to the divine purpose. Mary becomes Eve's 'advocate'88not only because she brings forth the Christ who is humanity's one intercessor,89but also because she restores, in concert with the life of her Son, the character of the human 'other' as helper.Where Eve's fall from the role of helper to Adam threw all of humanity into bondage to death, Mary's restoration of that role in her obedience to God 'rescued' that same humankind;90and inasmuch as Mary's obedience brought forth Christ who revivified human nature itself, she became even the helper of Eve through the aid given to her Son. It is in this context that what was before a problematic comment becomes theologically explicable: It was necessary and proper for Adam to be recapitulated in Christ [...] and for Eve to be recapitulatedin Mary, that a Virgin, become advocate for a virgin, might undo and destroy the virginal disobedience by virginal obedience.91 87 3.22.4. 88 5.19.1. 89 Cf. 1 Tim 2.5.
90 5.19.1. 91 Epid. 33.
THE
ROLE
OF MARY
AS CO-RECAPITULATOR
137
As humanity had fallen both individuallyand socially, it was necessary that salvationbe worked among men both individuallyand socially.92Within this context, the cooperation with Christ of an obedient human person in the recapitulationof humanity is not only poetically and aestheticallyartful, but in fact genuinely necessary if the whole effect of the disobedience in Paradise is to be overcome. The true balance of human existence in its largest sense is only restored when human nature, renewed by Christ, is set into its proper relational context of support and aid, which Irenaeus sees as the unique accomplishmentof the Virgin Mary. Conclusion By way of conclusion, it should be restated that Irenaeus' use of Mary in both polemic and positive theology still holds the potential for further clarificationof some of his most essential doctrines. If the above has been successful,it will have shown that the inherent dilemma posed by the traditional interpretationof Irenaeus' Eve-Mary parallel in fact points to a much more intricate typological anthropology than Irenaeus is generally considered to present. Not only does he make full use of the anti-docetic and anti-adoptionistvalue of Mary's person and role in the Incarnation, he presents her as an integral and essential component of a theologically coherent system of personal and social recapitulation. University of Oxford, Harris Manchester College Mansfield Road, OxfordOXI 3TD
92
Again in following with the cardinal notion of recapitulation, namely that all the actions and states of fallen humanity are re-worked in holiness; see 2.22.4, Epid. 37.
NHC H,2 AND THE OXYRHYNCHUS FRAGMENTS (P.OXY 1, 654, 655): OVERLOOKED EVIDENCE FOR A SYRIAC GOSPEL OF THOMAS BY
NICHOLAS PERRIN is generally assumed that the Gospelof Thomaswas first composed in Greek, here the author finds evidence, confirming his earlier published thesis, that the well-knownNag Hammadi text was first set down in Syriac. On comparingdivergencesbetween the Greek witnessto Thomas(P.Oxy 1, 654, 655) and the fuller Coptic version (NHC 11,2),it is argued that each of these differencescan be readily attributedto the texts' final reliance on a common Aramaic source. In most instances, the hypothesized shared source may be inferred to be of either western Aramaic or Syriac character, but in some cases, the evidence points decisively toward Syriac-speakingprovenance. Consequently,the investigationsheds light not only on the relationshipbetween the two extant witnesses of Thomas,but on its dating as well. ABSTRACT: Whereas it
The truth, it is sometimes said, when not on the surface of things, is usually not far below it. The truism is particularly a proposwhen attempting to get behind an ancient translation to its original language of composition. Where there is reason to postulate that a text is but a translation of another document not available to us, reconstructions of the latter must be shown to make better sense, show more rhyme and reason, than that which is in our possession. That this has never been successfully carried out with regards to the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (NHC 11,2-7) and the related Greek fragments (P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655) remains problematic. Although for years it has been assumed that the Gospel of Thomas was originally written in Greek, only later to be translated into Coptic,' there has never been satisfactory accounting
1
G. Garitte("Les'Logoi'd'Oxyrhynquesont traduitsdu copte,"Mus 73 [1960] 335-
49) has suggested that the Coptic is prior to the Greek, but this view has not won much support. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
igiliaeChristianae58, 138-151
NHC 11I2 AND THE OXYRHYNCHUS FRAGMENTS
139
for the fact that the relevant portions of the Coptic text look decidedly unlikea translationof the parallel passages in the Oxyrhynchuspapyri. The best explanation on offer for the differencesbetween the Greek fragments and the fuller Coptic version is that the two documents attest to two separate recensions of the same original Greek text.2 While this explanation is not inherently implausible on its own terms, it remains no more than an unproven hypothesis. Building on an earlier work in which I argue, among other things, that The Gospelof Thomaswas first written not in Greek but in Syriac,3here I seek to submitmy theory to a cross-checkwith referenceto the Oxyrhynchus fragments.If it is true that a Syriac original stands behind our Coptic text, then one may also expect-although this is not strictlyrequired-evidence of the Syriac version standing behind the Greek as well. As it turns out, such evidence is forthcoming. In comparing the Greek and Coptic versions of Thomas,there is good reason to suspect that both texts independently drew on a common source of some Aramaic dialect.4If forced to stipulate between western Aramaic and Syriac, again simply on the basis of a comparison between NHC 11,2 and P.Oxy 1, 654, 655, it would appear that the evidence in fact slightly favors the latter.
2 So Henri-Charles Puech ("Une collection de paroles de Jesus recemment retrouvee: L'tvangile selon Thomas," in idem, En quite de la Gnose,vol. 2: Sur l'Avangileselon Thomas:Esquissed'uneinterpretation [Paris: Gallimard, 1978] 36-37), who sees systematique the Greek text as the "orthodox" version and the Coptic as a gnostic revision. Despite the critique of Wolfgang Schrage ("Evangelienzitate in den Oxyrhynchus-Logien und im koptischen Thomas-Evangelium," in Walther Eltester and Franz H. Kettler, eds., am 10 Dezember1964 [BZNW ApophoretaFestschriftiirErnstHaenchenzu seinem70. Geburtstag that the case for large-scale redacwho claims Berlin: 30; Topelmann, 1964] 255-57), tion is not clear cut in either recension, Puech's theory remains dominant. See Kenneth V. Neller, "Diversity in the Gospel of Thomas: Clues for a New Direction?" SecCent7 (1990) 6. 3 Thomas and Tatian: The Relationshipbetweenthe Gospelof Thomas and the Diatessaron (Biblica Academia 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2002), esp. 29-170. 4 This of course presumes against a theory that cannot properly speak of an "original Thomas"but envisages the collection as evolving incrementally (see most recently April D. DeConick, "The Original Gospelof Thomas,"VC 51 [2002] 167-99). Whilst I argue for the textual unity of Thomaselsewhere (Thomasand Tatian, 171-82), here I shall take the matter for granted, without arguing the point. See Philip H. Sellew, "The Gospel of Thomas: Prospects for Future Research," in John D. Turner and Anne of the 1995 Societyof McGuire, eds., The Nag HammadiLibraryafterFfty Years:Proceedings 335. Leiden: Biblical LiteratureCommemoration Brill, 44; 1997) (NHS
140
NICHOLAS PERRIN
1.1 The CopticGospel of Thomas: The Evidenceof Mistranslation Whereas some of the earliest Thomasscholars have written about the possibility of an Aramaic or Syriac substratumbehind the Coptic collection, their insights have seem to have fallen largely by the wayside.5This is unfortunate,for at many points the argument for a semitic background are entirely convincing. Some of the evidence along these lines is equivocal, pointing as much to a western Aramaic backgroundas to a Syriac one. For example, in Gos. Thom.9 one finds the oddly elliptical:"Now the sower went out. He filled his hand, he cast. Some, however, fell on the road. The birds came, they gathered them."6As to what the sower actually took in his hands and cast near the road, we may of course infer, but oddly, "seeds"are never mentioned in Thomas-in contrast to the triple tradition (Matt 13:4//Mark 4:4//Luke 8:5). The absence of "seeds"and the presence of "took a handful" in the Thomasine text are, in my view, to be explained by a scribe mishearingthe wording of the original language. If Gos.Thom.9.1 was first set down in some kind of Aramaic, it would probably be similar if not identical to the text of Matt 13:3 OS: "A sower went out to sow seeds(Syr: ar'e = Ara: ['rt)." The term zar'e sounds very much like both the participial and the finite form of the verb "to take a handful" (1i, zar = Ara: 'T). Most likely the translator heard something akin to Matt 13:3 OS, r<',
5On the semitic background to Thomas,see Gilles Quispel, "The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament," VC 11 (1957) 189-207; idem, "L'Evangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron," VC 13 (1959) 87-117; idem, "Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas," ATS 5 (1959) 276-90; Antoine Guillaumont, "S6mitismes dans les logia de Jesus retrouves i Nag-Hammadi," JA 246 (1958) 113-23; idem, "Les semitismes dans l'Evangile selon Thomas: Essai de classement," in R. van den Broek and Maarten J. Vermaseren, eds., Studiesin Gnosticismand HellenisticReligionspresentedto Gilles Quispelon the Occasionof his 65th Birthday(EPRO 91; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 190-204; Han J. W. Drijvers, "Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity," SecCent2 [1982] 173-75; Hans Quecke, "'Sein Haus seines Konigreiches': Zum Thomasevangelium 85,9f.," Mus 76 (1963) 51-53; Kurt Rudolph, "Gnosis und Gnostizimus: Ein Forschungsbericht," ThR 34 (1969) 194; Francoise Morard, "Encore quelques riflexions sur Monachos," VC 34 (1980) 397; August Strobel, "Textgeschichtliches zum Thomas-Logion 86 (Mt 8,20/Luk 9,58)," VC 17 (1963) 224. In the current Thomasine literature-with the exception of Klyne R. Snodgrass, "The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel," SecCent7 (1990) 19-38 (esp. 23) and Charles Hedrick "Thomas and the Synoptics: Aiming at a Consensus," SecCent7 (1990) 39-56 (esp. 48-51)-one looks virtually in vain for references to these works. 6 The translations of the Gospelof Thomasare my own.
NHC 11,2 AND THE OXYRHYNCHUS FRAGMENTS
141
"A sower went to sow seeds [zar'e]," but thoughthe heard the text as fol-
lows: "A sower went to sow-taking a handful(zar)."7 Other oddities of language can be clarified with reference to a Syriac or westernAramaicsubstratum.In Gos.Thon.21 Mary asksJesus to describe the disciples;Jesus' reply is notoriously obscure: They are like children who have made their homes in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, 'Give us back our field'. They then disrobe(CCHK&a&Hy) before them in order to grant their field, that is, to give it back to them. While a few scholars have puzzled over the significance of this stripping, an alternative approach would be to consider the possibility of misunderstanding in the translation process. If behind the Coptic CCKE^A^HY ("disrobe") one hypothesizes either Syriac Dt, or western Aramaic p1O, both of which mean "disrobe" and "renounce," it becomes possible to make sense of the sentence in its original form: "They then renounce[it] before them in order to grant them their field, that is, to give it back to them."8 There are other indications of a strictly Syriac-speaking context. Antoine Guillaumont, finding a Syriac stage of transmission for at least some of the Thomasine logia, accounts for the difference between the Parable of the Sower in the canonical tradition ("the birds ... ate" [Matt 13:4, cf. Mark 4:4//Luke 8:5]) and the same parable in Thomas ("the birds ... gathered" [Gos. Thom. 9.2]) by suggesting that the latter version at some point contained the semitic W,. The Syriac verb signifies not only birds' "eating," which was probably the original author's intention, but also "gathering," which is how the word, it seems, came to be translated.9 Turning to GT 80 ("He who has recognized the world has found the body, but he who has found the body is superior to the world"), Guillaumont again finds a semitic root lurking in the tradition. On the hypothesis that the repeated verb was originally eTn (meaning "to find," or "to master"), the logion would have initially read: "He who has recognized the world has mastered the body, and he who has masteredthe body is superior to the world."'? Commentators and translators alike have struggled with Gos. Thom. 33. And for good reason, for the Coptic is quite difficult. The text literally
Perrin, Thomasand Tatian, 39. Ibid., 40. 9 "Semitismes," 198-99. 10 "Logia de Jesus," 116. 7
8
142
NICHOLAS PERRIN
reads: "That which you (sing.) hear in your ear in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops."Despite the best attempts to account for the virtually incomprehensibleCoptic, none of the standard reconstructionsseems satisfying." But let us assume that the original text was composed in Syriac and read as follows: "And that which you hear in your ears, bothof them u,.is -X&*&.i In this case it would be easy enough to b-ednayk tartayhen)". see how the translator might have heard and copied something phonologically similarto what was recited, but grammaticallyvery different:"And that which you hear in your ear [in] the other [ear] (b-edndkd-tartayhin)." The strange wording of the Coptic can best be explained as going back to a scribe mishearing and so misinterpretingthe Syriac.12That the word "both" (tartayhen) originallyoccurred in GT 33 is all the more likely (if we allow for the possibility of the editorial arrangement by catchwords in a Syriac stage), given that the only other occurrence of "both" in the collection is in the adjacent logion Gos. Thom.34.13 Another difficult passage has Salome askingJesus Who are you, man, that as from one (2,(OCeBO?, H, Oy&) you have come up on my couch and have eaten from my table? (Gos.Thom.61) The phrase describing the manner in which Jesus comes up on the couch is virtually non-sensical in the Coptic. Against what seem to be hapless efforts to reconstruct the Greek Vorlage (on the assumption there was one),14 a better approach would be to posit the Syriac phrase r<.u ?
" Guillaumont ("S6mitismes," 195) suggests a distributive idea: "you in your ear and you over there in your ear"; Allen Callahan ("'No Rhyme or Reason': The Hidden HC ("in Logia of the Gospel of Thomas," HTR 90 [1997] 417) changes 2,A nIIKE. the other ear") to 2,A IIKCA~&XC("in another place, speak"). But both of these require textual emendations that leave only slim improvement on the meaning. 12 This case presumes a specifically Syriac-speaking provenance: "both" and "other" would not be confused in western Aramaic. 13 Ibid., 40-41. 14 Polotsky, for example, hypothesizes that the original was a Greek phrase reading 6; vevos;see Bentley Layton, ed., Nag HammadiCodex11,2-7 togetherwith XIII,2*. Brit. Lib. Or.4926 (1), and P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655 (NHS 20; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 74. '5 Ibid., 41-42. The same dynamic could not apply in western Aramaic: the idiom r<.u ,-, with the sense of "immediately," is peculiar to Syriac.
NHC
11,2 AND
THE
OXYRHYNCHUS
143
FRAGMENTS
In several of the aforementionedinstances, there is no doubt that western Aramaic would explain divergencesjust as well as Syriac. Since there is a very close connection between western Aramaic and Syriac, it is no surprise that what counts as evidence for one dialect may also count for evidence as the other. At the same time, there are other cases where it is precisely Syriac that offers the best explanation for the unusual wording of the Coptic. So the linguistic compass leans, however slightly, in the direction not of western Palestine but Edessa. 1.2 The CopticGospel of Thomas: The Evidenceof Catchwords ElsewhereI attempt to show through an examination of catchwordsthat a Syriac hand was involved in the compositionof the collectionas a whole.16 It is of course possible to interpret a number of these "Syriaccatchwords" as "westernAramaic catchwords".For example, the word "women"(sloAc -+ Syr: r<3i or Ara: tMf) is found in only three logia in the collection (Gos. Thom. 15, 46.1, 114.1). Each of these logia, interestingly, also falls next to a saying that, when translatedback into Syriac/western Aramaic, would likely contain the word nas (.sar or M3A), i.e., "someone"(Gos.Thom. Given the limited use of both terms, their recurring 14.5, 47.1, 113.4).17 collocation would strongly suggest that nes'se("women")and nas ("someone") are intended to be phonologically linked.18Two of the four logia containing the word "soul" (?YXH) in Thomas(25, 28.3, 87.2, 112.1, 2) occur next to sayings that would have presumably contained a reflexive pronoun in Aramaic (88.2, 111.3): this is only significant upon recalling that in Aramaic, "soul" and the reflexive pronoun are expressed with the same word: rcx,j or jSi.'9 Again, the word "wealth" (AifiTpA^&O 16
-
'etar
See Thomasand Tatian, 43-154. A 'catchword' is any term that can be paired with another term in an adjacent logion. Such pairing may be based on a semantic, etymological, phonological, or paronomastic relationship. For other treatments of (Coptic and Greek) catchwords in Thomas,see Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospelof Thomasand Jesus (FFRS; Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1993), 99-102; Allen Callahan, "No Rhyme or Reason," 411-26. 17 The presumption of nas in Gos. Thom. 14.5, is based on parallels from the OS (Mark 7:15 pars.); its presence in a hypothetical Syriac version of 47.1 and 113.4 is of course not certain, but nonetheless likely. Whether nas can be presumed beyond these three sayings is questionable. 18 The probability that of such collocations are occurring randomly is .0085%. This and subsequent statisticalcomputations have been kindly provided by Stephen C. Carlson. 19 Since it is impossible to be certain when the Syriac would have included a reflexive
144
NICHOLAS PERRIN
*E&. or '1nD) occurs twice in
the sayings collection (29.3, 85.1); both times in conjunction with the like-soundingword "place" (A -+ atar 4r& or inR) (30.1, 2; 86.2).20The Coptic word for "fruit"(K&pnoc)occurs in six logia (9.5; 21.9; 43.3 [2x]; 45.1; 63.2; 65.1, 2); it is a word that may be translatedback into the Aramaic ebd r<=r or 131. Hence, there seems to be phonological importance in the fact four out of the six logia having "fruit"(K&pnoc -- r=r< or KI3) fall next to a saying containing "father" (eIoT -- r,er< or AMR) (Gos. Thom. 43-45, 63-65).2' But, again, the ambivalence of the evidence should not lead us to conclude that the cases for western Aramaic and Syriac are equally strong. For example, Gos.Thom.10 contains the word "fire,"whilst the following logion contains the word "light":in Syriac,the two words "fire"and "light," nurd r<cu and nuhrdr
pronoun, the impression of firm statistical evidence would only be misleading at this point. 20 Words meaning "place" (A^, TOnoc) occur in twelve logia (4.1; 18.2; 22.6 [4x]; 24.1; 30.1, 2; 33.2; 50.1; 60.6; 64.12; 67; 68.2; 86.2). There is a 3.8% chance that its repeated connection with AHNTpJ^AbO is fortuitous. 21 The word "father" (ec0T) occurs in 24 logia (3.4; 15; 16.3 [2x]; 27.2; 40.1; 44.1; 50.2, 3; 53.2; 55.1; 57.1; 61.3; 64.12; 69.1; 27.1; 76.1; 79.2; 81.1; 96.1; 97.1; 98.1; 99.2, 3; 101.1, 2; 105; 113.4). This allows a 14% chance that the contact between these words is incidental. 22 Words for "fire" (&JNiTE, KW0T, C&TE) occur four times in the collection (Gos. Thom. 10; 13.8; 16.2; 82.1); "light" (oYOcIt) is found in seven sayings (11.3; 24.3 [4x]; 33.3; 50.1 [2x]; 61.5; 77.1; 83.1 [2x], 2). The statistical probability that these pairings are incidental is 6.8%.
NHC
11,2 AND
THE
OXYRHYNCHUS
FRAGMENTS
145
the Coptic and Greek texts. An examination of the Oxyrhynchus fragments and the Nag Hammadi text will make this clear. 2.1 P.Oxy. 1.5-8//Gos. Thom. 27 P.Oxy. 1.5-8 If you do not fast with respectto theworld
Gos. Thom.27 If you do not fast to the world
(vioTe1nxrat 'xv K6ojOov),
(TAIpHCTCYe ?nKOc.OC),
you will not find the kingdom of God.
you will not find the kingdom.
The Greek construction,whereby the verb "to fast" is used transitively, is peculiar and in fact unprecedented.23The best approach, following most translators,seems to be in renderingthe Greek as an accusativeof respect; by contrast in the Coptic we have something like "fasting to the world." It is possible that the Coptic is a loose translation of the Greek, but this would explain neither the oddity of the Greek nor the reason why the Coptic translator would have introduced c into his translation. A better solution, arrived at independently by Guillaumont and Baker,24 would be to posit a Syriac subtext behind both the Greek and Coptic:
It seems that when the Syriac author wrote , he intended to to It seems that when the Syriac author wrote w-.%, he intended reml_% be the indirect object following x, so that the original meaning was: "If you do not fast with reference to the world . ." or even "If you do not fast on account of the world.. .". But the lamedhconstruction, ambiguous as it is, seems to have created two lines of interpretation. One line of transas a lamedhdetermission (represented by P.Oxy. 1.5-6) understood re\was as the direct understood minationis,whereby "world" object of the verb, i.e.: "If you do not fast the world.. ."; another line of transmission (represented by Coptic Gos. Thom. 27) was an attempt to conserve the prepositional force of . in r--\vx, i.e.: "If you do not fast to the world...". If this analysis is correct, it could not be case that this posited Syriac text was the intermediary between the Greek and Coptic recensions. Rather
23 See Antoine Guillaumont, "NHZTEYEINTON KO?MON (P.Oxy. 1, verso, 1.5-6)" BIFAO (1962) 15-16; Aelred Baker, "Fasting to the World," JBL 84 (1965) 291. 24 Guillaumont, "NH;TEYEINTONKO;MON," 17-23; Baker, "Fasting to the World," 291-94.
146
NICHOLAS PERRIN
the Syriac version must have been the parent text upon which both Greek and Coptic were finally dependent. Admittedly, Guillaumont and Baker overlookthe possibilitythat a westernAramaic setting (l?I)), even though unattested in that linguistic tradition, could also yield similar results. 2.2 P.Oxy. 1.17-18//Gos. Thom. 28.3 P.Oxy. 1.17-18
Gos.Thom.28.3
And my soul is concerned (novel)
And my soul was in pain (t
for the sons of men...
TK&C)
for the sons of men...
The differencebetween the Greek and Coptic renderings,although not absolute, is noticeable. According to the Oxyrhynchusfragment,Jesus says that his soul is "concerned"or "anxious"for the sons of men; in the Coptic the sense is heightened: "my soul is in pain". To be sure, the divergence may be explained by redaction takingplace in one or another line of transmission. Perhaps the Coptic is more accurate in preserving the pathos of the original, which was softened by an editor behind the Greek version; alternatively,the original author might have used "concerned"or a word to that effect, and this was given added dramatic force by an editor whose touches survive only in the Nag Hammadi text. But another explanation,preferableto either of these, is that the Greek and Coptic translatorsare attempting to translate two separate forms of the Aramaic verb 'na r
2.3 P.Oxy. 1.23-24//Gos. Thom. 30.1 P.Oxy. 1.23-24 [Wh]erethereare three,
Gos.Thom.30.1 Wherethereare threegods,
they are atheists(&a0ot)...
they are gods(9giNOYTe).
The difference in meaning between the two texts is striking. Whereas the Coptic affirms(somewhat redundantly)that when three gods convene, they are gods; P.Oxy. 1.24 states that where there are "three" (of what exactly is unclear), these three are "atheists,"or "godless". Guillaumont has persuasivelyargued that what was originally in view in this saying is the number of judges or, at least, holy men with correspondingjudicial duties (i.e., %TSlqor rciiAr, who, according to Jewish (and presumably
NHC 11,2 AND THE OXYRHYNCHUS FRAGMENTS
147
Jewish-Christian) tradition, were required in settling interpretations of Torah.25Assuming Guillaumontis correct (his argument has not been successfully challenged), the focus is then on the judges' right to exercise authority, a right they possess as a collective body but not as individuals. The Nag Hammadi text would then appear to be closer to the original meaning: "Where there are three judges, they are (qualified to serve as) judges".26 But even if the Coptic more faithfullyconveys the original meaning than its Greek counterpart,this hardly explains the presence of a&eotin the latter. Granting that the intention of Coptic Gos. Thom.30.1 was to affirm the right of judges, when convened in quorum, to judge, how is it that the Greek came to imply almost the opposite?Again, towardssolving this problem recourse can be made to a hypothetical Aramaic Vorlage. Let it be assumed that the original text read as follows:27 Wherethereare threejudges, they are (qualifiedto serveas)judges. .r3ci_rd
r< ~cuca CSU
The last word is important. If the author's intention is to underscore the authority by which the rc
Such an explanation,if valid,would again mean that eitherSyriac "godless").29
25
"Logia de Jesus," 114-16; "Semitismes," 194-95. In regards to the first clause, it is possible (although not necessarily more likely) that the Greek is to be preferred: "Where there are three (men), they are (qualified to serve as) judges." Also see R. McL. Wilson, Studiesin the Gospelof Thomas (London, Mowbray, 1960) 121-22; Harold W. Attridge, "The Original Text of Gos. Thom., Saying 30," BASP 16 (1979) 153-57. 27 Although a western Aramaic background explains the evidence just as well as Syriac at this point, for simplicity's sake, I have simply reproduced the hypothetical Syriac. 28 On the use of Ato express dative of appointment, see Rubens Duval, Traite de Grammaire syriaque(repr. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1969) ?343, p. 327; Theodor Noldeke, SyriacGrammar(ET; London: Williams & Norgate, 1904) ?247, p. 192. Compendious 29 On the Syriac la aldhefor the Greek atheoisee, e.g., Ps.-Clem3.3.73. 26
148
NICHOLAS PERRIN
or western Aramaic stood behind both the Greek and Coptic lines of transmission.
2.4 P.Oxy. 654.9-11//Gos. Thom. 3.1 P.Oxy. 654.9-11 If the oneswho arepulling(oi EXiovT?e) you [say to you, 'Behold,] the kingdom is in the heaven...'
Gos. Thor. 3.1 If the oneswho arepulling(CeTCOOK) you say to you, 'Behold, the kingdom is in heaven...'
Here the Greek and Coptic do not necessarily diverge, but it is noteworthy that they both convey such a curious sense. While cwK is a possible translation for elico (and vice versa), neither verbs seems well suited to their own context.30 Who are the "ones pulling" after all? Nor does it really help matters to suggest that something other than "pulling" or "drawing" is meant. If, for example, it is argued that the saying was originally the composer meant not "ones composed in Greek, and by oi EXiKOVve; or "leaders" "deceivers", this would still not explain why pulling" but, say, the author used a form of ?XKc), instead of the more natural EXitvos,6ry6(; or apXcv. The Greek, no less than the Coptic, gives every impression of being a translation. or western Aramaic (f''n-1) plural In this connection, the Syriac (..-t) participle suggests itself, for the substantive would be an appropriate way of expressing either "leaders" or "deceivers." If the translators, approaching their task in rather wooden fashion, came upon either Aramaic form, it would be tempting to render the Greek as oi ieXKovTeS and Coptic as NETCOK.31
2.5
P.Oxy. 654.12-13//Gos.
Thom. 3.2
P.Oxy. 654.12-13 If they should say that it is undertheearth(bic6zilv ylv), then the fish of the se[a will precede you].
Gos. Thom.3.2 If they say to you that it is in thesea (CgFleaX&acc), then the fish will precede you.
30 Contra Guillaumont ("S6mitismes,"190-91),who seems to imply that coDKcannot be understoodas "pull,"but cf. W. E. Crum,A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford:Clarendon, 1939), s.v. coK, 325a-327b. 31 As Guillaumont ("S6mitismes," 190-91)points out, a similarcase can be made for supposingthe presenceof the Aramaicngd*in the tradition.
NHC 11,2 AND THE OXYRHYNCHUS FRAGMENTS
149
P.Oxy. 654.12-13 and Gos. Thom.3.2 differ as to where the kingdom of heaven is to be located. The former locates it "under the earth"; the latter has it "in the sea". Once again, it is not easily imagined how, on the assumptionthat the Coptic is loosely based on the Greek, one might move from "under the earth" to "in the sea." Nor is it readily seen how redactional tendencies might account for the two readings,for it is hard to imagine what might be gained by modifying "under the earth" to "in the sea". But given the occurrence of "birds"and "sky"in the preceding sentence of both the Greek and Coptic, and given that the Coptic reading (against the Greek) successfullycompletes the analogy (i.e., fish/sea, birds/sky), it would appear that the Nag Hammadi text preserves the superior witness to the common underlyingtradition:"If they say to you it is in thesea...". Now, as Miroslav Marcovich once noted, when Rflinrl or ro,ac^.s
("in
the sea") is supposed in the original text, the discrepancy between the Greek and Coptic becomes readily apparent.32The terms nlqTirnand e9cam&mean not simply "sea"; the primary reference is to the primordial chaos which the sea embodies. Thus, the originalterm denoted "abyss," which is often enough as a shorthand reference to the abyss of Tartarus.33 Tartarus is of course preciselythat portion of the cosmos that exists "under the earth." 2.6 P.Oxy. 654.15-16//Gos. Thom. 3.3 P.Oxy. 654.15-16 And (Kai)the kingdom of God is within you...
Gos. Thom.3.3 But rather(&Ax ) the kingdom is within you...
The point of contrast in these two texts lies in the choice of conjunctions. The Oxyrhynchusfragment employs a simple Kiai,whereas the Coptic has the adversativeax2,. The initial Iactis of course semitic. But here there is reason to suspect not that the composer of the saying is rehearsinghis material in semitic Greek, but that he is translatingan antecedent text that is itself written in a semitic language. I suggest that the original text read either ZtlI
or r^cuX\ca, which could have been read, with equal justice,
either as a simple connective ("and the kingdom") or as an adversative ("but the kingdom").The two lines of transmissionreflect both possibilities.
32
33
"Textual Criticism and the Gospel of Thomas," JTS n.s. 20 (1969) 59. Cf. Peshitta Exod 15:8; Rev 9:1-2.
150
NICHOLAS PERRIN
In each of these cases, the close relationshipbetween Syriac and western Aramaicmakes a firm distinctiondifficult.If we have shown the broadly Aramaic background of these logia, a more precise determination of the dialect (Syriac or western Aramaic) does not seem feasible. But the following instance may prove to be an exception to the rule. 2.7 P.Oxy. 654.33//Gos. Thom. 6.1 Gos. Thom.6.1 P.Oxy. 654.33 How shouldwefast? Do you wish thatwe shouldfast? (nxSv1noTe6oo?ev) (2?eKOyWO?TpHpNIHCTEYC)
In this question, which the disciplesput to Jesus, the differenceof wording between the Greek and Coptic texts is slight, but again potentially significant. In the former instance, the disciples are concerned with the mode or manner of their fasting; in the Coptic version, the disciples are simply concerned to know whether they should fast at all. This divergence can only be explained by a Syriac urtext, that is, if we assume (with no great difficulty)that the original text ran as follows: ?p,eJ ,.,,.,<
r,a.
am M r<
Given the differentuses of ,
Of course, my explanation for the differences between NHC 11,2 and P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655 is not exhaustive. Theological inclinations probably
See examples in Robert Payne Smith, ThesaurusSyriacus(3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1879-1901) s.v., .< vol. 1, col. 149. 35 Even the adverbial meem-aleph, attested only in Qumran Aramaic, does not seem to carry this particular double duty. 34
NHCII2
AND THE OXYRHYNCHUS FRAGMENTS
151
account for the omission or inclusion of certain material in one translation against the other;36other questions remain, not least the singular difference of arrangementof the logia.37At the same time, a Syriac document behind our extant versions need not explain everything.If the Greek and Coptic texts did share a common source, each line of transmission would be expected to take on its own distinguishingtraits. My point is simply that much of what distinguishesthe Oxyrhynchus fragments from its Coptic counterpartshould not be attributed to a particulartheological Tendenz,but rather to the vagaries of the translationprocess. The suggestion that the sayings contained in our Gospelof Thomaswere collected and edited by a Syriac speaker,only to be translatedon one side into Coptic and on the other side into Greek, has other implications as well. A recognition of the collection's Syriac character makes it unlikely that the gospel came together over the course of the first and early second centuries:a later date of composition is more likely. The supposition of a Syriac Gospelof Thomaswould, at any rate, incline us to date the document no earlier than the mid-second century. In this case, too, given such a late date, we might expect Thomas to tell us more about early Syriac Christianitythan about the oral traditions handed down from Jesus. Biblical Seminary, 200 North Main St., Hafield, Pennsylvania,US
36
Famously, P.Oxy. 654.30-31 has: "and there will be nothing buried that is not raised"; the same is omitted in the Coptic parallel. 37 In P.Oxy. 1-23-30 the texts of Gos. Thorn.30 and 77b are fused.
VIRIUS NICOMACHUS FLAVIANUS, DER PRAEFECTUS UND CONSUL DES CARMEN CONTRA PAGANOS* VON
ALTAY COSKUN a general caveatconcerning the interpretationof polemical various conpamphlets, chronologicallyrelevant aspects of the so-called Carmen trapaganosare revisited. In particular,the recent identificationof the anonymous praefectus and consulwith Vettius Agorius Praetextatusis challenged by reassertingthe classicalidentificationwith Virius Nicomachus Flavianus.Thus the composition of the poem can be dated to the aftermath of the battle at the Frigidus (5-6/9/394) on firm grounds. At the same time, new light can be shed on the careers of Leucadius rationalisreiprivatae fundorumdomusdivinae ca. 393/94. This per Africamca. 388/90 and Marcianus proconsulCampaniae way, the author's methods of distortingas well as various modern misconceptions emerge. As a conclusion, some new paths of further research on the poem and on late Roman religious conflicts can be suggested. ABSTRACT: After
Die alteste Prudentius-Handschrift uberliefert eine 122 Verse umfassende acephale antiheidnische Streitschrift, die gemeinhin Carmencontrapaganos, CarmenadversusFlavianum oder Carmencodicis Parisini 8084 genannt wird.' Ob ihrer geringen literarischen Qualitat, die durch den Kontrast zum Werk des Maro Christianorum umso scharfer ins Auge sticht, blieb die Schrift von Philologen zunachst weitgehend unbeachtet. Jedoch stieB das Pamphlet seit seiner Erstpublikation durch Delisle 1867 bzw. Morel 1868 auf ein groBes
* VorliegendeArbeit ist im Rahmen meines Postdoc-Aufenthaltes an der Oxford University(2000-2002)entstanden,der durch ein Stipendiumdes DAAD ermoglicht wurde. Mein herzlicher Dank gilt auch Herrn Dr. Bernhard Herzhoff (Trier) fur die
kritischeDurchsichteines friiherenEntwurfes.Die im folgendenverwendetenKurztitel sind nach der am Ende des Beitragesangefigten Bibliographiezu vervollstandigen. 1 Cod. Par. Lat. 8084 saec. VI dazu Markschies(1994) 329-33; (sog. codexPutaneus), Bartalucci(1998) 21; 25-30. Cracco Ruggini (1979) 75 schlagtindes den Titel Contra Vettium vor. - Jungst sind mit den Kommentarenvon Adamik (1995) und Bartalucci (1998) auch nennenswerte philologische Untersuchungen vorgelegt worden.
? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
57, 152-178 VigiliaeChristianae
VIRIUS
NICOMACHUS
FLAVIANUS
153
Interesse von Historikem, die sich mit dem religiosen Klima des spatantiken Rom beschaftigen.2 Der sachgerechtenAuswertungsind aber viele Hindemisse in den Weg gestellt. Neben textentstellendenKorruptelen und syntaktischenMangeln, die kaum allein zu Lasten von Kopisten gehen, erschweren auch die fehlende Benennungdes Autorsund die kontroversgedeutetenDatierungsindizien die Interpretation.3Die Diskussion konzentriert sich vomehmlich auf die Frage, welche Personlichkeitsich hinter dem kiirzlichverstorbenen(V. 111(V. 25) und consul(V. 112) verbirgt. Dessen enga22) anonymen praefectus aber letztlich erfolglose Bemuhungen zur Wiederbelebungtraditiogierte, neller Kulte bilden den historischenKern des Spottgedichtes. Seit Morel hielt man den Anonymus uberwiegendfur Virius Nicomachus praetorioItaliae et Illyrici(im folgenden ppo Ital. et Flavianus, der praefectus Theodosius und unter Illyr.) Eugenius sowie consul(cos.)394 war (t5.9.394).4 Manganaro schlug hingegen Gabinius BarbarusPompeianus, den praefectus urbisRomae(puR)408-9, vor (tFeb. 409).5Fur L. AureliusAvianiusSymmachus Phosphorius,den puR 364-65 und designiertencos. 377 (tHerbst 376) argu-
2
vor. Im iibriDelisle legte die erste Teilpublikation,Morel die ersteVollpublikation der eine uber Markschies 325-28 Quelle von seiten Verachlassigung (1994) gen klagt der Patristik,was er auf die ,,Halb- und Viertelbildung"des Autorszuriickfhrt. 3 Zur Aporie cf. z.B. auch die Einleitungbei Heinzberger(1976) 162-69. 4 Morels (1868)Positionwurdevon de Rossi (1868),Mommsen(1870)360, Baehrens Seeck (1883) CXVIIIf., (1909) 2510f., Rauschen (1897) 337 Anm. 10, 286, (1881) Barkowski(1912) 3, Schanz (1914) 221f., Piganiol(21972)293, Chastagnol(1960) 163, Bloch (1963) 200, Lippold(1975) 567f. aufgegriffen;nach Anfechtungenwird sie neuerdingsvon Matthews(1970)und Wytzes(1977) 158ff, 348f. gegen Manganaro(1960/61) sowie von Musso (1979) gegen Mazzarino(1974)und Cracco-Ruggini(1979)verteidigt. Fur Flavianussprechensich auch Szidat(1979)498-500 (unterVorbehalt),Schlumberger (1985) 312f., Demandt (1989) 135 und Markschies(1994) 344-51 aus. Ohne Problematisierunghaltenferer Errington(1992)441 Anm. 10, Gaggero(1996/98) 1529f.,Weber (1999) 310 und Portmann(1998) 543f. an der alterenInterpretationfest. Die zuvorgezwischenSeptember394 und ca. Mitte 395. nanntenForschersetzen die Abfassungszeit Zu Flavianus'cursuscf. zuletzt Honor6 (1998) 59-70; Modifikationendemnachstbei Coskun (ca. 2004) (vic. urb. 375/76-77, qsp 388-90, ppo I Ital., Afr. et Illyr. (Occ.) 390-91, ppo II Ital., Afi. (nur bis 392) et Illyr. (Occ.) 391-94.
5 Cf. Zos. 5,41 zur puR 408-9; Manganaro(1960) 218-23; Zustimmungbei Brown (1961)3 Anm. 19; Ruggini(1962) 389; partiellbei Griinewald(1992)477-80 (s.u. Anm. 9); mit Modifikationauch bei Heinzberger(1976) 162-96; unentschiedenbleibt von z.B. Matthews(1970);PLRE2,897f. Nr. 2; Marcone(1983) Haehling(1979)404f.; contra III' Paschoud 275f. 65; (1986)
154
ALTAY COSKUN
mentiertewiederumMazzarino.6Allerdingssprechensich heute in Gefolgschaft von Cracco-Ruggini viele Forscher fur Vettius Agorius Praetextatus,den ppoItal et Illyr.384 und cos.des.385, aus (tHerbst 384).7Diesen Alternativen entsprechend, variieren die verfochtenen Kompositionsdaten zwischen a. 377 und 410.8 Doch wird angesichts verbleibenderWiderspriicheu.a. von Lenaz eine vorsichtigeZuriickhaltunggefordert.Andere Konsequenzenaus den scheinbar unuberbriickbarenUnstimmigkeitenzieht indes Griinewald:Er erwagt, daB bei einer Komposition ca. a. 431 prosopographischeAngaben zum oben genannten Virius Nicomachus Flavianus und zu dessen Sohn Nicomachus FlavianuspuR (I) 392/ix.394, puR I (II) 399-400, puR II (III) 408, ppo Ital. Illyr. et Afr. 431-32 vermischt wurden. Dagegen schlieBt Bartalucciin seinem jiingst erschienenen Kommentar aus, daB hinter dem praefectus iuberhauptein konkretesIndividuum stehe.9
6
Cf. Mazzarino (1974) 398-465 (mit Text S. 462-65); gefolgt von di Berardino (1986)
335. 7 Cf. Cracco Ruggini (1979) 73 unter Riickgriff auf Ellis (1868) und dieselbe (1998)
496, 502 mit Verweis auf Dolbeau (1981); ferner Poinsotte (1982) 299, 308, Callu (1982) 2,229 Anm. 2, Vera (1983) 54, Shanzer (1986) 235-39, Delmaire (1989) 143, Cameron (1990) 67, McLynn (1994) 165 und (1996) 319 Anm. 24, Kahlos (1998) 194-203; contra Musso (1979) 190ff., Markschies (1994) 349, wahrend er (1997) 988 zwischen Flavianus und Praetextatus unentschieden bleibt. Leppin (2001) 260 ignoriert die These. Shanzers Zustimmung beruht bes. darauf, daB sie in V. 22f. die Vorlage fur Proba, Centopraef. 17 sieht, wobei sie diese Vorrede zunachst a. 395/401, das Gedicht selbst mit Verweis auf Hieron. epist. 53,7 (PL 22,544 = ed. Labourt 3,15) garrulaanus vor a. 394 datiert. Das postulierte Abhangigkeitsverhaltnis scheint zwar zunachst plausibel (cf. Verg. Aen. 8,696ff. und Stat. Theb. 10,893), aber bei nur einer einzigen Parallele verbieten sich allzu weitreichende Schliisse, zumal Shanzer auch den Centoum Jahrzehnte spater als bisher angenommen datieren muB (S. 242f.). 8 Unhaltbar ist die auf Schenkl basierende Ansicht von Schanz (1914) 221f., das Gedicht sei nach Flavianus' Tod, aber vor Eugenius' Untergang verfaBt. - Mit den vier genannten Personen sind die Moglichkeiten noch nicht einmal ausgeschopft. In der alteren Literatur wurde auch an Q. Aurelius Symmachus Eusebius (puR 384-85, cos. 391, tca. 402/3) gedacht, cf. z.B. die Ubersicht bei Mommsen (1870) 358 und di Berardino (1986) 335. Auch die Heiden Nonius Atticus (ppo 383-84, cos. 397, cf. PLRE 1,586 Nr. 34) und Tertullus (cos. 410 unter Attalus, cf. PLRE 2,1059 Nr. 1; CLRE 354f.) konnten in die Diskussion einbezogen werden. 9 Lenaz (1978) 541-72 auBert Zweifel an der Identifizierung mit Flavianus (contra Markschies 1994, 346 Anm. 189) oder Symmachus Phosphorius. O'Donnell (1978) 140 bilanziert: ,,the only responsible position for the scholar is dogmatic agnosticism"; ahnlich Clover (1985) 167, 176. Nach Griinewald (1992) 476-81 ist das Gedicht eine Reaktion
VIRIUS
NICOMACHUS
FLAVIANUS
155
Die hier vorgelegte Revision der Verse und der in der Literaturvorgebrachten Argumente sucht die klassische Identifikationmit Flavianus zu rehabilitierenund tritt entsprechendfiir ein Abfassungsdatumdes Gedichtes etwa im Herbst 394 ein. I. Gattungsspez#fische Voriiberlegungen Vordergrundigbetrachtet sind die anhaltenden Kontroversenvor allem dadurch bedingt, daB die beschriebenen Eigenschaften des praefectus und die angedeuteten Umstande zu keinem der moglichen Kandidaten restlos passen. Freilich darf dies nicht verwundern, da Ubertreibungenund sachliche Verzerrungen gattungsspezifischeCharakteristika(nicht nur) christlicher Kampfschriften sind. Hinzu kommt die topische Natur mehrerer Themen, die eher literarischenVorlagen als dem individuellenLebenslauf des praefectusentnommen sein mogen. Der Losungsweg wird also eine Gratwanderung zwischen der Anerkennung historischer Fakten und der Entlarvungfiktiver Elemente sein.'0 Mit Blick auf diese Schwierigkeitenempfiehltes sich, bei der Suche nach der Identitat des Anonymus die im einzelnen verspottetenGotter zunachst beiseite zu lassen und erst in einer anschlieBenden(hier nicht zu erfolgenden) InterpretationRaum zu geben, die vor allem motivgeschichtlichauszurichten ist. Ein wortlicher Bezug des Kultkataloges auf den praefectus auf die posthume Rehabilitation des alteren Flavianus a. 431 (CIL 1783 = ILS 2948), wie bereits Solari (1938) 303 vorgeschlagen hatte. Dabei glaubt Griinewald, daB der Verfasser Daten zu den Flaviani und vielleicht auch zu Pompeianus miteinander vermischt habe, sei es aus Unkenntnis, sei es, um sich vor einer Verfolgung wegen iibler Nachrede zu schiitzen. Bartalucci (1998) 31-42, gefolgt von Corsaro (1999) halt das Stuck fur ,,una specie di esercitazione scolastica", in der das idealtypische Bild ,,di un ottimate pagano, di un vicario del demonio" gezeichnet werde (S. 35). Der terminus post quemwerde durch Prud. C.Symm.a. 402/3, der terminusad quemdurch die Phase der
Politikin Italien a. 407/8 gegeben. christlich-reaktionaren 10Cf. auch Heinzberger(1976) 162-96, der zunachstankundigt,SchluBfolgerungen weniger,,auseinzelnenWortenund Satzendes Gedichtes,zumalwenn sie unsicherund unklarsind"zu ziehen, als vielmehrden ,,Grundtenor"aufzuspiiren(S. 166), den er in der Verbitterung iiberdas Versagender heidnischenGotterangesichtsder Barbarenstiirme sowie im HaB gegen den praefectus wegen der EnteignungsenatorischerGiiter erblickt bleibt aber Die Heinzbergerversaumtes, zwiunbefriedigend; Ausfuhrung (S. 170-77). schen Spekulation,Quellenaussagenund historischenFaktenzu unterscheiden;auB3erVerse als aporetisch,s.u. Anm. dem verwirfter vorschnellseinerThese entgegenstehende 22, 25, 47. WeitereUberlegungenzur christlichenPolemikfindensich z.B. bei Bartalucci (1998) 43-48.
156
ALTAY COSKUN
verbietet sich namlich ohnehin schon deswegen, weil diese Schimpftirade einer undifferenziertenGeneralabrechnungmit dem Heidentum dient," ahnlich wie Prudentius in den ContraSymmachum libri, Flavius Claudius
" Cf. z.B. Bloch (1960) 200-4, der trotz eines allgemeinen caveatdennoch iiberzeugende Verbindungslinien zu Flavianus personlich und der Zeit des Eugenius zieht, aber zugleich eine Fortsetzung von Praetextatus' religiosen Aktivitaten erkennt; S. 239: ,,the similarity of his program to that of Praetextatus seems to be the most striking feature". Nachdem Mazzarino (1974) 407ff. die zahlreichen Andeutungen auf Symmachus Phosphorius bezogen hat, spricht laut Cracco-Ruggini (1979) 73, 28f., 62f. der orientalische Charakter der ,,rinascita pagana" allein fur Praetextatus, womit sie auf breite Zustimmung stoBt (s.o. Anm. 7; contraAdamik [1995] 187-94; erneut Cracco Ruggini [1998], 498); indes gesteht sie zu, daB der Vorwurf orientalischer Kulte in Prud. C.Symm. 1,598.624-43; 2,54ff.; 858ff. ein ,,sicherer Fehler" sei: ,,la topicita delle espressioni in cui la polemica antipoliteistica si era andata fossilizzando nell'ultimo mezzo secolo" (S. 31 mit Anm. 74); fir den Anonymus komme Flavianus iiberdies nicht in Frage, weil eine Anspielung auf die fur a. 394 wichtigen Gottheiten Hercules oder Victoria fehle (S. 72f.); allerdings findet sich in Anm. 73 das Eingestandnis, daB Praetextatus selbst curialisHerculis war (CIL 6,1779) und sich V. 67 efebusmoglicherweise doch auf den Hercules-Kult beziehen konnte (so mit Entschiedenheit z.B. Wytzes [1977] 167f.), so daB Cracco Ruggini ihrem eigenen Argument den Boden entzieht. Ubrigens beziehen sich auch V. 41-43 auf den Hercules-Kult, cf. Barkowski (1912) 34-37. Zudem laBt Cracco Ruggini unberucksichtigt, daB auch Praetextatus an der Seite des Symmachus fur Victoria eintrat. Musso (1979) 204-12, 215 argumentiert wiederum mit Flavianus' angeblich grundsatzlicher Offenheit, die einerseits aus seinem Einsatz fur die Donatisten hervorgehe (Aug. epist. 87,8 [PL 33,300]; CTh 16,6,2 a. 376/77, dazu Coskun [ca. 2004]), andererseits unter den Gegebenheiten a. 393/94 zu einer Einbeziehung auch der orientalischen Kulte gefuhrt haben konnte; ferner legt sie die Ahnlichkeit von Flavianus' und Praetextatus' Religiositat dar; jedoch zeichne sich Flavianus als haruspex(V. 34-37; Ruf. Hist. eccl. 11,33; Macr. Sat. 1,24,17) und Magier (V. 110; Soz. Hist. eccl. 7,22,4f.) aus, der zudem ein Bewunderer des Apollonius von Tyana gewesen sei; ahnlich Adamik (1995) 189f. sowie bereits Seeck (1883) CXVIII und Barkowski (1912) 10. Schon Heinzberger (1976) 167f. ruft zu Recht die ,,topische Ausgestaltung" in Erinnerung und warnt davor, ,,alles, was von dem anonymen Dichter uber den Heiden beschrieben und beklagt wird, fur bare Miinze zu nehmen"; dies betreffe insbesondere die orientalischen Kulte, die auch in anderen zeitgenossischen Invektiven besonders angegriffen wiirden (s.u. mit Anm. 12). Indes hindert diese Einsicht Heinzberger nicht daran, Flavianus angesichts der Bedeutung der orientalischenThemen auszuschlieBen(S. 166f.; 187-89), und dies trotz der Feststellung, daB das ,,beriihmte Elfenbeindiptychon der Nicomachi und Symmachi" von a. 393 stamme und ,,Symbole aus dem Magna-Mater-Kult und den eleusinischen Mysterien" trage. Unter Verweis auf Heinzberger laBt Szidat (1979) bes. 499f. in seiner Untersuchung der von chrisdicher Polemik dominierten Quellen zur Usurpation des Eugenius groBe Umsicht walten. Markschies (1994) 358ff. betont zwar zu Recht den traditionsverhafteten Charakter des Gedichtes, erkennt aber dennnoch den ,,prazisen" Beschreibungen einen hohen Quellenwert fur ,,alle Ziige des zeitgenossischen Synkretismus" einschlieB-
VIRIUS NICOMACHUS FLAVIANUS
157
Antonius im sog. Poemaultimumoder ein weiterer anonymer Autor im sog. Carmenad quendam senatorem verfahren.'2 Auch bei der angeblichen Wassersucht (V. 27 tracta... morte;V. 121 hydrops)ist Vorsicht geboten. So analysiert beispielsweise Mazzarino die pathologischen Indikationen und fuhrt sie gegen eine Gleichsetzung des Eiferers mit Flavianus an, der am 5.9.394 die Hoffnung auf einen Sieg iiber Theodosius fahren lieB und sich selbst das Leben nahm. Ebensowenig ist das Krankheitsbildmit dem gewaltsamenTod des Pompeianusoder dem unerwarteten Ableben des amtierenden ppo Praetextatus zu vereinbaren. Doch erweist sich die Argumentation als Bumerang, da fiir Symmachus Phosphoriusgleichfallsdie Moglichkeiteines mehrmonatigenDahinsiechens auszuschlieBenist: Auch ihn ereilte ein plotzlicher Tod im Herbst 376.13 Im einzelnen variiert die Interpretationder relevanten Verse erheblich: tractamorswird bald als langes, bald als qualvolles Sterben, jedoch auch
lich des ,,philosophischen Hintergrundes" zu (S. 360f.); S. 351 sagt er ferner, daB der Magievorwurf am besten zu Flavianus passe. Adamik (1995) 193f. betont die ,,synchretistische Einheit", die das Heidentum aus christlicher Sicht dargestellt habe. Ein Pladoyer fur groBere Vorsicht bei der Auswertung christich-polemischer Dichtung in kultischen Belangen findet sich bei McLynn (1996), der allerdings S. 318f. die Beschreibung des Taurobolium in V. 57-62 fir zuverlassiger als die Version in Prud. Perist. 10,1036-40 halt. 12 Das Poema ultimumist im Corpus des Paulinus von Nola uberliefert (ed. Hartel, CSEL30,2,329-38); zum Autor Antonius cf. Poinsotte (1982) 298-312 und Coskun (2002a) 43f. Anm. 84. Das Carmenad quendamsenatoremfindet sich im Corpus Cyprians (ed. Peiper, CSEL 23,227-30; Riese, AnthologiaLatina 1,2,163-66). Nach Piganiol (1970) 293 reagieren auch diese Texte auf die heidnische Renaissance unter Flavianus; Weber (1999) 310 erwagt im iibrigen eine Identitat des Dichters mit dem Verfasser des Carmencontra paganos.Allerdings ist der Ton weit weniger aggressiv und trotz der Polemik sogar freundschaftlich werbend. Im iibrigen ist der Adressat ein Apostat (V. If.) und ehemaliger cos. (V. 27); eine Identitat mit dem praefectusund consuldes Carmencontrapaganoskommt deswegen nicht in Frage. Zum moglichen Verhaltnis anepigrapher christlicher Polemiken untereinander cf. auch Cracco Ruggini (1979) 124-30 und Markschies (1994) 343f., 357 Anm. 241. 13 Cf. Mazzarino (1974) 401ff., 424ff., 450ff. Zum Tod des Pompeianus cf. Zos. 5,41; zu Praetextatus cf. Coskun (2002b), zu Symmachus Coskun (2002a) 197 Anm. 36. Mazzarino 401 synchronisiert sogar den Zeitraum von drei Monaten (V. 28 mensibus iste tribus, totm qui concitusurbem/ lustravit,metas tandempervenitad aevi) mit dem Krankheitsverlauf, s. aber u. Anm. 16. Uberdies ist dies nur bei einem metaphorischen Verstandnis der hydropisia moglich, well ihr Beginn dann mit dem offenen Religionsfrevel in Rom gleichgesetzt wiirde; konsequenterweise entfiele dann aber jegliches pathologische Identifizierungskriterium.
158
ALTAY COSKUN
im metaphysischenSinn als ewiger Tod aufgefaBt,wahrend Wassersucht nicht unbedingt mit einem langwierigen Leiden verbunden sein muB.14
Dem vorangehendenV. 26 lassen sich schon aufgrundseiner Verderbtheit kaum verlaBlichehistorische Informationen abringen; ohnedies scheint er nicht mehr als eine spottische Kommentierung des Todes zu sein und wenig iiber die genauen Ereignisse auszusagen.'5Auch bleibt offen, worauf sich der Zeitraum von drei Monaten genau bezieht.'6
14 Cf. die von Shanzer (1986) 239 und Markschies (1994) 353f. referierten Positionen; zu erganzen ist Barkowski (1912) 21, der vix auf tractabeziehen will. Markschies kommentiert: ,,daB der Tod trotz der Opfer von Z. 25f. kaum in die Lange gezogen wurdeobwohl er ,,zwanzig Jahre fein zu leben versuchte" (Z. 62)", wahrend er S. 337 iibersetzt: ,,nachdem der Tod kaum verzogert worden ist" (ist vielleicht gemeint: ,,daB der Tod kaum aufgeschoben wurde"?);S. 356 laBt er die Entscheidung offen, ob die Wassersucht wortlich oder metaphorisch zu verstehen sei; S. 351 spricht er den pathologischen Kriterien jedenfalls eine Bedeutung fur die Identifikationsfrage ab. Unberiicksichtigt laBt er die von Cracco Ruggini (1979) 80-83 z.B. mit Aug. Civ. 13,2; 21,17 unterlegte metaphysische Deutung der tracta mors (cf. auch V. 43 zum Thema, dazu u. Anm. 24). im Spitlatein nach Adamik (1995) 220 (mit Verweis auf Commodian, Dagegen konnte trahere ohne Stellenangabe) auch schlicht 'erleiden' bedeuten. Im ubrigen mag die Mehrdeutigkeit von tractamorsdurchaus intendiert sein. Weiterhin belegt Cracco Ruggini die Moglichkeit eines kurzen Krankheitsverlaufes mit Cels. Med. 3,21 De hydropicis:.... hic quidemacutus est morbus.longusverofieri potesteorum,quos aqua intercutemmale habent.AUerdings gibt dieselbe schlieBlich mit Verweis auf V. 29 tandemeinem sich hinziehenden Tod den Vorzug, obwohl das Adverb lediglich die Erleichterung des Autors iiber den Tod des praefectus zum Ausdruck bringt (abweichend spricht sie 1998, 501 von ,,crise soudaine d'hydropisie, episode final d'une maladie chronique a l'issue fatale"). S. 115 bietet sie eine weitere und 122 (salutemde Interpretation von Praetextatus' Lebensende: V. 121 (post hydropem) love Latio) belegen angeblich in doppelter Weise, daB er noch am 17.-19.12.384 Gladiatorenspieleveranstaltet und somit den Gottern Iuppiter Latiaris, Dis Pater, Saturus und Nemesis geopfert habe. ,,Ma Saturno .. era divinita che presiedeva alle morti per malattie 'refrigeranti e umide' (quali l'idropisia, appunto)". Unabhangige Zeugnisse lassen aber keinen Zweifel daran, daB Praetextatus spatestens im Okt. 384 einen iiberraschenden Tod gestorben war; zudem ist es irrefuhrend, darauf zu verweisen, daB die Spiele von den Consuln gegeben worden seien, da Praetextatus vor seinem Amtsantritt starb, s.u. Anm. 23. 15 Cf. V. 25-27 praefectus ... / quem(?) Iovis ad soliumraptumtractatus abisset,/ cumpoena<s> scelerumtractavix morterependat.Wahrend Shackleton-Bailey (1982) 1,18 den Text mit zweifacher cruxbeibehalt, wagen die iibrigen Herausgeber einen Korrektur, cf. die Ubersicht bei Adamik (1995) 214 oder Bartalucci (1998) 70, 106-8. Barkowski (1912) 22f. schlieBt sich wie Adamik und Bartalucci Wuenschs Konjektur (... tractats abisseft]) an; Matthews (1975) 472 und Cracco Ruggini (1979) 80 folgen Froehners Version (quem lovis ad soliumraptum abisse[tj);Haupt ersetzt das obskure tractatusdurch trabeatus und findet z.B. bei Mommsen (1870) 362 Anm. 1 (nicht aber S. 354), Riese (1894)
VIRIUS NICOMACHITS FLAVIANTTS
159
Nicht wenige Kommentatoren ubersehen, dab die w6rtliche Auslegung der Beschreibung des Gesundheitszustandesoder Lebensendes in einem polemischen Kontext nicht ohne weiteres statthaftist; denn gerade hier ist mit Verzerrung und Fiktion zu rechnen, die ihre Unterordnungunter jeglichen Wirklichkeitsbegriff verweigern.17Die Tendenz tritt im vorliegenden
21 und Markschies (1994) 337, 353 Anklang. Tatsachlich ist der Hinweis auf das Gewand eines Consuls und zugleich Feldherrn attraktiv, aber die Uberlieferung konnte durchaus original sein (,,unter Zerren"). Solium raptumhat bereits Mommsen (gefolgt von Markschies) einsichtig mit Verweis auf V. 14 (Saturns Vertreibung durch Juppiter) erklart, so daB eine Korrektur in raptimoder raptuszu verwerfen ist. Da nun der praefectus Subjekt von tractatusabissetist, muB das Relativpronomen gelautet haben; der Fehler wird zu Lasten eines Kopisten gehen, der sich durch raptumirreleiten lieB. De Rossi und Mommsen setzen Iovis soliummit dem Juppiter-Heiligtum in den Julischen Alpen gleich, wo Flavianus an Eugenius' Seite gegen Theodosius kampfte. Doch stellt Matthews (1970) 473, dem Heinzberger (1976) 184, Adamik 1995, 219f. und Bartalucci 1998, 108 folgen, mit Verweis u.a. auf Verg. Aen. 12,849 klar, daB hier der ,,heavenly throne of Jupiter" bezeichnet sei. Moglicherweise beabsichtigte der Dichter, die schauerliche Atmosphare der Vorlage und den verwerflichen Charakter des obersten Heidengottes miteinzufangen, cf. Aen. 12,849-52 hae [sc. Dirae] lovis ad soliumsaeviquein limine regis / deum rex / apparentacuuntquemetummortalibusaegis, / si quandoletumhorrificum morbosque bello urbes. Flavianus soil wohl selbst davor sein (tracmeritas aut territat erschaudert molitur, tatus),von seinem Gott gerichtet zu werden. 16 Das Trimester konnte sich auf den Romaufenthalt, den Vollzug der ersten Riten oder die Zeit nach Verlassen der Stadt bis zum Tod des praefectusbeziehen. Ahnliche Alterativen sieht auch Markschies (1994) 354, der wie Barkowski (1912) 28 die letztgenannte fur die wahrscheinlichste halt; nach Mommsen (1870) 360 war der praefectus drei Monate lang in itinerebellove(ahnlich Schanz [1914] 222), wahrend Musso (1979) 220-27 dreimonatige ,,ceremonie purificatrici" bzw. ,,lustratiourbis"postuliert; ahnlich Szidat (1979) 498, allerdings mit Vorbehalten in Anm. 77; wieder anders Mazzarino, s.o. Anm. 13. Die von Mommsen (1870) 354, 362 bevorzugte Lesart totumorbem(statt urbem)ist sachlich unhaltbar; Markschies (1994) 354 bleibt unentschieden. Aber auch vollig unabhangig davon darf man entgegen Cracco Ruggini 1979, 84-86 (,,ni si ha traccia di un suo soggiomo nell'urbe in tali mesi") von einem Romaufenthalt des Flavianus im Kriegsjahr 394 ausgehen. Es ist zwar anzunehmen, daB sich der ppo Ital. et Illyr. beim Einmarsch des Eugenius im Fruhjahr 393 in Mailand aufhielt und auch vorlaufig dort verweilte; als aber im Winter 393/94 der offene Bruch mit Theodosius vollzogen war und der Krieg vorbereitet wurde, diirfte der ppo nach Rom gereist sein, um groBtmogliche Krafte der Senatoren zu mobilisieren. Vielleicht gestattete Eugenius erst damals die freie Ausiibung der Kulte, um sich der Unterstiitzung der Senatsmehrheit zu versichem; bekanntlich hatte er sich zuvor den heidnischen Forderungen verweigert, cf. Ambr. epist.57,6 (edd. Maurini) = epist.ex. coll. 10,6 (ed. Zelzer, CSEL 82,10,3,208) und Szidat 1979, 496ff. Flavianus diirfte die Floralia in Rom zelebriert haben (V. 112-15, dazu u. Anm. 27); spatestens im Juni verlieB er die Stadt. 17 Barkowski (1912) 77f. verwirft die Positionen Dobbelsteins und Seefelders, die unter
160
ALTAY COSKUN
Fall offen zutage, indem das antichristliche Wirken in Rom als rabiesund insania mentisdiffamiert und der Tod als BuBe fur sceleracharakterisert wird (V. 27-31). Staatspolitische, religiose und pathologische Kategorien werden also vorbehaltlos miteinander vermischt.'8 Mit der Apostasie sei noch ein dritter Bereich (V. 78-86) angesprochen: Glaubensabfall gait wie auch die ihm verwandten Phanomene der Gemeinschaftsspaltung (Schisma) und Irrlehre (Haresie) als kapitaler Frevel, der im spateren 4. Jh. sogar im juristischen Sinne kriminalisiert wurde.19 In den Religionskonflikten jener Epoche war es an der Tagesordnung, abweichend denkenden Gegnern bisweilen auch durch fadenscheinige Argumentation solcherlei Vergehen vorzuwerfen. DaB in einem Pamphlet unterstellte Kausalverhaltnisse mit Vorsicht zu behandeln sind, haben bereits verschiedene Interpreten des carmeneingefordert.20
II. FlavianusoderPraetextatus? Bei der Suche nach dem Anonymus kommt den erwahnten Amtern, der Praefectur und dem Consulat, eine zentrale Bedeutung zu.21 Von den oben genannten vier Kandidaten erfillt Flavianus, der a. 394 sein Consulat als amtierender ppo Ital. et Illyr. antrat, diese doppelte Bedingung am besten.
Verweis auf Prud. Perist. 2,239 ,,vocem hydropem pro superbiausurpatam esse sumunt"; Musso (1979) 236-40 argumentiert fur eine bewuBte Doppeldeutigkeit; Bartalucci (1998) 121f. laft die Entscheidung offen, wahrend Adamik (1995) 229 fur die metaphorische Bedeutung de tumore,inflationeanimi (ThIL 6,3,3137) eintritt. S. auch o. Anm. 13f. 18 Man vergleiche nur das Ende des von Wurmer zerfressenen Herodes Antipas cf. auch (Acta 12,23) oder den vielsagenden Titel von Laktanzens De mortibus persecutorum; die Variationen in Athan. Hist. Ar. 7 (PG 25,701f. C-D) (Philippus); Amm. 28,1,57 (Maximinus, Simplicius, Doryphorianus); 30,2,9-12 (Remigius); 30,6 (Valentinian I.). Weitere Verweise bei Weber (1999) 310 oder Arand (2002). 19 Cf. CTh 16,7, dazu Noethlichs (1971) 108-10, 166f. 20 Z.B. erinnert auch Cracco Ruggini (1979) 102-6 an die Unzuverlassigkeit solcher Informationen: ,,Peraltro l'apostasia... poteva anche essere una diceria incontrollata, che un pamphletcome il nostro non si sarebbe certo peritato di utilizzare ai propri fini" (S. 102); beim Vorwurf der Apostasie handle es sich auch im Falle des Leucadius und Marcianus um ,,dicerie fondate sul solo fatto che, da pagano, costui a un certo punto si era avvicinato al cristianesimo, senza per6 ricevere il battesimo" (S. 105f.). 21 V. 63 abieras(oder: ambierasmit Buecheler) censormeliorumcaederevitambraucht hier nicht weiter beriicksichtigt zu werden, da die Censur bereits im 1. Jh. abgeschafft worden war; die Erklarung Barkowskis (1912) 47, ,,tamquam censoris munere functus urbem lustravit", lieBe sich theoretisch auf jeden der vier Kandidaten beziehen, ebenso die
VIRIUS NICOMACHUS FLAVIANUS
161
Freilich ist V. 112 (sola tamengaudetmeretrixte consuleFlora)nicht prazise genug, um einen cos.des.mit letzter SicherheitauszuschlieBen.Mithin scheiden Symmachus cos. des. 377 und Praetextatuscos. des. 385 noch nicht aus dem Rennen aus. Fiir Pompeianus, der im Februar 409 erschlagenwurde, ist allerdingskaum zu erwarten, daB er damals bereits zum cos. 410 designiert worden war.22 Die rhetorische Frage praefectus vesterquidprofiit urbi?legt nahe, daB der Anonymus seine religionspolitischenAktivitaten als ppo Ital. (et Illyr.)oder puR entfaltete. Praetextatusubernahm seine ppo spatestensim Mai 384 und starb im September oder Oktober desselben Jahres;23 dagegen hatte Symmachus die puR 364-65 bekleidet und wurde erst nach einem langen Intervall a. 376 zum cos. 377 designiert.Allein bei Flavianusfielen also ppo (390-94), cos. (394) und Tod (5.9.394) in ein und dasselbe Kalenderjahr. Entgegen Mazzarino sprichtnichts im Text wirklichdafir, daB zwischen beiden Amtsperioden ein langer Zeitraum vergangen sei; im Gegenteil scheint der Tod die Praefecturbeendet zu haben (V. 25-29). Ebensowenig iiberzeugtCracco Rugginis Vorschlag, allein die in V. 38-45 aufgelisteten in Praetextatus'puR 367-68 zu setzen und die restVergehen des praefectus lichen Freveltaten auf die ppo 384 zu beziehen.24 Aussage, daB die religionspolitischen Bestrebungen vor allem auf die Senatoren (meliores) zielte. Anders Wytzes (1977) 166f. 22 Heinzberger (1976) 178 gesteht zu, daB das Consulat in Manganaros Argumentation fir Pompeianus eine ,,ernsthafte Hiirde" darstelle; doch ist der Verweis darauf, daB Flavianus' Consulat illegal war (CTh 15,14,9-11), ein untaugliches Ablenkungsmanover. Cracco Ruggini (1979) 109 fuihrtverschiedene Belege dafir an, daB im Sprachgebrauch nicht immer zwischen cos. und cos. des. unterschieden wurde, cf. z.B. CIL 6,1698 a. 377; Musso (1979) 191f. spricht aber zu Recht vielen Stellen ihre Beweiskraft ab. 23 In der Literatur wird der Amtsbeginn regelmaBig kurz vor den 21.5.384 (CTh 6,5,2) und der Tod nach dem 9.9.384 (CI 1,54,5), eher noch in den November oder Dezember gesetzt, cf. z.B. PLRE 1,722-24 Nr. 1; Kahlos (1998) 183; s. auch u. Anm. 35. Allerdings konnte Praetextatus bereits ab Herbst 383 ppo gewesen sein, wahrend sein Lebensende sicher nicht spater als Oktober 384 datiert werden darf; dies legen die Korrespondenz des Symmachus und die rechtzeitige Ersetzung des ausgefallenen Consuls durch Bauto nahe, cf. Coskun (2002b). 24 Mazzarino (1974) 404-15 und Cracco Ruggini (1979) 89-96 verweisen dabei auf olim, das aber bestenfalls das in V. 38-40 genannte Vergehen in eine friihere Zeit versetzt: non ipse est vinum (?) patriae (.) qui prodiditolim, / antiqua<s>quedomos,turresa tecta priorum / subvertensurbi vellet cum inferreruinam. Wahrend Flavianus nach einer vorlaufigen Erwagung Mommsens (1870) 363 einmal die italischen Lieferpflichten verringert haben konnte, sieht Mazzarino (1974) 415ff. eine Anspielung auf die Weinkrise a. 375 (Amm. 27,3,4). Cracco Ruggini (1979) 91f. verweist hingegen auf CTh 14,4,4 (8.10.367), wonach Praetextatus pu(R) die Leistung der suariian Rom um jahrlich 17.000
162
ALTAY COSKUN
Mit der Altersangabesexagintaannis(V. 67) liegt ein weiteres Argument fur Flavianusvor. Wahrend sie mit seinen biographischenDaten durchaus vereinbar ist, miiBte im Falle des Praetextatuseine grobe Ungenauigkeit vorausgesetztwerden.25Auch die Verspottungdes kleinen Grabes kann mit
Amphoren Wein reduzieren sollte (die suggestiokonne auf Praetextatus zuruckgehen); die 'zerstorerische' Baupolitik belege Amm. 27,9,10 ad a. 367/68. Musso (1979) 228-32 spricht von Zweckentfremdung des Weines durch dessen Opferung; Praetextatus' BaumaBnahmen seien aber legal. Indes hebt Markschies (1994) 347 hervor, daB neben Praetextatus z.B. auch Symmachus eine denkmalpflegerische Politik verfolgt habe (cf. rel. 21,5), so daB eine solche auch Flavianus unterstellt werden konne. Liest man aber mit Haupt, Matthews (1970) 469, Shackleton-Bailey (1982) 19 und Adamik (1995) 221f. (mit zusatzlichen Argumenten) v<e>numpatria<m>, werden die drei Verse koharenter; sie beziehen sich allein auf die Baupolitik. Mommsen (1870) 354 und Markschies (1994) 337, 354 bleiben unentschieden; Wytzes (1977) 162 liest mit Seeck (1920) 541 <cult>um. Weitere Konjekturen diskutieren Barkowski (1912) 32f., der seinerseits vinumim biblischen Sinne auffaBt (cf. z.B. Prov. 4,17 vinuminiquitatis),und Bartalucci (1998) 72, 117f., der eine Anspielung auf wiederholten MiBbrauch bei der Verwaltung der arca vinaria durch verschiedene puR erkennt. - Auf welche Feste sich V. 41-45 beziehen, ist nicht zuletzt wegen der textlichen Unsicherheiten strittig,cf. Bartalucci (1998) 119-22. Mazzarino (1974) 418f. erklart gallariazum Derivat von Gallus, das wiederum synonym zu murmillo (Gladiator mit gallischen Waffen) verwendet werden konne. Auf anderem Weg kommt Cracco Ruggini (1979) 94f. zu einem ahnlichen Ergebnis; sie liest: omaretlauropostes, conviviadaret,/ pollutospanes infectosturevaporo/ poneret,in risumquaerensquo<s> dedere morti. / a[l]laribus (coni. Birt) subitocircumdare membrasu<e>tus (cod. subitus),/ fraude nova sempermiserosprofanareparatus. Hier handle es sich um in der Verantwortung des puR liegende Spiele; insbesondere V. 43 lasse an Gladiatorenkampfe denken. Musso (1979) 204 erkennt sogar eine Anspielung auf die muneragladiatoriades Memmius Symmachus quaestorcandidatus393, die durch seinen Onkel Flavianus unterstiitzt wurden (Symm. epist. 2,46). Indes korrigiert Markschies (1994) 354 das hapax legomenon 'gallaribus'mit Haupt und Riese in 'collaribus'und ubersetzt mit ,,Halseisen". Uberzeugender interpretiert Ehwald, gefolgt von Seefelder, Barkowski (1912) 34-37, Wytzes (1977) 165, Adamik (1995) 222f. und Bartalucci (1998) 121f., gallariaals Schuhe der Galli, der sich selbst kasteienden Kybele-Priester (Galli). Barkowski, Wytzes und Adamik sehen auBerdem in den Opferbroten einen Bezug zum Hercules-Kult gegeben und deuten mortiwie auch Bartalucci im spirituellen Sinne. Es geht in diesen Versen also um den Seelentod, der auf das Kosten von ,,mit Weihrauch infiziertem Brot" folge; dederemorti steht auf derselben semantischen Ebene wie profanare.Zu lesen ist also mit Mazzarino in risumquaerens cod. P, quosdedereShackleton-Bailey) morti... miseros. . . quodedere(quodedere 25 In keinem Fall ist das Geburtsjahrbekannt. Ruf. Hist. eccl. 11,33 bietet pace Portmann (1998) 543 keine Bestatigung der Altersangabe fur Flavianus; aber die Bekleidung einer ppo oder die Designation zum cos. sind ohne Probleme mit dem Sterbealter von 60 Jahren vereinbar.Al erdings ergabe sich fur Praetextatus das Problem, daB er nach Lyd. Mens. 4,2 in priesterlicher Funktion an der Einweihung Constantinopels teilgenommen
VIRIUS NICOMACHUS FLAVIANUS
163
Blick auf den ungeheuerlichenAufwand, der bekanntlich fur Praetextatus betrieben wurde, nur auf den umgekommenen StaatsfeindFlavianusbezogen werden, dessen Rehabilitierungnoch Jahrzehnte auf sich warten lieB.26 Der in V. 114 genannte Symmachus heressteht dieser Deutung keineswegs Mazzarino fur hailt zwar den naturlichenund zugleichjurientgegen. jenen stischen Erben des Anonymus. Doch ware es witzlos, den Namen des praefectus(ggf. SymmachusPhosphorius)kontinuierlichzu vermeiden, dann aber seinen homonymen Sohn (ggf. SymmachusEusebius)gegen Ende ausdriicklich zu nennen. Indes erwagt Cracco Ruggini, daB Praetextatusden FloraTempel bis zu den Festtagen der Gottin in seinem Consulatsjahr(30.4.3.5.385) habe restaurierenwollen und die begonnene Arbeit nach seinem Tod von Symmachus fortgesetzt worden sei.27
hatte; Cracco Ruggini (1979) 84, 131-41 setzt dieses Ereignis einerseits ca. a. 328/30 (er sei pontifex Vestaeoder maiorgewesen), andererseits erwagt sie ein Geburtsjahr von ca. a. 320 (entgegen Chastagnol [1962] 174: ca. a. 310) mit Blick auf das unterstellte Todesalter und die spater bekleideten Amter. Diese Chronologie ist hochgradig unwahrscheinlich. Ebenso hat Matthews (1970) 475f. gezeigt, daB Pompeianus a. 409 langst noch keine 60Jahre alt gewesen sein diirfte, was selbst Heinzberger (1976) 181f. akzeptiert;jedoch postuliert er, ,,daB der Vers, vor allen Dingen im Hinblick auf den Ausdruck efebus,in irgendeiner Weise auf einen religios-rituellzu verstehenden Sachverhalt anspielt". Die Konsequenz darf aber nicht sein, die recht klare und fur einen Consul zudem plausible Altersangabe zu verwerfen, sondern vielmehr nach einer geeigneten Interpretation von efebuszu suchen: Dieser Titel impliziert wohl eine kultische Funktion (s.o. Anm. 11), enthilt aber tiberdies durch die Umkehrung des panegyrischen Topos des sog. puer seniliseinen Seitenhieb, cf. z.B. Pind. P. 4,281f.; Aischyl. Sept.622; Dion. Hal. Rhet. 5,3; Symm. or. 4,11; Them. or. 13,170c; Ambr. epist. 73,1 (CSEL 82,3,34) tu, imperator,licet adhucin minorisaevi tirocinioflorentibusnovusannis,fidei virtuteveteranus. 26 Cf. V. 111 sic, miserande, iacesparvodonatussepulchro.Auch nach Adamik (1995) 190 ist dies nicht mit Praetextatus zu vereinbaren, cf. Symm. rel. 10-12; 24; epist. 2,36; CIL 6,1777-79. Ahnliches gilt fur den princeps senatus Symmachus Phosphorius (cf. CIL 6,1698=ILS 1257). Unbefriedigend bleibt Cracco Ruggini (1979) 108 Anm. 323: ,,valore meramente simbolico nella contrapposizione fra lo splendore della vita e lo squallore della morte"; der Gedanke wird von Shanzer (1986) 240 weiter ausgefuhrt. 27 Cf. V. 112-14... Flora / ... / conposuittemplumnuper cui Symmachusheres, dazu Mazzarino (1974) 405-7. Eine legalistische Bedeutung von heresvertritt auch Seeck (1883) CXIX: ,,Symmachum . . aut legatarium aut pro certa parte heredem fecit ea condicione, ut templum Florae aut restitueret aut ornaret"; ebenso (1909) 2511. Cracco Ruggini (1979) 108-11 spricht einmal von einem ,,'erede' spirituale" des Flavianus, ein andermal vom Erben des Namens und des Geschlechts der Symmachi. Es ist unstatthaft, Tempelrestaurationen nach a. 391 oder nach a. 394 als unwahrscheinlich zu bezeichnen und damit den Eindruck zu erwecken, daB a. 384 ein plausibleres Datum
164
ALTAY COSKUN
GewiB ist nicht auszuschlieBen,daB der puR 384-85 die Kontrolle iiber solcherleiBautitigkeitenhatte ubernehmenkonnen. Plausiblerist aber, da3 Symmachus Eusebius a. 394 ein Vorhaben seines verstorbenen Cousins fortsetzte oder aber den Tempel seinem Andenken widmete.28Eine weitere Pointe kommt im Falle dieser Spatdatierunghinzu: Flavianus iunior kiindigte, unter dem Schock der Katastrophe stehend, den 'unterlegenen Gottern' die Gefolgschaftauf und bereitete sich auf die Taufe vor, so daB Symmachus nun einmal mehr als spiritueller heresdes Flavianus senior betrachtet werden konnte.29 AuBerdemfiel auch die aufsehenerregendsteRenaissancedes Heidentums nach der HerrschaftJulians ohne jeden Zweifel in die Regentschaft des Eugenius. Dagegen blieb den gemeinsamen Bestrebungendes Praetextatus und Symmachus,die a. 384 fur eine Annullierungder antipaganenGesetze
als a. 394 darstelle; die Spekulationen iiber die Beziehung von coss. sufecti zum FloraKult lassen nicht nur eine Unterscheidung zwischen den Parentalia (21.4.) und Floralia (die Daten schwanken: 28./30.4.-3./4.5., cf. CIL 1,12 1262-65) vermissen, sonder sind auch deswegen irrelevant, weil Praetextatus nach ILS 1258f. niemals cos. suff gewesen war. Cf. auch die Kritik bei Musso 1979, 193-204. Allein die Annahme bleibt plausibel, daB das Consulat des Anonymus und die compositiodes Flora-Tempels durch Symmachus in einem Zusammenhang zu stehen scheinen; aus Unkenntnis der Riten kommt man aber auch hier nicht iiber Vermutungen hinaus. Zu heresim metaphorischen Sinne cf. ThlL 6,2655,61 u.a. mit Verweis auf Luc. 9,275 (Caesar wird als heres des Pompeius bezeichnet). Zu weiteren Identifikationsvorschlagen s.u. Anm. 29. 28 Mazzarino als ,,costruzione (o riedificazione)", (1974) 399, 405, 426 deutet componere wahrend Matthews (1970) 477, Cracco Ruggini (1979) 110, Musso (1979) 199 und Markschies (1994) 345 von Restauration o.a., Seeck (1909) 2511 von ,,herstellen oder ausschmucken", Wytzes (1977) 169 von ,,instandsetzen oder versch6nern" sprechen. Fur alle Bedeutungen sucht man vergeblich in ThIL 3,2113f. (alle Beispiele fir Schmucken beziehen sich auf Korper oder Kleidung);jedoch verweist Mazzarino auf Ov. Fasti 1,708, und Bohmer (1958) 2,77 fihrt weitere Belege an, die componere als terminustechnicusfur Tempelgrundungen erweisen. 29 Allerdings war dem Dichter dies vielleicht noch nicht bekannt; er hatte es namlich als weiteres Argument fur die Torheit der Gattin anfihren konnen (V. 114-22). Die Enge der Beziehung zwischen Symmachus und Flavianus kommt schon allein durch die haufige Frequenz vertraulicher Korrespondenz mit ihm selbst (epist.2,1-91) und seinen Kindern (6,1-81) zum Ausdruck; zu Praetextatus cf. dagegen epist. 1,44-55. Im iibrigen laBt Mommsen (1870) 358 die Entscheidung zwischen Symmachus Eusebius und seinem Sohn Q. Fabius Memmius Symmachus offen; S. 362 gibt er indes letzterem dem Vorzug, da er Gatte von Flavianus' Enkeltochter war; jedoch fand die Heirat erst ca. a. 402 statt, cf. Seeck (1883) Lf., CXIX, Wytzes (1977) 170, Coskun (ca. 2004). Ebenso entscheiden sich Chastagnol (1960) 163f. und Musso (1979) 202 (mit weiterer
VIRIUS NICOMACHUS FLAVIANUS
165
Gratians aus dem Jahre 382 eintraten, durch die rasche Intervention des Ambrosiusjeder Erfolg versagt.30 Gegen die Gleichsetzung des Anonymusmit Flavianus konnte aber ein e silentioangefiihrt werden: Das Gedicht laBt den Verrat des argumentum an praefectus seinem personlichen Forderer Theodosius unerwahnt. Das Fehlen einer derartigenSchelte verwundertinsbesonderedeswegen, weil es sich um den imperator christianissimus handelte und zudem der individuelle VertrauensbruchmaBgeblichenAnteil an der Ausweitung, wenn nicht gar am Zustandekommen,des blutigen Burgerkriegeshatte.31 Andererseitsscheinen aber die lites(V. 24), die poenaescelerum, die nicht einmal durch den qualvollen Tod hinreichend gesiihnt seien (V. 27), die aufgewiihlte quies(V. 31), das Rom erschiitternde iustitium(V. 32) sowie die Andeutungen in V. 33 ad saga configerent, populusquaenon habetolim;32 V. 56 contradeumverum fustra bellareparatusauf einen bisher nie dagewesenen Religionskrieganzuspielen.33Da sie fir die politischen Bestrebungen
Literatur) fuirMemmius Symmachus. Entgegen Matthews (1970) 477, der sich auf Seeck (1883) LII beruft (aber anders S. CXIX, s. dazu o. Anm. 27), darf der heresjedenfalls nicht mit Symmachus Eusebius' Schwiegersohn Flavianus iunior identifiziert werden. Ebensowenig uberzeugt der Ansatz Clovers (1985) 165: ,,heir and symmachus('ally')". 30 Daran andert selbst die Tatsache nichts, daB Prudentius rund zweiJahrzehnte spater dieselbe Kontroverse erneut aufgriff und zum Angelpunkt seiner Polemik machte, cf. Symm. rel. 3 a. 384 und Prud. C.Symm.1-2 a. 402/3, dazu Dopp (1986). Cracco Ruggini (1979) uberbewertet das Wiedererstarken des Heidentums a. 384 (z.B. S. 35 ,,'giomi alcionii' del paganesimo romano nel 384"). Auch die unbestreitbare Feststellung Heinzbergers (1976) 171f., es konne sich ,,auch nicht unter Eugenius 'um von langer Hand vorbereitete Plane zu einer heidnischen Restauration' gehandelt haben" (Zitat von Stroheker), andert nichts daran, daB die Ereignisse damalige Christen schockierte und zu einer entschiedenen Reaktion herausforderte. 31 Zu den Vorbehalten cf. O'Donnell (1978) 141, Lenaz (1978) 560-70, Cracco Ruggini (1998) 501. Musso (1979) 240 und Adamik (1995) 190-92 sprechen ihnen angesichts der iibrigen Beweise jede Bedeutung ab. 32 Shackleton Bailey (1982) 18 liest saa, wahrend nachfolgende Kommentatoren die Uberlieferung beibehalten. Auch die Interpretation des Konjunktivs ist problematisch: Nach Cracco Ruggini 1979, 85f. mit Anm. 252 wird hier nur eine reine Absicht ausgedriickt, da es ja a. 384 nicht zu einem tatsachlichen Kampf gekommen sei. Manganaro (1961) 31 vermutet einen konsekutiven Sinn und erganzt ut, cf. das Referat bei Markschies, der selbst eine dubitative Bedeutung ansetzt; S. 337 iibersetzt er: ,,Hatten sie etwa zu den Waffen fliehen sollen, die das Volk langst nicht mehr hat?". Bartalucci (1998) 61, 114 gibt hingegen einer potentialen Funktion den Vorzug: ,,Avrebbe potuto il popolo ricorrere ai mantelli militari, che non ha pii da tempo?". 33 Ahnlich auBert sich Matthews (1970) 474 zu bellare.Szidat (1979) 487-508 flihrt
166
ALTAY COSKUN
des Praetextatus trotz aller Polemik unverhaltnismaBig waren, ist mit Sicherheit auf einen der Hauptakteure des Krieges a. 394 verwiesen.34 Wenn nun auch wiederholt nach dem Nutzen fur die urbs gefragt wird (V. 25, 46) und abschlieBend von der Suche nach dem Heil fur Latium (V. 122) die Rede ist,35 wird deutlich, daB es nicht allein um irgendeinen Nutzen fur das Seelenheil oder die Prosperitat der Stadt oder des Reiches geht. Vielmehr impliziert das Perfekt (quidprofiit? ... quidpraestitit?... de love qui Latio voluitsperaresalutem),daB der praefectusund in seinem Gefolge auch
betrachaus, daBauch Zeitgenossenden Kampfa. 394 ganz besondersals Religionskrieg teten, wenngleichdavon unabhangigepolitischeBestrebungenurspriinglichvon groBerer Bedeutungwaren. 34Cf. z.B. auch Wytzes (1977) 160-62 oder Adamik (1995) 189: ,,Der Pafekt des Carmen haBt den Frieden (55) und stiftet Unruhe (31), wahrendPraetextatusimmer den Friedenzu bewahrenversucht".AndersbeziehtCraccoRuggini(1979)80 und 85f. mit Anm. 252 litesund iustitium auf Symmachus'Widerstreben,den Vestalinnendie Stiftungeiner Statuefur Praetextatuszu erlauben.Doch hielt SymmachusseinenUnmut iiberdie in seinenAugenunschicklicheInitiativeaus Riicksichtauf Praetextatus' Ansehen in Zaum (Symm. epist.2,36,2f. a. 384). Ohnedies erfordertder Kontext, litesauf die unterden SenatorenumstritteneFragenach dem Heil zu beziehen(mit Mommsenlese ich V. 23f. convenit his ducibus, salutem/ sacratis? vestras liceatcomponere lites!). proceres, sperare Wann war diese virulenterals a. 394? Dagegen ist das iustitium mit dem Kriegszustand gleichzusetzen,der wiederumals eine direkteKonsequenzdes Religionsfrevelsdargestellt wird. Wenn Cracco Ruggini noch nebenbei daraufverweist,daB wahrendeines tatsachlicheniustitium offentlicheSpiele suspendiertwurden(wasnach Praetextatus'Tod der Fall war), unterminiertsie freilichihre fruhereInterpretation.Dasselbeist der Fall, wenn sie S. 85-89 iustitium wieder andersals Spott iiber die Beunruhigungder heidnischen Senatorenangesichtseiner Versorgungskrise im Winter 383-84 deutet (cf. dazu Symm. rel. 3 und epist.2,6). Contraauch Musso (1979) 226f.; S. 214 sieht sie ihrerseits in V. 56 eine klare Anspielungauf Flavianus,der den Krieg aktiv heraufbeschworen habe. Cracco Ruggini (1979) 97 bezieht auch V. 55f. (quitacitussemperlugeret tempora interius auf Praetextatus,der andersals Flavianus pacis,neproprium possetvulgare dolorem) non settarione ribellealle leggiin materiareligiosa"sei. Ganzim Gegenteil ,,formalmente scheidetPraetextatushier aber deswegenaus, weil er seine religioseUberzeugungauch wahrendder Friedenszeitenniemalsverheimlichthatte, wahrendFlavianusals quaestor 388-90 und ppo 390-91 engstensmit Theodosiuskooperiertund sich sehr kompromiBbereit gezeigt hatte. Ubrigensverweistnicht zuletzt die Antithesebellare-pax auf einen tatsachlichenKrieg.AbweichendlassenMazzarino(1974)427-34 und Markschies(1994) 357 die Friedenszeitmit der Ara Constantinsbeginnen;Musso(1979) 188f. schlagt,,beispielsweise"die Zeit des ,,piusGraziano"vor. 35 Cf. V. 122 de salutem. Auch Markschies(1994) 342 deulovequiLatiovoluitsperare tet Latioals Dativ commodi,wahrendMazzarino(1974)450f. und CraccoRuggini(1979) 112f. Anm. 344; 115 den Ablativdes Adjektivsansetzen (,,GioveLaziale").Entgegen Cracco Ruggini, der z.B. Shanzer (1986) 241 folgt, erlaubtV. 122 nicht den SchluB,
VIRIUS NICOMACHUSFLAVIANUS
167
die urbsauf die alten Kulte gesetzt und damit gewaltigen Schiffbrucherlitten hatten. Diese AkzentsetzungpaBt sehr wohl zu einem Beobachter, der auf den Burgerkriega. 394 als einen Entscheidungskampfzwischen rechtem Glauben C(heodosius)und Unglauben (Flavianusund Arbogast)zuriickblickt. Wie eingangs bereits erwahnt wurde, ist der Verzicht auf eine Trennung zwischen politischen und religi6senWirren vom Autor geradezu intendiert.36 Dagegen durfen sich die Verfechter des Praetextatuskeineswegs auf die Usurpation des Maximus berufen, der nicht vor a. 387 (also drei Jahre nach dem Tod des Praetextatus)seine Macht in Italien entfalteteund iiberdies ein eifriger Katholik war. Alle oben genannten Verse miuBtenalso allein auf den religionspolitischenKonflikt a. 384 bezogen werden, in dem die Heiden bekanntlich erfolglos blieben.37Zudem ware die wiederholte Frage nach dem Nutzen befremdlich;denn der christliche Eiferer spottet voll Schadenfreude:,,Seht her, ihr hattet eure Gelegenheit!All eure Gotzen, die ihr ohne jedes Hindernis verehren konntet, haben es nicht vermocht, euch vor der Katastrophe zu bewahren." Zugunstendes Praetextatusberuftman sich aber femer auf die Bedeutung der die Gotter beschworenden Gattin (V. 116-20).38Zufallig bezeugt namlich Hieronymus, daB Praetextatus'Witwe seinen Aufstieg ins lacteumcaeli palatiumverkiindet habe (epist.23,3).39Andererseitsist der jeweilige Spottgegenstandkeineswegsso verwandt, daB dies als Argument gegen Flavianus gelten konnte, iiber dessen Witwe iibrigens keine verwertbarenInformationen vorliegen.
Praetextatus habe noch die Gladiatorenspiele a. 384 erlebt und sei deswegen ,,negli ultimi giori di dicembre del 384" gestorben. 36 Nach Heinzberger (1976) 170-75 ist der Bezugspunkt der Rettung der ,,Ansturm der Barbaren" (S. 170); ,,es [ist] eine absurde Vorstellung, ein Christ habe in dem christlichen Kaiser eine Gefahr fur Rom, also auch seiner Heimatstadt, erblicken konnen" (S. 175). Gegen Flavianus spreche, daB sich keine unabhangigen Zeugnisse fir Flavianus' Romaufenthalt oder die Ausrufung des Ausnahmezustandes fanden. Jedoch sind eben diese Annahmen unabhangig von dem Gedicht vollig plausibel und werden durch keines der angefuhrten vermeintlichen Gegenargumente (S. 173) entkraftet. S. auch o. Anm. 16. 37 Hinzu kommt noch, daB zumindest nach dem Eindruckder OberlieferungSymmachus Eusebius ganz deutlich an der Spitze des heidnischen VorstoBes a. 384 gestanden hatte. 38 Ipsa mola et manibusconiunxaltariasupplex/ dum cumulatdonisvotaquein liminetempli/ solveredis deabusque parat superisqueminatur,/ carminibusmagiciscupiensAcherontamovere... 39 Cf. z.B. Cracco Ruggini (1979) 17 (mit Anm. 40), 84, 112-14, (1998) 503-8, Shanzer (1986) 240; ferner die Grabinschrift CIL 6,1779 = ILS 1259, dazu Nicolaas (1940) und
168
ALTAY COSKUN
Im AnschluB an Cracco Ruggini machte Dolbeau eine weitere Beobachtung, die von nachfolgenden Forschern als ausschlaggebendfiir Praetextatus bewertet wird:40Im Bibliothekskatalogder Benediktinerabteivon Lobbes (11./12. Jh.) ist im AnschluB an CentonValeriaeProbaeAniciaede vigiliisveterisac novitestamenti (sic)der Titel Damasiepiscopiversusde Praetextato Indem Dolbeau mehrere sprachlicheAnklinge der urbis vermerkt. praefecto VitaS. Ursmariaufspurt,die aus der Feder des Abtes Heriger stammt, kann coner tatsachlichglaubhaftmachen, daB der letztere Titel das sog. Carmen trapaganosbezeichnet. Da Praetextatusjedoch niemals die puR bekleidet habe, sei die Uberschrift zwar nicht authentisch, gehe aber dennoch auf einen informiertenspatantikenLeser zurtick. Obwohl auch Dolbeau die behauptete Autorschaft des Damasus fur ,,etonnante" halt, versucht er zu zeigen, daB eben diese Annahme grundsatzlichnicht auszuschlieBensei. Denn neben Anklingen an die Epigramme des Papstes weist er darauf hin, daB der Bischof von Rom kurz nach Praetextatus gestorben sei; damit sei einerseitsgenugend Zeit fur die Abfassung der 122 Verse geblieben, und andererseitslasse sich ihr unvollkommener Zustand mit der fehlenden Gelegenheit ftr eine Revision erklaren. Diese Deutung bleibt aber angesichts des AusmaBes der sprachlichen und gedanklichen Unzulanglichkeiten selbst fur das mittelmaBigeTalent des Damasus unbefriedigend.Die weite Verbreitungund Rezeption seiner Epigrammenimmt der Argumentationweiteres Gewicht.41AuBerdemwird iibersehen,daB die viri clarissimiDamasus und Praetextatuswohl ein eher freundschaftlichesoder zumindest entspanntesVerhiltnis hatten.42Folglich durftedie gesamte Uberschriftauf das Raten eines Lesersdes 5. Jhs. zuruckKahlos (1998). Nach Cracco Ruggini kommt die Frau des Flavianus auch deswegen nicht in Frage, weil iiber sie nichts iiberliefert und ein religionspolitisches Engagement mit dem Frauenideal von Flavianus' Cousin Symmachus unvereinbar sei. 40 S. die Verweise o. in Anm. 7; contraAdamik (1995) 194 Anm. 46. 41 Ebenso Markschies (1994) 333f., der aber wie z.B. Cracco Ruggini (1979) 89 dennoch eine Entstehung im Umfeld des Damasus vermutet. Auch dies muB offenbleiben. Manganaro (1960) 220-24 und Heinzberger (1976) 176f. erwagen hingegen den Kreis um die jungere Melania und ihren Gatten Valerius Pinianus. Allerdings ist nicht einmal sicher, daB der Verfasser ein Senator war, cf. V. 23f. (zit. o. in Anm. 34). 42 Praetextatus hatte sich im Streit um den Bischofsstuhl zugunsten des Damasus eingesetzt, cf. Amm. 27,9,9; auf einen eher heiteren Umgang mit Damasus verweist auch der von Hieron. C.Ioh.Hieros.8 (PL 23,361C) uberlieferte scherzhafte Ausspruch: facite me Romanaeurbisepiscopumet eroprotinusChristianus; cf. dazu auch Musso (1979) 215-18, Adamik (1995) 189, Cracco Ruggini (1998) 508-16.
VIRIUS NICOMACHUS FLAVIANUS
169
gehen, der den Blick auf die wirklichen Hintergrinde eher verstellt als erhellt.43 Zieht man an dieser Stelle eine Zwischenbilanz, kann hervorgehoben werden, daB sich die vermeintlichstarkenArgumente fur eine Identitat des mit Praetextatusentkraftenlassen, wahrend die trifftigenGrunde praefectus fur Flavianus einer Uberprufung standgehalten haben. Bisher zuruckgestellte prosopographischeAspekte werden diese Ansicht untermauern. undMarcianus III. Zwei Protegsdes Flavianus:Leucadius In V. 78ff. wird dem praefectus vorgeworfen,Christen durch die Vergabe hoher Amter zum Glaubensabfallbestochen zu haben; dabei werden zwei Personen namentlich genannt (V. 85f.): Leucadium Aforuom; fecitfundoscuraret Ersterer hatte wohl die Funktion sibi ut esset.44 perdereMarcianum, proconsul eines rationalisrei privataefindorumdomusdivinaeper Africam(Not. dgn. occ. 43 Wenig aufschluBreich ist
des cod.Putaneus der Uberlieferungsbefund (s.o. Anm. 1).
Cracco Ruggini (1979) 76 mit Anm. 219 und S. 77 mit Anm. 222 erwagt z.B., daB der Titel (ContraVettium)unterdriickt worden sei, da der Codex fur die Bibliothek von ,,Bekannten oder Freunden" der Nachkommen bestimmt gewesen sei; denn den voranstehenden Prudentius-Text habe Vettius Agorius Basilius Mavortius signiert. In der Auseinandersetzung mit Mazzarino (1974) 259f., demzufolge Mavortius keine Invektive gegen seinen Vorfahren publiziert hatte, betont Cracco Ruggini hingegen, daB kein notwendiger Zusammenhang zwischen der Prudentius-Edition durch Mavortius und dem dilettantischen Gedicht bestehe. Jegliche SchluBfolgerungen verbieten sich schon deslibri im cod. Puteanuskeinen Titel tragen. halb, weil auch die ContraSymmachum 44 Bes. V. 86 ist problematisch; z.B. liest Baehrens (1881) 291 sic vi statt sibi, wahrend Shackleton-Bailey (1982) 21 (in app.)vorschlagt, sibi durch studuitzu ersetzen; zudem verweist er auf die Konjektur sivit (,,Timpanaro per litteras");beide Vorschlage sind syntaktisch und metrisch attraktiver, aber bei einem Gedicht von so geringer Qualitat nicht wahrscheinlicher als die Uberlieferung; zur metrischen Besonderheit von sibi cf. Adamik (1995) 197 oder Bartalucci (1998) 52. Der Infinitiv perdereist wohl als brachylogischer Riickgriff auf die Konstruktion der vorangehenden Verse zu erklaren, so daB mit Wytzes (1977) 168 (unter Verweis auf Hartke) gedanklich qui voluit(oder allein voluit)zu erganzen ist, cf. V. 84 solverequis (cod. P, =quibus,cf. V. 7; qui edd.) [Liicke] voluitpia foedera, multosvoluitsic perderedemens;auch V. 81 cupiens.. .fangere menleges,cf. V. 78 Christicolas tem.Dagegen glauben Adamik (1995) 205f. (mit Verweis auf Commod. apol. 625f., CSEL 15,156 Balaam sedentiasinam suam colloquifecit, et canem,ut Simonidiceret)und Bartalucci (1998) 147 perdere- wie auch curaret- vom causativen fecit abhangig. Nicht iiberzeugend ist jedenfalls die auf Mommsen (1870) 359 fuBende Interpretation von Markschies (1994) 350 (cf. auch S. 340, aber anders S. 357): ,,Dem afrikanischen Krongutsverwalter Leucadius wird vorgeworfen, daB er den Marcianus auf Anstiften des Prafekten
170
ALTAY COSKUN
12,16) inne, wie seit Mommsen weitgehend anerkanntist;45letzterer wird oftmals als procos.Africae,gelegentlich auch als procos.Achaeae,betrachtet.46 Anstatt den Aussagewertder beiden Verse auszuschopfen,hat sich die Forschungbis jetzt aber lediglich darauf beschrankt,die Vereinbarkeitmit der jeweils auf anderen UberlegungenbasierendenGesamtinterpretationzu wobei gravierende Probleme einfach im Raum stehengelassen behaupten, oder nur vermeintlich gelost wurden. Zuletzt besteht z.B. weitgehender Konsens dariiber, daB von einem puR eigentlich nicht zu erwarten war, bei der Beforderungin die o.g. Amter behilflich zu sein.47Hingegen sehen die Verfechter des Praetextatus oder Flavianus zwingend auf einen ppo 'verderben' wollte, um selbst das Amt des Proconsuls antreten zu k6nnen"; in Anm. 220 kommentiert Markschies, daB die Bedeutung von perderein V. 86 obskur sei. Ahnlich Riese (1894) 23, der im Apparat perderetzu lesen vorschlagt, und Barkowski (1912) 59f., demzufolge Marcianus nur procos.Aft. gewesen sein konne und V. 86f. sich deswegen auf denselben Sachverhalt beziehen miuBten(afrikanische Giiter verwalten = procos. Afr. sein = Marcianus aus seiner Stellung verdrangt haben). Marcianus sei also ein legitimer, von Theodosius eingesetzter Beamte gewesen. Ahnlich vermutet Adamik (1995) 227, daB Marcianus von Theodosius ernannt, aber von Flavianus abgeworben worden sei. Nicht nur die verwaltungsgeschichtlichen und prosopographischen Voraussetzungen sind unhaltbar; auch der Gedankengang ist miBverstanden, denn die voranstehenden Verse legen dringend nahe, daB es sich hier um das Ruinieren nicht der gesellschaftlichen Stellung einer Person, sondern ihres Seelenheiles durch die Verleitung zur Apostasie handelt, cf. auch V. 83f.: mittereque inferiasmiserossub Tartarasecum/ solverequis [...] voluit piafoedera,leges.Auch die Ansicht Bartaluccis (1998) 148, daB sich Marcianus als Flavianus' Kandidat zumindest vorubergehend in Afrika habe durchsetzen konnen, ist unzutreffend. Weiteres im folgenden. 45 Cf. z.B. Mommsen (1870) 359 Anm. 1; PLRE 2,505 und Markschies (1994) 350 (ca. a. 393/94); Mazzarino (1974) 420 (a. 364/65). Anders Barkowski (1912) 59f., s.o. Anm. 44. 46 Procos. Aft. 393/94 ist er nach PLRE 1,555 Nr. 14, Seeck (1883) CXXIX, Matthews (1970) 471 (zuriickhaltender indes [1975] 245), Kuhoff (1983) 165f., Garrido Gonzalez (1987) 233, 236, Adamik (1995) 227, Bartalucci (1998) 146-48; unter Vorbehalt auch bei von Haehling (1979) 404f., 434-36, Barnes (1983) 257 (Fruhjahr-Herbst394). Dagegen folgen Vera (1983) 54f. und Delmaire (1989) 142f. Cracco Ruggini, s.u. Anm. 48 und 51. Im ubrigen trug Flavianus ppo Ital. et Illyr. (Occ.) a. 391 niemals die Verantwortung fir Achaea bzw. die Dioecese Macedonia, s.o. Anm. 4; ebensowenig kontrollierteMaximus oder Eugenius jemals dieses Gebiet. Unentschieden bleibt Szidat (1979) 500. Nach Gaggero (1996/98) 1528-30 war es Marcianus nicht gegltickt, seine Funktion in Afrika anzutreten; dies sei auch der Grund fiir seine Verpflichtung zur Gehaltsruckzahlung gewesen, s.u. mit Anm. 51. Weitere Positionen sind in Anm. 44 und 47 referiert. 47 Griinewald (1992) 476f., der in V. 28 auf einen puR angespielt sieht, iibergeht das verwaltungstechnische Problem. Angesichts der Unhaltbarkeit von Mazzarinos (1974) 420 Position verfolgt Heinzberger (1976) 179-81 eine andere Strategie: Das Problem
VIRIUS NICOMACHUS FLAVIANUS
171
verwiesen, der tatsachlichsehr viel groBerepersonalpolitischeKompetenzen besaB. Doch versaumen diese Forscher,hinreichend Rechenschaftiiber die geopolitischen Umstande zu geben.48 Immerhin konnte die Rechnung im Falle des Marcianus aufgehen, da ein ppo seit dem spateren 4. Jh. der einzige Vorgesetzte eines proconsul war. Fur seine Karriere lassen sich im ubrigen weitere Zeugnisse beibringen: CTh9,38,7 weist ihn am 22.3.384 als vicarius nach.49Bleibt die Entscheidung zwischen der Beforderungzum proconsul durch einen ppo a. 384 oder 394 zunachst offen, so paBt ein Abfall vom christlichenGlauben um eines sozialen Aufstiegswillen weniger in die HerrschaftszeitValentinians II. als des Eugenius.50 Fur die spatere Alternative spricht mit Nachdruck das Zeugnis des Symmachus: Nach epist.3,33 war Marcianus im AnschluB an eine (nicht naher spezifizierte)Usurpationzur Ruckzahlungseines Gehaltesverpflichtet. Dabei ist hier ein Zusammenhang mit Magnus Maximus auszuschlieBen, denn dieser hatte Italien und Afrika erst a. 387 in seine Gewalt bekommen, nachdem Praetextatusjedoch schon mehrereJahre tot war.51Hingegen ist bekannt, daB Flavianus iunior nach der Vernichtung des Eugenius das der V. 85f. sei generell unlosbar und musse aus der Argumentation ausscheiden: So habe ein procos.nicht dem ppo, sondern direkt dem Kaiser unterstanden (dies trifft fur das fruhe, nicht aber fur das spatere 4. Jh. zu; dessen ungeachtet gilt es ferner, den massiven EinfluB des ppo bei der Erennung hoher Amtstrager zu beriicksichtigen); der Text sei syntaktisch und semantisch unverstandlich (die Schwierigkeiten sind aber iiberwindbar, s.o. Anm. 44). 48 In einen Widerspruch begibt sich z.B. Cracco Ruggini (1979): S. 101 weist sie Afrika und Achaea der Kompetenz des ppo Ital. et Illyr. zu; die zweifache Protektion ,,conferma la sua qualita di prefetto al pretorio, tali prerogative esulando invece completamente dalle competenze di un prefetto urbano";jedoch datiert sie S. 102 Leucadius' Beforderung zum rationalisaufgrund der (nicht uberzeugenden) Identifikation mit dem homonymen gallischen praesesca. a. 383 (s.u. Anm. 54) vor Flavianus' ppo I (angeblich a. 382-83). 49 Gothofredus, Mommsen (1870) 359 und Rauschen (1897) 177 betrachten ihn als vic. Ital., weil die Osteramnestie (zumindest nach dem sie bezeugenden Textfragment) nur zwei Tage vor dem Festtag in Mailand erlassen wurde; doch entkraften die unter ahnlichen Gnadenerlassen uberlieferten Daten (CTh 9,38,3-8) dieses Argument. Dagegen stiitzt sich Seeck (1883) CXCII auf Marcianus' Freundschaft mit Ambrosius (Symm. epist.3,33), der aber ebenfalls kein Gewicht beizumessen ist, da sich die beiden aus Rom kennen konnten. PLRE 1, 555f. Nr. 14; 1086 laBt den Sprengel zu Recht offen. 50 Allerdings ist den behaupteten Kausalverhaltnissen nicht vorbehaltlos zu vertrauen, s.u. zu Leucadius. 51 Anders Cracco Ruggini (1979): S. 11 Anm. 16 datiert sie Symm. epist. 3,33 a. 388/89 oder 395, S. 30f. a. 388; S. 104f. mit Anm. 316 stelt sie fest, daB Marcianus
172
ALTAY COSKUN
Gehalt seines Vaters zuriickerstattenmuBte. DaB schlieBlich der Name Marcianusin den Amtslistenerst wieder wahrend der Erhebung eines heidenfreundlichenUsurpators begegnet (er war puR des Attalus a. 409/10), offenbartnicht nur seine religiose und politische Gesinnung, sondern impliziert auch seine Zurucksetzunginfolge seiner Kompromittierunga. 393/94.52 Freilich konnte man dagegen ins Feld ftihren, daB nicht nur die Fasten der proconsules Afiicae392-95 dicht gefiilltsind und keinen Platz fur Marcianus lassen, sondern uberdies zweifelhaftist, daB Eugniusjemals in Afrika anerkannt wurde. Allerdingsbesagt V. 86 keineswegs,daB Marcianus sein Amt in Ubersee angetreten habe; angesichts der eingeschranktenMoglichkeit, Senatoren mit spectablen Positionen zu umwerben, konnte der Usurpator sehr wohl Campanien in den proconsularenRang erhoben haben, wie dies voriibergehendschon unter Gratian geschehen war.53 Naherer Erorterung bedarf auch Leucadius. Wenig hilfreich ist der Vorschlag, ihn mit dem gleichnamigenpraeseszu identifizieren,zu dessen Gunsten Martin von Tours ca. a. 385/86 vor Maximus intervenierte.Denn
fiihestens nach Juni 386 Nachfolger des Messianus procos.Afr. geworden sein konne; noch a. 384 und der Antritt andererseits scheine die Designation zum procos.(?Achaeae) a. 385 erfolgt zu sein; unter Maximus sei er dann zum ppo (,,forse l'ipotesi piii probabile") oder procos.Afr. befordert worden. Ahnliche Positionen vertreten Callu (1982) 2,229/42 und Delmaire (1989) 143. Contrazu Recht Musso (1979) 232-36; allerdings scheitert ihr Vorschlag, in Marcianus einen procos.Ach. 393/94 zu sehen, an der Karriere des treu zu Theodosius stehenden Apodemius ppo Illyr. (et Afr.) 392/93, cf. PLRE 1,82f. Nr. 3; demnachst ausfiihrlich Coskun (ca. 2004). 52 Cf. Zos. 4,7,2 (a. 409/10); PLRE 1,555f. Nr. 14 mit weiteren Quellen. Dagegen halt Mazzarino (1974) 420 Anm. 52 den puR 409/10 ,,forse" fur einen Sohn des vermeintichen procos. 364/65. Mit PLRE und entgegen Cracco Ruggini (1979) 13, 106 bleibt offen, ob derselbe Marcianus Adressat von Aug. epist.258 (Dominomeritosuscipiendo ac desiderantissimo et in Christodilectissimo fratri MarcianoAugustinusin dominosalutem)ist. Der Bischof richtet sich an einen alten nun zum Christentum bekehrten Freund (? 1), den er zum Empfang der Taufe auffordert (? 5). Setzt man wie Cracco Ruggini einen Zeitpunkt nach Augustinus' Bischofsweihe an (sc. a. 395, cf. Coskun [2002a] 106f. Anm. 266), wird die Identifikation noch unwahrscheinlicher. 53 Bisherige Forscher, die von einem Abfall Afrikas zum Usurpator Eugenius ausgehen, stiitzen sich in der Regel vor allem auf die Beispiele des Marcianus und Leucadius, denen aber, wie hier ausgefiihrt, keine Beweiskraft zukommt. Weiterhin wird auf CIL 8,782 (mit Anm. S. 979) = ILS 786; Symm. epist. 4,54; 6,1; Claud. Gild. 1,241f. verwiesen, cf. z.B. Demougeot (1951) 175 und Matthews (1970) 476. Indes gehen z.B. Seeck (1920) 5,282f., 553-55 oder Gaggero (1996/98) 1530-32 von einer Neutralitat Afrikas aus. Jedoch ist Vera (1983) 55-57 iiberzeugend fur Afrikas uneingeschrankte Treue zu Theodosius eingetreten. Mit Modifikationen werde ich diese Position bald an
VIRIUS NICOMACHUS FLAVIANUS
173
jener Leucadiusdurfte eine gallische Provinz ca. a. 383 bekleidetund somit die Stellung eines rationalis,wenn uberhaupt, vor der Praefectur des Praetextatusoder Flavianusinnegehabthaben. Dagegen scheintder Leucadius des Gedichtes am ehesten italischer oder romischer Herkunft gewesen zu sein.54
Wie aber soil Flavianus als ppo die Personalentscheidungfur einen ratiodomusdivinae nalisreiprivataefndorum perAfricam getroffenhaben?Die Berufung eines Untergebenen des comesreiprvataediirfte vielmehr auf das Betreiben eines Hofministers erfolgt sein. Von den zur Diskussion stehenden vier sacripalatii388Kandidaten bekleidete allein Flavianus mit seiner quaestura 90 eine der vier Spitzenfunktionenim palatium;dabei belegt das Beispiel des Ausonius hinlanglich, daB sich diese Stellung vorziiglich zur wirkungsvollen Patronage fur jedwede Position im Reich eignete.55 Stimmt man dieser Deutung zu, dann unterstelltman dem christlichen Dichter einen recht groBzugigenUmgang mit der historischenWirklichkeit, da die Stellenvergabean Leucadiusseinem GlaubensabfalleinigeJahre voranginge und das gebotene Kausalverhiltnisdamit widerlegt ware. Eine solche gestalterischeFreiheit vorauszusetzen,ist gewiB mit den Prinzipiender antiken Geschichtsschreibungund erst recht der polemischen Publizistik vereinbar. Trotzdem bedarf die Behauptung weiterer Absicherung. Und diese laBt sich auch beibringen. Denn einerseitsist auszuschlieBen,daB die ApostasiewahrendTheodosius' Aufenthalt in Italien a. 388-91 erfolgte; andererseits entzog sich Afrika andererStelleuntermauer; ich werdezeigen, daBsamtlicheprocoss. Aft.jenerJahre von Theodosiusabhingen (ca. iv.391-ca. iv.392 Fl. Rhodinus Primus,ca. iv.392-ca. iv.393 Flaccianus,ca. iv.393-ca. iv.394 Aemilius Florus Paternus, ca. iv.394-ca. iv.395 Fl. Herodes,ca. iv.395-ca.iv.396 Ennoius;abweichendwerden die Fastenz.B. von Barnes - Bisherhat allein Shanzer(1986)240 Anm. 41 Campanien [1983] 256f. rekonstruiert). potentiellin Betrachtgezogen;doch ist sicher bezeugt, daB die dortigenStatthaltera. 384 im Rang von consulares standen,cf. PLRE1,1018 Anonymus77f. Allerdingsbestand unter dem UsurpatorEugenius,der iiber keine der klassischenproconsularenProvinzen (Africa,Achaea, Asia) verftigte,geradezueine Notwendigkeitzur Statuserhohungder italischenProvinz.Zu Gratianund den procoss. Camp.378-82/83 cf. Coskun angesehensten (2002a)212f. 54 PLREunterscheidetzwischendem rationalis (1,505 Nr. 2) und praeses(1,504 Nr. 1: amboGratiani fuerant), partium praeside, quorum Sulp. dial.3,11,8 proNarsetecomiteet Leucadio wahrendMommsen (1870) 359 ihre Identitaterwagt.Ahnlich Cracco Ruggini (1979) vor den praesidatus die rangniedrigereStellungdes rationalis 102, die konsequenterweise datiert(s.o. Anm. 48). In den jiingerenKommentaren(z.B. Markschies1994, 350 Anm. 218) wird die Frage der Identitatoffengelassen. desAusoniuscf. Coskun(2002a)52-77 und 204-16. 55 ZurQuaesturund Personalpolitik
174
ALTAY COSKUN
durchgangigder Kontrolle des Eugenius.56Auch von daher liegt also nahe, daB Leucadiusca. a. 388/90 zum rationalis erhoben, sein Abfall vom christlichen Glauben aber erst in der Phase der Wiederbelebung der heidnischen Kulte a. 394 vollzogen oder zumindest offentlich bekannt wurde. IV. Zusammenfassung undAusblick Nicht nur die verwertbarenAngaben zum sechzigjahrigenpraefectus und sondern auch zu Leucadius und Marcianus die consul, mitgeteilten Informationenkonnen trotz der notwendigen Differenzierungenallein bei einer Identitat des Anonymus mit Virius Nicomachus Flavianus verstandlich gemacht werden. Ebenso deutlich klingt auch das von diesem ins Werk gesetzte Aufbaumen der stadtromischenHeiden an, denen indes nur ein ephemerer Erfolg beschieden war. Das noch im Bann der Ereignisse stehende Gedicht durfte einige Wochen oder Monate nach Flavianus' Tod (5.9.394) verfaBtworden sein. Damit ist ein verlaBlicherAngelpunkt fur die historische Auswertung gewonnen. Der vorliegende Beitrag hat sich in dieser Hinsicht weitgehend auf prosopographischeUntersuchungenbeschrankt.Als HauptergebnislaBt sich festhalten,daB das Proconsulatdes Marcianusin Campanien zu lokalisieren sein durfte, wahrend Leucadius vermutlich bereits a. 389/90 rationalis in Afrika geworden war. Nur gestreift wurden kultspezifische und religionspolitische Aspekte. Kunftige Studien werden hier starker, als dies bisher der Fall war, die Bedingungen der literarischen Gattung der Invektive zu beriicksichtigen haben. Wenn die polemischen Verse auch unzweifelhaft ein schillerndes Zeugnis fur die lebhafte religionspolitischeKontroverseund die Dialogunfahigkeit der Konfliktparteien bleibt, laBt die nachgewiesene Unzuverlassigkeitdes Autors nicht ohne weiteres erwarten, detailliertenAufschluB iiber kultische Praktikenund heidnisches Selbstverstandniszu gewinnen. Die Frage, wieviele Christen Flavianus zur Apostasie verleiten konnte, bleibt ebenfalls offen. Allerdingsscheint die Anzahl der Abtrunnigennicht allzu groB gewesen zu sein, denn der zeitgenossischeAutor vermag allein zwei hoherrangige Beamten zu nennen, von denen bestenfallseiner nach seinem Glaubensabfallund zugleichwahrend der Usurpationbefordertworden sein konnte. Geht man freilich davon aus, daB die meisten Senatoren
56 S.o. Anm.
53.
VIRIUS NICOMACHUS FLAVIANUS
175
der Kirche damals ferstanden, ist andererseits auch noch keine Aussage iiber den Grad der Zustimmung zu Flavianus' Politik gemacht. Hier sind vertiefende Untersuchungen weiterhin willkommen.5 Universitat Trier, Alte Geschichte, A216, D-54286 Trier
BIBLIOGRAPHIE58 des sog. Carmen contra paganos 1. Textausgaben Adamik, B.: Das sog. Carmencontrapaganos,ActaAnt. Hung.36 (1995) 185-233. Baehrens, Ae.: PoetaeLatiniminores,Bd. 3 (Leipzig 1881) 286-92. Bartalucci,A.: . Carmencod.Paris. lat. 8084 (Pisa 1998). Delisle, L.: Note sur le manuscrit de Prudence no. 8084 du fonds Latin de la de l'tcole de Chartes6,3 (1867) 297-303.* Bibliotheque Imperiale, Bibliotheque Manganaro, G.: Il poemetto anonimo Contrapaganos,JNid 11 (1961) 23-45.* ed Mazzarino, S.: Carmen codicis Parisini 8084, ff. 156a-158b,in: Antico,tardoantico Bd. 1 (Citta di Castello 1974) 462-65. era costantiniana, Mommsen, Th.: Carmen codicis Parisini 8084, Hermes4 (1870) 350-63. Morel, C.: Recherches sur un poime latin du IVe siecle retrouvepar M.L. Deslisle, 17 (1868) 450-59; 18 (1869) 44-55.* RevueArcheologique Latina1,1 (Leipzig 1894) 20-25. Riese, A.: Anthologia del Carmen contra paganos (Pisa Romano, D.: L'ultimopagano.Flavianonellospecchio 1999).* Latina1,1 (Stuttgart 1982) 17-23. Shackleton-Bailey,D.R.: Anthologia 2. WeiterezitierteLiteratur Kaisersund seine literarische Arand, T.: Das schmihlicheEnde. Der Tod des schlechten Frankfurt/M. 2002. in derromischen Historiographie, Gestaltung Flavianumanonymo (Diss. K6nigsberg 1912). Barkowsi, O.: De carmineadversus Barnes, T.D.: Late Roman Prosopography: between Theodosius and Justinian, Phoenix37 (1983) 248-70. Bloch, H.: The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century, in: in the FourthCentury A. Momigliano: The ConflictbetweenPaganismand Christianity (Oxford 1963) 193-218. Cf. z.B. auch Szidat(1979)500-3, der zu Recht vor weitreichendenSchliissenaufgrund des Gedichteswarnt, ahnlichwie Wytzes (1977) 172-74 oder O'Donnell (1978) 142 aber die Unterstiitzungvon Flavianus'Politikauch von seitenheidnischerSenatoren pessimistischbeurteilt.Zutreffendist die Auffassung,daB Eugenius'Zugestandnissean die Heidenviel begrenzterwaren,als es die christlichenQuellenglaubenmachenwollen. 58 Cf. auch die Bibliographienbei Cracco Ruggini(1979) 29 Anm. 66, (1998) 494f., 497f., Markschies(1994) 368-77, Adamik (1995) 229-33, Bartalucci(1998) 7-17. Mir unzuganglicheArbeitensind mit * markiert. 57
176
ALTAY COSKUN
Bohmer, F.: P. OvidiusNaso, Die Fasten,Bd. 2 (Heidelberg 1958). Brown, P.R.L.: Aspects of the Christianisationof the Roman Aristocracy,IRS 51 (1961) 1-11. Callu, J.-P.: Symmaque, Lettres,3 Bde. (Paris 1972/82/95). Cameron,Alan: Forschungenzum Thema der 'heidnischenReaktion'in der Literatur seit 1943, in: A. & E. Alfoldi: Die Kontoriat-Medallions, Teil 2 (Berlin & New York 1990) 63-74. urbainea Rome(Paris 1960). Chastagnol, A.: La prifecture de Romeau Bas-Empire Chastagnol, A.: Lesfastes de la Prifecture (Paris 1962). The F.M.: New of Assessment the Carmencontrapaganos,BHAC 1982/1983 Clover, (Bonn 1985) 163-76. CLRE= Consulsof theLaterRomanEmpire,edd. R.S. Bagnall u.a. (Atlanta 1987). Corsaro, F.: Rezension zu Bartalucci 1998, GIF 51, 1999, 341f. zu DecimiusMagnus Coskun, A.: Die gens Ausoniana an der Macht. Untersuchungen AusoniusundseinerFamilie,Oxford 2002a (= Prosopographicaet Genealogica 8). Coskun,A.: Q. AureliusSymmachusund die Stadtpraefectenunter KaiserValentinian II. (a. 383-87), demnachstin Prosopon 13 (2002b)(http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk./research/prosop/prosopo.stm). Coskun, A.: Die Karriere des Virius Nicomachus Flavianus.Mit Exkursenzu den ca. 2004. Italiae,Africaeet Illyrici 388-95; demnachst in Athenaeum praefecti praetorio Cracco Ruggini, L.: II paganesimo romano tra religione e politica (384-394 d.C.): per una reinterpretatzionedel ,,Carmen contra paganos", Mem.Ace. Naz. Linc., 8,23,1 (1979) 3-143. Cracco Ruggini, L.: En marge d'une 'misalliance': Pretextat,Damase et le Carmen contrapaganos,CRAI(1998,2) 493-516. de Rossi, G.B.: I1 culto idolatrico in Roma nel 394. Notizie raccolte da un inedito carme scoperto in Parigi;und: II trionfo del cristianesimoin Occidente nel 394. Notizie raccolte da un inedito carme scoperto in Parigi,Bull.Arch.Christ.6 (1868) 49-58 und 61-75.* desfinancesimperiales au Bas-Empireromain(IVe-VI s.). Delmaire, R.: Les responsables Etudesprosopographiques (Brussel 1989). Demandt, A.: Die Spatantike (Munchen 1989). romain395-410 (Paris 1951). Demougeot, E.: De l'unitea la divisionde l'empire Di Berardino, A.: Patrology, Bd. 4 (Westminster/Maryland1986). Dolbeau, F.: Damase, le ,,Carmen contra paganos" et Heriger de Lobbes, REAug 27 (1981) 38-43. eine Einheit? VigChrist 40 (1986) 66-82. Dopp, S.: Prudentius' ContraSymmachum Ellis, R.: On a Recently Discovered Latin Poem of the Fourth Century,Journalof Philology1 (1868) 66-80. Errington,R.M.: The PraetorianPrefecturesof Virius NicomachusFlavianus,Historia 41 (1992) 439-61. Fitschen, K.: Der PraefectusPraetorio Flavius Rufinus - ein hoher Reichsbeamter als Gestalt der Kirchengeschichtezur Zeit der ,,TheodosianischenWende", ZAC 5 (2001) 86-103. Gaggero, G.: I riflessi africani delle usurpazioni di Magno Massimo ed Eugenio, L'AfricaRomana12 (1996/98) 3,1521-32.
VIRIUS NICOMACHUS FLAVIANUS
177
GarridoGonzilez, E.: Losgobemadores bo-imperial(Madrid1987). proviialesenel Occidente Griinewald, Th.: Der letzte Kampf des Heidentums in Rom? Zur posthumen Rehabilitation des Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, Historia41 (1992) 462-87. Reiches undchristliche Reaktionauf die Krisendeswestromischen Heinzberger, F.: Heidnische in denJahren395-410 n.Chr.(Diss. Bonn 1976). Honore, T.: Law in the Crisisof Empire379-455 AD (Oxford 1998). Praetextati Kahlos, M.: Saeculum (Helsinki 1998). im 4. Jahrhundert n.Chr.(Frankfurt/ Kuhoff, W.: Studienzur zivilensenatorischen Laufbahn M. 1983). Lenaz, L. : Annotazioni sul ,,Carmen contra paganos", StudiaPatavina25 (1978) 541-72. Lippold, A.: Virius Nicomachus Flavianus Nr. 2, Der KleinePauly2 (1975) 567f. Manganaro, G.: La reazione pagana a Roma nel 408-9 d.C. e il poemetto anonimo 'Contra paganos', GIF 13 (1960) 210-24. storicoal libro VI dell' epistolario di Q AurelioSimmaco(Pisa Marcone, A.: Commento 1983). di Q~AurelioSimmaco(Pisa storicoal libroIV dell' epistolario Marcone, A.: Commento 1987). Markschies,Ch.: Leben wir nicht alle unter demselben Sternenzelt?,in: Die Heiden, edd. R. Feldmeier, U. Heckel (1994) 325-77. Markschies,Ch.: Carmen contra paganos, DNP 2 (1997) 988. Matthews,J.F.: The Historical Setting of the 'Carmen contra paganos' (Cod. Par. Lat. 8084), Historia19 (1970) 464-79 (= PoliticalLife and Culturein Late Roman Society, London 1985, VII). Aristocracies and ImperialCourtA.D. 364-425 (Oxford 1975). Matthews,J.F.: Western Mazzarino, S.: I1 carmen'Contro I pagani' e il problema dell' 'Era costantiniana', in: Antico,tardoantico ed era costantiniana, Bd. 1 (Citta di Castello 1974) 398-465. McLynn, N.B.: Ambroseof Milan. Churchand Courtsin a ChristianCapital(Berkeley 1994). Phoenix50 (1996) 312-30. McLynn, N.B.: The Fourth-CenturyTdurobolium, Musso, L.: I1 praefectus del carmencontrapaganos,ArchClass31 (1979) 185-240. Nicolaas, Th.WJ.: Praetextatus (Nijmegen & Utrecht 1940). derchristlichen Kaiserdesvierten MaJnahmen Noethlichs,K.L.: Diegesetzgeberischen Jahrhunderts HeidenundJuden(Diss. Koln 1971). gegenHaretiker, O'Donnell, JJ.: The Career of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus,Phoenix32 (1978) 12944. Paschoud, F.: Zosime,HistoireNouvelle,Bd. III' (B. 5) (Paris 1986). chritien(325-395) (Paris 21972). Piganiol, A.: L'empire Poinsotte, J.-M.: Le consul de 382 Fl. Claudius Antonius fut-il un auteur antipaien?, REL 60 (1982) 298-312. Portmann, W.: Flavianus,DNP 4 (1998) 543f. PLRE = Prosopography of the LaterRomanEmpire,Cambridge, Bd. 1, edd. A.H.M. & J. Morris (1971), Bde. 2 und 3, ed. J.R. Martindale Martindale Jones, J.R. (1980/92). derchristlichen d.Gr.(Freiburg/ KircheunterdemKaiserTheodosius Rauschen, G.: Jahrbucher B. 1897).
178
ALTAY COSKUN
40 (1962) Ruggini, L.: Fonti, problemi e studi sull' eta di Galla Placidia,Athenaeum 373-91. Schanz, M.: Geschichte der romischen Literaturbis zum Gesetzgebungswerkdes des 4. Jahrhunderts KaisersJustinian, Bd. 4,1: Die Literatur (Munchen 21914). Schlumberger,J.: Die verlorenen Annalen des Nicomachus Flavianus: Ein Werk iiber Geschichte der Romischen Republik oder Kaiserzeit?, BHAC 1982/1983 (Bonn 1985) 305-29. Seeck, O.: Q AureliiSymmachi (Berlin 1883) (= MGH AA 6,1). quaesupersunt RE Flavianus Nr. O.: 14-15, 6,2 (1909) 2506-13. Seeck, der antikenWelt, Bd. 5 (Stuttgart 21920, Nd. des Untergangs Seeck, O.: Geschichte Darmstadt 1960). Shanzer, D.: The Anonymous Carmencontrapaganosand the Date and Identity of the Centonist Proba, REAug32 (1986) 232-48. Szidat,J.: Die Usurpation des Eugenius, Historia28 (1979) 487-508. Vera, D.: La carriera di Virius Nicomachus Flavianus e la prefettura dell'Illirico 61 (1983) 24-64; 390-426. orientale nel IV secolo d.C., Athenaeum Reichesseit desRomischen derhohenAmtstrager von Haehling, R.: Die Religionszugehrigkeit bis zum Ende der Theodosianischen I. Alleinherrschaft Constantins Dynastie(Diss. 1975, Bonn 1978). Weber, D.: Invektive, in: LexACL(21999) 310. in Rom(Leiden 1977). Wytzes,J.: Der letzteKampfdes Heidentums
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM BY
JOSEF LOSSL The importance of Cicero in the debate between Augustine of Hippo and Julian of Aeclanum has been extensively studied. This includes Augustine's and Julian's use of the Catilinarian speeches in their polemics against each other. In comparisonthe use of Sallust,the other classicalauthority on Catiline, especially by Julian of Aeclanum, has been neglected. This paper intends to remedy that situation. Textual evidence may be meagre: barely two literal citations in three of the extant fragments of Julian's writings. But Julian's use of these, also compared with Jerome's and Augustine's, and the way his use of Sallust is reflected in the rest of his extant writing and thought gives the impression that he may have been far more deeply influenced by Sallust than has hitherto been thought. ABSTRACT:
The importance of Cicero as a classical source in the debate between Augustine of Hippo and Julian of Aeclanum about evil, original sin, and concupiscence has long been recognized;' also the extent to which the two bishops resort to the exemplumof that enfant terribleof Roman Antiquity, Catilina, the Catilina of Cicero's 'First Catilinarian' that is,2 to embellish their mutual charges of heresy.3 Yet Cicero's account was not the only one to shape later views of the events of 63/62 BC. Sallust's Bellum Catilinae, too, was widely read, and used, last but not least by Augustine in his De ciuitatedei.4
' See the excellent (recent) treatment of the topic by M. Lamberigts, Iulianus IV 19 (2000) 483-505, 491-94. fir Antikeund Christentum (Iulianus von Aeclanum). Reallexikon 2 Cf. e.g. J. Lossl, Julian vonAeclanum. Studienzu seinemLeben,seinemWerk,seinerLehreund ihrerOberlieferung. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 60 (Brill:Leiden, 2001), 106 n. 150. 3 They were not the only ones. S. Rebenich, Der heilige Hieronymus und die Geschichte. Zur Funktion der Exempla in seinen Briefen. RomischeQuartalschrifi 87 (1992) 29-46, 45 cites many more examples, and concludes: 'Ein Vergleich mit Catilina gait demnach noch in der christlichen Spatantike als "Beleidigung".' 4 On Augustine's use of Sallust in ciu. cf. A.-M. Taisne, Salluste chez saint Augustin (Cit6 de Dieu, I-V), in: R. Poignault (ed.), Prisencede Salluste(Tours: Centre de Recherches
A. Piganiol,1997), 119-28;and G. O'Daly, Augustine'sCity of God. A Reader'sGuide ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae56, 179-202
180
JOSEF LOSSL
Sallustwas held in high esteem in ChristianLate Antiquity, for his honest self-criticismand severe judgment of the political and social conditions at Rome at the end of the Republican era, conditions which led him to a disillusioned assessment of the state of the universe.5Nobilitateueritatis historicus, Augustine calls him.6Jerome, too, thinks highly of him.7 He fea(Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 240-46; cf. also I. Opelt, Sallust in Augustins Confessiones, Wiener Studien. in: LatinitttundAlte Kirche.FestschriftfirRudolfHanslikzum 70. Geburtstag. Beiheft 8 (Wien-Koln-Graz: Hermann Bohlaus Nachf., 1977), 196-204, who concludes that even though Augustine consulted many historical sources, Cicero's 'Catilina-Bild' (e.g. as opposed to Sallust's) may have remained dominant in his thought. 5 This is how he first appears in the Christian writers. His statement in Iugurtha2.3: omnia orta occiduntet aucta senescuntis alluded to by Minucius Felix (Octavius34.2) and quoted by Cyprian (Ad Demetriadem3 (CSEL 3/1, 353.16)), and later-Jerome; cf. H. Hagendahl, Latin Fathersand the Classics(Stockholm: Almquist, 1958), 77. 6 Ciu. 1.5 (9-10 Dombart-Kalb). Cf. ib. 7.3 (9-10; 278 Dombart-Kalb), where Augustine an expression that recurs in ep. 167 of 415 = Hier. ep. 132.6 calls Sallust uir disertissimus, and is, in fact, derived from Sallust, (CSEL 56/1, 230.21): Romanaelinguaedisertissimus, who calls Cato (the Elder) disertissimus, 'exceedingly well-spoken' (namely because of his cf. Hist. fr. 1.3 McGushin = fr. 1.4 Maurenbrecher: multapaucis absoluit,a charbreuitas); acteristic also of Sallust's style; S. Schmal, Sallust (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2001), 79 n. 10, 131 n. 26, 146 n. 35. Taking Hier. epp. 52 (dated 393/4 to Nepotianus) and 61 (396 or 398/9 to Vigilantius) as examples, N. Adkin, Cato, Romani generis disertissimus (Sallust. Hist. frg. I 4 M. in Jerome). Eikasmos9 (1998) 229-32 shows (among other things) how speaking this way of Cato (or Sallust) adds to the incongruity (in style) of Late Antique Ciceroniani.Schmal (op. cit. 158 nn. 22 and 24), who seems to assume that Aug. ep. 167 and Hier. ep. 132 are two letters, one by Augustine and one by Jerome, wrongly refers Adkin's article to them. To be sure, Jerome, in his response to Aug. ep. 167, Hier. ep. 134.1 of 416 (CSEL 56/1, 261.8-9), seems to pick up on Augustine's praise of Sallust. He also cites from the Historiae(though a frequently used reference; cf. Hagendahl (n. 5) 106, 112, 246, 255): He has fallen on hard times; it would be better for him to be silent; his studies ceased, he is reduced to, 'as Appius cf. Sallust. Hist. frg. 4.54 says, "canine eloquence"' (iuxtaAppiumcaninaexercereturfacundia; Maurenbrecher), i.e. (in this case) polemics (against the Pelagians); for the historical context cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome.His Life, Writings,and Controversies (London: Duckworth, mit Hieronymus. Briefwechsel 1975), 321-23; for details concerning the letters A. Furst, Augustins Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum. Erganzungsband 29 (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1999), 180-209, 220-34 and passim. Note that neither Augustine norJerome excelled in breuitas; nor were Cato or Sallust their role models (cf. Adkin op. cit.). Tota eius defluxitoratio, Julian of Aeclanum was later (in the 420s) to write of Jerome in the preface to his Oseelohel et Amos(CCL 88, 116.53). And in spite of Augustine's revTractatusprophetarum erence for Sallust cf. Opelt's verdict above at the end of n. 5. Augustine's use of Sallust differs markedly from Julian's. It would be Julian who would try (at least in part) to emulate the great historian. 7 Indeed he is the sole (extant) source for some vital information about Sallust's life. He knows that Sallust came from Amiternum in the Sabine country, when he was born
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
181
tures in Hilary8and Sulpicius Severus.9His presence in the debate between Augustine and Julian of Aeclanum, however, and particularlyJulian's use of him, has not yet been studied in detail.'1At first glance this is not surprising;forJulian cites, or alludes to, Sallust only twice in his extant works. But, as I shall argue in this paper, the two passages, and a number of further, more general, features, could be highly significant. They might indicate, for example, that Julian styles himself not only as another Cicero," but also as another Cato. To this effect he imitates Sallust,
(86 BC), and when he died (fouryears before the Battle of Actium,which took place in 31 BC), though the place is taken cumgranosalis and the dates need slight adjustment; cf. chron.(ed. R. Helm = GCS 473, Eusebius7, 151.1-2, 154.10, 159.22)and the magisterialdiscussionof the dates by G. Funaioli,C. SallustiusCrispus.RE IA (1921) 1913-55, 1914-16; cf. also R. Syme, Sallust(Berkeley,Calif.: Universityof California 1.48 (PL 23, 278CD)), in a passage Iouinianum Press, 1964), 13-14. Elsewhere(Contra which Ronald Syme (ib. 284) has characterisedas 'an engagingand ridiculousfabrication,Jerome assertsthat Terentia,divorcedby Cicero,marriedSallust,on whose decease she transferredherself to the orator Messalla Corvinus.' And according to Harald Hagendahl(n. 5) 292 'Sallustiusis the only prosewriterfrom the periodof the Republic to Jerome, who occupiesa considerableplace in Jerome'sworks.'He is nobilishistoricus to be comparedwith Thucydides(c. Iouin.2.10 (PL 23, 299C)).For or simplyhistoricus, the latter motif cf. Schmal (n. 6) 148-53. 8 P. C. Burns, Hilary's Use of Communally Sanctioned Texts to Construct His AntikesChristentum 2 (1998)65-83. Sallust.Cat.8.4 (eorum qui Autobiography.Zeitschriffiir extollere which Schmal ear uerbispotuere praeclara ingenia), quantam fecereuirtustantahabetur (n. 6) 158 n. 25 mistakenlylocates in a 'biographyof Hilary'byJerome, can be found in the prologueof Jerome's VitaHilarionis (PL 23, 29A);cf. Hagendahl(n. 5) 118. 9 Cf. e.g. chron.2.46.4-5 (CSEL 1, 99), where Sulpicius'sdepictionof Priscillianis strikinglysimilarto that of Catilinaby Sallust;for an analysiscf. J. Fontaine,L'affaire de Sulpice Priscillienou l'ere de nouveauxCatilina.Observationssur le 'Sallustianisme' in honorof thereverend Severe, in: Classicaet Iberica.A Festschrift J. M.-F. Marique,ed. by P. T. Brannan(Worcester,Mass.: Instituteof Early ChristianIberian Studies, 1975), 355-92;for a comparisonbetweenSallustand SulpiciusSeveruscf. also C. E. Stancliffe, St. Martin and his Hagiographer.History and Miracle in SulpiciusSeverus (Oxford: Clarendon,1983), 58-59, 73-76; G. K. van Andel, TheChristian Concept of Historyin the Severus Chronicle (Amsterdam:Hakkert,1976), 69-74. of Sulpicius '0 Lamberigts(n. 1) 494 brieflymentionsthe two references.Lossl (n. 2) 79 n. 23 does not give the right referencefor Turb.2 (CCL 88, 341.25-31). It should not be Tacit. Ann. 1.1.3 but Sallust. Cat.51.1. The note on p. xiv fails to put that right. In Turb.2 Julian does not reflectin generalon the principlethat historicalquestionsshould be consideredsineiraet studio,he specificallystatesthat his case was prejudiced,because No traceof Tacitus. hisjudgeswere biased.He literallycitespart of the Sallust-reference. The other reference,Sallust.Cat. 1.2, is (correctly)cited on p. 140 with n. 326. But it is missingin the index. 1 For this aspect cf. the referencecited under n. 2.
182
JOSEF LOSSL
commenting on, and judging severely the relevant events and persons and their stances, with a high degree of resentment,and a certain degree of despair-for so far the enemies have been quite successful-, while continuing to set forth-with an unshatteredbelief in divine goodness and justice, and human reason-arguments supportingthe truth and justice of his cause.12 1. TheImpartiality of GoodCounsel:Caesarin Sallust.Cat. 51.1 Both known Sallust-referencesin Julian occur in the extant fragments of his Ad Turbantium.'3 The first, found in Turb.2, is taken from Sallust. Cat. 51.1. It is the beginning of Caesar's speech, as composed by Sallust,14 at the decisive meeting of the Senate on 5 December 63 BC: Omnishomines, ab odio,amicitia,ira atquemiseripatresconscripti, qui de rebusdubiisconsultant, cordiauacuosessedecet.'It beseems, assembled fathers, all men who consult in doubtful matters to be free of hatred, friendship,anger, and even mercy [or compassion].' Two snippetsin Augustine'sContraIulianum,our main source forJulian's Ad Turbantium, indicateJulian's use of this passage in that work. Whether of citation or of allusion remains to be asked. The first reads: by way Omnesiudicesab odio,amicitia,inimicitia, ira uacuosessedeceat.l5 Julian, Augustine that 'it beseems all judges to be free of reports, writes in Ad Turbantium hatred, friendship, enmity, and anger.' The second, some chapters further on in Augustine's work, renders a different wording:'6NJemo de rebusdubiisbeneconsultat,nisi qui ab odio,ira et amicitiauacuumpectusattulerit.'No one takes good counsel in doubtful matters except he who carries a disposition devoid of hatred, anger, and [the ties of] friendship.' 12
On resentment in Sallust cf. B. R. Katz, 'Dolor', 'invidia' and 'misericordia' in Sallust. Acta Classica24 (1981) 71-85; on his optimism cf. Syme (n. 7) 271; for Julian cf. Lossl (n. 2) 105-107. 13 Written in 419; for further details cf. Lamberigts (n. 1) 488; L6ssl (n. 2) 7, 281; for a critical edition of the fragments L. De Coninck, M. J. D'Hondt, lulianiAeclanensis... iagmenta... CCL 88 (Turnhout. Brepols, 1977), 340-96. 14 After the speech of Diodotos in Thucydides 3.42.1-2, though some details may be historical; cf. in detail A. Drummond, Law, Politicsand Power.Sallust and the Executionof the CatilinarianConspiracy. Historia. Einzelschriften 93 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995), 44, 51ff.; and Schmal (n. 5) 39-40, 152 (literature). 15 Aug. c. Iul. 2.34 (PL 44, 698.16-17) = Iul. Turb. 2b (CCL 88, 341.30-31). 16 For the context cf. Aug. c. Iul. 3.2 (PL 44, 701-702) = Iul. Turb. 2a (CCL 88, 341.25-27).
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
183
Julian, Augustinewrites, complains here about the judges (deiudicibus...) who sat in his and his fellow complainants'case.17They denied his party a fair hearing (... apudquospropterea (dicis)nonpotuisseuosagerecausamuestram); for-and here follows the allusion to Sallust. Cat.51.1-'no one takes good counsel, except he etc.' His judges, Julian concludes, certainly did not take good counsel; for they had begun to despise his cause long before they even properly got acquainted with it (priuseamcoeperunt odissequamnosse). Two sets of questions arise. First,what didJulian actuallywrite? Second, what can be said about the way he used his source in terms of style as well as content? The first question is largely unanswerable.Nevertheless, some possibilities can be considered. First, could the fact that Augustine twice mentions the reference be an indication that Julian cited or alluded to it more than once? Most probably not. The way Augustine refers to the passage indicates that it is one and the same, and that it occurs fairly early on in Ad The context in which Augustine in each case refers to it is Turbantium.'8 practicallythe same, and also certain key words recur in Augustine'sreport, which are not found in Sallust, e.g. iudices.Judging from this one could speculate that frg. 2b might come close to what Julian actually wrote. It certainly is true to his style,19which in this case (not in others) coincides with that of Sallust, short, pithy nouns in rapid succession, and contraries. Also, Augustine cites the passage as one sentence, without insertions. And he introduces it with the words certeipse dixisti. But can it-in the light of frg. 2a-be considered complete? Surely, at would need to be inserted between least qui de rebusdubiisbeneconsultant iudicesand ab odio.And would Augustine twice have used iudices,had he not found it in Julian? On the other hand, frg. 2b uacuosessedeceatis close Does this suggest that to Sallust, in contrast to frg. 2a uacuum pectusattulerit.
17 As one of eighteen bishops from Southern Italy Julian had been deposed for refusing to sign, in summer 418, Pope Zosimus' Tractoria,a document that endorsed the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius as heretics; for the historical and biographical context cf. Lossl (n. 2) 267-86. 18 This is also how the modem editors see it. De Coninck-D'Hondt (n. 13) 341.2527, 30-31 list the two fragments together (as 2a and 2b; cf. above nn. 15 and 16), as referring to one passage; cf. A. Bruckner, Die vierBicherJulians vonAeclanuman Turbantius. Neue Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche 8 (Berlin: Trowitzsch, 1910), 24-25, who omits 2b. 19 Cf. Lossl (n. 2) 90-101, especially 96-97; for Sallust cf. Schmal (n. 6) 128-39 (literature).
184
JOSEF LOSSL
Augustine read the latter phrase in Julian? Or did he 'conventionalize'2b by paraphrasingit with the expression in 2a? He frequently used pectus and afferoin this way, although he never combined the two expressions, except here. But then, Julian's use of them can hardly be said to have considerablydiffered from Augustine's.20The paraphrasecould as well be his. Finally, could Augustine in 2a have added the part missing in 2b (qui de rebusdubiisbeneconsultant), even from memory?Quite possibly.2'Yet again, the same could be said ofJulian: Why would he have suppressedit? Because its meaning is contained in the expression iudices?Or for stylistic reasons? We cannot tell. Let us now turn to another phenomenon that might indicate that 2b is the more artful, original, 'Julianic','imitation' of Sallust and might therefore be assumed to be close to what Julian actually wrote, the order and content of the list of emotions of which good counsel is free. Sallust has odium,amicitia,ira atquemisericordia, Julian's frg. 2a odium,ira et amicitia,and frg. 2b odium,amicitia,inimicitia,ira. Clearly, 2b is closer to Sallust, not only in letter, but also in spirit. One could even say that it is more Sallustian than Sallust. It must be remembered that Cat. 51.1 is Caesar speaking. In imitation of Caesar Sallust builds the passage slightly portlier and statelier than he would have constructedit as his own. If Julian had wanted to use the passage in a Sallustian manner, he may well have tightened, and (thereby)sharpened, it. He did precisely that in frg. 2b. Compared to its rhetorical force frg. 2a is rather limp. Sallust lists two (parallel)pairs of opposites, odium-amicitia, ira-misericordia. For reasons to be discussed shortly, Julian-in frg. 2b-drops the last Yet this new expresexpression,misericordia, introducinga new one, inimicitia. sion does not simply replace the old one. Julian is far from merely hanging inimicitiaon to ira, which would have maintained the parallelismof his source, whose portliness was intensified through the use of atque.What Julian does instead is to drop the atqueand to put inimicitiain front of ira. The result is a chiasmus, more powerful than the parallelismof the source, and reinforcedby the immediate, and stark, contrast of amicitiaand inimicitia. This is not only more Sallustian than Sallust himself at this point (for reasonsalreadymentioned),it also changesthe statelymoderationof Caesar's 20
Cf. e.g. Iul. Flor. 1.70, 75 (CSEL 85/1, 78.1, 91.33). For the reception of Sallust even in the Late Antique study of rhetoric cf. Schmal (n. 6) 154-57; for Augustine above in this article nn. 4 and 6. 21
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
185
speech (Cat.51) into a robust, aggressiveradicalism as that of Cato's, following immediately after (Cat. 52).22 but Frg. 2a in contrast does not replace the suppressed misericordia, the a into triad. It even rearranges remaining expressions limp exchanges the atquefor a dull et. Thus the original is still recognizable, but what is left lacks the contrarietyand dynamics of either Sallust or Julian. The suppressionof misericordia deservesfurtherattention. It is a key word for Sallust to characterizeCaesar. Sallust, writing within a few years after the Ides of March,23depicts Caesar in hindsight, as a clement, merciful, because omnipotent, magnate. In contrast to Cicero24and Cato Caesar pleads for a moderate treatment of the (then merely alleged) plotters. The law, tradition, and the power of the state make it advisable to deal with them cautiously, he argues. 'Hate or excessive zeal is deleterious-and anger above all... What in an individual passes for iracundia,that in a
22 On these stylistic characteristics of Caesar's and Cato's speeches cf. V. Poschl, Die Reden Caesars und Catos in Sallusts 'Catilina', in: Id. (ed.), Sallust.Wege der Forschung 94 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970, 21981), 368-97, 372; and for Sallust cf. Schmal (n. 6) 131-35 (literature). 23 He may have begun it before 44, and published it around 42 (Quint. inst. 10.3.8 reports that he worked slowly; cf. Syme (n. 7) 272); cf. G. Ledworuski, Historiographische in der MonographieSallustszur Catilinarischen Studien zur klassisWiderspriiche Verschwriung. chen Philologie 89 (Frankfurt am Main and others: Peter Lang, 1994), 70-71; Funaioli de Catilina (n. 7) 1921. But cf. also Syme (n. 7) 128, following G. Boissier, La conjuration (Paris: Hachette, 1905), 10: 'The conclusion is not compelling. The BellumCatilinaemay have been begun in 42, and not completed before 41,' the reason being that the years around 44 were too turbulent, the situation too risky for Sallust, to embark on such a project. Besides, several protagonists were still alive. 24 His 'First Catilinarian' dates from 7 November. The second followed a day later, the third on 3 December. But these speeches were later edited from hindsight. The delivered versions were not necessarily as clear (even clairvoyant) as the published ones. Particularly the 'Fourth Catilinarian', held at the session of 5 December, 'was anything but a decisive contribution to the debate' (Syme (n. 7) 106). This was dominated by Caesar and Cato. Syme (n. 7) 110, citing Seneca, De breuitateuitae5.1: No doubt Cicero was important. But he 'overdid the self-laudation-non sinecausased sinefine.' Nevertheless, from the outset Cicero's position must have been clear, and he must have shown courage. This even Sallust acknowledges (Syme (n. 7) 103-137; but cf. Katz (n. 12) 73-74). Caesar's position in contrast must have been less clear. In Cat. 49, two paragraphs before Caesar's speech, Sallust is at pains to make clear that Caesar was not among the conspirators, but that some enemies of his attempted to persuade Cicero to fabricate evidence against him. But Cicero refused and Caesar's enemies had to resort to other means to try and harm him.
186
JOSEF LOSSL
(51.14).'25Wise words, but also decepatquecrudelitas government is superbia is the virtue of a despot, not to notice. 'Clementia the first Cato was tive. of a citizen and an aristocrat.What right had Caesar to exercise pardon?'26 had thus 'acquired an invidious connotation.' Sallust The word clementia to characterize Caesar (54.2). Yet in Caesar's et misericordia has mansuetudo the word that in doubtful matters counsel must has mouth own he just put abstainevenfrom misericordia (51.1). Therefore atque.But how does this square with the 'clement and merciful' Caesar of the following paragraphs?Not surprisinglyperhaps, Cato, in his speech, jumps on the expression subjecting it to unfriendlyscrutiny (52.11 and 27): Speak one here of mansueThe true meaning of these words is long forgotten. tudo et misericordia! No different. It now means being liberal with the property of Liberalitas? others. And fortitudonow means audacity to commit crimes. It is because of it that the Republic is on the brink of ruin.-When, in this situation, will quickly turn into miseria.27 the enemies are taking up arms, misericordia not intend to give, or, for that matdoes and austere inflexible, Cato, not but the law and is His favours. misericordia, ter, receive, vantage point the Constitution.28At one point Caesar (faintly) subscribes to the same ideal (51.1). But how does he live up to it, given the wider context? Sallust Cato's et misericordia, harmonizes: Caesar's glory grounds in his mansuetudo in his dignitas(54.2). But on the whole he prefers Cato. Interestingly,this is also Augustine'simpression:'Greater praise for Cato; for about him he writes:"The less he soughtgloria,the more it pursued him" (54.6).'29Caesar in contrast went after it, for personal ends.30Surely, Sallust himself had 25
26
Syme (n. 7) 113.
and dementia againstthis backSyme (n. 7) 119; for the synonymityof misericordia groundcf. H. Petri, Misericordia-Histoiredu mot et de l'idee du paganismeau christianisme.Revuedesitudeslatines12 (1934) 376-89, 380. 27 Shakespeare'sBrutuswas to go a step furtherexclaiming:'And pity to the general wrong of Rome-As fire drives out fire, so pity pity-Hath done this deed to Caesar'(III.1). 28 In this respecthe could be calledperfectissimus Stoicus(Cicero,Brutus118; cited by Syme (n. 7) 112), though it was Caesarwho invokedphilosophy(the Epicureandoctrine that there is no life beyond the grave)in his speech (51.20, 52.13), and though it seems that in recent scholarshipCato's attitudeis sometimesno longer recognizedas philosophical;cf. Schmal(n. 6) 41: Cato'sargumentsare weakerthan Caesar'sandjust made up for the moment. 29 Ciu.5.12 ait: 'quominus est Cato.De illoquippe meliuslaudatus (214.27 Dombart-Kalb): petebat gloriam,eo illummagissequebatur'. for the voices of resentmentwhich this pro30 Cat.54.4: magnum imperium...exoptabat;
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
187
profited from this. Caesar had advanced and protected him.3' Sallust's depiction of Caesar is not exactly negative. He praises him as an equal to Cato. He depicts him in a more favourable light than other historians.32 But there are cracks in the picture, inconsistencies,and slight, or implied, criticisms, that are revealing: Caesar's call for moderation, when the situation is in fact critical, for putting aside evenmisericordia (51.1), when in fact he goes on pleading for it; his flamboyance interpretedas commitment to the Republic, when in fact it is largely motivated by blatant self interest.33 Cato on the other hand is paralleled with the Censor, whose breuitasis praised, and imitated, not least in his descendant's speech.34 In Augustine's and Julian's time misericordia had assumed religious, or, more precisely,biblical (Pauline)meaning. It denoted God's mercy towards the sinner, revealed in Christ (Romans 9.15),35and, as a consequence, a Christian believer's imitation of that mercy, e. g. in concrete acts like givhad not changed. ing alms.36Yet the essentialmeaning ('tender-heartedness') voked among contemporaries cf. Katz (n. 12) 75-76. More recently some historians have taken a different view, as if Caesar rather helplessly filled the growing power vacuum to end up a Christlike figure, first reviled and sacrificed, then revered as a God; for examples cf. Schmal (n. 6) 18. 31 For the details cf. Schmal (n. 6) 15-20. 32 Regarding his alleged part in the conspiracy cf. above n. 24. Sallust omits evidence cited by Velleius Paterculus 2.35.3 and Appian, Bella ciuilia2.6 that Cato explicitely charged Caesar with complicity in the conspiracy. 33 T. Spath, Salluste, Bellum Catilinae. Un texte tragique de l'historiographie? Pallas 49 (1998) 173-95, 188-89 points to similarities between the depiction of Catilina and Caesar. Katz (n. 12) 75, 76 seems to have struck the balance right: Sallust does not condemn Caesar, but heaps unqualified praise on Cato while retaining elementsof criticism of Caesar,cf. also Drummond (n. 14) 77 (and ib. 9-10); Schmal (n. 6) 41-42. 34 Cf. above n. 6; Syme (n. 7) 116; Schmal (n. 6) 39-42, 128-39, 145-46, 152-53 (literature). 35 For its importance, in this meaning, in the formation of Augustine's doctrine of grace cf. V.-H. Drecoll, Die Entstehungder Gnadenlehre Augustins.Beitrage zur historischen Theologie 109 (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 95-97, 168, 171-72, 211-43, 270-74. For the idea that the basic meaning of misericordia is forgiveness (of sin) cf. Ambrose, in Psalm 118.8.23 (CSEL 62, 164.4): est etiammisericordiae donarepeccatum;but cf. also what follows immediately after this phrase: et misericordia est, et iustitiaest (cf. below nn. 36 and 37, and above n. 27!); Petr6 (n. 26) 380. 36 For the synonymity of misericordiaand elemosyna(or plural) since Tertullian cf. A. Souter, A Glossaryof LaterLatin to 600 AD (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), 254; equally, for the synonymity of clementia,indulgentia in Tertullian Petre (n. 26) 380; and and misericordia for the synonymity of misericordia, elemosynaand iustitiaagainst the biblical (especially Old Testament, Prophetic) background ib. 380-85.
188I
JOSEF LOSSL
The problematic, metaphysical and religious, dimension of the concept already began to reveal itself in Caesar's case, much to the resentment of religiousand constitutionaltraditionalists,while its concrete, human, dimension was retained even in the Christianera.37In some sense, how to relate the two dimensionswas that which the controversybetween Augustine and Julian was all about. This is why, whether the term is dropped, or not, in a citation, may not be altogetherirrelevant.Not that Augustine andJulian would have disagreedthat misericordia is important.The questionwas, which is more fundamental, the free exercise of the human virtue in concrete instances, or the existence of a divine principle that is ultimately the only source of all human virtue, and that overrides all other principles,in particular those laid down by law and common justice. Julian believed that Augustine held the latter view, and that it was a wrong view. As Cato thought it detrimental for the Republic that Caesar should override the so Julian thought it detrilaw and justice with his quasi divine misericordia, mental for the Christian life that believers should hand over their right and duty to do good to a divine regime of favours and indulgences.38 37 This may be one reason why Christine Mohrmann in her monumental work has cf. C. Mohrmann, not much to say about the specific Christian meaning of misericordia; Etudessur le Latin des Chretiens1-4. Storia e letteratura 65, 87, 103, 143 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1958, 1961, 1965, 1977), vol. 1, 117, vol. 3, 64, vol. 4, 51; for the continuity of the meaning of the word L. Spitzer, Classical and Christian Ideas of World Harmony. Traditio2 (1944) 409-64, 410; and Petr6 (n. 26), particularly p. 386 as in Lactantius, Epitome33.7 (CSEL 19, on the humanist understanding of misericordia, as the highest virtue, 709.7) with a reference to Zeno who supposedly classed misericordia 9.5 and cf. for this also ciu. to humanitas Aug. (374-76 Dombart-Kalb) on pietas; equal Augustine's account of the Stoic concept of virtue; and below n. 83. 38 It is interesting that Gennadius, De uiris illustribus(45) 46 (78 Richardson) relates as one of the first public appearances of Julian as a bishop (in 417 or 418) his relief effort for the poor of his diocese. 'This Julian', he writes, 'in a time of famine and anxfor the needy'. But he immediately adds that through iety procured alms (eleemosynae) this act 'he associated many people, commoners, nobility, and particularly religious, with his heresy.' Thus his concrete application of misericordia alone, without any added doctrine, though in tune with Early Christian tradition (cf. above nn. 36 and 37), now rendered him suspicious of supporting Pelagianism, maybe even before he had come out in support of Pelagius and Caelestius after their condemnation. We must, however, remember that Gennadius wrote from hindsight, and that we cannot be sure whether Julian's euergetic relief effort dates before or after the summer of 418 (the time when Julian began to get into trouble); for the relationship between historical events and litKirchenerary presentation in Gennadius cf. still B. Czapla, Gennadiusals Literarhistoriker. geschichtliche Studien 4/1 (Munster: Schoningh, 1898), 101-103; for the link that was made between traditionaleuergetism and support of Pelagianismcf. A. Kessler, Reichtumskitik
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
.189
Here is the connection to his concrete situation after his deposition in 418. His enemies were speakinggratiaand misericordia, but they refused to their attitude grant him his right to state his case. Far from misericordia, was marked by odium, amicitia,39inimicitia, ira. Not that he would have
expected misericordia (except, perhaps, in the sense of the biblical et misericordiaet iustitia).40He demanded a fair trial, a trial that might have delivered justice. He did not ask for sympathy, or pity, but for his judges to be free of hatred, partisanship,enmity, and anger, not to be prejudiced against his case before they even got acquaintedwith it. He asked in vain, as he was later to recall. In his view the judgment of 418 was a stitch up: the African episcopate and certain groups at the Imperialcourt at Ravenna ganging up with the clergy of Rome against the bishop of Rome, the prefect of the City, and a considerablefollowing, especially among the nobility and the ascetic movements. Pressure was exerted, threats were made, riots were provoked, money and cavalry horses changed hands.41 from the From this one might conclude that Julian dropped misericordia list. It was an odious expressionin this context, as sinister as Caesar's miswas to Cato. From other evidence one might assume that frg. 2b ericordia comes pretty close to whatJulian actuallywrote, namely: omnes[or omnis?]42
Die pelagianische DiatribeDe diuitiis.Paradosis43 (Freiburg/Schweiz: undPelagianismus. 1999), 56. Universitatsverlag, 39 Amicitia here standsfor public, political,partisanship,not just personalfriendship. It denotes the kind of loyalty under which men rather break the law than betray 'a friend';for the conflictsof interest(e.g. friendshipvs. justice)that could resultfrom this cf. Cicero, Laelius36-61, especially39, and De officiis3.43-46: One's judge cannot be one's friend, and vice versa. Someone who sits as judge in the case against a friend ceases to be that man's friend.-I do not considerhere the (for my argumentpotenwas insertedby a (medieval)copist, who thought tially lethal) possibilitythat inimicitia somehowdoes not fit into this list. The use of omnesratherthan the source's that amicitia collectiveomnismight have a similarorigin. 40 For the referencecf. above n. 35. Importantly,Augustineand Julian held against of Ambrose'sthought.It all came down to the queseach other differentinterpretations tion whether Ambrose held a doctrine of original sin like Augustine'sor not, which in Augustine'sfavour. Today it is would have determinedthe meaning of misericordia forAugustine's thatAmbrose'sthoughtcannotbe fullyappropriated generallyacknowledged to a defence of some amounted that and reaction Julian's againstAugustine teaching vital elementsof EarlyChristianethics, as still preserved,e.g., in Ambrose;cf. E. Dass1/1-2 (1986) 270-85, 280. mann, Ambrosius.Augustinus-Lexikon 41 For details cf. Lossl (n. 2) 273-86. 42 Cf. above at the end of n. 39.
190
JOSEF LOSSL
Neither is certain. iudicesab odio, amicitia,inimicitia,ira uacuosesse decet.43 Nevertheless,from the way Julian used Sallust Cat. 51.1 in the given context, either retains an at least limited probability. Godsand Beasts':Sallust.Cat. 1.2 on HumanNature 2. 'Between of Sallust's The second reference is from Cat. 1.2, from the prooemium where BellumCatilinae.It occurs in Turb.116, in book 2 of Ad Turbantium, in human beings Julian argues against Augustine that sexual concupiscence is a natural, created, and therefore (ontologicallyand morally) good, pre'Since we [humanbeings] are compositeof two unequal disposition.44Julian: and soul goods, body, the soul must rule the body; for, of these two, "one we have in common with the gods, the other with the beasts" (Cat. 1.2).'45 Equal stress is here laid on 'unequal' and 'goods'. Clearly, in Julian's view, the beastly part in human beings is inferior to the godly. It must not, indeed it cannot, be dominant:'That which is better, the soul, is gifted with virtue and well in command of the members and desires (praeditum) of the body.'46 43 Decet instead of deceat,as Augustine renders Julian's text in indirect speech. 44 For an outline of the as a whole cf. J. Lossl, Intellectus argument of Ad Turbantium
und hermeneutische Dimensionder Gnadenlehre AugustinsvonHippo. gratiae.Die erkenntnistheoretische for book 2 cf. to Christianae 38 346-56, Leiden, (Brill: 1997), Supplements Vigiliae especially pp. 351-52. Sallust. Cat. 1.2 is not the only classical reference with which Julian underlines his point. In Turb. 138 he cites Cicero, De naturadeorum2.128, 13638 (on the natural character of sexual differentiation and the complexity of the human artficiosiopensdiuinique body as attestations of the ingenuity of the divine work: incredibilem testantur)in his support; cf. Lamberigts (n. 1) 493; Id., Julian of Aeclanum: a Plea for a Good Creator. Augustiniana38 (1988) 5-24, 21-22. 45 Iul. Turb. 116 (CCL 88, 366.125-27): quoniamex imparibusboniscompositisumus,animumcorporideberedominari,quorum'alterumnobiscum diis, alterumcum beluis... essecommune.' In difference to Lossl (n. 2) 140 and n. 326 quoniamis here translated as a conjunction to animumcorporidebereetc., dominarias a medium ('to rule'), with animumas subject. Also, the detractiohas been resolved in the translation ('soul and body, one... the other'). For the meaning of diis cf. also below at the end of n. 53. Sallust has dis. 46 Iul. Turb. 116 (CCL 88, 366.127-29):... id quodest melius,id est animum,uirtutepraeditum... et membriscorporisbeneet cupiditatibus By uirtutepraeditum imperare. Julian means that one is born capable of virtue; cf. Turb. 17 (CCL 88, 345.181): homo... uirtutecapaxnascitur,whereas Augustine believed (in Julian's view) in the innateness of sin (vice); cf. Ad Florum2.106 and 235 (CSEL 85/1, 239.1, 347.1), 6.14 (PL 45, 1526.27); and Aug. c. Iul. imp. 2.235 (CSEL 85/1, 347.9) in defence of his position; for the latter cf. also Lamberigts (n. 44) 11 n. 44: Augustine only spoke of 'original sin' and 'vitiated nature', not of 'natural sin' or 'natural vice'. Nonetheless, for Julian, the soul never loses all
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
191
The soul can ever only partly fail in its command over the body and chaos ensues. But it is a its desires. If it does, through excess (excessus),47 limited chaos, and it is in it that evil subsists, as a contingent absence of goodness, or lack of virtue, not in the nature of either one part. Both parts are 'goods', even the 'beastly part', as ruled by the soul according to the laws of nature and creation. And even when the soul occasionally fails in its task to rule it properly, it can, in principle, at any time be brought back under control by the exercise of free will. Sin and guilt arise from an individual human person's failure to do so in concrete instances, not from possessing, by birth, a vitiated nature.48 That Julian should have used the much maligned Platonic body-soul dichotomy to demonstrate the goodness of sexual pleasure is surprising enough-although, as some have argued, he may have done this at a price.49A generation earlier Jerome had used the same reference in a polemic against a position that declared marriage superior to the ascetic life.50But then again, it has been argued, not without some justification, that Jerome's and Julian's attitudes towards sexuality may have had more in common with each other than with Augustine's.51 Yet sexuality may not have been foremost in Julian's mind, when he cited the reference.Albert Brucknerhas suggestedthat he could have aimed
control. Nature cannot be vitiated. For Augustine nature is vitiated, and the soul cannot take control (for the good, or better, of man) unless so conditioned by God's grace. 47 For more details on this concept cf. Lossl (n. 2) 114, 137, 140, 247, and 141 on akrasia. 48 For this concept of free will and sin in Julian cf. Lossl (n. 2) 115, 131, 140-46. 49 It has been to an 'animal-like' part argued that by attributing sexual concupiscentia of human nature, Julian subscribed to a materialism, or mechanism, which made him unable to recognize the organic, divine, creative, dimension in it; for a critique of such positions cf. Lossl (n. 2) 126-31; cf. also pp. 103-104, 113-14, 139, 209-210. 50 Cf. Adversus Iouinianum2.10 (PL 23, 299C): Unde et Historicus:'animae,'inquit, 'imperio, corporisseruitiomagis utimur.Alterumnobis cum dis, alterumcum belluiscommuneest.' For the epithet 'historicus'for Sallust cf. above n. 6 and Hagendahl (n. 5) 127, 129. Sallust has animi;for the alteration in Jerome cf. Vallarsi (PL 23, 299 n.d.). Jerome is not consistent here. Elsewhere he retains animi; cf. e.g. In Galatas 3.5.16 (PL 26, 410D); In Ephesios3.5.33 (PL 26, 537A): 'animi'quippe,ut ait Crispus,'imperio,corporisseruitiomagis utimur'.Interestingly, the second of these is not marked as a citation in Migne; cf. Hagendahl (n. 5) 123, 124, 148 n. 1, 155; for the passage in AdversusIouinianumin its Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumscontext cf. also I. Opelt, Hieronymus'Streitschrften. wissenschaften. Neue Folge 2.44 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1973), 57. 51 Cf. the references given under n. 49 andJ. L6ssl, Satire, Fiction, and Reference to 52 (1998) 172-92, 177-78 nn. 32-35. Reality inJerome's Epistula 117. VigiliaeChristianae
192
JOSEF LOSSL
at something else.52Augustine had criticisedJulian for a deficient concept of God. Julian had defined freedom as the ability to choose between good and evil.53However, since God is essentiallygood, Augustine argued, and therefore incapable of doing evil, Julian's concept of freedom implies that God is not free.54 But, as Brucknerpoints out, forJulian, human freedom, though a good, is only a relative, or lesser, good. Though God does not condemn it as an evil, he does not share in its imperfectioneither.55Its imperfectiondoes not result from either of its components being evil, but from its being a composite. Neither being a composite nor being imperfect is evil. Yet nor is it divine. It is human. Not sharing in it does not make God less God. On the contrary. God's freedom is only godlike, pure and perfect. Human beings, however, part god-, part animal-like,would not be human, if their freedom were only like God's. Rooted in their godlike part, the mind soul, their freedom renders them superiorto animals, godlike. But their animallike, or 'beastly',part, the body and its desires, renders them 'un-godlike'. By nature even this 'beastly part' is a good. But it needs to be governed by the 'godly part'. And this renders freedom a choice, indeed a struggle, between good and evil:56Either the soul takes control and comes to grips
52 A. Bruckner,Julian vonEclanum.SeinLebenundseineLehre.Texte und Untersuchungen 15.3a (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897), 135-36. 53 Quoting (the early) Augustine in support! Cf. Ad Flomm 1.47 (CSEL 85/1, 33), 5.28 (PL 45, 1466) appealing to Augustine, De duabusanimabus15 (CSEL 25/1, 70); Lossl (n. 2), 141 n. 333, 146; further references below under n. 56. The later Augustine conceded that he had indeed held this concept of freedom, but that it applied only to the state of human beings before the Fall. 54 Cf. Aug. c. Iul. imp. 1.81 (CSEL 85/1, 95.4-5). The argument is still seriously used; cf. e.g. E. Stump, Augustine on Free Will, in: E. Stump, N. Kretzmann (eds.), The CambridgeCompanionto Augustine(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 135 n. 47; and the critical note byJ. Lossl, Review of Stump-Kretzmann (op. cit.), in: Religious Studies38 (2002) 109-113, 112-13. 55 Ad Florum4.58 (PL 45, 1374.5-6):... nec bona tameninfrase locatasuperiorum electione damnasse;cf. Bruckner (n. 52) 135. 56 Julian does not rule out that prauitatisexemplaand consuetudo uitiorumcan render human beings utterly depraved (cf. Ad Florumm 1.94 (CSEL 85/1, 109.64f.); on the significance of this M. Lamberigts, Julien d'Eclane et Augustine d'Hippone. Deux con40 (1990) 373-410, 381). But he refutes Augustine's point ceptions d'Adam. Augustiniana that human nature is so depraved that its principal ability to exercise freedom (to do good) is eliminated.-Augustine also uses the Sallust reference (or its source, or a parallel to it; cf. below n. 59), but in ways which are revealing. First, in De liberoarbitrio 1.8.18.61-65 (CCL 29, 222-23) his argument is very similar to that of Julian: Human
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
193
with the necessities and weaknessesof the body, and its desires, or, in the absence of good mental governance, the whole person succumbsto despondency and vice. No such dichotomy in God, who lacks nothing for that. Julian: 'For when I say of God "He does what he wants (facit quoduult),"I say nothing else but "He does what he must do (facit quoddebet)"[i.e. according to the laws of his justice]; for I know he wants nothing else but that which he must do (scioeumnihil aliuduellequamdebet).Therefore, where will and equity are inseparablylinked [ike here], I signify both, whichever (of the two) I mention.'57 Thus Julian uses the reference to illustratehis views on the goodness of human sexuality and the specific nature of human (as opposed to divine) freedom.On the secondpoint he deems himselfin agreementwith Augustine's
beings are superior to animals, because they have a mind soul. The soul governs the body and its desires, which human beings have in common with the beasts (commune cumbeluis),and the soul does so in accordance with the law of nature, through the exercise of freedom.-However, De liberoarbitrio1 dates before the period when Augustine developed his doctrine of original sin. Later he insisted that the theory only applies to humanity before the Fall; cf. L6ssl (n. 2) 55 n. 108, 112, 125-26, 141-46. Moreover, even the passage in De liberoarbitrioomits the idea that we have the mind soul in common cum dis. A possible reason for that may be found in the second example, De ciuitate dei 9.9 (380-81 Dombart-Kalb). Here Augustine cites the whole clause (alterumnobis cumdiis, alterumcum beluiscommune est), but he reads diis as 'demons' (quasi human beings for whom the body is a chain, uinculum,rather than a vehicle, uehiculum,for salvation), and criticizes the anthropology behind the reference. For the Christians, he argues, the body (as, one may imply, assumed by Christ) is precisely not seen as something that separates human beings from God, but as something that leads them to God; for further comment cf. O'Daly (n. 4) 120. 57 Ad Florum 1.133 (CSEL 85/1, 146.28-32): nam cum de deo dico facit quod uult, nihil aliud dico quam facit quoddebet';quia scio eum nihil aliud uelle quam debet.Ubi ergoinseparade illis nominauero, biliteruoluntascohaeretaequitati,quamcumque utramquesignaui;cf. Bruckner (n. 51) 135-36, 126-27. Here Julian is discussing a specific case, predestination according to Romans 9.18: God granting, and withholding, his mercy at will. Julian: In doing so God does not break the laws of nature and justice which he himself has laid down. His uoluntasand aequitasare totally in agreement. Augustine does not dispute this: God according to his aequitas.But he disagrees with Julian when he grants his misericordia Romans 11.33) that God's aequitasis hidden, inaccessible to human reaargues (citing soning, and not related to any human merit; cf. Ad Simplicianum1.2.16 (CCL 44, 41): non esse praebendamaquitateoccultissimaet ab eorumautemnon miseretur,quibusmisericordiam enim 'suntiudiciaeius et inuestigabiles uiae eius' humanissensibusremotissima iudicat;'inscrutabilia' (Romans 11.33). In Julian's opinion this is playing with words, using the expression aequitas,but emptying it of its meaning.
194
JOSEF LOSSL
De libero arbitrio 1. Like Jerome's, his use differs from that of Augustine's De ciuitatedei 9.9.58 The idea of man as a composite of body and soul goes back to Plato. But it was widespread, and Sallust could have picked it up from many sources.59 His purpose of expressing it at the opening of his monograph was far more limited than that of either Julian or Augustine, when citing it in their works. Sallust is writing history. He narrates events, the deeds and decisions of men. And he judges these, morally and to the best of his knowledge of human nature and that of the universe. 'All men,' he sets out (omnis homines),'who are eager for themselves to stand out over the other living beings (animalibus),it beseems (decet)to strive with the utmost effort not to pass their lives like cattle (pecora).These are by nature bent. Additionally, obedience to the paunch (uentri oboedientia)has shaped them. But our strength is all seated in the soul (animo)and body. Of the soul, we preferably use its power of command, of the body, its servile state. One we have in common with the gods (dis), the other with the beasts (beluis).Which is why it seems more appropriate to me to seek glory in works of ingenuity rather than brute force, and, since the life which we enjoy itself is short, to create of us a memory as lasting as possible. For the glory of riches and beauty is elusive and frail. Virtue lasts, plain and eternal.'60 How far the Catilina as a whole can be interpreted from these opening phrases, remains a question.61 Of course, Sallust 'states the crisis and proposes as a remedy the triumph of animusover corpus,marked by the primacy of uirtus..., the uirtusof the men who made Rome great.'62 But 1.3-4 could 58 Cf. above n. 56. This remains,of course, conjecture.NeitherAugustinenorJulian makes any explicit cross referencesto any of the passagesmentioned;for Jerome cf. above n. 50. 59 For detailsand furtherliteraturecf. Schmal (n. 6) 111 n. 9, 143-53. 60 Sallust. Cat. 1: 1. Omnis ceterisanimalibus, summaope homines, qui sesestudent praestare niti decetne uitamsilentiotranseant uelutipecora;quaenaturapronaatqueuentrioboedientia finxit. sita est:animiimperio, 2. Sednostraomnisuis in animoet corpore seruitio magisutimur; corporis nobiscumdis,alterum alterum cumbeluiscommune est.3. Quomihirectius esseuidetur ingeniquam uiriumopibusgloriamquaerere uitaipsaquafruimurbreuisest,memoriam nostriquam et, quoniam maxume 4. Namdiuitiarum gloriafluxaatquefragilis etformae est,uirtusclaraaeterlongam efficere. naquehabetur. 61 For the problem of interpretingSallust'shistoricalwritingfrom the philosophical cf. Schmal (n. 6) 111 and n. 8. insightsof his prooemia 62 J. Hellegouarc'h(VitaLatina,sept. 1994, 12-13)cited by Taisne (n. 4) 122. Taisne adds that it was this theme that made the BellumCatilinaeespecially attractivefor Augustine.In the light of n. 56 (above),however,this can only be understoodin a very qualifiedsense, with respectto both, Sallustand Augustine.Sallustmay well have cel-
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
195
as well be applied to Sallust himself, and his pursuits as a writer and historian.63Philosophically, the passage is not exactly profound. The only metaphysical element, the Platonic model of body and soul, with the soul in charge,6 is used as a metaphor, parallel to the metaphor of men and beasts. The two metaphors are merged at the end of 1.2, our reference (alterum... alterum...). Sallust's purpose, it turns out, is not to present a theory of man as composite of soul and body, but an ethical programme: deeds of ingenuity rather than brute force; working towards an after-life rather than enjoying the here and now; lasting virtue rather than elusive beauty and possessions. For the after-life of this passage and its various parts this would mean that it is more properly applied in moral-historicalthan, let us say, philosophical, contexts. In other words, a moralisingJerome may have retained more of the original sense than a philosophizingAugustine or Julian. Neil Adkin has illustrated this in a nice little note.65Adkin sets out from the evidence which we have already recorded.66To this he adds a further reference, where Jerome 'imitates' 1.1 ne uitam silentio transeantuelutipecora as
ebrated the triumph of animusover corpusin the great deeds of the heroes of Rome, yet not as a present reality, but as a distant ideal. However, his attitude was not one of despair, but of defiance. His dissident pessimism had a reverse, a yet more recalcitrant optimism that believed in the eternity of Rome as a virtue, no matter what the state of Rome as a political reality. On this (philosophical, ethical) level Jerome and Julian are very close to Sallust. Not so Augustine in De ciuitatedei. He only uses Sallust to demonstrate the miserable failure of Rome, not only in political, but also in ethical terms. In this sense he is attracted by the celebration of Roman virtue in Sallust; and this is also where he parts from other Christian writers like Julian or Jerome. Cf. also O'Daly (n. 4) 241: 'Sallust is the historian most frequently cited in the "City of God", but Augustine uses him less as a source for details of Roman history (in that respect Livy and his epitomists, and Varro, are of greater importance) than as a theorist of moral decline in Roman political and social life.' This means precisely that Augustine did not subscribe to Sallust's theory. Rather, he turns it against itself. More on this below in the next section. 63 Cf. Syme (n. 7) 43-59; Schmal (n. 6) 112-14. 64 It ultimately goes back to Plato's comparison of the soul with a charioteer, Phaedrus 246ab. Not surprisingly,Jerome, AduersusIouinianum2.10 cites the two passages together; cf. above nn. 50 and 58, for further references and literature. 65 N. Adkin, The Prologue of Sallust's 'Bellum Catilinae' and Jerome. Hermes 125 (1997) 240-41. Adkin justly attributes the discovery of adu. Iou. 2.10, in Gal 3.5.16, and et ex quibushauserit(Leipzig: in Eph 3.5.33 to Emil Lubeck, Hieronymusquosnoveritscriptores Teubner, 1872), 118. 66
Cf. above n. 50.
196
JOSEF LOSSL
follows:et nonuitamsilentiotransire uelutpecudes.67 The questionwhy he chooses the less frequent pecudesinstead of pecoraaside,68the context in Jerome reminds of Sallust. Cat. 1.3 quoniamuita ipsa... breuisest, memoriam nostri... with a What use 6.3-4 deals similar Ecclesiastes longamefficere. very topic: are riches when one dies? Is it not better to be remembered well? The lesson is a moral one. In both, Sallust andJerome, it is developed by way of interpretingstories. Adkin then comes to his point: In Sallust. Cat. 1.1 pecorais followed by finxit. The expression uentrioboedientia quaenaturapronaatqueuentrioboedientia is picked up by Seneca (ep. 60.4) and later by other writers.69 The idea, of course, is also reiterated by Saint Paul, Romans 16.18: ChristoDomino nostronon seruiuntsed suo uentri... uestraenim oboedientiain omnemlocumdiuulgata est ... In this passage, too, both key words, uentriand oboedientia,occur, albeit not in the same juncture as in Sallust. Nonetheless, the 'arresting formulation' might 'have caught Jerome's eye'70 not only in Sallust, but also in Saint Paul, one memory triggering the other and thus influencing Jerome's writing. For example, 'Jerome's assault on gastronomical intemperance in the Libellus de uirginitateseruanda(epist. 22) contains the following description of the Fall: primusdeparadisohomouentrimagis oboediensquamdeo in hanc lacrimarum deiectusest uallem (10.2).'71 Elsewhere, Adkin had argued that this sentence was partly inspired by two passages from Tertullian's De ieiunio:facilius uentri quam deo cessit, and pronioruentriquam deo.72'Onto Tertullian's conception 67
In Ecclesiasten6.1-6 (CCL 72, 298.39-44):... siue, quodmeliusputo, nihil bonifacinoris et non uitamsilentiotransireuelutpecudes, comparare egerit,ex quosibi queatapudposterosmemoriam cum habueritmateriam, per quampotueritapparerequoduixerit;cf. Hagendahl (n. 5) 129, 292. 68 Pecoraoccurs more than a hundred times in Jerome's work, pecudesless than half as often. It occurs more frequently in earlier works, and in particular in works written, or at least begun, in Rome before 385, among them especially the Pauline commentaries already cited, the commentary of Ecclesiastes, and AduersusIouinianum. 69 Further references in Adkin (n. 65) 241 n. 10. 70 Adkin (n. 65) 241. 71 Ibid. The use of the moralistic metaphor (uentrioboedientia) makes it quite clear that of the Fall as a moral here alludes to the exemplum.He does not Jerome story merely formulate a doctrine of original sin of the kind Augustine develops from around 411; for further comment cf. Fiirst (n. 6) 201-202, 204, 215-16, 220; cf. also A. Fiirst, Zur Vielfalt altkirchlicher Soteriologie. Augustins Berufung auf Hieronymus im pelagianischen Streit, in: Philophronesis fir NorbertBrox, ed. J. B. Bauer (Graz: Institut fuir okumenische Theologie und Patrologie, 1995), 119-85. 72 Tert. ieiun. 3, 5 (CCL 1, 277.10, 279.8-9); cf. N. Adkin, Tertullian's De ieiunioand Jerome's Libellusde uirginitateseruanda(Epist. 22). WienerStudien104 (1991) 156-57.
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
197
howeverJerome has grafted Sallust's impressivephrase: uentrioboediens.'73 In the light of the Pauline connection one might argue that Adkin'scontention is more tenuous than his own account suggests. Moreover, already Tertullian may have harked back to Sallust.74Nevertheless, the ways in which Jerome may have made use of this 'arrestingformulation' (Adkin) remains interesting, not least for our present topic, Julian of Aeclanum's use of the prologue (Cat. 1.1-4). How did Julian use the passage, and, equally important, how much of it did he use? A look at the source of Turb.116 might provide a clue. Like Turb.2a Now in the critand 2b it is extracted from Augustine's ContraIulianum.75 the ical edition of the fragmentsof Ad Turbantium actual, literal, citation only cumbeluis... essecommune) nobiscumdiis, alterum from Sallust. Cat. 1.2 (alterum is accredited to the source.76The Maurists, however, in their edition of ex imparibus Augustine'sContralulianum,put the whole fragment,from quoniam in it to Sallustius in to cupiditatibus prologoCatilinae.77 imperare, italics, ascribing of course. Yet in a wider is far this too In pure philological terms vague, sense the Mauristsmay have had a point.Julian could indeed have extracted more ideas from Sallust's opening lines than his citation suggests. sumusis difficult boniscompositi To be sure, Julian's quoniamex imparibus sumusand sita est to trace in Sallust. There is assonance between compositi (Sallust. Cat. 1.2: sed nostraomnisuis in animoet corporesita est), and both clauses refer to 'us' and our twofold reality. But Sallust mentions the two by name, focuses on their psychologicaldynamprinciples (animuset corpus) ics (nostraomnisuis), and consequently avoids speaking of the human person as a composite.Julian sets out with the idea, which Sallust introduces later, that the two principles are 'unequal', imparia.(He cannot explain in the same passage what exactly he means by that.) Unlike Sallust he also calls them 'goods', bona,maybe in reaction to Augustine, who in his view considered one part an evil. Thus in textual terms and looked at in isolation the Sallustianand the Julian phrase seem to have little in common. Even in terms of content the differences outweigh the similarities.I did mention earlier that Julian's not mentioning animusand corpusmay be for both terms are mentioned in the following explained as a detractio; 73
Adkin (n. 65) 241.
Cf. especially Tertullian's pronioruentriand Sallust's naturaprona. Aug. c. ul. 4.35 (PL 44, 756.34). 76 De Coninck-D'Hondt (n. 13) 366.126-27. 77 Cf. Migne (PL 44, 756 n. a). For the whole text of the passage cf. above nn. 45 and 46. 4
75
198
JOSEF LOSSL
clause.78But this alone may not be enough to say for certain that Julian here depends on Sallust. Yet the following animum corporideberedominarimay well be influenced by Sallust's animi imperio,corporisseruitiomagis utimur,especially since it comes immediately before the citation (alterum... commune).After that et ideo id quod est meliusalludes to Sallust's quo mihi rectiusesse uidetur.But instead of listing
Sallust's concrete points of ethical advice, Julian interpretsthe conclusion (uirtusclara aeternaquehabetur)in metaphysical terms: animumuirtutepraeditum. He adds an inclusio:et membriscorporisbeneet cupiditatibusimperarerefers back to the beginning of Cat. 1.2: animi imperio,corporisseruitiomagis utimur.
The following table might illustrate the relationshipsbetween the two passages a bit further: Sallust. Cat. 1.2-4 sed nostraomnisuis in animoet corpore sita est seruitiomagis animiimperio,corporis utimur alterumnobiscumdis, alterumcum est beluiscommune quomihirectiusesseuideturingeni quamuiriumopibusgloriamquaerer... [cf. line 3: animiimperio,corporis seruitiomagis...]
Iul. Turb.116 boniscompositi quoniamex imparibus sumus animumcorporideberedominari, quorum alterumnobiscumdiis, alterumcumbeluis ...
esse commune;
et ideoid quodest melius,id est, animum, uirtutepraeditum et membris beneet cupiditatibus corporis imperare
Thus it seems that Julian was able to make use of quite a lot of material from Cat. 1.1-4, especially from 1.2-4. Yet unlikeJerome he did not choose concrete, moral, phrases, but restrictedhimself to abstractconcepts. These he even went on to synthesize into an anthropology (the human being as a composite of body and soul with an innate uirtus),as cannot be found (at least not in a developed form) in Sallust. On the other hand, unlike the late Augustine,Julian did not use Sallust to turn Roman historical (political and moral) anthropology upside down. In this respect he remains closer to Jerome than to Augustine.
78
Cf. above n. 45 (and my way of translating it).
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
199
3. Somefurther,moregeneral,observations Augustine's use of Sallust, who was one of the four great authors that made up the Late Antique Latin school curriculum(the other three were Vergil, Cicero and Terence), has been celebrated.79There are far more referencesfrom Sallust, in the majorityfrom the Catiline,in Augustine than in either,Jerome or Julian. Most of them are amassed in the 'City of God'. We have already mentioned the esteem in which Augustine held Sallust,80 and how well, in some ways (not in others),8'he may have understood, for example, the purpose of the BellumCatilinae.82 But this intimacy, genuine though it may be, is also treacherous. True, Augustinejumps on Sallust's damning account of Roman history and his seemingly dispirited conclusion that uirtus,though plain and eternal, does not pay in political dividend. Yet whether Sallust believed that uirtuswas its own reward, or that the afterlife would render some, or whether he was a cynic, or a nihilist, he certainly did not subscribe to Augustine's view that the best way to overcome the inevitable imperfections of earthly states was to join a heavenly one, to convert to Christianity, get baptisedin church and hope for participationin a communion of saints in heaven. Augustine'sopposition of the 'earthlycity' and the 'city of God' rendersthe truth of Sallust'spolitical theory a damnatorytruth, self-damnatory for Sallust himself and those who value his ethics. For the author of the 'City of God' Sallust's political ethics is not built on virtue, but on 'dazzling vices'.83The point of his argument is that not only the Rome of 79 For details cf. Taisne (n. 4) 120. 80 Cf. Taisne (n. 4) 122; O'Daly (n. 4) 240. 81 Cf. above n. 62. Whether the concept of a uitiumhumaniingenii(Hist. 1.8 McGushin = 1.7 Maurenbrecher) amounts to something similar like Augustine's naturauitiataremains to be asked. As argued below in this section Sallust also subscribes to the traditional historical primitivism that found the more 'natural' life style of the Barbarians healthier than that of more refined cultures. In this respect he remains closer to Julian than to Augustine; cf. Schmal (n. 6) 93-94, 123, 150. 82 Cf. above n. 29. 83 In ciu. 19.25 (401.5-24 Dombart-Kalb) Augustine famously proclaims 'that the "virtues" of pagans may seem to be true and beautiful, but... are vices ratherthan AncientThoughtBaptised(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, virtues;'J. Rist, Augustine. 1994), 171-72; cf. O'Daly (n. 4) 209. Rist makes much of the rather.For Augustine, he argues, pagan virtue is not outright evil, merely 'sterile', though he has to admit that it cannot prevent damnation. It is not salutary because it is not based on God's love bestowed through grace in Christ. Moreover, this applies not only to pagan, or non-
200
JOSEF LOSSL
history is a 'robber band',84the very idea that beneath this history lies a set of eternal and salutarytruthsis itself utterlymistaken,a lie. And Sallust, though virtuous and truthful and honest he may have been in uncovering this truth-it will not help him in his afterlife.He, too, like all the heroes, as well as villains, in his stories, is one of the eternally damned. As a consequence, the use of pagan exemplafor distinctlyChristianpurposes is greatly reduced for Augustine,85very much in contrast to, for example,Jerome,86or, even more radically,Julian, who can, of course, see innate virtue and justice at work in Romans like Fabricius,Fabius, Scipio, Regulus.87'Should they,' he asks, 'in whom there was true justice, end in a state of everlasting damnation?'88 And as the history of Rome yields at least some evidence of true justice in men, exemplaof unspoilt Barbarians can demonstrate that if 'old' and highly developed societies and states display signs of depravation, this is because they are no longer as close to 'nature' as those Barbarians. Exempla of the distant past are, therefore, supported by exemplaof exotic Christian, virtue, but even to the virtue of Christians who do not belong to the group of the elect; cf. ciu. 15.22 (107.11-16 Dombart-Kalb). Besides this fundamental, almost Stoic, use of uirtusAugustine also plays with popular notions of virtues and vices. It is his inconsistency that complicates the issue. He gleefully exploits the accounts of ancient historians of the depravity and corruption of ancient pagan culture, and even religion, only to point out, when he finds evidence of excellence and virtue, that it has no salutary value, because something essential is missing; cf. ciu. 5.18 (223-28 Dombart-Kalb). 84 Cf. ciu. 19.12 (372-73 Dombart-Kalb). Though O'Daly (n. 4) 202-3, 209-10 rightly stresses that Augustine is ultimately not interested in political theory and 'implies that, religious laws apart, the pre-Christian and the Christianized empire is the same kind of society,' he also points out that, for Augustine, states are in the end 'judged by their approximation to, or deviation from, the ideal embodied in the concept of the city of God.' This means, however, that, according to Augustine, a Christianized empire would (necessarily) be better than a pagan one, because it would subscribe to the principle of God's love mediated through Christ's grace in the sacraments of the church, even if it were socially, politically and judicially more corrupt than its pagan equivalent. 85 This is a direct consequence of his radical, even dualistic, opposition of everything 'pagan', or 'non-Christian', and Christian. Exemplastill have a didactic function, but how this connects to the salvation process, except through the exemplum sine exemplo,Christ, is a different matter; cf. W. Geerlings, Christusexemplum.Studienzur Christologie und ChristusAugustins.Tiibinger theologische Studien 13 (Mainz: Grunewald, 1978), 168-99. verkzindigung 86 Cf. Rebenich (n. 3). 87 Cf. Turb. 106 (CCL 88, 364.63-65), cited Aug. c. Iul. 4.17 (PL 44, 745.39-40). 88 Turb. 111 (CCL 88, 365.98-99): Eruntergoin damnatione sempitema,in quibuserat uera iustitia;cited Aug. c. Iul. 4.26 (PL 44, 751). Augustine does not give us many literal citations from Julian's Ad Turbantium.But this is one of them.
SALLUST IN JULIAN OF AECLANUM
201
lands. Sallust has a purpose when he describes the Africans as 'a physically healthy race, swift, enduring. Most die of old age, if they are not killed by arms or wild animals; for disease hardly ever vanquishes one.'89 This account may not be very original, but it was influential.90 Julian, too, cites the health of Barbarians as exemplary, in particular the health of 'Barbarianwomen' (Barbarorum feminae)giving birth. He does so in response to Augustine who had argued that labour was an effect of the Fall.91He begins by stressing that the natural purpose of labour is a good one. Then he points out that, theologically speaking, Gen 3.16 (in dolorepariesfilios) is not, as Augustine had in his view argued, a general (quasi natural)law put in effect through the Fall, but God addressingEve (no one else). Finally, he claims that women of Barbarian and pastoral indurescunt) give birth while on peoples hardened by exercise (exercitatione journeys, without complaint, let alone the need of obstetric assistance. Women in more emollient conditions in contrast develop all sorts of complaints. They fall ill, develop complications, and need medical help. The greater the indulgence, the greater the indigence. But the causes are natural, or rather cultural, not spiritual.92 In a similar way Julian describes different attitudes towards nudity and sex:93A Barbarian like the Scot or from neighbouring tribes (Scotusuicinarumque gentiumbarbaries) 'goes naked', he reports,94and the sexes mix freely; 89
Iugurth.17.6: Genushominumsalubricorpore,uelox,patiens laborum.Plerosquesenectusdisnam morbushaud saepequemquam soluit, nisi quiferro aut bestiisinteriere; superat. 90 Cf. N. Berti, Scrittori greci e latini di 'Libyka': la conoscenza dell'Africa settene storiografia nel mondoclassico trionale dal V al I secolo a.C., in: M. Sordi (ed.), Geografia (Milan: Ed. Vita e pensiero, 1988), 145-65 for the sources; Schmal (n. 6) 97 for the reception and further aspects; cf. also ibid. 99-100 and n. 14 (literature). 91 For Augustine cf. J. Lossl, Dolor, dolere. Augustinus-Lexikon 2/3-4 (1999) 581-91, 588 nn. 93, 94 (references);"Ein iiberaus heilsames Ubel"-Augustinus fiber den Schmerz. und Weisheit62 (1999) 3-25, 12; for Julian J. Lossl, Julian of Aeclanum on Wissenschaft Pain. Journal of Early ChristianStudies10 (2002) 203-243, 233-38 and nn. 110-121. 92 Cf. Iul. Flor. 6.29 certefeminae,et pastorum,quaeexercitatione (PL 45, 1577): Barbarorum in mediisitineribustantafacilitatepariunt,ut non intermissouiandilaborefetus suosproindurescunt, onerauentrisad humerossuos transcurent,et statimuehant,quaenihilpariendidiffcultatemarcentes, non requirit;at e regionelocupletes ferunt et generaliterinopiauiliumfeminarum,operamobstetricum deliciismolliuntur,et quo plures habueritquaequesollicitos,eo ampliuset discit et gestit aegrescere, putatquese tantis egere,quantisabundatobsequiis. 93 Cf. Iul. Flor. 4.44 (PL 45, 1364-64); for a discussion of the passage with further references cf. Lossl (n. 2) 78-79 nn. 21 and 22. 94 Admittedly, Julian here also lists a number of examples from his own culture, like practices of athletes, in public baths, among youths, Saint Peter in his boat according
202
JOSEF LOSSL
which contradicts Augustine's exegesis of Gen 3.8-10 (... et timuieo quod nudusessemet abscondi me ...) that after the Fall human beings want to cover their sexual organs because they feel ashamed and are (in the men's case) unable to control them. Augustine, it seems, thought he knew what Julian was aiming at with his statement, when he called the reported practices without disputing their factuquarumdam gentiumCynicorumque impudentiam,95 ality. This did not affect his argument, which did not rely on the authenticity of individual historical exempla,but on some theological assumptions about the meaning of the biblical narrative of the Fall. Sallust attributessexual libertinismto the people of Mesopotamia96and knows of strong 'Barbarianwomen' in Spain, who choose their men among the strongest warriors, and are themselves rather warlike.97Not that we could tell if Julian was influenced by these accounts. The topoiare, of course, commonplace. They occur in many historians and geographers.98 Many can be traced back to Herodotus and Hesiodos. But, again, the way Julian uses some of these motives, and the value he attaches to them, is more similar to Sallust than Augustine. Thus Sallust'spresencein, and influenceon, Julian must not only be measured by the mere fact of barely two literal citations in just three extant fragmentsof the Ad Turbantium, though this in itself is significantenough, and a startingpoint for further inquiry. Rather, we must also look at the way Julian uses these references,especially compared to Sallust himself, and to Jerome and Augustine, two crucial witnesses of Sallust in Julian's time, who, in turn, had also considerable influence on Julian. The similarities and differences of their use of Sallust with Julian's give an impression of how, and to what extent,Julian, in representinghimself and his ideas, used Sallust, and may have been influenced by his writing and his thought. Cardiff University, Humanities Building Colum Drive, CardiffCF10 3EU Wales UK to some manuscripts of John 21.7 (nudusin nauigiopiscabatur)and others. But this only underlines our point: He was not as pessimistic about his, or indeed any, culture as Augustine. Cultural change, in his view, was possible through the effort of individual human beings relying on their natural gifts. 95 Aug. c. Iul. imp. 4.44 (PL 45, 1365). The Cynics, it was said, exposed themselves, and even masturbated, in public; for references cf. Lssl (n. 2) 77 n. 19. 96 Hist. 4.74-75 McGushin = 4.77-78 Maurenbrecher. 97 Hist. 2.73, 75 McGushin = 2,91-92 Maurenbrecher. 98 For the reference under n. 97 cf. e.g. also Strabo 3.4.17.
TYCONIUS' RULES OF CHRONOLOGY: AN INNOVATION BY
HOWARD JACOBSON In his fifth rule Tyconius shows how the recognition of synecdoche can explain difficultiesof Biblical chronology: aut a partetotumaut a totopars (5 init.).' He chooses for his first illustrationthe length of the slaveryin Egypt. If the Jewish residence in Egypt was 430 years (Exod. 12:40) and Joseph's governorship lasted eighty years (from age 30 to 110: Gen. 41:46 and 50:22), then the period of slavery was 350 years. Why then does the Bible report that the slaverywas 400 years (Gen. 15:13)?Synecdoche is the solution: manifestum est centuma totopartemesse,nampost CCC annospars aliorum centumannisunt.Propterea dixit CCCCannos("It is plain that the hundred is a whole representinga part; for the years following the first 300 years are part of anotherhundred,and that is why he spoke of 400 years").2Similarly, as Tyconius goes on to say, the rule accounts for Scripture'ssaying ten (months)when it meant nine plus a fraction and three (days)when it meant one whole day plus fractional days before and after.3Although the recognition of and applicationof the principle of synecdoche probably goes back to Hellenistic grammarians(it is found clearly and explicitly in Tryphon, oi5o6 xo gpoq: Spengel, Rhet. Gr. Vol. 3, &anbppoi; TOOXkov,&ab xoB 196.1),4 I do not think it was ever used in classical or patristic texts in
F.C. Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tyconius(Cambridge, 1894), 55. Translation of W.S. Babcock, Tyconius:The Book of Rules (Atlanta, 1989), 91. The Latin of the words post CCC... anni sunt is not perspicuous (and may be corrupt), but it is clear from the context that the meaning must be that of Babcock's translation. 3 Whether this type of explanation has anything to do with the Roman habit of inclusive counting is an open question. What is however clear is that Tyconius did not think of it in these terms. For in his discussion here he repeatedly comes back to the principle a parte totumaut a totopars and never uses any typical illustration from conventional Roman inclusive counting to support his points. It should be noted that, with only occasional exceptions, inclusive counting in Latin was limited to ordinal numbers. 4 See especially M.L. West CQ 59 (1965), 240; on the likelihood of this text, even if not Tryphon's, going back to Tryphon, 232. 2
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
rigiliaeChristianae58, 203-204
204
HOWARD JACOBSON
numerical/chronologicalapplication prior to Tyconius. Thus, it is particularly interestingto note that the Rabbis picked up the classical "rule"in a way that is both very similar to and very differentfrom Tyconius' adaptation.5 Thus, they use a principle, 1 3 r: n;pQ ("a portion counts as the whole", e.g. Hagigah 11a, with a slight twist), or more regularlyand narrowly, 1bU1 n,iMnMpI:("a portion of a day counts as the whole day"). This is exactly the application of the principle of synecdoche to time that Tyconius makes. But on the other hand, the Rabbis, while frequentlydealing with chronologicaldifficultiesin the Bible, never seem to use this principle for Biblical exegesis. Rather, they turn it strictly to matters of law. Thus, legal ambiguities that are tied to a defined period of time (e.g. the number of days to satisfy the period of mourning [Mo'edQatan19b], the number of days a nazarite must restricthimself [Nazir6b], the number of days that a menstruatingwoman must abstain from sex [Nidah33a]) are resolved by the use of the a totoparsprinciple, namely 1'" t:liT' l nrp:, "a a a of counts as portion day day." The pertinentRabbinictexts are probablysomewhatearlierthan Tyconius. There is however no reason to believe that Tyconius was familiar with Rabbinic exegesis nor any need to posit it here. It is possible that both Tyconius and the Rabbis independently adapted the principle of synecdoche to numerical/chronologicaluse or that both of them adopted it from an earlier Greco/Roman grammarianwho had conceived the usage. University of Illinois, Urbana
On the general topic, see D. Daube's article in HUCA 22 (1949), 239-64, with his summary statement, "Rabbinic methods of interpretation derive from Hellenistic rhetoric" (p. 240). Daube's position is exaggerated but largely correct. 5
REVIEWS
Nicholas Perrin, Thomasand Tatian. The Relationship betweenthe Gospelof Biblica Thomasand theDiatessaron (Academia 5), Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature 2002, XII + 216 pp., ISBN 1-58983-045-8, US$ 29.95. The discoveryof the Gospel of Thomas has also revitalisedDiatessaronic studies. From the very beginning it was clear that "Thomas" had many readingsin common with the Gospelharmonyof Tatian. Later it was found that the same is true also with the Heliand,the Life of Christ in Old Saxon (Werden 830; see VC 16 (1962) 121-151 = GnosticStudiesII, 70-97). In the course of the years J. van Amersfoort (Universityof Utrecht) has made a collection of the variants, which the Heliandhas in common with the Diatessaron and, indirectly, with the Gospelof Thomas.Moreover, he compiled Diatessaronicreadings in Augustine, which might date from the time this saintwas stilla Manichaean.ThirdlyVan Amersfoortgatheredthe Gospel quotations in the Pseudo-Clementinewritings together with their parallels in other sources. Present-dayuniversitymanagers are no longer interested in such subtle philological work which they can not even read: so, after his retirement,this materialhas been transferredto the BibliothecaPhilosophica Hermetica in Amsterdam, where qualified scholars can consult it. Now, Nicholas Perrin, who is a professor of the New Testament at the Marquette University in Milwaukee, has written a well-researchedand elegantly written book on the relation between these two old Gospels. He defends the thesis that the Gospelof Thomasis later than the Diatessaron and presupposes it. In order to prove this, he argues that the Gospelof Thomas,although in its totality preserved in Coptic and partly in Greek (OxyrrhynchusPapyri 1, 654 and 655), was originally written in Syriac (East Aramaic). He has discovered some Syriacismsin the text and even found some catchwords,which are exclusivelyconceivablein a Syriac speaking milieu. He then offers a valuable Syriac translationof the catchwords. Next to it is a Greek translationof these words that is leaning heavily on Kasser'sversion and is not always adequate. To this he adds his own translation of the complete Coptic text of the Gospelof Thomas,which in some cases is new and helpful. Then he discussesthe sources of "Thomas",both written and oral. From all this he draws the above-mentioned conclusion: "Thomas" depends upon the Diatessaron. This thesis is not new. Already in 1960, R. Schippers and Tj. Baarda ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 205-206
206
REVIEWS
published a pocketbook,mentioned by Perrin, in which the hypothesiswas launched that "Thomas"reflects an Old Syriac translationof the Gospels. This translationwas considered to be typically "Western"and based upon the Diatessaron. All this would mean that the Gospelof Thomasoriginally was written in Syriac and ratherlate. Unfortunatelylogion 26, on the mote in thy brother'seye, does not offer the characteristically"Western"reading: for iUoKpt'a in Luke 6:42. It even has not the word nUocKptTa. UoKexrrat This means that the otherwise unknown early Old Syriac translationbased upon the Diatessaron,which was vindicated by Schippersand Baarda, can be laid to rest. The Old SyriacGospel translationsare much later. Moreover, as William Petersen remarksin his book Tatian'sDiatessaron (Leiden 1994, 296), the dispute between scholars about the differences between West Aramaic and East Aramaic supposed to underlie the Gospelof Thomasis a sham, because these differencesare minimal. Perrin should have paid more attention to this problem. Nevertheless, his thesis deserves serious consideration, because in such philological disputes about priority everything is possible. Noordhoudringelaan 32,
GILLESQUISPEL
NL-3722 BR Bilthoven
Ulrich Volp, TodundRitualin denchristlichen Gnden derAntike(Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae LXV), Leiden-Boston:Brill 2002, XII + 337 pp., ISBN 90-04-12671-6, e 85/US$ 101 (hardback). The attitude adopted by Christians towards death has since long held a prominent place in the researchon Early Christianity.It will suffice here to mention the extensive literatureon the catacombs as well as the numerous publications dealing with early Christian ideas about the afterlife. Remarkably,however, relativelylittle attention has until now been paid to the rituals connected with the death of a Christian. Especiallynoteworthy in this regard is the paucity of publicationsdealing with the availablewritten sources. Significantly, the most recent patristic monograph on early Christian rituals of death that is essentiallyfounded on written texts dates from more than sixty years ago (A.C. Rush, Deathand Burialin Christian Washington 1941). It is not easy to determine whether this is due Antiquity, to a lack of interest among scholars, or to the paucity of the sources and the difficultiesof interpretationto which they often give rise. Presumably ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
V'giliaeChristianae58, 206-208
REVIEWS
207
the latter explanation is the most plausible one. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that here exists a major lacuna in the research on early Christianity.Rituals of death and burial (or cremation)contain crucial clues to a better understandingof the ways in which societies try to cope with the reality of death and with processes of mourning This definitely also applies to early Christianity.As for the written sources, although there is no argument about the importance of archaeological and iconographic data, literarydocuments are invaluablewhen it comes to interpretingthese data and placing them in their context. Ample proof of these statements is provided by the interestingand very readable monograph U. Volp wrote about early Christian rituals of death and burial. The book consistsof two major parts which coincide with the second and the third chapter. Ch. 2 deals with the ritual environment of the Mediterranean world in which early Christianitycame into development. After a short section devoted to the funeral practices of ancient Egypt, the rituals of death and burial or cremation in Judaism, Greece and Rome are studied more extensively. Volp rightly emphasises that knowledge of these ritual traditions is of the highest importance for a better understandingof early Christianfuneralrites.And this all the more so since the firstChristians did not create rituals of their own from the outset, but, for long, followed local customs. The latter conclusion is amply confirmedby the third chapter in which the author minutely examines the early Christiansources (both literary and non-literary).While discussingthe relevant texts and comparing them with the non-literarydata, Volp follows the different phases of the extended ritual process connected with death and burial. This process begins with the preparation for the approaching death by the viaticum and, occasionally, by baptism, and entails, among other things, the laying out and washing of the corpse, the burial itself and several commemorations held on fixed dates after the death. Besides well-known topics, such as the origins of the catacombs, the Christian attitude towards burial versus cremation, the polemics of Church Fathers against copious funeral meals and excessive mourning (especiallyritual lament by wailing women), less common issues are addressed as well. Thus Volp deals with the attitude towards music (either instrumentalor vocal) and with the question as to whether Christianswere principally opposed to a 'secondary burial' of exhumed bones. In general, the picture sketched by Volp of the rituals makes a well-balancedand convincing impression.I must, however, admit that I sometimes have some difficulty with the relative ease with which Volp combines data derived from differentperiods and geographicalareas.
208
REVIEWS
This method has the great advantage of resultingin a clear and readable overviewof the sequence of rituals.However, it entails the risk of suggesting more homogeneity and continuity than is allowed on the basis of the heterogeneous texts. No doubt, the author is fully aware of this danger and he even explicitly warns against it. But will this prevent a reader, who is less alert to this risk, from falling in this trap? In the final part of the book (Ch. 4 and the summary),the author develops a hypothesis which attempts to situate the evolution of the examined rituals in a wider historicalcontext. According to him, a major key to our understandingis provided by the notion of (ritual)purity versus impurity. In the pre-Christianenvironmentin which Christianityarose, so the argument goes, everythingassociatedwith death, and thereforealso with funeral rites, was considered to be impure. This was the principal reason why rituals belonging to the official, public domain were strictly separated from rites connected with the sphere of death; and the latter possessed a purely private and domestic character.The Christiansbrought about a remarkable shift in this regard. As it has already been pointed out by several other scholars, human remains lost their impure status as a result of the emerging veneration of the martyrs.This had wide-rangingimplicationsfor the rituals of death and burial. Christians overcame their reluctance to place relicsof deceasedmartyrsin churchesand to bury their dead inside churches or in their direct neighbourhood.While building upon these observations, Volp posits that this shift made possible an active intervention of the Christianclergy in the rituals concerning death and burial which were no longer considered as exclusively belonging to the private sphere. As will have become clear from this brief presentation,Volp's book is of great importanceto the study of early Christianritualsrelated to death and burial. It is a matter of course that the hypothesis developed in the final part needs further investigation and verification. Yet it cannot be denied that it sheds light on a large number of data and proves once more that the theme of purity versus impurity is a very important key to the understanding of early Christianritualsand even of early Christianityin general. All in all, Volp's book may be recommended as an accessible and upto-date introduction to the study of early Christian rituals connected with death and burial. It provides reliable information to students of early Christianitywho are less familiar with the issue and, at the same time, opens up several new perspectivesfor the advanced specialists. Catholic Theological University
Heidelberglaan 2 NL-3584 CS Utrecht
GERARDROUWHORST
REVIEWS
209
The Life of Polycarp.An anonymous vita from third-century Smyrna.Edited and translated with an introduction and notesby Alistair Stewart-Sykes(Early Christian Studies 4), Sydney: St Pauls Publications 2002, XII + 168 pp., ISBN 0-9577483-45 (pb). La Vie de Polycarpe n'a jamais recu la meme attention que la Lettrede et encore moins que l'histoirebien connue de la mort de l'ieveque Polycarpe, Polycarpi.La Vie etait connue deja depuis smyriote, le celiebreMartyrium le dix-septieme siecle, mais le texte grec etait seulement publii en 1881 par L. Duchesne. Les editeurs de la periode l'ont recu dans leurs editions des Peres Apostoliques(Lightfoot,Funk),et d'autressavantsessayerentd'elucider les problemes du texte grec transmis assez pauvrement dans un seul ne se fit pas manuscrit, le Parisinus1452 (Zahn, Schwartz). Le consensus attendre: cette Vzeest un document sans valeur historique datant du quaTres trieme siecle (MacariusMagnes semble y referer dans son Apokritikos). probablement, ce "faux" doit etre attribue a celui qui se fait connaitre comme Pionius (le martyr?),dans les additions posterieures au Martyrium Polycarpi(ch. 22). Tout au plus on pourrait reconnaitre de ci de la une ancienne tradition Smyrniote (voir Zahn; A. Ehrhard, et pas mal d'autres, comme plus tard Cadoux, dans son etude connue "AncientSmyrna";recemment aussi Paul Hartog, Polycarpand theNew Testament, Tubingen, 2002 se le reste tout a fait negatif. Ce la mais en general jugement pose question), la contradiction flagrante des donjugement est inspire evidemment par nees de la Viea propos de Polycarpe, avec une source aussi ancienne que les ecrits d' Irenee de Lyon. Ceux-ci nous offrent l'image (suivi agrement par Eusebe) d'un Polycarpe disciple des apotres, auditeur de Jean, etabli par les apotres comme eveque, defenseur de la tradition apostolique, defenseur aussi de la tradition Asiate quartodecimane. La Viedresse une image tout a fait differente: Polycarpe vient de l'Est comme enfant, est eiduque dans la maison d'une femme riche, Callisto, se distingue par sa vie exemplaire (ascetique), est choisi comme diacre et presbytre, et est finalement acclame par la vox populi comme eveque apres la mort de Boukolos. Tout cela est pr'ecide par une introduction dans laquelle Paul vient precher a Smyrne pour denoncer la pratique quartodecimane!On n'a pas besoin de beaucoup plus pour comprendrele desarroi des lecteurs de la Vie. Et voici que le consensusvient d'etre bouleverse:selon A. Stewart-Sykes, la Vieest un document important datant du troisieme siecle. Elle constitue une transitionremarquablede la forme litteraire de la biographie antique ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 209-214
210
REVIEWS
vers l'hagiographie(chretienne).En plus, elle t6moigne de la liturgie Asiate contemporaineet sa continuite avec le judaisme. Meme si la Vieest a considerer comme un "faux", elle n'est pas moins une source enrichissante pour notre connaissance du christianismeen Asie mineure du troisieme siicle. Stewart-Sykess'explique dans une longue introduction (pp. 3-86), qu'il fait suivre par une nouvelle edition et une traduction du texte (pp. 87-143) avec des notes additionnelles(pp. 145-154). Une bibliographieet des indexes concluent ce petit livre, neanmoins riche en contenu (pp. 157168). Toute fois, il nous sera impossible de revenir a tous les problimes qu'il nous pose. Mais consideronsd'abord le texte, pour en venir par apres a quelques commentaires a propos de la datation defendue par l'auteur. Stewart-Sykesa relu le manuscrit, et ce n'est pas en vain. La Vieoffre une transmissiontextuelle embrouilleeavec des lacunes et des passagespeu clairs qui compliquent le travail de l'editeur. Stewart-Sykesa pris en consid6rationles correctionset les suggestionsdes savantsdu passe, et le resultat n'est pas sans merite. Malheureusement,il n'a pas vu un compte-rendu de la main de M. Bonnet voue a l'edition de Duchesne (RevueCritique 1882), qui aurait pu etre une source de refinement pour la nouvelle edition. I1 nous faudra y revenir. Permettons-nousen passant une correction. A la p. 85 on lit avec etonnement qu'apres l'edition de Lightfoot de 1889, la Vien'a plus ete 6ditee. Neanmoins, l'edition de Funk a eu une r6edition du volume II contenant la Vie en 1913 (par F. Diekamp). Et encore, le texte de la Ve a ete publie aussi par D. Ruiz-Bueno, dans son edition avec traduction espagnole des Peres Apostoliques (PadresApostolicos, 1950). Pour encore une correction de la sorte: a 5 la nous sommes instruits ajouter p. le de deux une version que Martyre Polycarpe possede postscriptadiffrents, courte a retrouverdans tousles manuscrits,sauf le Mosquensis qui contient une version longue. ILest ainsi que seuls trois manuscritscontiennent un texte complet avec le postscriptum, a part du Mosquensis, et donc pas la totalite des manuscritsdisponibles.Mais le lecteur sans doute n'attend pas de nous la reference a de telles coquilles. C'est en effet la reinterpretationet la redatation osee qui retient l'attention. La thise de Stewart-Sykes est aussi simple qu'efficace (il l'avait deja 40 (2000) 21-33): la Vieoriginale est precedee presente dans Augustinianum un par prescrit (posterieur),notamment la section ch. 1-2 et le debut du ch. 3 jusqu'auxmots: "Maishatons-nousmaintenantvers Polycarpe"(inclus). Alors la Vieaurait commence par: "A Smyrne, au temps que le nom de l'eveque etait Boukolos, il y avait dans ces jours une femme,... Callisto etc.". Une fois que le priscrit est mis de cote, la difficulte majeure des
REVIEWS
211
chercheurs disparait, c.-a-d. que la Vie de Polycarpe, le defenseur de la tradition quartodecimane,aurait contenu la prohibition de cette pratique. Exactement cette prohibitionnous met dans un contexte historiquedu quatrieme siecle. Sans le prescrit, il n'y a rien qui nous oblige a suivre cette reference chronologique qui nous empeche de reconnaitrele vrai contexte de la Vie.Alors, le contexte, la forme biographique, la presence des juifs, des paiens et des heretiques,les multiples referencesa la liturgie, nous dirigent vers une date du troisieme siecle, et meme une date assez reculee! Comme nous avons dit, il sera impossible de reprendre tous les elements que Stewart-Sykesdeveloppe a longueur dans 1' introduction.Mais la question de la date, et donc celle du prescrit, est cruciale. C'est a ce point que le compte-rendu de Bonnet doit etre rappele. Bonnet parvenait a indiquer seulement la fin du ch. 2 comme addition, une reflection d'un editeur posterieur: "Ici l'ap6tre nous enseigne clairement qu'il ne faut pas faire cela (c.-a.-d. celebrer les azymes) en dehors de cette periode, comme le font les h6retiques... etc.", jusqu' ". . . se tenant a l'Evangile". Seulement ce passage du ch. 2 s'occupe des heretiques et leur celebration du quatorziemejour. Si nous suivons Bonnet, il n'y a dans la Vieplus rien d'une controverse a propos de la date de Paques; et au debut seulement l'emphase sur le fait que Paul a preche a Smyrne, est commemore. La citation de 2 Timothee 1,5 sert a placer les pr6decesseursde Polycarpe dans la succession paulinienne. Cela ne nous surprend pas quand nous lisons plus loin au ch. 22 que Polycarpe accomplit tout ce que les Lettres de Paul a Timothee et Tite demandent comme qualites d'un dirigeant de la communaute chretienne. Encore, au ch. 23, Polycarpe renvoie dans sa premiere oraison comme eveque a 1 Tim. 3,2. L'auteurde la Vieconsidere donc des le premier moment Polycarpe comme repondant au modele de "leadership" propage par les Epitres Pastorales, et cela implique aussi son orthodoxie. Nous sommes fortement inclines a suivre Bonnet pour exclure seulement le passage indique du ch. 2, tandis que le reste forme partie de la Vieoriginale. Et s'il y a du bon sens dans la supposition que le debut du ch. 1 refere aux Actesde Paul (les anciens documents auxquels l'auteur se confie, cf. Stewart-Sykesp. 145, n. 1), ce bon sens reste present par rapport a la Vie entiere, et pas seulement en vue d'un prescrit additionnel. A nos yeux, les Actesde Paul peuvent etre consideres comme une source supplementairepour les sympathiesascetiques de l'auteur, a retrouver dans la description de l'attitude de Polycarpe. Autrement dit, l'auteur de la Viea l'intention d'introduirePolycarpecomme comparableA l'ap6tre, avec l'adaptation consciente a une situation ecclesiastiqueplus etablie que
212
REVIEWS
celle de la periode post-apostolique.Ce n'est done pas l'hypothese d'un prescrit qui nous a pu convaincre. Ajoutons volontiers que Stewart-Sykes a ecrit plus d'une page interessantea propos de la Viecomme biographie intellectuelle,se trouvant encore pres de la biographie philosophique (mais contenant d'eja les elements du Bios religieux). Cependant, une certaine prudence s'impose en decidant sur la forme litteraire.La Viecontient pas mal de topoibiographiques:l'origine, le genos,les qualites de l'enfant, le don du miracle, les dires du jeune homme, les synkriseis etc. II faudra dire que l'on trouve ces elements aussi dans d'autresgenres litteraires(biographiques) sauf que le Bios.On n'echappepas a l'impressionque Stewart-Sykespartage l'opinion commune qui veut que I'hagiographieest quelque chose de tardif, disons datant du quatrieme siecle (cf. p. 35), et des lors pas applicable a la Vie.Nous avons fait remarquer que meme le Martyrede Polycarpe peut etre lu comme un texte pleinement hagiographique (Eph.Theol.Lovan. 75 Et si a est considerer comme une source impor430-437). (1999) le Martyre tante de la Vie(comme aussi Stewart-Sykesl'affirme),il s'agit de voir comment l'auteur de la Viea elabore directementce qu'il lisait dans le Martyre: il a voulu ecrire sur la vie de l'eveque smyrniote, comme le Martre l'avait fait sur la mort. I1est bien possible d'expliquerles elements hagiographiques de la Vzesur la base du Martyre: la vie exemplaire, les miracles, les visions, la figure de Polycarpe comme l'homme saint.Seulement, pourquoi tout cela est a considerercomme tardif? Nous pensons que Stewart-Sykesa ete trop influence par l'idee du Bios philosophique,et n'a pas reconnu l'importance du modele hagiographique(cf. p. 149, n. 51). Encore une fois, le livre de Stewart-Sykesnous a impressione,aussi dans les passages sur la vie liturgique. On sent que l'auteur est ici i son aise. Qu'il nous soit permis de faire quelques remarques.I1 est vrai que la Vie insiste sur les capacites de Polycarpe comme didaskalos; seulement ce n'est pas un accent qui est propre exclusivement au troisiime siicle! Si l'on lit de Jean Chrysostome, on retrouve la meme insistance que le De sacerdotio doit etre l'enseignant, qui soit capable de proteger ses brebis du l'ievque des des danger juifs, paiens et des heretiques. Au ch. 13, qui semble contenir la paraphrase d'une confession de foi, Stewart-Sykesfait la com6; cf. Adv. haer.1,10,1), paraison avec la regula fidei d'Irenee (Demonstratio non pour etablir une dependance litteraire,mais pour prisumer un arriereplan Asiate commun. Toutefois on se demande dans quel sens. L'auteur ne precise pas quel est son texte de base pour Irenee (pp. 37-38), et une recherche plus detaillee fait remonter des diffirences assez significatives. Ainsi le texte de la Viene parle pas de Dieu comme Peire,ce qui est essen-
REVIEWS
213
tiel pour Irenee. Ensuite l'enumeration de ses qualites: invisible etc., n'est pas la meme, et est encore plus differente si l'on accepte pour Irenee les lectures du Manuscrit Galata. Surtout s'il faut suivre Bonnet, dans la section sur le Fils, deux fois la notion de logosa ete ajout6e, de sorte que le texte sur le Fils doit se lire: "... pour envoyer son propre Fils des cieux, de sorte que s'enveloppantde l'humanit6et veritablementincarne, il pourrait sauver...". Alors le texte de la Viene donne aucune indication sur une christologiedu Logos.Nous croyons qu'il ne reste pas beaucoup d'une base commune (liturgique,baptismale)s'il l'on etudie de pres le ch. 13 en comparaison avec Irenee. (Les remarques de Stewart-Sykes deviennent egarantes quand il veut expliquer les differences dans le texte de la Vie vis-a-vis Irenee a cause d'une intention anti-marcionitedans la Vie,comme si une grande partie de l'oeuvre d'Irenee ne serait pas dirig6e contre le Marcionisme!C'est exactement dans la Demonstratio que nous lisons que le Dieu unique est le Createur. Et encore, dans la Vieil n'est pas dit du Fils qu'il est Cr6ateur).C'est dire que, a notre avis, les idees presentes dans le ch. 13 pourraient recevoir un contexte aussi bien dans le deuxiremesiecle, que dans le quatrieme, certainementpas exclusivementau troisieme si/ecle. I1 serait interessant d'essayer de comprendre le ch. 13 a la lumiere des textes disponibles avec certitude a l'auteur de la Vie:la Lettre de Polycarpe, le Martyre de Polycarpe...En tout cas c'est notre conviction que Stewart-Sykesfait fausse route en pretendantque la generation de ces sommaires de doctrine devrait etre en tout cas orale, et pas litteraire (p. 38). C'est de nouveau un axiome dont nous ne comprenons pas le bon sens. Est-ce que nous avons mis en doute une datation au cours du troisieme siecle avec tout ce qui precede? I1 parait que non. Mais nous nous permettons de revenir a ce que nous avons deja ecrit a ce propos (cf. The Martyrdom of Polycarp:a Century of Research, in ANRW 27,1, pp. 488489): il nous semble que l'auteur de la Vie repete au ch. 12,3 les mots d'Eusebe a propos de la Lettre de Polycarpe, et que ce dernier emprunte a Irenee (Adv.haer.IV,14,8). Cela nous semble indiquer que la Vien'a pas I1y a un autre detail qui ete ecrite avant l'edition de 1'Histoire Ecclisiastique. renforce notre point de vue. Selon le ch. 20 de la Vie,Boukolos est enterre pres du lieu ou avait ete depose le martyr Thraseas. Ii faut bien avoir lu 1'Histoire Ecclisiastique pour comprendrece renvoi a Thraseas (cf. H.E. V,24; croire a une tradition smyrnioteindependante?).S'il ou faut-il 18,4; comp. nous est permis de croire que la Viemontre une certaine connaissance de l'ouvrage d'Eusebe, nous remontons pour une date de nouveau vers le debut du quatrieme siecle. Evidemment, la connaissance de l'Histoire
214
REVIEWS
d'Eusebe de la part de l'auteur de la Vie,impliqueraitaussi sa Ecclisiastique connaissancedes passagesd'Irenee a propos de Polycarpe,cites par Eusebe. L'auteur de la Viea prefere pas trop s'en servir, du moins pas des donnees qui renvoient a un lien avec la traditionjohannique. L'auteur a-t-il reconnu que les informations d'Irenee ne sont pas plus veridiques?I1 est manifeste qu'Irenee cherche a etablir un lien entre Polycarpe et la tradition apostoliquejohannique. L'auteurde la Vieprefere sans doute la "connection" paulinienne. Peut-etre a-t-il ete impressionnepar la lecture de la Lettre de Polycarpe: dans cette Lettre la priponderance de la tradition paulinienne ne fait aucun doute. Quoi qu'il en soit, il parait que nous ne savons pas autant de la vie de Polycarpe que nous voudrions bien savoir! En tout cas, l'etude de Stewart-Sykespourraconvaincreceux qui auraient pense que la Vien'est pas un document interessant (qui n'est meme pas signale dans la Clavisde M. Geerard).I1 en reste des problemes historiques aussi bien qu'hagiographiques.C'est peut-etre une consolation que meme Zahn n'en sortaitpas (voir ses deux longues notices sur la vie de Polycarpe des neutestamentlichen zur Geschichte Kanons, qu'il publiait dans ses Forschungen t. IV et t. VI, notices malheureusementnegligees par Stewart-Sykes,tout comme par K. Berding, Polycarpand Paul, Leiden etc. 2002 et Hartog, Polycarpand theNew Testament, 2002). Remercions A. Stewart-Sykesd'avoir nous confronte avec un texte hagiographiquequi merite plus d'attention. Faculteit Godgeleerdheid, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, St. Michielsstraat6, B-3000 Leuven
B. DEHANDSCHUTTER
Silke-PetraBergjan,Derfirsorgende Gott.DerBegrffderPRONOIAGottesin der derAlten rche(Arbeitenzur Kirchengeschichte81) BerlinLteratur apologetischen New York: Walter de Gruyter 2002, 422 pp., ISBN 3-11-017062-0, E 118. This book, the Habilitationsschrift presentedby the author at the Humboldt University, contains a wealth of material about an importantconcept from the early Christian era, against the backgroundof the debates in classical philosophy. An initial section provides a survey of the various meanings of the word pronoia,illustratedby a store of texts from all corers of classical literature(9-80). Pronoiaoften has the sense of well-considereddecisions and choices,for which the personwho makesthem has and takesresponsibility ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 214-217
REVIEWS
215
(25-30). It also has the meaning of 'to take care of', 'to concern oneself with'. But also, not leastly, the sense of 'to order, govern, organize' on a cosmic scale (45-80), a meaning which often occurs in Stoic texts (47). The Stoa talked both about the Pneumawhich pervades the universe and about the Pronoiawhich permeates the entire cosmos. Bergjan carefullyexamines the relationin Stoic philosophybetween Pronoiaand Fate, NaturalNecessity. Before looking at this theme in the context of early Christianapologetic literature, Bergjan offers a thorough analysis of the theme of 'apologetics' and the corpus of 'apologetic writings'. She firmly rejects the view of H. Dorrie that apologists intend to mask the gap which they see between Greek culture and their Christian faith by using the conceptual system of their opponents. She rejects this position because she argues forcibly that, for the apologists, there was no gap between the philosophical form and the Christian content of their discourse (86). She accepts a broad concept of 'apologeticliterature'(in the sense of 'refutationof criticism,reproaches, and accusations'-p. 101), including texts from the fourth century, through to Eusebius. She believes that the themes of these apologetic writingsshow a development in response to accusations levelled against Christians. In Ps.-Athenagoras' De resurrectione Bergjan finds a concept of pronoia which considers God's care for his creation to be compatiblewith his punitive judgement against all committersof injustice(115-122). With reference to passages in Clement of Alexandria she talks about the problem of the evil which befalls good people. Clement gives this a place in his concept of God's pronoiaby awarding it a pedagogical function. Bergjan discusses at length his criticismof the Gnostic Basilides,who considered God's providence to be so incompatible with evil that he interpreted the death of martyrsas just punishmentfor (unconscious)sins/crimes (123-170). Bergan also clarifies in detail God's pronoiain a pedagogical sense with reference to Origen (171-221), following on from Hal Koch's well-knownbook about the great Christian scholar. Origen's main concern was to emphasize the freedom of rational beings. But Origen was also well able to distinguish between a Platonistand an Epicurean,according to Bergjan.When Origen repeatedlydescribes(and disqualifies)his opponent Celsus as an 'Epicurean', he does so because the latter's view of pronoiaresembles that of Epicurus (249-260). The author also devotes an extensive discussion to Eusebius of Caesarea,who addressesat length the theme of God'spronoiain his Praeparatio (264-306). Thus far the rich contents of this book. evangelica A possible objection to the book's plan is that on p. 4 the author opts not for a philosophical but for a conceptual-analyticapproach (which she
216
REVIEWS
defends at length on pp. 341-368). The concept of God underwentimportant changes in Greek philosophy as a result of increasing abstraction. Analogously,the notion of God'spronoiachanged dramaticallytoo. Aristotle's criticism of Plato's Demiurge led to a concept of God in which He is no longer 'Maker' but still 'Cause', so that the designations of 'Father' and 'Maker'which Plato used in his Timaeushave been separatedand are attributed to divine beings on differentlevels. This forced classicalauthors to reconsidertheir view of how the cosmic order can be interpretedin agreement with God's thought, and to introduce a 'double theology' of a transcendent Intellect and an immanent Logosor World Soul, for which the basic scheme fr. 26 Ross/25, already seems to be described in Aristotle, De philosophia 1 Gigon in the distinction between the 'mens'and the 'alius quidam'.This is particularlyrelevant to a proper understandingof Philo of Alexandria, who sees pronoiaas something of God's Logosand Dynamis,but not of God himself (27; 39-43). But it is also pertinent to Eusebius (299-304). I want to add one important point of criticism. The ordering of the material dealt with in this book is entirely informed by a traditionalview of the historyof classicalphilosophy.The writer has the majorityof experts, whose work she knows well and frequently quotes, on her side. But for the reviewer this does not mean that she is in the right. The arrangement of her material could have been quite different had she made a different choice on p. 67 in n. 118 (see also 44ff. and 68 n. 130). She discusses there the work De mundo,traditionallyattributed to Aristotle. There, too, she opts for the majoritypositionwhich believesit to be a pseudepigraphical work that should be dated to the imperial age and shows traces of Stoic (but also of Platonic, Aristotelian, and Pythagorean)influence. However, she does not discuss the conclusion of J. Barnes (ClassicalReview27 (1977) of De mundooffersno reasonsfor denying its author440-443) that the content to and his claim that it dates from the time before Chrysippus. ship Aristotle, Barnes concludes that Chrysippusderived his definition of 'cosmos' from De mundoand not the other way round. Nor does Bergjan discuss the stylistic arguments for dating the work between 350 and 200 BCE in the important article by D.M. Schenkeveld(Elenchos1991), which she does cite (67 n. 122). But if the De mundois by Aristotle'shand or at least predates Chrysippus,this would mean that a large number of key concepts from Bergjan's book are not Stoic in origin, but Aristotelian. Next, we would have to understandthe Stoic concepts as being influencedby and as transformations of themes which were already developed by Aristotle. Such an
REVIEWS
217
approach can make it much easier to grasp why Origen was able to use this conception so extensively (185ff.). For De mundotalks about the cosmos as an ordered system, orientated to God; about the cosmic homonoia; about the Power of God which, clearly distinct from God's Ousia,'pervades all things'; and about the cosmos which is ruled like a polis by its constitution, like an army by the orders of the supreme commander. De mundoalso attests to criticism of Plato's Demiurge, in the sense that thinkout do not always belong to the same entity. This led ing out and carrying Aristotle to his sharp distinction between the Intellect as purely immaterial and the soul as 'not without corporeality'.It also led to his insight that sublunaryreality is governed by the celestial gods, who in turn owe their order to the transcendentIntellect (God). This links up well with the broad doxographical tradition which ascribes to Aristotle a theory of 'limited Providence' (cf. 121 n. 68; 140 n. 85; 230 n. 41; for an exposition of the alternativeview assertedhere, see A.P. Bos, Thesoulandits instrumental body. A reinterpretation philosophy of livingnature,Leiden: Brill, 2003, 45; of Aristotle's 210-215; 265-269). This is not same as the 'multi-staged'Providence of the Platonists,which Bergjan mentions repeatedly (307-332). Finally I list some minor corrections: p. 2 n. 3: the intended reference is to the book by G. Reydams-Schils, and Providence ... Also incorrectly cited on p. 4 n. 8; p. 52 n. 31 Demiurge and n. 34; p. 243 n. 110, and p. 396; p. 50: 'die gleichzeitig Geborenen' does not seem a suitable translation of Galen's 'homogenon'; p. 53 n. 41: quotation from Alex. Aphrod., Mixt. 3, p. 216.14-17; p. 112 1. 2: Reise; p. 142 n. 87: J.H. Waszink and W. den Boer; see also p. 400 and p. 134 n. 51; p. 146 1. 2: Basilides; p. 284: euergetes. Frans Lisztlaan 2, NL-2102 CK Heemstede. ([email protected])
A.P. Bos
218
REVIEWS
LexiconGregorianum: Worterbuch zu denSchrftenGregors vanNyssa.IV': akqicora,bearbeitetvon FriedhelmMann; herausgegebenvon der Forschungsstelle Gregor von Nyssa an der WestfalischenWilhelms-UniversitatMiinsterunter Leitungvon Wolf-DieterHauschild,Leiden, Brill, 2002. XII + 510 pp. ISBN Wdrterbuch zu denSchiften 9004125000 LG-004. E 249.00; Lexicon Gregorianum: vanNyssa.V:Kcayaaoq-WKcoxpoo, bearbeitetvon FriedhelmMann;herGregors von der ForschungsstelleGregorvon Nyssa an der Westfalischen ausgegeben Wilhelms-UniversitatMiinster unter Leitung von Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, Leiden, Brill, 2003. X + 560 pp. ISBN 9004125000 LG-005. E 235.00 In rapid successionto the first three volumes (cf. VigChrist 56 (2002) 300the of fourth and fifth volume the Lexicon have Gregorianum been pub305) lished. The two volumes together cover the lemmata from 4cdr7to Kloxpo). Volume VI, covering the lemmata up to omikron,is foreseen for 2005. Moreover the Gregor von Nyssa Forschungsstelle(Miinster)was enabled to attract a supplementaryresearcher in the person of Dr. Savvidis who will devote himself to a separate volume comprising the lexicographical analysisof the names of Scripturaland historicalpersons in Gregory'swritis now halfway ings. All this good news means that the LexiconGregorianum that and it seems a justified hope that Dr. Friedhelm Mann and his team will be able to finish this remarkableenterprise within a more than reasonable timespan. Having been working with the first volumes of the LexGregfor some years now, to the present reviewer both its scope and quality of execution remain remarkableindeed. The LexGreg aims to present the complete lexicomaterial of of logical Gregory Nyssa's writings:with a few exceptions (e.g. entire Kai)Gregory's vocabularyis included and for each word all instances in which it occurs are listed and quoted. For lemmata such as o40 , 0eio;, OEo;, KaXO;, cK6aogo, cKTioa and K-uptogthis amounts to entries of thirty,
forty, fifty or more pages. The structuringof such dazzling wealth of information is achieved by three kinds of subdivisions: (1) according to the different meanings of the word; (2) according to grammatical principles; (3) according to the specific context and the particular themes a word is related to (e.g. when it appears as part of a Scripturalquotation or is used in the context of the polemics with Eunomius). Each entry is concluded by a section with variaelectiones,listing the cases in which a given word does only appear in the critical apparatusof the edition used (in principle GNO;in few cases no GNO-editionexists and then the best available one is put into service). ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christianae58, 218-220
REVIEWS
219
First of all the LexGreg is a philological tool. This means that it can be used as a dictionaryin the strict sense of the word and as an authoritative expert-witnesswhen one is not sure about the interpretationof a word or part of a sentence. Morover, being a complete survey of the vocabulary of an important author at the end of the fourth century, the LexGreg constitutes an interesting vantage point to assess the evolution from Classical to Byzantine Greek. With his easy use or creation of verbs and substantives with more than one preposition, Gregory certainly was part of this evolution and contributed to it. Examples of this are words such as ica0xuovo&o. The Kxa0)v?pKeitalt(hapax), KaOlctaxvocogat, lKa&uolOpivogLat,
also makes it possible to assess with which neologisms Gregory of LexGreg the Greek language (the references to LSJ and Lampe are enriched Nyssa helpful in that regard). Interestingly,the part of Gregory'svocabulary laid out in LexGregIV-V also contains some words transliteratedfrom other (a word from Song of Songs 4,4) and Oapaoei(geographical languages:OaXtcO0 name and kind of gem-always in connection with the LXX-version of Jonah 1,3; Ps 47,8; Ez 1,16 and Song of Songs 5,14) transliterateHebrew words Gregory found in his LXX-text of the Old Testament. More interesting is the word KatiXooi,a transliterationof the Latin word caelum, used in ContraEunomium oipavov II, 406, where Gregory writes:... ilTSeiq Koai&xaok6 Zppos,6 xozxo X7yo0ev, soaCaiep6 'Epaios, 6 'PogaxiosKaiXkoug MijSoS,6 Kacga?6la;... (GNO I, p. 344, 1. 28). Together with Basil of Caesarea, On the Hol Spirit29.74 (ed. PG 32, col. 208) this passage is a precious testimony for the existence of local dialects in the fourth century (see K. Holl, 'Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in Kleinasien in nachchristlicher Zeit', in Gesammelte II, Tiibingen Aufsdtzezur Kirchengeschichte, 1928, 238-248 and recently S. Mitchell, Anatolia.Land,Men and Godsin Asia Minor.I: The Celtsin Anatoliaand the Impactof RomanRule, Oxford 1993, 170-176, passim).On the basis of this passage one may also conclude that Gregory knew some Latin words. Apart from vocabulary and neologisms, with its divisions indicating differentuses of grammar and synthe LexGreg tax is also designed to contribute to other areas of philological research. one is struck by the While perusing these two volumes of the LexGreg, exhibit. This is evident in the preresearch potential they extraordinary sentationin subsectionsof the raw materialpertainingto our author'sapplication of Scriptural quotations and allusions. Another evident field of is Gregory's metaphorical Christology. research opened up by the LexGreg To supplement the already existing studies one can, inter alia, consult the lemma o, which contains subsectionson Christ as apXnry6 i; sq roi;,mTnyr
220
REVIEWS
Tir 'roij (LexGreg IV, p. 65) and iXitog(LexGreg IV, p. 105 ss.). Of course
the Lexicon offers plenty of interestingmaterial to study his theology and spirituality.More unexpected contributions,though, have to do with the study of late antique anatomy and biology (see inter alia the entries flrap and iapSia) and of late antique medicine (e.g. iaxp6o and root-related words, but also Oe?pio; and derivatives).The study of social history and mentality (esp. the theme young/old) is well served by the entry ilkXuia while research on topics as diverse as 'early Christians and animals' or Christian anthropology might find interesting material brought together under, among others, the lemma r(4ov (pp. 68-71 en 71-74 resp.). As a matter of fact the Lexicon is also invaluable when it comes to commenting on a particularpassage or theme. One example may suffice: in several pasages, inter alia in the Lifeof Macrina,the image of the belt is used to indicate the practice of asceticalrenunciation.The passagesbrought together in the subsection of the lemma C)vqirefer to all the instances of Gregory'suse of c0vi\in this sense, thus supplementingW. Speyer, 'Gurtel', RAC 12 (1983) 1232-1266, esp. 1258-1261. The lemma Oaijia offers interesting material to undertakea study of 'Miraclesin the writingsof Gregory of Nyssa'. Moreover the Lexicon-materialis divided in subsectionswhich are almost tailor-made for such an analysis. An interesting feature of Gregory's use of the term miracle, highlighted by the presentation in the is that 0a6gta is not limited to the miracles described in the bibLexGreg, lical stories but that miraculous deeds of contemporarypersons (his sister Macrina, his brother Basil, Gregory the Wonderworker)are also ranked as such. This is a consequence of Gregory'shagio-biographyin which the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Patristic period are considered to be a continuum and in which hagio-biographyhistorical persons are linked via sunkriseis to biblical characters,as is most evidently done in of Gregory Nyssa's panegyric on Basil. In sum: the fourth and the fifth volume of the LexGreg exhibit the same standards of almost exceptional unsurpassablescholarshipas the previous ones. One looks eagerly forward to the next volumes, the first of which is expected to appear in 2005. Faculteit Godgeleerdheid, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, St. Michielsstraat6, B-3000 Leuven.
JOHANLEEMANS
REVIEWS
221
Johan Leemans, with the assistanceof LucJocque (eds.), CorpvsChristianorvm Editing,Tumhout: Brepols (1953-2003),Xenwmnatalicivm. Ffty Yearsof Scholarly Publishers 2003, 376 pp., ISBN 2-503-51481-2, E 25 (pb). This is a fine volume to commemorate that fifty years ago the first fascicle of the first volume of CC was published. The book opens with an article by Johan Leemans: 'Fifty Years of CorpusChristianorum (1953-2003): From Limited Edition Project to Multi-locatedScholarly Enterprise'.In his highly instructive study (11-55), Leemans not only provides an interesting overview of the genesis of the series, startingwith 'A Monk's Dream' (i.e. the vision of Dom EligiusDekkersOSB, monk of the Abbey of Steenbrugge near Brugge in Flanders),but he also delightfullydescribes the realisation of that dream by means of Dekkers'swell-known Clavisand the publication of the first CC-volumes,via the series's expansion in the years 1956-69 unto what it presently is: a conglomerate of Mediaevalis) (e.g. the Continuatio several different research projects located in different places all over the world. These distinct projects are successivelypresented by their (current) editors-in-chief: CCSLby Fernand Bossier (58-77); CCCM by the same scholar (78-108); CCSCby Martin McNamara (110-115); CCCM,Raimundi Lulli OperaLatinaby FernandoDominguez Reboiras (116-119);CCCM,Opera Omniaof Jan van Ruusbroec by Guido de Baere (120-124); CCCM, Gerardi Omnia MagniOpera by RijcklofHofman & E.C. Coppens (126-129); CCCM, HermesLatinus:OperaOmniaby Paolo Lucentini& VittoriaPerroneCompagni (130-134); CCCM,LexicaLatinaMediiAeviby Brian Merrilees (136-138); CC, PatrumLatinorum, Instrumenta Latinaby Paul Tombeur Thesaurus Lexicologica instructive article this well-known (a highly by pioneer who did so much for the study of both the Fathers and the Medievals in the new 'electronic' Nazianzenum age, 140-157);CCSGby Peter Van Deun (158-162);CCSG,Corpus PatrumGraecorum by Bernard by Bernard Coulie (163-167); CC, Thesaurus Coulie (168-172); CC, SeriesApocryphorum by Jean-Daniel Kaestli (174-189); M. Medii Van Patrum CC, Lingua Uytfanghe (190-191); CC, Autographa by Aevi by Claudio Leonardi (192-196); CC, Hagiographies by Guy Philippart (208(198-207).After a (nearperfect)alphabeticallyarrangedAlbumEditorum second section called Flosculi: a of the book's follows 209) florilegium patristic and medieval texts, all of which have been edited in CC and the more or less equal parts of which section are introduced by scholars from all over the globe. The Flosculicomprise passages from Ambrose by Christoph Markschies;Apponius by Bernard de Vregille; ChromatiusAquileiensisby Joseph Lemarie; Augustine by FranCoisDolbeau, J. van Oort, Michael ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 221-222
222
REVIEWS
Herren & W. Geerlings;Beda Venerabilisby FrancoisBovon; Adomnanus by Michaela Zelzer; ActaAndreaeby P. Geoltrain;Amphilochius Iconiensis by BoudewijnDehandschutter;MaximusConfessorby BrianDaley; Iohannes Scottus Eriugena by Edouard A. Jeauneau; Sedulius Scottus by John A. McGuckin; Rupertus Tuitiensis by Walter Berschin;Aelredus Rievallensis byJ.M. Ziolkowski;PetrusBlesensisby PascaleBourgain;Iacobusde Vitriaco by R.B.C. Huygens; and Salimbene de Adam by Jacques Berlioz. These 'little flowers' have been further embellished by a number of photographs of sculpturesby the contemporaryGerman artist Toni Zenz, and a brief but most appropriatepatristic text selected by Adelbert Davids accompanies each of these illustrations.The final section of the book provides the in which, in alphabetreader with a kind of 'miniclavis':three Onomastica ical order, all the text editions that belong to the main branches of the are CC (the Scriptores Graeci;the still so-called Apocrypha) Latini;the Scriptores listed. This book is not merely a commemorative volume: it depicts the past achievements, but also finely outlines many a future task. Faculty of Theology, Chair of Patristics, Radboud University Nijmegen, Erasmusplein 1, 6500 HD Njmegen.
J. VANOORT
John D. Turner & Anne McGuire (ed.), TheNag HammadiLibraryafter Commemoration of the 1995 Societyof BiblicalLiterature Fifty Years.Proceedings New Hammadi Studies and Manichaean Leiden, 44), York, Cologne, (Nag Brill, 1997, pp. XVIII + 531. ISBN 90 04 10824 6. Ce volume celebre le cinquantenairede la decouvertedes papyrusde Nag Hammadi avec un riche ensemble de contributions,presentees a la commemoration organisee par la Society of Biblical Literature a Haverford College (17 novembre 1995), puis a Philadelphie (18-22 novembre 1995). Tout en celebrantl'une des decouvertesmajeuresdu XXe siecle en matiere de texteslitteraires,ce volume temoigneausside l'engagementconstant,depuis 1972, de la SBL dans les etudes sur le gnosticismeet la bibliothequecopte. Son originaliteconsistedans la mise en evidence de nouvellesperspectives dans la recherche sur la bibliothequede Nag Hammadi. L'attentionest en effet focalisee,de diversesmanieresau fil des articles,mais avec un consensus de fond, non tant sur les textes tels qu'ils nous sont parvenus dans la ver? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 222-227
REVIEWS
223
sion copte que nous connaissons,mais sur les etapes de leur redaction,leurs modes de transmissionset les eventuelles reecritures qu'ils ont pu subir, depuisl'originalgrec. Cette perceptiondu texte comme d'un documentouvert, sujeta changement,fluide en quelquesorte,impliqueegalementune reflexion sur la part jouee par ses lecteurs quant a l'influence qu'ils ont pu jouer sur le texte lui-meme. Si bon nombre d'entre eux appartenaientsans doute a des milieux de foi gnostique, oui le document ecrit constituait un element fort de cohesion,d'autres,en revanche,adheraientprobablementa des formes diverses de la religiosite en Egypte a la fin de l'Antiquite. Les premiers comme les deuxiemes ont pu intervenir, a diff6rentsniveaux, sur la riche histoire qui se dessine a l'arriere-plandes textes retrouvesa Nag Hammadi. Trois traitesde Nag Hammadi,exemplairesa plusieursegards--l'Apocryphon de Jean, l'EvangileselonPhilippeet l'Evangileselon Thomas-, constituent le noyau du volume, encadres par deux parties de reflexion de caractereplus general. Le choix de ces traites n'est sans doute pas le fruit d'un hasard : ce qui les unit est le fait qu'ils suscitent tous des problemes de coherence litteraire (cf. l'Introduction au volume), ce qui entraine une reflexion, de la part des chercheurs en ce domaine, tant sur la composition que sur la circulationde ces textes qui, a l'exception de l'Apocryphon deJean, sont connus dans une seule et unique version. Le volume s'articuleainsi. La premierepartie, <<Past, Present,and Future Research on the Nag Hammadi Codices > (pp. 3-101), se compose de six articles,dont le premier, du a J.M. Robinson, <, pp. 3-33, retrace les evenements qui ont suivi la decouverte des papyrus, evenements dans lesquels il a joue un role de premier plan, contribuanta mettre ces documents a la dispositiondu monde scientifique. Deux periodes sont distinguees : de 1945 a 1970 (rupture du monopole concernant les textes), de 1970 a 1995 (publicationdes codices facsimile et realisationdes grands projets d'edition, americain, franco-canadienet allemand, des textesde la bibliotheque).La contributionde S. Emmel, ? Religious Tradition, Textual Transmission, and the Nag Hammadi Codices >, pp. 34-43, met l'accent sur la problematiquede la transmissiontextuelle,s'echelonnant sur plusieurs siecles, dans l'etude des textes de Nag Hammadi, qu'il definit comme une 'collection' plutot que comme une 'bibliotheque' de (p. 16). Le schema quadripartitepropose par F. Wisse pour l'Apoc7yphon un 147-151 ordre dans ce meme volume, pp. (dans chronologique Jean inverse: phase monastiquecopte, phase de traduction,phase de composition et phase de pre-composition)est ici propose pour l'ensemblede la collection, tout en etant commente et nuance (la 'phase monastique', par exemple,
224
REVIEWS
demeure une question ouverte). Parmi les directions de travail proposees par S. Emmel pour les annees a venir, celle d'une lecture avertie des documents de Nag Hammadi dans le contexte de la litteratureet de la culture coptes qui lui furent contemporaines,ce qui represente <primarilya Coptological enterprise>>,nous parait de toute premiereimportance.B.A. Pearson presente ensuite une etude sur < The Coptic Gnostic Library Edition of Nag Hammadi Codex VII >, pp. 44-61, codex significatifcar sa parution, en 1995, a completi cette importante serie en seize volumes editee par EJ. Brill. En tant qu'editeur en chef du codex VII, Pearson aborde dans cet article des problemes de codicologie et de langue qui se sont prisentes au cours du travail, avant de passer brievementen revue les cinq traitesdu codex. La quatrieme etude est une presentation par H.-M. Schenke de , pp. 6271, et de ses realisationspendant ces dernieres decennies, marquees par des publications regulieresdans la TLZ, et devant aboutir a la traduction intigrale en langue allemande des traitiesde Nag Hammadi dans la serie Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften (vol. 1 : 2001 ; vol. 2 : 2003). E.M. Yamauchi, , pp. 72-88, relance le debat sur l'une des questions les plus epineuses du gnosticisme, a travers l'eclairage des documents de la bibliotheque copte. Une palette de textes dont les origines ont suscite un debat qui est loin d'etre clos, sont ici consideris : Eugnoste(NH III, 4 et BG 8502), l'Apocalypse d'Adam(NH V, 5), la Paraphrase de Shem(NH VII, 1) et la Protennoia Aux de Trimorphe Yamauchi, aucun d'en(NH XIII, 1). yeux tre eux ne permet de demontrer< the existence of a full-fledgedGnosticism with a redeemer myth prior to Christianity>. G.P. Luttikhuizentermine cette premierepartie par < The Thought Patternsof Gnostic Mythologizers and Their Use of Biblical Traditions >, pp. 89-101 : il y aborde le probleme de l'utilisationdu patrimoine traditionnelde la Bible par les auteurs gnostiques et de sa reinterpretationa des niveaux qui ne sont pas toujours ceux de la polemique. La deuxieme partie du volume s'intitule<. Cinq etudes cement de pres l'histoire complexe de ce texte, et les questions redactionnellesqu'il souleve, compte tenu des quatre versions existantes. K.L. King ouvre la section par <Approachingthe Variantsof the Apocyphon ofj ohn>, pp. 105-137. Le trajetcomplexe de compositionet de transmission de ce texte est considere'a la lumiere de categoriespropres aux productions litterairesde 1'Antiquite,categories qui ne coincident plus avec les notres. Mettant en garde contre un amalgame inapproprie,King souligne le r6le
REVIEWS
225
preponderantde la dimension < orale > dans l'histoiredu texte et la necessite d'en tenir compte dans l'enquete sur les documents de Nag Hammadi. F. Wisse, < After the Synopsis : Prospects and Problems in Establishinga CriticalText of the Apocryphon ofJohnand Defining its HistoricalLocation >, sur le pp. 138-153, s'explique projet, deja avance, d'une traductioncritique en langue modere, basee sur la synopse des versions coptes de l'Apocryphon deJean, parue en 1995 (F. Wisse-M. Waldstein, NHMS 33). Une telle traduction aurait l'avantage d'aller au-dela des documents coptes pour s'approcher du texte grec commun qu'ils ont utilise. M. Waldstein examine dans < The Primal Triad in the Apocyphonof John >, pp. 154-187, l'entrelacs des thematiques, a la fois platoniciennes et juives, qui ont conflue dans la constitutionde la triade Pere-Mere-Fils.Quant a S. La Porta dans < Sophia-Meter : Reconstructinga Gnostic Myth >, pp. 188-207, il s'attelle a une nouvelle interpretationd'une des clefs de voute de la speculation gnostique et considere le role joue par le patrimoine traditionneljuif autour de la figure de la Sagesse pour la formation de la notion de Sophia chez les gnostiques. M.A. Williams fournit une < Response to the Papers of Karen King, FrederikWisse, Michael Waldstein and Sergio La Porta >, pp. 208-220, la seule presente dans le volume. La troisieme partie du volume, The Gospelof Philip,a donne lieu a trois etudes. M.L. Turner, , pp. 251-279, souligne le systeme coherent de pensee et l'homogeneite des opinions theologiques qui se degagent dans cette collectionde citations,certes disparates.E.H. Pagels, , pp. 280-291, propose une analyse tres fine de ce texte dans la perspective d'une theologie sacramentaireet met en evidence l'apport essentiel de II, 5 pour une histoire de la theologie baptismale des premiers siecles. La quatrieme partie du volume, composee de six articles, porte sur The Gospelof Thomas.P.-H. Poirierdans , pp. 295-307, etudie les trois principaux timoins de la traditionlitterairesur Thomas, l'Evangilede Thomas(NH II, 2), le Livre de Thomas(NH II, 7) et les Actesde Thomas(version grecque et syriaque), tout en reconsiderantles relations qu'ils entretiennentet s'interrogeantsur l'opportunite de postuler l'existence d'une ecole de Thomas. Dans
226
REVIEWS
Tradition History of the Saying>, pp. 308-325, S.R. Johnson, apres avoir reconstitue l'histoire redactionnellede ce logion,considere que les auteurs de Jean et de Luc lui ont fait subir une alteration dans le but de contrer les positions theologiques de la communaute thomasienne. P.H. Sellew, , pp. 327-346, souhaite que la recherche se focalise sur le texte lui-meme plutot que d'etudier le texte au miroir de la litterature qui lui etait contemporaine. J.-M. Sevrin, <, pp. 347-360, soutient qu'il est possible de considerer cet evangile comme une relectureinterpretativeet esoteriqued'evangilesrecus, tels que sont les synoptiques. I. Dunderberg, < John and Thomas in Conflict ? >, pp. 361-380, a l'encontre de Johnson, emet des reserves sur l'oppositionet le contrasteentre une communautejohannique et une communaute s'inspirantde Thomas. La position n'est d'ailleurspas la meme d'un logiona l'autre.A.D. De Conick, , pp. 381-398, reprend l'analysefournie dans son livre Seekto SeeHim : Ascentand VisionMysticismin the Gospelof Thomas,publie a Leiden en 1996, et note la polemique entreJean et des milieux juifs portes sur l'experience mystique. Avec la cinquieme et derniere partie du volume, Issuesof SocialLocation, andRewriting une reflexion de caractere general est soumise au Composition, C. lecteur. Markschies,dans < Valentinian Gnosticism : Towards the Anatomy of a School >, pp. 401-438, trace un portrait convaincant du valentinisme comme ecole philosophique,tout en observantune evolution depuis le temps de Valentin et ses proches disciplesa celui de ses deriers representants, davantage eloignes d'un ideal de professionnalismephilosophique. L. Painchaudand T. Yanz, , pp. 439-460, etudient la presence de ce motif dans quelques traites de Nag Hammadi, notant qu'il s'agit d'un motif interpole, lie aux revisionset aux reecrituresde ces traites dans le contexte d'une controverseentre differentscercles doctrinaux.A.L. Molinari, < The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles >, pp. 461-483, passe en revue l'histoire de la recherche (et tout particulierementles opinions de Krause, Schenke, Parrot et Patterson) de ce texte, quelque peu delaisse par les specialistes.II en propose une interpretationbasee sur la confluence de deux sources de provenance diverse-l'histoire du marchand a la perle et l'apparition au moment de la Resurrection-retravaillees et augmentees par l'interventiond'un auteur/redacteur,dans une perspective didactique et exhortatoire. Enfin, A. Pasquier, ? Interpretation of the
227
REVIEWS
Prologue to John's Gospel in some Gnostic and Patristic Writings : A Common Tradition >, pp. 484-495, met en regard la lecture d'Origene du Prologuede Jean et celle elaboree en milieu valentinien, transmise par Irenee (AdvHaer I, 8, 5). I1 en ressort qu'Origene a pu subir l'influence de valentiniennes et qu'il est un temoin precieux pour clarifier speculations certains aspects de la christologie gnostique. La sixieme partie du volume est constituee par un abondant repertoire bibliographique(Bibliography, pp. 499-531). La lecture de ce volume montre a quel point la recherche sur les textes de Nag Hammadi, et plus largement celle sur les documentsdu gnosticisme,peut encore evoluer. L'ancrage des textes de Nag Hammadi dans le paysage philosophiqueet religieux de la fin de l'Antiquite ainsi que leurs rapports avec la culture litteraire de langue copte de la meme epoque, ouvrent aux chercheurs de tres amples perspectivesde travail. CNRS,
MADELEINE SCOPELLO
Paris IV-Sorbonne
M. Baltest, Die philosophische Lehredes Platonismus: Vonder (Seele) als der in Antike allersinnvollen Ursache 6.1-2, StuttgartAbldufe,Der Platonismus der Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog,2002. xxiii + 437, ix + 454 pages. ISBN 3-7728-1158-2. Price e 710. In an importantlecture entitled 'Was ist antiker Platonismus?',first held in Utrecht in 1989 and later repeated at the Oxford Patristic conference in 1991, the distinguishedhistorian of Platonism, Matthias Baltes, stated his agreement with the philosopher Atticus that the entire philosophy of Plato stands or falls with the doctrine of the immortalityof the soul.1This doctrine, he argued, can be regarded as the very epicentre of Platonism. The soul is the subject of the sixth part of the magnificent project Der Platonismusin der Antike,founded by Heinrich Dorrie and continued by Baltes since the second volume (see reviews of the five earlier volumes in this Journal: vol. 42, p. 206, 45:190, 48:83, 50:420, 53:106). It covers Bausteine151-181 of the approximately 250 'building blocks' that Dorrie assigned when he originally planned the project. For the first time the Kleine StudiaPatristica,vol. 24 (Leuven 1992) 224; reprintedin AIANOHMATA: Schrifenzu Platon und zum Platonismus(Stuttgart and Leipzig 1999) 229. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 227-230
228
REVIEWS
material collected has been too much for a single volume and has been published under two separate covers, the first containing Bausteine151-168, the second Bausteine169-181 (and the bibliography). The thirty-onechaptersgive the reader a complete coverageof all aspects of Platonistpsychology. After preliminarychapters on doxographicalmaterial and defence of Plato's doctrines against other schools (B. 151-2), there are detailed treatments on the nature and essence of the soul (B 153-8), its origin (B. 159-160), the kinds of soul (B. 161-3), the parts of the soul (B. 164), the vehicle of the soul (B. 165), relations between the parts of the soul (B. 166), the soul's immortality(B. 167-8), the soul's functionality (B. 169-170), the soul's pre-existenceand descent (B. 171-2), its relation to the body (B. 173), the soul's freedom and purification (B. 174-5), its fate after death and return to its home (B. 176-7), and finally the subject of metempsychosis (B. 178-80). A comprehensive summary of all subjects covered completes the book (B. 181). The method used is the same as previous volumes. For each Bausteina small number of texts are chosen, ranging between one and six passages. The text of these is published cKaz& ca Kcoxa Kco ,ggaa, i.e. in a layout that reflects the grammatical structure of the periods. This creates a certain amount of white space on the page but certainly makes the reading of these often difficult texts much easier. Facing the Greek text is a fluent and highly accurate German translation. Each text is discussedin the Commentary,which concentrateson structural analysisand detailed examinationof the contents rather than a line-by-line treatment. A drawback of the method is that it results in a considerable amount of paraphrase,but it does have the virtue of guiding the reader through texts that are often difficult or even obscure until fully explained by the commentator's total mastery of the subject. The method reflects two of Baltes' strongestconvictions,that study of ancient philosophyshould be based on a thorough knowledge of the relevant texts, and that the body of ancient Platonismforms a systematicwhole, within which there is room for divergence on points of detail and issues of interpretation.A striking feature of Baltes' treatment is his love for detailed and exhaustive systematization.In his treatmentof the relationbetween soul and body, for example, he gives no less than 21 instances of contrary statementsby Platonists with regard to the body, e.g. that it on the one hand possessesgreat beauty yet is also imperfect and indigent. His summary of the doctrine of the vehicle of the soul is also a masterpieceof systematizationcovering no less than 14 pages. Baltes likes nothing more than to find an apparent anom-
REVIEWS
229
aly or contradiction and show that by careful reading and after consideration of the context and other relevant texts a solution for the difficulty can be found. The texts included in the volumes range for the most part from Plutarch in the late first century to Porphyry and Iamblichus in the early fourth. My impression is that the concentration of later texts, i.e. from Plotinus onwards,is somewhat higher than in earliervolumes. The triad of Plotinus, Porphyry and Iamblichus is very prominent in the book. Iamblichus, in the long extracts from his work De animapreserved by Stobaeus, provides particularlyvaluablematerialon the soul becauseit often has a doxographical bias and so can tell us much about positions held on issues related to the soul by differing groups inside and outside the Platonist school. (It should be noted that these extracts have recently been edited with translationand commentarybyJohn Finamoreand John Dillon in the PhilosophiaAntiqua series, Leiden 2002.) But Baltes also includes many passages from earlier Platonists, including Alcinous, Atticus, Apuleius and Numenius, the four authors who tell us the most about Platonism in the 2nd century. Thirteen of the total of 85 texts are drawn from the Patristic tradition (one more if we include Philo): 2 from Tertullian, 3 from Origen, 2 from Nemesius, 2 from Calcidius,2 from Augustine(as source),and one each from Boethius and Aeneas of Gaza. Understandably Baltes uses this material primarilyto shed light on Platonistdoctrines. On a number of occasionshe makes comments about the relation between Platonist and Christianviews, whether it be agreement or disagreement (e.g. vol. 1, pp. 253, 343, 401, 420), but this is not his primary aim. It is perhaps regrettable that there a is not a single extract from Gregory of Nyssa's De animaet resurrectione, marks and between work which so clearly out the similarities differences Christian and Platonistviews on the soul. For Patristicscholars, therefore, the chief value of the book will be as a reference work for the entire range of Platonist views on the soul, and as such it could hardly be bettered. As noted above, the translationof the texts given by Baltes is both fluent and very accurate. There are two places where I would suggest a slightly different rendering. The first is at B. 167.2. At in Phaed.1.177 Westerink Damascius gives a doxographicaloverview of views on which parts of the soul are immortal. Some say it extends to the entire soul, others to nature (i.e. plants), others to the irrationalpart, yet others to the rational part, oi 6e !e;pt i 6vou --peTO oT vvo
ipouon yap -Tiv 6otav--- x nToXoiTCov l-epulaTXnTticKv.
Baltes translates:'Andere nur bis zur Vernunft-sie lassen ja (den Trager der) Meinung zugrunde gehen-so viele von den Peripatetikern.'He thus
230
REVIEWS
takes 56&ato mean 'the faculty of opinion' as one of the parts of the soul. Given the doxographicalcontext, I think it is more likely that 564a means 'opinion' in the sense of doctrine or view held. Those who regard only the voi; as immortal in fact no longer recognize any part of the soul as immortal and therefore destroy the doctrine of the immortalityof the soul altogether.Platonistsfrom Atticus onwards regarded the school of Aristotle as denying the doctrine of the immortality of the soul in the way that Plato had meant it. So I would translate:'Others (extend the doctrine) to the mind only-they in fact destroy the doctrine-as is the case for many of the Peripatetics.'The second point is very minor. Nemesius in B. 179.2 ?niypapov "OttoViK reportsabout Iamblichus:y,ypaoTatyouvavi,r gov6otpiXov an' d&v0plrcovei; CjoaaiXoyacKT.Baltes translates: 'Jedenfallshat er eine mit dem Titel: <> I think it would have been better to have retained the word ot in translatingthe title, i.e. '.. with the title Thatchanges of body occur not from men to irrational living beings etc.' The conjunction indicates that the treatise is presenting one point of view as its argument and is not examining both sides (cf. nos. 79, 82, 143, 146, 226 in the Lamprias catalogue of Plutarch'sworks). The two books have been printed and bound to the highest standards of the printer'sand binder's art. They are a joy to hold in the hand, open up and read. The price is so extreme, however, that even well-endowed librarieswill think twice before purchasingit. It is to be hoped that one day will make them availableto a wider audience. a less expensive Studienausgabe Matthias Baltes Sadly passed away on January 23rd 2003. For most of the 20 years that he worked on this project he was fighting a battle against cancer which he could not win. All the volumes of the project, but especially this last volume under review, bear witness to his incomparablededication and relentless determination to pursue the work of scholarshipto the very end. They, together with the book of Keine Schriften published in 1999 (see note 1 above), are his scholarly monument, and it will be lasting. Fortunatelythe project is being continued by the newly appointed successor to the chair of Greek in Miinster, Prof. Chr. Pietsch, assisted by Baltes'devoted pupil, Dr. M.-L. Lakmann.All studentsof ancient Platonism will keenly look forward to the final two volumes. Queen's College, Parkville 3052, Australia
DAVIDT. RUNIA
BOOKS RECEIVED desaintAugustin. Manuscrits etstemma Alexanderson,Bengt:Le textedesConfessions et Societatis Scientiarum Litterarum Humaniora (ActaRegiae Gothoburgensis, 42), Goteborg:Kungl. Vetenskaps-och Vitterhets-Samhallet2003, 105 pp., ISBN 91-85252-63-8, SEK 140 (pb).-Preface et informations pratiques (5-6). Reflections sur la stemmatologie(7-8): Stemma A, sans contamination (9-12); Stemma B, avec contamination (12-17); Conjectures(17-18); Fautes significatives,fautes non significatives(18-22); Contamination,interpolation (22-23); Le texte de l'auteur (23); Quelques conclusions (24). La tradition des Confessionsselon Verheijenet Gorman (25):Verheijen (25-35);Gorman (35-40);Conclusionssur les resultatsde Verheijen et Gorman (41). Passages importantspour un apercu de la tradition (42): Methode a suivre (42-44); Passages importants (44-77). Les rapports entre les manuscrits (78): Les fautes de l'archetype (78); La tradition directe: les manuscrits (78-90); La tradition directe: les fautes les plus frequentes (90-91); La tradition directe: les insertions (91); Au lieu d'un stemma (92); Eugippius (92-99); Rapports entre la tradition des Extraitsd'Eugippiuset celle des Confessions (99); Considerationssur la constitutiond'un texte (100-101). Bibliographie(102-104). Auctores varii, Commentaria in ApocalypsinJohannis: Variorum avctorvm Commentaria Minorain Apocalypsin Johannis,scilicetApringiPacensisTractatvs Senatoris Pavcade Monogramma Incerti Cassiodori Complexiones, excerpta, Fragmenta, De Enigmatibvsex Apocalypsi,Commemoratorivm a AvctorisCommemoratorivm, et omnia commentario critico instrvxit Avctvm,quae recognovit RogerGryson Theodvlpho (Corpus Christianorum,Series Latina CVII), Turnhout: Brepols Publishers 2003, 352 pp., ISBN 2-503-01071-7, ? 160 (cloth).-New volume in the distinguished series, comprising the edition of six commentaries on the from the middle of the VIth until the beginning of the IXth c. Apocalypse by the eminent specialist Gryson. Familiesin Context. Balch, David L. & Carolyn Osiek (eds.), EarlyChristian and An Interdisciplinary Dialogue(Series: Religion, Marriage, Family), Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans 2003, xix + 412 pp., 35 ill. (incl. 11 full-colour plates), ISBN 0-8028-3986-x, US$ 28.00/? 19.99 (pb).-Fine collection of interdisciplinaryessays, mainly the result of a conference at Brite Divinity School, Texas ChristianUniversity,and being part of a research project located at the University of Chicago: D.S. Browning ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available - online www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58,2, 231-237
232
BOOKS RECEIVED
& D. Clairmont, Series Foreword (viii-ix);Contributors (x); Introduction of DomusandInsulae:A. Wallace(xi-xvi);Abbreviations(xvii-xix);I. Archaeology in Domus and Insulae Rome: Families and Housefuls (3-18); Hadrill, M. Trumper,Materialand Social Environmentof Greco-RomanHouseholds in the East:The Case of HellenisticDelos (19-43);E.M. Meyers,The Problems of Gendered Space in Syro-PalestinianDomestic Architecture:The Case of Roman-Period Galilee (44-69); II: DomesticValues:Equality,Suffering: P. Lampe, The Languageof Equalityin Early ChristianHouse Churches:A Constructivist Approach (73-83); D.L. Balch, Paul's Portrait of Christ Crucified (Gal. 3:1) in Light of Paintings and Sculpturesof Suffering and Death in Pompeiian and Roman Houses (84-108); III. Women:S. Dixon, Sex and the Married Woman in Ancient Rome (111-129); R.S. Kraemer, Typical and AtypicalJewish Family Dynamics: The Cases of Babatha and Berenice (130-156); M.Y. MacDonald, Was Celsus Right? The Role of Women in the Expansionof Early Christianity(157-184);R. Sailer,Women, Slaves, and the Economy of the Roman Household (185-204); IV. Slaves: D.B. Martin, Slave Families and Slaves in Families (207-230);J.A. Harrill, The Domestic Enemy: A Moral Polarity of Household Slaves in Early Christian Apologies and Martyrdoms(231-254); C. Osiek, Female Slaves, B. Rawson, Porneia,and the Limits of Obedience (255-274); V. Children: Death, Burial, and Commemorationof Children in Roman Italy (277-297); C. Laes, Desperately Different?DeliciaChildren in the Roman Household Education: (298-324); VI. Implicationsfor Theological A.-J. Levine, Theological Education, the Bible, and History: Detente in the Culture Wars (327-336); T.F. Sedgwick,Theological Educationand the AnalogicalImagination(337344); M.M. Mitchell, Why Family Matters for Early Christian Literature (345-358); Bibliography(359-388); Acknowledgements(389-390); Index of Modem Authors(391-400);Index of Scriptureand Other Ancient Literature (401-412). Bovon, Francois, Studiesin EarlyChristianit(WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 161), Tibingen: Mohr Siebeck 2003, VIII + 336 pp., ISBN 3-16-147079-6, e 129 (clothbound with book jacket).-A magnificentcollection of papers (the first one new and several others translated from French into English), and published by Mohr Siebeck in an exemplary way: 1. The Apostolic Memories in Ancient Christianity(1-16); Part One:Luke-Acts: 2. Studies in Luke-Acts:Retrospect and Prospect (193. Wetterkundliches bei den Synoptikern (Lk 12,54-56 par.) (38-50); 37); 4. Apocalyptic Traditions in the Lukan Special Material: Reading Luke 18:1-8 (51-58); 5. The Law in Luke-Acts (59-73); 6. The Lukan Story of
BOOKS RECEIVED
233
the Passion of Jesus (Luke 22-23) (74-105); 7. The Role of the Scriptures in the Compositionof the Gospel Accounts:The TemptationsofJesus (Luke 4:1-13 par.) and the Multiplicationof the Loaves (Luke 9:10-17 par.) (106112); 8. 'Schon hat der heilige Geist durch den ProphetenJesaja zu euren Vater gesprochen' (Acts 28,25) (113-122);Part Two:New Testament Theology: 9. Parabel des Evangeliums-Parabel des Gottesreichs (123-131); 10. The Church in the New Testament, Servantand Victorious(132-143); 11. These ChristiansWho Dreams: The Authority of Dreams in the First Centuries of Christianity (144-162); 12. The Canonical Structure of Gospel and Apostle (163-177); 13. Israel in the Theology of the Apostle Paul (178andPatristic Literature: 14.Jesus' MissionarySpeech 191);PartThree: Apocryphal as Interpretedin the PatristicCommentariesand the ApocryphalNarratives (195-208); 15. The Synoptic Gospels and the Noncanonical Acts of the Apostles (209-225); 16. The Suspension of Time in Chapter 18 of the Protevangelium Jacobi(226-237); 17. The Words of Life in the Actsof theApostle Andrew(238-252); 18. Miracles, Magic, and Healing in the ApocryphalActs of the Apostles (253-266); 19. A New Citation of the Actsof Paul in Origen Historyand the History (267-270); 20. Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical of Salvation (271-283); 21. From St. Luke to St. Thomas by Way of St. Cyril (284-292); 22. The Apocryphal Reception of Luke's Gospel and the Orthodox Reading of the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (293-301); Publication Credits (303-305); Index of Ancient Authors (306-327); Index of Modem Authors (328-333); Index of Subjects (334-336). Breytenbach, Cilliers (Hg.), Paulus, die Evangelienund das Urchristentum. zu seinem80. Geburtstag Beitrdgevon und zu WalterSchmithals (Arbeiten zur Geschichtedes antikenJudentums und des Urchristentums/Ancient Judaism and Early ChristianityLIV), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2004, xi + 841 S., ISBN 90-04-12983-9, e 179/US$ 224 (hardback).-Eine eindrucksvolleund klassische Festschriftfur einen eindrucksvollenund klassischenWissenschaftler: Vorwort des Herausgebers(ix-xi);Einleitung (1-4); TeilI: Aufsdtzevon Walter A. KorpusPaulinum:Probleme des 'Apostelkonzils'(Gal. 2,1-10) Schmithals: (5-38);Judaistenin Galatien?(39-77);Die Kollektendes PaulusfuirJerusalem (78-106); Methodische Erwagungenzur Literarkritikder Paulusbriefe(107144); Zur Sammlung der Paulusbriefeund zu ihrer Integritat (145-160); Literarkritik und Theologie (161-173); Apokalyptik, Eschatologie und Literarkritik(174-198); LiterarkritischeAnalyse des Kolosserbriefes (199226); Uber Empfanger und AnlaB des Hebraerbriefes (227-251); Der Hebraerbrief als Paulusbrief:Beobachtung zur Kanonbildung (252-271); B. Evangelien undTheologiegeschichte: Kritik der Formkritik(275-313);Nachwort
234
BOOKS RECEIVED
zum Markuskommentar(315-327); Johannes WeiB als Wegbereiter der Formgeschichte(328-354);Vom Ursprungder synoptischenTradition (355387); Jesus verkiindigtdas Evangelium-Bultmanns Jesus-Buch (388-428); Zur Geschichte der SpruchquelleQund der Tradenten der Spruchiberlieferung.Das siebenfacheWehe Lk 11,37-54par (429-454);Die Gleichnisreden in den synoptischen Evangelien (455-486); Die Bedeutung der Evangelien in der fruhen Kirche vor der Kanonbildung (487-520); Die Martyrienvon Petrus und Paulus (521-541); Das Judentum zur Zeit Jesu (542-562); Das Alte Testament im Neuen (563-614); Gottesdienstim fruhen Christentum (615-665); Der 'heilige Geist' im urchristlichenVerstandnis(666-699);Von Jesus zur Weltreligion. Mission und Ausbreitungdes Christentumsin den erstendreiJahrhunderten Andreas Schmithals: (700-727);TeilII: Beitrgezu Walter Lindemann, Der Galaterbrief als historische Quelle (731-744); Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Zur Literarkritikder Paulusbriefe(745-763); Erich GriaBer, Zum theologiegeschichtlichen Ort des Hebraerbriefes(765-775);JensSchroter, Walter Schmithals und die synoptische Tradition. Darstellung und Kritik einer originellen Losung des synoptischen Problems (777-803); Eckhard Plumacher,Bibliographievon Walter Schmithals 1993-2003 (805-814);Die Autoren (815); Stellenregister(817-841). andthePromotion Caner, Daniel, Wandering, Authority BeggingMonks.Spiritual in LateAntiquity of Monasticism (The Transformationof the ClassicalHeritage XXXIII), Berkely-LosAngeles-London:Universityof CaliforniaPress 2002, xv + 325 pp., ISBN 0-520-23324-7 (bound with jacket). Doctoral dissertation Universityof California,Berkeley;directionSusannaElm: Introduction (1-18); 1. Wandering in the Desert and the Virtues of Manual Labor (1949); 2. Apostolic Wanderersof Third-CenturySyria (50-82); 3. In Support of 'People Who Pray':ApostolicMonasticismand the MessalianControversy (83-125);4. Apostle and Heretic:The ControversialCareer of Alexanderthe Sleepless (126-157);5. Hypocritesand Pseudomonks:Beggars,Bishops, and Ascetic Teachers in Cities of the Early Fifth Century (158-205);6. Monastic Patronage and the Two Churches of Constantinople (206-241); Epilogue (243-248); Appendix: The Life of Alexander Akoimetos (249-280); Select Bibliography(281-309); Index (311-325). andSaints'Cults,Cardiff:University Cartwright,Jane (ed.), CelticHagiography of Wales Press 2003, xvi + 339 pp., ISBN 0-7083-1749-9, ? 17.50 (pb).Fifteen chapters, mainly resulting of a conference on Celtic Hagiography and Saints'Cults held at the Universityof Wales, Lampeter,8-10 Sept. 2000. Among the topics discussed are the early sources for St Patrick (John T. Koch) and 'The harlot and the hostess: a preliminarystudy of the Middle
BOOKS RECEIVED
235
Welsh Lives of Mary Magdalene and her sister Martha' (Jane Cartwright). With Bibliography and detailed Index. Geerlings, Wilhelm (Hrsg.), Theologender christlichenAntike. Eine Einfihrung, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2002, 227 S., ISBN 3-53414736-7, e 29.90 (geb.).-Wichtige Sammlung einfuhrender Einzeldarstellungen patristischer Autoren: Wilhelm Geerlings, Einleitung (7-12); Eva Schulz-Flugel, Tertullian: Theologie als Recht (13-32); Andreas Hoffmann, Cyprian: Theologie des Bischofsamtes (33-52); HermannJosef Vogt, Origenes: Theologie des Wortes Gottes (53-66); Judith Pauli, Basilius: Theologie des Heiligen Geistes (67-81); H.-J. Sieben, Gregor von Nazianz: Dichterische Theologie (82-97); Franz Diinzl, Gregor von Nyssa: Mystik und Gottesliebe (98-114); Gudrun Miinch-Labacher, Cyrill von Alexandrien: Gottessohnschaft Jesu (115-128); Christoph Markschies, Ambrosius: Ein wahrer Bischof (129147); Wilhelm Geerlings, Augustinus: Lehrer der Gnade (148-167); Alfons Furst, Hieronymus: Theologie als Wissenschaft (168-183); Peter Bruns, Ephram der Syrer: Theologie als Lobpreis (184-201); Beate Regina Suchla, Dionysius Areopagita: Das uberflieBende Eine (202-220). Register: Personen; Sachen (223-226). Harrison, James R.: Paul's Languageof Grace in its Graeco-RomanContext (WUNT, 2. Reihe 172), Mohr Siebeck: Tubingen 2003, XV + 440 pp., ISBN 3-16-148097-x, e 69,00 (pb).-Revised PhD thesis School of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney; supervisor Edwin Judge: Ch. 1: Paul and the Reign of Grace (1-25); Ch. 2: The Role of Charis in the Inscriptions (26-63); Ch. 3: The Role of Charisin the Papyri (64-96); Ch. 4: The Role of Charisin First-Century Judaism (97-166); Chapter 5: The Role of Charisin the Philosophers (167-210); Ch. 6: Paul and Divine Beneficence (211-288); Ch. 7: Paul and Human Beneficence (289-344); Ch. 8: Conclusion (345352); Bibliography (353-383); Index of Modern Authors (384-392); Index of Passages (392-414); Index of Ancient Non-Literary Sources (415-423); Index of Ancient Literary Sources (423-436); Index of Subjects (436-440). Hilhorst, A. (ed.), The ApostolicAge in Patristic Thought (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae LXX), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2004, xiv + 256 pp., ISBN 90-04-12611-2, e 96/US$ 130 (hardback).-Originally the papers presented at the Conference to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the Dutch Foundation for Early Christian Studies, edited with great skill and care by the Society's former President: Introduction (vii-xi); Abbreviations (xiii); Theodore Korteweg, Origin and Early History of the Apostolic Office (1-10); Joseph Ysebaert, The Eucharist as a Love-meal (agape) in Didache 9-10, and Its Development in the Pauline and in the Syrian Tradition
236
BOOKS RECEIVED
(11-27);Ton Hilhorst,Romantic Fantasies:EarlyChristiansLookingBackon the Apostolic Period (28-40); Peter Van Deun, The Notion a&tooToticO;: A Terminological Survey (41-50);Jan den Boeft, Miracles Recalling the Apostolic Age (51-62); Gerard Rouwhorst, Liturgy on the Authority of the Apostles (63-85); Riemer Roukema, La tradition apostolique et le canon du Nouveau Testament (86-103); Gerard P. Luttikhuizen,Witnesses and Mediators of Christ's Gnostic Teachings (104-114); H.S. Benjamins, Die Apostolizitatder kirchlichenVerkiindigungbei Irenausvon Lyon (115-129); Fred Ledegang, Origen's View of Apostolic Tradition (130-138);Johannes van Oort, The Paraclete Mani as the Apostle of Jesus Christ and the Origins of a New Church (139-157);Arnold Provoost,The ApostolicWorld of Thought in Early Christian Iconography (158-193); Adelbert Davids, The Era of the Apostles According to Eusebius' Historyof the Church(194203); GJ.M. Bartelink,Monks: The Ascetic Movement as a Return to the Aetas Apostolica (204-218); B. Dehandschutter,Primumenimomnesdocebant Awarenessof Discontinuityin the Early Church: The Case of Ecclesiastical Office (219-227); Antoon A.R. Bastiaensen, Urbs beataJerusalem:Saint Augustin sur Jerusalem (228-241). Indexes: Index of References; Index of Names and Subjects;Index of Modern Authors (243-257). Christiana. Les mutationsdes savoirs(cosmograInglebert, Herve, Interpretatio phie, giographie,ethnographie, histoire)dans l'Antiquitichretienne (30-630 apres des Etudes Serie J.-C.) (Collection Augustiniennes, Antiquite166),Paris:Institut d'Etudes Augustiniennes 2001 [Diffuseur exclusif: Brepols Publishers, Turhout, Belgium],632 p., ISBN 2-85121-186-2,E 52,15 (pb).-Introduction Partie:La christianisationdes savoirs antiques sur les lieux (11-24); Premiere (cosmographie,geographie, ethnographie)et les rapportsentre savoir et foi: Chapitre I: La christianisationde la cosmographieet de la geographie (27108); Chapitre II: La christianisationde l'ethnographie(109-192); Chapitre III: Savoir et croire dans 1'Antiquitetardive (193-278); Conclusions de la premiere partie (279-284); DeuxiemePartie:La pensee chretienne de l'histoire et l'insertion des savoirs antiques dans la doctrinachristiana: Chapitre IV: Le developpement de l'historiographiechretienne (289-391); Chapitre V: L'histoiredes heresies (393-461); Chapitre VI: L'histoireuniverselledes chretiens(463-548);Conclusionsde la deuxiiemepartie (549-553);Conclusions generales (555-570); Bibliographie(571-611); Index thematique des principales sources (613-624). De musicaliberVI.A CriticalEdition Jacobsson, Martin: AureliusAugustinus, witha Translation andan Introduction Universitatis Stockholmiensis:Studia (Acta Latina StockholmiensiaXLVII), Stockholm:Almqvist& WiksellInternational
BOOKS RECEIVED
237
2002, cxvii + 143 pp., ISBN 91-22-01959-6, SEK 239 (pb).-A dissertation for the doctor's degree in Latin, Stockholm University 2002; supervisor Monika Asztalos: 1. Introduction(ix):The purpose of the presentwork (ix); The time and circumstances of the composition of the De musica (x-xxviii);Previoustextual work on the De musica:The dissertationof Patrick Le Boeuf (xxviii-xxx);The present edition (xxx-lx);Textual problems (lxiSelective lxxxix);Conspectusof the contents of the De musicaVI (Ixxxix-xciii); Editorial for transthe commentary (xciv-cix); principles(cx-cxv);Principles lation (cxvi-cxvii).2. Text and translation(1-117); Appendix 1: Deviations from the vulgate text (the Maurist edition) (119-123); Appendix 2: Retractationes I.XI: De musica libri sex (124-126); Index terminorum (127-136). 3. Bibliography(137-143). Kofsky, Aryeh, Eusebiusof Caesarea againstPaganism(Jewish and Christian PerspectivesSeries,Vol. III), Leiden-Boston-Koln:Brill 2000, xiii + 337 pp., ISBN 90-04-11642-7, e 118/US$ 148 (clothbound with book jacket).Revised doctoral thesis Hebrew University of Jerusalem, supervisor Guy G. Stroumsa:Introduction(1-4); Chapter One: Background(5-36);Chapter Two: Apologetics and Polemics in Non-Apologetic and Early Apologeticand Demonstratio PolemicalWorks(37-73);ChapterThree: Praeparatio Evangelica Evangelica-A Single Apologetic-PolemicalEnterprise(74-99);Chapter Four: The Concept of ChristianPrehistory-A Central Axis in the Polemic (100136);Chapter Five: Prophecyin the Service of Polemics (137-164);Chapter Six: Miracles: A Major Subject in Eusebius' Polemics (165-214); Chapter Seven: Minor Apologetic-PolemicalArgumentsand Issues(215-240);Chapter Eight: Tactics, Rhetoric and the Role of Porphyryin the Dual Composition (241-275);Chapter Nine: The Theophany: The Final Apologetic Statement (276-311);Conclusion (312-314);Bibliography(315-321);Indexes (323-337). Lieu, J., NeitherJew Nor Greek? (Studies of the Constructing EarlyChristianity New Testament and Its World), Edinburgh-New York: T & T Clark: A Continuum imprint 2002, xiii + 263 pp., ISBN 0-567-08909-6, f 40,00 (hardbackwith bookjacket).-Collection of essays,written between 1990 and 2002: 1: Introduction:NeitherJew nor Greek?ConstructingEarlyChristianity Boundaries: 2. 'The Partingof the Ways':Theological (1-8);PartI: Disappearing Construct or Historical Reality? (11-29); 3. Do God-fearers make Good Christians?(31-47); 4. The Race of the God-fearers (49-68); 5. Ignoring inJudaismandChristianiy: andConversion the Competition(69-79);PartII: Women 6. The 'Attractionof Women' in/to EarlyJudaismand Christianity:Gender and the Politics of Conversion (83-99); 7. Circumcision, Women and in EarlyChristianViewsof and Scripture Salvation (101-114); Part III: Theology
238
BOOKS RECEIVED
Judaism:8. History and Theology in ChristianViews of Judaism (117-134); 9. Accusationsof Jewish Persecutionin Early Christian Sources (135-150); 10. Reading in Canon and Community:Deut. 21.22-23, A Test for Dialogue Identity:11. The Forging (151-168); Part IV: The Shapingof Early 'Christian' of Christian Identity and the Letterto Diognetus(171-189); 12. The New Testament and Early Christian Identity (191-209); 13. 'I am a Christian': Martyrdomand the Beginningof'Christian' Identity(211-231);Bibliography (233-255); General Index (257-261); Index of Modern Authors (263). Maschio, Giorgio, La figura di Cristonel Commento al Salmo 118 di di Milano(StudiaEphemeridisAugustinianum88), Roma: Institutum Ambrogio PatristicumAugustinianum2003, 294 pp., ISBN 88-7961-005-8 (pb). Recension Maximus Confessor: TheLifeof MaximusConfessor, 3, edited and translatedby Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen (Early Christian Studies 6), Strathfield, NSW (Australia):St Pauls Publications 2003, ix + 212 pp., ISBN 0-9577483-5-3 (pb).-Introduction: I. Sources for Maximus' Life (4-11);II. HistoricalBackground(11-21);III. Relationshipbetween the Three Recensions of the Life of Maximus(22-31); IV. Significanceof Maximus as criticus]and Theologian and Agitator (32-34). Text [with extensive apparatus Translation(35-185);Notes [on the translation](186-196). Glossaryof Titles (197-198); Bibliography(199-202); Indices (203-212). Nie, Giselle de, Word,Imageand Experience. Dynamicsof Miracleand Selfin Sixth-Century Gaul(VariorumCollected Studies Series),Aldershot, Perception GB-Burlington,USA: Ashgate 2003, xiv + 374 pp., ISBN 0-86078-933-0, f 57.50 (hardback).-Thematic collection of seventeen previously published studies, several of which have been translated into English for the first time, and now prefaced by an 'Introduction:Visions of the Heart' (ixxiii): I: Is a Woman a Human Being? Precept, Prejudice and Practice in Sixth-Century Gaul; II: The Body, Fluidity and Personal Identity in the and Images of Self in Late World View of Gregory of Tours; III: Contagium Sixth-CenturyGaul; IV: Images of Invisible Dynamics: Self and Non-Self in Sixth-CenturySaints' Lives;V: Caesariusof Aries and Gregoryof Tours: Two Sixth-Century Gallic Bishops and 'Christian Magic'; VI: A Broken Lamp or the Effluenceof Holy Power?Common Sense and Belief-Realityin Gregory of Tours' Own Experience;VII: Seeing and Believingin the Early Middle Ages: A PreliminaryInvestigation;VIII: Gregoriusof Tours' Smile: Spiritual Reality, Imagination and Earthly Events in the 'Histories'; IX: History and Miracle:Gregory'sUse of Metaphor;X. The Poet as Visionary: Venantius Fortunatus's'New Mantle' for Saint Martin;XI: Iconic Alchemy: Imaging Miracle in Late Sixth-Century Gaul; XII: Word, Image and
BOOKS RECEIVED
239
Experiencein the EarlyMedievalMiracleStory;XIII: Fatherlyand Motherly XIV: Poetics Curing in Sixth-Century Gaul: Saint Radegund's Mysterium; of Wonder:Dream-Consciousnessand TransformationalDynamics in SixthCentury Miracle Stories; XV: The 'Power' of What is Said in the Book: Word, Script and Sign in Gregory of Tours; XVI: Text, Symbol and 'Oral Culture' in the Sixth-Century Church: The Miracle Story; XVII: The Language in Miracle-The Miracle in Language: Words and the Word according to Gregory of Tours; Index. andtheEarly Tkacz, Catherine Brown: TheKeyto theBresciaCasket:Typology Christian des Etudes Serie Imagination (Collection Augustiniennes, Antiquite 165), Paris:Institutd'ttudes Augustiniennes2001 [Diffuseurexclusif:Brepols Publishers,Turhout, Belgium], 273 pp. (incl. many figures and line drawings), ISBN 2-85121-178-1, e 60,50 (pb). 'The Brescia Casket is a late fourth-centuryEarly Christianbox-probably a reliquary,althoughits exact use is unknown-most likely made in Northern Italy and notable as "the most beautiful of Christian ivories". Also known as the Lipsanothek(i.e., reliquary)of Brescia, this artworkmeasures roughly 32 cm. long by 22 cm. wide by 23 cm. high. A wealth of Christianimages adorn it. Included are thirty-three scenes comprising two series of New Testament and Old Testament representations'(19-21): Preface (9-10); Table of Contents (1112); List of Illustrations(13-15);Introduction(17-18); 1. The Brescia Casket (19-49); 2. Typology and the Early Christian Imagination (51-62); 3. The Innovative Program of Types on the Brescia Casket (63-107); 4. A Possible Source for the Casket's Program of Types: The LiberaPetitions of the Commendatio animae(109-137); 5. The Enigma in the Upper Right Register (139-167); 6. Gloria,Intelligent Fire, and Theophany on the Brescia Casket of theSarcophagus (169-185); Conclusion (187-189);Appendix: TheIconography Bassus Table of Identifications (195-243); Bibliography ofjunius (191-193); (245-261); Index (263-273). J. VANOORT
Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series Thiscommentaryseries aims to makePhilo s thoughtaccessible to readers such as graduate studentswho arejust beginning to read him, but also contains much materialthat will be of interestto specialists in Hellenistic Judaism,ancientphilosophy andpatristic literature.
Philo's Flaccus The First Pogrom PIETER W. VANDERHORST This book is the first English commentaryon Philo's In Flaccumsince the publicationof Box in 1939. The work containsan introductionin which mattersof genre, historicalbackground,the textual evidence etc. are discussed. This is followed by a new English translationof the Greektext. The main partof the book is a detailedphilological and historicalcommentaryon Philo's text. Since In Flaccum is our only source for the anti-Jewishpogrom in Alexandriain the year 38 CE, it is of the utmost significance for the study of the origins and early historyof antisemitism.The book is of interestsfor scholarsof Judaism,Ancient History,Biblical Studies, Classical Literature,and Historyof Religions. Pieter W. van der Horst, Ph.D. (1978) in Theology, is Professorof New Testamentand the Jewish and Hellenistic world of EarlyChristianity at UtrechtUniversity.He publishedhundredsof articles and books on a wide varietyof subjectsin this field, the most recent of which is Japheth in the Tentsof Shem:Studieson Jewish Hellenism in Antiquity(Peeters, 2002). Inprint2003 ISBN90 04 131183 Clothwithdustjacket ListpriceEUR89.-/ USS 109.(xii, 284 pp.) Philoof Alexandria Series,2 Commentary
*so
available in this series
Philo of Alexandria, On the Creationof the Cosmos according to Moses Introduction, Translation and Commentary DAVIDT. RUNIA This study is the first volume in the new Philo of AlexandriaCommentarySeries. It contains a new English translationof the Jewish philosopher's famous treatise On the creation of the cosmos (the first for seventy years), and the first ever commentaryin English. Inprint2002
ISBN90 04 121692
Cloth with dustjacket(xviii, 444 pp.) List price EUR 109.- / US$ 119.-
Philoof Alexandria Series,1 Commentary
Academic
www.brill.
nl
'* BR
Publishers
I L L
INSTRUCTIONS
TO AUTHORS
(1) Contributionsshould be submittedin duplicateand be accompaniedby a disk.Both WordPerfect and Microsoft Word are accepted word-processingprograms. ASCII-formatted disks are also accepted. Contributionssubmitted should not have been published elsewhere. (2) Manuscriptsshould be printed with a wide margin and double space between the lines. Please use one side of the paper only. The first page should have ample space at the top around the title. (3) Titles should be as short as possible. (4) Italics should be used sparingly (but see below nrs. 6 and 7). (5) Latin quotations should be underlined to be printed in italics. Syriac, Hebrew and Coptic quotations should be transcribed. (6) References should be given in footnotes with continuous numbering. Titles of books and of journals (not of papers in journals) should be in italics to be printed in italics. For example: H.A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the ChurchFathers1 (Cambridge, Mass. 41964) 106-111. L.W. Barnard, "The Antecedents of Arius," VigiliaeChristianae 24 (1970) 172-188. Gregory of Nyssa, De hom.opif. 24 (PG 44,212D) - Greg.Nyss. Hom. opif. 24 (PG 44,212D). Tertullian, Adv.Marc.4,28,1 - Tert. Adv.Marc.4,28,1. (7) Correction.Authors are requested to check their manuscripts,and especially their quotations, most carefully, and to type out all Greek, as later corrections in the proof stage are expensive and time-consuming.Corrections by which the original text is altered will be charged. (8) Offprints.Contributorswill receive 25 offprintsfree of charge for articles and 8 free offprints for reviews.
? Copyright 2004 by Koninkljke BrillNV, Leiden,TheNetherlands All rightsreserved. storedin a retrieval No part of thispublicationmay be reproduced, translated, system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, withoutpriorwrittenpermission recording of thepublisher. to photocopy itemsfor internalpersonaluse is grantedby Brillprovidedthattheappropriate Authorization Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, fees arepaid directlyto Copyright Suite910, Danvers,MA 01923, USA. Feesaresubjectto change.
ISSN 0042-6032 (print version) ISSN 1570-0720 (online version)
This journal is printed on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS M.C. STEENBERG, The Role of Mary as Co-recapitulator
in St
Irenaeus of Lyons..............................................................................
117
N. PERRIN,NHC 11,2 and the Oxyrhynchus Fragments (P.Oxy
1, 645, 655): Overlooked Evidence for a Syriac Gospelof Thomas ........................................................ ......... A. COSKUN, Virius Nicomachus Flavianus,Der Praefectusund Consul des Carmencontrapaganos........................................ ......... in Sallust of Aeclanum ............................................ Julian J. LOSSL, H. JACOBSON, Tyconius' Rules of Chronology: An Innovation
......
138 152 179 203
Reviews ....................................................................
205
Books received ....................................................................................
231
Ch
ristianae Review
A
Early
of
Christian
Life
Language
and
VOL.
LVIII
NO.
3
2004
www.brill.nl
BRILL LEIDEN-BOSTON
VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE a review of Early Christian Life and Language EDITORS-IN-CHIEF:
J. DEN BOEFT, Amsterdam,
J. VAN OORT, Utrecht/Nijmegen,
W.L. PETERSEN,
State College, Pennsylvania, D.T. RUNIA,Melbourne, C. SCHOLTEN, Koln, J.C.M. VAN WINDEN,Leiden ASSOCIATE EDITORS:
SCOPE:
MANUSCRIPTS:
PUBLISHER: PUBLISHED: SUBSCRIPTIONS:
OFFICES:
BACK VOLUMES:
BACK ISSUES:
A. Le Boulluec (Paris) - A. Davids (Nijmegen) - R.M. Grant (Chicago) Marguerite Harl (Paris) - J.-P. Mah6 (Paris) -Elaine Pagels (Princeton) G. Rouwhorst (Utrecht) - R. Staats (Kiel) This quarterly journal contains articles and short notices of an historical and cultural, linguistic or philological nature on Early Christian literatureposterior to the New Testament in the widest sense of the word, as well as on Christian epigraphy and archaeology. Church and dogmatic history will only be dealt with if they bear directly on social history; Byzantine and Mediaeval literature only in so far as it exhibits continuity with the Early Christian period. The journal will also contain reviews of importantstudies, published elsewhere. Each volume appears in 4 quarterly issues. All manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be sent to the Secretary of the Editorial Board, Professor J. den Boeft, Commanderijpoort4-6, 2311 WB Leiden, The Netherlands. Books for review should be sent to Professor J. van Oort, Department of Ecclesiastical History, P.O. Box 80105, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. Brill Academic Publishers Four times a year: February, May, August and November The subscription price of Volume 58 (2004) is EUR 195.- (US $ 244.-) for institutions, and EUR 99.- (US$ 124.-) for individuals, inclusive of postage and handling charges. All prices are exclusive of VAT in EU-countries (VAT not applicable outside the EU). Subscription orders are accepted for complete volumes only. Orders take effect with the first issue of any year. Orders may also be entered on an automatic continuing basis. Cancellations will only be accepted if they are received before October 1st of the year preceding the year in which the cancellation is to take effect. Claims for missing issues will be met, free of charge, if made within three months of dispatch for European customers and five months for customers outside Europe. Once the issue is published the actual dates of dispatch can be found on our website: www.brill.nl. Subscription orders may be made via any bookseller or subscription agency, or direct to the publisher. The Netherlands U.S.A. Brill Academic Publishers Inc. Brill Academic Publishers 112 Water Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 9000 2300 PA Leiden Boston, MA 02109 Tel: 1-800-962-4406 (toll free) Tel: +31 71 535 35 66 Fax: (617) 263 2324 Fax: +31 71 531 75 32 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Back volumes of the last two years are available from Brill: please contact our customer services department. For back volumes of the preceding years please contact: Swets & Zeitlinger. P.O. Box 830, 2160 SZ, Lisse, The Netherlands. Back issues of the current and last two years are available from Brill. VISIT THE BRILL WEBSITE: WWW.BRILL.NL
BRILL LEIDEN . BOSTON
ERIC FRANCIS OSBORN: A TRIBUTE BY
DAVID T. RUNIA
On December 9th 2002 Eric Osborn, distinguished scholar and teacher of Patristic and New Testament studies, celebrated his 80th birthday. Three days earlier a symposium entitled 'The Spark and Ferment of Faith' was held in his honour at Queen's College, Melbourne. The present fascicle of Vigiliae Christianaepublishes three papers that were presented to him on that day, together with a tribute and a bibliography containing his publications up to the present. Eric Osborn was born at Ivanhoe, a suburb of Melbourne, into a staunch Methodist family. His early schooling was at Wesley College and the University of Melbourne, where he was resident in Queen's College. He first studied philosophy as a preparation for theological studies, falling under the spell of Professor A. Boyce Gibson, the distinguished incumbent of the chair of philosophy. His studies were interrupted by a period of war service in New Guinea from 1941 to 1944. When he returned he was more than ever determined to study for the ministry, and was ordained in the Methodist Church in 1950. In 1952 he was awarded a travelling scholarship enabling him to study at Cambridge University, where he studied with William Telfer and Henry Chadwick. In 1954 he gained his doctorate, which laid the foundation for his first monograph on Clement of Alexandria (in 1977 Cambridge paid him the rare honour of awarding him a higher Doctorate of Divinity). In 1958 he was appointed Professor of New Testament and Early Church History at the Theological Hall, Queen's College, a position which he retained until his retirement in 1987 (by which time it had become part of the United Faculty of Theology). On retiring he was appointed Honorary Professor at La Trobe University, Melbourne and Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne. As a glance at his list of publications will show, during the past fifteen years his scholarly activity has accelerated rather than slowed down. He is enjoying a remarkably energetic and productive old age, as was abundantly evident on the day of the Symposium in his honour. ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
58, 242-255 VigiliaeChristianae
-
L.. .
.
-f
T,
ERIC FRANCIS OSBORN: A TRIBUTE
243
In two respects Eric Osbor's contribution to patristic studies has been distinctive and will be lasting. Firstly, he has drawn our attention to the importance of what took place in the second century. Most of his research has concentratedon that decisiveperiod, when the major moves of Christian theology and dogma were initiated. Secondly, mindful of his early philosophical training, he has constantlyreminded us of the role that argument and logic must play in theological debate and investigation. He has a remarkableability to cut through masses of verbiage and penetrate to the essential problems that his authors are wrestling with, allowing him to articulate their solutions with a clarity that gives real insight into their thought. His style of writing, with its persistent use of pithy and often almost proposition-like sentences, is also distinctive. When he crosses swords with fellow scholars, he can be rigorous and even devastating, but the severity of his judgments is often alleviatedby a remarkablecapacity for humour and self-deprecation.His company is never dull, as a large band of devoted students throughout the years of teaching will testify. Osborn's contributionto patristicstudies has been made primarilythrough a sequence of seven monographs, soon to be followed by an eighth. All the distinctivefeaturesof his scholarshipare found in his first study entitled The Philosophy of Clementof Alexandria(1957). In 13 compact chapters the philosophicalargumentationbehind the patchworkof texts is laid bare under the three headings God, Goodness and Truth, which answer three philosophical questions:what is real? what is goodness? what is truth? Already in this early study Osbor shows an awareness that there is more to theology than just argument. For the value of symbolism he appeals to the poetry of T. S. Eliot, whose complexity he compares with that of Clement. In his next monograph onJustin (1973), Osborn first introducesa theme that will be prominent in his subsequentwork.Justin, writing in the second century, argues the truth of the Gospel in an intellectual and moral climate which has correspondenceswith our own time of atheism and spiritual searching. At the front of the volume he quotes John Stuart Mill's aphorism that 'there is no philosophy possible, where fear of consequences is a stronger principle than love of truth'. This applies to Justin, but also to Osborn himself. The arguments and logic that Justin puts forward are deceptively simple, but confront all the main issues. In the Gospel truth comes forward to meet us. 'The word does it all.' in EarlyChristianhought(1976), has a slightly The next book, EthicalPatterns narrower focus on questions of morality and ethics, but the scope of its
244
DAVID T. RUNIA
historical coverage is the broadest of all the studies. Osborn focuses on four main ethical patternsof thought-righteousness, discipleship,faith and love-and outlines how they are treated in the New Testament, Clement, Basil the Great,John Chrysostomand Augustine. The fourth century thus briefly takes over from the second. Each ethical pattern leads to a problem that is still with us in the 20th century and which patristic treatment can illuminate:the problems of natural law, the Jesus of History, the relation between non-Christian and Christian ethics, and situation ethics. Osborn is rather critical of Augustine. His importance may lie in the problems he failed to solve. In the history of ideas, it seems, practical influence and theoretical incoherence often go together. A prominent role is played in the book by the contemporaryethicalPlatonismof the writerand philosopher Iris Murdoch, with whom Osborn engaged in conversationduring his periods of study leave in England. The fourthmonograph,TheBeginning of Christian Philosophy (1981),continues the same method of the previous one, but returns to the second century. There are five main problemsconfrontedby Christianthinkersin thisperiod: is there one God and can one speak about him? is man free and does he have a link with God? why did a good God create a world in which there is so much evil? does history have a meaning? who is Jesus and how does his manifestationas the Word solve the previous four problems? In each case Osborn looks at the treatment of these problems in the thought of Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement. This study contains a good deal of reflectionon methodologicalissues. In a stronglyworded appendix alternative methods in the history of ideas as they apply to patristic thought are investigated.Osborn is highly criticalof what he calls the doxographical method, likened to stamp-collecting.It should be replaced by the method of problematicelucidation,which sees problems and logical issues as being at the core of historicalresearch.In developingthis method Osborn derived much stimulationfrom the theoreticalwork on the history of ideas by the AustralianphilosopherJohn Passmore. After an interval of 12 years the main themes of the second century are revisted in the study The Emergence of ChristianTheology(1993). One might well ask what the relation of this study is to the previous one. How does Christian theology differ from Christian philosophy? The answer is that the book concentrates on the doctrine of God as it was developed in the second century. To the four authors discussed in the previous volume is added the apologist Athenagoras.God is affirmed as One, as both Father and Son, and as first principle of physics, ethics and logic. All but one
ERIC FRANCIS OSBORN: A TRIBUTE
245
chapter of the book focus on problems of unity, with frequent reference to contemporaryphilosophical doctrines in Middle and Neoplatonism. 'At first sight, it seems thatJerusalem owed everythingto Athens. It was Greek metaphysics which provided the concepts of unity and dialectic to made Christian monism possible. What did the Gospel add to these ideas? The answer lies in the summing up of all things by Christ, that powerful mixture of symbolism and logic, which gave the one first-principlea chance of being true (p. 294).' In a stronglyworded Appendix Osborn attacks the critical views of Dorrie and Pannenberg on the subversion of Christianity by Platonism. He prefers a more positive approach. The distinctive claim of second century theology was that God in Christ was a more credible first principle than the abstractPlatonic notion of the good. The one chapter that springs out as being different discusses the Bible as the material of theology. Matthew, Paul and John are examined in order to show what they tell us about the reality of God and his unity in Christ. This represents a slight shift in Osborn's approach. In his later books he focuses more on the scripturalinterpretationpractised by his heroes. This study can lay claim to being Osborn's masterpiece. All the distinctive aspects of his interpretationof early Christian thought are present. The next two monographs are again studies of individual thinkers. In First Theologian Tertullian: of the West(1997) Osborn tackles the thought of the thinkerwho has more than anyone else been associatedwith a fideistic and anti-rationalposition. Osborn rejects this view as simplistic and failing to do justice to the complexity of his thought (for his interpretationof est see the review ofJ. C. M. van Winden the famous credoquia absurdum in this journal, 52 (1998) 327). He ends the book by asking what qualities of mind possessed by Tertullian would appeal today. Firstly,we read, there is his originality;secondly his openness, which disappointssome who want more comprehensivesolutions;thirdlythe coherence of thought which he achieves with the single theme of perfection of the divine economy in the crucified Christ. These qualities, we might suggest, are ones that Eric Osborn not only admires, but also himself has wished to exemplify. Irenaeus was the last great second century theologian who remained to be done. Osborn admits that it should be no surprise that he came last. Both his writings and his thought have the reputation of being difficult and complex. They now have a staunch defender. Once again the task is to penetrate through the detail and see the essential structures.In his study Irenaeusof Lyons(2001) it is argued that we first need to identify his criteria. Standards of both logic and aesthetics are applied to the Christian
246
DAVID T. RUNIA
bible. Irenaeus is in fact the first to found his theology on the Christian bible as we know it. We must be careful, Osborn warns, not to be too kind to his opponents. Moder scholars have tried to rehabilitatethe Gnostics, turningthem into 'good chaps, active in local governmentand RotaryInternational, with a devotion to home and garden' (the quote is from his article in the Expositogy Times,114.8 (2003) 255). But for Irenaeus their teachings and were incoherent unworthy of belief. He had to respond to the diverse complexitiesof their position, which has the effect of reducingthe simplicity of his thought.Yet once again the main lines as portrayedare clear, distilled in the four main concepts of his thought:God as divine intellect and source of good, plan of salvation, recapitulation,participationof man in God. In the end Jerusalem and Athens come together at Patmos. For Irenaeus 'the glory of God is a livingman and the life of man is the vision of God' (4.20.7). His inspirationhere, Osborn argues, is the text in Revelation 21:3: 'Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them and be their God'. But the patristiclabours of Eric Osborn are not yet finished. After seven books, the eighth is yet to follow. The Patreswould have enjoyed the symbolism. He has returnedto his first love, Clement of Alexandria,and is now putting the finishingtouches to a comprehensivestudy of his thought, to be published once again by Cambridge University Press. Throughout the years Eric Osborn has been an enthusiastictraveller,regularly leaving the relative isolation of Melbourne to visit the main centres of Patristic scholarship.He was able to enjoy highly profitable periods of leave when he worked in Cambridge, Oxford, Tiibingen and Strassbourg and various American universities.While in Tibingen he developed a great rapport with the two German scholars Ernst Kasemann and Gerhard Ebeling.Later he had fruitfuldiscussionswith the philosopherHans-Joachim Kramer. The conversationsthat he was able to have in Europe were very important to him. They allowed him to clarify and sharpen the insights which he had first developed on his own. During his retirementhe moved further afield, teaching courses in Athens, Rome and Cairo. Though not an ascetic, he felt the attractions of the desert. There was an exciting moment when he thought that a lost manuscriptof Clement's Hypotyposeis was within reach. But so far his hopes have not materialized. There were times that he was tempted to move to the greener pastures of England. But Eric Osborn decided to remain in Australia. There are many scholars who think that his place of retirement, the sea-side village
ERIC FRANCIS OSBORN: A TRIBUTE
247
of Point Lonsdale, is a major centre of Patristic studies. Throughout the years he has made a huge contributionto the study of the Fathers in this country, through his editorship of Australianjournals such as the Australian BiblicalReaiewand Colloquium, through his countless lectures at conferences and symposia, and through his tireless support of younger scholars. It was entirely fitting, therefore, that the Symposium in honour of his eightieth birthday was held at Queen's College, the former Methodist institution which he first entered in 1941. It is no less fitting that the papers of this the premier internaSymposium are being published in V'giliaeChristianae, tional journal for Patristicstudies. May Eric Osborn accept this fascicle as an expressionof appreciationfor all that he has done to deepen our understanding of the world of early Christian thought. Queen's College University of Melbourne Parkville,Vic. 3052 Australia
248
DAVID T. RUNIA
BIBLIOGRAPHY The Publicationsof E. F. Osborn 1957 [1] The Philosophyof Clementof Alexandria,Texts and Studies N.S. 3 (CambridgeUniversity Press; reprinted 1978), xi + 206 pp. 1959 in of Clement and the First [2] 'Teaching Writing Chapterof the Stromateis of Alexandria,'Journalof Theological Studies10:335-343. 1960 [3] 'Realism and Revelation,' AustralianBiblicalReview8:29-38. 1961 BiblicalReview [4] 'The New English Bible: The Fourth Gospel,' Australian 9:23-31. [5] 'History, Exegesis and Prayer, Part I,' ReformedTheologicalReview 20:70-87. 1962 Review, [6] 'History, Exegesis and Prayer, Part II', ReformedTheological 21:15-22. BiblicalReview10:32-41. [7] 'The Gospel of Truth,' Australian [8] 'Henry Bath, Methodist Preacher,' Heritage,3-20. 1966 [9] Justin's Response to Second Century Challenges, AustralianBiblical Review14:37-54. 1967 Word and History [10] (Perth:Universityof WesternAustraliaPress;reprinted 1971), 61 pages. [11] Articles on Arius, Clement of Alexandria, Pseudo-Dionysius in P. Edwards(ed.), TheEncyclopedia of Philosophy (New York and London: Macmillan).
* I would like to thank Mr Michael Champion (Melbourne) for assistance in tracking down various details of this bibliography.
ERIC FRANCIS OSBORN: A TRIBUTE
249
1968 BiblicalRaeiew [12] 'Ethical Perspectivesin the New Testament,' Australian 16:1-14. 3.1:5-10. [13] 'Theology Here and Now,' Colloquium 1969 [14] TheBible-The Wordin the World(Melbourne:Joint Board of Christian Education), 119 pages. [15] 'Ebeling: Word and...,' AustralianBiblicalReview17:41-53. 3.2:119-124. [16] 'Kasemann and Ebeling,' Colloquium 1970 3.4:307-320. [17] 'The Church in the New Testament,' Colloquium 1971 [18] 'Historical Critical Exegesis-Kasemann's Contribution,' Australian BiblicalReview19:17-35. 1972 BiblicalReviaw20:33-38. the Fourth 'Kasemann on Gospel,' Australian [19] [20] 'FromJustin to Origen, The Pattern of Apologetic,' Pudentia4:1-22. 1973 zur historischen Theologie 47 (Tubingen:J. C. B. Martyr, Justin Beitrage [21] Mohr (Paul Siebeck), xi + 228 pages. 7:65-79. [22] 'Cyprian's Imagery,' Antichthon 1973 5.2:27-37. [23] 'The God of the Christians,' Colloquium 1974 6.2:3-15. to Christian 'Greek Answers Questions,' Colloquium [24] Review Biblical Australian 22:11-22. and 'Parable Exposition,' [25] 7.1:30-41. [26] 'Spirit and Charisma,' Colloquium 1975 [27] 'Problems of Ethics in Early Christian Thought,' Pudentia7:11-19. [28] 'Kasemann on Romans,' AustralianBiblicalReview23:29-31.
250
DAVID T. RUNIA
1976 [29] EthicalPattens in Early ChristianThought(CambridgeUniversity Press; reprinted 1978), viii + 252 pages. [30] 'Elucidation of Problems as a Method of Interpretation, Part I,' 8.2:24-32. Colloquium [31] 'Elucidation of Problems as a Method of Interpretation, Part II,' 9.1:10-18. Colloquium 8:115-122. [32] 'Empiricismand Transcendence,' Prudentia [33] 'Origen and Justification: The Good is One (Matt. 18.17 et par.), BiblicalReview24:18-29. Australian 1977 'The Need Critical for 10.1:3-5. Method,' Colloquium [34] 1978 in Studies Academyof Australia,' Proceedings [35] 'Religious of theAustralian theHumanities, 73-83. [36] 'Method and Myth,' Pudentia10:37-47. 11.1:8-9. [37] 'The Hoax of Myth Exuberant,' Colloquium 'The Biblical Case the St Rariae Charismatics,' Mark'sTheological [38] against 95:11-18. 1979 12:2-16. [39] 'Tendencies in AustralianTheology,' Colloquium 'The Inconcusiveness of in N. M. Watson Easter, [40] (ed.), The Heartof theMatter(Melbourne)50-55.
[41]
[42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
1980 'Change without Decay: Critical Theology Today,' in J. A. Henley and the Future.Essayson ChristianThoughtand Practice (ed.), Imagination Presented toJ. DavisMcCaughgy (Melbourne) 167-188. 'The Platonic Ideas in Second Century Christian Thought,' Prudentia 12:31-45. 'Ethics in the Apostolic Fathers,' Prudentia12:87-91. 'The Unity of God in Pauline Thought,' AustralianBiblicalReview 28:40-45. 'Truth and Interpretation,'Colloquium 13:47-50. 'Method and Problems in Patristic Study,' UnionSeminaryQuarterly Review36:45-54.
ERIC FRANCIS OSBORN: A TRIBUTE
251
[47] 'The IntermediateWorld in Origen's On Prayer',in Origeniana Secunda, Quaderi di 'Vetera Christianorum'15 (Rome), 95-103. 1981 [48] The Beginningof ChristianPhilosophy (Cambridge University Press), xiv + 321 pages. [49] 'Negative Theology and Apologetic,'in D. W. Dockrilland R. Mortley (edd.), The ViaNegativa,Prudentia SupplementaryNumber (Auckland) 49-63. 9.414-417. [50] Art. 'Eigentum,' Theologische Realenzyklopadie 1982 Art. 10.463-473. 'Ethik,' [51] Theologische Realenzyklopadie 'The Love Command in [52] Second-CenturyChristianWriting,' TheSecond Century1:223-243. 1983 [53] Art. 'Etica,' DizionarioPatristicoe di AntichitaCristiana(Genoa), 12361247; also published in the English translation,A. de Berardino(ed.), Dictionaryof the Eary Church,translated by A. Walford (Cambridge, 1992) 286-289, and in the French translation,Dictionaire Encyclopedique du Christianisme Ancien,translatedby F. Vial (Paris, 1990) 881-888. [54] 'Negative and Positive Theology in John,' AustralianBiblicalReview 31:72-80.
[55] [56] [57] [58] [59]
1984 La moraledans la penseechretienne primitive(Paris: Beauchesne; French translationof EthicalPatternsin Early Christian Thought,1976). 'Arian Obedience: Scouting for Theologians,' Prudentia16:51-56. 'Christologyand Pietism,' AustralianBiblicalReview32:1-17. 'Paul and Plato in Second Century Ethics,' StudiaPatristicavol. 19 (Berlin)474-485. 'La Bible inspiratrice d'une morale chretienne d'apres Clement d'Alexandrie,' in C. Mondesert (ed.), Le mondegrecancienet la Bible, Bible de tous les temps 1 (Paris) 127-44.
1985 [60] 'Clement of Alexandria:A Review of Research, 1958-1982,' TheSecond 3:219-244. Century
252
DAVID T. RUNIA
[61] 'Word, Spirit and Geistmetaphysik,'in D. W. Dockrill and R. G. Tanner (edd.), The Concept of Spirit,Prudentia SupplementaryNumber 61-73. (Auckland) [62] (with C. Duckworth)'Clement of Alexandria'sHypoyposeis:A French Studies36:67-83. Eighteenth-CenturySighting,'Journalof Theological [63] 'Ord og erfaring:Kristologi, fromhet og pietisme i Paulus' tenkning,' in T. Meistad (ed.), Bibel og Forkynnelse (Bergen 1985) 61-70. 1986 Denkens(Leipzig:St Benno-Verlag;German transla[64] Anfdngechristlichen tion of TheBeginning of Christian Philosophy 1981); also publishedin 1987 Patmos Dusseldorf. by Verlag, BiblicalReview34:59-64. [65] 'Variety in AustralianTheology,' Australian 'The of Christian The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, [66] Emergence Theology,' 7.3:244-255.
[67] [68] [69] [70]
1987 Three Addresses (Melbourne:U.C.A. Hall, Ormond BuildingforEternity: i + 23 College), pages. 'Philo and Clement,' Prudentia19:34-49. anciennes de 'Logique et exegese chez Clement d'Alexandrie,' Lectures la Bible,Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 1 (Strasbourg)169-190. 'Clement, Plotin et l'Un,' ALEXANDRJIA:melangesoffertsa Claude Mondesert (Paris:CERF) 173-190.
1988 the Beginning of ChristianHumour,'in 'Irenaeus: and [71] Recapitulation The Idea of Salvation,Prudentia Supplementary number (Auckland) 64-75. 1989 [72] 'EarlyChristianPlatonism:Backgroundand Beginnings,'StudiaPatristica 18.2 (Leuven) 109-120. [73] 'Reason and the Rule of Faith in the Second century A.D.,' in R. Williams (ed.), TheMakingof Orthodoxy: Festschrift for HenryChadwick 40-61. (Cambridge) [74] 'The Excellence of Adam in Second Century Christian Thought,' Figuresde l'AncientTestament chez les Peres,Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 2 (Strasbourg)35-59.
ERIC FRANCIS OSBORN: A TRIBUTE
253
1990 'The in of [75] Logic Recapitulation,' E. Romero-Pose(ed.),Ploma: Festschrif Antonio Orbe(Rome) 327-39. for Macarius Revisited,' The SecondCentuty7:233[76] 'Clement's Hypo_yposeis: 235. [77] Art. 'Love', in E. Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopedia (New of EarlyChristianity York-London) 550-554. 1992 and Influence, in N. el Khoury (ed.), 'Philo and Clement: Citation [78] der Prozesse fir Lebend1ge Oberlieferung. AnnaherngundAuslegug:Festschrift Hemann-JozefVogtzum 60. Geburtstag (Beirut and Ostfildern)228-43. 1993 The Christian of Theology (CambridgeUniversity Press),xvii + [79] Emergence 334 pages. [80] Chapters 2: L'ingressodel mondo greco-romano, Chapter 3: La teologia antignostica di Ireneo e di Ippolito, in A. de Berardino and I Epocapatristica B. Studer (edd.),Storiadellateologia: (CasaleMonferrato) 99-144, 145-177; also in the English Translation: Histo?yof Theology: vol.1 The PatristicPeriod,translated by M. J. O'Connell (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1996): Chapter 2: 'The Greco-Roman World: Challenge and Response', 82-118; Chapter 3: 'Defense of Truth and Attack on Heresy', 119-144. [81] 'Theology and Economy in Gregory the Theologian,' in H. C. von Brennecke, E. L. Grasmiick, C. Markschies(edd), Logos.Festschrif fiir LuiseAbramowski zum 8. Juli 1993 (Berlin-New York) 361-383. [82] 'The Sovereignty of Good in Clement of Alexandria, in M. Soetardi (ed.), Valeursdans le Stoiisme:du Portiquea nosjours;textesrassemblsen a MichelSpanneut (Lille) 89-104. hommage [83] 'Literature,History and Logic: the Formation of the ChristianBible,' BiblicalReview41:49-63. Australian [84] 'Parallels,Citation and Influence, in K. Lee, C. Mackie, H. Tarrant Tanner,Contributed (edd.), Multarumartiumscientia.A 'chose'forR. Godfrey Prudentia Supplementary by his Allies uponRumoursof his Retirement, Number (Auckland)162-169. [85] 'JustinMartyr and the Logos Spermatikos,'StudiaMissionalia42:143159.
254
DAVID T. RUNIA
1994 [86] 'Argumentsfor Faith in Clement of Alexandria,' VigiliaeChristianae 48:1-24. 1995 [87] 'Christianityand Classical Thought,' StudiaMissionalia,44:71-90. [88] 'The Conflict of Opposites in the Theology of Tertullian, in Studisul di MariaGraziaMara,= Augustnianum anticoe modemo in Onore Cristanesimo 35:623-639. [89] 'Clement and the Bible, in G. Dorival and A. Le Boulluec (edd.), Sexta(Leuven) 121-132. Or/geniana [90] 'Athens, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Libraries, in P. Harvey and L. Pryor (edd), 'Sogreata cloudof witnesses'Festschriftfor L. D. McIntosh (Melbourne) 188-198.
[91] [92]
[93] [94]
[95]
[96] [97] [98] [99] [100]
1997 First the West(CambridgeUniversity Press),xxi Tertullian, Theologian of + 285 pages. 'Tertullian as Philosopher and Roman,' in B. Aland, C. Schaublin and D. Wyrwa (edd.),Die Weltlichkeit desGlaubens in derAltenKirche. FestBZNW 85 (Berlinschrift fir UlrichWickertzum siebzigsten Geburtstag, New York) 231-247. 'Was Tertulliana Philosopher?',StudiaPatristica (Leuven)31:322-334. 'The New Vocabulary:Christiansin a Non-ChristianWorld, in Proceedings of the UnitingChurchHistoricalSociety,4.1:39-47. 1998 'The Beginningof EuropeanThought,' in T. Hillard, R. A. Kearsley, C. E. V. Nixon, A. M. Nobbs (edd.), AncientHistoy in a Modem FS E. A. Judge(Grand Rapids and Cambridge)2,453-458. University, 'They Speak to us Across the Centuries: 8. Tertullian,' Expository Times,109.12:357-360. 'Philo and Clement: Quiet Conversion and Noetic Exegesis,' The StudiaPhilonicaAnnual10:108-124. 'The Subtlety of Tertullian,' VigiliaeChristianae 52:361-370. 'Ernst Kasemann,' Australian BiblicalReview46:85. 'Four Methods in Search of Meaning. Review articleon G. C. Stead, in Christian Philosophy Antiquity (Cambridge, 1993), Pacifica11:339-345.
ERIC FRANCIS OSBORN: A TRIBUTE
255
1999 on of Articles Clement Irenaeus, Ernst Kasemann, in Alexandria, [101] H. of J. (Nashville). Hayes (ed.), Dictionaty Interpretation [102] 'The Apologist Origen and the Fourth Century: from Theodicy to Christology,' in W. A. Bienert and U. Kuhneweg (edd.), Origeniana in denAuseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts (Leuven) Septima:Origenes 51-59. [103] 'Irenaeus : God as Intellect and Love', in P. Allen, W. Mayer and L. Cross (edd.), Prayerand Spirituality in the Early Church,volume 2 175-186. (Brisbane) 2000 54:12-31. [104] 'Love of Enemies and Recapitulation,' VigiliaeChristianae 2001 [105] Irenaeusof Lyons(CambridgeUniversity Press), xviii + 307 pages. 36 (Leuven) [106] 'Irenaeuson God-Argument and Parody,'StudiaPatristica 270-281. 2002 [107] 'The First Exposition of the Kerygma,' StudiaMissionalia51:53-62. [108] 'Theology and History,' in I. Breward (ed.), A Man of Grace:Papers rule (Melbourne) to HonourtheLifeof Professor George givenat a Symposium 15-25. 'Athens andJerusalem in Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria,'Iris [109] N.S. 15:36-41. of Victoria) (Journalof the ClassicalAssociation 2003 in Times114.8:255-258. the 'Irenaeus: Rocks Road,' Expository [110] 2004 to be published by Cambridge University Press. Clementof Alexandria, 'The Apologists,' in The Early ChristianWorld(in press).
CLEMENT OF AILEXANDRIA AND THE PHILONIC DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE POWER(S) BY
DAVID T. RUNIA
ABSTRACT: The present paper offers a comprehensive examination of how Clement appropriatesthe Philonic doctrine of the divine powers. It first examines the biblical basis of the doctrine, in which Pauline influence is superimposed on Genesis. It then successively treats the subject in the areas of theology, cosmology and the doctrine of creation, including the creation of humanity. For Clement experience of the divine power (usuallyin the singular) leads to knowledge of God (to the extent possible) and intimacy with him through the Son. Clement's Philonic heritage has enabled him to develop a positive and above all a dynamic theology. 1. As Eric Osborn has never ceased reminding us in a scholarly career that has spanned half a century, the second century was the first and most decisive watershed in the formation of Christian theology. By the end of that century the main outlines had been drawn, notably in the achievements of Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. Osborn has written significant monographs on all of these theologians.' Clement was his first love. And now, as his scholarly career draws to a close, he is about to present us with a monograph that will bring together his mature views on this seminal yet elusive thinker. This article wishes to honour Eric as a mentor and friend by offering him some material that may assist him in the great task he has taken upon himself. One of the many questions relating to the origins of Christian theology in Alexandria which we would like to know a lot more about is its relations to the Hellenistic-Jewish thought that preceded it in the same city. As Father Van Winden and Annewies Van den Hoek have amply shown, I Justin Martyr, BHTh 47 (Tiibingen 1973); Tertullian:First Theologianof the West (Cambridge 1997); Ireaeus of Lyons(Cambridge 2001); ThePhilosophy of Clementof Alexandria, Texts and Studies N.S. 3 (Cambridge 1957). The thought of the four fathers is compared in a more systematic way in two further monographs: The Beginningof Christian Philosophy(Cambridge 1981); The Emergence of ChristianTheology(Cambridge 1993).
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004
Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 256-276
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
257
there can be absolutelyno doubt that Clement had copies of Philo's works on his desk when writing the Protrepticus and the Stromatis.2The earlier book of Aristobulusmust also have been available to him, a copy of which was probably taken to Caesarea by Origen when he moved there.3 We cannot be sure who in the Alexandrian Christian community preserved these Hellenistic-Jewishworks from destruction,but it is a sound guess that the rescue operation was carried out by Clement's teacher Pantaenus.4It is obvious to ask why they went to all this trouble. In two important contributionsEric Osborn has wrestled with this puzzle, which he approaches with referenceto the paradox first formulatedby Mondesertand Chadwick: why does Clement use so much material from a thinker whose intellectual context and problems were different than his own, and moreover barely acknowledge the debt?5 It is natural to approach this question from the viewpoint of Clement, startingwith his writingsand examining the extent to which Philonic material can be discovered in them. This approach has been carried out most thoroughly and convincingly by Annewies van den Hoek.6 In the present contributionI shall embark a slightlydifferentroute. My starting-pointwill be Philo, and in particulara theme which is universallyrecognized as central to his thought, the doctrine of the divine powers. The aim will be to examine the extent to which Clement shows that he is acquainted with
2 J. C. M. van Winden, 'Quotations from Philo in Clement of Alexandria's Protrepticus', VChr32 (1978) 208-213, reprinted in J. den Boeft and D. T. Runia (edd.), Arche:a Collectionof Patistic StudiesbyJ. C. M. van Wnden, VChr.S 41 (Leiden 1997); A. van den Hoek, Clementof Alexandriaand his Use of Philo in the Stromateis: an Early ChristianReshaping of a Jewish Model, VChr.S 3 (Leiden 1988). 3 See D. T. Runia, 'Caesarea Maritima and the survival of Hellenistic-Jewish literature', in A. Raban and K. G. Holum (edd.), CaesareaMaritima a Retrospective afterTwo Millennia,Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 21 (Leiden 1996) 476-95, esp. 490, 494; A. Carriker, The Libraryof Eusebius,VChr.S 67 (Leiden-Boston 2003) 155-157. 4 See D. Barthelemy, 'Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le 'Commentaire AUlgorique'? A partir des retouches faites aux citations bibliques, etude sur la tradition textuelle du Commentaire AU1gorique de Philon' in Philond'Alexandrie. 1966: colLyon 11-15 Septembre loquesnationauxdu CentreNational de la RechercheScientfique(Paris 1967) 60; D. T. Runia, Philo in Early ChristianLiterature: a Survey,CRINT 3.3 (Assen-Minneapolis 1993) 22-23. 5 'Philo and Clement', Prudentia19 (1987) 35-49; 'Philo and Clement: Quiet Conversion and Noetic Exegesis', The Studia PhilonicaAnnual 10 (1998) 108-124. See also my comments at Philo in Early ChristianLiterature153-155. 6 See above n. 2. But it should be borne in mind that she confines her research to the Stromateis.
258
DAVID T. RUNIA
this doctrine and the manner in which he adapts it to his own purposes. The results will make a contribution to a further understandingof why Clement was so attractedto the heritage of Philonic thought and was prepared to use it to such a remarkableextent in his writings.I have to admit that my method in this article does not entirely follow the principles of problematicelucidationso stronglyadvocated by Eric Osborn.7Its purpose will be served if its results provide materials that he will be able to use as the basis for his bold insights. 2. First it will be worth our while to look at the Philonic doctrine itself. Although all the major studies on Philo deal with it from various perspectives, we are now fortunate to have an excellent monograph that is devoted to it exclusively.8The Italian scholar Cristina Termini argues that scholars have been wrongly fixated on trying to explain Philo's doctrine with reference to Greek philosophical and religious texts. It is more valuable to study the intersection of the biblical texts on which Philo is commenting and theologicalnotions that were developed in HellenisticJudaism. She sees five chief areas in Philo's thought where the doctrine plays an importantrole: (1) in order to explore and explain the nature of the divine theophany, i.e. God's appearance and action in created reality, especially as seen in relation to God's attributesand names; (2) as an instrument of thought for reflectingon God's nature, especially with regard to questions of anthropomorphismand the divine presence in the cosmos; (3) as part of the theological schemas (also including the Logos) which are used to expound the symbolism of the ark and the Cherubim; (4) in questions of divine theodicy and especially in the context of the creation of the human being; (5) in the theme of God as the bond (6aEoT6),both of the universe and in relation to the human soul. In her study Termini shows that a striking aspect of Philo's doctrine, which separateshim from other Hellenistic-Jewishthinkers,is that he uses the term ivva,gtSmore often in the plural than in the singularwhen speaking of God. Seldom, moreover, does he use the term as the subject of verbs of action. This shows, accordingto Termini, that despite some appearances to the contrary, the doctrine in no way comes into conflict with Philo's fundamental conviction of Jewish monotheism. One should not 7 See above, 'Eric Francis Osbor: a Tribute', p. 3. 8 C. Studia ephemeridis Termini, Lepotenzedi Dio: studiosu dynamisin Filonedi Alessandria, Augustinianum 71 (Rome 2000).
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
259
speak of the powers as divine hypostasesin a real sense, but only from an attributiveor linguistic point of view. She does not hesitate to affirm that there is an element offictioninvolved, i.e. what one has to resort to when speaking of the divine action in the world. From the viewpoint of Jewish monotheism, she argues, the doctrine of the powers is in fact less 'dangerous' than the doctrine of the Logos, as the subsequenthistoryof Patristic thought will show.9 Termini's conclusions provide us with a valuable instrument for our study, even if some of her interpretations(e.g. her view on the fictionality of the powers as divine hypostasesor her conviction that the Greek philosophical background is secondary in importance) might be disputed. She presents the main evidence that the extant Philonic corpus contains. We shall use her results as a backdrop when examining the extent to which Clement appropriateselements of Philo's doctrine. 3. A first general observation that should be made is that Philo's and Clement's writings are rather differentcorpora, even though they are both linked by a common desire to base their thought on Scripture and both have a positive attitude towards philosophicaldoctrineswhich can be used to understand and explain it. Philo's writings contain much more direct exegesis,which is moreoveralmost alwaysdirectlyfocusedon the Pentateuch. 50% of all Philo's biblical quotations are from Genesis. For Clement the figures are 12% if we take his use of the Old Testament only, and less than 5% for his use of the whole ChristianBible.'0Clement refers less frequently to the doctrine of creation than Philo does. Nowhere do we find a full systematicaccount of how he interpretsthe Mosaic cosmogony and the early history of humanity." This might change if we ever manage to obtain a copy of the lost Hypo_poseis, as Eric Osborn has long hoped.'2The much discussed remarksof Photius on this work indicate that it must have contained extensive commentary on the early parts of Genesis, and moreover 9 See her conclusion on p. 238, which I translate in my review of the study at SPhA 15 (2003) 151-156. 10 These figures are based on a comparison between Biblia PatristicaSupplmentPhilon d'Alexandrie (Paris 1982) and the index of Biblical passages in the edition of Clement in GCS vol. 4.1-26. " As noted by S. R. C. Lilla, Clementof Alexandria:a Studyin ChristianPlatonismand Gnosticism,Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford 1971) 190. 12 C. Duckworth and E. F. Osborn, 'Clement of Alexandria's Hypotyposeis: a French Eigtheenth-century Sighting', JThS 36 (1985) 67-83.
260
DAVID T. RUNIA
suggest that Philonic influence might have been quite strong.13Clement's is more elliptical and elusive style of writing, especially in the Stromateis, than Philo's. These factors should encourage the interpreter to look for subtle changes of emphasisin his adaptationof anteriormaterial,a method that Van den Hoek has developed well in her analysesof Clementine texts. 4. It may come as a surprise, therefore, to observe that in his references to divine power Clement refers much more often to the actual text of scripture than his Alexandrian predecessor. It is remarkablebut true, I believe, that Philo never cites a biblical text which speaks literallyof God's dunamis.The chief reason for this is that such texts are almost non-existent in the Pentateuch.'4Philo could have referred to texts in the Psalms and prophets,but he does not do this. It may be surmisedthat he regarded dunamis primarilyas a philosophicalterm that can be used to explain Mosaic language. At Spec. 1.45 he records Moses' request to God in Ex. 33:18, 'Show me your glory (660a)', and places the following paraphrasein the prophet's mouth: 'your glory I consider to be the powers (/vvaiel;) that keep guard around you, of which the comprehension up to the present escapes me but creates in me a great desire to gain knowledge of them'. Clement, on the other hand, cites at least 14 biblical texts in which the word dunamisor a verbal equivalentis used in relation to the divine power, as can be seen in the following list:15 Ps. 32:6 (Protr.63); Ps. 83:2 (Str.6.30);Ps. 109:2 (Paed.1.61);Matt. 24:29 (Protr. 81);Luke 1:35(Exc.60);Rom. 1:16(Exc.12);161 Cor. 1:24(Str.1.169, 174, 6.47, 7.7, Ecl. 27); 1 Cor. 2:5 (Str.1.50, 5.9); 1 Cor. 12:11(Str.4.132); 2 Cor. 4:7 (Str.4.131);2 Cor. 6:7 (Str.4.131);Eph. 1:21(Ecl.57);Phil.4:13 (Str.4.101);Col. 1:11(Str.5.60). For Clement, therefore, the term dunamisis biblical and represents a concept shared by scriptureand the philosophers.We note that only three of the texts are from the Old Testament, in each case from the Psalms. But two other passagesmay be noted. At Str.6.93 Clement cites Sap. 7.16, 13 See
my comments at Philo in Early Chritian Literature144 n. 44. The LXX chooses to use other words such as ioXvS or metaphorical expressions referring to God's hand etc. As Termini, Le potenzedi Dio 31 observes, Paul paraphrases God's iox; in Ex. 9:16 with 8ivajtu in Rom. 9:17. 15 I use broad criteria of inclusion, e.g. Col. 1:11 is included because eV caolI suvla?s kvcivvalo'vevot implies the assistance of divine Power (cf. 1 Cor. 6:7). 16 This text may also refer to 1 Cor. 1:24 (pace Stahlin). 14
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
261
'in his hand both we and our logoi (stand)' paraphrasingthe phrase ev avrov with the Pauline r Buv&laEtcal ootpiq.'77More remarkably at XEtpL
Paed. 1.85 he gives a kind of distillationof Lev. 26.21-27 as follows: If you come to me upright,I too will be uprightwith you; if you proceed l p6S crookedly,I too will be crooked,saysthe Lordof the powers(eav6p6oi za eav tX&ftot tCopei)oeE, &Kayo) .LETiKCTE,Kay o6pO; 7Cpc;)1o ItXYtto, X&yei ic{p o
ov VvaEv).
The final four words in the Greek give the appearance of being part of the Pentateuchal text, but have in fact been added by Clement in a kind of scriptural flourish.'8 Philo would surely not have disapproved, although the phrase does not align well with his favourite doctrine of the two powers linked to the two chief divine names. The most significantaspect of the above list of biblical texts is the preponderant weight of Pauline material. Nine of the fourteen texts are taken from Paul's letters. The passage that stands out is 1 Cor. 1:24, where Paul states that he preaches Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Linked with 1 Cor. 2:5 ('so that your faith may be not in the wisdom of human beings but in the power of God'), it is central to Clement's theology. His doctrine of divine power thus differs from that of Philo in that it has a firm textual base, in which Paul's Christocentricemphasis is superimposed on selected Old Testament and Gospel passages. 5. Let us first turn to those passages in Clement's works where it is quite plain that he has direct acquaintance with Philo's doctrine of the powers. The first of these has some unusual features. The context is Clement's demonstrationthat the knowledge of God is hidden from human beings, but can be revealed as God's gift. Having quoted Paul's exclamation at Rom. 11:33 on the depth of God's wisdom and knowledge, he continues (Str.5.80.3): Andperhapsthisis whatthe prophethintedat whenhe ordersthe preparation of buriedcakeswhich are unleavened,indicatingthat the trulyholy secret accountconcerningthe Uncreatedone and his powersshouldbe keptburied. Here Clement has lifted, virtuallyword for word, a sentence from Philo's allegory on the cakes (yKpu(pia;)that Sarah is asked to prepare for the 17 Cf. Termini'sobservation,Lepotenze di Dio 84-85, that Philo often speaksof God's
powersin concertwithbiblicalanthropomorphic expressions. 18
The phrase is in fact only found at Zeph. 2:9.
262
DAVID T. RUNIA
three visitors at Gen. 18:6 in Sacr.60.19'The prophet', therefore, must be Moses. For Philo the three visitorsrepresentGod and his two highest powers, sovereignty and goodness, a theological interpretationthat should be kept away from the uninitiatedwho are not yet prepared for such esoteric knowledge. Clement has retained the reference to God and his powers without explaining what is meant by the phrase. It has to be agreed with Van den Hoek that the quote is not well integratedinto its context.20The allusion can be explained psychologically.A few lines later Clement protreasures of ceeds to quote Paul's statement on the 'hidden (&oatcpvqpot) wisdom and knowledge' (Col. 2:3). The melange of Pauline texts in his mind clearly triggered a memory of Philo's allegory, which he is able to cite almost word for word but does not bother to adapt (elsewhere he refers to the visitors as angels, cf. Str. 4.123.1). In the remainder of his treatment of secret knowledge in Str. 5.59-88, as we shall discuss below (?7), Clement speaks of God's power in the singular without reference to the specificallyPhilonic doctrine of the two powers. Two other passages are valuable, though at most they present indirect evidence. At Str.2.96.3-97.1 Clement paraphrasesand adapts Philo's words at Virt.165-167, which give a creative exegesis of Deut. 8:18, 'for he (God) gives strength (iaopv)to make power (86vajgtv)'.Human powers, and especially the power to do good, are derived from God who is most powerful, and who should be imitated to the extent possible (the Platonic theme of 'assimilationto God'). Clement applies this to the true gnostic, who imitates God by sharing the divine grace that he has received. For both authors divine power refers primarilyto goodness and grace, extended to creation, and transmittedfurther by human beings who follow in God's footsteps. In Str. 5.32-38 an extensive symbolic interpretationis given of the temple furnishingsand the vestments of the High priest based on Ex. 26-28, in which Clement draws extensively on Philo, but adapts the latter's ideas to his own purposes.2 The Cherubim on top of the ark of the covenant are interpretedas symbolizingthe spiritswhich give praise to God, while their wings symbolize the services rendered on high by powers on the left and
19The adjective'unleavened'is added from the furtherallegoryon Ex. 12:39 in Sacr.62. 20Van den Hoek, Clement 195. of Alexandria 21 A full interpretationof Clement'sdependenceon Philo'sallegoricalinterpretation of the Temple, the vestmentsand the High priest is given at Van den Hoek, Clement 116-147. of Alexandria
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
263
on the right (5.36.4). This differsfrom the interpretationin Philo, for whom they representthe two highest powers of God (Mos.2.99, QE 2.68). In his commentary on this passage, however, Le Boulluec draws attention to an Armenian fragment in which he explains that the angels on the left expel those who persevere in doing evil, while those on the right embrace those who repent and give thanks to God.22The basic opposition between punishment and beneficence is the same as we find in the Philonic doctrine of the powers, especially in QE 2.68, where the merciful power is introduced as subordinate to the beneficent power and the punitive power as subordinate to the ruling power. Similarly on the following page (5.37.5-38.1) the High priest's cap is taken by Clement as symbolizing the Lord's royal authority (eoouvia paaottXi ), since Christ is Head of the Church (cf. Eph. 5.23, Col. 1:18). The same general idea in Philo is applied to the High priest (Mos.2.132). But it is worth noting that in ?133 Philo interprets the gold plate above the headpiece, which contains the four letters of the divine name, as symbolizing that nothing can exist with invokingHim who is, since his goodness and gracious power hold all things together. Recollection of this reference to divine power may well have encouraged Clement in his interpretation of the High priest's cap (note that in Philo eovouia is often used in the context of the doctrine of the divine powers, cf. Cher.27, Sacr.59-60). 6. There can be no doubt, then, that Clement knows the Philonic doctrine of the divine powers. To my knowledge, however, there is no passage in Clement in which he explicitlytakes over the Philonic doctrine of two chief powers. In Str. 5.80.3, as we saw above (?5), the doctrine is present in the Philonic passage from which Clement quotes, but is left to one side. It must be concludedthat Clement saw no value in emphasizingtwo particular divine powers at the expense of the rest. Yet it would be wrong to conclude that Philo's doctrinewas of no importancefor Clement, because the polarity of divine activity that Philo expresses through it in terms of grace and authority does appear most prominently in his work. In chapters 8 and 9 of the Paedagogus Clement argues strongly against Gnostic opponents that God is both good and just. Quoting Rom. 7:12, he contends that Paul knows that what is just is also good and that he aligns both terms (i.e.
22 A. Le Les Stromates, Stromate V, Vol. II: Commentaire, Boulluec, Climentd'Alexandrie:
bibliographie et index, Sources Chretiennes 279 (Paris 1981) 151.
264
DAVID T. RUNIA
with the same power (this refers to ~evrxok in the Pauline aiKata and &ya%fi) verse).23He then goes on to say (Paed.1.74.1): But no one is good, excepthis Father(cf. Matt. 19:17).This same one, his Father,is one, and made knownthroughmultiplepowers.And this is what is meantby 'no one knewthe Father'(Matt.11:27),who was all thingsbefore the comingof the Son. In consequenceit is trulyapparentthat the God of all thingsis singlyone, good,just, creator,Son in the Father,to whomis the gloryforeverand ever. Amen. The next chapter is given the heading: 'It belongs to the same power both to be beneficial and to punish, and this is the paedagogic method of the Logos'.24We can thus summarize Clement's thought as follows: God is revealed in many powers, but both beneficence and judgment belong to the same power, and it is shared by both the Father and the Son, who reveals it in his paedagogic role. The Philonic polarity of beneficence and correction is adapted to the role of the Son as the divine Instructor. A similarview is found in the Stromateis. The Law is beneficial, he writes at 1.173.3, because it can make unjust people just. Citing a nice combination of two verses from Proverbs, he continues as follows (1.173.5): 'To know the Law is the sign of a good understanding(Btavoiac daya&fg)'
(Prov.9:10),and further:'Evilmen do not knowthe Law,but they that seek the Lord (t6v iCptov) will understandin all that is good (EvTo &'yaOp)' (Prov.
mustbe both authoritative 28:5).The providencethatadministers (icpia) and For it is the powerof both that distributessalvation,the one good (&ayaoi). discipliningby meansof punishmentas (an)authoritative (power),the other showingkindnessthroughbeneficenceas a benefactor. Although here too Clement declines the invitation to speak of two powers, the polarity between the two aspects emphasized is exactly the chief emphasis of the Philonic doctrine. We note too the divine name Lord is used in the second biblical citation in order to introduce the disciplining power, which again is close to Philonic practice.25Just as is almost always the case in Philo, God's goodness and mercy is given the first emphasis, but the second aspect is regarded as complementary. The connectionbetween 'command'and divine power might at first sight seem odd, but becomescomprehensibleif we recallPhilo includesthe nomotheticand enjoining and prohibitingpowersin his schemes;cf. Fug. 104, QE 2.68. 24 My translation here is deliberatelya bit free, but this is the gist of Clement'smeaning; cf. 85.1, 87.3. 25 Cf. Her. 166, Fug.98, Mut. 19, Somn.1.162, QE 2.68. 23
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
265
Although Clement on occasion refers to a pluralityof divine powers, as in Paed 1.74.1 cited just above and one or two other texts,26he much prefers to speak of God's power in the singular. A fine example is found at Str.5.82.1-2, when he affirmsthat God has many titles such as the One or the Good or Intellect or Being or Father or God or Creator or Lord,but that none of these should be taken as his definitive name since they all together are indicative of his almighty power. Even here, in the context of so many titles (among which are included the two which Philo habitually associates with his two chief powers), Clement prefers to speak of a single divine power, which is so great that it encompasses all the characteristics that these epithets portray. 7. A second theological context in which Clement modifies the Philonic doctrine of the divine powers is the theme of God's hidden nature disIn both cases Philo's interpretation cussed in Books 2 and 5 of the Stromateis. of Moses' ascent at Post. 13-20 is interwoven into the account. Van den Hoek has subjected these passages to a thorough analysis which we shall draw on in order to examine how the theme of divine power is treated.27 In Philo Moses begs God to reveal his own nature which is so hard to divine (Post. 13, based on Ex. 33:13). He enters into the darkness(cf. Ex. 20:21) where there is no materiality.God is wholly transcendent,but has nevertheless filled the entire universe with himself by means of his powers, which stretch to its very boundaries and connect everythingby means of harmony (Post.14). God is both near and far. He takes hold of us with his creative and his punishing powers, but does so in such a way that his essential nature is kept far away from even our spiritual mode of understanding (Post.20). Clement's reworkingreads as follows (Str.2.5.4-5):28 But he who is far off has come very near, an unspeakable marvel: 'I am a God who draws near' says the Lord (Jer. 23:23). He is remote in essencefor how could what is begotten have ever approached the Unbegotten?-, but very near in power, by which he holds all things in his embrace. 'Shall one do things in secret, and shall I not see him?', Scripture says (cf. Jer. 23:24), for the power of God is always present, taking hold of us through the power of contemplation, beneficence and instruction.
26 27 28
E.g. Protr. 112.1, Str. 4.156. Van den Hoek, Clementof Alexandria148-152, 168-176. Translation Van den Hoek, Clementof Alexandria149 (with slight changes).
266
DAVID T. RUNIA
When comparing the two texts, we first note that Philo's plurality of powers have been replacedby the singularpower of God. Philo emphasizes the cosmological role of the powers in ensuring that God is present to the entire universe, including human beings. This is consistent with his view that the powers represent divine activity in the cosmos (what Termini has called their theophanic purpose).29For both Philo and Clement God 'takes hold' of us (anoulevrFl) by means of his power(s).Philo emphasizes the negative side: we are kept far away from God's essential nature. Clement is more positive: God's power is present to us in the way he observes, helps and disciplinesus.30The juxtapositionof &uvageit 5)VvaIgt (2.5.5) is striking31 and we may well ask why Clement duplicatesthe referenceto divine power in this way. My suggestionwould be that he wishes to emphasize both the dynamic activity of the divine power and its presence as a reality in the form of the Logos who is our instructorand guide.32 The role of the Logos is made clearerin the paralleltext in Str.5.71.3-5. The nature of God is hidden. How then are we to gain knowledge of him? Clement advocatespurificationand philosophicalanalysisof a special kind: If then,removingall attributesfromthe bodiesand fromthe so-calledincorporeals,we hurlourselvestowardsthe greatnessof Christ,and fromtherewe advancein holinesstowardsthe abyss,we wouldsomehowmakean approach in our understanding of the almighty,gettingto know not what he is, but what he is not. Shape, movement,rest, throne,place, right or left of the Fatherof the universe,none of these shouldbe understoodas such, even if it is so written.The meaningof all theseexpressions will be demonstrated in the appropriateplace. Thefirst causeis not in a place,buttranscends bothplaceand
time,and also name and conception.For this reasonMosessays 'revealyourself
to me' (Ex. 33:13), hintingmostplainy that God cannot be taughtor spoken by
humanbeings,but is knowableonly throughthe powerthat proceedsfrom him. For the questis formlessand unseen,but the grace of his knowledge comes
fromhim throughthe Son.
As in the earlier passage Clement adapts Philo's words in Post. 14-16. Following Van den Hoek, we have made this clear by introducing italics in the translationwhich indicate which words have been taken over more 29 See above ?2. 30
Note that 86vaigetcannot refer to ourfaculties,because eioxtlcTimust pick up
in the biblical text. I therefore must disagree with Van den Hoek's transla7r6Wolgat tion 'faculty'. 31 ICaioi 1gdpeoTiv ad?i lOv TE? mi?EtO:To'ltCi ?e)? E ?Eu 1 i? C,natl6Sen1 &TxoVi a iVTOEVI TSO) Ocoo. 8)uvalg?t i')vapl; 32
Clement recalls here the main theme of the Paedagogus.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
267
or less explicitly.33The subject of the limits of human knowledge of God is shared by both texts. But there are quite subtle differencesin treatment. For Philo the emphasis falls on the unknowableessence of his transcendent nature, which is impossible to know but the quest is still worth striving for. Even though God is transcendent,his powers are neverthelesspresent in the cosmos. The intent is made clearer in a later passage at Post. 167169, where a second text, Ex. 33:23, 'you shall see what is behind, but my face you will not see', is brought into play. Philo introduces the familiar distinction between essence and existence. God's essence (i.e. the face) is unknowable, but knowledge of his existence is derived from the powers that follow and are in attendance on him (i.e. what is behind, ?169). Clement agrees with Philo that God cannot be known as he really is. This is the chief message of negative theology, instructing us to aim at understandingwhat he is not. But when Moses asks that God reveal himself, the answer is not negative, as it is by implication in Philo.34God is knowable, but only through his power, which Clement does not connect with divine forces in the cosmos, but with the knowledgethat comes through the Son (cf. also 5.82.4). God is unknowable, yet he is made known by grace and in Christ. Alan Le Boulluec has claimed that the entire programme of Clement's thought is contained in this text, and specificallyin the role that it accords to Christ in the mystical achievement of the supreme knowledge sought by the philosophers.35First the gnostic must hurl himself at the greatness of Christ. Because the Son is to be identified with wisdom, science and truth, this knowledgeadmits of demonstration(cf. Str.4.155-157). Moreover the Saviour can save human beings from the passions that impede them from advancing to God. Finally he can lead them to the ultimate vision of God, to the extent that it can be attained. This is the role of Christ as wisdom and power of God, as taught by the apostle Paul. Clement agrees with Philo that ultimate knowledge of God as he is in his essence is unreachable-for God is even beyond the One and the monad,36so how could any circumscriptionin knowledge or language be 33 Cf. Van den Hoek, Clementof Alexandria168, but unfortunately she has left out the (for us) vital phrase at 5.71.5 'but is knowable only through the powerthat proceeds from him'. 34 It is made explicit in the parallel passage at Spec. 1.43. 35 Le Boulluec, Commentaire 247. 36 Paed. 1.71.1; the phrase is adapted from Philonic texts, cf. Leg. 2.2, Contempl.2,
Praem.40.
268
DAVID T. RUNIA
possible?But in his doctrine of the Son-Logos he proves to be more optimisticthan Philo. In Philo'scase it is only God's existencethat can be known through the action of his powers in the cosmos.37For Clement the word became flesh (5.72.3, alluding to John 1:14) and, when hung on the tree, brought us to knowledge. The central role accorded by Philo to the theophanic presence and action of God's powers in the cosmos is replaced by the single event of the incarnation.38 8. It has been observed so far that Clement in a number of texts replaces Philo's referenceto a pluralityof powers with a referenceto a single power. We might ask the further question whether this move is simply a consequence of Clement's greater emphasis on Christ the Logos, or that it involves a deliberate correction of Philo's point of view. It is easy to imagine that, when reading the text in Post. 169 on 'the powers that follow and are in attendance on God' to which we referred above (?7), Clement might have asked the question posed by many modem interpretersof Philo whetherthese powers belong to God or are separatefrom him as hypostases. His Christocentricemphasis would thus solve a theological problem present in Philo. Admittedly this is pure speculation. It is possible, however, to make a comparison between two texts, one in Philo and the other in Clement, which might shed light on the issue. At the end of his treatment of the First commandment in Spec. 1.305-307, Philo refers to and partially cites Deut. 10:16-17: 'Circumcisethe hardness of your heart and do not stiffen your neck any longer. For the Lord your God, this one is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the God who is great and mighty and fearsome...' Encouraged by the two divine names, Philo alludes to the doctrine of the two powers. Clement, in a different context (Str.6.30.5), which discusses how the Greeks stole certain stories of heroic deeds from the Bible, quotes the same text. He links it with Ps. 83:2, 'How lovely are your tents, Lord of the powers'. The Lord God is Lord of the powers and principalities (dpXai)and authorities(ETooaiat).'Powers' for Clement in this context are
37 Two more optimistic texts are exceptional and controversial: Leg. 3.100, Praem.46; cf. D. Winston, The AncestralWisdom:HellenisticPhilosophyin SecondTempleJudaism. Essays of David Winston,editedby G. E. Sterling,Studia Philonica Monographs 4, Brown Judaic Series 331 (Providence RI 2001) 158-162, who argues for a vision of the intuitive reason. 38 Van den Hoek, Clement of Alexandria176, also notes that the role of the divine powers in Post. 14 & 20 are reduced in the case of Abraham to the initiation by means of an angel (referringto Gen. 22:11-12), which 'brings the story back to biblical proportions'.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
269
the cosmic powers such as winds and showers which pagan heroes like the philosopher Empedocles are said to have controlled. But these powers should recognize who is the true Ruler. We see Clement once again avoiding the Philonic doctrine of the pluralityof divine powers directlyassociated with God and instead choosing this time to interpret powers in a cosmological sense. In so doing he stays closer to the biblical text that the two Alexandriansquote. There are a few other passages in which Clement speaks of powers in the limited cosmological sense we saw in the text just discussed.39As the 'consumingfire' (Deut. 4:24) God is the almighty ruler over such powers.40 But in another context the Lord can also save us from the mighty clash of the same powers.41In actual fact, however, the role of these powers in Clement's thought is very limited, not to be compared with the role of the divine powers in Philo. Clement transfers the full weight of the cosmic powers onto Christthe Logos. Nowhere is this more emphaticallystatedthan Those who worship idols and lifeless in the final chapters of the Protrepticus. in or have faith God do not fully understandhis power (104.3), for things to certain a are not sensitive 'providence of divine power' which surthey rounds us (cf. 103.1). Follow, then, the way of salvation that God offers to those who follow his laws. The truth is in fact not far off, but is our close neighbour,present 'in our hands and mouth and heart' (109.2).42'With unsurpassedspeed and accessiblegoodwill the divine power has shone forth on the earth and filled the whole world with the seed of salvation' (110.1), which could not have happened in so short a time without providential intervention.It was our teacher who filled all things with holy powers: creation, salvation, beneficence, legislation, prophecy, teaching (112.1). This is the new creation (114.3). It is a holy and blessed power, through which God has become a fellow-citizenof human beings (117.1). In giving logos and knowledge to human beings, God has freely given of himself. This is the Son, the Christ, the Logos of God, the arm of the Lord,43the power of the Universe,the Will of the Father(120.4).In this extraordinarysequence of texts we can see how the cosmological role of the divine powers such 39 E.g. Str. 3.103.1, Ecl. 1.1. 40 El. 26.3. 41 Exc. 72.1. 42 The reference here is to Deut. 30:11-14, a very common text in Philo; cf. Post.84, Mut. 237, Somn.2.180, Spec. 1.301, Virt. 183, Praem.80, Prob.68. The passage in VIrt.is adapted by Clement at Str. 2.97.3, as analysed by Van den Hoek, ClementofAlexandria103. 43 See n. 14 above on anthropomorphic expressions in the LXX associated with the notion of divine power.
270
DAVID T. RUNIA
as we find in Philo is integrated into a much broader range of powers attributedto or connectedwith the Logos,44includingthe power that enables him to become a human being on earth and be our teacher. 9. We turn now more specificallyto the doctrine of creation. In Philo two aspects of this doctrine are closely associatedwith the conception of divine power(s). Firstly there is the general theme of God's use of his creative power or powers in the act of creation itself. This is part of the doctrine of the two powers, associated primarilywith the divine name theos.But in his commentary on the Mosaic creation account in Gen. 1, Philo does not refer to that doctrine specifically.Instead he first explains how the Logos is the place of the divine powers, and then affirmsthat God's cosmos-producing power is among these, having as its source that which is truly good (Opif.21). In the second place Philo invokes the notion of God's powers in connection with the creation of humankind, and especially to explain the troublesome plural in Gen. 1:26. When God says 'let us make', he is holding conversationwith his powers, so that he cannot be held responsible for the evil deeds that humans will commit.45 As noted earlierin this article,we possess no Clementine text which gives an extended exegesis of the creation account in Genesis. The closest we have is found in Str.5.92-96, which is an attempt to show how much Plato derived from Moses rather than a direct exegesis. Although the passage contains a number of allusionsto Philo'sDe opjficio mundiand other treatises, Clement somewhat surprisinglydoes not pick up on the specific passage OpiJf21, in which Philo affirmsa link betweenMoses and Plato'sidentification of the goodnessof God as the motive for creation.There is also no reference to the role of God's power in creation. But this does not alter the fact that the affirmation of God's goodness in creating the world of physical reality is one of the pillars of Clement's theology, which is directed in the first instance against Gnostic opponents. God's goodness is affirmedfirstin creation, then in salvation.46The link with Philo is there, but in an attenuated form. 44 But Clement does not use the metaphor of the bond (8eoi6S) which, as Termini shows (see above ?2), is so prominent in Philo. 45 Cf. Fug. 69, Conf. 171, QG 1.54 (but there is no reference to powers in Opif. 7276). For a detailed analysis of these complex texts see D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, Philosophia antiqua 44 (Leiden 1986) 242-249; Termini, Le potenzedi Dio 137-155. Philo adapts the theme of the division of labour between the demiurge and the 'young gods' in Plato's Tinaeusin order to solve a problem of theodicy. 46 See for example Osborn, Philosophyof Clementof Alexandria(n. 1) 45-53, 65-78.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
271
Gen. 1:26 is one of Clement's favourite Old Testament texts. He cites or alludes to it nearly 30 times.4 But it is exclusivelythe creation of human beings in God's image and likeness that interests him. The verb 'let us make' is cited only once, at Str. 5.29.1, where no reference is made to the problematicsof the plural.48We may be fairlycertain,however,that Clement would not have been impressedwith Philo's explanation of God talking to his powers. At Str.3.34.1 he scathinglyrefers to certain impure and worthless persons 'who claim that the human being was moulded by differing persons, and that the parts down to the navel was the product of a more god-like craft, whereas the parts below it were made by an inferior craft, which was the cause of the desire for sexual union'.49 This division of labour is much cruder than what we find in Philo. Clement has no strong motive to polemicize against his Jewish Alexandrian predecessor.50There can be little doubt, however, that the idea of God's powers being invoked to explain human waywardnesswould not appeal to him and is therefore covered in charitable silence. 10. A second feature of the central anthropologicaltext Gen. 1:26-27which was of seminal importance for both Philo and Clement was the notion that human beings are created 'according to the image of God'. The various exegeses of this text in Philo, often in combination with the second text Gen. 2:7, have been the subject of much research, including a wellknown monograph by Tobin.51In one extensive passage Philo makes an important link between the human being as image and the role of divine power. When scripture speaks of the voice of Abel's blood crying out to God from the ground (Gen. 4:10), Philo discerns a distinction in Mosaic psychology between two kinds of soul (Det. 83):52
47 Based on the vol. 4 'Citatenregister' at 0. Stihlin and U. Treu, CemensAlexandrinus, 1. (Berlin 19802) 48 This is in contrast to other second century writers, e.g. Justin, Dial. 62.2 and Theophilus, Ad Aut. 18, who both explain that God is talking to his Son. 49 According to information at Epiphanius Haer. 45.2, these heretics were Severiani. 50 There is no real interaction with contemporary Judaism in his work, and in this respect he differs quite markedly from Justin Martyr before him and Origen after him. 51 T. H. Tobin, The Creationof Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 14 (Washington 1983); see also Runia, Philo of Alexandria334-340, 556-558. 52 Following J. Whittaker's lead (see 'The Terminology of the Rational Soul in the
272
DAVID T. RUNIA
The faculty which humans have in common with the irrationalcreatureshas received blood as its essence, but the faculty which streams forth from the fountain of reason has received spirit (Rvelua), not moving air, but a kind of mark and impression of divine power, which Moses, using the appropriate term, calls 'image', indicating that God is the archetype of a rational nature, while the human being is a copy and likeness, by which I mean not the living being with a double nature, but the most excellent form of the soul, which intellect and reason have received as their allotment. Here Philo has no hesitation in combining the divine spirit which is inbreathed in Gen. 2:7 with the impress imagery of the eiKc0Vin Gen. 1:26. Humans are rational because they have been marked or 'impressed' by the divine power. It will be instructive to compare a text in Clement. An essential part of his anthropology is his conviction that it is the creation of human beings in God's image and likeness that makes it possible for them to receive the divine power, which in turn allows them to extricate themselves from the web of passion and desire and exercise the spiritual gifts of faith, love, knowledge and prophecy.53 In arguing against Gnostic libertarians at Str. 3.42.5 he exhorts his readers to follow the commands found in scripture and become assimilated to the Lord to the extent possible: They must not live indifferently,but be purified to the extent possible from pleasuresand desires and exercise care for their soul, by means of which they must achieve an orientation towards the divine alone. For if the mind is pure and delivered from all evil, it somehow becomes a recipient of the power of God, as the divine image in it comes to the fore... It is a typically Clementine mix: the Platonist formula 'assimilation to God to the extent possible,' which-note well-has been biblically rephrased, and the Socratic slogan 'care for the soul' are here combined with the biblical anthropology of Gen. 1:26-27. Both Clement and Philo before him thus make the link between divine power and the human being created as image of God. The difference between them is instructive. The Philonic texts have a primarily structural purpose, indicating what the nature of human beings is, whereas in Clement
Writings of Philo of Alexandria', The StudiaPhilonicaAnnual 8 (1996) 1-20, esp. 1-2), I read icelripancat instead of the mss.' KicKcXxt).On this text see Tobin, The Creationof Man 87-90. 53
See, for example,Str.2.96.3-97.1discussedabove in ?5; cf. also 1.52.3, 4.138-139,
5.94 etc.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
273
there is a greater dynamism and spiritualmovement. Humanity is infused with divinepower throughChristthe Logos. Here too the influenceof Pauline theology can be discernedand especiallythose texts which speak of the spiritual empowermentreceivedthroughChrist,e.g. 2 Tim. 2:2 cited at Str.1.3.3, Phil. 4:13 cited at Str. 4.101.1, Col. 1:11 cited at Str. 5.60.2, and so on. 11. One final aspect of Philo's doctrine of divine power remains to be discussed. In a number of passagesPhilo shows a strong awarenessof the nonreciprocalityof power when used to describe relations between God and creationand between God and human beings. Through his almightypower, God is able to create the cosmos, creating order where hitherto disorder and disharmonyreigned.In his expositionof day one of creation,Philodevelops the notion of divine goodnessby arguingthat there is a vast gulf between the creator and what he creates and adds the comment (Opif.23):54 With no one to assisthim..., but relyingsolelyon his own resources,God recognizedthat he had to conferthe unstintingrichesof his beneficenceon the naturewhich of itselfwithoutdivinegrace could not sustainany good whatsoever.But he does not conferhis blessingsin proportionto the size of his ownpowersof beneficence-fortheseareindeedwithoutlimitandinfinitely great-but ratherin proportionto the capacitiesof thosewho receivethem. The fact is that what comesinto existenceis unableto accommodatethose benefitsto the extentthat God is able to conferthem, since God'spowers whereasthe recipientis too weak to sustainthe size of are overwhelming, them and would collapse,were it not that he measuredthem accordingly, dispensingwith fine tuningto each thingits allottedportion. What is fascinatingabout this text is that the notion of divine power is linked to the theme of measurement.If God's goodness were not measured out, creation would not be able to accommodate it and so would suffer from an overdose of creative goodness.55This, we might say, is the 'downside' of divine power. It has to be mediated, or otherwise things will go badly wrong. In a number of texts Philo states that the role of mediation belongs to the Logos, whom he calls the 'measurer'.56 54 This is a continuationof the text at Opif.21 discussedabove in ?9. For a full to Moses, according of the Cosmos commentaryon these texts see my PhiloOn the Creation Philo of AlexandriaCommentarySeries 1 (Leidenetc. 2001) 143-147. 55 The best parallelsfor this notion of a (potential)divineoverdoseof powerare found in later Neoplatonisttexts;cf. my 'Philoof Alexandriaand the End of HellenisticTheoStudiesin Hellenistic Theology, of Theology: logy', in A. Laks and D. Frede (edd.), Traditions 89 andAftermath, Its Background 281-316, esp. 296-299. 2002) (Leiden PhilosophiaAntiqua 56 138. Cf. Sacr.59-60, QG 1.4, 4.23 and my commentsat Philoof Alexandria
274
DAVID T. RUNIA
In another text Philo applies this idea specificallyto the lesser creatures of creation, i.e. human beings (Mut. 232):57 What do we think is revealed in the text, 'shall not the hand of the Lord be sufficient (Num. 11:23)'? Surely it is this, that the powers of Him who is extend in all directions for the benefit not only of highly reputed creatures, but also of those who have a more humble reputation. To these he bestows what is fitting for them, according to the weights and measures of each soul, weighing and measuring by the equality inherent in himself the proportion due to each.
In a number of other texts Philo also gives this principle an epistemological application, e.g. at Spec.1.43, where he interpretsGod's answer to Moses' request that he reveal himself (Ex. 33:13) as 'I bestow what is appropriatefor the recipient, for it is not within a human being's power to receivethat which it is possiblefor me to give.' Ontologyand epistemology come together in Philo's notion that the ideas-which are contained in the Logos-can be regarded as measures, making it possible for creation to come into being and have an ordered, rational structure.58 These Philonic texts form an illuminating background for a striking passage found in Clement's least well-known work, Quis dives salvetur.Having referred to John 1:18, 'no one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known,' and even gone so far as to speak of the feminine side of God, Clement encourages his listener to contemplate the mysteries of love, such as were revealed by God in begetting the Son (37.3-4): On account of love he descended, on this account he took on human nature, on this account he voluntarilyexperienced the human condition, so that, having been measuredin relation to the weaknessof us whom he loved, he would in return measure us towards his power. The logic of the passage is surely the same as what we found in Philo. Significantly Clement substitutes God's love for the conception of his goodness found in Philo. God's love is poured out on humankind, but it has to be measured out in the process. The Son is the Logos, who has to be measured out in relation to human weakness, so that humanity can be
57
There may be an allusion to Wisdom 11:20 in this text. The words 'by the equalin himself' are difficult. They may refer to a balance of powers within the inherent ity Deity which can be transmitted in the form of a well-proportioned mixture for his creatures. Cf. the passage on the mixing and tempering of God's powers at Deus 77-79. 58 On the ideas as measures see my Philo of Alexandria138.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
275
converted into the power that he possesses. Clement applies Philo's theme of the necessarymeasuringout of divine power to the mysteryof the incarnation, a theme that is wholly foreign to the Jew Philo. Between Father and Son, however, a different relation of reciprocality obtains. Eric Osbor has drawn our attention to a difficult but important text at Paed.1.71.3.59As we noted above (?6),for Clement, arguing against the Gnostics, God is both good and just. In this text goodness is associated above all with God, justice with the Logos: When God is conceivedas Father,becausehe is good, he has been called what he alone is, 'good'.But when, being the Son, he is the Logosin the Father,he is called'just'on accountof the reciprocalrelationof love, a epithet that has been measuredby the equalityof theirpower. For Philo equality in God meant his beneficence could be fairly and appropriatelymeasured out (in Mut. 232 cited above). Clement's trinitarian theology shifts the focus to the equality of divine power enjoyed by both Father and Son. It is the reciprocal love between them that links together the goodness and justice they possess. Clement has combined features of Philonic thought-the twin powers of goodness and justice, the role of the Logos as measurer-into a new theology centred on divine love shared by Father and Son. 12. The present investigation into the presence of Philo's doctrine of the divine power(s)in Clement has clearly shown that the two thinkersbelong to a shared tradition of biblical exegesis. There can be no doubt that Clement knew the Philonic doctrine and was able to appreciate its theological value. However, the tradition that the two thinkers share underwent a radical change of direction through the emergence of the Gospel, which placed everythingin a new perspective.For Philo 6wvalgt is a philosophical term which allows the exegete to explain and expound the activity of God as it is manifestedin creation and humanity. Clement links Old Testament usage with the prominent use of the term in Paul to refer to Wisdom and Christ. The Christocentricfocus of Clement's thought not only explains his preference for speaking of divine power in the singular. It also gives him a more optimistic view of how experience of the divine power can lead to knowledge of God and intimacy with him through the
59 In an unpublishedpaper on Clement and Middle Platonismpresentedto a conference in Newcastle,Australia,in July 2002.
276
DAVID T. RUNIA
Son. The chief emphasis of Clement's doctrine is on the role of divine goodness, mercy and grace in the world of created reality and in human life. This can be summed up in the role of Providence.Although no explicit reference is ever made by Clement to the Philonic doctrine of two powers, the polarity of goodness and justice is important for him when arguing against Gnostic opponents. Goodness and justice are found side by side in God and in the Logos through the equality of Father and Son. The presence of the divine power marks the new creation which Christians experience. Clement's Philonic heritage has enabled him to develop a positive and above all a dynamic theology.60 Queen's College University of Melbourne Parkville,Vic. 3052 Australia
60
Eric Osborn has inspired this paper with the many conversations he has held with me on the subject of the relation between Philo and Clement. My warm thanks to Annewies van den Hoek (Harvard) for reading the paper and making valuable comments and to Cristina Termini (Rome) for responding to an enquiry I had about Philo.
IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH: WORSHIP AND PRAYER IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND THE EARLY FATHERS BY
DOROTHY LEE The Gospelof John had a powerfulimpact on the early Church not only in its theological understandingof God but in its conviction of the centralityof worship. In the Fourth Gospel, worship is made possible through the Spirit who gives birth to believers, making them children of God and participants in Jesus' own filiation. The Johannine Jesus, through the Spirit, becomes both the locus and object of worship, the source of worship as well as the true worshipper.This understandingis the ultimate source of the Nicene Creed's assertion that all three Persons of the Trinity are to be 'worshipped and glorified'. ABSTRACT:
Introduction "It is not enough for God to make a world;he must complete it by salvation and send a paraclete who will lead his children into all truth".' Eric Osbor's succinct summaryof Irenaeus'trinitarianfaith remindsus that one of the most important assumptionsin Patristicwriting is the centrality of worship.For the early Fathers,the function of theology has both a dogmatic and doxological intent: to establish the grounds for worship of the one, true God-Father, Son and Holy Spirit-and to do so in the context of prayer. Both themes, worship and prayer, are also importantin the Fourth Gospel. It is true that more explicitly doctrinal issues tend to dominate the trajectorybetweenJohannine theologicalstudies and Patristics.Nevertheless, for a text that had an increasinglylarge impact on the theological development of the early Church, it is as necessary to trace the Johannine understanding of worship as to comprehend its Christology. Indeed, the two are linked in the closest possible way. Worship in the Fourth Gospel has a christological as well as theological dimension, supported in each case by the fourth evangelist's understandingof the Spirit. ' E. Osborn, he Emergence of Christian Theology (Cambridge,1993) 176. ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christanae58, 277-297
278
DOROTHY LEE
Worshipand the SamaritanWoman Perhaps the best place to begin this discussionof worship in the Fourth Gospel is the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:142). This story involves, at its centre, a conversationabout worship. Indeed this is one of the few places in the Fourth Gospel where the language of worship becomes explicit. Of its eleven appearances in John, the verb xpooKuveiv ("to worship")is found mostly in this context, appearing nine times (4:20, 21, 22, 23, 24). The cognate noun poiovrlTrS (worshipper) occursin the same location(4:23;its only appearancein the New Testament). Two further references are located at 9:38 and 12:20, the former debatable on textual grounds, as we shall see. In addition, the noun harpeiais found only once, in the Farewell Discourse (16:2), although with a somewhat different meaning. The context is the persecution of the Christian community, their persecutorsassuming that, by killing Christians,they are "offeringsacrifice"to God.2 Other related terms and images are used in the Fourth Gospel, but the most significantis the congregatingof lpooKDveiv in the one narrativecontext. Though little can be deduced about patterns of worship within the Johannine community from this material, something can be said about the evangelist's theological understandingof worship. The positive response of the reader to the woman's characterisationin this dialogue, where her comprehension begins to flourish,3underscores the significanceof the scene for the evangelist'sperspective on worship. The first scene of the narrativehas employed water as a symbol of the Spirit and of the revelation that the Johannine Jesus both brings and embodies (4:7-15). The woman at this stage has not reached full understandingof either the Giver or the gift (4:10),but is growing in comprehension. In the second scene, the attention moves explicitly to that of worship (4:16-30). Although the imagery shifts from water to sacred place (zroo;), the well remains the dramatic centre-piece and is given new associationby Jesus, becoming aJohannine symbol of the Spirit.As Bultmannhas argued,
2
See M.M. Thompson, The God of the Gospelof John (Grand Rapids, 2001) 220-222.
3 There is some doubt over the woman's level of comprehension by the end of the
narrative. Most commentators assume her understanding to be still partial and inadequate; see, e.g., FJ. Moloney, The Gospelof John (Collegeville, 1998) 29, and R.G. Maccini, Her Testimonyis True. Womenas WitnessesAccordingto John (Sheffield, 1996) 140142. For a more positive appraisal, see T. Okure, TheJohannineApproachto Mission. A ContextualStudy of John 4:1-42 (Tiibingen, 1988) 174-175, and D. Lee, The Symbolic Narrativesof the FourthGospel.The Interplayof Formand Meaning(Sheffield, 1994) 83-86.
IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH
279
in asking the woman to return with her husband (4:16),Jesus is not so much making moral judgement as seeking to uncover the woman's "thirst for life", evident in the restlessnessand unease of her relationships.4To this quest, the Johannine answer is found in the water of the well. As a consequence of her dawning insight, the woman raises the question of the locus of worship,an issue that bitterlydividesJew and Samaritan(4:20). In the ensuing dialogue, she makes a number of assumptions(as she has in the previous scene), many though not all-of which the Johannine Jesus needs to amend. What she does understandis the centrality of worship; she is also moving towards a distinctivelyJohannine Christology in her conviction that Jesus as ipoprlnl; ("prophet",4:19; see also 6:14; 9:17; Deut 18:15-22) is able to clarify the geographical question of authentic worship.5The areas in which the woman's knowledge is partial or mistaken, however, are in relation to the scope of salvation as being both Ec zt)v'Iou&xov("of the Jews", 4:22) and universal(4:42);the full significance of the Johannine Jesus for the worship of God;6 the presence of the Spirit in relation to Jesus and the Father;7the radical implications of the presence of the Spirit for sacred geography;and the particularform of John's eschatological understanding,largely focussed on the present.8
4
R. Bultmann, The Gospelof John: A Commentary (ET Oxford, 1971) 188. On the lack of moralism in Jesus' remarks, see also C.M. Conway, Men and Womenin theFourthGospel. Genderand Johannine Characterization (Atlanta, 1999) 116-119. The woman's history of broken relationships needs to be read in the light of women's inability to initiate divorce in Old Testament law. 5 The woman here is not being coy or evasive about her personal life (see 4:29). On the contrary, she is beginning to comprehend that Jesus is revealing spiritual matters; so R. Schnackenburg, The GospelAccordingto St. John (London, 1968-82) 1.434, and Conway, Men and Women,119. Against this view, cf. B. Witherington, John's Wisdom.A Commentary on the FourthGospel(Cambridge, 1995) 120-121. 6 It is his misunderstanding of this point that, among other things, leads S.D. Moore to argue that "the female student has outstripped her male teacher", in "Are There Impurities in the Living Water that the Johannine Jesus Dispenses? Deconstruction, Feminism and the Samaritan Woman," Bib Int 1 (1993) 225. 7 On the fatherhood of God in the Fourth Gospel, particularly from a gender per-
in theGospelofJohn(New Gender andTheology spective,see D. Lee, FleshandGlory:Symbol, York, 2002) 110-134. 8 Schnackenburg rather overstates the case for realised eschatology in the Fourth Gospel when he speaks of "the magnificent one-sidedness of Johannine eschatology" (St. John, 2:437), although he does see this as corrected in the redactional work of the evangelist's disciples.
280
DOROTHY
LEE
Jesus' response to the woman's question of xotio is to point to a new dispensationin which "all previous modes of worship, the genuine and the defective, are relativized".9One way of characterisingthe evangelical purpose of the Gospel is the Father's search for true worshippers (6 Iatip atvov, 4:23).'? Worship is no longer lt^teixoiAs;poocuvo0VTag oTOtOTOu dependent on geography (or any other mortal distinctions),but rather is to take place ev IveUjiartKica' &aheia, (lit. "in spirit and truth", 4:23, 24). The phrase is not easy to interpret,particularlyin regard to nvebia. Some have argued that the reference is to a spiritualform of worship that has no need of sacred space (and thus perhaps no need of ritual or symbol)." An alternative reading is that the phrase refers to the Holy Spirit and is virtuallya hendiadys,the equivalentof xoniveDiaTi; &Xah0eiain the Farewell Discourse ("the Spirit of truth", 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; cf. 1 John 4:6).12 It could be asked why John would not employ the less ambiguous phrase "Spirit of truth" if that is what he meant. At the same time, ivelga in the Fourth Gospel generally refers to the Holy Spirit rather than an interior attitude in the worshipper.'3The structureof the referencesto tvevla is chiastic in these verses, the two phrases "in spirit and truth"framing nveibta6 0e6; (4:24). If this is right, John's primary meaning is that true worship has at its centre the divine Spirit, the one who is the Spirit of truth-although unquestionablythis has implicationsfor the spiritin which the worshipperapproachesthe Father. The phrase ev cvetFtartKaica&k0e{ia is rich in christologicalmeaning. Elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is himself the one who is "the way, the truth and life", the means of access to the Father (14:6), and the one who leads disciples to the knowledge of
9 AJ. Kelly & FJ. Moloney, Eperiencig Godin the Gospelof ohn (New York, 2003) 101. 10 C.K. Barrett rightly points out that 4:23 has as much right to be considered as expressing the evangelical purpose of the Gospel as the more frequently cited 20:30-31; with Commentary and Notes (2nd ed.; London, The GospelAccordingto St John: An Introduction
1978) 238. " See, e.g., J. Ashton, TheInterpretation ofJohn(2nd ed.; Edinburgh,1997) 465; also to St.John(ET; Grand Rapids, 1961) 1.99-101. According J. Calvin, TheGospel 12 This is suggestedby the fact that the two nounsare anarthrousand the one prepotoJohn(New York, 1966) 1.172, sitiongovernsboth; so R.E. Brown, TheGospel According 180-181. See Thompson, Godof theGospelofJohn,214-6. 13 See, e.g., 1:32, 33; 3:6, 8; 3:34; 4:24; 6:63; 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13;20:22. Other referencesalso probablyrefer to the Spirit (e.g. 3:5; 6:63; 19:30).Jesus' distress as he approachesthe tomb of Lazarusand as he faces the prospectof his impending death are exceptions(1:33; 13:21).
IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH
281
liberating truth (8:32; cf. 18:38). The Johannine Spirit plays an essential role in the worship of the Father, a role that parallels that of Jesus.'4 It is important to note that the languageJesus uses here to address the Samaritan woman presupposes that something essential has been lost for human beings, whetherJew or Samaritan, male or female: something that only true worship can recover. Although the evangelist nowhere uses the language of the fall, he does imply a status that is forfeit, a status given in creation.'5The restoration of this primordial status means a return to the Father as children, and therefore as true worshippers,of God. In this narrative,Jesus is revealed as Saviour, the one who renews what is lost (4:42). Through his incarnation,ministry and exaltation on the cross,Jesus effects the restorationof "all people" (or "all things")to the Father (12:32). The early Fathers speak of this loss in terms of the divine image (eilcmv, Gen 1:26-27),re-madeby the Son in the incarnation.Gregoryof Nazianzus, for example, expresses it in this way: "I received the image and I did not protect it; he received a share in my flesh so that he might even save the image and make deathless the flesh."16Irenaeus understood this when he argued that in becoming flesh the Logos "became Himself what was His own image".17Likewise, for Athanasius, humankind already made in the image of the Logos can only be revived by the Logos who is the Image of the Father: "thereforethe Word of God came through himself, in order that, being the Image of the Father, he might re-create humanity according to the image".'8A humanity re-created means, in Johannine terms, a humanity free to worship God in the Spirit and/of truth. The scene of Jesus' meeting with the Samaritan woman thus contains the most explicit references to worship in the Fourth Gospel, presenting the major players: the Father, the Spirit, Jesus himself, and the woman who represents, in this context, the community of faith in the loss and
14
For a summary of the parallelism between Jesus and the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel, see Brown, John, 2.1140-1141. 15 This profound loss that necessitates the incarnation is indicated in the Prologue through a) the implication of darkness as an active, virulent force striving to extinguish the light (1:5), b) the failure of recognition on the part of creation and "his own" (a& '8ta and oi't1tot, 1:10-11), and c) the need of divine authority (ekootia) to remake human beings as children of God (Txicva Txo 0eo0), born of divine labour (1:12-13). 16 On the Holy Passover45.633-636 (PG 36). 17 Proof of the ApostolicPreaching22, 61. Further on Irenaeus' understanding of the "image and likeness", see E. Osborn, Irenaeusof Lyons(Cambridge, 2001) 212-216. 18 On the Incarnation,edited F.L. Cross (London, 1957) 13.7.
282
DOROTHY
LEE
restoration of the image.19The narrative reveals that the key elements in the Johannine understandingof worship involve the centralityof the Father as the object of worship who seeks true worshippers,the role of Jesus as the Father's Revealer (see 1:18) whose mission is to gather true worshippers for the Father, and the place of the Spirit as the one who inspires and vivifies authentic worship of God. Most of what John has to say throughout the Gospel on the subject of worship is contained-or at least implied-in these few verses. Jesus as theLocusof Worship The opening chapters of the Gospel have already indicated that the Johannine Jesus is the locus of worship. In the Prologue, the evangelist uses temple language and imagery to speak of the incarnation: "and the Word became flesh (oapa) and dwelt (Eolc'voov; lit. "tabernacled")among us and we beheld his glory" (6o,a, 1:14).20The dwelling of the eternal Word in flesh suggests the tabernacle in the Old Testament, the focus of Israel's worship.21The revelation of glory within God's dwelling-placeon earth reflects Zion traditions,with their stress on Jerusalem and the temple as the residence of the divine, saving, life-giving glory. For the fourth evangelist,the sacred site radiatingGod's salvificpresence is now the incarnate Logos.22The dwelling of the Logos in flesh thus parallels the tabernacle (omaicv)as the temporal dwelling-place of God's glory: "O Lord, I have loved the beauty of your house, and the place of the dwelling of your glory" (oaivoga 861s oaou,Ps 25:8 LXX). There are also overtones of personifiedWisdom present in this language; in Jewish wisdom traditions, 19
On the Samaritan woman as a representativefigure, see R.F. Collins, "Representative Figures of the Fourth Gospel," DownsideReview94 (1976) 37-40. 20 Of its thirteen occurrences in the Fourth Gospel, oapS occurs in five different contexts: the Prologue (1:13-14), the dialogue with Nicodemus (3:6), the Bread of Life narrative (6:51-56, 63), the Tabernacles Discourse (7:38; 8:15) and the Great Prayer (17:2). 21 On the language for "tabernacle" here, see C.R. Koester, The Dwellingof God. The Tabernaclein the Old Testament,Intertestamental Jewish Literature,and the New Testament (Washington, 1989) 102-104, and M. Coloe, GodDwells with Us: TempleSymbolismin the FourthGospel(Collegeville, 2001) 23-27, 31-63. 22 The language, as Thompson points out, is that of a theophany (God of the Gospel of John, 213). On the Johannine parallels with the Synoptic transfiguration story, see V.H. Kooy, "The Transfiguration Motif in the Gospel of John," in J.I. Cook (ed.), Saved by Hope (Grand Rapids, 1978) 64-78, and D. Lee, "Transfiguration and the Gospel of John," in D. Kendall SJ & G. O'Collins SJ (eds.), In Many and DiverseWays:A FestschriJt HonoringJacquesDupuis SJ (Maryknoll, New York, 2003) 158-169.
IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH
283
Sophia is described as "a breath of the power of God, and an unmixed emanation of the glory (86xa) of the Almighty" (Wisd 7:25; cf. 9:8-11). In Sirach, Sophia proclaims that "the one who created me gave a restingplace for my tent (aoivi). And he said, 'Dwell (icaxtalvoiv) in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance"' (Sir 24:8). What 1:14 discloses is the revelation of glory emanating from the flesh ofJesus.23ForJohn, the divine indwelling is symbolised in the temple and points to the eschatological advent of the Logos in the person of Jesus Christ in whose incarnate flesh God's presence and glory now abide. A similar theme is present in the Cleansing of the Temple which, in this Gospel, is Jesus' second act after the gathering of the first disciples (2:13-22; cf. Mk 11:15-17). The Fourth Gospel reinterpretsthis episode so that its primary meaning is christological,reflectingthe temple Christology begun at 1:14.John's terminologyshifts from that of the Prologue:the lan?guageused is that of oajta ("body",2:21) rather than oap.24 John speaks of the temple as the anti-type ofJesus' body: "he was speakingof the temple of his body" (2:21).25The Johannine symbolic meaning of the temple emerges more fully here, establishing a connection with the verb used at 1:14 (aoCvaooev). Here again, as with the Prologue, the flesh/body of Jesus reveals the divine glory, just as the temple revealed the glory of God in Israel (cf. Isa 6:1-5).26The reference at 2:21 is proleptic: the reader will not understandthe christologicalmeaning until the Passionand Resurrection narrativeswhich bear witness to Jesus' body, crucified and risen.27
23 Cf. U. Schnelle who disagrees with the view that icrvo6v is related to the tabernacle in the Old Testament, but recognises the wisdom motif: Jesus' human body as the tent of Sophia; Das EvangeliumnachJohannes(2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1999) 40-41. 24 On the distinction between ao6p and o6lDoa in the Johannine narrative (both terms used positively, for the most part), see Lee, Flesh and Glory,30-48. 25 The phrase is either appositional or explicative: "the temple, namely his body" or "the temple which is his body"; see Moloney, John, 82. Strictly speaking, the word is "sanctuary" (va6;, 2:19, 20, 21) rather than temple (iepov, 2:14, 15). The former may refer to the innermost shrine of the temple or the two terms may be synonymous; either way, there is little difference between them (so Barrett, St. John, 199), both terms being the equivalent of "the house of my Father", "your house" (2:16, 17). 26 See Coloe, GodDwellsMithUs, 65-84. 27 In the Passion narrative, o6oa is used of the corpse of Jesus (and those crucified with him, 19:31). In the burial scene, it is used three times (or perhaps twice) to refer to the deposition and interment (19:38, 40); in the empty tomb story, it is used in relation to the two angels guarding the stone slab "where the body of Jesus lay" (20:12). In the light of the Cleansing of the Temple, the reader knows that this same aocaa is not destined to remain a lifeless corpse.
284
DOROTHYLEE
It may be that a degree of tension exists in this pericope, reflectingthe pre-historyof the Cleansing tradition and its christologicaldevelopment at the hands of the fourth evangelist. In the first part of the narrative,Jesus "cleanses"the temple in order to purify "my Father'shouse" (tbvolicovxov sou), 2:16), acting in the propheticmanner and takinga stand against 7iaxp6o the idolatrous abuse of religion. If this reading of the Cleansing represents an earlier interpretation,John has succeeded in integrating it into his Christology, with the absolute use of "myFather's house" implyingJesus' unique Sonship (1:18; cf. 20:17c). By the end of the narrative,Johannine redaction has shaped the incident into a programmaticstatement of Jesus' resurrection.The real sanctuary is Jesus himself, the resurrectionsignifying the rebuildingof this incarnate "temple".In one sense, therefore,Jesus is purifyingthe Father'shouse; in another sense,Jesus is himself the house (o?KOS)in which the Father dwells (2:16-17), the "indestructibleeschatological temple".28By the end of the episode,Jesus has not only re-claimed the temple for his Father but has also claimed it as his own.29Its geographicalterrain and his own body/flesh are mysteriouslyfused, to be vindicated in the bodily resurrectionwhich will reveal his dominion over life and death. Whereas in the first part of the narrativeJesus points to the Father, in the second part the focus is on his own role in the transformation of Judaism.30 The Spirit has a vital role to play in John's temple Christology.The testimony of John the Baptist-the descent of the dove and the proclaiming of the divine voice-has already confirmedJesus' identity as the abidingplace of the Spirit (1:32-34).31The Spirit is central to the creative and recreative work of God, played out in the mission and ministry of Jesus. 28
Thompson, God of the Gospelof John, 212. This seems at first glance very different from the Synoptic Gospels. Yet the christological meaning is not absent from the Synoptics; note the motif of the destruction of the temple which is tied to Jesus' divinely-given authority and his crucifixion and death. The theme is more prominent in Mark and Matthew than in Luke (Mk 11:2733; 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; 15:38) although there, as Schnelle points out, the accusation of Jesus destroying and rebuilding the temple is made by false witnesses (Johannes,65). 30 Schnelle sees the Cleansing of the Temple as having two functions in John: it places the whole ministry of the Johannine Jesus within the perspective of the cross and resurrection, and it shows that Jesus himself is "der Ort der bleibenden Gegenwart Gottes" (Johannes,66). 31 Further on the motif of abiding, see F. Hauck, "gev0o" TDNT 4:574-576, J. Heise, Bleiben.Meneinin denJohanneischen Schriftn (Tiibingen, 1967) 44-103, and Lee, Flesh and Gloy, 88-99. 29
IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH
285
Birth "from above" (/ivtoev), that is, from the Spirit, is the only way to enter the new eschatologicalorder embodied in Jesus (3:1-10; cf. 1:12-13). Similarly, the Spirit is present in the Samaritan woman's story, mysteriously at work in the unfolding development of the woman's-and later the villagers'-understanding. The Spirit who abides on Jesus draws believers the site of worship of the to the Son as the heavenly yet material Txoros: Father. The most important text for the Spirit in these earlier chapters and the relationshipto Christology (before the revelation of the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourse, 14:15-17, 25; 15:26; 16:7-11, 13-15) is Jesus' invitationto discipleshipin the TabernaclesDiscourse(7:37-39).The imagery of living water flowing from the Kolkiaof Jesus ("belly", 7:8; cf. 19:34) parallelsOld Testament propheticimagery of water, in the last days, springing miraculouslyfrom the temple in Jerusalem (Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8; cf. Isa 12:3).32John's temple Christology (and eschatology)is confirmed in this typological symbolism. In the sub-divisionof the Gospel concerned with the feasts of Judaism, those rituals previously associated with the temple are gathered into the personof the Logos who fulfilsthem in his own flesh (chaps5-10). TheJewish feasts in these chapters (sabbath, Passover, Tabernacles, Dedication) are "reinterpretedin the light of the Gospel's christologicalclaim, that Jesus In each case,Jesus is "thepersonificais the new Temple of God's dwelling".33 tion and the universalization"of the Old Testament feasts (cf. 5:1), bringing them to perfection and fullness of meaning.34As the eschatologicaltemple, the JohannineJesus in his divine humanity is the authentic place where the Fatheris now to be worshipped,bringingIsrael'spast to fruition.John underlines the theologicalsignificancethroughfeast after feast, the imagery(bread, water, light) all pointing in the same christologicaldirection.
32 There is considerable difficulty over the punctuation and interpretation of this
Johannine text. The argument here assumes the christological reading: that Jesus is the one from whose "belly" living water flows (19:34), and that the sentence should be punctuated with a period following the phrase 6bxICstoev eig; 4t (7:37-38); so Brown, John, 1.320-321, Moloney, John, 256, Schnackenburg, St. John, 2.153-154, and Schnelle, Johannes, 148-149; also Lee, Flesh and Glory,41-42. For the view that Jesus is referring on to the believer here (4:14), cf. Barrett, St. John, 326-327, E. Haenchen, A Commentary the GospelofJohn (ET Philadelphia, 1984) 2.17, and B. Lindars, The Gospelof John (Grand Rapids, 1981) 299-300. 33 Coloe, GodDwells With Us, 115. For a summary of the significance in John's Gospel of each of the feasts, see G.A. Yee, Jewish Feasts and the Gospelof John (Delaware, 1989). 34 FJ. Moloney, Signs and Shadows.ReadingJohn 5-12 (Minneapolis, 1996) 205.
286
DOROTHYLEE
The FarewellDiscourse, while not alluding directlyto the theme of worship, also uses geographicaland materialimagery to speak of the Johannine Jesus as the locus of worship. For example, Jesus proclaims himself the eschatological way to the Father (o86s, 14:6), the sole means by which access to God is attained. If the purpose of true belief is worship of the one God, then Jesus' role as the pathway to the Father'spresence is relatedto the symbolismof Tx6oS:both are geographicalimages and both set the person of Jesus across the otherwise impassable gulf between the divine and human worlds. The pathway between heaven and earth is definitively opened by the incarnation:"Heaven opens itself to enfold the world into the relationship that precedes all creation, that of the Father to his Son and Word."35 The symbolismof abidingis also associatedwith this geographicalimagery, clarifyingstill further its meaning. If John 13-17 in its present form is chiastic, with the footwashing and Jesus' prayer as the frame (13:1-17; 17:126), the centre is the Johannine symbol of the vine and the branches, where the language of abiding multiplies(15:1-17).36The vine functions in this passage as an "extended metaphor",37a kind of Johannine parable with allegorical elements:Jesus is the vine on which/whom the branches (that is, disciples)abide, tended by the Father who is the vinedresser(15:18). The attachment betweenJesus and disciples stands at the centre of the relationship with God: affinity with Jesus means affinity with the divine source of life. The notion of worship, though not explicit, is implied in the ecclesial and eucharisticimplications of the imagery; the vine "has an inherent affinity with the eucharistic symbol of the wine" which "reflects and evokes" the union of the community with Christ.38The connection only makes sense where the vine is read as an Old Testament image for Israel (e.g. Ps 80:9-16; Isa 5:1-7; Jer 2:21; Ezek 15:1-8, 19:10-14). The friends of Jesus (piXot, 15:15) offer worship and adoration to the Father throughJesus, as their part of the covenant, a worship that produces life, 35 Kelly & Moloney, Experiencing God, 336. See, e.g., W. Brouwer, who argues thatJohn 13-17 is a macro-chiasm, with "Abide in me!" as the centrepiece; TheLiterary Development ofJohn 13-17. A ChiasticReadig (Adanta, 2000), especially 9-10, 117-118. Note that Brouwer's literary reading does not deny the complex pre-history of the present Johannine text. 37 F.F. Segovia, The Farewellof the Word.TheJohannineCall to Abide(Minneapolis, 1991) 123-35. 38 T.L. toJohn:A Literaryand TheologicalCommentary Brodie, The GospelAccording (Oxford, 36
1993) 482.
IN THE
SPIRIT
OF TRUTH
287
growth, fruit.39Augustine regards the cultivation imagery of John 15 as mutual yet differentiatedprecisely in relation to worship: For we cultivateGod, and God cultivatesus. But we do not cultivateGod in such a way as to make him betterfor our cultivating.For we cultivate him in adoring,not in ploughing.But he cultivatesus as a farmerthe fields. Becausethereforehe cultivatesus, he makesus better.40 Thus the Johannine Jesus acts as the means of worship, the medium through which adoration is offered to the Father. Through the same mediation, the Samaritanwoman has come to understandthe nature and focus of true worship, just as in the Farewell Discourse disciples discover that friendship with Jesus does not cancel out the rendering of worship and obedience (15:14). The JohannineJesus is the locus of worship, the "sacred site" whose flesh, by radiating glory, makes possible genuine worship of the Father. What this rich imagery signifies is that Jesus is the means of access to the Father, the channel between human beings and God. The Johannine Jesus does not simply point to the Father, as a signpost points elsewhere, but rather reveals that his own flesh is the manifestation of divine glory.41In this sense Jesus is the true icon, the window on the eternal, the epiphany of God's presence. To gaze into the face of this Jesus is to see, simultaneously,the Father's true radiance and the restorationof humanity. Sandra Schneiders speaks of the Johannine Jesus as the "archetypal symbol of God", "the foundational symbol, the very revelation of God".42God's full presence and glory is only encountered in the flesh of Jesus Christ; he is the meeting-place between God and humankind. Jesus as the Objectof Worship As well as directing believers to worship of the Father and, more importantly, providing the site for such worship, the Johannine Jesus in another Further on the imagery of friendship in John, see Lee, Flesh and Glory,99-104. 40 Augustine, Sermons87.1 (PL 38-9). 39
41
P. Tillich summarises the difference between sign (in the non-Johannine sense) and symbol: "while the sign bears no necessary relation to that to which it points, the symbol participates in the reality of that for which it stands ... Therefore, the religious symbol, the symbol which points to the divine, can be a true symbol only if it participates in the power of the divine to which it points"; SystematicTheology(London, 1951) 1.239. 42 "History and Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel" in M. de Jonge (ed.), L'evangilede Jean: sources,ridaction,theologie(Louvain, 1977) 373-375, and WrittenThat rou May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the FourthGospel(New York, 1999) 74.
288
DOROTHY
LEE
sense is also the object of worship.43We observed something of this dual role in the Cleansing of the Temple where Jesus both purifies his Father's house yet is also paradoxicallythe embodiment of God's abode. The double focus is evident in Jesus' majesticpresence manifest through all the circumstances of the Gospel narrative,even the story of his arrest, trial and death.44While it is the Father who is the source of dominion and sovereignty, the Son, as we have seen, shares that same dominion bestowed by the Father, a dominion that derives from the role of the Logos in creation-"all things came into being through him" (1:3)-and is manifest in the words and deeds of Jesus' ministry.This christologicalparticipationin divine sovereigntyis evident in the Shepherd Discourse, where the terminology is not so much that of God raisingJesus-as elsewhere in the New Testament-but rather of Jesus' active role in his own resurrection: For thisreasonthe Fatherlovesme becauseI lay downmy life, in orderthat I may takeit up again.No-onetakesit fromme, but I lay it downof myself. I have authority(Ceo-oia)to lay downmy life, and I have authorityto take it up again.(10:17-18) The same divine authority is visible in the Raising of Lazarus where Jesus reveals himself to be "the resurrectionand the life" (flavadaoaatcKica il oTl, 11:25-26), restoring Lazarus to life as a symbolic prefiguringof his own resurrection,and demonstratinghis triumphantpower over death. The authorityover life and death which Jesus possesses derives from his identity as the eternal Son. The language of Sonship, first disclosed in the Prologue,is developed in the discourseofJohn 5 around the theme of work: Jesus' sabbathactivityis the uniquely divine work of giving life and judging, the only "work"that can be undertakenon the sabbath(5:17-31).45 Although is the is not for language synonyworship present here, explicit language mous. The honour owed to the Father is to be offered also to the Son. 43 See Thompson, God of the Gospelof John, 223-226. 44 See, e.g., Jesus' arrest in the garden, where the arresting party, despite their numbers, torches and weapons, fall to the ground at Jesus' self-identifying eycOeiit ("I am the one", 18:5-6). 45 God's sabbath work presented a problem forJudaism and various ways were suggested to reconcile God's sabbath rest (Gen 2:2-3) with God's ongoing providential activity. Birth and death clearly took place on the sabbath and thus God's life-giving and judging work in some sense continued alongside God's rest. Philo, e.g., speaks of God's rest as perpetual but not inactive (Cher87), while some of the Rabbis see the divine exemption lying in the fact that creation is God's dwelling (Gen.Rab. 11.10, Exod. Rab. 30.9). Further on this, see Lee, SymbolicNarratives,111-113.
IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH
289
The verb xtl&v ("to honour") occurs four times in the one verse: "so that everyone may honour the Son just as they honour the Father.The one not honouring the Son does not honour the Father who sent him" (5:23). This statement is connected to Jesus' role as eschatologicalJudge, where he holds divine warrant both to vindicate and condemn (5:21-22, 24).46 The imagery stands alongside Jesus' own rendering of honour to "my Father"('tl0dxbv iarepa xlov,8:49) in contrast to the Jewish opponents who "dishonour"Jesus (ti)gieS a&Xtitaere` e); by extension, the Father will honour those who serve or minister to Jesus (BtaKov?,12:26). The correlation between the giving and receiving of honour suggests that the language of honour is very close to that of glory.47Nonetheless, such honour as the believing community renders to God is not identical to what is granted believers. The honour that belongs to Father and Son includes not just the faith recognition of the believing community (cf. 4:44) but also, in the end, its worship. That which is owed to the Father by right of creationworship, honour, glory-is owed also and equally to the Son, because by virtue of his eternal identity he shares the unique work of the Father. The same christologicalidentity is portrayed in John 17 which echoes the language of the Prologue, especially in the opening verses (17:1-5).48 The Logos stands rpo6TovOe6v,turned towards or face-to-face with God, as the eternal Son of the Father (cf. 1:1-2).49The mutuality of glorification between Father and Son points to their essential unity. Within the opening verses,Jesus' claims for himself, framed by the prayerfor glorification(17:1, 4-5), are unique. The authorityhe possessesis singularlydivine, an authority extending to "all flesh" (17:2).50Moreover, eternal life is intimately In another sense, the Johannine Jesus claims that, in contrast to his opponents, he judges no-one (8:15; cf. 3:17). This formal contradiction-which is really a paradox is linked to the theme of human beings judging themselves on the basis of their choice for or against the Light (3:18-21). 47 On the connection between rtli and ?6oa (2 Pet 1:17; Heb 2:7, 9; 3:3), see J. Schneider, "xrt!, xtColo," TDNJT8.174-175, 179. 48 P. Perkins, "The Gospel According to John," in R.E. Brown et al. (eds.), The New (New Jersey, 1990) 198. JeromeBiblical Commentaty 49 For this translation of the preposition tp6oS (usually translated as "with"), see I. de la Potterie, "L'emploie de eis dans Saint Jean et ses incidences theologiques," Biblica 43 46
(1962) 366-87, and FJ. Moloney,"'In the Bosom of' or 'Turnedtowards'the Father?" AusBR 31 (1983) 63-71. 50 For the view that "all flesh" includes all created beings, see R.A. Whitacre, John (Leicester, 1999) 404, and Lee, Flesh and Glory,43-45. Most commentators take the view that it refers only to human beings: e.g. Brown, John, 2.740, Schnackenburg, St. John,
290
DOROTHY LEE
bound up with knowing not just the Father but also the Sent One, Jesus Christ (17:3; cf. 9:7).51This is contiguous with the life and light given to creation through the agency of the Logos (cf. 1:3-4). As the only-begotten Son of the Father,Jesus holds God's own authority, an authority that is co-extensive with life itself.52 If John's temple Christology is taken seriously, it implies that disciples in the Fourth Gospel should accord Jesus worship. In John 9, the man born blind sees his healer for the first time only at the end of the story, after he has been cast out by the religiousauthorities(9:34, 35).53 It is only whenJesus reveals his identity, an identity that has brought about the healing,54 that the man responds by worshipping Jesus (Kcatlpooecujvrlaev axzi(,
9:38b). While there is textual dispute over these verses, the weight of evidence, both external and internal, supportstheir inclusion.55What the man born blind recognises is that Jesus is the Light of the world (8:12;9:5).56 His believing response to Jesus leads appropriatelyto faith and worship. The same may be said of Mary of Bethany's symbolic action in anointing Jesus' feet after the raising of Lazarus(12:1-8).The anointing functions at one level as an act of gratitude and "a proleptic burial ritual indicating
on the GospelAccordingto St. 3.171, and J.H. Bernard, A Criticaland ExegeticalCommentary John (Edinburgh, 1928) 2.560-561. X. Leon-Dufour argues that "all flesh" and "everything you have given him" present the same opposition between natural and redeemed humanity that is found at 1:12; Lecturede l'eoangileselonJean (Paris, 1988-96) 3.281-282. 51 On the sending motif and its christological implications inJohn, see P.N. Anderson, "The Having-Sent-Me Father: Aspects of Agency, Encounter, and Irony in the Johannine Father-Son Relationship," Semeia81 (1999) 33-57. 52 There is more to be said about John 17 on this topic of prayer and worship; see below. 53 Assuming that h4edpaXov ("cast out") refers to &aooyuvayoSyo; (out of the synagogue, so St. and 2.252 9:22); Schnackenburg, John, J. Gnilka, Johannesevangelium (Wiirzburg, 1983) 79. 54 As Augustine observes in his interpretation of John 9, regarding the significance of the incarnation for the man's healing: "by dust you are blinded, by dust you are healed; thus flesh (caro)had wounded you, flesh heals you" (In Joh. Evang. Tract. XIV 2.16, PL 34-35). 55 The majority of MSS includes the longer reading, but the shorter reading is found in P75, a*, W and others. B.M. Metzger supports the inclusion of 9:38-39a; A TextualComnmentayon theGreekNew Testament (3rd ed.; London/New York, 1975), 229; see also Schnackenburg, St. John, 2.254, 499. In favour of the shorter reading, cf. Brown, John, 1.375. 56 The same imagery is used in the Old Testament of God and Torah (e.g Ps 27:1; 36:9; 43:3; 119:105, 130; Wisd 18:4).
IN THE
SPIRIT
OF TRUTH
291
Jesus' giving of life through death.57The odour of the scented oil symbolises life and salvation,58in contrast to the decaying stench of death at the tomb of Lazarus(11:39).59At a deeper level, the anointingsymbolisesthe response of the community of faith to Jesus' gift of life. As a true disciple, Mary responds to the costlinessofJesus' gift of life with the costlinessof her own The language of Mary'sanointgift in an act of "self-givingextravagance".60 comes close to that of In the Gospel of Matthew, the two ing worship. women disciples at the tomb-Mary Magdalene and the other Mary-fall at the feet of the risenJesus in an act of faith and worship (Matt 28:9);this is the sameJesus who proclaims, only a few verses later, that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given me" (Matt 28:18).61In a parallel way, the anointing of Jesus' feet in the Fourth Gospel by Mary of Bethany functions as an act of worship,62based on her faith in Jesus as "the resurrection and the life" even as he confronts the reality of his own death (11:47-54).63 The story of Thomas operatesin a similarfashion (20:24-29).Once again, explicit terminology for worship is absent, yet the language points in the same direction. Thomas' confession representsin many respects the climax
57
Witherington, John's Wisdom,198. So Bultmann, John, 415, and Gnilka, Johannesevangelium, 97. 59 On the contrast between the two odours, see Lee, SymbolicNarratives,222 and G.R. BibleCommentary (Expanded O'Day, 'John," C.A. Newson, & S.H. Ringe (eds.), The Women's edition; London, 1998) 299. 60 C. Koester, Symbolismin the FourthGospel:Meaning,Mystery,Communit(Minneapolis, Readingof John 11:1-46 (Collegeville, 1995) 114. See B. Byrne, Lazarus:A Contemporary 1991) 59-60, and Lee, Flesh and Glory, 197-211. 61 In Luke's Gospel, several of the characters-disciples or suppliants-find themselves at Jesus' feet as an act of faith and recognition (e.g. Luke 5:8; 7:38, 44-46; 8:35; 58
10:39; 17:16). 62 According to Moloney, Mary is "the first person to understand the significance of ?the death of Jesus" (John, 349). By contrast, cf. A. Fehribach, who tries to argue that Mary is sidelined and marginalised in this narrative; The Womenin theLife of theBridegroom. A FeministHistorical-Literary in the FourthGospel(Collegeville, Analysisof the FemaleCharacters 1998) 107-111. 63 The Johannine version of the anointing, although distinct from the other Gospels, shares with them a sense of recognition that is close to worship. This is perhaps more obvious in the Markan version where the unnamed woman proclaims the gospel in her prophetic recognition of Jesus' kingship through death (Mk 14:3-9/Matt 26:6-13). Even in the Lukan equivalent (which has some similarities with John) the penitent woman's tears and anointing signal more than her gratitude for forgiveness; hers becomes also an act of hospitality showing her awareness of who Jesus really is (Lk 7:36-50).
292
DOROTHY LEE
of the Fourth Gospel. Thomas' words, "my Lord and my God" (6 iupt6o LOv)Kai6 0e6<; o, 20:28), bring the narrative of the Gospel back in full circle to its beginning. Just as the Prologue commences with the revelation of Jesus' divine identity (1:1-2), so the same identity is confirmed at the end of the Gospel, this time by a human being. Once more the revelation is that of life. The tokens of death on the body of the risenJesus are paradoxicallysymbols of his divine sovereigntyover life. Thomas' confession involves both recognition and worship: a confession of faith that is itself an act of adoration. Nor is it insignificantthat Thomas' confession immediately follows the giving of the Spirit in the previous scene (20:1923). As a consequence of the Spirit's presence, Thomas is able to make his faith confession, an expression of worship that brings the Gospel to completion (20:31).64The Spirit of truth leads even the unbelievingThomas to the highest act of worship in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus and Prayer We have seen that Jesus as the eternal Son is both the locus and object of worship in the Fourth Gospel, both notions being closely related. A further question needs to be raised: Does John portrayJesus also as the one who rendersworship to the Father as the true or model Ipoaruvrlq;? The Synoptics are more inclined to presentJesus in this way, as witnessed in his life of prayer and dependence on God (e.g. Lk 11:1-4; Mk 14:32-42; Matt 4:1-11). The latter theme is prominent in the Gospel of Luke, but all three evangelistsin their own way demonstrateJesus' concern to uphold and model the worshipof the one God.5 In the dialoguewith the Samaritan woman Jesus does not speak of himself as worshipper, although he does point to the Father as the object of worship, through his own self-revelation and the dynamic work of the Spirit. His mission, as we have seen, is precisely to gain worshippersfor the Father: that the Father desires such is evident in the sending of the Son whose own will is directed exclusively at accomplishingthat of the Father (4:34). 64 Assuming thatJohn 21, though "Johannine" in an extended sense, was most likely not part of the original Gospel; for more details, see Brown, John, 2.1077-1082. For a different view, emphasising the literary unity of John 20 and 21, see P.S. Minear, "The Original Functions of John 21". JBL 102 (1983) 85-98, and S.M. Schneiders, "John 21:1-14" Int 43 (1989) 70-75. 65 For example, in Matthew's Gospel Jesus' rendering of true worship and obedience is a replaying of Israel's past, presenting it whole before God.
IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH
293
As the Son who is sent and thus renders his life as an act of obedience to God, Jesus can be understood as offering worship to the Father,just as he renders honour and obedience (cf. 14:28). Indeed this motif can be seen as integral to John's understandingofJesus as Son, although it often seems overshadowedby the evangelist'sstress on the oneness, mutuality and harmony between God and Jesus. John 17 is perhaps the best example of the worship rendered by the Son to the Father.Jesus' stance throughout this prayer on behalf of his disciplesis that of worship. His prayer for glorification-even allowing for its characteristicallyJohannine emphases and the mutuality of the petition for glorification(17:5, 24)-is implicitly an act of worship.Paradoxicallythis same text, as we have observed,demonstratesJesus' divine origins and nature; he alone is capable of such face-to-face stance or relation, because he is the eternal Son and shares in the being of 0e6;. The language of John 17 is in this sense performative:the prayer is a visualisation, an enactment of the relationship between Father and Son. C.H. Dodd interprets the prayer as an "anabasis",the symbolic offering of Jesus' death on the cross as the climax of Jesus' (and thus the Father's) John 17 represents the ascent of the Son to the Father, in glorification.66 which Jesus symbolicallyreveals the exaltation of his life before God, setting forth in prayer the form and shape of the crucifixion as an act of worship.The prayernot only speaksof glory;it also enacts that glorification which encapsulatesthe mission of the Son. Commenting on Jesus' Sonship here, Dodd observes the dynamics of Father and Son in language parallel to that of worship, language that extends in a widening circle to the community of faith which is drawn into Jesus' oblation: The relationof Fatherand Son is an eternalrelation,not attainedin time, nor ceasingwith thislife, or with the historyof thisworld.The humancareer ofJesusis, as it were,a projectionof this eternalrelation(whichis the divine ayamil)upon the field of time. It is such, not as a mere reflection,or representation,of the reality,but in the sensethat the love whichthe Fatherbore the Son "beforethe foundationof the world",and which He perpetually returns,is activelyat workin the whole historicallife of Jesus... The love of God, thus releasedin history,bringsmen into the same unity of which the relationof Fatherand Son is the eternalarchetype.67 Jesus' worship of the Father in this frameworkis at one and the same time unique and universal:the Son's returning of the Father's love is an
66 67
The Interpretation of the FourthGospel(Cambridge, 1953) 419-420. Dodd, FourthGospel,262.
294
DOROTHY LEE
act of worship as well as the expression of reciprocity.The cross signifies not just the Father's love for the world (3:16) but also Jesus' love for the Father. All human beings are called into the same relation, the same filiation, the perpetual return of love to the Father in prayer and worship. Thus they become children of God and participate in Jesus' Sonship. The role ofJesus as worshipperleads to a considerationofJesus' prayers in the Fourth Gospel and their christologicalsignificance. While worship is directed both to the Father and Jesus-and, by implication, the SpiritJesus himself is recorded as praying three times in the Gospel of John. Jesus' identity, as it were, oscillates throughout the Fourth Gospel (as it also does, though in different ways, in the Synoptics). This shifting identity, which is overlappingand even converging,enables him to be not only the object of worship-and thus by implication the recipient of prayerbut also the worshipper,the one who prays. On the first occasion, immediately before Jesus summons Lazarus from the tomb, Jesus addresses the Father directly for the first time in the Gospel, speaking not only as a human being rendering thanks to God but also as the eternal Word who is xp6b TOvOe6v: "Father,I thank you that you heard me. I know that you alwayshear me. But I have spokenfor the sake of the crowd standingaround, that they might believe you sent me" (11:41-42).Here in a distinctivesense the JohannineJesus reveals that he has no need of prayer. The close bond of unity between Father and Son makes petitionaryprayer unnecessary.68 The harmony of will is so perfect and undivided that there is no interval between them, no need for Jesus to struggle to comprehend or obey the Father's will (cf. Mk 14:14:32-42).69The only purpose of Jesus' intercession is to deepen the faith of his hearers.Jesus' prayer thus becomes a form of revelation, another way in which he discloses his true identity. Whether this defines his divine or human identity is not plain in the text, even if theologically the two dimensions cannot be strictly separated. Twice more in the GospelJesus offersintercessionto God, again addressJust after the coming of the Greeks,Jesus ing God as "Father"(n&Tep).70 debates within himself the form of prayer he should offer as he faces the distress of his impending Passion:
68
There is no actual petition here, in any case, although Jesus speaks as if there is. Bultmann's comment is that Jesus, unlike most human beings, has no need to rouse himself from his natural state of godlessness to a stance of prayer, "for he continually stands before God as the asker and therefore as the receiver" (John, 408). 70 See alsoJn 11:41; 12:27, 28; 17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25. 69
IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH
295
"Nowmy soul is troubled,and what am I to say?Father,save me fromthis hour?But for this reason,for this hour, I have come. Father,glorifyyour name!"Then a voice came fromheaven,"I have glorifiedit and I will glorifyit again."(12:27-28) Not only is this the only time in the Fourth Gospel where Jesus soliloquises, it is also the only time the Father directly speaks (apart from the report of John the Baptist, 1:33). From a Johannine point of view, Jesus is setting out the two ways in which he might respond to his death: either by asking to be spared the "hour", as he does in the Synoptic tradition (where he prays that the cup be taken from him, Mk 14:36) or by accepting his destiny unhesitatingly,based on an understandingof the cross as the glorification of the Father. His swift choice for the second option is confirmed at once in the Father's response. Yet once again, Jesus' prayer is not necessary, being neither intercessory nor (from the Father's perspective) informative. As the crowd debates the significance of the voice they have heard-thunder? an angel speaking?-Jesus confirms that it is addressednot to him but the crowd: "Not for me (o/ St' 4tg) did this voice occur but for you" (a&X 8t' u&a;, 12:29-30). Once again Jesus' prayer is directed to the faith of the believing community. The same principle must apply to the prayer ofJohn 17. Schnackenburg prefers to call this the "prayer of the departing Redeemer" rather than the more traditional "high priestly prayer", because it is not strictly intercessory;71perhaps, in the light of Dodd's interpretation,a better alternative is the "prayer of the ascending Redeemer". The prayer, as we have seen, expresses the mutual glorification of Father and Son and the unity that holds them together-a unity into which the community, both present and future, is drawn. At the same time, the "lifting up" (vioIv, cf. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34) of Jesus is already an act of prayer and worship, a returningof the Father'slove by the Son, which is part of the inner meaning of the cross. As with the previous prayers,its petitions (for glorification, and for the safe-guarding,sanctification,unificationand mutual love of the community)are made for the instructionand comfort of the listeners/readers. Just as the "signs" (aclneia)of the Fourth Gospel reveal Jesus' identity, so the prayer of John 17 functions in a similar way: to draw believers into its transformingpower, so that their hearts are raised to God and enticed into the perpetual return of love. The prayer of John 17 acts, as
71
Schnackenburg, St. John, 3.167-202.
296
DOROTHY LEE
it were, as the magnet to draw the hearer into Jesus' love for God, into his sacrificialdeath, into his glorificationof the Father and thus into worship. In this way, Jesus' mission, which is to find true worshippersfor the Father who seeks them (4:23), is finally and fully accomplished (cf. 19:30). Jesus' prayersin the Fourth Gospel are thus revelatoryrather than intercessory, expressingthe abiding of Father and Son, the love and unity that binds them. They articulate that divine indwelling into which the community is drawn. It would be inaccurate, however, to conclude that the Johannine Jesus does not really pray. On the contrary, from the beginning to the end of the Gospel,Jesus refers everythingto the Father, including the coming of the Spirit: his entire relationship is one of prayerful communion and mutual dependence, a communion that lies at the heart of prayer. In this sense, Jesus can be said to be not just the locus and object of worship, but also the (only) authentic worshipper of the Father. Conclusion
It would be anachronisticto employ uncritically the language of later centuries to describeJohn's theological reflectionson worship and prayer. Yet from the second century onwards, the language of liturgy, apologetics and credal formulationin the early Church upheld the biblical witness to the oneness yet pluralityof the God revealed in Jesus. These centuries owe perhaps more to the Gospel of John than any other New Testament theologian (with the possible exception of Paul). In a forum such as this, honouring the scholarly work of Eric Osborn, it is permissibleto move freely across canonical boundariesto the biblical and theological reflectionof the early Church. Professor Osbor's work, spanning several decades, interprets the writers of the second century in particularwithin such a biblical and theological framework.In one sense, therefore, we are free to speak of the Fourth Gospel as trinitarian in its understanding of worship,72a Gospel that in any case "stressesthe unity of three persons",73even if the distinctionsare not as fine or lucid as they become at Nicaea.In different
72 Note R.S. Gruenler's commentary on the Fourth Gospel which traces "the triune
communityof Father,Son, and Holy Spirit"throughouttheJohanninetext; TheTrinity ontheFourthGospel in theGospel Commentary (GrandRapids, 1986)espeofJohn:A Thematic cially 89-120. 177. 73Osborn, Christian Theology,
IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH
297
ways, John's Gospel expresses the unity and reciprocityof Father and Son who are the object of the believing community's worship.74 Yet the Nicene Creed declares that the Church worships and glorifies all three Personsof the Trinity. The mutualitywithin the Johannine FatherSon relationship includes, by extension, the "Spirit of truth" who in the absence of Jesus leads the believing community "into all truth" (16:13). It is through the Spirit, &Xaovicapcrarlxov("anotherParaclete", 14:16), operative in the life and death of Jesus, that human beings are empowered and directed to offer authentic worship to the Father. The Spirit shares with Jesus the task of both convicting the world of sin and revealing the truth, thus making present the indwelling of God. True worship is possible only in the power of the Spirit who gives birth to believers, making them children of God, participantsin Jesus' own filiation. As revealed to the receptive Samaritan woman, Jesus is the locus and object of worship, the source of worship and the true worshipper,the bridge between heaven and earth,75the one whose search for true worshippersis the expression of the Father's love and longing. Worship and prayer are to be offered Jesus but also, since he is the visible manifestationof God, to him.76 through In his flesh the worship he embodies is the symbolic enactment of both self-offeringand mutual glorification,the source-through the abiding presence of the Spirit-Paraclete-of the believing community'slife and worship. Queen's College Parkville,Vic. 3052 Australia
On the influence of the Johannine Father-Son relationship on later Patristic thought, see, e.g., P. Widdicombe, The Fatherhoodof Godfom Origento Athanasius(Oxford, 1994) and "The Fathers on the Father in the Gospel of John," Semeia85 (1999) 105-125. 75 As Coloe points out, the temple in the Old Testament, fully manifest in the Johannine Jesus, is "the point of intersection between heaven and earth and thus the locus of the divine presence on earth" (GodDwells With Us, 127). 76 Thompson, God of the Gospelof John, 224-225. 74
CLASS DISTINCTION AS A WAY OF DOING CHURCH: THE EARLY FATHERS AND THE CHRISTIAN PLEBS' BY
DAVID I. RANKIN ABSTRACT: Roman
notions of social and legal distinction helped to shape the approach of certain pre-Nicene Fathers to the ordering of the church. The social distinction between ordoand plebs and the legal one between honestior and humiliorhelped these Fathers to differentiate the particular rights and responsibilitiesof clergy and laity, while the concept of patronage and that of the paterfamilias helped them to define the particularrole and authority of the bishop. We see this first articulated in Clement and Hermas of Rome, developed further in Tertullian of Carthage, and then find particularexpression in Cyprian of Carthage.
When I was a parish minister in the brown coal mining and power production areas of eastern Victoria in the early 1980s it was clear from the first to me that the employment distinctions within the State Electricity Commission were translated very easily into the life of the local church community. Within the workplace of the SEC-particularly within the powergenerating stations-and within the old company township of Yalloum these distinctions, particularly those between management and general workforce, and between the power station engineers and the rest, were of paramount importance. In the township itself the managers and engineers occupied the prime locations for the siting and service provision of company-provided residences. In the church the manager-engineers occupied the key leadership positions in parish council, council of elders, and property committees, seemingly by 'natural right'. They ran the SEC and largely, with the occasional assistance of the minister of the day, seemed to run the local church.
Eric Osborn has been a major influencein my life. It has been my privilegeto have been encouraged by him, to have been taught and supervised by him. He has been teacher, friend, indeed even father-in-God to me. It is a great privilege for me to be asked to participate in this tribute to him. I dedicate this paper to him. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christianae58, 298-315
CLASS DISTINCTION AS A WAY OF DOING CHURCH
299
Theplebs and theordo Roman society was divided (or distinguished)by clear class boundaries (the 'orders' were those social categories defined through statute or custom)-senatorial, equestrian,provincialdecurian,humble free (freebornand freed) and slave, patrician and plebeian, citizen and non-citizen-though this last distinctionlost significancethroughoutthe course of the Principate and was effectivelyreplaced in time (emergingprincipallyduring the reign of Hadrian) by that between honestior (comprising the three elite classes, senatorial, equestrian and decurion, and the army veterans) and humilior (the remainder of the free).2The plebswere narrowly defined as those citizens (for it was usual to include neither aliens nor slaves among the plebs) who did not qualify for membership of the Roman Senate. And within the plebeian order itself there were further distinctionsbased upon status, wealth and a host of other considerations,most notably that between those who received imperial subknown as the plebsintegra(or parspopuliintegra) who did not. The distinction sistenceallowances,and the inferiorplebssordida was most obvious in the treatment of parand humiliores between honestiores ties before the courts, where the advantages enjoyed by one class and the disadvantagesby the other were first a matter of convention and finally included senators,equestrians,milof legislation.The former (the honestiores) and veterans, magistrates, possibly provincial decurions. Synonyms in itary included (qui) humiliorelocopositi (nati) (sunt) common usage for humiliores (insignificantpersons) (Dig. 48.19.28). (Dig. 48.8.1.5), plebeii,and tenuiores included (qui)in honorealiquopositi(sunt)(Dig.48.8.16)Those for honestiores notions of honor3or honoswere critical-altiores,splendidiores personae,(qui) in as as well hi altiores dignitatissunt, phrases coupled positi, qui aliquadignitate should possess existimawith the words auctoritas, gravitas,or fides.A honestior loconatisunt),4or ordo. tio (reputation),qualitas,gradus,locus(as in quihonestiore
2 See P. Garsey, Social Status and Legal Privilegein the RomanEmpire(Oxford, 1970). The distinction becomes most explicit during the third century and the two words honestioresand humilioresare not found in tandem before then. The second century jurist Papinian employs together honestiorand humilisloci (Dig. 48.5.39.8). 3 Honoris the 'source of dignitas,auctoritas, and reverentia' according to Garnsey, op. cit., 242. It can also refer to office itself. See Cic. Verr.2,5,14,35 where the author speaks of his quaestorship as an 'office (honor)'and Juvenal 8.150 where the satirist refers to a 'term of office (tempushonoris)'. 4 Garnsey, op. cit., 221-33, deals with each of these and others. Pliny, Ep. 8.6.16, speaks of those who are of 'distinguished family (honestoloco nati)'.
300
DAVID I. RANKIN
This 'privilegedclass' of honestiores was 'vague and indefinable'5-the Digest and provides no theoretical definition of the term and the terms honestiores humiliores are not employed together before the Severan age-but nonetheless was real and easily identifiable.Among the Romans 'the principal criterion of legal privilege... was dignitasor honorderived from power, style of life [mores],and wealth'.6The Stoic Seneca (Ep. 47.15), when encouraging the recipient of the letter to regard his slaves more kindly and more than of humanely, to view them more in terms of their character (moribus) their duties (ministeriis), the social distinction between the slave recognises whose duties are more humble (sordidioris) and the free person (liber),between those of low association(exsordidaconversatione) and those of gentler breeding whose smooth the rough edges of the for(honestiorum), very company may mer's more servile qualities.The distinctionbetween honestiores and humiliores was, however, not one which was fixed nor did these two groups represent hard-and-fastcategories but it does go some way towards indicating the complexity of Roman social order. Such social structures reinforced the commitment of many to the maintenance of order and harmony. Plutarch declared that 'a man who had "harmonised"his domestic life with such elegance and authoritycould be trustedto harmonisestate, forum and friends'.7 At 1 Clement3,3, when speaking of those who have allegedly usurped the leadershiproles within the Corinthianchurch, Clement of Rome refers to the 'worthless' (oi atitot)8 (humiliores or tenuiores?) who have risen up those who in were honour the 'against (vxTi{oix;), disreputable (&ao4ot) against the reputable (v56ovu);)'.9Now while this is probably a quotation of sorts from Isaiah3,5, Everyonewill take advantageof everyoneelse; youngpeoplewill not respecttheirelders, and the worthlessperson(6 axtixoS) will not respecttheirsuperior(tovevrtisov) it is also likely that it reflects the Roman notion of the privileged class of who were regardedas those who were held 'in honore', honestiores where honor 5 'The
Romans were suspicious of definition' according to Garnsey, op. cit., 235.
6 Garnsey, op. cit., 279. 7Plutarch, Praecept.Corjug.43.144C. p. 333. 8At Athens a citizen deprived of his civic privileges was so designated.
9See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1098b28 where he speaks of iv&6Sotavipeg. This phrase is translated both as 'eminent persons' and as 'persons of note'. It is an obvious Greek equivalent for the Latin honorati(see below note 12).
CLASS DISTINCTION AS A WAY OF DOING CHURCH
301
often refersto an official position or office.'0These 'honoured'church leaders, honorati" perhaps, would have had what the Romans regarded as exisAt 40,5, as timatio(reputation,regard), a prime requisite for the honestior. he argues for order in the conduct of the liturgy and in the church generally, Clement is the first Father clearly to distinguishbetween the clergy (as priests) and the laity, The layperson(6haucb &v0pov cpog) [sc. as opposed to the High Priest,priestsand Levites]is boundby the ordinancesfor the laity. Whereas in the biblical witness the laoswas clearly the whole people of God, for Clement the term is akin to the Roman notion of the plebs,the opposite to the ordoor patrician/senatorial class. For him the Christian clergy are the ecclesiasticalequivalent of the Roman ordo(though he does not say so explicitly) and the non-clergy, the laikoi,the laity, the Roman plebs.At 41,1 he again speaks of each member of the church being 'pleasing to God in his own rank' and employs the Greek txyRa as the equivalent of the sense of ordoas 'class'. At 44,3 Clement speaks of the 'eminent persons (LXoyi ov &avsp&v)' beyond the time of the original Apostles, who appointed those who were to have oversight (bishops)of the church. would not have been out of place here. The term honestiores At 4,6 of the Octaviusof Minucius Felix, a late second century North African lawyer working in Rome,'2 Minucius himself, when describinghow he and two companions sat down together to engage in debate over the particular merits of the Christian faith, says that he sat between the two protagonistsas arbiter, though not by way of etiquette as a mark of rank for friendshipalways assumesor creates equalor distinction(ordoand honor), aut aut honoris,quippecumamicitiaparessemperaut ordinis hoc ity (nec obsequifuit
10 See
above.
" Cicero, Laws 1.11.32, says that 'those who are publicly honoured seem blessed (beati,
while 'those who are unhonouredare miserable(miseriquisunt sunt,videntur) quihonorati at 7.22 of 'men of reputationand publicfigures(clari He inglorii). speaks,too, deSenectute ethonorati viri)'and contraststhesewith those 'in vitaetiamprivataet quieta(thoseuninvolved either in public office or in an active career)'. The particular contrast between honorati and privataE.S. Shuckburgh, in his 1886 edition with commentary (Cicero:de Senectute. Cambridge), 'from the sense of honor'office', almost answer[s] to our "cleric" and "lay"'. 12 See Lactantius, Divine Institutes5.1.12 and Jerome, De VirisIllustribus58.
302
DAVID
I. RANKIN
accipiatautfaciat).'3Clarke recognises in the final phrase-amicitiaparessemper aut accipiatautfaciat-'a frequently employed proverb'.14Now it is, of course, possible that Minucius is merely making an innocent observation in the spirit of the occasion. I would suggest, however, that this remark seeks to compare the Roman obsession with rank and distinction-seen, for example, in the humiliatingpractice of patronage (see below), or in the public theatre where the law dictated the provision of seating by class, or in a thousand other ways designed to put and keep people in their assigned places-with the ideal Christianview of a world governed by a God who is no respecter of persons. While Minucius generally reflects in his dialogue both a Roman conservatismand suspicionof things new in his desire for the maintenance of proper order,'5in this instance he here compares the Roman obsession with class and status with the apparent egalitarianism of the Christian God. Though Tertullianof Carthageclearlycomes from an affluentCarthaginian family-his education and general manner would indicate this, as for examPraxeanto uneducatedChristiansas simplicesl6ple, his reference,in adversus it is not clear whetherhe literallyimportsinto his understandingof Christian community the social divisions of the secular world in which he lived and worked. It is clear, however, that he at the very least uses the language of that world to articulatethe nature of clerical-layrelationships."7 He does not explicitly employ the language of honestiores and humiliores but can be said to do so implicitly. He declares at de Baptismo17,2 But how much more does the disciplineof discretionand modestyapplyto laypersons(laicis)-seeingthat these prerogatives[sc. of baptising]belongto theirsuperiors(maioribus)-lest they assumeto themselvesthe role of bishop
'3 J. Beaujeu,Minucius Felix:Octavius (Paris, 1964), 75, sees this as evidence of the Africanprovenanceof the participants,given the Africanorigin of this practice,a view which G.W. Clarke,'The HistoricalSetting of the Octaiusof MinuciusFelix',Journal Histoy4 (1967), 267-86, properlychallenges. of Religious 14 G.W. Clarke, The Octavius of MarcusMincius Felix(ACW 39, New York, 1974), 181, note 35. 15 See particularlythe influenceof Cicero and of Stoic thought generallyat 17,5f. and 18,4. 16 This referenceby Tertullianis not meant pejoratively-and its use by Cicero and others certainlywas not-but it does clearlyrepresentthose who are by upbringingif not by inclinationunable to engage in seriousdiscourse. "7Notwithstandingthe fact that he was not himselfa cleric.
CLASSDISTINCTIONAS A WAY OF DOING CHURCH
303
and refers at de Fuga 11,1 to the distinction of clergy and laity as maior and minorlocus(rank, position, place)18much as Cyprian did later.19He employs the notion of the Roman ordineswhen he refers explicitly to the laity as the plebs at de Monogamia12,2 (where he contrastsplebs and praecastitatis7,3 (where positi), de Ieiunio13,3, de Anima9,4 and de Exhortatione he contrasts ordoand plebs),20 The authorityand honourof the churchdeterminesthe differencebetween the Order(ordinem) and the people(plebem). Tertullian refers to the laity, somewhat disparagingly,as grex(herd)21at de Fuga 11,3 and speaks of the clergy as those 'who rule over the people (quigregipraesunt)'.He also employs grexof the whole people of God, lay and clergy together, at de Pudicitia7,4, and employs the adjective gregarius to distinguishthe laity from the church leadership(as duces)at deFuga 11,1. He speaks also of the laity as pecus(a flock of sheep, or even of swine, but more normally a herd of cattle) at 11,lf.22 Tertullian employs laicus,or a variant, for the layperson at de Baptismo17,2, de Praescriptione 41,8, de Exhortatione castitatis7,3 and 7,6, and at de Fuga 11,1 where he contrasts the lay plebswith the clericalactores, the latterterm a common one drawnfrom Roman bureaucratic administration.His commitment to social and communal harmony and peace as cornerstonesof the Christian life is evident also in his delegation of the right to baptise in de Baptismo17 where he argues for order and disciplinein the sacramentalpractice of the churchwith particular respect to the claimed 'right' of the bishop-so that the 'peace' of the church might be preserved (salvapax est). Notwithstanding this reflection of Roman (and thereby Romanised Carthaginian)patterns
18
andtheChurch D.I. Rankin, Tertullian (Cambridge,1995), 126f.
19 At
ep. 3.1.1 Cyprian of Carthage refers to a diaconal locusdistinct from the superior one of the bishop. This, as we shall see, is quite consistent with the Carthaginian bishop's understanding of the bishop as chief ecclesial patron. 20 Rankin, op. cit., 131f. 21 The word grex can also be used of persons in the sense of a company or crowd, with pejorative overtones, and was so employed by Cicero, Sallust, Livy, Juvenal, and others, but usually in the sense of a 'mob' (see Juvenal 1,46). The agricultural connotations are never far from the surface. It is rarely used as a compliment! 22 Rankin, op. cit., 132 and 133. Pecusis rarely used of humans and then only as a term of abuse (seeJuvenal 8.62 and Horace, Sermones1.3.100 where the term is employed pejoratively of humans, in the latter in association with the word turpeas 'shameful' or 'disgraceful').
304
DAVID I. RANKIN
of social relationshipsin his understandingof status within the church he does not seem to suggest, explicitly at least, that the concept of patronage played much part in this. Thepatronus and theclientes23 Juvenal speaks of the impoverishedperson in Rome hurrying along in his toga before dawn to the house of his benefactor.24He speaks bitterly, too, of the fact that he and his fellow clientesare forced by the vagaries of life into accepting a cake at a dinner party given by their patron and being thereby 'compelled to pay a tip [sc. to a slave] and add to a well-dressed servant's property'.25He also paints a picture of clients rushing to their patron's home to collect a hand-out meal which must then be kept warm on the way home by their own slaves!26A picture indeed of a patronage system which brought for those at the bottom end of the social scale certainly some measure of social and political protection and securitybut only at the cost of considerable inconvenience and personal humiliation. As Southern maintains,patronage and clientshipwere ingrainedin the Roman way of life from earliest times.27For Saller, patronage in imperial Rome was a relationshipbetween two unequal persons (in terms of social status) which set it off from a friendshipbetween equals.28The pursuit of patronage, particularlyfrom the point of view of the client, while often necessary merely to survive, was a form of self-abasementand personal humiliation which few Romans with any self respect could have enjoyed.29'Romans', says Saller, 'applied the language of patronage to a range of relationships, with both humble dependantsand theirjunior aristocraticcolleagueslabelled clientes:usage was more fluid than usually supposed, and the connotations of amicus,cliens and patronuswere subtly and variously manipulated in
23 An important work on patronage in the Roman world is R.P. Sailer, Personalpatronage underthe earlyEmpire(Cambridge 1982). 24
Satire3, 126f.
25 et cultisaugere tributaclientes Ibid., 3, 188-9:praestare cogimur peculiaservis. 26 249-50.
Ibid., 3, 27P. Southern, Domitian-TragicTyrant(Londonand New York, 1997), 4. 28 R. Sailer,'Patronageand friendshipin early ImperialRome: drawingthe distincin AncientSociey.(Londonand New York, tion' in A. Wallace-Hadrill(ed.), Patronage 1989), 49. Amicitiacould be employedto pretenda genuine equalitywhere none actually existedto protect the sensibilitiesof the social inferior. 29
Ibid., 52.
CLASSDISTINCTIONAS A WAY OF DOING CHURCH
305
different circumstances'.30'The social hierarchy of Rome was re-enacted and reinforceddaily through the characteristicallyRoman institutionof the salutatio'.3lSailer also speaksof the patronal domusjrequentata (crowdedhouse) 'as an indication of power in an active public life'.32Yet, 'in the imperial age, the patronus-cliens relationshiphad no "technicalsense" and no formal standing in law'.33 Roman citizens were divided not only defacto but also de iure,as we noted above, into honestiores-senators, equites, veterans and their familiesand humiliores. This distinction was recognised and applied formally in the law courts in matters of both treatment and penalties and became more formally recognised as the second century CE in particularprogressed.In the theatre too seats were assigned, by virtue of the lex Julia theatricalis, according to social status. Says Goodman, 'Augustus and his successors wanted the inhabitants of Rome to view themselves as part of a decent, ordered, tidy society'.34The themae,for example, were certainly 'seen as examples of imperial generosity'35but the charging of an entrance fee, which would have deterred the plebssordida,demonstratesthat the emperors were, in their provision of the baths, keen to engage the support of the more prosperous of the plebs, the pars populiintegra.Social structures themselvesreinforcedthe commitmentof many to that very order. Plutarch, as we saw earlier, declared that 'a man who had "harmonised"his domestic life with elegance and authoritycould be trustedto harmonisestate,forum and friends'.36 Brown declaresthat 'what makesthe second centurysignificant is the frequency with which the domestic concord associated with the nuclear family was played up symbolically, as part of a public desire to emphasize the effortless harmony of the Roman order'.37He employs as examples of this the emphasis given on coins of the period to the concor-
30
Ibid., 57. 31Ibid. 32R.F. Saller,'Familia,Domus,and the Roman
38 Conceptionof the Family',Phoenix
(1984), 352. 33 34
Ibid., 60.
R. Goodman, TheRomanWorld44BC-AD150(Londonand New York, 1997), 166. J.R. Patterson,'The City of Rome: from Republic to Empire'Journalof Roman Studies82 (1992), 213. Also see ibid., 210f. on amphitheatres,circusesand baths (see also Fronto, PincipiaHistoriae17) and 212 on gladiatorialshows. 36 See note 8. 37 P. Brown, TheBodyandSociety: andSexualRenunciation in earlyChristianiy Men,Women 16. (London, 1988), 35
306
DAVID I. RANKIN
dia evident in relationsbetween emperor and spouse-Marcus Aureliusand Faustina the Younger for example-the emphasis on the 'exceptionalconcord' of the imperial spouses generally,and the notion of the married couple as a 'reassuringmicrocosm of the social order'.38 Clement of Rome, as part of his recognition of the need for everybody in the church to know their proper place, declares that each person should be 'subjectto his neighbour, according to the position (xapit,oLaTa) granted to him'. The strong, he says, should care for the weak and, in return, the weak should reverence the strong. 'Let the rich person bestow help on the poor and the poor give thanks to God that God gave him one to supply his needs' (38,2). The aid of the wealthy is not then given gratuitously but appears to assume that the one aided will in turn pray for his or her benefactor. This is the patronage system of Rome in its most primitive expression, as essentially a quidpro quo. of Hermas Osiek in her commentary on the second-century Shepherd identifies a number of passages in which she believes that the Roman system of patronage provides the context against which we are to understand the relationship between Hermas and those who grant him the visions which form the core of his treatise.39At Vision3.2.4 Hermas throws himself at the feet of the old woman who then places him at her left hand, a clear sign of his subordinationto her. At Mandate4.2.1 there is again a clear sign of the subordinationof Hermas, this time to the Shepherd himself, 8.4.1 where the Shepherd requires which is made more explicit at Similitude of Hermas the humble service of towelling. In return for this service, as in the case of the old woman, Hermas is to receive visions and instructions. At Similitude2.5-6, in the parable of the vine and the elm, representing the rich and the poor respectively,there is presented the image of the rich aiding the poor and the poor, by way of reciprocation,being rich in intercession and confession, interceding with prayer for the rich, and in this mutual aid sharing together in the works of righteousness(the quidpro quo). Bobertz identifies in the ApostolicTraditionof Hippolytus of Rome the This takes exercise of the role of the Roman patronusin the cenadominica.40 in a home and refers in of an meal held the context agape private place to a relationship of mutual obligation-the act of generosity on the part 38
Ibid., 16f.
39 C. Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas:a commentary (Minneapolis, 1999). 40 C.A. Bobertz, 'The Role of Patron in the Cena Dominicaof Hippolytus' Apostolic
Tradition',JTS 44 (1993), 170-84.
CLASS DISTINCTION AS A WAY OF DOING CHURCH
307
of one being reciprocatedby the prayersof the others-between the householder as host and the invited participants: And at everyact of offeringlet the one who offersrememberhim who invited him,for to thisend he petitionedthattheymightcomeunderhis roof(26,2).4' In his study Bobertz deals with what he recognisesas 'the maze of social relations surroundingthe descriptionof privatelysponsored Lord's Suppers (chs. 26-29), and especially the role and status of the sponsors of those suppers, local patrons of the Roman Christian community'.42These cenae dominicae were evidently dinners provided for the local Christian commuand nity paid for by wealthier members of that community. They demonstrate for Bobertz the hierarchical structure of the social environment in which the church found itself and the influence of that environment on personal relationshipswithin the community, although Bobertz does make clear that his use here of the terms 'patrons' and 'clients' need not carry the full import of the formal relationshipsfound in Roman society.43The 'clients', the vocati,must act in such a way as will both enhance the honour and prestigeof the 'patron'and acknowledgetheir 'generosity'.44 Bobertzsees the purpose of the Hippolytan injunctionsas maintaining'an uninterrupted flow of patronage to the Roman community'.45He speaks of 'Hippolytus' constantawarenessof patronalsensibilities[which] reflects,and even accepts, the rigidly hierarchicalsocial structurein which the Christian community found itself'.4 The relationshipbetween the patronusand the chief officials of the community-bishop, presbytersand deacons-is not, however, clear; it may be that the bishop, who is clearly present at the meal, also standsin a relationshipof mutual obligationwith the householderand indeed in one of decided inferiority.Here we do have, says Bobertz,evidence of 'a growing point of tensionwithin the Christiancommunity;viz., the relationshipbetween, on the one hand, the still emerging authority of the Christian priesthood in the orthodox Roman community concentrated in a single bishop since the middle of the second century and, on the other, the social authority
41
G. Dix & H. Chadwick (eds.), The Treatiseon the ApostolicTraditionof St Hippolytus
of Rome,BishopandMartyr(London.Translationwith notes, revised with corrections, 1992), 46. 42 Bobertz, op. cit., 171. 43 Ibid., 172, note 8. Tradition 44 Ibid., 174. Apostolic 26,2-6. 45 Bobertz, 177. 46 Ibid., 178.
308
DAVID I. RANKIN
of patrons in a genuinely hierarchicalsociety'.47We see here a shift from the primitive situation where wealth and poverty provide the major social distinctionbetween members of the church to a later one where the clergy have assumedthe role of the patronsin place of the affluentlay householders who have previously assumed a natural leadership of the community. Cyprian, says Clarke, saw himself as a personainsignis(eminent person) and his clergy, for the most part, as not so.48At ep. 3.1.1 Cyprian refers to the proper subservienceof his deacons when he refers to their 'locus' as different to that of the bishop.49Says Clarke again, 'one gets a sense of the grandsegneurprospect from which Cyprian viewed his clerics. They were ministri,that is to say, his servants'.50Stewart-Sykes declares that 'because the presbyters are the clientelaof the bishop, their appointment, as of other lower clergy, is the preserve of the bishop, mirroring ordinatio-as formal appointment to and installation in civic office51-in wider Roman society'.52His reference at ep. 33.2.2 to his own 'lowliness of stais a 'cliche of epistolarypolitesse'.53Many tion (lociet actusnostrimediocritate)' scholarshave writtenon Cyprianthe patronus.54 Burs observesthat 'loyalties were cemented and discipline exercised by the sort of personal patronage which Cyprian used during his exile' and that '[the church's] patronage was exercised through an establishedbureaucracy'.55 Bobertz argues for the existence of 'the primaryprerequisitesof patronage networks'in the larger urban Christiancongregationsof the second and third centuries'and speaks
47 48
Ibid., 182. Letters,1.34. See, for example, ep. 3.1.1 and the notion of the different loci of bishop
and the lesser clergy. 49 See also 12.1.1. See Tertullian on maiorand minorlocus (De Fuga 11,1). 50 Letters,11.15. 51 See Suetonius, Domitian4,2, for an example of this. There the historian employs the term to designate the nomination and installation at the behest of the emperor of the Prefect of Egypt. 52 A. Stewart-Sykes, 'Ordination Rites and Patronage Systems in Third-century Africa',
56 (2002), 127. VigiliaeChristianae 53 Clarke, Letters,II. 152.
betweenCyprianand Stephen', 54 J. PatoutBums, 'SocialContextin the Controversy 24 (1993), 38-44; C.A. Bobertz,'PatronageNetworksand the Study of StudiaPatristica Ancient Christianity',StudiaPatristica24 (1993), 20-27; idem, 'Patronal Letters of Commendation:Cyprian'sEpistulae 38-40', StudiaPatrisica31 (1997), 252-9;J. Patout Burns,'The Role of Social Structuresin Cyprian'sResponseto the Decian Persecution', 31 (1997), 260-7. StudiaPatristica 55 Burns,'Social Context'42.
CLASS DISTINCTION AS A WAY OF DOING CHURCH
309
of Cyprian setting about 'establishingnew "client" clergy in Carthage'.56 He speaks of the patronal 'beneiciaof forgiveness,reconciliation and readmission to the church', and declares that 'Cyprian'sbiblical references to the gospel qualities of the "humble and meek, docile, tranquil, and modest" are used to define the proper characteristicsof a loyal "client"clergy'.57 Stewart-Sykesmaintains that 'the rites of ordination in Roman Africa in the third century should be understoodin the context of patronage' and that 'the passage of the Holy Spirit through handlaying should be understood as a beneficium'.58 This provides, he says, for an 'obligation of reciprocation' and the 'gift of the Holy Spirit given in that way was a beneficium which thus created a network of patronage between the bestower and the recipient'.59Bobertz also elsewhere characterises epp. 38, 39 and 40 as Christian letters of patronal commendation, such as Cicero and others wrote in great abundance, to 'introduce three confessors to the church at Carthage and also at the same time to 'establishthem as clients of bishop Cyprian'.60At de habituvirginum11, in a manner reminiscent of Minucius Felix and Hermas, Cyprian speaks of charity towards the poor being reciprocated by the poor's prayers for their benefactors (the quidpro quo). Stewart-Sykesdeclares that 'it is in the light of the bishop's continuing role as patron that one is to understandthe frequent acts of charity undertaken by Cyprian', that 'the reference at ep. 41 to the bishop acting as dispensor of stipends is not insignificant',and that this is all 'tied to the management of the church's property'.61 Sailer'sneat descriptionof patronageas 'an exchange relationshipbetween men [sic] of unequal social status'62suits the situation of the Cyprianic church both ecclesiasticallyand socially. Although the bishop himself never explicitly uses the term patronusor its companion cliensto describe his relationship with either clergy or laity, it is nevertheless clearly the basis for his understandingof these relationships.Indeed, as Saller points out, the terms were actually rarely used in polite Roman society, given the social inferiority and degradation they usually implied. Patronage was seen to provide stabilityin any society where other centrifugalforces and pressures 56 57 58 59
Bobertz,'PatronageNetworks',20 and 23. Ibid., 23, 26 and 27. Stewart-Sykes,op. cit., 117. Ibid., 125.
60 Bobertz,'PatronalLetters',259. 61 Stewart-Sykes,op. cit., 117. 62 8. Sailer,Personal Patronage,
310
DAVID I. RANKIN
might threaten to tear them apart63and Cyprian's Romanitas probably led him to the same conclusion. De Ste. Croix sees patronageand clientshipas 'the mainspringof Roman public life'64and while he maintains that justice tended to be perverted by what he calls the 'cancerousgrowth of patronage' he neverthelessbelieves that 'patronagerightswere, for the senatorialclass to which Tacitus [sc. for He also points example] belonged, an essentialingredientin [their] libertas'.65 out how by the later fourth century the term patrocinium was being applied to the work of apostles and martyrs by Ambrose, Augustine and others, so that the celestial patrons, the martyrsin particular,would be asked to intercede with the Almighty much as earthly patrons might petition the Emperor.66It is likely that a notion of the confessors of 250 and 251 as ecclesiasticalpatrons had begun to make its mark in Carthage, in a land where martyrs already enjoyed high status. The relationshipof confessor and penitent lapsed was one between persons of unequal status-the confessors were guaranteed entry into heaven and the lapsed only excommunication and the exchange envisaged would have been one of honouring of the confessorsby the lapsed and forgivenessof the lapsed by the confessor. Was the struggle between Cyprian and the confessorsover the right to readmit the penitent lapsed to communion fought out within the context, implied of course and never explicit, of a battle between potential patroni for a crowd of clientes?At ep. 38.1.1 Cyprian even seems to present God as the ultimatepatronus-thoughnot explicitly-when he speaks,in the context of his own unusual appointment of the twice-confessorAurelius to the ranksof the Carthaginianclergy, of God having already cast his vote (praeceduntdivinasufragia)for the appointment.De Ste Croix speaks of the word 'suffragium' coming, from the beginning of the second century CE, to include within its many nuances the sense of patronage.67 If it is true, as his biographerPontus claims, that Cyprian, on becoming bishop, gave away much of his personal wealth for the relief of the poor by selling off a number of his properties,68then he personally embodied
63
Ibid., 38. G.E.M.de Ste Croix,'Suffragium: fromVote to Patronage',British Joumalof Sociology 5 (1954), 40. 64
65 Ibid., 42. 66
67 68
Ibid., 46. Ibid., 38f. De Vita Cypriani2.
CLASS DISTINCTION AS A WAY OF DOING CHURCH
311
much of the actual advice he subsequently gave to wealthy Christians. Cyprian himself made much in his treatises of the use of wealth. At de habituvirginum7 he suggests to a wealthy Christian sister that true riches lie with God-'she is rich who is rich in God; she is wealthy who is wealthy in Christ'-and that delight in earthly wealth means an improper love of this world, and at 10 that the wealthy ought not to vaunt their wealth. In chapter 11 of the same treatise he declares to the sister who objects that wealth and possessionsmust be used, that possessions should be only used for the things of salvation,for meeting the divine commandments.A wealthy Christian might 'lend one's estate to God'. "Let the poor feel that you are wealthy'. 'Let the needy feel that you are rich'. This might even be seen to imply that the generosityof the wealthy towardsthe poor-'Move [God] by the prayers of many to grant you to carry out the glory of virginity'will oblige the latter to pray for them (the quidpro quo),suggesting a form of patron/client relationship. There exists also the possibilitythat Polycarp of Smyrna in the mid-second century, in a non-Roman environment, reflects a desire to promote and protect a patronage systemwithin the Christiancommunity at Smyrna, with the wealthy as 'patrons' and the poor as 'clients'. This is certainly less obvious or explicit than in either Hermas or Cyprian, but the social obligation of assisting the more needy which the bishop lays upon presbyters at 6,1-calling for them to be compassionate, caring for the weak, neglecting neither widow, orphan or poor-certainly suggests a form of patronage although he does not outline any concomitant obligations on the part of the clients (that is, there is no quidpro quo).I think it more likely, however, that Polycarp merely outlines the standard obligations of a Christian leader without necessary patronal overtones. Thepaterfamilias In the sixth century Rule of St. Benedictthe author declares that the abbotmust know that any lack of goodnesswhich the paterfamilias finds in his flockis accountedthe shepherd'sfault.But he shallbe acquittedif he has exercisedall the due watchfulness of a shepherdover a restlessand disobedientflock.(ch. 2) in Roman society was the person who 'held sway in The paterfamilias the house'.69The paterfamilias, the oldest surviving male descendant in a 69 a Sourcebook (London and J.F. Gardner and T. Wiedemann, The RomanHouseholdk New York, 1991), 4.
312
DAVID I. RANKIN
family,70'was responsiblefor the efficient functioning of the household as the basic unit of economic production'.7'His power over his household, children, slaves and others, despite some restrictionsintroducedin the early Principate,was in theory near absolute and included until then the power of life and death. The paterfamilias enjoyed full power over the family's as as and well wide property religious disciplinarypowers.72Roman society was effectively divided between those who were sui iuris-which right included ius commercii (right of trade)-and those who were under the patria of another and the latter 'was the potestas (those described as alieniiuris)73 fundamental institution of the Romans which shaped and directed their world-view or Weltanschauung'.74 'The honour of the paterfamilias depended', says Saller, 'on his ability to protect his household, and in turn the virtue of the household contributedto his prestige'.75By the second century, says Carcopino, the absolute authority of a husband over his wife and of a father over his children had completely disappeared.76In that century a new tolerance, even indulgence, was beginning to be shown to a Roman child's individualismby his father. Says Carcopino, 'the ster face of the traditionalpaterfamilias had faded out' to be replaced instead by 'the fleshly face of the son of the house, the eternal spoiled child of society'.77Traditionalists,some conservativeChristiansprobably among them, were apparently appalled. At Vision1.3.1 of TheShepherd the old woman condemns the corruption of Hermas's 'house' which has occurred through their attention to the demands of daily life (ncxb &OvPot0IKtcov ipat4eov)and holds Hermas directly both for of and for its remedy. this state affairs responsible Butit is not for thisthatGod is angrywithyou, but in orderthatyou should convertyour house (olcov),which has sinnedagainstthe Lord,and against you, their parents.But you are indulgent,and do not correctyour family, but have allowedthemto becomecorrupt.For this reasonthe Lordis angry with you, but he will heal all the past evils in your family,for becauseof theirsinsand wickednesstheyhavebeen corruptedby the thingsof dailylife. 70
B. Rawson,'The RomanFamily'in idem(ed.),TheFamilyin Ancient Rome: New
(London& Sydney),1986, 7. Perspectives 71
GardnerandWiedemann, op. cit., 113.
72Ibid., 16f.
73 W.K.Lacey,'Patria in Rawson,op. cit., 133. Potestas', 74Ibid., 140. 75Saler, 'Familia',353. 76 J. Carcopino,Dail LifeinAncientRome.(New Haven, 1968),77. 77 Ibid.,78f.
CLASS DISTINCTION AS A WAY OF DOING CHURCH
313
It is also clear that the reference to 'house' is not merely to Hermas' immediate family but to the Christiancommunity to which he belongs and over which he would seem to exercise some measure of authority. Here who was is undoubtedly at work the image of the Roman paterfamilias in also law for his behaviour but which held family's always responsible a to what was Roman reflects a desire reactivate once longstanding probably tradition but one which has perhaps fallen into relative disuse, the unchalthus the speaker is arguably more lenged authority of the paterfamilias; Roman than the Romans themselves!Likewise,at Mandate12.3.6, Hermas' primary, even exclusive, responsibilityfor his O'KO;, if you do not keep [thesecommandments] but neglectthem, you shall not have salvation,nor your children,nor your house (olKo;) At Similitude7.2 Hermas's direct suggests the image of the paterfamilias.7 sins of his household (for his own are not particuresponsibilityfor the larly blameworthy), but yourhouse(olrco)has done greatiniquityand sin, and the gloriousangel has becomeenragedat theirdeeds,and for this reasonhe commandedyou to be afflictedfor sometime,thatthey alsomay repentand purifythemselves fromeverylust of this world -what Osiek identifies as 'the social embeddedness of family members in the head of the household'79-again suggests the paterfamilias. Young too, in his treatment of the call to Hermas to 'be a man (&vSpiovu)' (Vis. 1.4.3), draws attention to the role of paterfamilias.8This is said in the context of the Lady's urging of Hermas to reform his wayward household. Young speaks of the tensions over Hermas' leadership role as patronus-paterfamilias, maintaining that his failure to care for his household provides the context for understanding his failure to be a man.8' In ancient Roman law the was responsible for damages resulting from the actions of his paterfamilias to his housechildren or slaves.82This suggestionof Hermas as paterfamilias hold is important for our understandingof the early Roman church and for its own self-understanding.For if the referencesto Hermas' family are
78
Ibid., 152.
79
Ibid., 192.
in the Shepherdof Hermas', 80S. Young,'Beinga Man:the pursuitof manliness Journalof EarlyChristanSudies2 (1994), 237-255.
81Ibid.,241. 82
Ibid., 244.
314
DAVID I. RANKIN
merely to his immediate relatives-and this is properly refuted by both Osiek and Young-then it is merely a Roman commonplace that he is responsible for their actions. If, however, his ortcoShere is the Christian (house)church to which he belongs,then the implicationsfor the relationship between the leaders of the Christiancommunity and the ordinarymembers of the congregation-where the former are responsiblefor the actions of the latter before God-are immense and their pastoral and liturgicalconsequences significant.The notion of the Christianclergy as 'fathers'to their flock is wide-rangingin terms of the pastoral relationshipin particular.It reflects also a movement towards clericalismand the subordinationof the laity, evident alreadyin Clement'sdepiction of the non-clergyof the church as the Xabo,which is here fostered and indeed further developed. The commitment of Cyprian to Roman notions of order and harmony in family, community and church is, as we saw above, unquestionable.At 8 he speaks of the tension between spousal obligation and de habituvirginum church discipline-though he has no doubt as to where the Christian's 16 of that between ultimate obligations lie-and at de opereet eleemosymis familial obligation and that owed to God. He quotes Matthew10,37 in this regard-'He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me'-a text as offensive to a Roman sense of pietasas to its originalJewish hearers. His de unitateecclesiaecatholicae is, of course, replete with calls for the necessary unity of the church as reflecting the unity of Christ but this is no doubt inspired, at least in part, by Roman notions of order. At ep. 11.4.1 he speaks naturally of the traditional authority of the paterfamilias, at ep. 27.1.1, against a backgroundwhere he condemns special favours to the lapsed, of a proper familialpietaswhich led Mappalicus the martyr to instructthat peace be grantedto his lapsed mother and sister.At ep.55.13.2 Cyprian regards as extenuating circumstancesthe case of an apostate who sacrificed on behalf of his whole house and thereby endangered his own soul but protectedthose of his household,thus carryingout the responsibility Under the old Roman law, as we saw above, of a true Roman paterfamilias. was responsible for the infractions of the members of his the paterfamilias householdand it may be that Cypriansees in this particularlapsed Christian an example of the translationof this concept into the Christian arena. Conclusions These are very Roman (and by extension North African) concerns,be it the divisionof the churchcommunityinto plebs/hnilioresand ordo/honestiores,
CLASS DISTINCTION AS A WAY OF DOING CHURCH
315
an ecclesiasticalsystem governed and/or shaped by the notions of patronal The implications rights, or by the rights of the ecclesiasticalpaterfamilias. of the translationof these Roman notions into the very life of the church for the ordering of the Christian community are far-reaching. The distinction of ordoand plebs translated into the church, the movement from a notion of the laos as the whole people of God to that of an inferior, utterly subordinate laity, transformed a defacto and pragmatic organisational distinction or even separationof roles into a ecclesiasticalone. That of patronusand cliensplaces the provision of ministerialservices within the personal 'gift' of the patron and this had enormous implications for the administrationof the sacraments, for pastoral relationshipsand liturgical actions and so on. The notion of the bishop as paterfamilias, particularly with respect to its 'legal' implications,had grave consequencesfor the relationship between bishop and lesser clergy, and that between clergy and laity. The responsibilityof the bishop for the care of souls and the assumption, for example, of the power of excommunication(the ecclesiasticalversion of the power of life and death)-note Cyprian's claim to a Spanish congregation that to receive a lapsed bishop back into communion was to risk prayers offered up by such a bishop not being heard by God83-had immense implications. In summary, the clergy (particularlythe bishop), as were notions with far-reaching as patroni,and as patresfamilias, honestiores, implications,for many centuries to come, for the development of concepts of Christian ministry and office.
83 Ep. 67.2.2 where Cyprian urges the churches to choose for ordination bishops 'qui sancteet dignesacrficiadeo offerentes audiriin precibuspossintquasfaciuntproplebis dominicaeincohlmitate'.
DIE WAHRHEI'Sh1EZETCHNUNGEN DES CLEMENS VON AT.XANDRIEN IN IHREM PHILOSOPISCHEN UND THEOLOGISCHEN KONTEXT VON
TOMASZ KLIBENGAJTIS Das Ziel des vorliegendenAufsatzesist es die philosophischen des Wahrheitsdefinitionen und die theologischenWahrheitsbestimmungen Die erstephiClemensvon Alexandrien,samt ihremKontext,darzustellen. Lehrevon Wahrheitsdefinition losophische zeigtden EinfluBder heraklitischen der ,,gemeinsamen durchdie Welt der Wachenden"und ist wahrscheinlich des Ainesidemoszu Clemensgelangt.Die Vermittlungder Wahrheitslehre einerKlassifikation zweiteDefinition wirdim Zusammenhang derWissenschaften wobei die Wahrheitim Kontextder Terminiktoxtriun,4tq5und prasentiert, YVoIt;besprochenwird. Die theologischenWahrheitsbestimmungen zeigen, daBfur ClemensGott derjenigeist, welcher,,dieWahrheitgebart"und diese in seinem Logos-Christus, und yvcaot;genannt welcher&a.Oeita,iotaoUilrl wird,offenbart.Das menschlicheZiel ist es durchasketischeBemiihungenzu einemUmgangmit derWahrheitzu gelangen,welcherdie gottlicheDimension ABSTRACT:
eroffnet.
Das Christentumals die Religion der Wahrheit darzustellen,war nicht nur den ersten griechischenApologeten ein Anliegen.' Auch in der spateren Zeit war die Problematikder Wahrheitsbezeichnungund -findung eine Herausforderungfur jeden christlichen Schriftsteller,der in seinen Ausfuhrungen, sowohl die philosophische Gelehrsamkeit seiner heidnischen Umgebung zu beriicksichtigen,als auch die verschiedenen Erwartungen seiner christlichenGemeinde zu erfiillenhatte. Wie kaum ein andererchristlicher Autor begab sich Clemens in das Reich der Philosophie, der griechischen Literaturund der judisch-philonischenExegese. Seine Wahrheitslehre ist deshalb wie sein ganzes Schaffen sehr eklektisch.In der uberaus opulenten Philosophie-Literatur der Clemens-Forschung kann man die Wahrheitsproblematik,trotz des Vorhandenseins von drei Aufsatzen, die den Begriff ,,Wahrheit"im Titel fuhren, als unbehandelt bezeichnen. Der 1 (Utrecht1950, repr.Westminster, Ma. 1995)188:,,Christianity J. Quasten,Patrology is portrayed primarily, though not exclusively, as the religion of truth". ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 316-331
DIE WAHRHEITSBEZEICHNUNGEN DES CLEMENS
317
Aufsatz von Th. S. Nikolaos ist eine weitere Auseinandersetzungmit dem Verhaltnisdes Alexandrinerszur Philosophie.2Denn Nikolaos verstehtunter der xptOtcavucil ai&Ota die gesamtechristlicheLehre und nicht die Wahrheit selbst. Es werden darin Riickschliissegezogen und Feststellungengemacht, die der Clemens-Forschungseit den zwanzigerJahrendes XXJahrhunderts wohlbekanntsind. Das Buch von H.A. Blair,3welchesauch von der Wahrheit bei Clemens zu handeln verspricht, kann man eigentlich als popularwissenschaftlich bezeichnen. Denn Blair stellt C.G. Jung, J.R.R. Tolkien, Teilhard de Chardin und Clemens von Alexandrien nebeneinander und besprichtsie recht oberflachlichund fragmentarisch.Von der Wahrheitsfrage wird aber nicht gehandelt.Im Gegensatz zur Arbeit Blair'sstellt der Aufsatz von L. Rizzerio die hervorragendenanalytischen Fahigkeiten der Autorin unter Beweis.4Ihre UntersuchungbefaBtsichjedoch naihermit dem Terminus und die Verfasserin versteht unter dem Begriff der Wahrheit a&coXov0ia den der Gnosis.5 eigentlich Die Aufgabe einer bestimmten Begriffs- und Ideenuntersuchungkann besonders bei Clemens nur dann untemommen werden, wenn man sich iiber die spezifische literarische Gattung seiner Werke sowie iiber seine schriftstellerischeEigenart im Klaren ist. Das uns erhaltene opusClementinum aus der Trilogie Protrepticus, und den Stromata, sowie den kleinePaidagogus und ren Schriften: Quisdivessalvetur,Eclogaepropheticae, Excerptaex Theodoto nur Werk enthalt ein von dem Christi servatoris bestehend, Hymnus eigentlich man abstrakteund epistemologischeGedankengangeerwarten kann - die Stromata.Uber die Schwierigkeitender Begriffsfindung,-abgrenzung und -bestimmungin eben diesem Werk wurde schon oft und zu recht geklagt. Die befundene Not machte dennoch erfinderischund man kam iiberein die Stellen mit den zu untersuchendenBegriffen festzuhalten, diese statistisch aufzulistenund sie letztendlichzu analysieren.Man kann getrost sein bei dieser Vorgehensweisenach dem Willen des Alexandrinervorzugehen,
2 V vv Kai i0l9iciiv oXoa ivtdrv pptXo6.. NtIKOXoS, 'H xpitotavtl adXiXOeta ep'l oopiav K:ataKAivpevTaT'v' AXecavSpEa, Kleronomia11,1 (1979) 59-92. 3 H.A. Blair, The of truth.TypesandArcheypes in Clementof Alexandria(Worthing kaleidoscope 1986). 4 L. Rizzerio, La nozione di a&KoouOiacome "Logica della verith" in Clemente di Alessandria, Rivista difilosofianeo-scolastica79 (1987) 175-195. 5 Rizzerio, ibid., 175: ,,Ora, se si tiene presente che la conoscenza della verita (yv&ot;) e per Clemente lo scopo della vita umana e la sua beatitudine, si capisce l'importanza della questione e l'interesse che essa pu6 suscitare nello studioso".
318
TOMASZ KLIBENGAJTIS
der ausdriicklich ein eklektisches Vorgehen bei der Behandlung seines Werkes forderte.6 Das Ziel des vorliegenden Aufsatzes ist es diese Stellen des Alexandriners in ihrem philosophischen und theologischen Kontext zu untersuchen, welche die Wahrheit (&Xi~0sta)mit Hilfe eines erlauternden Satzes zu bestimmten suchen. Clemens spricht zwar an 790 Stellen seiner Werke auf verschiedene Weise von der Wahrheit, dem Wahren oder dem Wahrsein, aber in der Fiille dieser 790 'XiqO-Stellenfinden sich nur vier Fragmente die einer Begriffserklarung nahe kommen. Sie lauten folgenderma3en:
o KOtvd; XF,yErat avto'; voiruoj tE icati 1) 'Anthi;y&p oiuco;a'AOFta So wird ftihrgewohnlichals Wahrheit einfach das bezeichnet, was nicht nur geistig sondern auch sinnlich wahnehmbar ist. rci atijji a&Xi0qob,i1 B'e 'i; ti; &XiOeia; c'tatiua"'i 2) 'AXijAtOeua a,xiO&v.8 Die Wahrheit ist die Wissenschaft vom Wahren, der Besitz der Wahrheit ist die Wissenschaftvon den wahren Dingen. 3)[...] d1&' &Xi0eta?, X'pt; oa'aoao nxatp6;,ip'yovEOU'roi X,yoi ,,Die Wahrheit" ist die Gnade des Vaters und das ewige Werk des Logos. O 4) 'H auvoi-j0ta,ii 6B- c0i opavbv &wiyet,i &XiL0eta.10 Die Wahrheit ist der Umgang, der uns in den Himmel fuihrt. Obwohl die ersten zwei Aussagen die Merkmale einer klassischen Definition tragen, muB die Frage nach einer direkten Definitionsabsicht des Alexandriners, wenn man den unmittelbaren Kontext der angefiihrten Satze betrachtet, zuerst verneint werden. Aber eine fehlende Definitionsabsicht muB3 eine Definitionsmoglichkeit nicht ausschlieBen. Dies ist besonders in den Stromatader Fall, einem Werk, in dem Clemens besonders zu verschltusseln und zu verschleiern weiB. So spricht er beispielsweise davon, daB er nicht nur dem Uneingeweihten den Zugang zu seiner Schrift erschweren," sondern auch dem Eingeweihten die Sache keineswegs leichter machen will.'2
Str. II 3,3; I 56,3; VII 111,3. Str. VI 150,4. Ubersetzung T. Klibengajtis. 8 Str. II 76,3. Ubersetzung Klibengajtis. Paed. I 60,2. UJbersetzung0. StAhlin, ClemensvonAlexandria.Der ErziezerI (Miinchen 1935) 258. 10 Prtr. 109,1 vgl. Homer, Od. IX, 27. Ubersetzung Klibengajtis. Str. VII 110,4. 12 Str. VI 2,2. 6
DIE WAHRHEITSBEZEICHNUNGEN DES CLEMENS
319
Wenn man noch um den Grundsatz dieser Schrift weiB, dab die Worte dort oft einen anderen Sinn besitzen, als sie zunachst angeben,'3 so wird beinahe jedem InterpretationsansatzTor und Tur ge6ffiet, auch dem dort eine Definition zu suchen, wo keine direkte Definitionsabsichtdes Alexandrinersvorliegt. Natiirlich besitzt nicht jede Begriffserlauterungvom Typ A ist B die Merkmale einer formell-logischenDefinition, wenn man durch die letztere eine korrelative Definition versteht, in der aquivalente Ersetzbarkeitvon Definiendum und Definiens herrscht, sowie der Grundsatz definitio fit per beachtet wird. Geht man von solch specificam genusproximumet differentiam einem Definitionsverstandnisaus, so sind nur die ersten zwei der oben vorgestelltenWahrheitsbezeichnungendes Clemens Definitionen. Um dies klarzustellen, muB man die Aussagen des Alexandriners ein wenig umschreiben, ohne ihren Sinngehalt zu verandem. Die erste Aussage lieBe sich folgendermaBenfesthalten: Wahrheit definiendum
ist +
definiendum
*
allesWahmehmbare auf sinnlicheoder geistigeWeise genusproximum
differentiaspecifica
definiens
Die zweitelautetwie folgt: Die Wahrheit
ist
die Wissenschaft
vom Wahren
definiendum
*
genusproximum
differentiaspecifica
definiendum
*-
definiens
Bei der dritten und vierten der vorgestellten Wahrheitsbezeichnungen handelt es sich um theologische Aussagen, die keine Ersetzbarkeitvon Definiendumund Definiens aufweisenund demnach keine formell-logischen Definitionen sind. Denn weder ist jeder ,,Umgang der uns in den Himmel fuihrt"mit der Wahrheit gleichzusetzen, noch ist ,,die Gnade des Vaters und das ewige Werk des Logos" mit der Wahrheit gleichnamig. Deswegen
13 Str. IV 4,1 [...] 86 &ao 1t.
reepov[eavxt Kcat&a Ov eipov cCOV Xycov gLvl'ovta, 'vSeiicwtveva
320
TOMASZ KLIBENGAJTIS
werden wir von den philosophischenWahrheitsdefinitionenund den theologischen Wahrheitsbestimmungensprechen, um einerseits der formellen Logik, andererseitsClemens gerecht zu werden, welcher auf seine eigene Weise doch etwas Verbindliches iiber die Wahrheit aussagen wollte. Die philosophischen Wahrheitsdfinitionen Die nahere Betrachtung der ,,rein" philosophischenPassagen im Werk des Alexandriners,die wohlweislichaus seinem theologischenGesamtkonzept herausprapariertwerden mussen, laBt im gleichen MaBe auf seine philosophische Erudition, wie auf seinen EklektizismusschlieBen. Der letztere spricht, zugegeben, fur seine philosophischeUneigenstandigkeit.Pruft man jedoch seine zahlreichenund vielfiiltigenQuellen und untersuchtdabei ihre Verwertung, so muB man ihm diese Originalitat zugestehen, die auf der Art und Weise der Auswahl, nicht auf der Eigenleistungberuht. Da mindestens die Halfte der gesamten Clemensforschungsich auf die eine oder die andere Weise mit seiner philosophischenAbhangigkeitbefaBt,ware die Annahme, daB die oben vorgestelltenphilosophischenWahrheitsdefinitionen ausschlieBlich von Clemens selbst stammen konnten, recht riskant und schwer zu begriinden. Um die wahrscheinlicheQuelle des Alexandriners zu finden, die leider in der kritischen Stahlin-Ausgabenicht angegeben der verschiedenenSchulen wurde, muB man aus den Wahrheitsauffassungen diese heraussuchen,die der clementinischenam ahnlichstensind, sowie auf seine wahrscheinliche,unmittelbareQuelle verweisen. Es ist anzunehmen,daBder Ursprungder erstenclementinischenDefinition: X^yyewatcavTrovoTlTovT? Kcalaiao0riToi'4 yap oivto; &da'lX0ta Kotv&S; an&Xo;S sich bei Heraklit von Ephesos findet. Doch die zeitlich naher liegende philosophischeQuelle des Alexandrinerswar wahrscheinlichder Skeptiker und HeraklitinterpretAinesidemos von Knossos. Was Heraklit anbelangt, so wird uns vom Plutarch sein Wort iiberliefert, daB ,,die Wachenden eine gemeinsame Welt haben (ToiS;ypi'yop6otveva cal Kicotvbv KOaov etvat), wahrend von den Schlummernden sich jeder an seine eigene wendet".'5 Diese Aussage scheint vom Wirklichkeitsverstandnis des Philosophen aus von zu und wird manchen Forschern so interpretiert,daB handeln Ephesos nach Heraklit das einzige Kriterium der Wirklichkeitdie Gemeinschaft
14 Str. VI 150,4. 15 Plutarch, De superstitione 166 c; Heraclitus, Fragmenta89.
DIE WAHRHEITSBEZEICHNUNGEN DES CLEMENS
321
sei.16 Der Zustand der gemeinsamen Erkenntnis wird demgemaB der
Gemeinschaftder Wachenden zugeordnet,wahrend der individuellSchlummernde seinem Subjektivismus iiberlassen bleibt. Aber welche Art von Erkenntnis bedeutet fiir Heraklit ,,das Wachsein"? Zuerst muB die sinnliche Erkenntnis,die ja allen gemeinsam ist, obwohl sie keine gemeinsame Erkenntnis darsteilt, als ungeniigend und triigerisch zuriickgewiesenwerden, da bekanntlichHeraklit den Sinnen keinen Glauben schenkte und sie flhr,,schlechte Zeugen" hielt.'7 Eine sichere Erkenntnissah er hingegen im Denken, einer Tatigkeit, die erstens allen gemeinsam ist (4'6vovidt nFict 'r6 wel(ppovEetv),'8und zweitens eine Funktion des gottlichen Logos darsteUlt, cher wiederum eine Gemeinschaftaus denen schafft, die an ihm teilhaben. Diese heraklitischeErkenntnislehrehandelt, wie schon erwahnt, eigentlich von der Wirklichkeitund nicht von der Wahrheit. Da aber einem WahrheitSverstandniszuerst ein bestimmtes Wirklichkeitsverstandniszugrunde liegt, konntendie skeptischenHeraklitinterpreten behaupten,daB der gemeinsame Logos, als der Garant des Gemeinsamen,vom Heraklitals das Wahrheitskriteriumangesehen wurde.'9Fiihren wir uns nochmals das icotvc-o,aus der clementinischenWahrheitsdefinition icowvkX&ycratravot6;voqyoi (&XdiOeta uE1cataio%voo) ins Gedachtnis, so wird der heraklitischeHintergrundder ,,gemeinsamen Welt" (Kotvbo;ic6ajio;),des ,,gemeinsamen Denkens" (4,6vov uiRact -rb(PPOVetv)und des ,,gemeinsamenLogos" (cotvwo; Xyyo;)ersichtlich. Clemens zeigt die Bedingungenunter denen icotv&)also ,,fiihrgewohnlich", ,,im ailgemeinen"von der Wahrheit geredet werden kann. Obwohl das clementinische icotvk6vor dem X&yeratsteht, iiber dieses Verb eine Aussage macht und eigentlichnicht auf die Erkenntnisweiseder Wirklichkeit (Rcv-rb, voiltob tE Kaiaiao6qroi)bezogen werden kann, so lIl3t es sich vertreten, daB das, was Kotvw6;also ,gemeinsam" gesagt wird, von der Gemeinschaft behauptet wird. Das heraklitische Wahrheitskriteriumder Gemeinschaftscheint hier erkennbarzu sein. Hier aber enden auch schon
16 R. in dergriechischen Herbertz, Das Wahrheitsproblem (Berlin 1913) 67; Philosophie, beidenfiizgriechischen F. Jiirss, Zumn Erkennnisproblem Dnkem,(Berlin1976) 75. 17 Heraclitus,Fragn.107. 18 Herakl,Fragm.113; vgl. Herbertz,ibid.71. 19 SextusEmpiricus, VII 127- (6& 'HpaicXErcoq)[...] t6v 8&yov Adversus manematicos o-i 6v onotov&i'roE, &O'C'r6ov iotvivvicai Oeiov;Adv. A; d&Xiiepia; aiompaivrrat icptvriv math.VII 131 To6rov8i1T6vicotv6ov Oeiovicat o{ icawrapzoXeiv ytvO'tr.aXoryco', X&yovicact 6o'HpaiXEtvro;. i6ev r6 Iev icotv z&nat(qatv6j'Evov,2obV'feivat icpij ptov &nOeia; qnilatv xtat6v (,ri icotv4 Xagaivecrat), r6k8' uivt r6vyxpoauivirov&zctaTov Yp&p ccai eiaOq X6yqp
iixapx,Etv6tii jqv hvavriav atttav.
322
TOMASZ KLIBENGAJTIS
die Gemeinsamkeitender beiden Denker, denn im Gegensatz zum Heraklit erkennt Clemens die sinnliche Erkenntnisdurchaus an.20Ferner ist seine eher eleatisch,wenn man bedenkt, daB er die Fiille Wirklichkeitsauffassung, des Seins in der Teilhabe an dem unwandelbarenGott sieht.21 Das heraklitischeGedankengut,,der gemeinsamen Welt" ist wahrscheinlich zu Clemens durch die Vermittlung des Ainesidemos gelangt. Daftir spricht erstens die Ahnlichkeit im Wortlaut der Wahrheitsdefinitionender beiden Denker. Zweitens ist es anzunehmen, daB Clemens die Ansichten des Ainesidemos kannte, so daB er diese, wenn auch nicht explizit, zitieren konnte. Zwar wird des Ainesidemos Name nirgends von Clemens erwahnt, noch lai3tsich in seinen Schriftenein ausdriicklichesAinesidemosZitat finden. Aber die Ansichten der Pyrrhonaer,zu denen ja auch Ainesidemos gehorte, waren Clemens nicht unbekannt, da er im achten Buch der Stromatamit ihnen polemisiert.22 Fernerwurde bekanntlichein GroBteil der Lehre des Ainesidemos, darunter auch seine Wahrheitsdefinition,von Sextus Empiricusuberliefert,einem Autor, den Clemens sicherlichkannte, da er seine Schriften insgesamt zehn Mal herbeiruft,23was wiederum dafur spricht, daB unser Autor wahrscheinlich mehr von Sextus gelesen hatte, als er angefuhrthat. Da Ainesidemos, genau wie Clemens, in Alexandrien wirkte,24konnte besonders in dieser Stadt die skeptische Uberlieferung den Autor der Stromataerreichen. Der Zeitraum, der zwischen AinesidemosTod und Clemens lehrenderTtigkeit verstrich,liat sich heute nur schwerbestimmen.25Es lliBtsich aber sicherlichfesthalten,daB Clemens nach Ainesidemos wirkte und sich zu dessen Ansichten stellen konnte.
20 21 22
Prtr. 51,3-4; 103,2; Paed. II 41,3; 64,2; 66,3; Str. I 26,3; II 9,5; 13,2-3 u. a. Prtr. 69,3; Paed. I 54,1; Str. VII 16,6.
Strom. VIII 15,1-16,3. Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. I 288 cf. Clem. Al., Strom. V 70,2; Adv. math. VII 43 cf. Strom. VII 53,2; Adv. math. VII 132 cf. Strom. V 111,7; Adv. math. VII 151 cf. Strom. VII 93,3; Adv. math. VIII 12 cf. Strom. VIII 13,1; Adv. math. IX 59 cf. Strom. V 5,3; Adv. math. IX 124 cf. Strom. VI 125,5; Adv. math. IX 159 cf. Strom. II 80,4; Adv. math. IX 161 cf. Strom. II 79,5; Pyrr.Hyp. 1,14 cf. Strom. VII 89,2. 24 Eusebios von Casarea, Praep.evang. 14,18,29. 25 Nach G. Reale soil Ainesidemos sein Hauptwerk ca. 43 vor Christus geschrieben haben: id., Storiadellafilosofiaantica.Vol. IV: Le scuole dell' eta imperiale (Vita e Pensiero. Pubblicazioni della universita cattolica Milano, Milano 1978) 152. V. Brochard gibt zuerst sehr breite zeitliche Rahmen an (80 v. Chr. - 130 n. Chr.), die er spater auf den Zeitraum 80-60 v. Chr. einschrankt: id., Les sceptiques grecs (Paris 1?1981) 242-243; A. Goedeckemeyer spricht von ,,der zweiten Hilfte des ersten vorchristlichenJahrhunderts": des griechischen Skeptizismus id., Geschichte (Leipzig 1905 repr. New York 1987) 210-211. 23
323
DES CLEMENS DIE WAHRHEITSBEZEICH4UNGEN
Fiir die Inspirationdes Clemens, die vennutlich auf Ainesidemoszuriickgeht spricht auch die nahere Textkritik. Denn steit man die Wahrheitsdefinition der beiden Alexandrinernebeneinander, so wird manche (IJbereinstimmung sichtbar: Ainesidemos: at 'AXiq0iigj?v El'vat t&aicow6k (iOaitv6lieva j'ii Xi1ovrijViCotvi'vyvbTIrv.26 eipija0at tb'
[.
0V]6
aIv & icaxi
; (PePOVwo;
Wahrist das, was allgemeinalien erscheint,deshaibkannman gleichlautend das wahrnennen,was der aligemeinenErkenntnis nichtverborgenist.27 Clemens: O) fj0eiaa iowta 5 'AirXdkyap oiSC
iRavro voircoi te ic&taia0to1,.28 kyYErata
So wird fiArgewohnlich als Wahrheiteinfachdas bezeichnet,was nicht nur geistigsondernauch sinnlichwahnehmbarist. Halten wir zuerst die Ahnlichkeitenfest, um im Nachfolgenden deutlicher die Unterschiedeherauszustellen.Da haben wir vorerstdas Adverbium iotv- und das AdjektivnI&;bzw. n-av,welche in beiden Definitionen vorkommen. Bei Ainesidemoswird das Wahre durch, das ,,was alien erscheint" also die Erscheinungen((patv6'geva) bestimmt. Bei Clemens f'alltdas Wort die beiden qatv6oevov nicht, sondern Erkenntnisweisen,die geistige und die sinnliche, werden genannt. Natiirlich stehen im Hintergrund der beiden Wahrheitsauffassungen zwei verschiedeneWirklichkeitsauffassungen der beiden Denker. Ainesidemossah das Wahrheitskriterium in der Erscheinung und zwar in dieser Erscheinung,die alien gemeinsam ist, dem (patv6oievov), also. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Skeptikern,die entweder, icotvk (patv6'gtvov wie Pyrrhon von Elis, annahmen, daB der menschliche Geist, von den Erscheinungender Dinge, die sich in ihm abspielen, nicht auf die Dinge selbst schlieBen kann;29oder, wie Sextus Empiricus, behaupteten, daB es einem Existierenden unmoglichsei zu entscheiden,welche Bewulitseinsinhalte kann welche man die Lehre des und Ainesidemos als nicht,20 entsprechen an das was er die ein Zugestandnis sehen, ,,dogmatische Philosophie"
Sextus Empiricus,Adv.math.VIII 8,5; vgl. VII 42,4; VIII 48,1. UbersetzungKlibengajtis. 28 Str. VI 150,4. VbersetzungKlibengajtis. 29 Vgl. Goedeckemeyer,ibid.10, 72. 30 SextusEmpiricus, Adv.math.VII 25; VIRI141;vgl. Herbertz,ibid.98; Goedeckemeyer, ibid.294. 26
27
324
TOMASZ KLIBENGAJTIS
nannte. Da er den Skeptizismusals den Weg zur heraklitischenPhilosophie bezeichnete,31wird in der Lehre vom KOtIV(0patv6joevovder Subjektivismus der Einzelerscheinungenim Sinne des heraklitischenKOtvO;Xyo; iiberwunden.32Der Objektivismushingegen wird im zweiten Teil der Definition des Ainesidemos
Kviv (a&Xn0qe;epovilUox; ipfiao at TO tVh fi0ov iv icoV
yvtlrnv)
dadurch bekraftigt,indem das Wahre mit dem assoziertwird, was der allgemeinen Erkenntnisunverborgenbleibt.33 Das Wahre als das Unverborgene ist auch latent in der clementinischen Wahrheitsdefinitionvorhanden, denn was ist unverborgenerals die, allen Xbyemait cotvOiS avrb; zugangliche,sinnlicheund geistige Erkenntnis(d&aX0eta ze icai aiaortov) von der er spricht? Diese Einstellung laBt auf ein volxoTo gesundes Vertrauen in die SinneswahrnehmungschlieBen und erlaubt die SchluBfolgerung,daB das Wahre das Primare und folglich das Falsche das Sekundareist. Dort wo Ainesidemosvon der allgemeinenErkenntnis(Kotvil yvwc,l) spricht, unterscheidet Clemens die geistige und sinnliche Wahrnehmung,die ja allen gemeinsamist. Der philosophischbewanderteClemensKenner wird sich uiberdie ainesidemischeInspirationwundern, wo er doch eher eine platonische, stoische oder letztlich eine aristotelische erwartet hatte. Es bleibt jedoch zu bedenken, daB wenn auch Clemens in die Schatzkammer einer bestimmten philosophischen Terminologie greift,er dabei seine theologischen Ziele nicht aus den Augen laBt. So kann er sich auch des Ainesidemos bedienen, ohne gleich die skeptischeLehre von der Unerkennbarkeitder Dinge an sich zu ubernehmen. Wenn Clemens die geistige und die sinnliche Erkenntnisals gesondert angibt, laBt das auf eine vorlTx6und Kic6o;oaiao!T6; schlieUnterteilung der Wirklichkeitin Kc6aito; Ben, die sich tatsachlich bei ihm einfindet und den platonischen EinfluB
Sextus Empiricus, Pyrr.Hyp. I 210. 32 Dieser Zusammenhang wird schon von Sextus Empiricus gesehen: id., Adv. math. VII 126-134; vgl. Herbertz, ibid. 106-111; Brochard, ibid. 275-280; Goedeckemeyer, ibid. 231-232. 33 Greek-English Lexicon,(ed.) H.G. Liddell u. R. Scott, (Oxford 91961) 63: aikr\fg, T6 XlA{'fnr dor. akt,fiS;, ?,, (Xi0, = Xav6dvw: a&rX0eO vix onibrov EM 62.15): "unconcealed", so "true", "real", opp. "false", "apparent";O. Apelt, Wahrheit [in:] id., Platonische Aufsatze(Leipzig-Berlin 1912) 47: "[...] die Etymologie des Wortes r91jOeta[...], die sich in unseren Worterbuchen findet, namlich XiA0etv, Xa0eiv, 'verborgen sein' mit dem privativen Alpha. Das Wort bedeutet also subjektiv die Aufrichtigkeit, objektiv genommen das 'Nichtverborgensein', also die Erkenntnis dessen, was ist"; 'ihnlich K. Bormann, 31
notesand Platon(Freiburg-Munchen 1973) 54; The Philebusof Platoed. with introduction, appendices by R.G. Bury (Cambridge 1897) 204.
DES CLEMENS32 DIEEWAHRHEITSBEZEICHNUNGEN
325
zeigtA4 Es bleibt festzuhalten, da,B wenn sich auch Clemens bei seiner Wahrheitsbezeichnungan dlieserStelle platonischausdrtickte,er keine ontologische oder gar kosmologischeAussage treffen woilte. Er wollte vielmehr in der Sprache Platons, welche ihm fuir die Darstellung des Gegensatzes zwischen sinnlich und geistig am Adaquatestenerschien, die zwei verschiedenen Bereiche des Seins und des Erkennens schildern.3 Die clementinische Wahrheitsbezeichnungkonnte auch so gedeutet werden, daB3all das, was, auf dem sinnlichen oder geistigen Wege, wahmnehmbarist, auch wirklich wahr ist. Besteht denn in dieser Konzeption uiberhauptdie Moglichkeit einer falschen Erkenntnis?In dem Satz, weicher der vorgesteilten Wahrheitsdefinitiondirekt vorausgeht, halt Clemens fest: 1i O81g'
&i OtaV.16 broiaraevot 'iv yv6oknv oV'Sixavovi~retv &-vavtat* aiv
nichtsweiB der kannauch die Wahrheitnicht Wer abervon der Erkenntnis beurteilen. richtig Die Gnosis, hier als Erkenntnisuibersetzt,scheint also emnder Wahrheit tubergeordneterWert zu sein und das benutzte Verb e'itito-agxatscheint ein nicht gar eine Wissenschaft,anzudeuten. sicheres Wissen (t'j.),wenn erofihet die EmnbesseresVerstandnisdes Gnosis-Wahrheits-Verhaltnisses zweite philosophische Wahrheitsdefinition,die sich am Ende einer quasi Klassifizierungder verschiedenen Wissenszweigeeinfindet:37
34 K6 voliro6vgl. Str. IV 159,2; V 33,2; V 34,7; V 35,5; V 36,3; V 38,6; V io'CRC 93,4; V 94,1; Exc. 27,2; vgl. Plato, Resp.508 c; 509 d; 51 lc-d; 517b-c; 532 a-b; Tun. 37a; 5lb-c; 92c; Epim.981 c. K6go;aio%?6' vgl. Str. II 5,1; V 33,2; V 35,7; V 37,1; V 93,4; Exc. 59,4; vgl. Plato, Phaed.83 b; 7haet.156 b-c; Tim.28 b-c; 37 b; 52 a; Def. 411 c. 35 Ahnlich undPaideusis. J. Wytzes,The TwofoldWay (Ii), 130;H. Koch,Pronoia undsein Verlhditnis StudientiberOrigenes zumPlatonismus (Berlin1932) 130. 36 Str. VI 150,3. (JbersetzungStdhln, Clemens vonAlexandria. Die Teppwke IV (Muinchen 1937) 342. i 81- E'tjq giui ii t' eg2etptaica'tij elh5iat;as$vetiq Te licai ~'Str.II 76,2-3iuapaicetrat &v Bi tv ica0'6m '1v?8Tjat4 e 5XicKaT Ei&0;cllaTh ci 81upia voT(it; icaxtyvcoot;. ica' f e'xnaTfIqL1
icat otv ?al elcuaTtiIgineptknn'riicf,lxSaTre
c ov 1noxvlpawtIoveiv. v6,Tlaytq 61ehnseCrfu? (JrnJj3t1G &?(PTaVtrroq ij ovpxJ3Xi-rtu 6{8,valjt VOc ow (ppovTIartq Katvo xcat exaamoi cica6nvTwvr6wvet; eva X6&-yov&' ecrt icat entcFTitTI, 6 , av'roiu7'exi mnti amiupevoqrot;ytvoot;- a&Xoia Ceui tae Be T605toi AT
VTobro
ica't Gn'vE61qextanfglj0J31O) T)Akro
326
TOMASZ KLIBENGAJTIS
cc F-'-RtaTq'gq &X1106;~), 'AXAOF,ta' in 8:i F'%S Aq S ci)"qleiac
dkn~~i.3
inumaL?\
Die Wahrheitist die Wissenschaft vom Wahren,der Besitzder Wahrheitist von den wahrenDingen. die Wissenschaft Auf den ersten Blick kann man diese zweite Wahrheitsdefinitionflir ein wenig tautologischhalten, wenn man das Nebeneinander der Termini ,,die Wahrheit"(&XOie-ta), ,,das Wahre" (t6&Xi' ) und ,,die wahren Dinge" (xa& &'0iq) betrachtet. Doch das Werk des Alexandriners ist immer als ein Ganzes zu sehen und zu untersuchen.Manchmal kann man auch ein fehlendes Glied durch ein woanders vorhandenes ersetzen. Liest man seine beiden Wahrheitsdefinitionenzusammen, so kann man auf die Frage ,,Was sind die wahren Dinge?" durchaus antworten. Es sind diejenigen, welche, nach der ersten Definition (&XOieta Kowv(04 Xiyevaticavt6; voiitoi re ica'iaifuir sinnlich und a0iyto), jedermann geistig erkennbar sind. Diese ,,wahren Dinge" (a'&a&X1ei) sind auf verschiedeneWeise durch die verschiedenen, von den in der zweiten Definition aufgezahlten,Wissenschaftenerkennbar, v6rat;, uai)veai, pP6rljat;,und yv6~at;.Sie sprich durch die e'&8ait,E'gnetpia, bilden in ihrer Gesamtheitsozusagendie Materie ,des Wahren"(xoiaiOF'-;), wovon die Wissenschaftder Wahrheit handelt. Man muB aber bedenken, daf die Wahrheit zwar als das letzte Element der clementinischen Wissensskala:ei'&11at;, E'uretpia,v6o7oat, auivEat;,(pp6virt;,yvcout;,a'?,0eetaaufgefiihrt wird, aber nicht die hochsten Stufe der Erkenntnis darsteilt. Dies wird der Gnosis vorbehalten, welche ,,von dem Sein selbst" handelt. Was ist aber die clementinischeGnosis? Es ist die innerste, unmittelbareSchau der Dinge in Gott, wo sie, wie er selbst,unveranderbarsind. Diese Feststellung laiBtsich daraus herleiten, daB der Begriff der yviot vom Alexandriner 39'
40
'
'
synonym mit den Termini: oo(pia, einta-R?ls, Oewopiaundn1 'eon etaa41 verwendet wird. Die Gnosis ist also eine Art ,,kondensierte"Erkenntnis,die dem Gnostikerzuteil wird. Ebendieser Gnostiker,welcher zu dieser Schau (eoIrreia, Occopia)die zugleich die hochste Em1jntigilist, gelangt, kann aus dieser Perspektivedie Hierarchie der Wissenschaftenund ihren verschie-
Str. 11 76,3. UbersetzungKlibengajtis. Str. IV 54,1; VI 61,1; VI 133,5; VI 138,2; VI 146,2; vgl. W. Volker,Der waahre nachClemens Alexandrinus Gnosti*er (Berlin1952) 306. 'I Str. II 47,4; VI 162,4. 41 Str. I 15,2;II 47,4;IV 3,2;str. VII 68,4. VgI. V6lker,ibid.312-313. 38
39
DIE WAHRHEITSBEZEICHNUNGEN DES CLEMENS
327
denen Wahrheitsgehaltbestimmen.42Er besitzt im hochsten MaBe die clementinische iet; fi; Denn im zweiten Teil der zweiten Wahr5&aOeia;. heitsdefinition heiBt es: i 8&Et fq &X^0tia;
a totrg
&Xl0ifv. Der
4yt;-
Begriff fallt in diesem Zusammenhang wahrscheinlichdeswegen, weil der Alexandrinerdie exto'gil strictestoischauffaBtund mittelsdes eit;-Begriffes definiert.43Fiir welche { tg-Bedeutung wir uns entscheiden, ,,Zustand", ,,Besitz", oder ,,Eigenschaft",fir die clementinische Wahrheitslehreist es wichtig, daB nur dejenige, welcher die Wahrheitso fest besitzt, daB sie ihm gleichsam zu etwas Habituellen, zu einem Zustand wird, daB nur er zu der ,,Wissenschaft von den wahren Dingen" gelangen kann. Nicht von ungefahrwird eben dieser 'eit-Begriff benutzt, wenn Clemens von den sittlichen und intellektuellenTugenden des Gnostikers spricht.44Denn diese hochste Wahrheitsstufeist dem Gnostiker,dem ,,Vielwissenden"(ioX,itpt;) vorbehalten.45Schon in dem vorausgestelltenGnosis-Kommentarwird klar, wie sehr bei Clemens die philosophischeEbene, von der theologischenvereinnahmt wird. Auf diese Weise kommen wir nun zu den theologischen Wahrheitsbestimmungen,welche das philosophisch-spekulativeDenken des Alexandrinersauf ihre Art und Weise erganzen. Die theologischen Wahrheitsbestimmungen Die Wahrheitkann also nur dejenige bestimmen,welcher um die wahre extoifmt weiB. Diese ist mit der Gnosis identisch, welche wiederum die Kenntnis der gottlichen Wirklichkeitist. Bei Clemens ist also das wahr, was mit dem gottlichen Paradigma iibereinstimmt.Denn letztendlich, sagt er, gibt es nur die eine Wahrheit, die wir vom Logos - dem Sohne Gottes tv oV6vov XetVw TOYVOTiKc6, Str. VI 162,4: inY&apTipOVT nto\iairl, Nv qpajev KatV XrTlhid ext Ipepaita t&aMXyova&Xrlv iKai IPaicov i'i Ti'v Aataitia x; yvIx v avayouoa, 6 &e aTica cKa xoi yEve u86 ; ipi Tba'ut6 entaTmov xoi) a&Xioi5 Xepi 6&r8tocObv oiotampov Str. I 97,4 a&vaTv aTz6v ov o6v yov,icKailt&aoicrlS;aX capxciet; lXrla, ev yecownepia'ev 8e {oouatl
i
etphysica 93, 1-4;SextusEmpiricus, Pyrr.Hyp.II 214;Adv.Math.VII 151;Diogenes curatio I 107; Philo, De congr. Laertius,VitaeVII 47,165; Theodoret,Graecarum affectionum erud.140. 44Str. VI 99,3; VII 3,6; VII 46,9; VII 70,5; u.a. 45 Str.I
486 d, 465 c. 44,2;vgl. Homer,II. I 311;Plato,Gorg.
328
TOMASZ KLIBENGAJTIS
lernen konnen.'1 Wenn man von dem clementinischen Logosverstandnis zwischen der historispricht,so hat man, wie richtigerweiseLiUafeststellte,47 schen PersonJesu Christi und dem metaphysischenPrinzip, zu unterscheiden. Mit dem letzteren befaB3tsich LiUasehr eingehend und steit heraus, daB der clementinische Logos in drei Stadien auftritt.48Im ersten ist er, als der gottliche voi4, der alle gottlichen Ideen beinhaltet, mit Gott identisch.49Im zweiten geht er aus dem gottliche voi; heraus, wird zu einem unabhangigen Sein und zum Schopfer der sichtbaren Welt.50Im dritten Stadium erscheint der Logos als das immanente Weltprinzip und die Bin so verstandenerLogos beinhaltetdas gottlicheParadigna, Welthannonie.51 ist die letztendliche Wirklichkeitzu der man durch 'artatiC'jund durch die Gnosis den Zugang erhalt. Von diesem metaphysischenHintergrund aus werdendie zwei theologischenWahrheitsbestimmungen des Alexandriners verstandlich.Die erste von ihnen lautet: ? 'H & & Fijxe X ipyov antiroibXyyouai"jviov.52 jypt; o;aa aroi narapo;,
Die Wahrheitist die Gnadedes Vatersund das ewigeWerkdes Logos. Sie folgt auf ein Fragment, in dem das mosaisch Gesetz (v6o?o4), welches ,,die alte Gnade" (Xa6pt; naXata')genannt wird, der ,,ewigen Gnade" des Jesus Christusgegeniibergesteiltwird, wobei die verschie(Xi'pt;&'i&to;) denen Zitate aus dem Prolog des Johannesevangeliumkompiliertwerden.53 Die clementinischeFormulierungsteht auch in der SchulddiesesEvangeliums, denn der Terminus Fpyov,kommt nur im Johannesevangelium vor, und zwar als die Bezeichnung des messianischenWirkensJesu im Willen des
"6 Str. I 97,4 g6viq&e icupia aibtnaXiXOeFa ijv inaparouipb to Oeoi ainapeyuzipTyro;, t& Str. 1 97,2 [...] o"StoVt&S ti x roXX& n6atSxeuo&a; oiSorl; &OeEia; oauha 3av6reva St' lAoi). xp6l rnhao,vaxlf;, ij & EiSpeat; 41 S.R.C. Lila, Clement A Studyin Christian andGnosticism, Platonism ofAlexandria. (Oxford 158-163. 1971) 199; vgl. 113-117; 48 Lilla, ibid.,200. 49 Str. IV 155,2; vgl. Aristoteles, De anim.III 4, 429 a 27; Str. V 73,3; Str. V 16,3; vgl. Plato, Pann. 132 b. 50 Str. V 16,5; Str. IV 156,2. 1' Prtr. 5,2; Str. V 104,4; Str. VII 5,3-4; Str. VII 9,2. la gcv tou-v6gCo) W&Son 52 Paed. I 60,2 'Op&tt&c X4et; Tfi;ypaqrjo; qnrai 6vov, t to'i X6'you aidvtov ic&to~Xck&t MMoaeo & o1iU& Xiyczt, a&XX& yiveac-t, <; vgl.Joh 1,17; 1,3. VjberXopi;ley&vero vonAlexandria. DerErzieher I (Miinchen 1935) 258. setzung StAihlin,Clemens " Paed. I 60,1; Joh 1,17. vgl.
DIE WAHRHEITSBEZEICHNUNGEN DES CLEMENS
329
Vaters.54Dieses pyov, stammt, wie die gesamte HeilstatJesu, vom Vater, und kann demzufolge als xipt; toi Ica'rp bezeichnet werden. Spricht man von der Wahrheit im logo-christologischenKontext, so darf man nicht auBleracht lassen, daB der Sohn Gottes bei Clemens nicht nur die Wahrheit lehrt und zeigt, sondern er selbst die Wahrheit ist.55Da er, wie schon erwfihnt, an der Weltschopfung beteiligt war und an der Welterhaltung beteiligt ist, ist er auch derenige, welcher all das Wissen iiber die Welt umfaBt. Aus diesem Verstandnis heraus kann der Logos-Christus vom Clemens kitainti und yv5iat genannt werden.56Das wiederum impliziert fuirdie clementinischeWahrheitslehre,daB einerseits alles Wissen und jegliche Wahrheit von dem Logos-Christusausgehen und andererseits,alles menschliche Wahrheitsstreben,nolensvolens,christozentrischist. Da die Wahrheit vom Clemens ,,die Gnade des Vaters" genannt wird, des Alexandriners soilten wir ein wenig bei dem Gott-Vater-Verstaindnis verweilen. Wie schon erwahnt wurde, ist fuirClemens das wahr, was mit dem gottlichen Paradigma iibereinstimmt und durch den Logos-Christus iibermitteltwird, aber letztendlich vom Gott dem Vater stammt. Ti4o;v 6 PaoYtXbi> "i; tr6vo6vuovaxi0eia; t6o-rpov. "f2oiep ;'rGvn&vtov;Oeco; 01W ?Q)lEtp,pKatcaXaIrTa t& aeTpoul4Leva, ofurrOo't Kal 'r- voiV,at t6ovOebv " irpet,cat Kai KattMvEXat
11' Oeta."
Weralsoist der KonigallerDinge?Es ist Gott,der MaBstabfuirdie Wahrheit des Seienden.Wie also mit dem MaBstabdas zu MessendeerfaBtwird, so wird auch durchdie ErkenntnisGottesdie Wahrheitgemessenund erfalBt. Gott-Vaterkann deswegen ,,der MaBstabfuirdie Wahrheit"(tiA; 'XllOetaa t6 pt&rpov)genannt werden, da er als Schopfer ,,des Seienden" (t(6v6v-rov) Die Wahrheit weilt also bei dem wirklich die Natur des Ails umfaBlt.58 seiendenGott,59sagt Clemens an einer anderenStelle und wenn er sichdabei
54Joh 4,34; 6,29; 10,32; 17,4. 55 DieJohannesstelle an folgenden 14,6 'Eydeitu [..] ia Xij0etawirdausdriicklich Stellen zitiert:Str. I 32,4; V 16,1; Exc. 61,1. An anderen als bekanntvorausgesetzt:
Str.1112,1;II 52,7;IV 156,1. i diOeta Ica &a &3a ?o{np 56 Str. IV 156,1 6 6o eiA topiaz ~ati ca' Kzilur 6 nvewauxxco6 xat 6 1Lapa'8etaoo, Str. VI 2,4 ii yv~ioti86kfu?&v oa wp avro6,ijit&nv ovyy'e%v; [. ..]. f~C&PXEt 51 Prtr. 69,1. 1Jbersetzung StAh1in,Clemensvon Alexandria.Mahnrede145. 58
Prtr. 69,2-3.
59
Str. VII 91,3 &t&zXeioVO' js6vs ipewVriovtijv rij iVrvt&Mi8etav,Ri tOivuV(PPOV'ri8o;
ntep't obvoivuKoovZa 0E6V KtaytVErat.
330
TOMASZ KLEBENGIAJTIS
der platonisch inspirierten Wendung (6 Wvro;div)60bedient, so meint er damit, daB Gott der Letztseiende,Letztwirklicheund der Letztwahreist.6' Somit ist das im eigentlichen Sinne wahr, was am gottlichen Sein Anteil hat. Die Wahrheit ist mit Gott so organisch verbunden, daB3Clemens von einem ,,Gebarender Wahrheit"spricht62und da Gott die ganze Wirklichkeit umfafit,ist er auch derjenige,weicher die volReTeilnahme an der Wahrheit gewahrt.63 Die zweite theologischeWahrheitsbezeichnungzeigt ein wenig den Weg zu dieser Teilnahme und lautet: 'H Yvi~ov'eta, i &, ei; oupavovavayet,il &XiO0cta.64
Die Wahrheitist der Umgang,der uns in den Himmelfuihrt. Das hier benutzte Wort a-vi0eia, mit dem die Wahrheit charakterisiert wird, ist im Griechischenzweideutig und sogar vieldeutig.65Es kommt bei Clemens haufigervor66und wird von ihm meistens im Sinne einer schiechten, nichit gottgemOlen Gewohnheit verwendetF' Der Kontext der angeffihrtenWahrheitsbestimmunghandelt von der Notwendigkeitdie, als hart empfundenen,Forderungendes Christentumsanzunehmen,weiche mit der Bitterkeit der Arzneien (i 'r6v(papauico,v aviacnpia)verglichen werden. In diesem Zusammenhangwird der auvfi1jetadie in den Abgrund fuihrt,eine andere, in den Himmel fhihrende,entgegengesteilt.Die erste ij&t p'v Kcat yapyaXiret,was den GedankenzulaBt,daf hier der geschlechtlicheUmgang gemeint sein konnte. WahrscheinlichmuBldie Bedeutung des ,,Umgangs" 10Auf die Plato-Stelle Phaedr. oica wirdoftersverwiesen: Prtr. 247 c7 o-aitao6vxow 23,1; 89,2; Str. I 95,7; Str. IV 16,3; Str. VI 163,1; Str. VII 15,4; Str. VII 54,4; Str. VII 91,3. 61 Str. V 108,6; vgl. OraculaSibyllina,Frag.1,10-13;Str. VI 137,2. 62
63
Str. IV 9,1. Prtr. 114,3.
Tfj;aotipiaM?a; Prtr. 109,1 'AXX' iUtCi;li'CVt6Oa ti'iV iWojkvctvoOICapTcpEixc, i tC8a&& wCa0dacp & TiovarnisOvito; yX-oic&rwytv 8tivTbkt&qtra An;i'oviov;Xpo'nij?6Wrc;, i &XXi'noit;&or9vci;'r6"v CX-KP 'tpvo OV'CZ'nI1V i6tTat 8iE' I& Kam iCytcLlyn&rEt adiOcOntv, i 'niv Ical CT6xxov P(J)vvsowv qTowapjx6ova"o?1pia,oiA'ao;iji, UWv yapaiXet i1arvfOcia, ' t ((npaxeiaz? auX'ij j?pvci;n J3ipocQpov bOci, auvi'Eta, i"& ci; o?avbv &ev&tt,i dtOcuz, 'n6 <<&X,X' PEv xpatnov, &ycO% Micopo'po;o vgl. Homer,Od.IX, 27; (bersetzng Klibengajtis. Lexicon1715: cuv'f eta, I. 1. a) habitualintercourse,acquaintance, 65 Greek-English sexual intercourse;2. of animals,herdingtogether;II. 1. habit, custom;2. b) intimacy; the customaryusage of language;III. customarygratuity. 11 66 Insgesamt33 x: Prtr. 17 x; Paed. 4 x; Str. x; Exc. I x. 64
67
So z.B. an folgenden Stellen: Prtr. 99,1; Prtr. 101,1; Paed. I 1,2; Str. III 101,1.
DIE WAHRHEITSBEZEICHNUNGEN DES CLEMENS
331
der clementinischenouviOleta zugeordnet werden, denn seine Leser haben ja noch keine Gewohnheit, ebenfalls ovuviOeta,im Guten, der sie in den Himmel fiihren konnte. Pflegten sie aber einen so intensiven Umgang mit der Wahrheit, wie es das griechische Wort ruvqiOeta andeutet, so wurden sie selber wahrer werden, wirden an der Wahrheit, an Gott und seinem Logos-ChristusAnteil haben und wirden so, bildlich gesprochen, in den Himmel gefuhrt werden. ZusammenfassendlaBt sich sagen, daB das clementinische Wahrheitsverstandnis von der unmittelbaren sinnlich-geistigen Erfahrung ausgeht, durch die Wissenschaftvervollkommnenwird, von dieser durch die Gnosis die Teilnahme an der gottlichen Wirklichkeitgewahrt und asketische Forderungen an die Wahrheitssucherstellt. Die Bereiche der Ontologie, Epistemologie, Theologie, Christologie und Moraltheologie werden miteinander verflochten, was dem Forscher die Analyse zwar erschwert, aber dem Menschen das Leben erleichtert.Denn man lebt ja gleichzeitigin verschiedenen Seinsbereichenund stellt die Wahrheitsfrageauf verschiedeneWeise. Ul. O. Lange 8/33 02-685 Warszawa,Poland
REVIEWS traeditioncritique, Introduction Macarios de Magnesie, Le Monogines. g6nraale, et commentaire parRichardGoulet.Tome I: Introductiongenerale; ductionfranfaise Tome II: Edition critique, traduction francaise et commentaire (Textes et traditions 7), Paris: Librairie philosophiqueJ. Vrin 2003, 383 + 445 p., ISBN 2-7116-1647-9, e 80 (pb). The study of the ancient philosophical anti-Christianpolemic has witnessed an upsurge of interest in the last two decades. After the sketch of the statusquaestionis by S. Benko and A. Meredith (ANRWII, 23, 2, BerlinNew York 1980, 1055-1149), we have seen the publication of, e.g., R. as theRomansSaw Them(New Haven-London 1984); Wilken, The Christians On the TrueDoctrine(New York-Oxford 1987); G.B. Celsus: RJ. Hoffmann, dellaveritacontroi cristiani(Milano 1989); Bozzo & S. Rizzo, Celso:II discorso G. Rinaldi, Bibliagentium(Roma 1989); E. Masaracchia, GiulianoImperatore: theChristians" ContraGalilaeos "Against (Roma 1990);RJ. Hoffinann, Porphyry's (Amherst 1994);' G. Rinaldi, La Bibbiadei pagani(2 vols.; Bologna 1997Polemic TheRise of EarlyAnti-Christian 98);J.W. Hargis, Againstthe Christians. in the Testament The New York etc. Cook, of Interpretation 1999);J.G. (New a new edition of and Greco-Roman Porphyry's Paganism(Tiibingen 2000); ContraChristianos by P.F. Beatrice has been announced for the near future.2 To this list we can now happily add Richard Goulet's new and important critical edition, with translation, introduction, and exegetical notes, of Macariusof Magnesia'sratherneglectedtreatiseMonogenes (formerlyAporitikos), a large two-volume work of some 830 pages. The subject of this magnum opusis an early Christian treatise of considerable importance since it contains substantialquotations from a work in which an anonymous Greek philosopher combats Christianitywith a wide range of arguments. It is well-known that Adolf von Harack, as many 'This book has a misleading title since it deals only with the fragments related to the unnamed opponent in Macarius Magnes' work. 2 It should be added, though, that Beatrice does not believe that a separate treatise Againstthe Christiansever existed; he rather opines that the anti-Christian arguments were part of a larger work by Porphyry to which also his De philosophiaex oraculishaurienda belonged. See his entry "Porphyrius" in TRE 27 (1997) 54-59. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 332-341
REVIEWS
333
and after him, regarded the unnamed opponent as none other than tonic philosopher Porphyry, and more than half of the fragments nack's edition of Porphyry'sAgainstthe Christians consist of passages lacarius' Monogenes,3 but this did not go uncontested. The text of itise pretends to be a verbatim report of a five-days public debate a Macarius and an anti-Christianphilosopher whose name is not ned. Both the argumentsof the philosopher, who raises serious and .nt objectionsto the New Testament and has sharp criticismof both nd Paul, as well as those of his Christian opponent are often intermd deserve closer attention than has been paid them so far. Sadly , the only manuscript of the work, discovered in 1867 in Athens ited by Charles Blondel in 1876,4is now lost. Moreover, it is incomt begins somewhere in the middle of book 2 and ends before the chapters of book 4; book 5 is missing as well. In addition to that, nuscript is corrupt in many places and Goulet confesses that it has ctremelydifficultand occasionallyimpossibleto reconstructthe orig:t. So many riddles remain, but nonetheless Goulet has done us an )us service by preparing this first new edition after Blondel. n instructive'Forschungsgeschichte'(14-40), Goulet first sketchesthe h on MacariusMagnes before the discoveryof the manuscript,done on the basis of the few citations from the work by Nicephorus of ntinople (9th century) and some others. He highlights the fact that of these early scholars regard 'Macarius' not as a name but an re ('blessed')and 'Magnes' not as a designation of his place of ori)m Magnesia')but as a proper name ('the blessed Magnes'), a point come back to later. After the publication of the editioprincepsin ,ne sees that the identification of the anonymous adversary with or Porphyry, or Hierocles (the target of Eusebius' ContraHieroclem) )ination of both, gains ground, although some who favour a later tve open the possibilitythatJulian the Apostatemay be the unnamed his 'Porphyrius, "Gegen die Christen"' in APAW.PH 1916, Berlin 1916, 3-115; ae Fragmente des Werks des Porphyrius gegen die Christen,' SPAW 1921, Berlin i6-284. It is amazing that A. Smith omitted the fragments of Againstthe Christians new Teubner edition of the fragments of Porphyry's works with the argument y are readily available in the recent (!) edition by Harack; see his Porphyrius, z, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1993. KAPIOYMAFNHTOE. 'AnoKpIxKcrfi MovoyeviS. Macarii Magnetisquae supersunt codiceediditC. Blondel,Paris 1876. Actually the book was seen through the press Foucart after Blondel's untimely death (he died in 1873 at the age of 37).
334
REVIEWS
opponent. Others, such as Theodor Zahn, identifyMacariuswith the bishop of Magnesia (in Asia Minor)5called Macariuswho was present at the Synod of the Oak in 403; Zahn thinks this bishop wrote a refutationof 3rd and 4th century anti-Christianpolemics in general around 400. T.W. Crafer, on the other hand, dates Macarius around 300 and argues that the debate took place before the Diocletian persecution;the combatantswere Hierocles and Macarius.6Hamack sees in Macarius the bishop of Magnesia, who wrote this work in the last quarter of the 4th century, but whose target was no other than Porphyry. Since, however, Macarius knew Porphyry's work only in an anonymous and abridged form, he was not aware of the identity of his opponent (!). Others remain inclined to see eitherJulian or Hierocles as the anonymous opponent or to assume that the bishop indeed reacted to an anonymous anti-Christiantreatise that made use of many arguments levelled by Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and Julian. To date there is no consensus on any of these major issues. At the end of this survey (40) Goulet lists a dozen or so problems that still remain by and large unsolved. The firsthe deals with is the title. Since the only manuscriptis acephalous, we have to rely on the tables of contents of the book or references to it as we find them in some other early documents (about these see further icp6o"EXklvcx;or MovoyevilS; tp6; below). This leaves us with 'AxowptItK:O; or 'AoKlcpltxuco; I Movoyevi;npbS;"EOnrlva.Goulet rightlysays that "EXXqva; the latter double title is probably a conflation and that of the two single titles the easily understandableApokritikos is more likely to have replaced the difficultMonogenes than the other way round. But what does Monogenes prosHellinasmean as a book title? Based upon Macarius' own use of the word, it seems most feasible that Monogenes (sc. logos)here has primarily the sense of "Discours d'un genre unique adresse aux Hellenes" but with the double-entendre of "Discoursdu Fils unique . .". This seems rather odd, but I have no alternativeto offer. The second problem is the identity of the author. Goulet suggets that it is more natural to interpret MakariosMagnesas 'Macarius of Magnesia' than as 'the blessed Magnes,' and I fully agree. He also tends to believe Photius' report that Macarius, bishop of Magnesia, attended the Synod of
5
The Greek Magnescan indeed mean 'living in Magnesia' (see LSJ s.v.). For references to publications by these and other authors I must refer the reader to Goulet's notes. Crafer published the only English translation (though an abridged one) of Macarius' work in 1919. 6
REVIEWS
335
the Oak in 403 and argues that nothing contradicts the identification of these two men. But he wisely adds that it is impossible to identify them "de facon incontestable"(51). Even so he thinkshis position can be strengthened by geographical considerations. Many details in the text suggest a much greater acquaintance with Asia Minor than with any other geographical area. But that is, of course, not in any way a proof that our Macarius was the man of the Synod of 403.7 Another problem is the dating of the work. Here Goulet again concedes that certainty may be unattainable,but he carefully suggests, on the basis of his tentative identificationof Macarius with the homonymous bishop of Magnesia who was active at the Synod of 403, that the work may have been composed in the final quarter of the 4th century rather than a century earlier. It is-inter alia-the christological views of the author that favour this later date. Moreover, twice in this treatise the author refers to events that have taken place more than 300 years after events in the New Testament period (4.5.1 and 4.5.2); and one has to keep in mind that these chronological remarks are made by the opponent (at least according to Macarius),i.e., before Macarius wrote his refutation. Only an overly skeptical person could defend an early date around 300, then; a date after 350 is much more reasonable.Also the referencesto the remarkableexpansion of the monastic movement in the East (2.7.10; 2.16.26-29) make sense only by the final decades of the 4th century,not much earlier(Theodoretsketches its zenit as occurringbetween 365 and 440).8This dating is furtherconfirmed by Macarius' strikinglycritical attitude towards the legitimacy of the imperial power, which-in the fourth century-is only to be explained against the backgroundof Valens' violent rule (364-378), says Goulet, a point of view that will probably not go unchallenged. Goulet rightly regards the public debate setting as a literary fiction but argues that there is good reason to assume that Macarius did not himself invent the objections to Christianityin order to easily refute them. It is not so much the disparityin style and diction between the unnamed opponent's objections and Macarius' responses that pleads in favour of his use of a pagan source (this disparitycould still be explainedas part of Macarius' technique), but it is rather what Goulet calls "le rapport dialectique entre objections et reponses," which he defines as follows: "Macarios passe 7 I also do not understand how Macarius could have borroweddetails from John Malalas (6th cent.!); see p. 52. 8 See P. Canivet, Le monachismeyrien selon Thiodoretde Cyr, Paris 1977.
336
REVIEWS
systematiquementa cote des objections, il neglige la pointe philosophique d'argumentsattestes par ailleurs dans la litteratureantichretienne,il laisse sans reponse certains elements de l'objection, tandis qu'il se livre a des developpements que n'appelaient pas les objections de l'adversaire"(7172). This leaves no room for doubt: Macarius used a written source. This source, however, has ostensibly been heavily edited by him9 so that one cannot simply use the 'quoted' objectionsof the pagan philosopheras 'fragments' (in the sense of ipsissimaverba)of his original text. Even so it is clear that his work consisted primarily of sustained attacks on the person and teaching of both Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul (to a lesser degree Peter was also his target). Since the philosopher presents Christians as persons without any political power but at the same time as constructorsof big churches, a tentative dating of his writing to the years about 300 seems defensible. Goulet does not deal with the intriguingquestion of why it took (almost)a century before this attack on Christianitywas answered (but see below). Before tackling the major issue of the identity of the pagan philosopher, Goulet discusseshis personalityand his attitude towards Christianity.Due to the heavy redactionalhand of Macarius, his personalityremains vague. What little can be said with certainty, however, is that the philosopher had a heart-feltdisdain for Christ and his followers.Jesus is neither a sage nor a hero, let alone a god, he is a muddle-headedteacher; Paul is a great hypocrite;and Peter is an erratic personality.The New Testament testifies to the lamentably low level of its authors;much of what is said in it (e.g., about the Parousia)is irrationaland absurd:"il s'en tient au choc subi par l'espritcultive devant le caractereparfoiscontradictoire,paradoxalet meme brutal de certains passages du Nouveau Testament" (106).1?The philosopher's historical and geographical knowledge is far from exceptional and does not suggest a level comparableto Porphyry's.His philosophicalstance, as far as it is recoverable,is a kind of general Platonismthat has no clearly Neoplatonic elements. After all this, it comes more or less as a surprisethat the long chapter on "Identificationde la source paienne" (112-149) arrives at the conclusion that the unnamed philosopherwas, after all, none other than Porphyry. 9 For an elaborate stylistic analysis underpinning this conclusion by Goulet see pp. 76-89. 10 The philosopher focuses almost exclusively on the New Testament; he has only 10 references to Old Testament passages.
REVIEWS
337
All alternativesare reviewed and fairly tested but all fail to pass the test. In spite of several points of contact between the unnamed philosopher and Celsus, the latter hardly focuses on the New Testament documents andquite unlike the unnamed philosopher-he also regards Christianityas a threat to the empire and the Hellenic tradition.The unnamed philosopher refuted by Lactantiusin his Institutiones cannot be our philosopher because of the political focus of the former and the lack of any agreementsbetween what little we know of his arguments and those of Macarius' opponent. Hierocles, the author of the Philalethiswho is often seen as a good alternative to Porphyryin this respect," is not our unnamed philosopher since there are too many striking differences between the tone and arguments of the two and "on ne releve pas des rapprochementssuffisammentetroits pour que l'on puisse conclure a une identificationdes deux auteurs"(126). As to Julian the Emperor, in spite of "un grand nombre de rapprochements," which is to be expected in view of "l'existence d'un materiel polemique commun" (127), there are hardly any close parallels between the texts of the two authors. But then, there is Porphyry, and here we find "des paralleles beaucoup plus proches que ceux que nous avons rencontres jusqu'ici" (127). And indeed, with no other anti-Christianauthor does one find more and closer agreements than with this Platonist. What would seem to militate against the hypothesis that our unnamed philosopher is Porphyryis the fact that at a certain moment Macarius invites his ex oraculis opponent to have a look at a passage in Porphyry'sPhilosophia haurienda (3.42.6), without even hinting at the fact that this Porphyryis his opponent. But that is no serious objection because, in view of the literary fiction that the debate took place in the recent past between Macarius himself and his adversary,he simply could not tell that his opponent was Porphyry (who had already died almost a century ago). There remain problems here, however. If Origen mentioned Celsus by name, if Eusebius mentioned Hierocles by name, if Methodius as well as Eusebius and Apollinaris mentioned Porphyry by name, and if Cyrillus mentionedJulian by name, why,then, would Macarius keep his opponent anonymous? Of course, one could say that only in this way could he present the debate as having taken place recently with himself as the defender of Christianity.But it is very hard to imagine that this literary fiction " The most recent defense of this position is E. DePalma Digeser, 'Porphyry, Julian, or Hierokles? The Anonymous Hellene in Makarios Magnes' Apokritikos,' JTS 53 (2002) 466-502.
338
REVIEWS
carried more weight with Macarius than the fact that he engaged in a battle with Christianity'smost formidable opponent in antiquity, a man who wrote no less than 15 books ContraChristianos. And why would he engage in this battle after several others had already done so better than he ever could? And, finally, how is it to be explained that the unnamed philosopher focuses almost entirely on the New Testament, whereas we know that Porphyry also dealt critically with the Old Testament? These questions remain unanswered by Goulet's hypothesis. Although it is a subjective judgement, I for one find too much in the unnamed opponent's objections that looks non-Porphyrian.I thereforeventurethe hypothesis'2that Macarius' opponent never existed but that Macarius created him in order to enable himself to write a book that refuted what he himself regarded as still the most importantand threateningargumentsagainst Christianitybrought forward by its opponents in the past two centuries,from Celsus to Julian. Of course, Porphyry was one of them, indeed the most impressive one, and this explains the close parallels with Porphyry in about 50% of the fragments.'3 "Faut-il supposer plutot que Macarios ou sa source ont compile les objections de diverses polemistes? Aucun indice ne le suggere. On a au contraire, a la lecture des objections, l'impression d'une critique fort homogene" (135). Yes, but this homogeneity may be exactly the result of Macarius'purposefulselection and redaction.As Goulet himself says, "C'est lui qui a selectionne, agence et enchaine les themes du discours de l'Adversaire,c'est lui qui les a mis en forme" (138). In all fairness,it should be said to his credit that Goulet is the first to admit that there is no compelling proof of the identity of the unnamed philosopher with Porphyry. "Finalement,la question doit rester ouverte"(135; cf. 149). The main problem is that we actually know rather little about the early anti-Christian polemicists because for the most part their works were destroyed by the Christians.Goulet is well aware of this, since he says that "il faut reconnaitre la possibiliteque Macarios ait utilise un traite grec aujourd'huicompletement disparu"(139). The largest chapter of the first volume is devoted to a thorough study of Macarius as a theologian and apologist. In 80 pages (150-231) a fine and balanced sketch is presented of the accomplishmentsof this neglected 12
Not unlike the one suggested by Theodor Zahn (see above). It should be said here that Goulet's synoptic presentation of the agreements and disagreements between Porphyry and Macarius' unnamed philosopher (vol. I, 269-278) is immensely helpful. 13
REVIEWS
339
author whose opponent has usually received much more attention than he himself. Here Goulet wants to do full justice to the man, and so he does. For reasons of space I can summarize his findings only very briefly. As an apologist, Macarius does not, or at least not always, rise to the level of his opponent-as has already been noted, he sometimes does not even fully comprehend what his opponent's argument implies (Goulet also speaks of his "incapacite a discerner le caractire propre et incommunicable de la foi religieuse";p. 163).'4 But he does know how to apply the techniques of ancient rhetoric. As a theologian, Macarius fares better. His system of thought is coherent and can be situated very clearly in post-Nicene but pre-Constantinopolitantheological milieus, although his theology and christology is not on a par with, say, that of the great Cappadocian Fathers of this period. He should rather be seen as representingthe mainstream'popular theology' of his time. "En fait, ce document exprime tres bien ce qui representaitla foi pour les hommes d'alors et il permet d'observerles correlations qui existent entre cette foi et les desirs, les craintes et les interrogations de l'epoque" (231). What I missed in this otherwise excellent chapter was a discussion of Macarius' negative attitude towardsJews and Judaism, a topic that certainly deserves closer investigation.'5 The final chapter of vol. I is about the transmissionof the text. Here Goulet distinguishesbetween extant manuscriptsand those that are lost. As to the latter category, these are the manuscriptsreportedlyfound and used by Nicephorus in the 9th century, by Janos Laskaris around 1500, and by Turrianus (Torrensis)in the middle of the 16th century. It is of course especially their quotes from the now lost parts of the book that are most valuable. To this category belongs also the manuscript found and used by Blondel for the editioprinceps, once belonging to the National Library at Athens but enigmatically lost since 1876 (it dates from the 14th-15th cent.). The extant manuscriptsare those miscellaneousones which contain, interalia, tables of contents of the Monogenes, scholia on biblical texts with from or other documents Macarius, passages containing summariesof certain passages from his text, for instance in treatises on the Eucharist. On the basis of a detailed analysis of all these data, Goulet tries to reconstruct
14 Sometimes Macarius bases his defence upon a wrong translation of the biblical text, as in 2.31. 15 Unfortunately, the word index is not exhaustive (see p. 305) and the word Ioudaios was excluded so that it is difficult to find the many places where Macarius speaks about the Jews.
340
REVIEWS
the contents of the work in its entirety.At page 247 we finallyfind Goulet's stemma of all no-longer-extantcodices. In this chapter he shows his mastery in the field of meticulous analysis of textual traditions. Volume II contains Goulet's reconstructionof the Greek text and his French translation on facing pages. He presents this material in a very user-friendly manner. For instance, not only are the page numbers of Blondel's edition and those of the lost manuscripthe used indicated in margine, but the reader is also helped by brief marginal annotations indicating where Macarius'responseto an objection by his adversarybegins when there is a considerabledistance between the two (as is often the case), and also the other way round in the form of referencesback to the place where the objection here answered can be found. In the margin one also finds the referencesto the numbering of the 'fragments'in Harnack'sedition of Porphyry.In view of the high degree of corruption of the Athenian manuscript there are many places where conjectures were unavoidable and Goulet consistentlyalerts the readers to this by indicating conjecturalreadings in the text, not only in the apparatus.There are several apparatuses: On the left hand (often spilling over into the right hand) page one finds a list of sigla for the documents where the text of (parts of) the page can be found; further there is an apparatus criticus;an additional apparatus on an in Athenian and the ms.; apparatusof sources (mainly biblimarginalia an apparatus discussing textual hand one finds On the cal). right page problems, but in the text of the translationthe reader is also referred (by means of letters)to the scripturalapparatusand (by means of asterisks)to the many exegetical notes which have been relegated to the end of the volume (pp. 377-436: Appendice exegetique). These exegetical discussions sometimes amount to very useful mini-essays(see e.g. pp. 380-382 on the problem of the delayed coming of salvation, or pp. 405-407 on objections to the doctrine of the bodily resurrection).Here one also finds a wealth of references to parallels in early patristic sources and to scholarly literature. The translationis fluent, as far as I can judge, even though Goulet keeps rather close to the original. The constitution of the Greek text is a tourdeforceon which much could be said, but I prefer to leave that matter to more competent colleagues (although I want to say that I found Goulet's conjecturesoften very ingenious). To conclude: This is a project in which a number of formidable obstacles had to be overcome. Goulet here presentsthe resultsof several decades of wrestlingwith these problems.These resultsare impressive.The care with which Goulet has dealt with all these often intractable matters is exemp-
REVIEWS
341
lary. Not only students of Macarius but also those who are interested in the field of anti-Christiancritique on the part of pagan Greek intellectuals owe him a great debt. Even if one is not convinced by everything Goulet proposes as a solution (as in the case of the identity of the unnamed adversary),that does not detract in the least from the great value of his work. Faculty of Theology,
PIETERW. VANDER HORST
Utrecht University, P.O.Box 80.105, NL-3508 TC Utrecht. [email protected] entrePierreet Simondansles PseudoDominique C6te, Le themede l'opposition des Etudes Clmentines Augustiniennes,Serie Antiquite 167), Paris: (Collection Institutd'ftudes Augustiniennes2001 [Diffusionexclusif:Brepols,Turnhout, Belgique], VIII + 300 p., ISBN 2-85121-188-9, E 49 (pb). L'opposition entre les deux personnages, l'apotre Pierre et Simon le Magicien, represente le theme central du Roman pseudo-clementin, qui est aussi traitee par d'autres textes de la litterature chretienne ancienne, La recherchede D. C6ot se propose d'analyserles depuis les ActesdesApotres. dans le cadre de leur opposition et de "voir Pierre et Simon de personnages en quoi la forme que revet ce theme est caracteristiquedes Pseudo-Clmnentines" (p. 2; cf. p. 19). Une forme de scepticisme a l'egard des resultatsjusqu'ici obtenus par la recherche sur les origines de l'oeuvre pseudo-clementine conduit l'auteur a etudier, independamment du probleme des sources, "la forme definitivequ'a recue le texte pseudo-clementin,c'est-a-direles Homilies et la signification qui s'y rattache" (p. 3). C'est un et les Reconnaissances, travail nouveau dans son genre et utile, qui peut figurercomme une excelune oeuvre parmi les plus lente introductiona l'etude des Pseudo-Climentines: tourmenteesdu christianismedes premierssiecles. La dissertationest divisee en trois chapitres: (I) L'opposition entre Pierre et Simon dans les PseudoClnmentines (pp. 21-94); (II) L'opposition entre Pierre et Simon: types et formes litteraires (pp. 95-134); (III) L'opposition entre Pierre et Simon: theme et variations (pp. 135-256). Etant donne l'importance des matieres traitees par D. Cote, nous en ferons une presentationun peu plus longue. Dans le premier chapitre, l'auteur analyse les figures pseudo-clementines de Pierre et Simon pour voir sous quelle forme le theme de leur opposition se realise dans les Homilies(= H) et les Reconnaissances (= R). ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christianae58, 341-352
342
REVIEWS
Le cadregeneralde l'opposition en H. Les deux personnages,Pierre et Simon, sont construits, tout d'abord, selon une certaine symetrie par rapport a leurs origines, statut et formation (pp. 23-29). Cette symetrie s'expliquepar la volonte de l'auteur de H de presenter les deux personnagescomme des rivaux. Mais il ne s'agit pas d'une simple rivalite.Pierre et Simon incarnent une vision dualiste du monde, qui est representeepar "la regle de la syzygie" (H 11,18,1 et 11,15-17)(voir pp. 30-33). Dieu, qui est lui-meme un, a divise tout ce qui existe en couples opposes "dichos kai enanti6s",qui donnent lieu a une division de la realite en deux camps separes, indiques comme la droite et la gauche (H II,16,1). L'homme est le seul a jouir d'une liberte qui le rend capable de devenirjuste ou injuste, et pour lui Dieu a inverse la configurationdes couples, en lui presentant, en premier lieu des choses petites et en second lieu des choses grandes (H II,15,2). En connaissantcette regle, l'homme est en mesure de choisir entre les deux camps qui forment la realite. A ce point on peut observerpeut-etre que la forme du dualisme,en H, rappellecelle qui est connue, par exemple, par les textes de Qumran et les Testaments des XII Patriarches:Dieu, cause supreme de l'univers, gouvere le monde par l'intermediairede deux esprits ou de deux anges, cf. H XX,3,4 et 9,6 (les deux rois, que Dieu a etablis, sont la main droite et la main gauche de Dieu). C'est, d'ailleurs,la seule forme de dualisme, qui pouvait etre acceptee par la traditionjuive orthodoxe. Or, si l'on s'en tient au couple Pierre/Simon, qui nous interesse dans cette regle, Pierre doit venir apres Simon et il est lie a lui "comme la lumiere aux tenebres, la science a l'ignorance,la guerison a la maladie"(H II,17,3). Quant a Simon, il est, d'apres le texte de H VII,2,3, "une puissance de la gauche" et a ce titre il a recu le pouvoir de maltraiterceux qui ne connaissentpas Dieu. Par consequent,les "prodiges"que Simon accomplitsont "inutiles",ils ne produisent dans les foules que stupeur et tromperie.Alors que les "miracles"de guerison, accomplis par Pierre, apportent conversion et salut (cf. H II,33,4-5). Or, c'est dans ce meme registre que jouent les discoursde Pierre et de Simon (cf. p. 33). Pierre enseigne une doctrinequi apportele salut:"I1n'y a qu'un seul Dieu, le createurdu ciel et de la terre". Simon, par contre, apprend aux hommes qu'il y a plusieursdieux dans le ciel et detoure ainsi ses auditeursde la verite, pour leur perte (cf. H III, 59,2-3). Le cadrespecifique de l'opposition en H et en R est representepar les discussions entre Pierre et Simon. En R, les debats se deroulent a Cesaree, tandis qu'en H ils se deroulent a Cesaree et a Laodicee. A l'origine, les discussions etaient concentreesa Cesaree, la Grundschift pseudo-clementinen'avait
REVIEWS
343
pas les entretiens de Laodicee (p. 69). L'ordre des discussions est donne par R. La discussionde Cesaree en H dure troisjours (H 111,29-58;cf. 111,58,2), mais on ne connait que celle du premierjour. Le debat conceme l'unite de Dieu, qui corresponda la these de Pierre. Par contre, Simon soutient qu'il y a plusieursdieux (cf. H 11,38,1). Les argumentsdes deux opposants sont essentiellementd'ordre scripturaire.Simon base sa these sur les Ecritures juives. Pierre oppose son principe exegetique: les Ecrituresse contredisent (H 11,42,4), elles contiennent des parties mensongeres(H III,50). Les Ecritures disent tout, par les textes bibliqueson peut prouvertout ce qu'on veut. L'unique critere de verite est la doctrine du Prophete de verite (H III,11,1; cf., en H 111,52,2,la citation de Jn 10,9: "Je suis la porte de la vie"). II faut faire le discerement des Ecritures selon l'enseignement du Prophete (H 111,50,2:citation du logionagraphon: "Soyez des changeurs eprouves"). La discussionde Laodicee dure quatrejours (H XVI-XIX). L'auteur de H a place les dernieresdiscussionsentre Pierre et Simon a Laodicee, apres leur mission respective de ville en ville. Premierejoumree(H XVI): la docdivine (H XVI,1,2) est opposee au polytheisme trine juive sur la monarchie de Simon, base sur les Ecritures(H XVI,5,3). Pendant la deuxiemejoumee la dispute se deroule autour de deux themes: 1. la forme de Dieu (H. XVII,7-12), la forme de l'homme est modelee sur celle de Dieu (cf. H XVI,19,1); 2. l'evidence est preferable a la vision (H XVII,5,6; 13-19). Le theme de la troisiemejournee (H XVIII) contient les idees fondamentales de la doctrine de Simon: le createur du monde n'est pas le Dieu supreme, celui-ci est un autre Dieu, qui seul est bon et qui est restejusqu'ici inconnu (H XVIII, 1,1). Le createur du monde est un dieu inf6rieur,juste mais pas bon. Le Dieu inconnu est "une puissance cachee, inconnue de tous et du createur lui-meme" (H XVIII, 11,3). Le Dieu inconnu est la "grande puissance" ("megaledynamis")(H XVIII,12,1). Le texte principalde la demonstration de Simon est le logion de Mt 11,27 par. Lc 10,22 (cite en H XVIII,13,1: "Personne n'a connu le Pere, si ce n'est le Fils, et personne non plus ne connait le Fils, si ce n'est le Pere, et ceux a qui le Fils veut le reveler").Sur la base de ce texte, Simon pretend etre le Fils, le seul qui ait connu Dieu; pretension que Pierre refute ainsi: Simon, tu n'es pas Celui qui se tient debout (= hoHestos,l'Immuable,H XVIII,14,3; cf. H XVIII,6,4: tu n'es pas le Fils, l'Immuable). Simon, donc, n'est pas la revelation sur terre de la grande Puissance. Theme de la quatriemejournme:l'existence du Mauvais et son origine (H XIX,3-8; 19-23). Puis, pendant la nuit (H XX,1,1), a lieu un enseignement de Pierre, reserve a ses disciples. Pierre
344
REVIEWS
revient a la question de 1'existencedu Mauvais et a son origine (H XX, 1-9); dans ce contexte il est question des deux royaumes et des deux rois (cf. XX,2,2; 2,5), qui sont la main droite et la main gauche de Dieu (cf. XX,3,4-7). Conclusion. Pierre remportela victoire sur Simon. Selon la regle des syzyles foules gies, passent de l'emprise de Simon a celle de Pierre, jusqu'au triomphe final de l'apotre a Antioche (p. 59). Dans ce contexte de l'affrontemententre Pierreet Simon en H, un aspect meritait d'etre mis davantage en evidence. Pierre n'est pas seulement le disciple le plus eprouve du Prophete de verite (cf. p. 23), mais, en tant que tel, il est le depositaireet l'interpretedes "mysteresdu royaume des cieux", reveles par le Prophete (cf. H XIX,20,1): ce qui explique l'exhortation de Pierre a savoir discerner la verite dans la Bible, d'apres le logionagraphon: "Soyez des changeurs eprouves" (souvent repete, cf. H 11,51,1; 111,50,2; XVIII,20,4). C'estjustementl'applicationdu principehermeneutiqueindique par ce logion qui permet a Pierre de remporter la victoire sur Simon. Relevons egalement que la doctrine concernant le Prophete de verite, dans son ensemble, remonte au "mystikoslogos" (cf. H 111,29,1),en definitive,a une doctrine a mystere. Quant au personnage de Simon, la regle des syzygies, citee en H 11,15-17, n'explique que le role de Simon dans l'histoire, mais ses doctrines (en particuliercelle qui concere l'Hestoset tout ce que ce theologoumenon implique) remontent a la "secte" de Jean-Baptiste (cf. H 11,22,3;23,1;24,1), une secte samaritaine,dont on ignore l'origine veritable. Le cadregeneralde l'opposition enR (pp. 59-69). Les deux personnages,Pierre et Simon. Le personnage de Pierre releve de la traditionapocryphe. Pierre est marie (cf. R VII,25,3), il vit comme un ascete (R VII,6,4), il a ete eleve selon la coutume hebraique (X, 15,1), il connait tres bien la culture paienne et les mythes de la religiongrecque.Pierreappartientau groupe des Apotres, il a douze disciples comme les douze Apotres de Jesus. En R, Pierre est l'envoye de Jacques (cf. R 1,72,1). L'appartenancede Pierre au college des Douze est une preoccupation tout a fait etrangere a H, tandis qu'elle est bien indiquee en R (cf. R 1,44,1; 55-65). Or, il faut dire que ce fait s'explique justement par la structurede H, qui a omis le texte de la source judeo-chretienne,citee en R 1,27-71, ofuPierre figure parmi les Douze. En ce qui concerne Simon le Magicien, on doit noter que l'auteur de R a considerablementmodifie le recit de H, en deux endroits. Tout d'abord, en R 11,8,1,il corrige la these de H 11,23,1:Jean-Baptisten'est pas le point de depart de l'heresie de Simon. C'est apres la mort de Jean que Simon se rend aupresde Dosithee, s'eprendde Luna (= Helene en H) et revendique
REVIEWS
345
le titre de "Stans" (Hest6s)(cf. R. 11,7,2-7). Ainsi, l'heresie de Simon est plut6t le prolongement de celle de Dosithee. Un deuxieme changement concerne la theorie des syzygies (les couples antagonistes),les "paria"en R. L'interpretationqui en est donnee depend d'un principe qui caracterise la pensee de l'auteur de R: "Dieu a donne a chacun le pouvoir de son libre arbitre". Or, prevoyant que le pouvoir de decider librement aurait eu pour consequence la repartition de l'espece humaine en deux camps ceux qui choisiraientle bien et ceux qui choisiraientle mal), (in duosordines: Dieu accorda a chaque camp la liberte de choisir le lieu et le roi qu'il voudrait (cf. en H XX,2,5, les deux rois). Le bon roi prend plaisir aux bons, le mechant aux mechants (R 111,52,3-5).Les dix paires s'inscrivent dans ce contexte (leur liste est citee en R 111,61,1-3).Dieu les a etablies avant tout pour mettre a 1'epreuvele siecle present. Sachant que dans ces paires celui qui se presente le premier vient du Malin, le second vient du Bon, chaque homme est en mesure d'exercer un juste discernemententre Simon et Pierre (cf. R 111,59,1-2).Ce meme critere permet, en second lieu, de faire la difference entre les prodiges accomplis par Simon et les prodiges accomplis par Pierre. Etant donne que le premier vient du Malin et le second du Bon, les prodiges de Simon nulliprosunt,les prodiges de Pierre hominibus prosunt(R 111,59,11).Il n'est donc pas avantageuxde suivre Simon. en R concere les debats entre Pierre et Le cadrespcifiquede l'opposition Simon a Cesaree. Apres une exhortationpreliminairede Pierre sur les conditions pour avoir la paix (cf. R 11,20,1-35,6, qui n'a pas de veritable parallele en H), les discussions en R sont au nombre de cinq. La premiere journee (R II,19,3-70,6) enregistre deux debats. Le premier concerne l'unite de Dieu (= these de Pierre)et l'existence d'un Dieu supreme, le Dieu inconnu, superieur au Dieu qui a cree le monde (= these de Simon) (cf. R II,36,5-48,4). Base de la discussion: "les Ecritures des juifs, dont l'autorite est reconnue" (R II,38,4). Le principal argument de Simon est la citation de Mt 11,27 par. Luc 10,22 (cf. R II,47,3). La matiere de la premiere discussion en R est repartie en H 111,29-58et H XVIII (cf. la citation de Mt 11,27 par. Lc 10,22, en H XVIII,13,1). Les discussions de Laodicee, en H, n'ont pas de textes strictementparalleles en R. Un certain nombre d'idees sont communes, mais les discussionselles-memes ont une autre allure et une autre forme. Le deuxieme debat de la premiere journee en R se deroule autour de la these de Simon sur l'existence d'une certaine puissance d'une lumiere infinie, dont la grandeur doit etre consideree comme insaisissable(cf. R II,49,3-69,4). La matiere de ce debat ne se trouve pas telle quelle en H. Deuxieme journee (R 111,12,1-30,9):la
346
REVIEWS
discussion porte sur l'origine du mal et le libre arbitre (R III,12-26). La troisiemejournee (R III,33,1-49,1) comporte deux d6bats, a) la bonte et la justice divine, Dieu est a la fois bon et juste (R 111,37-38),b) l'immortalit6 de l'ame (R 111,39-50).Sur les deux attributsde Dieu, la bonte et la justice, voir aussi le debat de la troisiemejournee de Laodicee en H. Dans le deuxiemechapitrede sa dissertation(pp. 95-134), l'auteurcherche a identifier l'ensemble formeldans lequel s'inscrit la composition des deux personnagesPierre et Simon, c'est-a-direles formes litteraireset les termes ont construitconcretementles par lesquels les Homilieset les Reconnaissances deux figures, Pierre et Simon. Plus clairement: l'auteur demontre que la composition des deux figures prend tout son sens dans une comparaison avec certains types de personnages developpes dans la litteraturedes IIe, IIIeet IVesiecle, comme le philosophe et le magicien. Aux premiers siecles de l'histoire chretienne, en effet, il etait possible de confondre magicien et philosophe, magicien et thaumaturge (cf. p. 96). Concernant ces figures, D. C6te developpe donc une recherche exhaustive, du point de vue sociologique et religieux. La bibliographie a ce sujet, citee en note, est bien choisie et s'est revelee opportune, mise au profit. Ce qui rend le contenu de ce chapitre utile non seulement a ceux qui s'interessent aux Pseudomais a tous les chercheursdans le domaine de l'Antiquitetardive. Clienmtines, Le entremagie,religionet miracle(pp. 961) typedu magicienou les rapports 109). Ce probleme, dans le contexte litterairedes premiers siecles de l'ere chretienne, pouvait presenter trois aspects. Le premier: la magie etait nettement distinguee de la religion. Par consequent, les miracles n'etaient pas consideres comme des oeuvres de magie. En fait, les auteurs pseudoclementins opposent les signes et les prodiges de Simon aux signes et aux prodiges de Pierre (pp. 96-100). Deuxieme aspect du probleme: magiciens et thaumaturgesse confondaient. Les chretiens et les paiens presentaient leurs sages et leurs saints comme capables de prodiges, d'ou la rivalite entre thaumaturges et magiciens. A cause de cette rivalite se posait la necessite de prouver la superiorited'une verite par des prodiges. Mais la foi populaire ne percevait pas la ligne de separation entre le magicien et le thaumaturge (cf. pp. 100-103). Troisieme cas: tensions et accusations reciproquesentre le thaumaturgeet le magicien. En fait, Pierre et Simon s'accusent reciproquementde pratiquer la magie. D'ailleurs, tout comme dans les Pseudo-Climenines, l'accusationde magie deviendraun theme courant dans la litteraturechretienne, apocryphe, apologetique et hagiographique. A l'arrire-plan de la confrontationpseudo-clementineentre Pierreet Simon, il faut supposer une accusation de magie a la maniere de celle que Celse
REVIEWS
347
lance contre les chretiens (p. 103, note 34: Origene, Cels.1,68,11-16). ou les rapportsentrephilosophie, 2) Le typedu philosophe magieet christianisme (pp. 109-134). Ce sujet est traite en deux sections: A) Par certains traits de pratiques ou de doctrines, le philosophe ressemblaitau magicien. On trouve, dans ce contexte, un expose sur le caracterereligieux de la philosophie et sur l'influencedu neoplatonismeet du neopythagorisme.Philostrate et Luciende Samosate,par les portraitsd'Apolloniusde Tyane et d'Alexandre d'Abonotichosattestentla tendance nettement religieuse,voire mystique de la philosophie de l'Antiquite tardive (pp. 113-123). "Philostrate,Lucien et le Pseudo-Clementont utilise les memes types un peu flous du philosophe et du magicien pour composer leurs personnages respectifs" (p. 123). B) La relation entre philosophie et christianisme.Dans ce contexte, l'auteur analyse le personnage pseudo-clementinde Pierre, en tant que philosophe, et il releve deux positions differentes(voir pp. 124-126 & 126-133): a) H et R opposent la sagesse de l'ap6tre et la paideiagrecque, la revelation et la philosophie. De ce point de vue, les Pseudo-Climentines n'appartiennent pas a la tradition d'un certain nombre d'auteurs, tels Justin, Clement d'Alexandrie, Origene et alii, d'apres lesquels il y a une relation etroite entre la philosohie et le christianisme(voir surtout Clement d'Alexandrie, cf. p. 124 et les notes); b) Par contre, d'autres textes pseudo-clementins presentent le personnage de Pierre comme un philosophe formel, Pierre a certains elements caracteristiquesdu philosophe (voir pp. 126-133). Mais contrairementa l'avis de D. C6te on peut se demander s'il y a une veritable ressemblanceentre l'activite kerygmatiquede Pierre et la diatribe des cyniques (cf. p. 128). Le troisiemechapitre de la recherche (l'oppositionentre Pierre et Simon: theme et variations),est une analyse comparativedes differentesversionsdu theme Pierre/Simon dans la litteraturechretienne des trois premierssiecles. Le mode d'opposition entre Pierre et Simon est compare a celui que nous proposent les Actes des Ap6tres,Justin, Irenee, la Didascaliedes Ap6tres,les et les Actesapocryphesde Pirre. La comparaisonperConstitutions Apostoliques met d'apprecier le travail litteraire du Pseudo-Clement. La matiere est traitee en deux parties: I. A) la forme initiale du theme (ActesdesApotres 8, les notices de cf. I. 1,26,1-3; 56,1-4; Dialogue120,5) 9-24); B) Justin (Apologie et d'Irenee (Adv.haer.1,23,1-5); I. C) la forme breve (DidascaliedesApotres et Constitutions apostoliques); II) La forme longue et apocryphe du theme: II. Actes de la des variante Pierre;II. B) la variante des Pseudo-Clinentines. A) I. A) Les traits qui composerontplus tard l'image archetypalede Simon apparaissent,pour la premierefois, dans le texte des Actescanoniques(8,9-24):
348
REVIEWS
Simon a) etait un magicien; b) a cause de ses actes de magie, il pretendait etre un personnage important, cf. 8,9; c) les gens de son entourage l'appelaient "la Grande Puissance"("de Dieu" est tres probablementune glose la grande Puissance, doit etre lucanienne, cf. 8,11). Or, le theologoumenon, autrement on ne precise, comprendraitpas son application au personnage Simon. Dans les textes chretiens d'originejuive (voir pseudo-clementinde Evangilede Pierre19; Hegesippe, martyre de Jacques, cite par Eusebe, H E la Puissance est Dieu. Dans les milieux de culture hellenistique, 11,23,13) la grande Puissance etait le Dieu supreme par rapport aux autres dieux: Dieu le "Tres haut" (Theoshypsistos), et le Dieu supreme etait un "Dieu inconnu" (cf. Ac 17,23: agnostosTheos).Dans ce contexte, Simon le magicien etait la manifestationdu Dieu supreme, le Dieu inconnu, c'est-a-dire, Simon etait la manifestationsur terre de la "Puissancecachee". I. B) Les notices de Justin et d'Irenee. Dans la tradition heresiologique, la notice de Justin (cf. p. 148 ss.), tres probablementd'origine samaritaine, representele premier temoignage concernant la these qui fait de Simon le chef de l'heresie chretienne gnostique. Simon et Helene formaient un couple gnostique: le "premier Dieu" accompagne de sa "Pensee premiere" (son emanation).Mais en ce qui concerne la venue de Simon a Rome, au temps de Claude (41-54 apresJ.C.), il s'agit d'une fausse information,basee sur l'interpretation erronee de l'inscription ("Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio sacrum")qui se trouvait sur la statue, retrouvee dans l'ile du Tibre. Or, l'interpretationerronee ne semble pas remonter a Justin lui-meme, mais a la secte simonienne, qui se trouvait a Rome, au temps de Justin. D'apres Irenee (p. 153 ss.), Simon est le pere de la chamnedes heresies dans l'Eglise (cf. Adv.haer.1,23,2). Deux elements en relief dans cette notice: Simon est la "sublimissimaVirtus"(1,23,1)et la figure du sauveurgnostique;il delivre Helene-Ennoia (tombee sur terre) de ses liens et procure le salut aux hommes par la connaissancede lui-meme (1,23,3).A la suite de ce chapitre d'Irenee, notons que la doctrine concernant l'existence d'un Pere "inconnu de tous" remonte a la tradition simonienne; en effet, cette doctrine etait enseignee par Menandre, un disciple de Simon (cf. Iren&e,Adv.haer.1,24,1). Mais il y a un troisieme chainon, qu'il faut citer, a l'origine du personnage pseudo-clementinde Simon (voir H 11,22,3 et R 11,7,1;cf. R 1,72,3), c'est-a dire le texte de l'Elenchos VI,9,1-2: Simon n'est pas l'Hest6s(la manifestation sur terre du Dieu inconnu), il n'est donc pas l'equivalent du Christ de la tradition chretienne. I. C) La forme breve: Didascaliedes apotreset Constitutions apostoliques (pp. La Didascalie des un de la texte seconde moitie du IIIesidcle, 157-167). ap6tres,
REVIEWS
349
s'inscrit dans la tradition de Justin et d'Irenee (l'heresie remonte a l'activite de Simon, aux originesde 1'tglise).Or, au chap. XXIII de la Didascalie, sont mentionnes deux affrontementsentre Pierre et Simon, le premier a Jerusalem (et non en Samarie), le second a Rome. Mais il est difficile de definir la nature de l'heresie en question dans les deux chapitres, XXIII et XXVI. II s'agit, en effet, de croyances et de pratiques melees, d'un milieu populaire de la Syrie. Toutefois, l'observance des preceptes de la Loi juive (les preceptes de la "Seconde Legislation")dont il est question au chap. XXVI, revele sfirementla presence d'un groupe de judeo-chretiens VI,9,1-2 (cf. p. 162 et la note 99). D'apres les Constitutions apostoliques Pierre rencontre Simon deux fois, a Cesaree (remaniementde la Didascalie), de Straton et a Rome. Le recit de la seconde rencontre suit le schema des Actesde Pierre(voir ci- dessous). La rencontre de Cesaree est celle dont il est question dans les Pseudo-Clnmentines. Notons bien, cependant, que l'ordre et le contenu du texte indique des Constitutions ne correspondentpas exactement ni au recit de H ni a celui de R. En effet, les participantsa la rencontre sont Zachee, Bamabe, Nicetas et Aquila; le debat conceme le Prophete de verite et la monarchie divine et ce debat se deroule probablement au troisiemejour des discussionstheologiques de Cesaree (voir supra),ou bien en troisieme lieu (cf. "kaitriton").Simon, vaincu par Pierre, suis'embarque pour l'Italie. II semble donc que l'auteur des Constitutions vait la Grundschrift pseudo-clementine (cf. note 115, p. 165). II. La forme longue et apocryphe du theme: A) la variante des Actesde Pierre.Cet apocryphen'existantplus en original,le texte-basepour l'analyse du theime de la lutte entre Pierre et Simon est celui d'une version latine du IIIeou IVe siecle: les Actesde Vercelli.Simon est le magicien des Actes canoniques, admire et divinise par les Romains: Simon est leur Dieu et leur sauveur (p. 172). Il est arrive a Rome, lorsque Paul avait quitte la capitale; Pierre averti par une apparition du Christ, est arrive a Rome, a son tour. Or, en ce qui concerne l'affrontementPierre-Simon, ce n'est pas de la sagesse des deux adversaires,ni de la superioritede leur argumentation theologique que l'auteur des Actesde Pierrefaisait dependre la victoire, mais de la superiorit6de leur performancethaumaturgique(p. 176, a ce propos, cf. supra,chap. II, premiere partie). Lorsque Simon s'eleve vers le ciel et vole au dessus des monuments de Rome, pour demontrer qu'il est la "Puissance"de Dieu et son Fils, l"'Hest6s"(chap. 31), Pierre par sa priere fait tomber Simon du ciel et met fin a la carriere du magicien (p. 183). On voit par la la fonction edifiante des Actesde Pierre(p. 186) et le propos de developper et d'embellirle recit des Actescanoniques, pour
350
REVIEWS
satisfaire,en particulier,la curiosite des fideles envers l'apotre Pierre. Pour ma part, sur la base des deux textes paralleles,H 11,22,3et R 11,7,1(Simon est la "Puissancede Dieu" et l"'Hest6s"), je mettrais en evidence qu'il y a une liaison etroite entre les Actesde Pierreet l'Elenchos VI,9,1-2, deux textes que l'auteur de la Grundschrift pseudo-clementineconnaissait sufrement. II. B) La variante des Pseudo-Clmentines (pp. 188-253) et leur originalite a la matiere avaient en commun avec les Actesde Pierre par rapport qu'elles (p. 190). Le rapportlitteraireentre les Actesde Pierreet les Pseudo-Climentines est presente par D. Cote (cf. p. 189, note 217) d'apres la these de Schneemelcher ("The Acts of Peter", in New Testament vol. II, Apocrypha, L'auteur la de a eu acces aux memes materiaux 1992, p. 274). Grundschrifi que l'auteur des Actesde Pierre,bien qu'il soit impossible d'en determiner la forme (p. 189). Les Pseudo-Clkmentines ont travaille la matiere qu'elles avaient en commun avec les Actesde Pierredans un esprit qui leur est profont le portrait le plus complet pre. Or, les Homelieset les Reconnaissances de Pierre et Simon. Le personnage de Simon est une synthese des donnies heresiologiques(p. 191); en rappelant ici, toutefois, que Simon est issu du cercle de Jean-Baptiste(H 11,23,corrige en R 11,8,1),un renseignementdont on n'a pas encore une interpretationsatisfaisante.Quant a Pierre,le PseudoClement en decrit beaucoup moins l'action apostolique que son action didactique et polemique (p. 198). Pierre est surtout un philosophe de la tradition des ecoles de philosophie de l'Antiquitetardive. Pierre et Simon, sous la forme du philosopheet du magicien, se ressemblentet se distinguent. Leur opposition est exprimee par la regle des syzygies, mais il n'est pas exclu, d'apres D. C6te, d'envisagerune influence du courant dualiste grec dans ses manifestationspythagoriciennes(p. 204). Le cadre specifique des deux personnagesest mis en evidence par leurs debats (voir supra,chap. I). Lafonctiondu themePierre/Simon. Pourquoi les auteurs de H et R ont-ils choisi les figures de Pierre et Simon? D'apres l'auteur de cette recherche, la presence de Simon dans les Pseudo-Climentines ne s'explique pas par l'existence d'une polemique antisimonienne ou antipaulinienne, voire antimarcionite (cf. pp. 218-35). L'auteur est tres sceptique surtout en ce qui concerne la polemique antipaulinienne:l'importance de cette these "ne tient au fond qu'a quelques paragraphes"(pp. 223-24). La fonction de l'ap6trePierre,par contre,ne presentepas le meme potentield'interpretations complexes que celle de Simon. La figure de Pierre, par ses doctrines et son action, est marquee par des traits qui remontent a la tradition du judeo-christianisme(cf. pp. 237-243, notamment a la tradition 6bionite, p. 239). Pourquoi Pierre precisement?A cause de son autorit6apostolique,
REVIEWS
351
comme il arrive, par exemple, dans la tradition du IIe siecle. Le plus grand des ap6tres fait face au plus grand des heretiques. Quel est le sens de la dialectique Pierre/Simon? Un sens fictif (cf. p. 249), qui consiste dans la schematisationde rapportsentre rivaux (p. 252), contrairementa la lecture historicisantede la regle syzygique,pratiquee (entre autres)par G. Strecker, qui renvoie a la polemique antipaulinienne.Conclusion (d'apresles resultats de la recherche du chap. II): derrierele theme Pierre/Simon se dessine l'experience de la rivalite entre paiens et chretiens, ou plus exactement, entre chretiens, magiciens et philosophes (p. 255; voir supra,p. 95 ss.). Cette interpretation,toutefois, de l'oppositionPierre/Simon dans les PseudoClEmentines peut etre difficilement acceptee sur la base d'une analyse crides textes. On est bien d'accord sur le fait qu'une polemique antitique simonienne directe n'avait pas d'interet historique. D'apres Origene, en effet, la secte simonienne n'existait pratiquement plus au IIe siecle. Mais ce qu'il restait de la figure de Simon etait sa valeur symbolique, en tant que l'initiateurde la traditionde l'erreur.C'est dans ce contexte justement que prend tout son sens la figure de l'apotre Pierre, l'apologete de la foi orthodoxe, representee par Jacques de Jerusalem. Cette representation remonte a l'auteur de la Grundschrift, tres probablement un judeo-chretien de Celesyrie, etant donne qu'il citait la source judeo-chretienne (preservee en R I, 27-71), ou il est question de la persecution de l"'ennemi" (cf. R 1,70,1 = Saul/Paul) contre l'eglise de Jerusalem. Or, n'est pas sans importance le fait qu'en R 1,72, le recit de la mission de Pierre contre Simon soit ancre sur le contenu de la sourcejudeo-chretienne.II doit y avoir une liaison entre la persecution de l"'ennemi" et l'activite de Simon le magicien, liaisonqui est bien indiqueeen H II,17,2-4.D'apresce texte, l"'evangile" d'un trompeur, qui a ete preche aux paiens avant la destructiondu temple ne peut que renvoyer a l'evangile de Paul, qui a precede la mission de Pierre aux paiens. Le mot "evangile"ne laisse pas de doutes, il a ete utilise expressement,Simon est le masque de Paul. Dans la perspective de ce texte, la periode toute entiere des origines chretiennes a ete contaminee par la predication de Paul. A la lumiere de ce contexte, il fallait demolir le fondement meme de l"'evangile"de Paul: la vision du Christ et ses revelations (cf. 1 Cor. 15,8; 2 Cor.12,1 ss.). C'est le but du texte de H XVII: la pretendue "vision" de Simon (Paul) n'est pas un bon argument en faveur de sa mission d'apotre. II aurait fallu l'experience directe du Christ, comme dans le cas de Pierre. Notons aussi qu'en H XVII,19,4 est cite le texte de l'epitre aux Galates2,11 ('opposition de Paul a Pierre), qui etait au centre de la polemique entre les deux factions, les pauliniens
352
REVIEWS
et les antipauliniens.L'auteur de R 111,49,5,pour sa part, appelle Simon "vase d'election" pour le Malin, une expression qui renvoie au texte de Ac 9,15. Or, il faut se demander qui avait interet a demolir la validite de la mission de Simon (Paul) et dans quel contexte. C'etait, sans doute, un milieu judeo-chretien dans un contexte de polemique antimarcionite.En effet, d'apres Irenee, Adv. haer.III,13,1, les marcionites affirmaient:"Solus Paulusveritatemcognovit cui per revelationemmanifestatumest mysterium" (cf. Eph. 3,3). Donc, seul l'evangile de Paul est le veritable evangile, par contre 1'evangile des autres apotres est un faux evangile, l'evangile des judaisants. Encore une fois est en question 1'epitreaux Galates,point de (a ce sujet, voir A. von depart de la theologie de Marcion dans les Antitheses Harnack, Marcion,ed. 1924, p. 81 ss.). Cela montre la presence dans les textes pseudo-clementinsd'un niveau antimarcionite,strictementancre sur le niveau antipaulinien.D'ailleurs, la polemique antimarcioniteapparait dans les debats theologiques de Pierre contre Simon (voir notamment: le Dieu bon de l'Evangile et le Dieu juste des Ecrituresjuives; les defauts du demiurge (le Createur),d'ouila necessite de postuler un Dieu superieur, le Dieu supreme; le demiurge a ete connu, tandis que le Dieu supreme est inconnu et la citation du logion: "Nul ne connait le Fils si ce n'est le Pere, et nul ne connait le Pere si ce n'est le Fils... (Mt 11,27; Lc 10,22); le Dieu supreme est un Dieu etranger, un autre Dieu, "allotrios", "allos", enfin de au Notons certains ces "heteros", que sujets par rapport demiurge). figurent dans un ouvrage anonyme antimarcionite,transmis sous le nom d'Adamantius,De rectain Deumfide, compose en Syrie, vers la fin du IIIe siecle: on rejoint par la le milieu d'origine de la Grundschrifi pseudo-clementine. Istituto Universitario Orientale
Piazza S. Domenico Maggiore 12 80134 Napoli
LUIGI CIRILLO
REVIEWS
353
Eric Osborn. Irenaeusof Lyons.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001. ISBN 0 521 80006 4 (hardback). Rarely has any student of early Christian authors identified more lovingly with his or her chosen patristic paradigm. This very circumstance creates a challenge in measuring the distance between the second-century model and its presentadmirer,between Irenaeusof Lyons and his Australian commentator. As the sole focus and the full content of the work under consideration,Irenaeus also shapes the very thought of Eric Osborn, whose writing literally exudes Irenaean density of mysticism, Irenaean vigour of affirmation,capacity of synthesis,and believing self-assurance.Rare are the lines of this brilliant essay which have not been enhanced by a spiritual osmosis with Ireneaeus'own aphoristictouch. A fascinatingquestion begins to lurk in the reader's mind: Are we not encountering here a Christian fossil brought back into the light of day through the tricks of a postmodernist magician? Does this author not speak like the fossil, and deliberately think like him? The literary fiction is too intense for allowing anyone to treat the essay as a simple paraphrase.All aspects of Irenaeus' intellectual creativity are analyzed with an unblinking determination, a performance which generates its own conceptual style. This is no simple semblance of a learned paraphrase, rather the substance of a religious genius takes on here a new life thanks to the enthusiasticcommitment of a contemporary scholar.The reader'squestionpersists:what kind of encounterwith Irenaeus is made possible in that circumstance? I venture a response: Trust the Irenaean Osborn, and you shall meet Irenaeus in person, redivivus, vibrant, with his original message that has not aged, even if it sounds alien to postChristian culture of this post-modern time of ours. A quick survey of the book in review confirms the first impression of an interpretivesynthesisin deep empathy with the chosen source of patristic thought. The study is presented in five parts, as Irenaeus' own masterpiece, AgainstHeresies,was divided into five books. The thematic display of the "fourbasic concepts"-"intellect, economy, recapitulation,participation" (2lf) at work throughoutthe Irenaeanexposition-is mirroredin the complex texture of Osborn's analysis.An oracular incipitof the Preface sets the tone: "In Irenaeus Athens and Jerusalem meet at Patmos" (xi). With such a pastiche of Tertullian's famous line the Melbourian veteran of early patristics-forty years of uninterruptedresearchin Greek and Latin Christian authorspreceding Origen-announces one of the main characteristicsof the presentwork:Irenaeusshallbe approachedfrom his own historicbackground. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
izgiliaeChristinae 58, 353-355
354
REVIEWS
He shall be understoodwith the concepts and the presuppositionsclarified for him by predecessorslike Justin and Tertullian. This is not a form of which was fashionable a century ago for contenting musing Quellenforschung the erudite passions of European philologists. It is a more philosophical analysis. Applied as Irenaeus himself operated with them, the "four basic concepts" help to retrace Osborn's essential project. The present author fears no competitors:"For much of the twentieth century no one wrote a theology of Irenaeus" (xii). Certainly, given the orientation announced by the author,one should not expect to find here an emphasison how Irenaeus was read by the followinggenerations.Only a few general statementstouch on the influence of the Christian leader who properly gave the Christian movement a theology capable of overcoming gnostic ideologies, a foundational event in Christian origins. The author also abstains from elaboratHow did ing abstract inquiries of a more conventional Dogmengeschichte: his of and salvationinfluence with unified vision Irenaeus deity Origen economy? Has he contributed to the theological definition of the human bodily condition as in Athanasius' incarnational soteriology?Apart from very slight observationshere and there the present interpretationis deliberately centripetal, or never tempted by any historical extrapolation (the latter is only admitted for non-Christianphilosophy leading to Plotinus). From the interpretiveplatform of his (or Irenaeus'?)four basic concepts the author never tires of "plunging",as he says, into the "jungle"of images and ideas covering the whole writing of Adversus Haereses.In a first logical sequence six chapters of the study roughly follow Irenaeus' own exposition: One God as Intellect and Love (27-40), one economy of salvation with God as "architectof time" (51-93), and with a recapitulationat once "inaugurationand consummation" (97-140). Another set of six chapters examines more formal aspects of the Irenaean exposition: chapter 7 presents the "logic and the rule of truth" (143-160); chapter 8, one of the strongest, describes "Scriptureas mind and will of God" (162-192); in the following of H. U. von Balthasar'sHerrlichkeit, chapter 9 adds interesting remarkson Irenaeus' "aesthetics"(193-210); chapter 10 and 11 deploy the rich thematic of Irenaeus'theological anthropology(211-246). Lastly, chapter 12 offers an appropriateinclusion, or in the author's words "a reluctant conclusion" (251), for the whole essay, by linking the many formal themes analyzed with Irenaeus' anti-gnostic notion of deity by which this optimistic thinker conceived all reality as participatingin God: "Irenaeus does more than any other earlier Christian writer to establish participation as a category of Christian thought" (258).
REVIEWS
355
On the last page of his essay, under the title "The Immediacy of God", the author repeats and amplifies the initial words of his Preface: "For Irenaeus, Athens andJerusalem meet at Patmos, as surely as the two great rivers meet at Lyons and flow on as one stream" (263). By that inclusion he stresses the consistent structure of his interpretation,attractive enough for opening the Irenaean world of thought for a gifted beginner or an occasional reader of patristic sources, but certainly an enchanting surprise for the experts, not used to such an inspiring empathy between a contemporary scholar and an early Christian source like Irenaeus. 7400 Sherbrooke Street W
#1125, Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R8
CHARLESKANNENGIESSER
BOOKS RECEIVED Apocrypha.Revue internationaledes littiraturesapocryphes/ InternationalJournal of ApocryphalLiteratures13, 2002, Turnhout: Brepols 2002, 326 p., ISBN 2-503-51277-1, C 46-A. Martin, 'L'historienne et les Apocryphes' (9-27); MJ. Smith, 'The Acts of Peterand the TwelveApostles,A Midrash of Matthew 13, 45-46?" (29-52); P. Zieme, 'Paulus und Thekla in der tiirkischen Uberlieferung' (53-62); A. Palmer, 'Les Actes de Thadd&e' (63-84); I. Karaulashvili, 'The Date of the EpistulaAbgari' (85-111); J.-N. P6ers 'Un element de christologie quartodecimane dans l'Epitre des Apotres: l'agape pascale comme occurrence de solidarite' (113-121); G. Lusini, 'Les Actesde Marc en ethiopien: remarques philologiques et histoire de la tradition' (123-134); E. Lanchantin, 'Une homelie sur le Martyre de Pilate, attribu6e a Cyriaque de Behnessa' (135-202); A. Kulik, 'Interpretation and Reconstruction: Retroverting the Apocalypseof Abraham'(203-226); A. Busine, 'Hermes Trism6giste, Moise et Apollonius de Tyane dans un oracle d'Apollon' (227-243); B. Pouderon, 'Etude critique: A propos de l'ouvrage recent d'Alberto D'Anna, PseudoGiustino,Sulla resurrezione' (245-256); J.-M. Roessli, 'Etude critique: 'L'Introduction a la litteraturereligieusejudeo-hellenistiqued'Albert-Marie Denis et collaborateurs' (257-278); Comptes rendus (279-324). Auernheimer, Birgit, Die Sprachplanungder KarolingischenBildungsreformim von Heiligenviten syntaktischeUntersuchungen Spiegelvon Heiligenviten.Vergeleichende in verschiedenen u.a. der Vita der Basis eines valenzproCorbiniani,auf Fassungen, Modells. einer Mit grammatischen CD-Rom-Beilage,Munchen-Leipzig: K.G. Saur + 4 S. Hinweise zum Gebrauch der CD-Rom-Beilage, Verlag 2003, 296 S. ISBN 3-598-73013-6, E 82 (Gebunden). Auffarth, Christoph & Loren T. Stuckenbruck (eds.), The Fall of theAngels (Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions VI), LeidenBoston: Brill 2004, ix + 302 pp., ISBN 90-04-12668-6, E 99 / US$ 124 (hardback). Augustinus: Sancti Augustini Opera, Contra Iulianum (Opus imperfectum). TomusposteriorLibri IV-VI, recensuit Michaela Zelzer (Corpus Scriptorum
Thus the 'Sommaire'; in actual fact, MitziJane Smith's article is entitled: 'Understand the Parable!: The Acts of Peterand the TwelveApostlesas Parable Narrative'. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available - online www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 356-364
BOOKS RECEIVED
357
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum LXXXV/2), Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2005, XVIII + 506 S., ISBN 3-70013228-X, e 89 (broschiert).-The completion of this first critical edition ever may be hailed as a remarkable achievement that makes available one of Augustine's little known but pivotal works. Bochet, Isabelle, Saint Augustindans la penseede Paul Ricaour,Paris: Editions FacultesJesuites de Paris (35 bis, rue de Sevres, F-75006 Paris) 2004, 122 p., ISBN 2-84847-002-X, E 12 (pb).-Introduction; Ch. I: L'enigme du mal et l'hermeneutique des symboles; II: Temps et recit; III: L'instauration d'un soi par la meditation des ecritures; IV: Phenomenologie de la memoire et "th6ologie philosophique"?; Conclusion; Bibliographie; Index des ceuvres; Abbreviations. Carriker, Andrew, The Libray of Eusebius of Caesarea (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae LXVII), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2003, XV + 358 pp., ISBN 90-04-13132-9, e 97 / US$ 121 (hardback).-Revised dissertation Columbia University: Acknowledgements (ix-x); Abbreviations (xi-xii); Preface (xiii-xv); Ch. I. Caesarea and the History of the Library (1-36); II. Eusebius' Use of Sources: A. Chronology of Eusebius' Life and Work (37-44); B. Eusebius' Use of Sources Firsthand (45-63); Appendix: the Phrase logos (kat)echeiin the Historia Ecclesiastica(63-68); C. Sources Outside Caesarea (69-74); III. Philosophical Works: A. Presocratics (75-77); B. Other Authors (77-125); C. Some Additional Philosophical Works Used by Origen (125130); IV. Works of Poetry and Oratory: A. Poetry (131-137); B. Oratory (137-138); V. Historical Works (139-154); VI. Jewish Literature (155-177); VII. Christian Literature and Documents (179-277); VIII. Contemporary Documents: A. Official Documents in the Historia Ecclesiastica(279-286); B. Materials in the Vita Constantini(286-298); IX. Summary List of the Contents of Eusebius' Library (299-315); Bibliography (317-338); General Index (339350); Index Locorum (351-358). De Brabander, Kris, Le retourau paradis. Une etude sur la relationentre la sanctificationde l'hommeet l'ascesesexuellechez Tertullien(Pontificium Athenaeum S. Anselmi de Urbe, Facultas Sacrae Theologiae, Thesis ad Lauream n. 193), Romae, 2004, xxvii + 351 p. ([email protected]).Dissertatio ad Doctorandum Sacrae Theologiae assequendum in Pontificio Athenaeo S. Anselmi: Introduction; Ch. I: Le vocabulaire de la saintete: analyse lexicographique; II: Le cadre theologique: l'ascese sexuelle comme instrument de sanctification; III. La pratique: l'ascese sexuelle comme expression de sanctification; Conclusion; Annexes. Doyle, Daniel Edward, The Bishop as Disciplinarian in the Letters of St. Augustine(Patristic Studies 4), New-York etc.: Peter Lang 2002, xxi + 396
358
BOOKS RECEIVED
pp., ISBN 0-8204-6130-X, E 74,70-Thematic study, mainly based on the correspondance of Augustine in which he reacts to concrete issues and difficulties:Acknowledgements(xi-xiii);List of Abbrevations(xv);Introduction (xvii-xxi);Ch. I: The Language of Discipline (1-26); II: A Lexical Study of Disciplina(27-61);III: Augustineand Roman Law (63-118);IV: The Motives for Discipline (119-164);V: Church Order: The Organisationof Discipline (165-222);VI: Doctrinal Discipline (223-282);VII: PastoralDiscipline (283359); VIII: Conclusions(361-369);Bibliography(371-388);Index (389-396). The bibliography and the index are respectively selective and defective; an Index Augustinianusis lacking. le Grand(Pierrede Cava),Commentaire sur le premierlivredes Rois, Gregoire Tome VI (1-116). Introduction,texte, traduction et notes par Adalbert de Vogie (SourcesChretiennes482), Paris:Les Editions du Cerf 2004, 266 p., ISBN 2-204-07367-9, E 24 (broche). Translated Gregory of Nazianzus: St. Gregory of Nazianzus,SelectOrations. Martha Vinson Fathers of the Church (The 107), Washington, D.C.: by The Catholic University of America Press 2003, xxiii + 251 pp., ISBN 0-8132-0107-1, US$ 36.95 (hardbackwith jacket).-Translation (with eluci6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, dations) of Orationes 26, 32, 35, 36, and 44. andCongregations. a Place Harland, Philip A., Associations, Claiming Synagogues, + 399 in AncientMediterranean Press XV Fortress 2003, Sociey,Minneapolis: ISBN of US$ 22 0-8006-3589-2, thirty) pp., (pb).-Maps (vii-ix); (List Illustrations(xi-xii);Preface (xiii-xv);Introduction:WesternAsia Minor: Key Center of Early Christianityand DiasporaJudaism (1-21);Part 1: Associations in RomanAsia: 1. Associations and Guilds: Varieties and Social Makeup (25-53); 2. Internal Activities and Purposes:Honoring the Gods, Feasting with Friends(55-87);3. Associationsin Civic Context: Symptomsof Decline or Participantsin Vitality?(89-112);Part 2: ImperialCultandConnections among 4. Imperial Gods within Religious Life: Cultic Honors (115Associations: 136);5. PositiveInteraction:ImperialConnectionsand MonumentalHonors (137-160);6. Tensions in Perspective:Civic Disturbancesand Official Intervention (161-173); Part 3: Synagogues withinSociety:7. Comand Congregations in 8. paring SocioreligiousGroups Antiquity(177-212); Positive Interaction: Jews, Christians, and Imperial Honors in the Greek City (213-237); 9. Tensions in Perspective:Imperial Cults, Persecution, and the Apocalypse of John (239-264); Conclusion (265-269); Appendix: Some Dionysiac Associations (271-275); Abbrevations (277-282); Notes (283-311); Bibliographies (313-378); Index of Ancient Sources (379-391); Index of Subjects (393-399).
BOOKS RECEIVED
359
Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter & Volker Henning Drecol, Pneumatolgiein der AltenKirche(Traditio christiana XII), Bern etc.: Peter Lang 2004, LIX + 372 S., ISBN 3-906768-73-2,E 74,10 (hardback).-'Erstmalsliegt mit diesem Band eine umfassende Textsammlung zur Pneumatologie in der Alten Kirche vor. Die Texte umfassen die fruhen Schriften vom Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts bis hin zu Augustin. Der Band ist in drei Teile gegliedert: Zusammenhang der Pneumatologie mit der Kirche und ihrer Geschichte sowie der Heiligen Schrift; zentrale Bedeutung der Pneumatologie fir die Beschreibungdes neuen Lebens als Christin bzw. Christ, d.h. Erleuchtung und Heiligung; trinitatstheologischeReflexion im Blick auf den Heiligen Geist. Deutlich wird, daB die Pneumatologiezu den umstrittenstenFeldern in der Alten Kirche gehorte. Es war lange Zeit unklar, was als kirchliche Lehre akzeptiertwiirde. Neben griechischenund lateinischen Quellen werden daher auch einige syrische und koptische Quellen prasentiert. Alle Texte sind ubersetzt und knapp kommentiert. Eine zusammenfassende Einleitungund eine umfangreicheBibliographiemachen das Werk zu einem wertvollen Arbeitsinstrument'.Eine mustergultigeund bleibend wertvolle diese Neuerscheinung Ausgabe in der bewahrten Reihe Traditiochristiana; ist auch in franzosischerFassung erhaltlich. for the Christian Religion.A Studyof Heering, J.P., Hugo Grotiusas Apologist his WorkDe veritatereligionischristianae(1640) (Studies in the History of Christian Thought CXI), Leiden-Boston:Brill 2004, xxiv + 8 ill. + 267 pp., ISBN 90-04-13703-3, E 103 / US$ 129 (hardback).-This book, originally a dissertationdefended at Leiden University and now finely translated from the Dutch by J.C. Grayson, e.g. indicates how often Grotius referred to classical and patristic works (read Corpus Hermeticum for Corpus Hermeticus [142]). und die Samaritanerin bei Juvencus. Heinsdorff, Cornel, Christus,Nikodemus Mit einemAnhangzur lateinischen Evangelienvorlage (Untersuchungenzur antiken Literaturund Geschichte 67), Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter 2003, VIII + 494 S., ISBN 3-11-017851-6, E 118 (Leinen). Jones, F. Stanley (ed.), WhichMary?TheMa?ysof EarlyChristianTradition (Society of Biblical Literature, Symposium Series 19), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2002, X + 141 pp., ISBN 1-58983-043-1, US$ 29.95 (pb).-Fine collection of essays, originatingfrom the Christian Apocrypha Section at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the SBL: F. StanleyJones, Introduction (1-4); SJ. Shoemaker, A Case of Mistaken Identity? Naming the Gnostic Mary (5-30); A. Marjanen, The Mother of Jesus or the Magdalene? The Identity of Mary in the So-Called Gnostic Christian Texts (3141); A.G. Brock, Setting the Record Straight-The Politics of Identification:
360
BOOKS RECEIVED
Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother in Pistis Sophia(43-52); Karen L. King, Why Al the Controversy?Mary in the Gospelof Ma[y (53-74); F. Bovon, Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip (75-89);J. Knight, The Portrait of Mary in the Ascensionof Isaiah(91-105); G.T. Zervos, Seeking the Source of the Marian Myth: Have We Found the Missing Link? (107120);A.G. Brock, Select Bibliography(121-130); Index of PrimarySources (131-137); Index of Modem Authors (139-141). Translatedby Thomas Justin Martyr:St.JustinMaryr,DialoguewithTgypho. B. Falls. Revised and with a new Introduction by Thomas P. Halton. Edited by Michael Slusser (Selections from the Fathers of the Church 3), Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press 2003, xvi + 229 pp., ISBN 0-8132-1342-8, US$ 24.95 (pb). on the Gospelof John Kalantzis, George, Theodore of Mopsuestia.Commentagy St Pauls Publications Christian Studies 2004, ix + 165 (Early 7). Sydney: in the notable ISBN 0 9577483 9 volume AUS$38 6, (pb).-Another pp., the started some Centre for Christian Studies at series Early years ago by the AustralianCatholic University. It consists of a lengthy Introduction(337), English translation of the work based on Devreesse's critical edition (41-146), Appendix on the Syriac version (149-153), and brief Bibliography. of DivineLife in Cyrilof Alexandria Keating, Daniel A., The Appropriation (Oxford Theological Monographs),Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004, x + 315 pp., ISBN 0-19-926713-8, f 55,00 (clothboundwith bookjacket).OriginallydissertationUniversity of Oxford (Thomas G. Weinandy; examiners: Frances Young and Mark Edwards):Introduction; 1. The Divine Plan of Salvationin Cyril; 2. The Gift of the Divine Life; 3. The Reception of Divine Life; 4. Partakersof the Divine Nature; 5. Conclusions: Cyril's Narrativeof Divine Life; 6. Cyril in Comparison:Theodore of Mopsuestia; Augustine of Hippo; Leo the Great; Application to East-WestDifferences. Bibliography.Index of Citations of Cyril's Biblical Commentaries;General Index. Lupieri, Edmondo, The Mandaeans.The Last Gnostics,Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany 2002, xix + 273 pp., ISBN 0-8028-3924-X, US$ 25 / ? 18.99 (hardcover with jacket).-Useful and up-to-date introduction to a fascinating branch of Gnosticism, originally published in Italian, and finely translated into English by Charles Hindley: Preface to the Italian Edition (ix-xii);Preface to the American Edition (xiii-xv);Prologue (xvi-xix);PartI. History:1. The Mandaeans(3-60);2. The Mandaeansand the West:A Historyof Interaction
BOOKS RECEIVED
361
(61-126); 3. Legends and History(127-172); Part II: The Texts (An Anthology) (175-260); Glossary (261-265); Index (266-273). MelanchthonsBriefwechsel,Band T 5, Texte 1110-1394 (1531-1533), bearbeitet von Walter Thiiringer unter Mitwirkung von Christine Mundhenk, Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: frommann-holzboog 2003, 552 S., ISBN 3-77282022-0, ? 258 (Geb.).-Neuer und eindrucksvoller Band der kritischen und kommentierten Gesamtausgabe von Melanchthons Briefwechsel, mit sorgfaltigen Quellennachweisen der vielen klassischen, aber in diesen Jahren relativ selten von M. erwahnten patristischen Autoren: Augustin (nur 1 x, sondern mit weiterfuhrender Diskussion in der beruhmten Brief vom J. 1531 iiber iustitia/iustficatio an Brenz); Gregor von Nyssa (1 x); Pastor Hermae (2 x in Briefen an Spalatin anlasslich der in StraBburg 1522 erschienenen Edition: '<Pastorem> tuum <> remissurus eram, sed non potui eum repetere a Luthero. Nam is quoque legere voluit. Perlegi totum, neque quidquam inveni, quod ad haec tempora proprie pertineat. Habet imagines quasdam nascentis ecclesiae, et quod gentium ecclesia iterum dissipanda fuerit, sive per haereticos, sive per alias pestes. Haec est summa operis. Plane puerile scriptum est et inane'; 'Pastorem tibi remitto. <>');Sokrates Scholasticus (1 x). Peterson, Erik, TheologischeTraktate.Mit einer Einleitungvon BarbaraNichtweiJ (Ausgewahlte Schriften, Band 1), Wurzburg: Echter Verlag 1994, XXIII + 257 S., ISBN 3-429-01630-4, ? 39.90 (gebunden mit Umschlag); Erik Peterson, Marginalienzur Theologieund andereSchriften.Mit einerEinfihrungvon BarbaraNichtwei, (Ausgewahlte Schriften, Band 2), Wurzburg: Echter Verlag 1995, XVIII + 157 S., ISBN 3-429-01672-X, C 28.80 (geb. mit Umschlag); Erik Peterson, Johannesevangelium und Kanonstudien.Aus dem Nachlass herausvon Barbara unter Mitarbeit von KurtAnglet und Klaus Scholtissek Jichtweifj gegeben Band (Ausgewahlte Schriften, 3), Wurzburg: Echter Verlag oJ. [2003], LIV + 355 S., ISBN 3-429-0256-5, ? 49.90 (geb. mit Umschlag); Erik Peterson, Der Brief an die Romer.Aus demJachlass herausgegeben von BarbaraNichtweifJunter Mitarbeit von FerdinandHahn (Ausgewahlte Schriften, Band 6), Wurzburg: Echter Verlag 1997, XXXIII + 382 S., ISBN 3-429-01887-0, C 49.90 (geb. mit Umschlag).-Die ersten vier Bande des von Dr NichtweiB inspirierten und eindrucksvollen Unternehmens (cf. VC 47 (1993)101-102 fur ihre Monographie Erik Peterson.Neue Sicht auf Leben und Werk, Diss. Freiburg 1992). Band 1: TheologischeTraktate:'Was ist Theologie?'; 'Der Montheismus als politisches Problem'; 'Christus als Imperator'; 'Zeuge der Wahrheit'; 'Was ist der Mensch?'; 'Die Kirche aus Juden und Heiden'; 'Briefwechsel
362
BOOKSRECEIVED
mit Adolf von Harack und ein Epilog'; 'Von den Engeln'; 'Die Kirche'. undandereSchriften: I: ErlisungdesMenschen: Band 2: Marginalien zur Theologie der menschlichen Erscheinung';'Theologiedes Kleides';'Theologie 'Theologie 'Das Lachen der Kleidung'; Saras'; 'Der HaB wider das Fleisch'; 'Der Reiche und der Arme'; 'Ist er nicht des ZimmermannsSohn?'; II: Zeugnis Jfr die Wahrheit'Der Himmel des Garisonspfarrers'; 'Existentialismusund protestantischeTheologie'; 'Kierkegaardund der Protestantismus';'Apostel desIrdischen: und Zeuge Christi';'Das Zeugnis der Braut'; III: Transzendenz 'Der Lobgesang der Engel und der mystischen Lobpreis';'Uber die heiligen Engel'; 'Musik und Theologie'; 'Die Kirche aus Juden und Heiden im Ubergang 'AnJakob Hegner zu seinem 70. Geburtstag'; (II)';IV: Refexionen 'Fragmente'; 'Neue Fragmente'; 'Als ich gestorben war'. Band 3: JohanKarl KardinalLehmann, 'Zum Geleit';Barbara undKanonstudien: nesevangelium NichtweiB, 'Einfuhrungin die Edition'; Klaus Scholtissek, 'Einfuhrungin dieJohannesvorlesungErikPetersons';Teil I: AusgungendesJohannesevangeliums, Teil II: Kanonstudien: 'Die Geschichteder Entstehungdes Neutestamentlichen Kanons'; 'Die zwolf Apostel als Traditionstrager';'Papias von Hierapolis'; 'KleinasiatischeQuellen des Irenaus'; 'Caius von Rom und die Aloger'; 'Geistund Logos der Kirchenvater'.Band 6: DerBriefan dieRiner:Einleitung: I: B. NichtweiB, 'Stellenwertund Bedeutung der Romerbriefvorlesungen'; II: F. Hahn, 'Exegetische und theologische Aspekte der Romerbriefvorlesungen';III: B. NichtweiB, 'Zur vorliegenden Edition';Erik Peterson, Der Briefan die Romer. Socrate de Constantinople,HistoireEcclisiastique, Livre I. Texte Grec de l'edition G.C. Hansen (GCS). Traduction par Pierre Perichon (t) et Pierre Maraval. Introduction et notes par Pierre Maraval (Sources Chretiennes 477), Paris:Les Editions du Cerf 2004, 267 p., ISBN 2-204-07214-1, e 27 (broche). and Cognitive Sodergard,J. Peter, TheHermetic Pietyof theMind.A Semiotic the Discourse Hermes New Testament Studyof of Trismegistos (ConiectanaeBiblica, Series 41), Stockholm:Almqvist & Wiksell International2003, xvi + 268 pp., ISBN 91-22-02048-9 (pb). UberSozomenos,Historiaecclesiastica-Kirchengeschichte (Griechisch-Deutsch), setzt und eingeleitetvon Gunter ChristianHansen, ErsterTeilband (Fontes Christiani 73/1), Turnhout: Brepols Publishers 2004, 331 pp., ISBN 2-503-52126-6, E 35,42 (pb);Sozomenos, Historiaecclesiastica -Krchengeschichte Ubersetztund eingeleitetvon GunterChristianHansen, (Griechisch-Deutsch), Zweiter Teilband (Fontes Christiani 73/2), Turhout: Brepols Publishers 2004, IV pp. + pp. 332-665, ISBN 2-503-52128-2,e 35,42 (pb);Sozomenos,
BOOKS RECEIVED
363
Historiaecclesiastica-Kirchengeschichte (Griechisch-Deutsch),Ubersetzt und einvon Gunter Christian Dritter Teilband (Fontes Christiani Hansen, geleitet Publishers Turhout: 2004, IV pp. + pp. 666-947, ISBN 73/3), Brepols E 2-503-52130-4, 35,42 (pb); Sozomenos, Historiaecclesiastica-Kirchengeschichte Ubersetztund eingeleitetvon GunterChristianHansen, (Griechisch-Deutsch), Vierter Teilband (Fontes Christiani 73/4), Turhout: Brepols Publishers 2004, IV pp. + pp. 948-1164, ISBN 2-503-52138-X, e 30,75 (pb).SalamanesHermeiasSozomenos(etwa380-445)stammteaus einer christlichen Familie in der weithin noch altglaubigen Umgebung von Gaza. Seine geistliche und die elementare weltliche Bildung verdankte er angesehenen Eremitenim Umkreis seines HeimatortesBethelea. Von der tiefen Wirkung dieser Sozialisation zeugt der warme Ton, mit dem er in einem schonen Kapitel im ersten Buch seines Werkes die "monchischePhilosophie"riihmt. Die griechische Literaturlernte er durch intensive eigene Lekture kennen. Rhetorik und Recht studierteer wohl in Beirut. Nach 425 siedelte er nach Konstantinopel uber, wo er bei Gericht als Anwalt tatig war. In der Hauptstadt verfaBte er auch eine "Kirchengeschichte"der Zeit von 324 bis zum 422 in neun Biichern, von denen das letzte nur ein unvollendeter Entwurf ist. Neben auch uns bekannten Quellen (z.B. Sokrates, Rufin, Euseb, Athanasius, Monchsgeschichten,syrischen Martyrerakten)benutzte er unter anderem die "Sammlungder Synodalakten"desSabinusund zahlreiche Urkunden, so daB sein Werk fur den Historikervon groBem Gewicht ist. Ganz eigenstandigist sein Bestreben,die Gattungder "Kirchengeschichte" aus ihrer urspriinglichenBindung an die Chronistikzu losen und der klassischen Geschichtsschreibunganzunahem. Die zweisprachige Ausgabe in der bewahrten Reihe FontesChristiani bietet einen (nach Bidez / Hansen) verbesserten griechischen Text und die erste deutsche Ubersetzung der interessantenGeschichtsquelle. Theodore of Mopsuestia: Theodore on the Twelve of Mopsuestia,Commenta?y C. Hill Fathers of Church Translated Robert the by (The 108), Prophets. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press 2004, xiii + 435 pp., ISBN 0-8132-0108-X, US$ 49.95 (hardbackwith jacket).-First English translation (with introduction and brief elucidations)by the wellknown scholar and indefatigable translatorRobert Hill. Theodoret of Cyrus: Theodoret on the Lettersof St. of Cyrus,Commentary Paul. Translated with an Introduction by Robert Charles Hill, Vol. I-II, Brookline, Massachusetts:Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2001, 319 + 275 pp., ISBN 1-885652-52-6 + 1-885652-52-6, US$ 18.95 + 18.95 (pb).Two other volumes resulting from Dr Hill's project of translatingbiblical
364
BOOKS RECEIVED
commentariesof the Antiochene Fathers.Vol. I contains the commentaries Vol. II containsthe commentarieson Galatians, on Romansand 1-2 Corinthins; 1-2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Hebrews,1-2 Timothy,Titus, Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon. dansla liturgiedeJ&usalem, Verhelst, Stephane, Les traditions judeo-chretiennes la Liturgie de saintJacques frre deDieu(Textes et etudes liturgiques/ specialement Studies in Liturgy XVIII), Leuven: Peeters 2003, 224 p., ISBN 90-4291311-8, E 20 (pb).-Cinq prieres de la Liturgie eucharistiquede Jerusalem sont comparees dans ce travail a des parallelesjuifs: priere du trishagion, et ectenie. Une priere d'offrande,confession penitentielle, synaptiecatholique deuxieme partie, limitee a un seul chapitre, aborde de maniere plus synthetique le probleme de savoir qui est a l'origine de ces traditions"judeochretiennes":Section I: Prieres d'originejuive; Section II: Elements d'interpretation:un judaisme chretien au IVe s. en Palestine?;Annexes. Winter, Bruce W., RomanWives,RomanWidows.The Appearance of New Grand Rapids / Cambridge, UK: EerdWomenand thePaulineCommunities, mans Publishing Company 2003, xvii + 236 pp., ISBN 0-8028-4971-1, US$ 26.00 / ? 18.99-Preface (xi-xv); Abbrevations (xvi-xvii); 1. The Searchfor a Setting(1-14);PartI: 2. The Appearanceof New Wives (17-38); 3. New Wives and New Legislation(39-58);4. New Wives and Philosophical Responses (59-74); Part II: 5. The Appearance of Unveiled Wives in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (77-96);6. Deciphering the MarriedWoman's Appearance, 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (97-122); 7. The Appearance of Young Widows, 1 Timothy 5:11-15 (123-140); 8. The Appearance of Young Wives, Titus 2:3-5 (141-169); Part III: 9. The Appearance of Women in the Public Sphere (173-204);Appendix:Women in Civic Affairs(205-211);Bibliography (212-223); Index of Subjects (224-227); Index of Modern Authors (228230); Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Sources (231-236). J. VAN OORT
[email protected]
INSTRUCTIONS
TO AUTHORS
(1) Contributionsshould be submittedin duplicateand be accompaniedby a disk.Both WordPerfect and Microsoft Word are accepted word-processingprograms. ASCII-formatted disks are also accepted. Contributions submitted should not have been published elsewhere. (2) Manuscriptsshould be printed with a wide margin and double space between the lines. Please use one side of the paper only. The first page should have ample space at the top around the title. (3) Titles should be as short as possible. (4) Italics should be used sparingly (but see below nrs. 6 and 7). (5) Latin quotations should be underlined to be printed in italics. Syriac, Hebrew and Coptic quotations should be transcribed. (6) References should be given in footnotes with continuous numbering. Titles of books and of jourals (not of papers in journals) should be in italics to be printed in italics. For example: H.A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the ChurchFathers1 (Cambridge, Mass. 41964) 106-111. L.W. Barnard, "The Antecedents of Arius," VigiliaeChristianae 24 (1970) 172-188. Gregory of Nyssa, De hom.opif. 24 (PG 44,212D) - Greg.Nyss. Hom. opif. 24 (PG 44,212D). Tertullian, Adv.Marc.4,28,1 - Tert. Adv.Marc.4,28,1. (7) Correction. Authors are requested to check their manuscripts,and especially their quotations, most carefully, and to type out all Greek, as later corrections in the proof stage are expensive and time-consuming. Corrections by which the original text is altered will be charged. (8) Offprints.Contributorswill receive 25 offprintsfree of charge for articles and 8 free offprints for reviews.
? Copyright 2004 by Koninklike Brill NV, Leiden,TheNetherlands storedin a retrieval All rightsreserved. No part of thispublication translated, system, may be reproduced, in anyform or by any means,electronic, or transmitted mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, withoutpriorwrittenpermission of thepublisher. recording to photocopy itemsfor internal Authorization personaluse is grantedby Brillprovidedthatthe appropriate Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, fees arepaid directlyto Copyright Suite910, Danvers,MA 01923, USA. Feesare subjectto change.
ISSN 0042-6032 (print version) ISSN 1570-0720 (online version)
This journal is printed on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS D.T. RUNIA, Eric Osborn: a Tribute .................................................. D.T. RUNIA, Clement of Alexandria and the Philonic Doctrine of the Divine Power(s) ............. ........................................ D. LEE, In the spirit of Truth: Worship and Prayer in the Gospel of John and the Early Fathers ..................................................... D.I. RANKIN,Class Distinction as a Way of Doing Church: The Early Fathers and the Christian plebs .................................................... T. KLIBENGAJTIS, Die
Wahrheitsbezeichnungen
des Clemens
................................................................................................
Books Received ....................................................................................
256 277 298
von
Alexandrien in ihrem philosophischen und theologischen Kontext Review s
242
316 332 356
Ch
ristianae A
Review
Early
of
Christian
Life
Language
and
VOL.
LVIII
NO.
4
2004
www.brill.nl
BRILL LEIDEN-BOSTON
VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE a review of Early Christian Life and Language EDITORS-IN-CHIEF:J. DEN BOEFT,Amsterdam, J. VAN OORT,Utrecht/Nijmegen, W.L. PETERSEN, State College, Pennsylvania, D.T. RUNIA,Melbourne, C. SCHOLTEN, Koln, J.C.M. VAN WINDEN, Leiden EDITORS:A. Le Boulluec (Paris) - A. Davids (Nijmegen) - R.M. Grant (Chicago) ASSOCIATE Marguerite Harl (Paris) - J.-P. Mahe (Paris) -Elaine Pagels (Princeton) G. Rouwhorst (Utrecht) - R. Staats (Kiel) SCOPE: This quarterly journal contains articles and short notices of an historical and cultural, linguistic or philological nature on Early Christian literatureposterior to the New Testament in the widest sense of the word, as well as on Christian epigraphy and archaeology. Church and dogmatic history will only be dealt with if they bear directly on social history; Byzantine and Mediaeval literature only in so far as it exhibits continuity with the Early Christian period. The journal will also contain reviews of importantstudies, published elsewhere. Each volume appears in 4 quarterly issues. MANUSCRIPTS: All manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be sent to the Secretary of the Editorial Board, Professor J. den Boeft, Commanderijpoort4-6, 2311 WB Leiden, The Netherlands. Books for review should be sent to Professor J. van Oort, Department of Ecclesiastical History, P.O. Box 80105, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. Brill Academic Publishers PUBLISHER: PUBLISHED: Four times a year: February, May, August and November SUBSCRIPTIONS: The subscription price of Volume 59 (2005) is EUR 214.- (US $ 268.-) for institutions, and EUR 105.- (US$ 131.-) for individuals, inclusive of postage and handling charges. All prices are exclusive of VAT in EU-countries (VAT not applicable outside the EU). Subscription orders are accepted for complete volumes only. Orders take effect with the first issue of any year. Orders may also be entered on an automatic continuing basis. Cancellations will only be accepted if they are received before October 1st of the year preceding the year in which the cancellation is to take effect. Claims for missing issues will be met, free of charge, if made within three months of dispatch for European customers and five months for customers outside Europe. Once the issue is published the actual dates of dispatch can be found on our website: www.brill.nl. Subscription orders may be made via any bookseller or subscription agency, or direct to the publisher. OFFICES: The Netherlands U.S.A. Brill Academic Publishers Brill Academic Publishers Inc. 112 Water Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 9000 2300 PA Leiden Boston, MA 02109 Tel: +31 71 535 35 66 Tel: 1-800-962-4406 (toll free) Fax: +31 71 531 75 32 Fax: (617) 263 2324 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] BACK VOLUMES: Back volumes of the last two years are available from Brill: please contact our customer services department. For back volumes of the preceding years please contact: Swets & Zeitlinger. P.O. Box 830, 2160 SZ, Lisse, The Netherlands. BACKISSUES: Back issues of the current and last two years are available from Brill. VISIT THE BRILL WEBSITE: WWW.BRILL.NL
BRILL LEIDEN * BOSTON
BARNABAS 4.6B: THE EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUAL PROBLEM BY
JAMES N. RHODES early Christian writings the Epistleof Barnabasis remarkable for the claim that Israel lost its covenant forever at Sinai because of its worship of the golden calf. What is less clear is whether Barnabas'sinterest in this event is driven primarily by polemical, paraenetic, or abstract theological concerns. Contributing to this uncertainty is a notorious text-critical problem at Barn.4.6b where the author first raises the issue of Israel'sdebacle at Sinai. Although commentators have shown a pronounced preference for the reading preserved by the Latin version of Barnabas,this article concludes that the deference shown to the Latin reading is unwarranted. The author postulates a conservative emendation of the Greek text as superior to the Latin reading on both transcriptionaland exegetical grounds. ABSTRACT: Among
Introduction One of the passages most directly relevant to an assessment of the purpose of the Epistle of Barnabasis Barn. 4.6b-8. It is here that Barnabas first appeals to the golden-calf incident and asserts that Israel has lost its status as God's covenant people. The precise point that the author wants to make depends to a great extent upon v. 6b, the text of which is highly uncertain. This much is clear: Barnabas urges his audience not to be like "certain people" (Xtotv), for to be like such people is, in the author's mind, to pile up one's sins. Such people apparently make claims about "the covenant"' with which Barnabas cannot possibly agree. However, the preIt is now widely acknowledgedthat Barnabasdoes not have a theology of two covenants,an old and a new, as one finds in the lettersof Paul or the Epistleto the derApostolischen Hebrews(cf.JohannesKlevinghaus,Die theologische ViterzuralttesStellung tamentiheOffenbanng C. Gutersloh: 44:1; Bertelsmann, [BFCT 1948], 18). This is especiallyclear in chaps. 13-14, where Barnabastreatsthe subjectof the covenantat length
? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
58, 365-392 VgiliaeChristianae
366
JAMES
N.
RHODES
cise nature of this claim and the identity of the claimants remain unclear. Are they Jews who claim that the covenant remainsJewish property?Are they Christians who believe that the covenant is irrevocably theirs, and that it could never be lost? Or are they Christianswho assert that Jews and Christiansshare one and the same covenant? These are just some of the possible readings of the text. Whatever the nature of the claim, it is Barnabas'sdenial of such an assertionthat calls forth his citation of Israel's apostasy at Sinai: "those people" (eKeivot, i.e., Israel)2lost the covenant completely, when Moses first received it. It is not hard to see that the author's counterclaim could function as a refutation of any of the positions mentioned above: the covenant no longerbelongsto Israel;the covenant In any event, the can be lost, the Jews haveno sharein the Christiancovenant. golden-calf incident is central to the author's refutation. This is the context within which the textual question must be evaluated. Although it is extremely difficult to translate the verse without presupposing a particularsolution, the rendering that follows is perhaps as neutral as can be attained by leaving the disputed words as lacunae.3 a a TotV, CtaotpeuovXaS C0l 6ootoi epoto) Uga.... . pO:XeItv VDVealZol; KaXi t)lO * * ci xiXo; n 8 tafl EKEiVOt xrai a&iapTXia; o{itYox daX' Ui)tv eyovxta itxt [* *] ailTTivXap6ovto;iir xo o Mcuoeo0;. &artoWXeoav
and concludesthat Christiansare the heirs of the covenantforfeitedby Israel(13.1, 6; 14.1, 2, 3, 5 [2x], 7; cf. 4.6, 7, 8; 6.19; 9.6). On two occasions Barnabas does, however, refer to "theircovenant" (4.8; 9.6). Some scholars find a real tension here, indica-
to theEpistleof tive of a lapse on the part of the author (Carl F. Andry, Introduction Barnabas[Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1949], 157) or his use of underlying sources that reflect a two-covenant theology (e.g., James N. B. Carleton Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas:OutlookandBackground [WUNT 2/64; Tibingen: Mohr, 1994], 122). Nevertheless, the specification "theircovenant" can also be understood in ways consistent with a onecovenant theology. At 9.6 "theircovenant" probably means no more than "the covenant as Israel erroneously understands it" or "the covenant-relationship Israel thinks it has with God." At 4.8, the phrase could mean either "the covenant that was intendedfor Israel, but which it lost," or "the covenant-relationship that used to be Israel's." 2 This is required by the immediate context but is also one of the characteristic ways that the author refers to the Jewish people throughout the document (Barn. 2.9; 3.6; 4.6; 8.7; 10.12; 13.1, 3; 14.5). 3 The recent bilingual edition of Michael W. Holmes (TheApostolicFathers:GreekTexts and English Translations[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999]), itself a revision of earlier work by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer (n. 11 below), has been adopted as the base text for this study.
THE EXEGETICALIMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUALPROBLEM
367
I ask you... to be on guard now, and not to be like certainpeople,piling up * your sins, claiming that [ *] covenant [ * *] ... thosepeoplelost it completely in the following way, when Moses had just received it. Three different readings are attested in the extant witnesses, to which several conjectural readings may be added; these appear in the table that follows: Attested Greek Readings
C/H4: ulixv uiiv evet S/Kt5:iliiv Rev
Conjectured Readings closer to C/H or S/K
Ho6: 'ixv {iiv /ix3v Ievet.
Attested Latin Reading
L8:illorumet nostrum est.nostrum estautem,
Retroversionsor Conjectured Readings closer to L
GH/La9: KceivcovcaiiMixv. ilJi&vpv-
Iev
PK7: fOli&vl'niiv ieVL. i1CiOVRiv'
SB'?: nigv KcaiKceivov.fiov ev Hr"l:hivv /vestEKeivo;. f1mO)v E'v*'
4 Codex (a.k.a.Hierosolymitanus 54), discoveredby Philotheos Constantinopolitanus Bryenniosin 1873 and variouslydesignatedC or H in criticalworkson the Epistleof Barnabas. This manuscriptbears an internaldate of 1056. 5 Codex Sinaiticus,the fourth-century biblicalmanuscriptdiscoveredby Tischendorf and firstpublishedin 1863, typicallydesignatedt in editionsof the GreekNew Testament but often S in criticalworkson the Epistleof Barnabas. 6 Fathers(n. 3), 280. Holmes, Apostolic 7 Pierre Prigentand RobertA. Kraft, piftredeBamabe(SC 172; Paris:Cerf, 1971), 96. The text and accompanyingapparatusis the work of Kraft. Though the accessibility of this edition has resultedin the emendation'sassociationwith Kraft,it appears xoi iepoooto have been suggestedfirstby Bryennios(Alt&al Xv &J8eKca altoaTo6xwv,cK
VVVXpGorov X)DXitiKObXEIPOypW)aPOD) alorietcDeov, eiK6t6oRevinLera zpokeyovoVVowai
ev ol;
Kcail intsb 'Ioxwv.TobXpuaooot6oxoi, icaKati pog a&veKotri; uv6veo ri H.A.,vT~ airyKiptot . I. Bovxrupa, TovanbTxoauxovxetpoypadqpov ['EvKovaoavtvou6oXet: TvsGotS; 1883], 105). In his earlierwork, Kraft had favoredthe readingof C/H. Cf. Robert A. Kraft, The Its Quotations andTheirSources Epistleof Barnabas: (Ph.D. diss., HarvardUniversity,1961), andtheDidache(The ApostolicFathers3; New York: 29 n. 4, 131 n. 29; idem, Barnabas Nelson, 1965), 90. 8 The Latin Version preservedin Codex CorbeiensisQ.v.I. 38/39 (Leningrad)and Latinades originallypublishedby Hugo Menardusin 1645. Cf. J. M. Heer, Die Versio Bibel(Freiburgim Breisgau:Herdersche undihr Verhiltnis zur altlateinischen Barnabasbriefes Verlagshandlung,1908). 9 OscarGebhardtand Adolfvon Harnack,Barnabae Patrum Epistula. Apostolicorum Opera Fathers(2 vols.; LCL; (2d. ed.; Leipzig:Hinrichs, 1878), 16; KirsoppLake, TheApostolic Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress;London:WilliamHeinemann,1912), 1.350. 10FrancescoScorzaBarcellona,Epistoladi Barnaba (CoronaPatrum1; Turin:Societa EditriceInternazionale,1975), 133. " J. B. LightfootandJ. R. Harmer,eds., TheApostolic RevisedGreekTextswith Fathers:
368
JAMES N. RHODES
Commentators on the Epistleof Barnabashave overwhelminglyfavored the reading of the Latin version (L), or something similar to it, as James Carleton Paget points out.12 Gebhardt and Harack printed the simple icat ix&Lvlgt&v retroversion cKEivcov pxv, as did Kirsopp Lake in the widelydistributedLoeb edition. The combined influence of these two editions has virtually guaranteed a privileged status for this reading, although slightly different retroversionsof the Latin have also appeared.'3The conjectural reading of Scorza Barcellona postulates a reversal of the pronouns ix&v and eK1Cvcov.14Harmer's emendation seems to be an attempt to retrovert
the Latin reading without presupposing a strict grammatical parallelism
Introductions and English Translations(repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 246. The text of Barnabas is the work of Harmer. 12 Carleton Paget, Barnabas(n. 1), 114, with reference to the work of Hilgenfeld, Weizsacker, Miller, Windisch, and Wengst. The recent monograph of Reidar Hvalvik and Covenant: thePurposeof theEpistleof BarnabasandJeuish-Christian (The StruggleforScripture in the SecondCentury[WUNT 2/82; Tubingen: Mohr, 1996], 90) and the masCompetition sive commentary of Ferdinand Prostmeier (Der Barnabasbrief [Kommentar zu den apostolischen Vatem 8; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999], 208) also adopt the reading of the Latin version. In general, opinions on the question were more varied at the close of the nineteenth century (a consequence of the recent discovery of the Greek versions) and Carleton Paget's appeal to Weizsacker is somewhat misleading (see Karl Heinrich von Weizsacker, Zur Kritikdes Barabasbriefesaus dem CodexSinaiticus[Tiibingen: Ludwig Friedrich Fues, 1863], 10-11). The twentieth century, however, saw a general consensus emerge around the reading of the Latin version, and in the periodical literature on the Epistleof Barnabas,this reading has usually been accepted with little or no discussion. 13 Prostmeier (Barabasbrief[n. 12], 191) admits that this widely accepted reconstruction (fi 6tarilci eKiciVOv Kal igCOv.frltiv a.V- &Xa' ?KEiVOt...) remains somewhat inexact: "Das Problem dieser L6sung ist, daB das ?v sowie das korrespondierende adversative &Xad,durch die Partikeln autemund quiain L nicht gestiizt werden." He nonetheless favors the Latin reading on exegetical grounds. 14 Scorza Barcellona, Bamaba (n. 10), 133. Scorza Barcellona credits M. Simonetti with calling his attention to several contexts in which the Latin text has transposed the word order of the Greek, the most relevant of which is a similar transposition of pronouns at Barn. 13.1. This suggestion also has an older pedigree. Nearly a century earlier, William Cunningham (A Dissertationon the Epistleof S. Barnabas,includinga discussion of its date and authorship[London: Macmillan, 1877], 17) saw the merits of such a transposition when he proposed retroverting illorumet nostrumest as ilCgiviKat lcetvcoveaxrv, although he did not appeal to transpositions elsewhere in the Latin text.
THE EXEGETICALIMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUALPROBLEM
369
between "theirs" and "ours" that L otherwise suggests. The preference among commentators for the reading of L is curious in light of the fact that it goes against two text-criticalrules of thumb: the preference for the shorter reading (lectiobrevior potior)and the preference for the more difficult reading (lectiodcfilior potior).These principleswould be more easily ignored if the Latin reading could explain both of the extant Greek variants (C/H and S/kf), but it is not obvious that this is the case. Moreover, the idiosyncraciesof the Latin version leave room for questioningits fidelity to its For all of these reasons, the textual question deserves a Greek Vorlage.l5 fresh assessment. There are additional interpretiveissues in 4.6 that complicate the textcritical question. A particularlysalient detail is whether one construes tatIV as referringto the same or to differentgroups of people. While and iKEivot the demonstrativeeKEivotcan only refer to the people of Israel, TIotI may refer either to Israel or to a third party: ostensibly, Christians of whom Barnabas disapproves.Whether Xeyovxa;Oti introduces direct or indirect speech poses an additional complication. Although the difference does not affect all readings, it materially changes the meaning of some by altering the implied referents of certain pronouns. The analysis below will examine each of the attested or conjecturedreadingsnoted above, both in terms of its interpretive possibilities and in terms of its ability to explain competing variants. I hope to show how intimately connected the interpretation is to the text-criticalchoice one makes.
15 Most notable is the fact that the Latin version omits entirely the teaching on the Two Ways. Edgar Goodspeed ("The Didache, Barnabas, and the Doctrina," ATR 27 [1945]: 235) argued that L reflected an earlier form of the document to which the Two Ways material in the extant Greek versions was subsequenty added. This view is no longer considered tenable in light of the lexical and stylistic homogeneity of chapters 1-17 and 18-21. The extant text of L concludes at 17.2 with a transposition from 12.7c and a concluding doxology. With a single exception (9.2), L consistently renders 'Iopar^i as Iudaei (6.7; 8.3; 12.2 bis) or populusIudaorum(4.14; 5.2, 8; 8.1; 11.1; 12.2, 5; 16.5). At 5.12 L introduces an explicit citation of Isaiah 53.5b, and elsewhere it attempts to correct (4.3) or clarify (11.6) introductory formulae. In general the Latin version shows a marked tendency to abbreviate and to tidy up the author's rambling style. Changes of this nature are clearly secondary.
370
JAMESN. RHODES
PART ONE: EVALUATION OF THEPOSSIBLE READINGS
1. Possibleinterpretations basedon the readingof C/H16 C/H: epoTxi baS;'7 . . . epooeXEtvvvv
eautoi; Kcaigil 6bootooaOai TIatv, ettotopeVovTa; at;i &agaptiatl; giv AXyovra; 'Ot i\ t0ta0flcKl v#iv v#iv pe.vei. & aX' KeiKtvot oVtOx eiq;' eXo;aloeaav t& xo Moemao;. avTrlTv Xap6vxos;
I askyou... to be on guardnow, and not to be like certain people, pilingup is irrevocabl your sins, claimingthatyourcovenant yours.Thosepeople,however, lost it completelyin the followingway, when Moseshadjust receivedit. evaluation: The reading of C/H is inherentlyintelligible.(A) The Exegetical audience must not be like some people who took/take for granted that the covenant cannot be lost as a consequence of sin. The example of "those people" (Israel)shows that the covenant can be lost. (B) There is no obvious reason to construe xtotv as referringto a differentgroup than cEeivot, although such a possibility cannot be absolutely excluded. In either case, Israel serves the author as a negative example. (C) The construal of n v 8ta xqiiiiu#cv as direct speech seems less natural,but would make OUiV j#Ivel the same general point. The audience must not be like those who, in spite of their sin, assureoneanothersaying, "your covenant is irrevocablyyours." evaluation: Transcriptional Only with difficulty can the reading of C/H the Dbgv (D{g&v gevei) explain competing variants.The reading of S/t (i1gv be a could gv) transcriptionalcorruption,but it is not explained by a sinobvious mechanism. Moreover, the witness of L (illorumet nostrumest, gle, nostrumest autem)seems to corroborate the reading of S/M, albeit as part of a longer reading. The reading of C/H cannot account for the reading of L. basedon the readingof S/R 2. Possibleinterpretations S/t: Epiot()gS
... XPOecEtivviv xeaoiot KOcal Jl bgopoioW& i XttIV, tCoPpeC0ovxao
xat;sa&lapia;tS Gi6vXiyovraQoxt lT8taVlr i,u#ivgueva4X' CtEKEOIt ot05; e{i
&E&xaoav T1fjxo MOwuoxS. xT?Xo; a')ilv Xaxoj6vrxo; 16The translations offeredare basedon the editionof Holmes(n. 3), with modifications. In each case I have tried to render the operativewords in such a way as best brings out the exegeticalpossibilitiesof each text. The use of indirectspeechis presumed,with differencesgeneratedby direct speech noted as needed. 17 The text of C/H actuallyreadsEpoha6 & Ci&;... aapTiatS ilghv. The logic required by the interveningmaterialand the use of eporo& uga&Sat 21.4, 7 favorsthe secondperson pronoun,a probabilityacceptedby most editors.It is my intentionto focus on the variantunit that begins with it 6ta0lrl and ends with &aU'eKeivot.
THE EXEGETICALIMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUALPROBLEM
371
I ask you... to be on guard now, and not to be like certai people,piling up is infact ours,but thosepeoplelost it comyour sins, claiming that the covenant
pletelyin the followingway, when Moseshadjust receivedit.
If the S/t reading is to be syntacticallyintelligible, Exegeticalevaluation: it would seem to require that the assertion introduced by AXyovTxa oit includes more than just i18&ta tilci^iv !?v, for this leaves the iv particle hanging without completing an anticipated contrast. If, however, the speech continues beyond iv and includes the following {&X'clause, the results are syntacticallyintelligible but yield an impossible interpretation. Assuming indirect speech, the possibilities are as follows: (A) If "certain people" refers to Israel, Israel would be made to declare its own abandonment and the covenant as Christian property-a manifest absurdity. (B) If, on the other hand, "certain people" is construed to mean "certain Christians,"the result is equally illogical, for it appears to make Barnabas reject the theological position he himself espouses (cf. chaps. 13-14). The substitutionof direct speech produces slightly differentresults but does not ultimately produce a plausible reading. (C) If "certain people" refers to Christians, one is left with the same problem as before. (D) If "certain people" refers to Israel, "the covenant is in fact ours" could be construed as the claim ofJewish rivals,but the followingassertioncannot be accounted for. There is simply no way to make the a3' clause and the introduction of the golden-calf episode intelligible on the lips of a Jew, as the syntax of the S/k text seems to require. This reading thus fails to yield any logically viable interpretation.'8 The reading of S/A (hii&vi:v) is almost certainly evaluation: Transcriptional lack of Its intelligibilitydoes not allow it to be defended as origcorrupt. if inal, even one considers it the most difficult reading. To explain C/H (itd&v )iidv Ievet) as a scribal correction of S/I is not impossible, but neither is it obvious; it would, in any event, be only one possible correction. The reading of L (illorumet nostrumest; nostrumest autem)suggests the possi-
bility that S/k is the vestige of an originallylonger reading that did include lt&Fvue'v.Alternatively,there is the possibilitythat the reading of L is itself a clarifyingemendation of the obviously corrupt S/t, where illorumet nos-
18 Cf.
und neu erklirt(Forschungen zur Philipp Haeuser, Der Bamabasbriefneu untersucht
christichen Literatur-und Dogmengeschichte11:2; Paderborn,FerdinandSchoningh, 1912), 13 n. 3.
372
JAMES N. RHODES
trumest is created by back-formationfrom the sequence f{i6)v lv. a&X' est autem,quia illi).'9 iKEtvot(nostrum basedon proposed emendations 3. Possibleinterpretations of C/H + S/t Ho: ipoci&i)Ua ....poaXcetv Tai; &ajapxtat;bLc)v
vvmarVot; icaiCaL i Poiot,a{i tItai, tinaoape)ovta; *ev' iCT(v Vifiv .pevei. i{Lpv gp'v.
5 0tsl kiyovxaS 0xt i8&
eK?IvotoixTO;ei; XeXo;a&seav e oaivacf
6v o;v iixr^ To MMouaoS;.
I askyou... to be on guardnow, and not to be like certain people, pilingup is irrevocably your sins, claiming that your covenant yours. Yes,it is ours,but those
lost it completelyin the followingway,whenMoseshadjust receivedit. people
Overall, the possible interpretationsof the Holmes Exegeticalevaluation: emendation do not differ materiallyfrom those made possible by the text of C/H. (A) The audience must not be like "certainpeople" who assume that the covenant cannot be lost, for the example of Israel shows that it can. (B) Again, since "those people" clearly refers to Israel, it is simplest to assume that "certain people" refers to the same group rather than a third party. The addition of ilC)ov?Av serves as an added affirmationthat Christians rightly lay claim to the covenant, a concession that, nevertheless, must not lead Christiansto presumptuoussin. (C) If "your covenant is irrevocablyyours" were construed as directspeech, placed on the lips of presumptuous Christians, the overall sense would not change. (D) If the same statement were placed on the lips of the people of Israel, the funcicX would shift from a concession to a cortion of the ensuing iCvtv {Tv rection: "It is, in fact, ours;thosepeople,by contrast, lost it completely...." Readings involving direct speech are intelligible, if somewhat strained. evaluation. Transcriptional Conjecturalemendations such as the one under discussiondeserve to be treatedwith greatersuspicionthan readingsattested by the extant witnesses. This emendation is a conflation of C/H (t6{pv + S/A (fi&jv[ev), which allows it to explain both C/H and S/t btiv gLhvet) by parablepsis,though the precise trigger is less obvious than one might wish. It is unclear how this reading can account for the first part of the L reading (illorumet nostrumest),unless one entertains the possibility noted above that the reading of L is a back-formationfrom the text that follows. The possibility of such an emendation is less likely in this case, since the text as it stands is intelligible and thus would not demand emendation. 19
Shortly after the discovery of the S/A text, this possibility was noted by Weizsacker, Zur Kritikdes Barnabasbriefes (n. 12), 10.
THE EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUAL PROBLEM
373
vveavuoit mi plbIoptoba&xi PK:Epwoiby ... xrpeooeXe nimv, tacope6ovro; ieuv'v* irpv iiv t. Olt 8taia9icin 7iuc&v Ta;i alapliatS; -W-iv )XyovTas; xt o oto tXo; a&koaXoav icEivot Ei5 avtiv Xap6vrofijS MnxMoS.
'
I ask you... to be on guardnow, and not to be like certain people, pilingup is irrevocably peoours;Yes,it is ours,but those yoursins,claimingthat ourcovenant ple lost it completelyin the followingway, when Moseshad just receivedit. The Kraft emendation is, in essence, also a conflation evaluation: Exegetical of C/H + S/1, though it allows for the possibilityof corruptionby itacism in the extant reading of C/H. The interpretivepossibilitiesare consequently very similar to those generated by the reading of C/H or the emendation suggested by Holmes. The issue would be the sinful presumption that the covenant cannot be lost. In Barabas's view, either Israel (A) or certain Christians (B) have been guilty of precisely this. The former of the two possibilitiesremains more economical. The Kraft emendationis one readingwhere the differencebetween direct and indirect speech makes us aware of additional interpretivepossibilities. (C) Assuming direct speech: if "certain people" refers to the people of Israel, the text could be translated, "do not be like certainpeople,... saying 'our covenant still belongs to us."' Barnabas then corrects the assertion, "It is, in fact, ours;thosepeople,by contrast, lost it completely...." Such an interpretationchanges the significance of the passage to reflect a dispute over who had the proper claim to be God's covenant people: Jews insist that it still belongs to them; Barnabas denies this and attempts to prove his point by citing the golden-calf episode. Taken as direct speech, f 5&a0fiii-v Titv iv et could be construedas a Jewish rebuttalof Christian claims that the covenant is now Christian property or, perhaps more simply, an assertion of the ongoing validity of Israel's covenant status without direct reference to Christian claims ("we still have our covenant"). This possibilityis particularlyrelevantin light of the events of 70 C.E. One could even consider the possibilitythat something resemblingih&ta0fprl T6iv ll,iv M/vetwas the officialJewish response to that disaster, when God's fidelity to his covenant promises was understandablyquestioned. It would be a traditionalanswer, assertingthat even despite appearancesto the contrary, God's covenant with his people was indeed an eternal covenant (Gen 17.7, 13, 19; Ps 105.7-11). Barnabas would have considered this erroneous. The Kraft emendation thus poses tradition-historicalquestions that go deeper than the extant text of Barnabas.The wider context, even with Kraft's text, suggests that Barnabasis concerned with the covenant fidelity
374
JAMES N. RHODES
of his Christian audience (cf. 4.9b-14), but this does not exclude the possibility that the slogan is a carry-over from earlier arguments about who could claim to be God's covenant people. Such a slogan could have been, more simply, i 8tai lcrlit^iv gevet, "the covenant is still ours," or i18tarlic iD&v!ivet, "our covenant remains (valid)." evaluation: The Kraft emendation (uiilDvil\iv jF'vet.fCl&viv *) Transcriptional accounts for the shorter easily reading of S/t (njo&3v ?gVv)by parablepsis, The shorter triggeredby ifxciv. reading of C/H (6rn6vbliv ie'vet)may perhaps also be accounted for by a combination of parablepsis(triggeredby uiveI...!. v) and corruption by itacism. The likelihood that ilxuviliv could be corruptedto vij!v idiv is enhanced by the preceeding ipovn bil&a ... X1toepeiovTa; Trai;agapTiatS;Vogv....20
The Kraft emendation cannot
account for the first part of the L reading (illorumet nostrum est),unless one argues that a scribe was confused by the sequence gTl.... Xiyovxasoxtl 8ta0icrifLjvv i1iv guvet and iCL&v jgiv, which may have seemed like conIn assertions. such a case, a scribe could have "corrected"the tradictory first assertion to
W....
ayovxag5xt i 8ta0rKrleKcetiOVKaailg6)v by back-for-
mation from the second assertion (iVpiv!v
a&U'EKEIVOt...).
4. Possibleinterpretations basedon theLatinreading L: rogovos... ut adtendatis vobiset nonsimiletiseis quipeccatasua congerunt et dicunt
et nostrum illorum est.nostrum estautem,quiailli in perpetuum quiatestamentum perdiderunt illud,quodMoysesaccepit. I ask you... be on guardnow, and do not be like thosewho pile up their sins and claim that the covenant bothto thosepeopleandto us. It is ours, belongs becausethosepeoplelost foreverwhat Mosesreceived. It is immediately apparent that the L reading genevaluation: Exegetical erates different interpretivepossibilitiesthan the C/H reading and emendations related to it. The audience is urged not to be like those who claim that the (same)covenant belongs both to them (Israel)and to us (Christians). (A) It is improbable that "those who..." (eisqui) should refer to Israel, for it would suggest that Barnabas is telling his audience not to be like Jews who admit that they share covenantprivilegeswith Christians.(B) Construing "the covenant belongs both to thosepeopleand to us" as direct speech, placed on the lips of Jews, is improbable in the extreme since it would reverse the referents of the pronouns illorumand nostrum,making illo20
n as ... &aapXiat; Although the extant text of C/H paradoxically has ep(or& i;idgv.
THE EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUAL PROBLEM
375
rumrefer to Christians.21For these reasons, "those who..." probably refers to other Christians. (C) The author may have in mind Christians who maintain that Israel continues to have a share in the covenant (an interpretation unaffected by the question of direct or indirect speech). (D) Or estmight possiblybe translatedas "theircovenant testamentum illommet nostrum is also ours," a statement intended to stress continuity with Israel and the fundamentalJewishness of the covenant Christians now share.22 The Latin text has remained the preferred reading among commentators primarilybecause of possibilities(C) and (D). Some construe the text as evidence of a judaizing threat facing Barnabas's addressees.23Others find Barnabasattackingthe mainstreamChristianview of an Old and New Covenant, a view that sees more salvation-historicalcontinuity between Israel and the Church than Barnabaswould allow.24These interpretations apply to the Latin reading and/or the Greek retroversionof Gebhardticaii4jiv. ili#v uev.). Hamack and Lake (il Bta9%rq EiceiVov If the Latin is retrovertedas Gebhardt-Harack evaluation: Transcriptional and Lake suggest (ErKeivcv ic(XaitCiv.iig,sV gev.), one might derive the readof S/t texv)by corruption,but there is no easily determined trig(hgt6Cv ing loss of Olaiilxov. It is hard to see how one could account EEiivcov ger for the for the reading of C/H (ibgOvbg^v !lvet); one would require explanations both for the loss of cKEivcvKcaiand the corruption of ilxdv gL&vVto iDiv !evet. Such a corruption is perhaps not unthinkable, but needs gLWV to explain several discrete changes. 21
Barnabas consistently uses forms of the demonstrative eKeivot to refer to the peo-
ple of Israel (2.9; 3.6; 4.6; 8.7; 10.12; 13.1, 3; 14.5). 22
Cf. the similar range of possibilities discussed by Stephen G. Wilson, "Gentile
Judaizers,"JVTS38 (1992):612. 23 Cf. e.g., S. Lowy ("The Confutationof Judaismin the Epistleof Barnabas,"JJS 11 [1960]: 2) who states, "It is obviousthat Barabas's extremismis promptedby the fear of Judaisingtendenciesor even total conversionto Judaism."Similarly,in a series between 1958-1966,L. W. Barnardrefers of articleswrittenon the Epistleof Barnabas to the activityof "militantJudaizers."This approachis often (but not always)associated with the view that the epistlewas writtenat a time of widespreadexpectationthat the Jewish temple would soon be rebuilt.Hvalvik(Struggle [n. 12], 9-12) gives a judicious review of the numerousvariationson this theme. Vol 1. (2d ed., Freiburg: Literatur. deraltkirchlichen 24 E.g., Otto Bardenhewer,Geschichte VaterIII. Der HerderscheVerlagshandlung,1913), 104; Hans Windisch,Die apostolischen Barnabasbrief Tubingen:Mohr, 1920), 321-323; Klaus Wengst, (HNT Erganzungsband; desBamabasbriefes undTheologie Tradition (AKG42; Berlin/ New York:de Gruyter,1971), in dasNeueTestament, Literatur. derurchristlichen Einleitung 82; PhilippVielhauer,Geschichte Vdter unddieApostolische dieApokryphen (Berlin/ New York:de Gruyter,1975),605-607.
376
JAMES N. RHODES
5. Alternate retroversions of theLatinreading estautem) est. nostrum illorumet nostrum The extant reading of L (testamentum is retroverteddifferentlyin various editions of the Apostolic Fathers. The ai retroversion(i 8taGiir eKEivovria7Lv. iV ) is the most literal;Scorza RlxCov Barcellona'ssuggestion (i] ita&filli#,uv iai EKEcivov Isv ') postulates a il}tv reversal of pronouns, while the reconstructionof Harmer (il Staf icrlrj6v ie'veleKeivot1. ijtiOVev') avoids a strict grammatical parallelism between "theirs"and "ours."In general,these variationsexercise only a slight impact on the interpretivepossibilities;otherwise they produce readings consistent with the Latin version. Exegeticalevaluation:(A) If one postulates the word order of Scorza Barcellona's retroversion (il 8ta%rrli7uaivral EKeivvwv) one might possibly translate: "do not be like those who... claim that our covenant belongs to thosepeopleas well." This makes best sense if "those who..." refers to Christians,an interpretationunaffectedby issues of direct or indirectspeech. (B) It is unlikelybut not impossiblefor "those who..." to refer to the people of Israel. The author could have in mind Jews who continue to insist that they have not forfeited the covenant. In such a case the operative words must be taken as indirect speech whose actual force is something like "those who ... claim that the covenant (which really belongs to us Christians)still belongs to them." Something very similar seems to be sugThe same gested by Harmer'sreconstruction(i bctaoril ij pvgeveEleKEivoti). two possibilitiesemerge: in view are eitherJews who insist that they retain the privileges of the covenant, or Christianswho allow such claims. evaluation: The Greek retroversionspostulated by Scorza Transcriptional Barcellona (il 8ta90rTrirt,v rial EKefvov.ilI&V[ev.') and Harmer (l ?8ta"ricl i71iiv p,vel rKEiVO1. hi[t6vgv') share the same strengthsand weaknesses.In either case, the aberrant reading of S/l (hlCovgVv) is easily derived by parablepsis,triggeredby ilga&v.In terms of transcriptionalprobability,this is more comprehensiblethan if one were to begin with the retroversionof Gebhardt-Hamackand Lake (h 8taOIri- CKEivcov iKaii/-V. ilgDV v.). It is difficult, however, to see how either accounts for the reading of C/H (i18ta9irrl V,iuv Vi#vjievel). Summary of Findings In text-criticalterms, no reading or proposed emendation is clearly able to explain all the competing variants. The reading of C/H cannot easily
THE EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUAL PROBLEM
377
explain either the S/l or L text, and the converse is equally true. The reading of L seems to corroborate the S/R text but is also explicable as a back-formation from the S/l text. The L text is able to explain the reading of S/l more convincingly if L is retroverted as either Scorza Barcellona or Harmer suggests. The reading of S/R is grammatically intelligible but logically impossible. Of those conjectural readings based on the Greekwitnesses, the emendation of Kraft is perhaps slightly more viable than the simple conflation of Holmes. Although both can account for the readings of C/H and S/R, Kraft's conjecture is better able to account for the reading of L because it creates a potential confusion that may have given rise to emendation. When one considers the character of the Latin version, a clarifying emendation cannot be ruled out.25 In view of such textual indeterminacy, greater attention deserves to be paid to the internal considerations of the text. The above analysis has shown that the Latin reading is by no means the only text that is exegetically viable. While there are many possible permutations, in broadest terms, the interpretive options narrow down to two: (1) Barnabas is concerned with claims that legitimize Israel's status as God's covenant people. Perhaps Barnabas has in mind Christians who hold a traditional, two-covenant theology, a theology that legitimized Israel's historical status and cultic symbols in a way that Barnabas could never allow (e.g., Wengst).26Or perhaps such claims indicate a judaizing threat, stemming from Jewish rivals or Christians who are attracted to the Jewish synagogues (e.g., Hvalvik).27In any event, Barnabas considered such views to be dangerous. Interpretationsof this nature may be supported by the L text and its various retroversions. (2) Barnabas is concerned with the covenant fidelity of his own audience. He does not want them to assume that they can never lose their covenant status, because the example of Israel shows that it can be lost. Barnabas may intend to say that Israel was guilty of such presumption(piling up sin) or that certain Christians are acting this way. The former of the two possibilitiesis simpler. Such interpretationmay be supported by the C/H text and by the conjecturalreadings of Holmes and Kraft, emendations based on a conflation of C/H + S/R. One will rightly note the dramatic difference between these two interpretive possibilities, and their implications for the Epistle of Barnabas as a
25 See n. 15 above. 26 27
See n. 24 above. See n. 23 above.
378
JAMESN. RHODES
whole. It is, however, simply not right to say with Hvalvik that the second view, "which completely removes the polemic ring of the text, is most Since Hvalvik adopts an interpretivehypothesis that maxcertainly wrong."28 imizes the author'spolemic, what he really means is that the second interpretationis not consistentwith his interpretiveparadigm.In the paragraphs that follow I will call attention to other statementsmade by Barnabasthat lend support to each interpretation. PART TWO: FURTHEREXEGETICALCONSIDERATIONS
1. Interpretations alliedwith theLatinreading Klaus Wengst is among those commentatorswhose interpretationof the Epistleof Barnabasdepends significantlyon the L text of 4.6b. Wengst suggests that throughout the document, Barnabas argues on two fronts: he opposes aJewish approach to Scripturethat takes the ceremonial laws literally, and he opposes the mainstream Christian view that sees a salvation-historical continuity between Judaism and Christianity, traditionally expressed in terms of an Old and New Covenant. The Jewish front, however, is merely an abstractionthat facilitatesBarnabas'sargument against the Christian front.29Wengst finds additional evidence of this Christian front in 9.6 and 12.10.30In the former, Barnabas anticipatesan objection that circumcisionhad literal value as a seal of the covenant; in the latter he seems to accept the christologicaldesignation"Son of God" while rejecting both "son of man" and "son of David." It is unclear, however, that either of these texts will bear the weight that Wengst tries to place upon them. In 12.10 all that one can safely assert is that Barnabas rejects the titles "son of man" and "son of David" insofar as they are opposed to "Son of God" or construed as self-sufficient designationsof the Messiah. It is by no means clear that Barnabasopposes other Christianshere and seems more likely that he takes aim at the Jewish notion of a royal Davidic messiah who, despite being God's eschatological agent, is merely human. And as Hvalvik notes, 9.6 is adequately explained on rhetoricalgrounds, leaving "no need to look for a polemical front in this verse."31Hvalvik ponders skepticallywhether testamentum illo28 29 30 31
Hvalvik, Struggle(n. 12), 90 n. 33 (emphasis mine). Wengst, Tradition(n. 24), 81-82. Ibid., 102-103. Hvalvik, Struggle(n. 12), 93 n. 48.
THE EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUAL PROBLEM
379
rum et nostrumest is "the natural way of expressing the traditional twocovenant theology," implying that a dubious startingpoint has led Wengst and others down a blind alley.32 Despite his criticism of Wengst's conclusions, Hvalvik is no less convinced of the correctnessof the Latin reading at 4.6. Hvalvik is one among many who seek to explain the Epistleof Barnabasagainst the background of Jewish proselytizingactivity, although he prefers to speak in more attenuated terms of "missionarycompetition."33There is sufficient literary evidence to show that it was by no means unusual for Gentiles to be attracted to Judaism, although there is a vigorous, ongoing debate about whether one should speak ofJudaism itself as a "missionaryreligion."34Writerswho adopt some version of a "judaizing"hypothesis often place the Epistleof Barnabasagainst the backgroundof a renascentJudaismenergized by hopes that the Jerusalem temple would soon be rebuilt.35However, in Hvalvik's
32 Ibid., 91. 33 See the extended discussion in Hvalvik, Struggle(n. 12), 213-321, which is tided
"Judaism as a Challenge to the Early Church." 34
See, e.g., Scot McKnight,A LightAmongtheGentiles: JewishMissionary Activiyin the
SecondTemplePeriod(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentilein
to Justinian(Princeton:Princeton Attitudes andInteractions theAncientWorldfiom Alexander University Press, 1993), esp. pp. 288-382; Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer,
Die unbekannten PauluszwischenDamaskusundAntiochen. Jahredes Apostels(WUNT 108; Tiibingen: Mohr, 1998), pp. 101-132 ["Das Problem der 'Sympathisanten' und der jiidischen Propaganda"]. McKnight concludes that although Judaism was seriously and genuinely open to the participation of individual Gentiles, it would be misleading to characterize it as "a 'missionary religion' in the sense of aggressive attempts to convert Gentiles or in the sense of self-identity" (p. 117). Similarly, Hengel and Schwemer sugof Judaism gest that one does better to speak of the "attractive power" (Anziehungskraft) than of mission in the proper sense. Varying degrees of sympathy toward Judaism may be imagined in the form of concentric circles: those in the outermost circle will include syncretists interested in little more than the curative power of the divine name, while those in the interior circles will include Gentiles who devoted themselves exclusively to the God of Israel, attended synagogue regularly, and practiced as much of the Law as they could. Feldman, however, is willing to go farther, arguing that only proselytism can account for the dramatic increase in Jewish population during the second temple period, and that Jewish missionary activity was extensive enough to arouse antagonism, twice resulting in expulsion of the Jewish community from Rome. 35 The most recent, detailed hypothesis of this nature is that of Martin B. Shukster and Peter Richardson, "Temple and Bet Ha-midrashin the Epistle of Barnabas," in Anti-
andPolemic(ed. Stephen G. Wilson;Studies Judaismin EarlyChristianit,Vol2: Separation in Christianity and Judaism 2; Waterloo, Ont: Wilfred Laurier University, 1986), 1731; idem, "Barnabas, Nerva and the Yavnean Rabbis," JTS 34 (1983): 31-55. Shukster
380
JAMESN. RHODES
view, any dependency upon the latter motive is ultimately unnecessary. All that is required is the admission thatJudaism was still attractive to Gentiles, and that Gentiles who had been pro-Jewish prior to their conversion will have retained some of these sympathies and brought them into the Church.36 There are several things to be said in favor of this general approach. One could point first of all to the repeated distinction made between "us" and "those people" (iceivot). One could also point to the motif of "what God requires," a theme which drives repeated distinctions between the author's understanding of Scripture and Jewish "misinterpretations" of the same. Interpretations of Barnabasagainst a 'judaizing" background inevitably lay particular stress on 3.6: So for this reason, brothers, he who is very patient, when he foresaw how the people whom he had prepared in his Beloved would believe in all purity, revealed everything to us in advance, in order that we might not shipwreck ourselves by becoming, as it were, 'proselytes' to their law (ivac[il cpoov6op) [trans. Holmes]. xS;7tf'Xviot37 t ?K:iceivoV pTaooauge0a Those who see some form of judaizing behavior as the key to the Epistle Barnabas thus have a credible basis for their view. There are, however, of also reasons for caution. One of the most remarkable is the fact that the words "Jew" ('Iou8aios), 'Judaism" ('Iov8aaioaL6),and "judaize" (iou&a{uetv) are completely absent from the document; Barnabas refers instead to "Israel."38 Is this a natural way for a second-century writer to refer to Jewish contemporaries if, indeed, contemporary rivals are in mind? To say with Hvalvik that "not too much weight should be attached to this fact"39 is to let oneself off the hook far too easily. A comparison with Paul's Epistle to the Galatians is particularly instructive (cf. Gal 1.13, 14, 22; 2.13, 14, 15; 3.28).40 Hvalvik understandably appeals to Barnabas's undeniable polar-
and Richardsonarguethat Nerva'sreformof thefiscusjudaicusprovokeda wave of optimismamongJewshopingfor the rebuildingof the temple.Theirconclusionsare accepted in the main by CarletonPaget, Barnabas (n. 1), 26-28; 66-70. 36 Hvalvik (Stnggle[n. 12], 18-25; 325-326) rejectsas unpersuasivethe attemptsto read Barn.16.3-4 as a referenceto a rebuiltJewish temple. 37 S/a: tirntxUot; C/H: Xpoo'ir,Zot;(L:proselti).The two wordsshouldprobablybe consideredsynonymous. 38Barn.4.14; 5.2, 8; 6.7; 8.1, 3; 9.2; 11.1; 12.2 [2x], 5; 16.5. 39 Hvalvik,Struggle (n. 12), 140. One might argue that if Barnabasmanagesto avoid thesewordsso completely,the exegetelikewiseoughtto be able to summarizeBarabas's purposewithout recourseto these words. 40 Contrastalso the statementsof Ignatius(Magn.8.1; 10.3; Philad.6.1).
THE EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUAL PROBLEM
381
ity between "us" and "them" and his "consistenttendency to describe the Jews and their destiny in a negative way."41It is erroneous, however, to assume that such data can only fit the context of judaizing activity, or even a polemically "live"situation. "Israel"may be Barnabas'sway of designating not contemporaryJewish rivals but the biblical people of God, the nation whose temple lay in ruins. His negativity may equally fit a "christianizeddeuteronomism"in which the people of Israel serve as a tragic paradigm of those whose faith ultimately proved not to be salvific.42
It is this possibility that leads us back to the second interpretationnoted above. based on the C/H text or allied conjectures 2. Interpretations
The reading of the C/H text and emendations that incorporate it (Holmes, Kraft) suggest that Barnabas is primarily concerned with the covenant fidelity of his audience. They must not be like others who have piled up their sins believing the covenant could never be lost. Are there other indications in the text that accord with such a view? There are, in fact, several-all in very close proximity to the verse under discussion: (4.2)... Letusgiveno restto oursoulthat resultsin its being able to associate with sinnersand evil men, lest we becomelike them.... (4.9)... Let us be on guard in the last days, for thewholetimeof ourfaith will do us no goodunless now, in the age of lawlessness,we resist as well the coming stumbling blocks, as befits God's children, lest the black one find an opportunity to sneak in. (4.10)... Do not withdrawwithin yourselves and live alone, as thoughyouwere
41Hvalvik, (n. 12), 140. Struggle 42In an unpublishedpaper read before the 2002 meeting of the North American PatristicsSociety("WhatReallyHappenedat Sinai?:The EpistleofBanabasReconsidered"), I have argued that Barnabas'sstatementsabout the loss of the covenant at Sinai are best understoodas rhetoricalhyperbole,and that Barnabasactually believed Israel's relationshipwith God remainedintact until its rejectionof Jesus. Evidencethat points in this directionincludesBarnabas'scitation of authorityfiguresfrom later periods in Israel'shistory,his assumptionthat God continuesto admonishthe people and reveal his salvificintentionsin and throughJesus, hints that Barnabasknew of a gospel mission to Israel (5.8; 11.1; 12.2-3), and his thrice-madeassertionthat the sins of Israel reached their full measurewith the rejectionof Jesus (5.11; 8.1; 14.5). Since at least one first-century Jewishwriterdrawsan analogybetween the loss of Jerusalemand the destructionof the tablesof the covenantat Sinai/Horeb (Pseudo-Philo,LA.B. 19.7; cf. m. Ta'an.4.6; b. Ta'an.28b), it remainspossible that Barnabas,who writes after the events of 70 c.E., implicitly uses the same analogy.
382
JAMES N. RHODES
alreadyjustified,but gather together and seek out together the common was an excuse good .... (4.13) Letus neverfallasleepin oursins, as if being"called" to rest,lest the evil ruler gain power over us and thrust us out of the kingdom of the Lord. (4.14) Moreover, consider this as well, my brothers, when signsand wondersweredonein Israel,eventhen you see that aftersuchextraordinay let us be on guard lest we should be found to be, as it is theywereabandoned, written, "many called, but few chosen [trans. Holmes]."43 Most striking is the parallelism between the notions of "fall[ing] asleep in our sins, as if being 'called' was an excuse to rest (4.13)" and "pil[ing] up your sins while claiming that your covenant is irrevocably yours (4.6)."44 Verses 6 and 14 both identify the people of Israel as the negative paradigm: "they lost it [the covenant] completely" and "they were abandoned." The logic is provided by statements found nearby: because justification is attained not in the present (4.10) but at the final judgment (4.12; cf. 6.19; 21.1-6), the whole time of one's faith does no good unless one perseveres to the end (4.9). For this reason, it is singularly perilous to relax one's vigilance.45 One of the reasons Barnabas can suggest that Israel never really possessed the covenant is precisely because, in his view, they have finally been abandoned. Any prior status they might have enjoyed would simply be irrelevant.46 There is yet another parallelism that favors this interpretation. Three 43 Cf. the curiousremarkof CarletonPaget (Epistle ofBarnabas [n. 1], 114)who favors the L readingon the groundsthat "B. ends his account of the calf incidentwith the claim that the covenanthas been transferredto the Christians.If he was simplywishing to use the story as a warningto his addresseesnot to see salvationas guaranteed wouldhe nothaveendedthepassagedfferently?" (emphasisadded).One may rightlyprotest that this assertiononly holds if the golden-calfepisode is rippedfrom the largercontext of chapter4. Indeed,4.9b (At6 @pooexcoiev ...) suggeststhat the authoris precisely at the point of drawingthe conclusionhe wants to impressupon his audience. 44 Or, "our covenantis irrevocablyours"if one acceptsKraft'semendation. 45 It is typical of statementsabout perseverenceand apostasyto resort to "all or dichotomies. The authorof 1 John for example,declaresthat those who have nothing" departedthe communityhave provedby their departurethat they never trulybelonged to the community(1 John 2.19). In Matthew'sparableof the ten virgins(25.1-13),the foolish virginswho are not preparedwhen the bridegroomarrivesare excludedfrom the wedding feast with the words, "I do not know you." This parableimplies that a loss of vigilanceat the criticalhour is sufficientto imperilone's destinyand to render one's prior statusirrelevant.Such ideas may perhapsbe traced to Ezek 18.24-28. 46 The parallelismof 4.14 with 5.8 is one of severalindicationsthat Barnabasreally believesthat Israelwas abandonedafterrejectingJesus, the act he identifiesas the culminationof their sins. Cf. also 5.11-12, where the "sheepof the flock"who perishmust referto Israel,8.2 wherethe sinfulmen who bringJesusto the slaughter"areno more,"
THE EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUAL PROBLEM
383
times Barnabas speaks of the people of Israel reaching the full limit of their sins (5.11; 8.1; 14.5), language that is strikinglyclose to "pil[ing] up your sins" in 4.6. This makes the possibility all the more attractive that in 4.6 rIoIV ("certainpeople") as well as bicevot ("those people") refers to the people of Israel. I have already argued that this is a more economical solution than one which posits an additional party in the controversy, namely, Christians with whom Barnabas disagrees. Interpretationsbased on the L reading, however, usually favor (or even require) the view that rTItv refersto a third party. Since this runs counter to the significantexegetical indications mentioned above, it may be another reason for questioning the L text. There are, nevertheless,some objections to the interpretationunder discussion. For example, doesn't Barabas's polemic suggest that sacrifice,fasting, circumcision,sabbath observance, and the value of the temple are live issues for his audience? This is certainly the view of those who see the threat of assimilation to Judaism as the interpretive key to the Epistleof Barnabas.If, however, one sees the author's agenda as an exhortation to covenant fidelity in the wake of Israel's national disaster, then these issues serve primarily as evidence of Israel's own failure-ways in which the author believed that Israel's understandingof God's intentions had been demonstrablyand culpably wrong. It is, in one sense, a marriage of the deuteronomisticview of Israel's history (Israel has failed to live up to the covenant) with an ethically reductionisticview of Israel's cult. What does one do with 3.6, the strongest textual indication that some form of judaizing is at issue? Hvalvik is probably correct when he suggests that it makes little difference whether the original text read i'Xuorotor Nevertheless, it is an unexamined assumption that the author 1tpoaoXtuTot. has some sort of proximate threat in mind. For the sake of argument, it is at least possible that the author has a more remote threat in mind, perhaps even one belonging to the past.47Such a reading is more plausible and 12.2, where Barnabas states that unless Israel places its hope in Jesus, "war shall be waged against them forever." See n. 42 above. 47 A great deal of work has been done on the sources of the Epistleof Barnabas(Kraft, Sources[n. 7]; Wengst, Tradition[n. 24]; cf. also Pierre Prigent, Les testionia dans le christianismeprimitif.L'ipftrede BamrabI-XVI et ses sources[Paris: Gabalda, 1961] and Oskar Skarsaune The Prooffiom Prophey:A Studyin Justin Martyr'sProof-TextTradition:Text-Type, Provenance,TheologicalProfile[NovTSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1987]) and it has become customary to speak of Barabas's use of "testimony source(s)" or an exegetical "school tradition" (the two need not be mutually exclusive). This raises the fundamental question
384
JAMESN. RHODES
if one entertains the possibility that Barnabas'semphasis falls not on the word eK XwTot but on Rpoop1rCoode60a, and that Barnabashas (xrpoaVXnTot) in mind the disastrouspost-70 fate of the Jewish nation. Barnabaswould then be saying that if, as proselytes, they had invested their hopes in the Jewish temple cult, these hopes would by now be most certainly dashed to the ground. Assimilation to Jewish praxis would have meant assimilation to Israel's fate; by divine providence, God has spared them such a disaster. Even if such a reading does not entirely satisfy,one must still ask what the author means by xpoapTaooa)e0a. Barnabasis no antinomianwho believes the Law is simply too difficult to be fulfilled;he is a moral rigorist and nomistic thinker in his own right whose parting exhortation to his audience is to "fulfillevery command, for they deserve it" (21.8).48 In sum, the two lines of interpretationsketchedabove are closely related. Both rightly detect a fundamentalpolarity between "us" and "them."Both note the author's preoccupation with "what the Lord requires"and both recognize that "Israel"serves the author in some sense as an anti-paradigm. How they sort through these data explains their divergence. One defines the threat as assimilation toJudaism,49 a possibilitythe author would as a and failure to understand live regard up to God's covenant. The other defines the threat as failure to live up to God's covenant, a possibilitythat would make the audience just likeIsrael.Both of these approaches to the of whetherthe more polemicalfeaturesof the Epistleof Barnabas find their explanation in the Sitz im Lebenof the final productor at some anteriorstage. If the second possibility is the correctone, the way is opened for readingthe epistle as primarilyparaenetic in intent. 48 N.B. the remarksof Wengst(Tradition [n. 22], 89): "Obwohldas Wort 'Gesetz'im ganzen Barn nur zweimalbegegnet..., so steht das Gesetz doch der Sache nach im Zentrumdes Theologie des Barnabas.... Das Gesetz ist nicht nur Norm des Lebens, sonder von seinerBefolgungund Nichtbefolgung hangtauchBestehenoderNichtbestehen im Gericht ab; es ist also Heilsweg.Was Barnabasmit groBemAufwandvertritt,ist nichts anderesals Gesetzlichkeit," and (Tradition, 99) "[G]iltdas Gesetz als Heilsweg,so daB iiber sein Heil oder Unheil letztlichder Menschselbstmit seinemTun und Lassen entscheidet."Notwithstanding these perceptiveremarksaboutBarnabas'snomisticmindset-eminently compatiblewith the interpretationgeneratedby the C/H text (or an allied conjecture)-Wengst'sacceptanceof the L reading at 4:6b leads him to find entirelydifferentmotivesfor the compositionof the text. For a fill discussionof Barnabas's nomisticmindset,see Tashio Aono, Die Entwicklung despaulinischen beiden Gerichtsgedankens Vtern(Europaische Reihe XXIII/137; Bern:PeterLang, Hochschulschriften, Apostolischen 1979), 211-297. 49 I leave aside for the moment the view that the anti-Jewishpolemic merely serves to combat the "mainstream" Christiantheologyof two covenants,an old and a new.
THE EXEGETICALIMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUALPROBLEM
385
Epistleof Barnabasmust be acknowledgedas viable. Each is intimately connected to the textual problem at 4.6.50 It is my own conclusion that the deference shown by commentators to the Latin reading at Barn. 4.6b is unwarranted.Unless one has recourse to alternate retroversions(Harmer, Scorza Barcellona),it virtuallyrequires that "certain people" and "those people" refer to different groups when there are good exegetical grounds for identifying the two referents.It violates the text critical rules of thumb that otherwise favor the shorter and more difficult readings. Indeed, of those readings actually attested, L preserves the longest and in the eyes of many, the most intelligible reading! One also suspectsthat commitmentsto specificinterpretiveparadigmshave made the reading of L favorable to many. The conjecturalemendation of Kraft (/i&tv li iv Veet. .tLix&v i v.), which I otherwise find attractive,is also Its lies in the possible motive it presents to criticism. attractiveness open for emendation, and especially in the possible prehistoryof it iatoica iitv iixiv pivet, "our covenant remains ours," as a slogan. Its explanatorypower is diminished by the fact that it is a slightly modified conflation of C/H + S/t; as such, it cannot entirely escape the charge of circular reasoning. a forgottenemendation Reconsidering A further possibility suggests itself. Why shouldn't the original reading be simply ilix&vil'itv jievet or even if&ov evet?:51
50 Barnabas's posing of the question in 13.1 "whether the covenant is for us or for is sometimes considered a strong argument in favor of i them (eiqi & i etKceivoa;)" iS the reading of the Latin text at 4.6b, which explicitly denies the notion that "the and ours." While it is understandable why covenant is both theirs (illorum= CKEiVCwV) some scholars find this argument attractive, the evidence is, in fact, far more equivocal. One must ask: by posing the question in terms of "us" or "those people," is Barnabas excluding the "both / and" option in a shrewdly calculating way? Or does Barnabas simply presuppose an answer that is "either / or" and show no evidence of combatting a "both / and" option? The answer to such a question probably depends more on one's overarching theory about Barnabas's purpose and rhetorical goals. One could just as easily invoke the evidence of chaps. 13-14 in favor of the emendation suggested ' iceivot.. .): chap. 13 would pa rEI.//#v &V q/v uliv gl# vez. by Robert Kraft (il 5taG0icl% show that the covenant is indeed 'Christian' property; chap. 14 would show how "those people" lost their claim to the covenant. 51Johannes Weiss (DerBarnabasbrief kritischuntersucht [Berlin: Hertz, 1888], 58-59) called attention to this possibility but did not print it as the adopted reading (p. 128). Weiss's views are complicated by his theory that Barnabashas been extensively reworked by an
386
JAMES N. RHODES
epo&i) bI); ... gipooexetvvv av axoi;
ical 6il boiotoai9ai
tawV,etoopaeiovTa;
orn t SiP ftail lLiv /lEvel.au' Eicsivoto:oCo;eq; Tait;a&aptiatg;{)!ov Xkyovxaq; ijSrlTo Mwoo, oe;. TXos;&cioXeoavaixilv Xapi6vTo; I ask you... to be on guard now, and not to be like certainpeople,piling up remainsvalid."On the contrary, thosepeoplelost your sins, saying, "Ourcovenant it completely in the following way, when Moses had just received it. Exegetically, this yields results similar to those possible with C/H or the emendations of Holmes or Kraft: Barnabas does not want his audience to have a false sense of security because, in his view, the fate of Israel demonstrates clearly that the covenant can be lost if one does not live up to it. From a transcriptional point of view, however, the emendation proposed above has several advantages. The reading il-u6ovuvet is close to the reading of C/H (bt&v )ugiv Civet) when one considers how easily fixiv pkvel could give rise to a variant such as 'ihLtvgvet, as well as conflate (hitiov hgtiv[tvet) or itacistic (uttiv [iuiv] u've?t) corruptions.52 The ease with which ilCgv upvel could be corrupted to gil6v uiv (S/K) is particularly significant, since this is the only extant reading that is unintelligible and thus demands explanation. If such a simple explanation for the S/C text were accepted, it would have the added impact of bringing this Greek witness into harmony with C/H in terms of the resulting exegetical possibilities.53 A reading such as rLx&vuEVEIis, moreover, immune to the charge of circularity inherent in conflate emendations such as those of Holmes and Kraft.
interpolator. He regards everything from 4.6b-9a (aX. ... ilA?spat;)as an interpolation and even suggests that the interpolator changed slvet to gv. At one point he argues that the reading of S/f gives a satisfactory sense; later he states "wenn nicht Iviet zu
lesenist, so wurdedas utvjetzt sehrstorendsein."Subsequently Adrianusvan Veldhuizen B. defended the same emenWolters, (DeBriefvanBarnabas J. 18-19) [Groningen: 1901], dation. Meanwhile,F. X. Funk ("Zu Barn. 4,6; 5,8" TQ 71 [1889]: 127-133)offered the slightly longer conjecture insta9rflrl il!pv hLiv liLeVt,a position he no longer defended in his PatresApostolici(2 vols.; 2d. ed; Tubingen: Laupp, 1901). To my knowledge such an emendation has not been defended in the last century. The arguments assembled in this article are my own, arrived at prior to my acquaintance with the works cited
above. Windisch(Barnabasbrief [n. 24], 321) devotes a single sentenceto such possibilities without mentioning Weiss or distinguishing the positions of Bryennios (see n. 7 above), Funk, and van Veldhuizen. 52 In v. 6 alone, S/t and C/H differ no fewer than four times on whether to read the first or second person plural pronoun. Cf. n. 17 above. 53 If we take into consideration the whole of v. 6, we may note other "minor agreements" between the two Greek witnesses against the Latin. As Prostmeier has pointed out (see n. 13 above), the particles used in the Latin version (autemand quia) do not
THE EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUAL PROBLEM
387
At the same time, there remains the possibilitythat the proposed emendation echoes a Jewish response to the disaster of 70 C.E. The issue of the covenant's ongoing validity must be regarded as the fundamentalquestion Jews felt compelled to answer, and would have arisen with or without polemical exchanges with Christians.Although we may not be well served to think in terms of a single, precise formulation or "slogan," there can be no doubt that affirmationssimilar to the one I have suggestedwere, in fact, made. It will be stating the obvious to point out that Judaism could scarcely have survived if it had been unable to make this affirmation. Nevertheless, we may briefly adduce evidence of such assertionsfrom the of Pseudo-Philo and the SyriacApocalypse BiblicalAntiquities of Baruch.54 Biblicarum is a paraphrasticand imaginativeretelling The LiberAntiquitatum of the Old Testament from Adam to the death of Saul, and is usually assigned to the first century C.E.Although the narrativedoes not continue beyond the reign of Saul, Pseudo-Philo foreshadowsboth the founding of the temple and its demise (L.A.B. 12.4; 19.7; 22.9; 26.12-13). His reference to "the seventeenth day of the fourth month," which accords with rabbinic traditionabout the Roman capture ofJerusalem (19.7; cf. m.Ta'an. 4.6; b. Ta'an.28b), has led some scholars to suspect that the author really has the secondJewish temple in mind, but others dispute this conclusion.55 Pseudo-Philoconcentratesprimarilyon the period of Israel'sjudges, engaging in sustained reflection on Israel's covenant but not on the question of the temple. correspond precisely to p.hv and &a . Yet &aX is attested by both S/t and C/H. Might this be taken as evidence of the Latin translator'stendency to smooth out difficulties via paraphrasis? The Latin text stands alone in reading "their sins" (peccatasua), whereas if one allows for itacism, the difference between S/I (&a0p/iatX; ix&v)and C/H (&aLapritan ilC,ov [see n. 17]) is readily explicable. Finally, the Latin text has several minor omissions of words or phrases attested by both S/K and C/H. None of these is of great exegetical importance but their transcriptional significance should not be missed. Whereas the differences between S/t and C/H are often attributable to common transcriptional errors, the Latin text deviates in more marked ways. 54 For these two works I have followed the translations of A. F. J. Klijn (2 Baruch) and D. J. Harrington (Pseudo-Philo) in The Old TestamentPseudepigrapha (2 vols., ed. NY: M. Garden 2.297-377. 1.615-652; Charlesworth; Doubleday, 1983, 1985), City, J. Where it has been necessary to cite the Latin text of Pseudo-Philo, I have relied upon Les Antiquitis D. J. Harrington, J. Cazeaux, C. Perrot, and P.-M. Bogaert, Pseudo-Philon, Bibliques(SC 229-30; Paris: Cerf, 1976). 55 For a recent summary of the debate, see B. N. Fisk, Do YouNot Remember?: Scripture, Story, and Exegesisin the RewrittenBible of Pseudo-Philo(JSPSup 37; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 34-45, esp. 37 nn. 69-70.
388
JAMES N. RHODES
In classic deuteronomisticfashion, Pseudo-Philo calls frequent attention to Israel's failures, which are followed first by divine judgment, then reconciliation. He often refers to this judgment as God abandoning or forsaking Israel (9.4; 12.4; 13.10; 19.2, 6; 21.1; 30.7; 49.3), but qualifies this abandonment with a temporal limitation. In this way Pseudo-Philo consciously stresses the resilience of the covenant relationship between God and Israel. F. J. Murphy observes that the emphasis on God's fidelity to the covenant in spite of Israel's lapses is so strong that Pseudo-Philooften reduces the deuteronomisticpattern of 'sin, punishment, repentance, deliverance' to 'sin, punishment, deliverance.'56The covenant is eternal (7.4; 8.3; 11.2, 5), while God's judgment is "for a time" (19.6), "not forever" (9.4; 13.10; 19.2; 30.7; 39.6; 49.3). According to the author, God's salvific purposes for the chosen people will never ultimately be in vain (9.4; 12.9; 18.11; 23.13). Although numerous passages could be brought forward to illustrate Pseudo-Philo'sinterest in the covenant, one is particularlysignificantto the present study. In his re-telling of Joshua's renewal of the covenant (Josh 8.30-35), Pseudo-Philoplaces upon Joshua's lips the following benediction: The Lordgrantthatyour heartmay abidein him (permaneat in eocorvestrum) all the days and you do not departfromhis name (etnonrecedentes denomine eius).May the covenantof the Lordremainwithyou and not be broken(perseverettestamentum Dominivobiscumet non corrumpatur), but may there be built a among you dwelling place for God, as he said when he sent you into his
inheritancewithjoy and gladness(LA.B.21.10 [trans.Harrington]).
The phraseology of this benediction is noteworthy. "May the covenant remainwith you" and "[may the covenant] not be broken" are best understood as synonymousexpressionsof an abidingcovenantrelationshipbetween Israel and God. The essential synonymityof the preceding line, which also contains a positive ("abide in him") and a negative formulation ("do not depart from his name") confirms this judgment. The theoretical alternative that the blessing presupposesis the collapse of the covenant relationship. This observationadds plausibilityto the conjecturalemendation proposed above: "I ask you... not to be like certain people, piling up your sins, saying 'our covenant remains valid (il 6taOiicriilov evet)."'57 The 56
F. J. Murphy, "The Eternal Covenant in Pseudo-Philo," JSP 3 (1988): 43-57.
57 Obviously one q/iv aievet, "the might also consider the emendation: i Sta0fimcrl
covenant is still with us," "we still have the covenant." I have argued for the reading ilCtov ievet because it best accounts for the corrupt reading of S/K (gl[ov gev), but the
THE EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUAL PROBLEM
389
resiliency of the covenant in spite of Israel's failings-a point repeatedly affirmed by Pseudo-Philo--is precisely what Barnabas denies. of Bauch, a document not much earlier Similarly, the SyriacApocalypse than the Epistleof Barnabas,repeatedly affirms the abiding efficacy of the Law as a covenantal bond between God and Israel.58This apocalypse adopts a transparentnarrative fiction, addressing the crisis posed by the events of 70 c.E. under the typological guise of the destructionof the first Jewish temple in the sixth century B.C.E. Gwendolyn Sayler has shown that 2 Baruch,much like 4 Ezra, is not just an apocalypse but a "story of consolation"in which a distressedseer, by graduallyaccepting the divine perspective on the desolation of Jerusalem, is himself consoled and consequently able to console others.59Baruch's initial distress reveals his doubt about the status of the covenant, leading him to ask, "what will happen after these things?... how will the name of Israelbe rememberedagain?... And where is all that which you said to Moses about us? (2 Bar. 3.4-9)." Baruch'sstruggleto come to terms with God's purposes unfolds through a series of dialogues and visions, periodicallyinterruptedby instructionsto exhort the people, who are looking to him for guidance. At one point Baruch prays for mercy, reminding the Lord of his special relationship with Israel, and expressing confidence that so long as the people rely on the Law, this relationshipremains intact: For these are the peoplewhom you have elected,and this is the nationof whichyou foundno equal.... In you we haveput ourtrust,because,behold, yourLawis withus, and we knowthatwe do not fall as long as we keepyour statutes.... Forwe are all a peopleof the Name;we, who receivedone Law us will help us, and that excellent fromthe One, and that Lawthatis among wisdomwhichis in us will supportus (2 Bar.48.20-24 [trans.Klijn]). canbe readas an affirmation of the covenant's is minimal.Eitherconjecture difference ongoing validity. 58 See A Literary Failed?: Analysisof 2 Baruch esp., GwendolynSayler,HavethePromises of Baruchis usually (SBLDS 72; Chico, CA: ScholarsPress, 1984).The SyriacApocalypse is occadated to the late first or early second century.While the Epistleof Barnabas a in the of in the of Domitian or date Nerva, reign Trajan or sionallyplaced reign Hadrian is more common. It is sometimesassertedthat Barn. 11.9 cites 2 Bar. 61.7, but this is far from certain;Pseudo-Philo,LA.B. 23.12 is at least as stronga candidate for the citationin question.Moreover,Barabas uses sourcesunknownto modem scholars, and often cites imprecisely. 59 Gwen Sayler, "2 Baruch: A Story of Grief and Consolation," SBLSP (1982): 485500. In her analysis of the pattern of consolation in 2 Baruch, Sayler acknowledges her debt to the influential article by Earl Breech, "These Fragments I Have Shored Against My Ruins: The Form and Function of 4 Ezra," JBL 92 (1973): 267-274.
390
JAMES N. RHODES
A consoled Baruch later instructsthe people that their anxiety over his imminent departureis misplaced, for human leaders come and go, but the Law endures: Shepherdsand lampsand fountainscame from the Law and when we go away theLawwill abide.If you, therefore,look upon the Law and are intent upon wisdom,then the lampwill not be wantingand the shepherdwill not give way and the fountainwill not dry up (2 Bar.77.15 [trans.Klijn]). Baruch's final act is to write a letter to the nine-and-a-halftribes of the diaspora, explaining the meaning of all that has befallenJerusalem (78.187.1). Here again, Baruch affirms the nation's abiding relationship with God and the abiding efficacy of the Law, despite the catastrophicloss of temple, land, and leaders: But now, the righteoushave been assembledand the prophetsare sleeping. Also we have left our land, and Zion has been takenawayfromus, and we havenothingnow apartfom theMighy Oneand his Law. Therefore, if we direct
and disposeour hearts,we shall receiveeverythingwhichwe lost againby manytimes(2 Bar.85.3-4 [trans.Klijn]).
Affirmationssuch as these can only highlight the plausibilityof the emendation proposed above. The precise formulation of the argument is less important than the underlyingpresuppositionthat, despite appearancesto the contrary, Israel's covenant remains intact. I suggest that Barnabas alludes to such a claim because he regards it as self-evidentlyfalse-not simply in point of fact, but in principle. His expose of Israel's failings is designed to prove two things: (1) Israel has been abandoned, and justly so, for it failed to live up to God's covenant; (2) all those who fail to live up to God's covenant will end up just like Israel. I have already argued that an important reason for preferringthis line of interpretationis that it facilitates a more unified reading of chap. 4. Verses 9b-14 make explicit how w. 6b-8 are to be understood:the fate of Israel stands as a warning to all who fail to consider the gravity of their covenant obligations.No one should considerhis righteousness"established" before the last judgment, when God will judge all without partiality. In my view, chapters 13-14 of the Epistleof Barnabasleave little doubt that the author was a Gentile Christianwriting for Gentile Christians,and held that the privilege of being God's covenant people had passed from Israel to the Church. But in chap. 4 he evinces the equally strong conviction that no one should have a presumptive sense of election. No one should take lightly the righteousnessthat God requires. The logic of such parae-
THE EXEGETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A TEXTUAL PROBLEM
391
nesis is not unlike the Matthean parable of the wedding banquet (Matt 22.1-14): new guests have taken the place of the original invitees, but even a new guest is subjectto disqualification.Indeed, it is strikingthat Barnabas's use of the logion oUoi icXTloli, 6Wiyot8 iKcEicxoi (4.14), like Matthew's function as a should warning that explicitly presupposes the fail(22.14), ure of Israel.60 The final exhortation in chap. 21 lends further support to the claim that Barnabasis concerned primarilywith the covenant fidelity of his own audience: whichare It is good, therefore,afterlearningall the Lord'scommandments, writtenhere, to walk in them. For the one who does these thingswill be glorifiedin the kingdomof God; the one who choosestheir oppositeswill this is why perishtogetherwith his works.This is why thereis resurrection, thereis recompense....The day is nearwhen everythingwill perishtogether with the evil one. "The Lord,and his reward,is near."... Be instructedby God, seekingout what the Lord seeksfrom you, and then do it, in order thatyou may be foundin the day of judgment.... Seekout thesethingsconstantlyand fulfillevery command,for they deserveit (Barn.21.1-8 [trans. Holmes]). Here in the author'sclosing exhortationwe find the same sense of urgency, the same preoccupationwith divinejudgment, the same concern for fidelity to God's requirements. Moreover, the author's emphasis on choice, on walking in God's ways, on the written character of God's commands, on reward and retributiongive this paraenesis an almost Deuteronomic quality. Although I see no reason to deny that many of the argumentsbrought forward in the Epistleof Barnabaswere once forged in the fires of polemic, I incline to the view that most of these arguments now serve primarilyas a litany of Israel's failings. The closing chapter is a plea for the audience to prove themselves worthy of God's requirements,fully aware that they will be called to account, fully aware that a former people proved not to be worthy (4.14; cf. 14.1, 4).61 60This is rightlynoted by P. F. Beatrice,"Une citation de l'tvangile de Matthieu in EarlyChristianit(ed. J. M. Sevrin; dans l'Epitrede Barnab6,"in TheNew Testament BETL 86; Leuven:Leuven UniversityPress, 1989), 232-233. However, since there is little to suggestthat Barnabasrecallstheparableitsef, I am not convincedthat directliterary influenceis the best way to accountfor the similarity. 61 Since the text-critical problembroachedin this essay deservesto be treatedon its own merits,I have up until now avoideddigressingon the difficultproblemof the date of the writing-a problemwhich dependsat least as much on Barn.16.3-4 as any other text. The readerwho has laboredpatientlyover the textual and exegeticalarguments
392
JAMES N. RHODES
If the arguments adduced above be deemed persuasive, how will one account for the Latin reading?We should consider the possibilitythat the Greek Vorlage of L may have shared the illogical reading of S/:: 8i8ta6/lp .... Compelled to make sense of the context, the iy#v gE.V dau,' cKEiVOt translator will have read ilgxv ?v' a&X'EKceivot... (= nostrumest autem, quia illi) as Barnabas'sreply and restored via back-formationwhat seemed to i ai it &v). be missing: testamentum illorumet nostrumest (= i15ta9/l1 eKvov When one considers the idiosyncraciesof the Latin version, it was a conservative emendation at that.62 The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
offered here nevertheless deserves some indication of the author's views. With many other commentators, I find a date in the latter part of Hadrian's reign to be the most plausible (cf. Windisch, Bamabasbrief[n. 24], 412; Vielhauer, Geschichte[n. 24], 611). Barnabas is among those early Christians who viewed the events of 70 C.E. as divine retribution for Israel's rejection ofJesus (see nn. 42, 46 above). It is therefore not unlikely that events in the latter part of Hadrian's reign will have focused renewed reflection on that disaster and even seemed to confirm Barnabas's theological bias. For example, Hadrian's intention to build a temple to Jupiter in place of the former Jewish temple (Dio Cassius 69.12; cf. Barn. 16.3-4) could be seen as effectively sealing the prior temple's demise. The collapse of the second Jewish revolt will have seemed to recapitulate the disaster of the first. At the same time, it is likely that specifically Christian expectations such as the return of the Lord and the eschatological manifestation of the kingdom would also be revived, for these expectations were once linked with the destruction of the temple (e.g., Mark 13.29-30), but had not been realized. Barnabas's concern that his audience not fail as Israel had failed is most intelligible at a time when recent events seemed both to ratify Israel's national humiliation and to suggest that the end was near. 62 See nn. 15, 53.
A RECONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF BASIL'S TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY: THE DATING OF EP. 9 AND CONTRA EUNOMIUM BY
STEPHEN M. HILDEBRAND ABSTRACT: Basil of Caesarea'sTrinitarianthought changed in the 360s, and
deterthe dates of his Trinitarianworks, especially ep. 9 and ContraEunomium mine the nature of the change. Most have dated these works such that Basil must be judged at least inconsistent if not duplicitous. The evidence reconsidered, though, yields a date early in the 360s for both ep. 9 and Contra Eunomiun.Since it cannot be determined which came first, Basil should be
presumedconsistent.
It is commonly acknowledgedthat Basil of Caesarea'sthought about the Trinity changed at some point in the 360s.1 Naturally, the chronological ordering of Basil's early theological works will reveal the nature of the change in his thought and account for the subsequent evaluation of it. Basil's ep. 9 and ContraEunomiumare especially important here because they preserve a great deal of what Basil has to say about the Trinity.2But according to the way in which most date these works, the change in his thought is not a gradual progressionculminatingin Nicene orthodoxy but Basil's purposeful misrepresentationof his own position so as to hide his true thoughts in the interest of imperial and ecclesiasticalpolitics. But, how
' The title of Volker Henning Drecoll's recent book reflectsthis common underder desBasiliusvonCasarea: SeinWegvomHomoianer Die standing: Entwicklng Trinititslehre Doctrine: His Wayfrom a Trinitarian zumNeonizaner of Basil of Caesarea's (TheDevelopment Homoiousian to a Neo-JVicene (Forschungenzur Kirchen-und Dogmengeschichte, Theologian) no. 66 [Gottingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1996]). See also the recent work of BernardSesboiie wherein he speaks of a "'conversion'Basilienne"(SaintBasileet la de la docau IV siecle:le rolede Basilede Cisariedansl'laboration Trinite,un actethologique trineet du langage trinitaires [Paris:Desclee, 1998], 188-200). 2 Only the firstthree books of Contra Eunomium are authentic.See W. M. Hayes, The Tradition Greek of (Ps.) Basil'sAdversusEunomiumBooksIV-V (Leiden:Brill, Manuscript 1972). ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 393-406
394
STEPHEN M. HILDEBRAND
confidently can it be said that Basil was inconsistent or even duplicitous? Basil can be so judged only if he penned ContraEunomium (writtenagainst the Neo-Arian Eunomius who held that the Son was unlike the Father in essence) after ep. 9 to Maximus the Philosopher about whom we know nothing. Once the evidence for this dating, however, evanesces, so too does the reason for suspecting that Basil's theological development was something other than a steady course toward Nicene orthodoxy. Ep. 9 and ContraEunomium, then, are importantnot only for what Basil wrote in them but also for when he wrote them. In the fourth century, there emerged a number of distinct ways of conceiving the relationshipbetween the Father and the Son. One conception was distinguished from another by the particular Greek words used to describethe relationship.Theological vocabularyin the fourth centurymeasured orthodoxy and carried serious consequences, some of them political. Aetius, for example, found himself in exile probably for using theological words that the emperor had banned.3 One of the most controvertedwords of the time was homoousios, which the Council of Nicaea used against Arius in 325. Many a theologian (most of whom were far less radical than Arius) had serious difficultieswith sayto Arius and to ing the Son is "one in being with" the Father. Homoousios others the Basil of Caesarea materialistic carried many including young as the were a Son or connotations, though "belching" "portion" of the Father.4 Homoousios,however, and the theological understanding of the
3 See HistoriaEcclesiastica 12 mit Lebendes Lucianvon 4, (Philostorgius,Kirchengeschichte Antionchien unddenFragmenten einesarianischen ed.JosephBidezand Friedhelm Historiographen,
Winkelmann, Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, 57 [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1972], 65, 12-18): "Upon this [appearing before the emperor] Aetius said, 'I am so far from thinking or asserting that the Son is unlike the Father, that I confess him to be like without any difference.' But Constantine, laying hold of that word, 'without any difference,' and not even enduring to learn in what sense Aetius used that term, gave orders that he should be expelled from the palace" (trans. Edward of Constantinople Walford, TheEcclesiastical Historyof Philostrgius,as epitomised by Photius,Patriarch [London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855], 468). 4 See Arius's Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia 3; trans. William G. Rusch, The TrinitarianControversy, Sources of Early Christian Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1980), 29; and Arius'sLetterto Alexander3; trans.Rusch, 31. See also Basil, ep. 361 (Saint Basile, Lettres,ed. Yves Courtonne, 3 vols. [Paris: Societ d'&dition "Les Belles Lettres," 1957, 1961, 1966], 3:221, 15-24): T"EIetza 'vxot icat irepiawovToi)r ooovoo) ... iO p Satvotav eX?t,Kl(ain1qa&v)ytiq xhyotlO, rt, 8iaXapteivV Ilnoxifv Xa0xepov ;iva TiMv i(p' )v o0xe yevo; KCoVOV U)7CEpKeietVOV Oetopeixal, 0oi'x i)XUtKv c:OKcei.levov ipoicUapXov,
THE DATING OF EP. 9 AND CoCNTRA EUNOMIUM
395
Father and the Son that it expressed were most vehemently opposed by the so-calledNeo-Arians,led by Aetius of Antioch and Eunomiusof Cyzicus.5 They led a movement in the mid-350s to establisha new theologicalvocabulary and an understanding of the Father and the Son that even Arius would have rejected:they proposed that the Son was unlike the Father in essence. Opposition to the Neo-Arians came swiftly. In 358 Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea began a counter movement. They and other likeminded bishops could stomach neither the homoousios of Nicaea nor the "unlikein essence" of the Neo-Arians. They proposed that the words "like in essence" (homoios kat' ousian)best reflected the relationshipbetween the Father and the Son.6 Hence, those who preferred this way of speaking about Father and Son are called "Homoiousians"or less accurately and more popularly "Semi-Arians."7 Basil of Caesarea at one time aligned himself with Basil of Ancyra's movement. Basil's associationwith the movement may be attributedto his friendship with Eustathius of Sebaste who introduced Basil to the ascetic life and proved to be something of a father figure to him. About 360 writand preferred to ing to Apollinaris of Laodicea, Basil rejected homoousios as of the Son and like in speak "unalterably exactly being" with the Father.8 on his mind what Basil, however,changed theologicallanguagebest described o;v X xpil XiyetvOlRoovia ov zv Yv 'ir TiIvnItaxrxepov OeXkroov HItapi,ei; ,8eln6iiavevvotav zTv eipsiIlvov KoxaioixWovzaS, Trans. George LeonardPrestige,St. BasiltheGreatandApollinaris BtapOpx0aat. of Laodicea (London:S. P. C. K., 1956),38-39: "Pleasegive us a full discussionof the actualhomoousion.... What meaningdoes it bear?In what healthysense can it be appliedto objects as to which one can conceive no common genus transcendingthem, no materialsubstratumpreexistingthem, and no partitionof the originalto make the second?Pray distinguishfor us fully in what sense we ought to call the Son 'of one substancewith' the Fatherwithoutfallinginto any of the above notions." 5 See Thomas A. Kopecek,A Historyof Neo-Arianism, 2 vols., PatristicMonograph Series, 8 (Cambridge,Mass.:PhiladelphiaPatristicFoundation,1979). 6 The letter issued by the Synod of Ancyrais preservedin Epiphanius,Panarion 73, 2, 1-11, 11. 7 Epiphaniuscoined the words illtapetot (Semi-Arians)and igltapet(avi),o (to be a brevispanarii]73 and Panarion73, 1). The Semi-Arian)(see Anacephalaioses [recapitulatio ilLtapetotwere anathematizedin the first canon of the Council of Constantinoplein ed. Norman Tanner et al., vol. 1, Vicaeato 381 (see Decreesof theEcumenical Councils, LateranV [Washington,D.C.: GeorgetownUniversityPress, 1990], 31). 8 See ep. 361 (Courtonne,3:221, 31-35):"I think it could be correctlysaid not that [xra'xrv]with light, even though there is no differencein greatnessor light is identical r6 TO ptpotpo)eiSX68eDtepov.l'i otIK &17XOeplCP
396
STEPHEN M. HILDEBRAND
the relationship between the Father and the Son; he came to prefer homoousios. As he himself writes, "I have therefore myself adopted 'consubstantial,'because I think that this term is less open to perversion."9 Basil'suse of differenttheologicalvocabularyat differenttimes signalsstages in the development of his thought, steps whereby Basil moved from being a Homoiousian to a Neo-Nicene theologian.Just as knowing the dates of his early works, especially ContraEunomium and ep. 9, makes it easier to trace Basil's theological development, so also miscalculatingthese dates will misconstruethe progression of his thought. Ep. 361 (ca. 360) to Apollinarisplaces Basil firmly in the homoiousian camp.'0 In ep. 9 Basil communicates to Maximus his private view that weakness, for each is in its own termination of being [xeptypacpfovoia;]; but rather that light is similar[homoios]to light albeit unalterably, exactly, and according to being' aiv [olotovv8 cat ptj3x;&tapaaicrox)]." My translation;cf. SaintBasil, TheLetters, trans. Roy J. Deferrari, 4 vols., Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926-34), 4:335 and Prestige, St. Basil the GreatandApollinarisof Laodicea, 39. On the authenticity of Basil's correspondence with Apollinaris, see Prestige's work just mentioned and H. de Riedmatten, "La Correspondance entre Basile de C6saree et Apollinaire de Laodicee," Journal of TheologicalStudiesn.s. 7 (1956): 199-210; 8 (1957): 53-70. 9 Ep. 9, 3 (Courtonne, 1:39, 16-18): 'Eei ovv xTov o'ioLatKaKyuipyteiatOtTO6oooa,oov, olco icalaltxob Ti0eliat. Trans. Deferrari, 1:99 (altered). 10 Prestige dates ep. 361 earlier, in the fall of 359, written by Basil from the Council of Seleucia. According to Prestige, Basil wrote asking about the theological terms under discussion at the council (Prestige, St. Basil the Greatand Apollinarisof Laodicea,7). De Riedmatten, however, dates ep. 361 to after Constantinople 360, between 360 and 362. As de Riedmatten writes, "L'allusion au depart de Gregroire de Nazianze, retourne aupres de ses parents, suggere que la lettre a ete ecrite du Pont, entre 360 et 362" ("La Correspondance," 59). Kopecek rightly sides with de Riedmatten "for Ep. 361 was, in part, concerned with the rejection of the term essence (ovaia). Now it is true that the Acacian compromise formula of Seleucia, 359 did reject homoousion and homoiousion (as well as anomoion = unlike), but it said nothing about oioaia itself. This would seem to substantiate a date after Constantinople, 360, which specifically rejected ov{oia" (A Historyof Neo-Arianism,362-63, n. 2). Though de Riedmatten and Kopecek have the stronger argument, neither directly addresses Prestige's arguments for the earlier date. According to Prestige, that Apollinaris lived in Laodicea is significant. In the opening of his letter Basil says that Apollinaris is the only one whom he could call upon among those who are "precise both in understanding and in utterance (cf. 1 Cor 1:5), and at the same time accessible" (ep. 361 [Courtonne, 3:221, 7-8]: Kait ?v yv&oet Kai ?v 'V yp b Kici eip'noOtov; trans. Prestige, St. Basil the GreatandApollinarisof Laodicea, a&Kptpi e'Oo 38). "Laodicea," says Prestige, "was about a hundred and twenty miles from Seleucia by sea in a straight line, on a coast that was thick with shipping; communication was much quicker from Laodicea than from Pontus" (St. Basil the Greatand Apollinarisof
THE DATING OF EP.
9
AND CNTRAEUNOMIUM
397
is less open to perversion than homoioskat'ousian,thus indicating homoousios his change of mind. In ContraEunomium he uses homnousios once in a theobut to use homoios and sense clearly prefers cognates to describe the logical relationship between the Father and the Son. Discerning the exact theois complicated by the schollogical import of ep. 9 and ContraEunomium which came first. over arly disagreement Paul Fedwick, representing current scholarly consensus, dates Contra Eunomiumto 364 and ep. 9 to 360-62. If Fedwick is right, then Basil's "conversion"to homoousios would have remained private, for he uses it only once theologically in ContraEunomium while using homoiosand its cognates times. Contra would have the odd position of Eunomium Furthermore, many belonging in its content to the first, homoiousian stage in the development of Basil's Trinitarian thought in spite of the fact that Basil in his mind had moved on to the second, homoousian stage in his theological development. According to this chronology, Basil appears inconsistent, if not disingenuous. Fedwick's chronology, though, is not the only one. Thomas Kopecek as early as 360. He does not comment on the date places ContraEunomium of ep. 9, but his dating of ContraEunomium makes it possible, if not probable, that it was written before ep. 9. If ep. 9 was written after Contra then ep. 9 marks not only a private but also a public change Eunomium, is older, then it unambiguouslybelongs on Basil's part. If ContraEunomium to the first stage in Basil's Trinitariandevelopment, and he does not contradict publicly what he holds privately. According to this chronology, in the early 360s Basil would have steadily progressed towards Nicene orthodoxy. The arguments for the dating of these works ought to be reconsidered, as well as the theological implications of the dating. TheDate of Contra Eunomium Basil wrote ContraEunomium as a response to Eunomius'sApologywhich was delivered at the council that met in Constantinoplein 359 and published a year later." Basil too was at this council but he fled, intimidated Laodicea,7). So Prestige sees Basil's calling Apollinaris "accessible" as a reference to his location in Laodicea in relation to Seleucia. trans. and ed. Richard Paul Vaggione, Il See Eunomius of Cyzicus, LiberApologeticus, Eunomius:The Extant Works,Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
398
STEPHEN M. HILDEBRAND
by a debate that had been arranged between him and Aitius of Antioch, a man of substantialrhetorical abilities.12 The date of ContraEunomium is disputed, and the dispute centers around the conflicting evidence of two of Basil's letters, ep. 223 and 20. Ep. 223 appears to allude to Basil's work against Eunomius and yields a date of 364. Ep. 20 specificallymentions the work, but seems to yield a date of 362. was written in Fedwick, as mentioned, maintains that ContraEunomium 364: "the work was dictatedratherin a hurrybefore the Synod of Lampsacus
On the date of Eunomius's Apologysee Lionel R. Wickham, "The Date of Eunomius' Studiesn.s. 20 (1969): 231-40. Wickham Apology:A Reconsideration," Journalof Theological refined the work of Franz Diekamp ("Literargeschichtliches zu der Eunomianischen Kontroverse," ByzantinischeZeitschifi 18 [1909]: 1-13) by arguing that Eunomius delivered his Apologyin Constantinople in 360, but not at his trial before Eudoxius and not in response to an organized revolt against him (see Wickham, "The Date of Eunomius' Apology,"232-34). Kopecek has refined this judgement: "Wickham has overlooked one crucial point: there were two councils held in Constantinople in winter, 359/360, not one-the first met in December and a second met in January. Wickham seems to have been unaware of the first and, consequently, wrongly assumed that Eunomius's Apologia was given at the January council" (A Historyof Neo-Arianism,305). The December council of 359 better suits the fact that Basil was present; that Eunomius attacks homoiousian theology, the proponents of which capitulated by the end of the council by signing the revised Dated Creed, thus making Eunomius's invective out of place at Constantinople, for his enemy had already acknowledged defeat; and, finally, that Eunomius's Apologyuses the term ousiawhich Constantinople 360 banned, and it is safe to assume that Eunomius did not violate this proscription, especially after being elevated to the see of Cyzicus (ibid.). On the theology of Eunomius, see Richard Paul Vaggione, Eunomiusof Cyzicusand the JzVcene Revolution(New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Sesboii, Saint Basile et la trinit, 19-53; and Maurice Wiles, "Eunomius: Hair-splitting Dialectician or Defender of the Accessibility of Salvation?" in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honourof Hen?y Chadwick,ed. Rowan Williams, 157-72 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989). 12 See Philostorgius, HistoriaEcclesiastica4, 12 (GCS, 57:64, 5-26): "These [Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste] then had a great number of supporters present and among them a second Basil, who even at that time was only of the order of deacon; he was superior to many in his powers of speech, though from natural timidity and shyness he shrunk from public discussions.... Moreover, Basil and his partisans, when they saw Aetius pitted against him as his adversary, in fear of his eloquence, avowed that it was indecorous for bishops to contend with a deacon concerning the doctrines of the faith" (trans. Walford, 467-68). See also Gregory of Nyssa, ContraEunomium1, 9; trans. William Moore, H. C. Ogle and H. A. Wilson, AgainstEunomius,in SelectedWritings and Lettersof Gregory, Bishopof Nyssa, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 5 (orig. pub. 1893; repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 43.
THE DATING OF EP. 9 AND CON7RA EUNOMIUM
399
met in the fall."'3 His evidence here is ep. 223 wherein Basil vents his feelings about his soured friendshipwith Eustathiusof Sebaste. Basil writes, "And at Eusinoe, when you, about to set out for Lampascuswith several bishops, summoned me, was not our conversationabout faith? And all the time were not your short-hand writers present as I dictated objections to the heresy."'4 Jean Gribomont holds a similar position, though he mistakEunomium and the Synod of Lampsacus.15 enly gives 365 as the date of Contra But it is not at all clear that the heresy to which Basil refers is Eunomius's. In fact, the context indicates that "the heresy" is Apollinaris's. Basil's ep. 223 is his attempt to defend himself against the accusations made against him by Eustathius of Sebaste and his followers. Basil had been quite close to Eustathius. Basil seems to have seen him as God's answer to his prayer for guidance in the teachings of religion and the practice of the ascetic life.'6 In the early 370's Basil traveled to Armenia with a commission from the emperor, Valens, to strengthenthe churches there. On the same trip, at the request of Meletius of Antioch (now exiled to Getasa) and Theodotus of Nicopolis, Basil tried to address a problem that had arisen with Eustathius'steaching on the Holy Spirit, but to no avail. In the end, Basil was forced to condemn Eustathius'steaching in no uncertain terms, and Eustathius himself made attacks upon Basil's orthodoxy. Eustathiushad circulated a letter alleged to have been written by Basil to Apollinariswith the intention of implicatingBasil in Apollinaris'ssupposed theological error, Sabellianism.'7This, then, is the heresy of which Basil writes in ep. 223, the heresy to which Basil dictated objections in the presence of Eustathius.These objections,Basil thinks,render Eustathius'scharge groundless. Basil himself, however, associates his dictated objections with the synod of Lampsacus, and those in Lampsacus did not concern themselves with Apollinaris.Socrates, the orthodox Church historian commissioned to pick up where Eusebius had left off, relates that the synod of Lampsacus was a homoiousian council concerned above all with the rejection of the creed 13Paul Fedwick,"A Humanist, Christian, Chronologyof Basil,"in Basil of Caesarea. J. ed. idem, 2 vols. (Toronto:Pontifical Ascetic.A Sixteenth-Hundredth Anniversary Symposium, Instituteof MediaevalStudies, 1981), 10-11, n. 57. 14 Ep. 223, 5 (Courtonne,3:14, 5-9); trans.Deferrari,3:303. 15Jean Gribomont,"Lessuccesdes Peresgrecset les problemesd'histoiredes textes," Sacriserudiri22 [1974/1975]: 31. 16 See ep. 223, 2 (Courtonne,3:10, 1-10);trans. Deferrari,3: 291-93. 17See ep. 129 and 131.
400
STEPHEN M. HILDEBRAND
of the synod of Rimini and the Arian thought that the loose language of this creed protected.'8The synod sent Eustathius of Sebaste, Theophilus of Castabala, and Silvanus of Tarsus to the west seeking doctrinal union. They wanted to meet with Pope Liberius, who at first declined to meet with them because they were Arians who rejected the Nicene Creed. Eustathius and company "replied that by change of sentiment they had acknowledgedthe truth, having long since renouncedthe Anomoean Creed, and avowed the Son to be in every way 'like the Father': moreover that and homoousios to have precisely they considered the terms 'like' (homoios) the same import."'9They then confessed their beliefs in writing including the creed of Nicaea itself. The anti-Arianthrustof the Synod of Lampsacus has no doubt led scholars to the conclusion that Basil's dictated objections are his own anti-Arian work ContraEunomium. But it does not make any sense for Basil to mention an anti-Arianwork of his to clear himself of a charge of Sabellianismby associationwith Apollinaris.Moreover, the written statement of the representativesof Lampsacus to Liberius condemns albeit briefly"the same heresyof Sabellius,the Patripassians,the Marcionites, the Photinians, the Marcellians,that of Paul of Samosata, and those who countenancesuch tenets."20While Lampsacuswas predominantlyanti-Arian, it also condemned the opposite error of Sabellianism.Perhaps, then, it is best to see Basil's dictated objections as both associated with Lampsacus and anti-Sabellian.21 to 360-62 Kopecek, unlike Fedwick and company, dates ContraEunomium by external evidence and narrows the range to 360-61 by internal evidence.22The most convincing of the arguments from external evidence centers around ep. 20 (to Leontius the Sophist) in which, as just stated, Basil explicitly mentions his work against Eunomius, which he is sending to Leontius. So, if ep. 20 can be dated with certainty, then so can Contra Eunomium, relatively to ep. 20.
18
Socrates, EcclesiasticalHistory4, 12 (PG 67, 484B-485B); trans. A. C. Zenos, The in Socrates,Sozomenus: EcclesiasticalHistoryof SocratesScholasticus, ChurchHistories,Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 2 (orig. pub. 1890; repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1995), 100. 19 Ibid. (PG 67, 485B); trans. NPNF 2, 2:100-101. 20 Ibid., 4, 12; trans. NPNF 2, 2:101. 21 Basil did write an anti-Sabellian work (his 24th homily) sometime between 363 and 378, but probably closer to 378; see Homilia contraSabellianos,et Arium,et Anomoeos
(PG 31, 600-17). 22
Kopecek, A Histoty of Neo-Arianism,364-72.
THE DATING OF EP.
9
AND CONTRAEUNOMIUM
401
Prudentius Maran argued that ep. 20 was written at the beginning of Basil'spresbyterate,which he dates to 364.23But, both Fedwickand Kopecek persuasivelyargue against Maran's date of 364 for Basil's ordination.24The thrust of their argument centers around a letter of Gregory of Nazianzus. He wrote ep. 8 to Basil as a reply to Basil's letter (lost) notifying Gregory of his ordination.25Paul Gallay places this letter in 362; but Gallay simply follows Tillemont here.26This date of 362 for Basil's ordination fits well with the other events of this period of his life, viz. the death of Dianus in 362 and the accession of Eusebius to the bishopric of Caesarea. So, then, if (as Maran has it) ep. 20 may be dated just after Basil's ordination, ContraEunomiumappears to have been written in or before 362. But the evidence that ep. 20 may be so dated is ambiguous. The argument for placing ep. 20 in 362, just after Basil's ordination,is derived from the excuse that Basil gives to Leontius for not writing. "In our case," Basil writes, "the mass of businessin which we are now engaged might perhaps afford some excuse for our failure to write."27Basil adds the further reason that his "tiresomeassociation with the vulgar" would make his letters unworthy of learned and eloquent men like Leontius.28But this evidence demands only that Basil wrote ep. 20 after his ordination, not necessarily immediately after. In sum, ep. 20 could have been written in 362 but also later. Given the evidence (or lack thereof) of ep. 223 and the fact that ep. 20 may have been written after 362, ContraEunomium may also be dated should be dated earlier rather to after 362. Nevertheless, ContraEunomium than later in the 360s, for, as Tillemont reminds us, Gregory of Nyssa mentions that Eunomius took a long time to make his reply. Gregory writes: "when in long years he got the requisite amount of leisure, he was travaillingover his work during all that interval with mightier pangs than 23
Caesariensis See his VitaS. BasiliiMagniArchiepiscopi 9, 2; in Basil of Caesarea,Opera
vol. 1, Patrologiae cursus compleomniaquaeexstant,vel quaesub ejusnominecircumferuntur,
tus, series graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, vol. 29 (Paris, 1857), xxxix. 24 See Fedwick,"A Chronologyof Basil,"7, n. 26; and Kopecek,A Historyof NeoArianism,366-67. 25
trans.CharlesGordonBrowneandJames EdwardSwallow,in S. Cyril See Letters,
Nazianzen,Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 7 of Jerusalem,S. Gregory
(orig.pub. 1893; repr. Peabody,Mass.:HendricksonPublishers,Inc., 1994), 448. 26 See Paul Gallay,La vie de saint Grigoirede Nazianze (Lyons:E. Vitte, 1943), 73-74 and 252. 27 Ep. 20 (Courtonne,1:50, 14-16);trans. Deferarri,1:125, my emphasis. 28 Ibid. (Courtonne,1:50, 16-19).
402
STEPHEN M. HILDEBRAND
those of the largest and the bulkiest beasts."29Basil admitted that Contra was the first work of his ecclesiasticalcareer. Basil says, "I must Eunomium not behold my weakness in the matter and I must attempt to come to the aid of the truth and to refute the lie, although I am not practiced in this kind of work."30These words call for an earlier rather than a later date. Moreover, Kopecek has brought to light some other facts that demand a date early in the 360s. One is particularlypersuasive.Eunomius had been awarded the see of Cyzicus-Basil called it the "prize"of his impiety-at the 360 Council in Constantinople. But it did not go well for Eunomius in Cyzicus: he was accused of heresy by his own clergy who complained in Constantinople to the disinterestedEudoxius and then to Constantius himself.31There was a trial in Constantinoplein 361, and Eunomius seems to have been exonerated, but he resigned his see in Cyzicus because Eudoxius had asked him to sign the homoian creed of 360 and to subscribe to the exile of his master Aetius; Eunomius refused and withdrew for the moment from ecclesiasticalaffairs.32Why would Basil fail to mention this fact in his invective against Eunomius's character at the beginHe calls Eunomius the enemy of the truth, a liar, ning of ContraEunomium? ignorant, proud, two-faced, a blasphemer, and a confounder of the simple.33Why did he not also mention that Eunomius was so foul a man and taught so impious a doctrine that he was rejected by his own flock and was forced to yield his former "prize"as a just punishment?Perhaps it is 29 ContraEunomium 1, 9; trans. NPNF 2, 5:35. See LeNain de Tillemont, Memoires pour Servira l'HistoireEcclesiastiquedes six premierssiecles(Brussels: Eugene Henry Fricx, 1728), 9, 2:1038-42. 30 ContraEunomium 1, 1 (Sesboiie, 1:143, 14-21). 31 See Theodoret, HistoriaEcclesiastica2, 25. Trans. Blomfield Jackson, TheEcclesiastical in Theodoret, Histogyof Theodoret, Jerome,Gennadius,Rufinus:HistoricalWritings,etc., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 3 (orig. pub. 1893; repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 90-91. 32 See Philostorgius, HistoriaEcclesiastica6, 1-3. Theodoret does not report the trial of Eunomius, but only his fall out with the clergy of Cyzicus and their subsequent complaints before Constantius. He does, however, allude to the judgment of the synod that tried him. He says of Eunomius, "when his turn came he paid the penalty of his iniquity; he did not submit to the vote of the synod, but began to ordain biships and presbyters, though himself deprived of his episcopal rank" (HistoriaEcclesiastica2, 25; trans. NPNF 2, 3:91). Thus, contradicting Philostorgius, Theodoret implies that the judgment went against Eunomius. See also Kopecek, A Historyof Neo-Arianism,392-400, though he does not take notice of or explain the at least apparent contradiction in the respective accounts of Philostorgius and Theodoret. 33 See ContraEunomium 1, 1.
THE DATING OF EP. 9 AND CONQRA EUNOMIUM
403
because this had not yet happened when Basil was cataloguingEunomius's personal and doctrinal defects. TheDate of Ep. 9 to Maximus The date of Ep. 9 is pivotal in outlining the course of Basil's theological development because in it he reveals that he has changed his mind about how one should speak of and understand the relationshipbetween the Father and the Son. Before Ep. 9 Basil's Trinitarian thought was marked not only by the preference for homoiousion but also by an aversion But in Ep. 9, Basil has changed his mind on the approprito homoousios. as a theological term. ateness of the homoousios It is clear from internal evidence that Basil wrote ep. 9 to Maximus from Annesi, and Basil was at Annesi from 360-62 and 363-65.34Basil's mother and sister, Macrina, lived in the Pontus valley at Annesi, about 60 kilometersnortheastof Caesarea and 20 kilometerssouth of the Black Sea. As mentioned, Basil fled the council that met at Constantinople in 359; he retreated to Annesi and broke off his relationship with Dianius who signed the Nice-Constantinopolitan Creed. In the middle of 362, Basil returnedto Caesareaand was reconciledwith Dianius who died soon thereafter. Basil was ordained a presbyterby Dianius's successor, Eusebius, but soon had a falling out with him and once again retired to Annesi remaining there until 365. Basil reveals whence he is writing ep. 9 when he contrasts his remote setting to Maximus's life in the city. Basil regards "'life in oblivion' as among the highest of blessings."35He playfully boasts to Maximus: "Even though communities and cities, wherein you display your activities in accordance with virtue, suit best your life of activity, yet for contemplation and the exercises of the mind, whereby we are joined to God, solitude is an excellent co-worker;and here, at the edge of the world, we enjoy a solitude abundant and bountiful."36The "edge of the world" is certainly Annesi. (eiTfcig ecaaxartS) 34
Fedwick assigns the letter to Basil's first stay in Annesi; see "A Chronology of Basil," 7, n. 24: "The reasons for this date are not necessarily the arguments adduced by Maran, Vita 7.4, but the words eWiti<1;Eoaazixt (Courtonne, 1:40.33-34). Maran bases his chronology on parallels with the Ps.-Basil (= Evagrius) [Ep. 8], dated now in 379 (!). Nevertheless, besides the C. Eun. 1-3, [Ep. 9,2] (Courtonne, 1:38.5-6) is the only other early reference in Basil to the heresy of the Anomoeans from before 370." Most scholars follow Fedwick though Drecoll proposes a date of 363/64 (see n. 38 below). 35 Ep. 9, 3 (Courtonne, 1:40, 26-27). Trans. Deferrari, 1:99. 36 Ibid. (Courtonne, 1:40, 29-35). Trans. Deferrari, 1:101.
404
STEPHENM. HILDEBRAND
That Basil wrote ep. 9 from Annesi dates it to either 360-62 or 363-65, and a date in the early 360s is corroboratedby two other pieces of internal evidence. First, Basil makes mention of the "doctrine of unlikeness," writing that it "is now so noised about."37This comment would aptly describe either period, for though the Neo-Arians had by 361 become a sect, they remained very active in the promulgation of their doctrines.38 Secondly,Basil alludesto the events that transpiredin 360 in Constantinople. of the likeHe writes, "if anyone eliminates the invariability [aparallakton] I in have become as those done, ness, Constantinople suspicious of the it the of the on the that diminishes glory Only-Begotten."39 expression, ground In fact, accordBasil is certainly right about the opposition to aparallakton. ing to the account of Philostorgius,Constantiusbanished Aetius for maintaining that the Son is like the Father without any difference(aparallakt6s).0 Basil's reference to "those in Constantinople"seems to imply a date closer to 359: it is as though he is recalling a recent event. There is one other piece of internal evidence that must be mentioned: Basil ended his letter to Maximus'ssaying that he has decided not to make 37
Ibid.,2 (Courtonne,1:38,5-7):l;e6bv yap pacr)oTlTfi;v)v xiepitpuoualvS;&aoeSeio;,
X yo0 o{ato, tv?V, 6 Ipfpo a,vOpot; xraorepata 'ciTKatxaT6'Av61ootov kioayei YE 'iaOlev, Trans. 1:95. Deferrari acpacoxv. 38 See Kopecek, A Historyof Neo-Arianism,413-28. As mentioned, Drecoll dates ep. 9 to 363/64, but he grounds this dating upon an interpretation of "the doctrine of the unlikeness which is now so noised about." Drecoll argues thus: "Zu einer Lokalisierung in Annisi paBt auch die Angabe, daB die anhomoische &aopeta nun 'herumgetratscht' (neptOputeioOat)werde (ep. 9, 2/4f), denn wahrend seines Pontusaufenthaltes hat Basilius an AE gearbeitet, wihrend in der Julianzeit die Anhomoer damit begannen, eine eigene Kirchenstruktur vorzubereiten. Ep. 9 ist so wahrscheinlich auf den Annisiaufenthalt zu datieren, aus inhaltlichen Grunden nach ep. 361 anzusetzen, also 363/364" (Die Enwicklung der Trinitatslehre des Basilius von Casarea,38). Basil's reference to Anomoianism may refer to these events (his working on ContraEunomiumand the Eunomians' efforts to place competing bishops in many sees), but the Neo-Arians were certainly making "noise" earlier in the 360s. It should be mentioned that Drecoll (ibid., 45-46) places Contra Eunomiumin 364 based upon the evidence of ep. 223 and Basil's mention there of the Synod of Lampsacus. 39 Ep. 9, 3 (Courtonne, 1:39, 11-14): Ei 8e xtI;toi 6soioi)o &Xctapipaarvova&,oTelvot, mv KovotavtivonooXtv iceotirlKaotv,i)oCme;;xoT piljCaax ToiVMovoyevoiS lep oi Kara& dlv 8o6av KaTagoulcpKpvov.Trans. Deferrari, 1:99. 40 See Philostorgius HistoriaEcclesiastica4, 12; and Kopecek, A Histo?yof Neo-Arianism, 349-51. When Aitius claims that the Son is "invariably" like the Father, he means by "Father" not "God", but "the will of God"; the Son remains unlike God in essencethis last position Theodoret holds as the reason for Aitius's exile (see HistoriaEcclesiastica 2, 23 [NPNF 2, 3:88]; and Kopecek, A Historyof Neo-Arianism,348-49).
THE DATING OF EP.
9
AND CQOTRA EUNOMIUM
405
his opinion on homoousios public.41 This fits better with a date before the death of Constantius for two reasons. First, Basil would have had good reason to hold his convictions privately, for at that time ousia(and its cogwere banned. After the death of Constantius,though, nates) and aparallakt6s Basil had nothing to fear from imperial authorities-from 361 to 363 Julian the Apostate had maintained a policy of religious toleration, recalling all exiled bishops in an effort to throw the Church deeper into internal struggles, and after his death the emperorJovian had supported the homoousians. Only with the accession of the Arian emperor Valens did Basil again have reason to fear the opposition of the secular authorities,and this fear Basil later proved to lack in a direct confrontationwith Valens in Caesarea. Of course, Basil may have had a motive other than persecution at the hands of imperial authority to keep his convictions private. After all one must ask what the emperor could have done to Basil while he was at Annesi. Certainly Basil's letter writing here, even using banned words (as he did in writing ContraEunomium), would not have drawn the watchful of authorities. eye imperial Perhaps fear of persecution explains Basil's reluctance to make his conviction public, but one could imagine explanations as likely. One might speculate, for example, that Basil did not want friendslike Eustathiusand Basil of Ancyra to learn of his new found approbation of homoousios-whichthey did not share-before he had the opportunity to explain himself to them at greater length. While the evidence is not overwhelming,it nonetheless calls for a date for ep. 9 in 360-62 rather than 363-65. Conclusion Both ep. 9 and ContraEunomium were written earlier rather than later in the 360s. The date of 364 for ContraEunomium is too late; and ep. 9 fits best in Basil'sfirst stay at Annesi (360-62). The evidence does not indicate, however, which was written first. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, why should one not assume Basil's theological consistency?
See ep. 9, 3 (Courtonne, 1:39, 18-21). Trans. Deferrari, 1:99 (my emphasis): "But why do you not visit us, dear friend, that we may discuss such matters in each other's company, and not entrust subjects of such importance to lifeless words, especially since I have definitelydecidednot to makemy own convictions public?" 41
406
STEPHEN M. HILDEBRAND
after ep. 9, and thereby rendering Basil inconDating ContraEunomium sistent or dishonest, entails some serious difficulties. If before he wrote in 360-62 he thinks that homoousios ContraEunomium is less open to perversion than even homoiosaparallakt6s kat' ousian,why then in ContraEunomium does he proceed to use homoiosand its cognates nearly always without Someone might respond that Basil was writing this work adding aparallakt6s? in the presence of or under the auspices of Eustathiuswho would not have and so Basil avoided it. But would Eustathiushave approved of homoousios, too? And would he have countenanced even the objected to aparallaktds found in ContraEunomium? single use of homoousios Eunomium Althoughit makes better sense to assume that Basil wrote Contra in the latter should not be and then ep. 9, his "conversion"to homoousios invested with a significance that it did not have. It is clear that Basil did not view his change of mind as having the irrevocable and uncompromising character that may be associated with conversion properly speaking. His "conversion"from homoiousianismto homoousianismbears little similarity to, say, a conversion from paganism to Christianity.For Basil, it was acceptable to use homoiosand its cognates after his "conversion"in conjunction with homoiotes;42 and he did so, using homoousios but for a converted pagan, it would be altogether unacceptable to sacrifice once again to the old gods. Homoioslanguage, for him, was not necessarilyblasphemous; it was only so in a context in which it admitted of an interpretation that degraded the Son. The assumption that ContraEunomium was written before ep. 9 makes Basil's theological development easier to understand. He progressed from in ep. 361, to a hesitant toleration of it in Contra a rejection of homoousios a to full Eunomium, acceptanceof it in ep. 9. Contrariwise,Basil'sconfidence in homoioslanguage gradually eroded. In ep. 361, it is the only language suitable to describe the relationshipbetween the Father and the Son; in ContraEunomium, it dominates but has lost its hegemony; in ep. 9, it is if which would now acceptable only taken in the same sense as homoousios, measure other words and legitimate their use. Franciscan University of Steubenville 1235 University Blvd. OH 43952 USA Steubenville,
42 See
ep. 236, for example.
UNE RfPONSE D'AMBROISE A L'EMPEREUR GRATIEN (CPL 160A) EDITION, TRADUCTION, COMMENTAIRE PAR
YVES-MARIE DUVAL De faConcertaine, nous avons le texte d'une lettreau moins de l'empereur Gratien' a l'eveque de Milan2 Ambroise et celui de plusieurs lettres ou reponses d'Ambroiseau jeune empereur, ne serait-ce que sous la forme de Prefaceou de Postfacea l'une ou l'autredes oeuvresecritesa la demande de l'Auguste par l'eveque de Milan.3Je ne les evoque rapidement ici que pour rendre plus vraisemblable la maniere dont Gratien a pu consulter l'une ou l'autre fois l'eveque, d'apres la reponse que lui a ete adressee, a en croire un manuscrit neglig6 et dont je parlerai ensuite. Je n'ai cependant pas l'intention de m'etendre ici sur les circonstancesde la >reconnue comme authentique entre les deux hommes et sur toutes les questions qu'elle pose, encore moins sur les lettres officielles,vraisemblablement ecrites par Ambroise, mais envoyees au nom d'un synode aux autorites imperiales du moment.4 Les deux premierslivres du Defide d'Ambroisese presententcomme une reponse a une requete de l'empereur, auquel l'eveque de Milan s'adresse des les premieres lignes.5 Ils se termineront par une nouvelle adresse a l'empereur qui part combattre les Goths.6 La date de ces deux premiers livres a ete beaucoup discutee. I1 me semble qu'il n'y a pas beaucoup a hesiter: nous sommes au debut de 1'ete 378. Un an plus tard environ entre temps, est survenu le desastre d'Andrinople ou l'armee d'Orient et Sur la lettre Cupioualde,v. infraet n. 7. Sur la lettre Nonmihiafectusdefilit,v. infraet n. 8. 3Les du DefideI et II, Defide III, la conclusiondu DefideII, 16, 136143, mais aussi 1'Padresse>>du De SpiritusanctoI, 1, 19-21. 4 Qu'il s'agissede la lettre Et hocgloriaedu concile romain de 378 (ed. M. Zelzer, CSEL82, 3, p. 191-191)ou des lettresdu Concile d'Aquileede 381 (ibid.,p. 182-190; 2
198-204). 5 6
Ambroise,Defide, 1, Prol.,1 (ed. O. Faller, CSEL78, p. 3, 1. 2sq).
Ibid.,2, 16, 136-143(p. 104-107).
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vigliae Christianae58, 407-423
408
YVES-MARIE DUVAL
son chef, l'empereur Valens, ont ete massacres-, Gratien, sur le chemin du retour vers l'Italie et la Gaule, ecrit a Ambroise en lui disant son desir de le voir et de l'entendre, mais aussi son desir de recevoir une version augmentee du Defideprecedemmentenvoye, avec, en particulier,des developpements complementairessur l'Esprit Saint.7 Ambroise, qui, dans une lettreconservee, a assure l'empereurde son affection malgre la reserve qu'il semble avoir observee en ne s'avancant pas a ses devants sur le chemin de son retour, envoie une edition augmentee de son De fide en repondant a certainesobjections,et il promet pour un peu plus tard la redaction d'un expose sur le Saint-Esprit.8Cet expose constituerale traite De Spiritusancto, en trois livres, publie au debut de 381. Celui-ci commence certes par une longue ouverture sur Gedeon et sa toison, mais il est precede dans la qui a reclame majeurepartie de la traditionmanuscritede la Lettrede Gratien a ce travail.9Surtout, des le premier livre, le developpement proprement parler concernant l'Espritdebute par une interpellationde l'Empereurqui se refere au contenu de sa lettre, en meme temps qu'il fait allusion a la restitutionrecente d'une basiliquemise sous sequestrequelque temps auparavant.'0On trouve trois autres interpellationsexplicites de l'empereur au long du livre I,11 une seule vers la fin du deuxieme'2... et aucune dans le troisieme. Je ne parle pas en effet ici de la maniere dont Ambroise s'adresse a son lecteur - qui peut etre, bien entendu, Gratien - a la deuxieme personne du singulier.'3I lui arrive en effet d'interpellerde la meme facon un adversaire arien.'4 Entre ces deux traites, s'en place un autre qui n'est pas specifiquementdedie a l'empereur et dont je parlerai en conclusion.'5Le texte auquel sont consacrees ces quelques pages n'est donc pas un aerolithe, meme s'il n'est connu que depuis moins d'un demi siecle.
7 Gratien,Ep. Cupioualdeap. Ambroise,De Spiritusancto,6d. O. Faller, CSEL79, p. 3-4 (= Ep. 1 Maur (PL 16), 1845, c. 875-876). 8 12: 6d. M. Zelzer, CSEL Ambroise,Ep. Nonmihiafectusdefiit(Ep.Extracollectionem 82, 3, p. 219-221 = Ep. 1 Maur: PL 16, 1845, c. 876C-879A). 9 Voir Faller, CSEL79, p. 22*sq et 2. '1 Ambroise,De Spiritusancto,1, 1, 19-21 (CSEL79, p. 24-25). n Ibidem,1, 2, 27 (p. 27, 1. 4); 1, 3, 53 (p. 36, 1. 143); 1, 12, 128 (p. 70, 1. 25). 12 Ibidem,2, 13, 143 (p. 142, 1. 1). 13 Par exemple, ibidem,1, 4, 56 et 58 et 59 (p. 39, 1. 16, 34, 38, 39). 14 Par exemple, ibidem,1, 10, 112 (p. 63, 1. 1). '5 Voir n. 66.
UNE REPONSE D'AMBROISE A L'EMPEREUR GRATIEN
409
En 1961, L. Machielsen a en effet publie le texte d'un tractatus de evangelio qui couvre partiellement, en ecriture anglo-saxonne du VIIIe siecle, trois folios du Vaticanus PalatinusLatinus577, manuscrit un peu fourre-tout, mais bien ecrit.16I1 s'est longuement demande si ce texte qui, en plus de son titre, porte l'adresse Ambrosius episcopusGratianoAugustoet commence comme une lettre, etait bel et bien une lettred'Ambroise ou le fragment d'un traitisur 1'Evangilededie a Gratien.'7En tout cas, en s'appuyantsurtout sur la quasi concordance des textes bibliques de ce fragment avec ceux qu'utilise d'ordinaire1'evequede Milan,18 il concluait a l'authenticite in de ces pages, et il penchait pour voir en elles un extrait d'un tractatus Je reviendrai plus evangelium evoque par Ambroise dans son De patriarchis. loin sur cette pretendue appartenance, secondaire de toute facon a mon propos.19 En 1961, Machielsen annoncait que ce nouveau texte figureraitbient6t de dom Dekkers dans la deuxieme edition de la ClavisPatrumLatinorum sous le n? 160a. Ce qui se produisit. Mais, dans la troisieme edition, de 1995, la notice est accompagnee d'une precision: < Spuria, iuxta B. Fischer et H. J. Frede >. A ma connaissance, ces eminents specialistesde la Vetus Latinan'ont pas publie les raisons de leur rejet. Ce texte n'a, que je sache, fait l'objet d'aucun autre commentaire, en dehors peut-etre de ce que j'ai ecrit rapidementil y a un peu plus d'un lustre.J'ai fait valoir que ce texte, que je considere comme authentique malgre la facon dont il a ete transmis, s'ajoute a ceux - et je viens de les rappeler brievement - qui revelent l'existence de rapports d'une certaine confiance entre les deux hommes; j'ai egalement dit que ces pages, dont nous n'avons pas la fin, nous arrivaientendommagees dans leur texture.20 Je voudrais,dans l'etude qui suit, soumettreune version amelioree, rape-
16 L. Machielsen, Fragments patristiques non identifies du ms Vat. Pal. Lat. 577 in SacrisErudiri1961, p. 488-539 et plus particulierement p. 515-531, avec edition du texte p. 537-539. Sur le manuscrit, v. J. B. Pitra, G. B. De Rossi, H. Stevenson, Codices PalatiniLatiniBibliothecaeVaticanae,Romae 1886, I, p. 191-192; E. A. Lowe, CodicesLatini Antiquiores,I, Oxford 1934, p. 29, n? 97. 17 Ibidem,p. 525-529. 18 Ibidem,p. 517-520. 19 Voir infra,p. 419-421. 20 Dans la onzieme etude (Sur quelques etudes recentes concernant Ambroise et 1'ariade lArianisme nisme occidental, p. 19), inedite, de mon recueil, Y.-M. Duval, L'extirpation en Italie du Nord et en Occident,Variorum, Ashgate, 1998.
410
YVES-MARIE DUVAL
tassee, de ce texte et confirmer son authenticite, et par la son interet historique. Son apport doctrinal n'est certes pas considerable,dans la mesure ou il presente, pour une part, un enseignement que l'on peut trouver ici et la dans l'ceuvreauthentiqued'Ambroise.Mais justement, la parente avec divers points de la presentation ordinaire d'Ambroise est en faveur de l'authenticite de ces pages, sans fournir pour autant l'indice d'un plagiat ou d'une inspiration d'un texte ou de la pensee d'Ambroise. L'authenticite peut etre confirmee par l'etude du vocabulaire, meme si cette page contient quelques hapaxambrosiens.Restera a nous interrogersur la nature du texte. *
*
*
Avant de presenter un texte un peu plus "lisible"que celui qu'a edite Machielsen, j'en donne rapidement la teneur generale. Celle-ci apparait deja, pour une bonne part, a la simple lecture du fragment, tel qu'il figure dans le Vaticanus Palatinuslatinus577. D'apres le debut de la lettre qui l'evoque, Gratien a presente a Ambroise une <, une difficulte: comment se fait-il que l'Apotre Pierre, le premier des Apotres, soit, lors de la proclamation de Cesaree, qualifie par le Christ de Satan, tandis que le traitreJudas a recu du Christ, au moment meme ou il allait etre arrete, le titre d'ami ? Nous n'en savons pas assez pour nous demander avec raison si l'attitude de Jesus devant Judas n'etait pas interpretee comme une preuve de son ignorance du futur, et donc, selon les Ariens, de sa nondivinite. Ambroise resout la difficulte en envisageant la situation de chacun des deux ap6tres au moment ou Jesus s'adressea eux. Mais l'eveque, avant meme d'exposer et la question et la reponse, fait reference a une et il demande l'aide requete expresse et repetee du religiosissimus imperator du Christ. C'est dans ces premieres lignes que reside l'interet historique du texte. Ce sont aussi ces premieres lignes qui me semblent les plus malmenees dans le manuscrit. Le texte y est si mal transcrit - dans son <>,son decou-
page des mots, sa grammaire, sa ponctuation - que je crois plus clair de donner deux fois le texte en deux colonnes paralleles, plutot que de rediger un apparat critique morcele et par le fait peu clair. Machielsen a deja propose quelques correctionsdans son apparat ou dans son commentaire. Certainess'imposent;21les autres me paraissenterronees22ainsi que ses pro21 Expediant (1. 7); importune (1. 10) tuendas que (1. 20); inmane (1. 32)... 22
En particulier centum (1. 1); amico (1. 65).
UNE REPONSE D'AMBROISE A L'EMPEREUR GRATIEN
411
positions de construction. Elles revelent surtout la maniere dont le texte a ete compris.23J'ajouterai donc ici une traduction, au moins provisoire, qui montrera comment je comprends le texte. Mes modificationset corrections diverses sont, en dehors de la construction et de la liaison des phrases, indiqueespar l'italiqueet des crochets.J'ai, dans les endroitsdelicats, ajoute un ? ou une cruxpour attirer l'attention.Je reviendrai ensuite sur quelques points et je montrerai les parentes de vocabulaire, de texte biblique, d'interpretationavec ceux d'Ambroise. Je n'ai pas revu le manuscritlui-meme et n'ai eu acces qu'a la planche donnee par Machielsen, pour le f. 70r qui contient un peu plus que le debut du texte.4 Qui regardera cette reproduction constatera sans peine que le copiste, qui ne comprend pas le texte, transcritpar groupe de lettres, vraisemblablementa partir d'un manuscrit en capitales ou en onciales, ce qui explique les mauvaises coupes... Ainsi, des la premiere ligne, pegriscentisest a recoller, et non pas a interpreter, comme le propose Machielsen dans son apparat,par pegriscentum. Tout en respectantla ponctuation du manuscrit, Machielsen a propose quelques modifications dans son apparat.Je les evoquerai en note. Bien peu me semblent a retenir.Je ne respecte pas non plus dans mon texte "amende" son decoupage en alineas.
Texte du Vaticanus Pal. Lat.577:
Texte amend6
De Evangelio Tractatus [De Evangelio tractatus] Ambrosius episcopus Gratiano Augusto. Ambrosius episcopus Gratiano Augusto. Crebra inquisitioomnes pegris centis otii amputat moras. Tu informari desideras. Ego testisconscientiaemeae tantae intentionis respondere audeo de libro certe, domne uenerabiliset relegiosissimeimperator,ante quam dicam, ne forsitamquae
Crebra inquisitio omnes pigrescentisotii amputatmoras. Tu, informaridesideras; ego, testisconscientiaemeae, tantaeintentioni[s] respondereaudeo. De libro, certe, domne uenerabiliset religiosissimeimperator, antequam dicam, ne forsitanquae
23
Outre les propositionsavanceesdans l'apparat,voir les indicationssur le contenu: en haut; p. 531 en haut (). 523 p. 24 Ce debut est ecrit, comme Machielsenle releve(art.laud,(n. 16),p. 516) en majuscules anglo-saxonnes. Le f.70r se termine par ipseme siquidem(1. 12), c'est-a-dire au milieu
d'une proposition.1I est donc peu vraisemblableque l'on ait affairea un texte dont l'adresseet l'introductionauraientete en capitales,tandis que le corps de la reponse etait en minuscules.Mais il faut demeurerprudent.
412
YVES-MARIE DUVAL
non expedent dicam. Laxabo ora, mouebo linguam in confessione nominis Domini. Suae iam clementiae erit in se confiso et inportunae postulant miserationis suae auxilium non negare. Ipse me siquidem ut audacter poscerem incdunt. Quicquidcredentes,inquid, in nomine meo petieritis a Patre, dabitur uobis. Serum quia qui amantesinterrogas. Cur Petrum principem Verbi, cui non caro et sanguis sed Pater qui est in caelis, Filium suum reuelauerit, et cui claues aecclesiae consignaueratDominus et regendas tuendaque suas commiserat oues, post paululum discipulo diceretur ab ipso magistro omnium SaluatoreAbi retro, Satanas? Iudam uero traditorem amicum noncuparet, non quo Petrun Satanan dixerat. Sed quia adhuc Petrus dispositionem sacramenti diuini paenitus nesciebat et proinde cum Christus diceret: Necesse est me ire Hierusolimaet ibi multa pati et reprobari et crucifigi, nolens haec Petrus pro Christo uenire eo, quod aut gentem suam inmanu facinusnollet committere aut Christo secundum carnem diligensnon putaret cruci esse figendum. Huius enim mysterii sacramentum obscurabat Petro inimicus in animo, ne intellegeret quae dicebantur a Christo. Equidem Spiritum sanctum apostulus Petrus acciperatet ideo, non quo Dominus Petrum Satanan legitima definitione diceret,se duabusdicendo,Satananpotius a corde remoueret apostoli, ut Petrus posset, remoto Satanan, quae a Christo dicebantur aduertere.
25
26
Mat. 21, 22. Mat. 16, 17.
27 Cf. Mat. 16, 19. 21, 15-17. 29 Mat. 16, 2. 30 Mat. 26, 50. 31 Mat. 16, 21. 28 Joh.
non expediantdicam, laxabo ora, mouebo linguam in confessione nominis Domini. Suae iam clementiae erit in se confiso et inportune postulanti miserationis suae auxilium non negare. Ipse me siquidem ut audacter poscerem incitat: Quicquid, credentes, inquid, in nomine meo petieritis a Patre, dabitur uobis.25 Verumquia [qui] amanter interrogas cur Petrum(t)principem(t)Verbi, cui non caro et sanguis sed Pater qui est in caeet cui daues lis, Flium suum reuelauerat,26 ecclesiae consignaueratDominus27et regendas tuenda<s>que suas commiserat oues,28post paululum discipulo diceretur ab ipso magistro omnium Saluatore: Abi retro, Satanas!29ludam uero traditorem amicum nuncuparet?30Non quo Petrum Satanan dixerit, sed quia adhuc Petrus dispositionem sacramenti diuini penitus nesciebat et proinde cum Christusdiceret: Necesse est me ire Hierusolima<m> et ibi multa pati et reprobari et crucifigi,31nolens haec Petrus pro Christouenire eo quod, aut gentem suam inmane facinus nollet committere, aut, Christumsecundumcarnem diligens,non putaret cruci esse figendum. Huius enim mysterii sacramentum obscurabat Petro inimicus in animo, ne intellegeret quae dicebantura Christo. Equidem Spiritum sanctum apostolus Petrus acceperat et ideo, non quo Dominus Petrum Satanan legitima definitione diceret, sed Abi dicendo, Satananpotius a corde remoueret apostoli, ut Petrus posset, remoto Satana[n], quae a Christo dicebantur aduertere.
UNE IRPONSE D'AMBROISE A L'EMPEREUR GRATIEN
Iudam autem amico. Iam de praeterito non de praesenti tempore uocitabat. Fueratquondamamicusdum adhuc esset apostulos ita enim ad apostulos suos Dominus loquebatur: Non dicam iam uos seruus sed amicos. Iudas autem de amico factus est inimicus et de apostulo traditur. Tantae inmemor claritatus accepte in Iehsum Christum Dominum nostrum, infelicissimus omnium, raptatus spirituiniquitatis,extitit persequutor. Sero doluit miser unum se, accepto sanguinis pretio, tradidissemorti per quem omnes quos mancipauerat reciperent uitam. De Iuda igitur. Sic per Dauid psalmigraphumdiuina scribturacommemorat: Homo, inquid, pacis meae, qui edebat panes meos ampliauit aduersus me sub plantationem, et alio in loco: Fiant dies eius pauci et episcopum illius accipiatalter. Et ideo illi amicitiampraeteritam reputauit, quia de amico factus est inimicus.
413
Iudam autem amicum,iam de praeterito non de praesenti tempore uocitabat. Fueratquondamamicus,dum adhuc esset apostolus. Ita enim ad apostolos suos Dominus loquebatur: Non dicam iam uos seruos, sed amicos.32Iudas autem, de amico factus est inimicus et de apostolo traditor. Tantae inmemor claritatis acceptae,in Iehsum ChristumDominum nostrum,infelicissimusomnium, raptatus spirituiniquitatis,extititpersequutor.Sero doluit, miser, unum(t) se, accepto sanguinis pretio,33tradidissemorti per quem omnes quos mancipauerat reciperent uitam. De Iuda igitur sic per Dauid psalmigraphum diuina scribturacommemorat: Homo, inquid, pacis meae, qui edebat panes meos ampliauit aduersus me et alio in loco: Fiant subplantationem,34 dies eius pauci et episcopum illius accipiat alter.35Et ideo illi amicitiam praeteritam reputauit, quia, de amico, factus est inimicus...
Voici la traduction proposee: [Sermon sur 1'Evangile] Ambroise eveque a Gratien Auguste.
32
Joh. 15, 15.
Mat. 27, 6. 40, 10. 35 Ps. 101, 7.
33
34 Ps.
414
YVES-MARIE DUVAL
. Mais, puisque tu poses de maniere aimante la question de savoir pourquoi (a ?) Pierre, le prince du Verbe, lui a qui ce ne sont pas la chair et le sang, mais le Pere qui est dans les cieux qui a revele son Fils, lui a qui le Seigneur avait confie les cles de l'Eglise et ses brebis a la fois a diriger et a proteger, pourquoi a ce disciple est-il dit peu apres par le maitre meme <et> le sauveur de tous : Va-t-en Satan ! , tandis qu'il appelle le traitreJudas son ami. Ce n'est pas qu'il ait appele Pierre Satan, mais parce que Pierre ignorait encore totalement 1'economie du mystere divin. Ainsi donc, alors que le Christ disait: < II est necessaire que j'aille a Jerusalem et que, la, je souffre beaucoup, je sois rejete et mis en croix >>,Pierre, qui ne voulait pas que cela advienne au Christ, parce que, ou bien il ne voulait pas que son peuple commette forfait monstrueux ou bien parce qu'il aimait le Christ selon la chair et ne pensait pas qu'il devait etre mis en croix. L'Ennemi masquait le sens profond de ce mystere dans 1'espritde Pierre, pour que celui-ci ne comprenne pas les propos du Christ. En verit6, l'ap6tre Pierre avait recu l'Esprit-Saintet c'est pourquoi .. ce n'est pas que le Seigneur appelle Pierre Satan dans une definition conforme aux regles; mais, en disant: , eloigner plut6t Satan du coeur de l'Apotre, pour que Pierre puisse, une fois Satan ecarte, comprendre les propos du Christ. Quant a Judas, en l'appelant ami, il parlait du passe, et non du temps present. Il avait ete autrefois son ami, au temps ou il etait encore <son> apotre. C'est ainsi, en effet, que le Seigneur disait a ses Ap6tres: <Je ne vous appelleraiplus serviteurs,mais amis >>.Mais Judas, d'ami, est devenu ennemi et, d'apotre traitre. Sans se souvenir de l'honneur si grand qu'il avait recu, il se dressa en persecuteurde Jesus, le Christ, le Seigneur, miserable qu'il fut entre tous, ayant ete entraine par 1'Esprit d'iniquite. Le malheureux se lamenta tardivement d'avoir a lui seul livre a la mort, en recevant le prix du sang, celui par lequel tous ceux que celui-ci s'etait acquis recouvrent la vie. De Judas, donc, l'Ecriture divine annonce par David, l'auteur des Psaumes: >et, dans un autre passage: ? Que ses jours diminuent et qu'un autre re9oive sa charge de surveillance>. Voila la raison pour laquelle le Christ lui a rappele son amitie passee, parce que, d'ami, il est devenu ennemi... >> Avant de passer au contenu du texte et a la reponse faite a la question a partir de l'explication des textes bibliques concernant Pierre et Judas,
UNE RIPONSE D'AMBROISE A L'EMPEREUR GRATIEN
415
commen;ons par l'examen de la langue et du style.36L'une des difficultes de ces pages, mal resolue par Machielsen, conceme le dcoupage des phrases et la syntaxe. Je n'ai pas reponse a tout. Je crois cependant que l'on peut faciliter la comprehension de ces pages a condition, d'une part, de modifier la ponctuation du manuscrit, d'autre part, d'admettre au moins quelques anacoluthes.37Ambroise pratique de telles anacoluthes ou des accords ad sensum;jamais cependant a plusieurs reprises dans la meme page! La premiere phrase ne presente pas de difficulte; elle constitue une entree en matiere directe, comme Ambroise les aime. La deuxieme phrase est moins claire; elle se prolonge plus que ne le laisse apparaitrela ponctuation du manuscrit, mais elle ne se lie et ni se lit sans peine,38le vocabulaire etant cependant celui d'Ambroise, comme on le verra plus loin. Pourtant le sens general est clair: Ambroise se propose de repondre a la question, mais apres avoir demande l'aide du Christ. Nous sommes devant un exorde avec ses caracteres ordinaires. Le second paragraphe du >formule la demande de Gratien et commence aussi a fournir la reponse d'Ambroise ; d'ou une certaine imbrication et une anacoluthe.39Mais le sens demeure visible: Ambroise rend le Diable responsable de l'ignorance de Pierre. Selon lui, le Christ s'adresseau Diable, non a Pierre, quand il dit . Nous y reviendrons.Je souligne seulement ici le traitement , mais medicinal, que je propose de faire subir un peu plus loin a <se duabus en reprenantle Abi du texte dicendo > qui devient <sed Abi dicendo... biblique avance par Ambroise un peu auparavantdans l'expose de la question de Gratien. Les changements de ponctuation, au debut et au centre, suffisenta rendre lisible le troisieme ensemble du texte redecoupe, qui conceme Judas.
36 Je reviendrai plus loin (n. 39, 47) sur quelques corrections supplementaires qui me paraissent possibles. 37 On en trouve chez Ambroise, ainsi que des accords ad sensum.Voir, par ex., 1'ExplanatioPsalmi 1, 3 (ed. M. Petschenig, CSEL 64, p. 4, 1. 13-18). 38 Faut-il rattacher les mots de libro a la phrase qui precede et faire commencer la phrase suivante par un enclitique ? Machielsen (p. 538, apparat)conserve le g6nitif tantae intentions,le d6place apr6s de libroet omet le certe... Voir aussi, ibid., p. 525 en bas. Le liberest sans doute l'Evangile, sur lequel Ambroise a ete interroge. 39 Anacoluthe, si on conserve l'accusatif curPetrum princpemuerbi,avant qu'on ne passe au datif: discipulodiceretur.Mais on peut peut-etre, comme le propose ici Machielsen (p. 538, apparat),lire Petroprincipi... Sur le douteux princepsuerbi,v. infra et n. 44.
416
YVES-MARIE DUVAL
I1 n'est pas necessaire d'operer ici la moindre correction,40en dehors du jeu des declinaisons,de l'evolution de la prononciationdes finales (amicUM ou des prononciationsde voyelpour amicO,peut-etreentrainepar praeteritO) les o/u e/ae que l'on trouvait deja, avec d'autres, dans les lignes preceen psalmegraphus mieux dentes. Je n'ai meme pas corrige le psalmigraphus mais du tout chez Ambroise. atteste, pas Ce mot, dont le sens est clair,ne figurepas dans le vocabulaired'Ambroise SanctiAmbrosiidu Cetedoc. II en tel qu'on peut le verifier par le Thesaurus va de meme pour traditor, alors qu'Ambroiseutilise d'ordinaireproditor pour uocitare.Le reste inportune, designerJudas, pour amanter,dispositiosacramenti, des mots est present chez Ambroise, et parfois de facon abondante.41Ainsi de informare, inquisitioou intentio,mais aussi du pigrescoinitial,42de consignare, raptare,obscurare. J'attire l'attention sur laxareora en De uirginibus, mancipare, et meme sur laxare 1, 1, 2,43 linguamen De Iacob,2, 11, 48, et je ne parle diuina,qui est moins frequentqu'on le penserait,mais atteste. pas de scriptura Les corrections importantessont rares en dehors du sedAbi de la ligne 40 et de l'exclusion du qui de la ligne 15 qui serait une dittographie du uerbi(1. 16), maisje me demande quiavoisin.J'ai laisse dans le texte principem s'il ne faudrait pas corriger en principem fidei, expression qui, pour ne pas bien dans le Thesaurus si ambrosien, est cependant bel et vu, figurer, j'ai bien employee par Ambroise pour designer Pierre en un texte qui explique la confession de la foi de Cesaree.44Or nous allons retrouvercelle-ci. Je ne reviens pas ici longuement sur la materialite des textes bibliques mentionnes ou cites par notre texte. Machielsen en a foumi un tableau a
40 Sur unum(1. 55), v. la n. 47.
41 Machielsen a deja (p. 523-524) attir6e 'attention sur certains mots et constructions
caract6ristiques d'Ambroise. 42 Voir De Abraham2, 10, 74 (ed. C. Schenkl, CSEL 32, p. 628, 1. 3: ); Explan. Ps. 43, 61 (CSEL 64, p. 304, 1. 20: v ne aliquo torpore pigrescant >). 43 De uirginibus,1, 1, 2 (PL 16, c. 188A-B) >. 44 Voir le texte de 1'ExpositioeuangeliiLucae5, 98 (cit6 infra,p. [ici, p. 418]) On notera en De incarnationis dominicaesacramento, 4, 32 (CSEL 79, p. 239, 1. 74-75), a propos de la confession de C6saree: ? statim loci non inmemor, sui primatumegit, primatum confessionis utique >. Noter aussi le immemor+ g6nitif, caract6ristique d'Ambroise. Sur le cas de princeps,v. supra,n. 39.
UNE REPONSED'AMBROISEA L'EMPEREURGRATIEN
417
peu pres complet.5 I1 a fait apparaitrequ'ils etaient quasi identiquesa ceux d'entre eux au moins (mais les plus nombreux) qu'Ambroise cite ou utilise dans ses autres oeuvres.Je ferai simplement remarquerque tout n'est pas mais <>.Quant a Abi, au lieu de Vade,il ne constitue pas, malgre son apparence d'hapax,une difference ou une uariatioplus importante que le Veniqu'on trouvedansplusieursautrestextesd'Ambroiselui-meme!46Somme toute, je ne vois pas de raison majeure de penser que ce commentaire de deux scenes evangeliques utilise des textes differents que ceux que l'on retrouve dans les pages d'Ambroise reconnues pour etre authentiques. II est au moins deux allusions a ajouter a l'apparat scripturaire de Machielsen. Elles renvoient toutes deux a l'Evangilede Matthieu.Celui-ci est en effet le seul a evoquer l'appellation d'ami par laquelle Jesus accueille Judas au moment ou celui-ci le designe a la troupe du Jardin des oliviers (Mat 26, 50); il est aussi le seul qui rapporte que les grands-pretresne voulurent pas reprendre les trente pieces d'argentjetees dans le Temple, >(Mat 27, 1-10 et en particulier 27, 6 et 8). L'episode est vise dans notre texte par la phrase: <<Sero doluit, miser, unum se, accepto sanguinis pretio,tradidissemorti <eum> per quem omnes quos mancipauerat reciperent uitam (1. 54-57). II importe en outre de noter dans notre texte, surtout si on conserve unumtel quel,47une double opposition: entre le seul (Judas) qui trahit (et qui meurt) et toute l'humanite (qui retrouve la vie); entre la mort du Christ (causee par la trahison) et la vie, recuperee par tous. Or, on trouve un developpement en partie semblable dans l'ExpositioeuangeliiLucae... qui n'avait pas de raison de s'etendre sur la mort de Judas, puisque cet episode ne figure pas dans Machielsen, Art. laud. (n. 16), p. 517-520. Sur abi, v. Machielsen, p. 520, n. 121. Sur ueni au lieu de uade,v. les textes cites ibid., p. 519. 47 J'ai, dans le texte "amende", conserve le mot unumet j'ai introduit ici, pour plus de clart6, l'anaphorique <eum> devant per quem,bien qu'il ne soit pas du tout indispensable. On peut cependant se demander si unumne devrait pas etre remplace par . eum, avec une belle hyperbate: o eum se... tradidisse .per quem... >>.L'opposition entre mort et vie degagee plus loin, subsisterait, moins celle entre le seul Judas et la multitude des hommes. 45 46
418
YVES-MARIE DUVAL
l'Evangilede Luc ! Mais Ambroise ne se prive jamais de faire appel a chacun des autres Evangilesquand bon lui semble. Je ne m'attarderaipas a l'ensemble de la page, complexe a souhait, de l'Expositio,qui oppose les comportements de Pierre et de Judas devant leur trahison respective.Je me contente de citer ici le commentairede la mention du <prix du sang : . Notre texte declare: (1. 34-37). Peut-on demander parente de pensee plus precise ? Peut-on demander variatiomieux adaptee aux questions posees. Cette opposition est d'ailleurs sous-jacente a une autre page ofu Ambroise explique et justifie la meme repartie du Christ sous la forme: < Veniretro post me ?, selon qu'elle s'adresse a Pierre ou au Diable.49 48Expositio Lucae,10, 96 (CSEL32, 4, p. 492, 1. 2-7). euangelii 49
Ambroise, ExplanatioPs. 61, 19 (ed. M. Petschenig, CSEL 64, p. 390, 1. 12-18).
UNE RFPONSE D'AMBROISE
A
L'ERMPEREURGRATTEN
419
La subtiliten'est pas moins grande au sujet de Judas, qualified'ami... du passe. La reponsejustifie cette appellation d'ami, tout d'abord en rangeant Judas parmi le groupe des Apotres qui ont droit (desormais)a ce titre; mais en recourant aussi au Psaume40 ou il faut deviner la pointe du raisonnement, malheureusementabsente de notre texte tel que nous le possedons. L'Explanatio Psalmi 40 permet, me semble-t-il, d'avancer sans risles que majeur, precisions suivantes. Non seulement, en effet, ce verset est longuement entendu de Judas,50mais Ambroise, sans prononcer certes le nom d'ami, s'attardesur le debut du verset: < Homo pacis meae > en disant: o Homopads meae,cui pacem meam dederam Joh. 14, 27b), pacem meam relinquere uolueram (Joh. 14, 27a), persecutoribus deductis me tradidit...>.51 Ce qu'on notera surtout ici, c'est la parfaite concordance dans la citation du texte biblique - a une omission pres: ?in quem speet de subplantatio raui? -, malgre les difficultesd'ampliauit que signale et exa au texte de 1'Evangile en les Ambroise rapportant Judas.52Quant ploite de Jean qui est sous-jacent, s'il n'est pas celui de Joh. 15, 15 invoque par notre texte, il appartient au meme discours apres la Cene et s'adresse de facon particuliereaux Apotres. *
*
*
Machielsen s'est longuement demande si nous avions affaire a une lettre En faveur de la deuxieme hypothese, il avance ou a un traited'Ambroise.53 le renvoi par Ambroiselui-meme dans son De patriarde facon particuliere54 chis4, 21 a un ? tractatushabitus in Euangelium>.55Notre texte serait un I1 s'agit dans ce traite sur les patriarfragment de ce Traitesur 1'Evangile. ches d'expliquerla benediction par Jacob de son filsJuda a la fin du livre de la Genise.Contrairementa ce qu'avance Machielsen, le renvoi effectue euangeliiLucaes'impose,56meme si Ambroise par les editeurs a 1'Expositio
50
Ps. 40, 21 et 24 (Ibid.,p. 242-243; p. 245, 1. 3-24). Ambroise,Explanatio
51
Ibid., p. 243, 1. 8-10.
52
Ibid.,p. 245, 1. 3.
Art.laud.(n. 16),p. 525-530. Machielsen, Ibidem, p. 528 (et p. 537, apparat). 55 Ambroise, Depatriarchis, 4, 21 (ed.K. Schenkl,CSEL32, 2, p. 136: avec habitoin Euangelium, ut docuimustractatu per Herodemadulterata 53
54
renvoi i In Lucam3, 41.
56 Memesi le renvoia 1'Histoire de 'Eglise,1, 7 par C. et H. Schenklen Expositio Lucae3, 41 (CSEL32, 4, p. 129), suivispar G. Tissot (Schr.45 bis, p. 143), et euangelii
n'estpas le plusindique. d'Africanus a la lettre
420
YVES-MARIEDUVAL
n'indique pas le titre exact d'un ouvrage, qu'il a deja ou n'a pas encore publie, ou d'un sermon qu'il a tenu. De part et d'autre, il se refere au synchronisme etabli par Eusebe de Cesaree dans son Histoirede l'Eglise,57 et qu'on retrouvedans la Chronique traduiteparJer6me,58selon lequel l'avenement a la tete du peuple juif en 34 av. J.-C. d'un Idumeen, en la personne d'Herode, marque le terme de la promesse faite par Jacob a son filsJuda (Gen.49, 10). D'autre part, le mot habitusemploye ici par Ambroise, et dont Machielsen ne dit rien, fait pencher en faveur d'un <sermon tenu sur l'Evangile>>,et non d'un <>. Le deuxieme texte invoque par Machielsen - qui appartient d'ailleurs a la lettre Cupioualdede Gratien, et non pas a un texte d'Ambroise-, vise assurement les deux premiers livres du De fide, quel que soit le contexte exact de la demande de Gratien, sur lequel on continue a discuter. II ne peut s'agir en tout cas, dans cette demande precise de la lettre Cupioualde,59 du present texte sur les deux ap6tres Pierre et Judas. Quant a la longueur de la presente reponse, il n'est pas necessaire de beaucoup la prolonger, la difficultesoulevee ayant ete resolue. Quelques-unesdes lettres ne sont pas plus longues. I1 manque a coup sur la formule finale. Ambroise n'a peut-etre pas cru ce billet digne d'entrer dans la collection de ses lettres. Mais celle-ci nous echappe en partie. On sait que nous manque le livre III et que le livre II ne compte que quatre lettres. Dans les petits ensembles adresses a des proches, l'eveque (?) a cru bon d'insererici une lettre a Valentinien (VI, 3a), 1a une lettre a Theodose (V, 25). Si on ne peut rien conclure, on ne peut pas non plus rejeter sans autre forme de proces, tant l'oeuvred'Ambroisemanque d'un index analoguea l'Indiculum de la bibliotheque d'Hippone. Machielsen a en effet tout a fait raison de rappeler que nous ne possedons aucune liste antique des oeuvresd'Ambroise.60De la, outre les questions de datation, les incertitudes concernant certaines pieces parvenues
Eusebe, Histoirede l'Eglise, 1, 6, 1-8 (ed. Schwartz, GCS 9, 1, p. 17-18 = SChr. 31, p. 22-24). 58 ad a.34 a.C (ed. R. Helm, GCS 47, p. 160). Jer6me, Chronicon 59 Gratien, Ep. Cupioualde, 3 (ed. O. Faller, CSEL 79, p. 4): < Rogo te ut mihi des ipsum tractatumquem dederas, augendo... >. Chez Ambroise, tractatusa des sens plus ou moins larges. I1 parle, par ex., du tractatus fidi qu'est le symbole de Nicee (De fide, 3, 15, 125 - CSEL 78, p. 151, 1. 19), mais aussi de la marche de son expose: ... ut quasi per gradus quosdam tractatus noster incedat... ? (De Spiritusancto, 1, 1, 22 CSEL 79, p. 25, 1. 28-29). 60 Malchielsen, Art. laud. (n. 16), p. 527. 57
UNE R]PONSE D'AMBROISEA L'EMPEREURGRATIEN
421
jusqu'a nous, sur lesquellesje n'ai pas besoin de m'etendre; de 1a notre ignorance de pieces ou d'ouvrages attestes dont nous avons quelques fragments ou equivalents, comme le Commentaire sur Isaie ou le De philosophia attestes par Augustin, ou dont nous ne connaissons que l'existence meme, comme le libellusa Pansophius de Florence, la lettre en forme de catechisme a la reine des Alamans, Fritigil, dont parle Paulin de Milan,61ou encore les oeuvressur les passions de martyrs qu'evoque Augustin dans la Lettresdecouvertes par J. Divjak.62 ne me parat derniere des NJouvelles donc nullement invraisemblableque le texte present, epave au milieu d'un manuscritcomposite, soit bel et bien d'Ambroise.En definitive,je pencherai plut6t pour une lettre, a cause de l'accord entre l'adresse explicite et le debut meme du texte qui se decide a repondre a une demande plusieurs fois formulee et qui, apres avoir demande l'aide du Christ, enonce la question a laquelle il a ete demande de repondre. Tout cela ressemble a bien des "lettres exegetiques" a Orontianus ou a Irenee. Je pencherais aussi pour un temps ofu Gratien ne se trouve pas trop loin d'Ambroise. Mais surtout,je souligneraisle climat de confiance qui regne entre les deux hommes et qui peut expliquer la maniere dont l'eveque se fera le defenseur de l'empereur apres la disparitionbrutale de ce derier. *
*
*
J'illustreraices conclusions et suggestions par deux prolongements qui ne sont pas etrangers a mon propos ni a ce texte. J'ai evoque en commen?ant le Defide et le De Spiritusanctod'Ambroise,qui sont tous deux lies a la personne de Gratien - meme si, bien entendu, ces traites visent un public et des questions beaucoup plus larges. Entre les deux se place le De si on en croit, non pas tant l'exorde, qui, incarationisdominicae sacramento Paulin de fait allusion a la difaillance de deux chambelMilan,63 d'apres lans ariensqui auraientpresentedes objectionsa l'eveque,mais la fin... sans fin du traite. Ambroise, en effet, conscient de la longueur de ses developpements, se fait adresser la remarque qu'il a deja consacre cinq livres le Defide - demontrer la divinite du Pere et du Fils.64Notons qu'il n'est pas question de 1'Esprit-Saint.Notons aussi qu'Ambroise declare devoir prolonger sa reponse parce qu'on (les Ariens !) lui fait sans cesse des objec-
61
62
Paulin de Milan, Vtt Ambrosii,28 et 36.
Augustin,Ep. 29*, 2 (ed.J. Dijak, BA 46B, p. 414-416). 63 Paulin, VitaAmbrosi,18. 64Ambroise,De incamationis...,7, 62 (CSEL79, p. 256, 1. 1-8).
422
YVES-MARIE DUVAL
tions: <,65il formule sa reponse a la
65
Ibidem,8, 79 (p. 264). Ibidem,8, 80 (p. 264, 1. 12sq.). 67 Y.-M. Duval, Les ambassades de saint Ambroise aupres de l'usurpateur Maxime en 383 et 384, in Humanasapit, Etude d'Antiquititardiveoffertesa Lelia Cracco-Ruggini, ed. J.-M. Carrie et R. Lizzi-Testa, Turhout, Brepols 2002, p. 239-251. 68 Ambroise, Explanatiopsalmi 61, 25-26 (CSEL 64, p. 393, 1. 20 - p. 394, 1. 14). 69 Ibid., 61, 26 (p. 394, 1. 24sq.). 70 Ambroise, Explanatiopsalmi 40, 16-23 (p. 238-244). J'emploie ici ce mot, en reference au Sermon Pseudo Augustinien (Caillau-Saint-Yves 1, 68 - PLS II, 1017-1019) mentionne par Machielsen (n. 16), p. 521-522, et dont la fin oppose le comportement de Judas et de Pierre, avec, pour Judas (?3 ad f.) une citation - attendue - du Ps. 66
UNE REPONSED'AMBROISEA L'EMPEREURGRATIEN
423
seulement au Christ deplorant la conduite de Judas, mais aussi a Gratien qui n'a pas ete respecte par ceux avec lesquels il avait mange.71On notera au moins la coincidence. Elle ne plaide pas en faveur d'une imitation par un faussaire.Elle ne plaide pas non plus pour une compositionpar Ambroise posterieure a la mort du jeune empereur. Mais qui expliquera comment ce texte est venu s'echouer au beau milieu d'un manuscrit aussi composite ? Yves-Marie Duval 9, Bd Verd de Saint-Julien F-92190-Meudon
40,10. Voir aussi Machielsen, CPPMA IA, n0 160. En dehors de l'opposition entre les deux Ap6tres, il n'y a aucune ressemblance entre les deux textes et, a mon sens, aucune parente entre ce sermon et la lettre a Gratien. 71 Ibidem,40, 23 (p. 244, 1. 19-21).
DIE MUSEN IM DIENSTE CHRISTI: STRATEGIEN DER RECH'FERTIGUNG CHRISTLICHoR DICH'UNG IN DER LATEINISCHEN SPATANTIKE VON
THOMAS GARTNER The presentarticleexaminesthe argumentsby which early Christian poets in Late Antiquityjustify their attempt to combine Christiancontent and pagan poetical form. It focuses on the poetologically significantparts of their works, especiallythe proems. Whereas the earliestpoets, i.e. Proba, Prudentius and Orientius,justify Christian poetry by its effects on the poet's personality and in the context of the poet's life,Juvencus prefiguresanother type of argument which is fully.developed in Sedulius' Carmen paschale,according to which Christianpoetry is justified by its material and formal qualities.This new type of argument has enormous reception in the Middle Ages and is especially adapted by Hrotsvith of Gandersheim who combines content and form as two coordinates of a more differentiatedsystem. ABSTRACT:
In der Spatantikeentwickeln bestimmte herkommlicheFormen lateinischer Dichtung, insbesondere das Epos und die von Horaz ins Lateinische tibertragenenlyrischen Kleinformen, Ableger speziell christlichen Inhalts. Hierbei handelt es sich zum einen um das von Juvencus inauguriertehexametrischeBibelepos, zum anderen um die teilweise in lyrischenVersmaBen gehaltenen Dichtungen des Prudentius.Wer die bedeutsame Frage stellt, welche Funktionsolche dichterischenErzeugnisseim Rahmen der christlichen Heilslehrehaben sollen,wird seinen Blickeinerseitsauf die groBenchristlichen Autoritatender Spatantikerichten,andererseitsauf die erwahntenchristlichen Dichtungen selbst und in diesen insbesondere auf die herkommlichen Kristallisationszentren wie Prologund Epilog. poetologischerSelbstbekundung Die patristische Lehre bietet entauschenderweise so gut wie keinen AufschluB: Etwa Hieronymus erwahnt die Evangelien-Versifikationdes Juvencus u.a. in seiner christlichenLiteraturgeschichteDe viris illustribus', aber ohne sich irgendwie iiber den Wert solcher Dichtung im Sinne christlicher Heilslehre zu auBern.Wahrend die heidnischen lateinischenDichter I Hier. vir.ill. 84. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 424-446
DIE MUSEN IM DIENSTE CHRISTI
425
haufig Gegenstand polemischer Kritik bei den Kirchenvater sind, scheint eine christlicheDichtung in dem Lehrgebaude,welches diese groBenkirchlichen Autoritatenin der Spatantikeerrichten, keine Rplle zu spielen. Wer AufschluBiiber den Sinn christlicherDichtung sucht, ist also vor allem auf den Text der Gedichte selbst angewiesen. Bei dem folgenden Durchgang durch einige wichtige Stationen poetologischer SelbstrechtfertigungchristlicherDichtungen in der Spatantikesoil der Schwerpunktauf die Individualitatdes jeweiligen Rechtfertigungsansatzes gelegt werden. Die bisherige Forschung tendiert dazu, die hier zu behandelnden poetologischenZeugnissenicht allzu scharfvoneinanderzu differenzieren und ihre (haufig als Topoi aufgefaBten)Bestandteile zu verstehen als typische AuBerungeneiner kollektivenTextgruppe, namlich ,,der" spatantiken Bibelepik oder ,,der" christlichen Dichtung. So spricht Dieter Kartschoke in einer monographischenUntersuchung der Bibeldichtungin engem AnschluB an Ernst Robert Curtius von einem ,,Vorrat christlicher Einleitungstopoi,der variiertund in wechselnderZusammensetzungin allen Proomien wiederkehrt"2.Die weiteren Untersuchungender Bibelepikdurch Reinhart Herzog3 und Michael Roberts4 nehmen die Bibelepik ebenfalls vorwiegend als Gattungserscheinungin den Blick (Herzog unter rezeptionsasthetischemGesichtspunkt,Roberts im Zusammenhang der spatantiken Tradition der Bibelparaphrase)und sind an den Besonderheitender poetologischenSelbstrechtfertigungeneinzelner Dichter weniger interessiert. Paul Klopsch behandelt - anders als die zuvor genannten Forscher - in des Lateinischen Mittelalters5 die einzelseiner Einfthrungin die Dichtungslehren nen spatantikenDichter iiberhaupt nicht als Individuen, sondern gliedert seine Erorterungder antiken VoraussetzungenmittelalterlicherPoetologie nurmehr nach verschiedenen Einzeltopoi, beispielsweise,,Heilswirksamkeit der Dichtung"; ,,Apoll und die Musen"; ,,Musenquell;Bewasserungstopik". Demgegenubersoil im folgendenzwar nicht das uniibersehbareWiederkehren bestimmterMotive geleugnet, aber doch weniger eine Geschichteder einzelnen Topoi nachgezeichnetwerden;vielmehrsollendie Rechtfertigungsversuche der einzelnen Dichter als individuelle Modelle angesehen werden, welche zunachst jedes fiursich Interesse beanspruchen.
2 Dieter Kartschoke, Bibeldichtung (Munchen 1975) 55. 3 Die der lateinischen (Miinchen 1975). Spdtantike Bibeepik 4
in LateAntiquity BiblicalEpicandRhetorical (Liverpool1985). Paraphrase
5 (Darmstadt 1980) 20 ff.
426
THOMAS GARTNER
1. Proba Die Betrachtungsoil beginnen bei der in der zweiten Halfte des vierten Jahrhundertstatigen,aus stadtr6mischemAdel stammendenDichterinProba, welche die Schreibweise eines Cento in die christliche Literatureinfuihrt: Abschnitte der biblischen Geschichte werden in Hexametern beschrieben, welche vollstandigaus vergilischenVersteilenzusammengesetztsind. Hinter solcher Schreibweisesteht die Auffassung,daB die christlicheHeilswahrheit - gleichwohl in gewissermaBenverschliisselterForm - latent bereits im Text des heidnischen Dichters enthalten ist. Im Prooemium heiBt es cecinisseloquarpia muneraChristi. Vergilium Ich will bekunden,daBbereitsVergildie frommenLeistungenChristibesungen hat6. Der KirchenvaterHieronymushat dieserbei ProbaverwendetenCentonenform iibrigens in einem seiner Briefe jeglichen Wert abgesprochen7. Noch frei von den Zwangen durchgangiger Centonenform ist das Prooemiumdes Gedichts. Proba berichtetvon ihrem friiherendichterischen Werk, welches mit einem burgerkriegsartigenGeschehen8befaBtwar. DaB sie sich einem solchen Thema gewidmet hat, bedauert die Dichterin; sie setzt hinzu ,,ich gestehe es" (Confiteor) und ,,es reicht, sich an [vergangenes] Ubel zu erinner" (satisest meminisse Als Kontrast wird diesem malorum)9. friiheren Werk mit einem nachdrucksvollen,Jetzt" das neue christliche Werk entgegengestellt,das sie Gott selbst iibereignetund fuirdas sie um Inspirationdurch den Heiligen Geist bittet. Hier begegnet zum ersten Mal in der christlichenDichtung ein Motiv, welches im weiteren Verlauf dieser Literaturformgeradezu topische Haufigkeit erlangt und welches man als ,,biographischen Kontrast-Topos" bezeichnen kann: Der Verfasser einer
6
Prob. 23. Vgl. R.P.H. Green, ,,Proba's Introduction to her Cento", CQ47 (1997) 548-559, hier 556 mit Anm. 45. 7
Hier. epist.53, 7. Die communis opinio der Proba-Forschungsieht hierhinterdie Usurpationdes Magnentiusin denJahren351 bis 353. Abweichendvon dieserAuffassungglaubtDanuta Shanzer (,,The Anonymous Carmencontrapaganosand the Date and Identity of the CentonistProba",RevuedesetudesAugustiniennes 32 (1986)232-248, hier 232 f., und ausfiihrlicher,,The Date and Identityof the CentonistProba",Recherches 27 Agustiniennes (1994) 75-96, hier 83-86) eher an ein Gedichtmythologischenoder ilterenhistorischen Inhalts. 9 Prob. 8. 8
DIE MUSEN IM DIENSTE CHRISTI
427
christlichenDichtung beschreibt,wie er von friiheren,andersartigenThemen auf dem Wege eines bekehrungsartigenWandels zu seinemjetzigen Gegenstand gelangte. Im folgenden widersetztsich Proba einigen dichterischenKonventionen, wie beispielsweisedem herkommlichenMusenanruf.Wichtigfir die Entwicklung der spatantikenBibelepik und ihrer poetologischen Rechtfertigungist besonders die Ablehnung des Ruhms, welcher iiblicherweisevon jedem antiken Dichter erstrebt wird. Proba sagt in schroffer Ablehnung dieses konventionellenMotivs: Nullusenimlaborest verbisextendere famam studiisparvamdisquirere laudem Atquehominum Es ist ganz und gar nicht meine Bemiihung,durchWorteRuhm auszubreiten und durch menschlicheBemuhungenein Lob von geringemWert zu erwerben'?. 2. Pnude Die zweite Station der vorliegenden Betrachtung ist der wohl bedeutendste christliche Dichter der lateinischen Antike, Aurelius Prudentius Clemens. In der Praefatio seines am Anfang des finften Jahrhunderts edierten dichterischen Werks laBt der nunmehr 57-jihrige Prudenz sein bisheriges Leben Revue passieren, insbesondere seine juristische,politische und militarische Tatigkeit. In Anbetracht des nahenden Todes muB der Dichter die existenzielleWertlosigkeitdieser Tatigkeitenerkennen.Das Ziel, welches er mit seinen Dichtungen verfolgt, formuliert er folgendermaBen:
'0 Prob. 18 f. Was den Sinn von Nullusenimlaborest (18) anbelangt,so scheint die Wiedergabe von E.A. Clark/D.F. Hatch, The GoldenBough,the OakenCross:The Virgilian
Centoof FaltoniaBetitiaProba,AmericanAcademyof Religion:Texts and Translations5 (1981) 17 (,,It is not my task, indeed, to publicize/My fame on the strengthof words, thereby/To seek some small acclaim from human favor")vorzuziehengegenuberder sich wider diesen tbersetzungsversuchwendenden Ubertragungvon R.P.H. Green, ,,Proba'sIntroductionto her Cento", CQ47 (1997) 548-559, hier 555 (,,For it requires no effort to extend one's fame with words and to seek [or ,,gain"] some small praise by following human studies"):Nullus... laborest wird man im Zusammenhangvon aNon... curaest mihi.. ./INeclibet.. ./Non mihi... vanuspersuadeat error(13 ff.) wohl auffassen im Sinne von nulluslabormihi est bzw. nulluslabormeusest. Zum praedikativen Gebrauch
von nullusim Sinne von nonvgl. L6fstedt,Syntactica II 370 f.; Hofmann/SzantyrII 205.
428
THOMASGARTNER
Atquifine sub ultimo 35 Peccatrixanimastultitiamexuat; SaltemvoceDeumconcelebret, si meritisnequit. dies Hymniscontinuet Nec nox ulla vacetquinDominumcanat; discutiat Pugnetcontrahereses,catholicam fidem, 40 Conculcet sacragentium, Labem,Roma,tuis inferatidolis, laudetapostolos. Carmenmartyribus devoveat, Und doch soil meine sundige Seele am auBersten Ende ihre Torheit ablegen; sie soil Gott wenigstens mit der Stimme preisen, wenn sie es mit ihren Verdienstennicht vermag. Sie soil mit hymnischenLiedern Tag fiir Tag verbringen, und keine Nacht soil ungenutzt vergehen, ohne daB sie ihren Herm anruft;sie soil gegen Irrlehrenkimpfen, sie soil den katholischenGlauben auseinandersetzen,sie soil die Heiligtiimerder Heiden niedertrampeln,sie soil Roms Gotzenbildem Schande bringen, sie soil ihr Lied den Martyrernzukommen lassen, sie soll die Apostel preisen11. Damit sind die Themen prudenzischer Dichtung im wesentlichen entsprechend der iiberlieferten Reihefolge seiner Werke bis hin zu den Martyrerkranzen (Peristefanon) bezeichnet. Auffallig ist, da3 das Zustandekommen der Dichtung, die doch, wie aus der zitierten programmatischen Partie hervorgeht, teilweise polemisch in Auseinandersetzungen der Umwelt eingreift, sei es gegen heidnische Elemente, sei es gegen christliche Irrlehren, in keiner Weise durch die sachliche Notwendigkeit derartiger Didaktik oder Polemik begrindet wird, sondern ausschlieBlich durch den Lebensgang des Dichters selbst. Wieder hat man - wie schon bei Proba - eine Art von biographischem Kontrast-Topos vor sich, der bei Prudenz jedoch nicht auf den literarischdichterischen Bereich beschrankt ist (von einer fruheren, nicht-christlichen Dichtung ist bei Prudenz keine Rede), sondern sich auf eine allgemeinere Sphare erstreckt: Der Dichter will die existenzielle Sinnlosigkeit seines bisherigen Tuns (welches der typischen Karriere eines vornehmen Romers glich) durch seine christliche Dichtung uberwinden, mit der er gewissermaBen einen Mindestanspruch christlicher Lebensfuhrung befriedigt: Wenn er Gott nicht zu preisen (concelebrare) vermag durch Verdienste (mertis), d.h. durch christliche Taten, so doch wenigstens durch seine dichterische Stimme (voce).Das gleiche Prinzip wird in epigrammatisch zugespitzter Form ausgesprochen im Johannes-Panegyricus des Paulinus von Nola: ,,Es ist auch
P Prud. praef 34-42.
DIE MUSEN IM DIENSTE CHRISTI
429
ein Teil eines Verdiensts, das Verdienst frommer Menschen [als Dichter] zu preisen" (Parsetiammeritimeritum celebrare piorum)2. Ein ahnlicher Minimalismusbestimmt auch den prudenzischenEpilog'3: ImmolatPatriDeo Piusfidelisinnocens pudicus Dona conscientiae Quibusbeatamensabundatintus. 5 Alteret pecuniam Recidit,undevictitentegeni. Nos citosiambicos Sacramus et rotatilestrochaeos indii Sanctitatis 10 Nec ad levamen pauperum potentes.
Der Dichter kontrastiertsich mit zwei anderen typisiertenChristen:Der eine bringt Gott das Geschenk seines guten Gewissens (Donaconscientiae) dar, der zweite gibt Geld, mit welchem die Armen gespeist werden konnen. Dagegen vermag der Dichter, da er weder uiberpers6nlicheHeiligkeit noch uiber hinreichend Geld fur Almosen verfiigt, Gott nur seine Verse darzubringen4. Eine ganz ahnliche metaphorische Umschreibung schriftstellerischer Selbstbescheidungim Munde eines Christen finden wir in der ebenfalls an der Wende vom vierten zum fiinftenJahrhundertentstandenenVulgat-Ubersetzung der Bibel durch Hieronymus, namlich im sogenannten Prologus galeatus zu den Konigsbuchern'5. Die beiden bisherbehandeltenModelleeiner Rechtfertgungbzw. Erklrung christlichenDichtens haben die auffallige Gemeinsamkeit,daB der einzige Grund des Dichtens in einer Verbesserungder Pers6nlichkeitdes Dichters durch eine Bekehrung zu einer christlichen Tatigkeit gesehen wird. Man konnte iiberspitzt sagen: Das Dichten dient nach diesen beiden Modellen der heilsgeschichtlichenSelbstverwirklichungder Dichterpersonlichkeit.
12 Paulin. Nol. cann. 6, 13.
Zur KorrespondenzzwischenPraefatiound EpilogPrudenzensvgl. WalterLudwig, ,,Die christliche Dichtung des Prudentius und die Transformationder klassischen en occident, FondationHardt, de I'antiquite tardive etfomeslittiraires Gattungen",Christianisme xxiii (Genf 1976) 303-363, hier 344 f. Entretiens 14 Prud. epil. 1-10. 13
15
Dei offertunusquisque in tabemaculum quodpotest alii aurumet argentumet lapidespretiosos,
beneagetur,si obturneimus nobiscwn coccum alii byssumet purpuram, peles oferuntet hyacinthum, et caprarum pilos.
430
THOMAS GARTNER
3. Orientius In prinzipiellahnlicheRichtungweist auch ein dritterhier zu besprechender Ansatz, der gegeniiber den beiden bisher besprochenen dennoch in gewisser Weise diametral entgegengesetzt ist. Orientius stellt am Anfang seines Commonitoriums(5. Jh.) den Weg zum ewigen Leben als das didaktische Ziel seines Werkes heraus. Der Dichter tritt, ahnlich wie Prudenz, als ein alterer Mann auf, der jedoch nicht nur vom Alter, sondern auch von seiner eigenen Sundhaftigkeitmitgenommen ist (et caris vitiiset tempore victi)'6. Seine einzige Freude ist es, wenn das, was ihm selbst nicht gelungen ist, wenigstens anderen gelingt (Si, quodnonfacimus,saltemaliifaciant)'7. Die Aufgabenverteilungzwischen Dichter und Leser wird epigrammatisch zugespitzt:,,Ich muB das ewige Leben lehren, du muBt es erstreben"(Vita docendamihiest, vitapetendatibi)'8. Dieser Gedanke eines soteriologischen Dienstes des Dichters fur den Leser wird im Epilog des Commonitorium aufgegriffen und zugleich umgekehrt:Der Leser soil, wenn er von Gott die Auszeichnungder hochsten Krone erhalt, den Dichter nicht vergessen, sonder fir ihn Furbitte einlegen. Das Commonitorium schlieBt mit den Worten: ... /Ut peccatores vincensOrientius omnes Sanctorum veniampromerear precibus.
... damitich, Orientius,obwohlich alle Sunderibertreffe,doch durchdie FiirbittenheiligerMenschenmir Verzeihungverdiene'9. Das poetologische Programmdes Commonitoriumbasiert also auf einer Art soteriologischerInteraktion zwischen Dichter und Leser: Der - seinerseits moralisch korrumpierte- Dichter eroffnet seinem Leser durch die Lektiire des Commonitorium den Weg ins Himmelreich, und der Leser bedanktsich durch seine Furbittenfur Orientius,welche diesem ermoglichen, Verzeihungfur seine Sunden zu erlangen.Hinter diesem Interaktionsmodell mag man auf der Seite des Dichters die Erfiillung einer christlichen Minimalforderungsehen, wie sie bei Prudenz formuliert wurde, in der Form, daB derjenige, welcher nicht durch seine christlichen Taten Gott preisen kann, es wenigstens durch seine poetischen AuBerungentun kann.
16 Orient. commonit. 1, 7 Orient. commonit.1, 18 Orient. commonit.1, '9 Orient. commonit.2,
5. 8. 16. 417 f.
DIE MUSEN IM DIENSTE CHRISTI
4.31
Neu ist jedoch gegenuber Prudenz, daB die Wirkungder Dichtung auf den Leser in den Blick genommen wird. Der Sinn der Dichtung wird nicht wie bei Prudenz und Proba ausschlieBlichin der Verwirklichungdes Heils der Dichterseele gesehen, sonder auch das Seelenheil des Lesers spielt eine gewisse Rolle. Bei alien bisher besprochenen Ansatzen liegt der Schwerpunktauf dem Seelenheilder am literarischenKommunikationsprozeB beteiligtenPersonen:entwedernur des Dichters (wie bei Proba und Prudenz) oder des Dichters und des Lesers (wie bei Orientius). Es fehlt bis jetzt ein Rekurs auf die formalen und stofflichen Eigenschaften des dichterischen Werks selbst und insbesondere ein Vergleich mit den Eigenschaftenheidnischer Vorgangerdichtungen. 4. JuvencusundJuvencusrezeption Eine solche auf das eigentlicheProduktdes dichterischenSchaffensprozesses gerichtete Argumentation hat sich zumindest angedeutet in der Praefatio der Evangelien-Versifikationdes Juvencus (ca. 330). Der Ausgangspunkt der Argumentation ist der Gedanke, daB es im irdischen Bereich zwar nichts Ewiges, aber doch Langdauerdes gibt. Solche lange Lebensdauer vermag die Verherrlichungdurch Dichter zu verleihen. Nicht weniger langlebig als der Ruhm des gepriesenenGegenstandsist der Ruhm des Dichters selbst. Als Beispiele werden die Heldendichtungen Homers und Vergils angefiihrt.Wenn nun aber heidnischeGedichte,die sich nur mit triigerischen Inhalten (mendacia) beschaftigen, solche Langlebigkeitherbeizufiihrenvermogen, so musse ein Dichter, der sich wie Juvencus mit den Taten Christi befasse, doch erst recht langwahrendenRuhm verdienen.Mit solchem langwahrenden Ruhm ist jedoch, wie aus dem Anfang der Argumentationhervorgeht,noch keine Ewigkeitgegeben.Dieser SchwierigkeitbegegnetJuvencus durch folgendes Argument: incendia secum Necmetus,ut mundirapiant Hocopus;hocetenim forsanmesubtrahet igni/... Und ich habekeineFurcht,daBder WeltbranddiesesWerkmit sichfortrafft; denn vielleichtwird dieses mich dem Feuer [gemeintist das Hollenfeuer] entreiBen.. 20. Dieses Motiv, daB die christlicheDichtungihren Dichter dem Hollenbrand zu entreiBen vermag, ist fur die weitere Entwicklung der christlichen 20 Iuvenc.
praef 21 f.
432
THOMASGARTNER
Dichtung im Mittelalterahnlich bedeutungsvollwie der bei Proba erstmals auftauchende ,,biographische Kontrast-Topos". Wichtiger ist in unserem Zusammenhang ein genaues Verstandnis des Argumentationsgangs bei Juvencus, der von Wolfgang Kirsch etwas verkiirzendund simplifizierend mit ,,Spiritualisierungdes Ruhmtopos"charakterisiertwird21:Zunachstwird mit einem Argumentum a minore ad maius die relative Langlebigkeitdes Ruhms eines christlichenDichters erschlossen:Wenn heidnische Dichtung mit ihren triigerischen Inhalten langdauernden Ruhm verschafft, so gilt dies erst recht fur die inhaltlich viel wertvollere christliche Dichtung. So weit ist mit dem Beweisgang aber nur der relativ lange Ruhm eines christlichenDichtersbewiesen,der freilich,insofemer an irdischeBedingungen geknupft ist, unmoglich ewig sein kann. Den Ubergang von ,,langwahrendem Ruhm" zu ,,ewigem personlichen Fortbestehen"gewinntJuvencus in einer eher rhetorisch als logisch befriedigendenWeise, indem er an den Gedanken "der Weltenbrand wird mein Werk vernichten" die Antithese anschlieBt,,aber mein Werk wird mich dem Hollenfeuer entreiBen". Auf das Ganze betrachtet,ist diese Argumentationvon einer erstaunlichen Konzilianz gegeniiber herkommlichenheidnischen Vorstellungeniiber die Dichtung gepragt. Das Motiv, daB die heidnische Dichtung nur Trug enthalt,wird nicht, wie naheliegendware, zu einer allgemeinenAbqualifizierung solcher nicht-christlicher Poesie verwendet, sondern dient nur als Praemisseeines Argumentuma minore ad maius. Dieses Argumenterkennt den Ruhmanspruch herkommlicher Poesie an, erhebt ihn aber in noch hoherem MaBe fur die christlicheDichtung. Viel unversohnlicherzeigt sich etwa die Centonen-DichterinProba in ihrer Praefatiogegeniiberdem Ruhm heidnischerDichter, den sie als geringwertigund als jeglicher Miihe unwert bezeichnete. Wie schroff man den Gegensatz herausstellenkann, welchen Juvencus durch ein Argumentuma minore ad maius und eine logisch etwas schiefe Antithese iiberspielt,zeigt auch die AuBerungdes Archegeten einer der biographianderenvon den Christenneu inauguriertenLiteraturgattung, schen Darstellungeines Heiligen, der sogenannten Hagiographie:Sulpicius Severus stellt am Anfang seiner Martinsvita im Zusammenhang einer mit heidnischenBiographienbedeutenderPersonlichkeiten Auseinandersetzung klar heraus, daB es ,,die Aufgabe des Menschen ist, ewiges Leben und nicht ewigen Ruhm zu erwerben,nicht durch Schriftstellereioder Kampfen oder Philosophieren,sondern durch ein frommes und gottgefilliges Leben" (cum
21
Berlin 1989, 89. des 4. Jahrhunderts, Wolfgang Kirsch, Die lateinischeVersepik
DIE MUSENIM DIENSTECHRISTI
433
homins offciumsit perernem non potius vitamquamperennem memoriam quaerere velphilosophando, sedpie sanctereligioseque scribendo autpugnando vivendo)22. Der kausale Ursprung christlicherDichtung ist nach Juvencus also das Streben des Dichters nach Selbstverewigung,d.h. einerseits im Sinne des herkommlichenheidnischen Dichtungsverstandnissesnach langwahrendem Dichterruhmund andererseitsim Sinne des christlichenVerstandnissesnach ewigem Leben. Damit ist die von Juvencus angewandte Rechtfertigungsstrategie letztlich wie die zuvor besprochenen Ansatze auf das personliche Seelenheil des Dichters konzentriert.Es gilt hier ebenso wie fir die drei zuvor herangezogenen Autoren das von Herzog speziell auf die Praefatio des Juvencus angewandte Dictum: ,,Die literarischeBetatigungwird nichtliterarischbegriindet"23.Eine Rechtfertigungdurch die Qualitat des Produktes des Dichtungsprozessesgibt es nicht eigentlich;jedoch wird dieser Aspekt an logisch subordinierterStelle verwendet, namlich als Praemisse des erlautertenArgumentuma minore ad maius, und zwar in der Form,daB christlichedagegen Wahrheit zum heidnische Dichtung nur Trug (mendacia), Gegenstand hat. Diese logische Subordination wird zumeist verkannt, so etwa in einer separaten Untersuchung der Praefatio des Juvencus durch Pieter Gijsbertusvan der Nat24,der den Wahrheitsanspruchals einen von mehreren koordiniertenLegitimationsargumentenbetrachtet.Wie weit man darin gehen kann, das charakteristischeProfil eines solchen poetologischen
22 Sulpic. Sever. vit.s. Mart.1, 4. Zur Praefatiodes SulpiciusSeverusvgl. jetzt Kurt Smolak,,,Ein verborgenerBezugstextder VitaSanctiMartinides SulpiciusSeverus?",in: vitam.Festgabe vonderAntikebis in die Gegenwart. LateinicheBiographie fiir Walter Scripturus ed. DorotheaWalz,Heidelberg2002, 231-241.Smolakwurdigt Berschin zum65. Geburtstag, zunachstden EinuBvon Sallustund Liviusauf die Praefatiodes SulpiciusSeverusund in den Praefationes im zweitenTeil seinerArbeit(234 ff.)die Gedankengange parallelisiert bei Juvencusund SulpiciusSeverusso weit, daB er zu der Annahmeeiner Abhangigkeit des Biographenvon dem Bibelepikergelangt (236 ff.). 23 Die Bibelepik derlateinischen Spdtantike (Miinchen1975) xlix. 24 et Christianitas, Studia P.G. van der Nat, ,,Die Praefatiodes Iuvencus",in: Romanitas lano HenricoWaszinka.d. vi Kal.Nov.a. MCMLXXIIIxiii lustracomplenti oblata,edd. W. den Boer, P.G. van der Nat, C.MJ. Sicking,J.C.M. van Winden (Amsterdam1973) 249-255, hier 254. Zur Praefatiodes Juvencus vgl. in jungerer Zeit auch Robert W. Carrubba,,,The PrefacetoJuvencus'BiblicalEpic:A StructuralStudy",AJPh114 (1993) zum 303-312. Richtig erkanntwird das logische Verhaltnisdes Wahrheitsanspruchs bei Franz Quadlbauer,,,Zur 'Invocatio'des Iuvencus" Strebennach Selbstverewigung (praef.25-27), GB 2 (1974) 189-212, hier 191: ,,Das... Motiv der Gewil3heitdes poetischen Nachruhmsverankert... Iuvencus ganz im (gottverbiirgten) Wahrheitsgehalt seines Werkes".
434
THOMAS GARTNER
Ansatzes durch Zerlegungin seine topischen Bestandteileeinzuebnen, zeigt das Urteil von Klaus Thraede iiber die PraefatiodesJuvencus: ,,Abgesehen von der Christianisierungdes Uberbietungsmotivsund des Nachruhmtopos ist hier alles traditionell"25. Bevor das endgiiltige Hervortretendes bei Juvencus noch subordinierten sachlich-qualitativenAspekts bei Sedulius in den Blick genommen wird, muB noch auf eine spatantikeRezeption der Argumentationdes Juvencus bei einem anderen Dichter eingegangen werden. Damit wird der Bereich im wesentlichen unabhangig voneinander zustandegekommenerpoetologischer Selbstaussagen,welchem die bisher behandeltenpoetologischenZeugnisse entstammten,verlassen und die Sphare der Intertextualitatbetreten, wo die poetologischenAussagenvon Vorgangem aufgegriffenund modifiziert werden. Paulinusvon Nola (4./5. Jh.) versuchtin seinem 22. Gedicht einen gewissen Iovius von heidnischer zu christlicher Dichtung zu bekehren. Iovius soil sich von JugendwerkenherkommlicherPragungabwenden (als beispielhafte Themenkreise aus dem Bereich der klassischenMythologie genannt werden das Paris-Urteilund der Gigantenkampf)und stattdessenchristliche Stoffe besingen. Dieser Richtungswechselwird ihm mit folgenderArgumentation schmackhaftgemacht: tulisti 20 Si decusefalsis aliquod nomenque De vacuismagnum cum rebus, fictavetustis Carminibus caneres velcumterrena referres laudans 23 Gestatriumphantum insignia regum:/.../... maiorab his cedettibigloriacoeptis, 26 Quanto In quibus et linguam mentem exercens sanctam quoque Erudies simulvitamque laudemque capesses! Wenn du irgendeinenRuhm von triigerischen Stoffenund einen bedeutenden Namenvon nichtigenGegenstanden hast,alsdu Erfundenes davongetragen in herkommlichenGedichtenbesangestund als du von irdischenTaten indemdu die Auszeichnungen berichtetest, triumphierender K6nigepriesest,... um wie vielgroBerer Ruhmwirddiraufgrund deinerjetzigenUnterehmungen zufallen,in welchendu neben der Ubung deinerZunge auch deinen Sinn zur Frommigkeiterziehstund so gleichzeitigRuhm und Leben erwerben wirst?26.
25
KlausThraede,Studien undStildes hudentius, zu Sprache Hypomnemata13 (Gottingen 1965) 24. 26 Paulin.Nol. carm. 22, 20-23. 26-28.
DIE MUSENIM DIENSTECHRISTI
435
Man erkennt deutlich die poetologische Argumentation des Juvencus wieder:einerseitsdas charakteristische Argumentuma minore ad maius(d.h. die quantitativeSteigerungvon der mit triigerischenStoffen befaBtenheidnischen Dichtung zu der wahrheitsbezogenenchristlichen)und andererseits die logisch nicht ganz befriedigende Koordinierung von langwahrendem Dichterruhm und ewigem Leben, die sich bei Paulinus spiegelt in dem zeugmatischenAusdruck,,gleichzeitigRuhm und Leben erwerben"(laudemque simulvitamque Diese charakteristischeArgumentationdes Juvencus capesses). wird jedoch bei Paulinus insofern verandert, als sie in die biographische Perspektivedes angesprochenenIovius verlegt wird.Juvencus setzt sich mit der Tradition heidnischen Dichtens auseinander, Iovius wird dagegen mit seiner eigenen dichterischenVergangenheit konfrontiert.Man kann sagen, die ArgumentationsweisedesJuvencus wird in den erstmalsbei Proba greifbaren ,,biographischenKontrast-Topos" hineinverlegt. Es geht nicht um die Auseinandersetzungmit einer auBerhalbder eigenen Person gelegenen dichterischen Tradition, sondern um die Konfrontation mit der personlichen poetischenVergangenheit.Die Tatsache,daB eine solcheVerschiebung moglich ist, zeigt im iibrigen, wie stark die Argumentation des Juvencus noch auf die Person des Dichters und die Verwirklichungseines personlichen Heils angelegt ist. Dieser Aspekt wird bei Paulinus entsprechendder sich an eine andere Personwendenden,protreptischenTendenz des Gedichts im folgenden noch deutlich verstarkt: miracula summi Dumque legescatuset scribes disceset carioripsi 30 VeraDei,propior amare EsseDeo,quemdumcredens miraris, et amando Deumredamabere Christo. Incipies Und wahrenddu in sachkundiger Weiseiiberdie wahrenWunderdes hochwirstdu lernen,Gottselbstnaiherundwertvoller stenGottesliestundschreibst, zu sein;undwahrenddu an ihn glaubstund Bewunderung fiirihn empfindest, wirstdu beginnen,ihn zu lieben,und, indem du Gott liebst,wirstdu von werden27. Christuszuriickgeliebt Hier wird das Dichten iiber christliche Gegenstande verstanden als ein ProzeB der allmahlichen Annaherung des Dichters an Gott. Es liegt auf der Hand, daB bei dieser Auffassungdas Produkt des Dichtens und seine Qualitaten keine besondere Bedeutung hat: Das Dichten ist als ProzeB bedeutsam, insofern es eine Annaherung des Dichters an Gott bewirkt.
27Paulin.Nol. carr. 22, 29-32.
436
THOMAS GARTNER
Samtlichen bisher behandelten poetologischen Ansatzen war gemeinsam ein Defizit an Rechtfertigungsargumenten,die sich auf die Qualitaten des Produktsder dichterischenTatigkeit beziehen. Der Schwerpunktlag stets auf der Verwirklichungdes personlichen Seelenheils des Dichters oder bei Orientius- auf einer soteriologischenInteraktionzwischen Dichter und Leser. Ein sachliches, auf die Eigenschaften der entstehenden Dichtung bezuglichesArgument konnte man nur ansatzweisebeiJuvencus feststellen, der einem Argumentum a minore ad maius als Praemissedie Behauptung zugrundelegte,daB heidnische Dichtung bloB3enTrug, christliche dagegen Wahrheit zum Gegenstand habe. Diese Auffassunghat ihre Wurzeln letztlich in der patristischen Tradition, namlich beim Kirchenvater Lactanz, der freilich Wert legt auf die Modifikation, daB poetische Darstellungen eine charakteristischeMischung aus Wahrheit und Trug enthalten, also nicht vollstandig auf Fiktion beruhen28. 5. Seduliusund Seduliusrezeption
Die beiJuvencusals PraemisseverwendeteThese, daB heidnischeDichtung bloBenTrug, christlichedagegen Wahrheitzum Gegenstandhat, wird ihrerseits breit entfaltet und zur Grundlage eines eigenen poetologischen Programms gemacht im Carmen paschale des Sedulius.Dort heiBt es im Versprooemium: Cumsua gentilesstudeant figmentapoetae boatu Grandisonis pomparemodis,tragicoque Getaseu qualibetartecanendi Ridiculove renovent 20 Saevanefandarum contagiarerum Et scelerum monumenta canantrituquemagistro Plurima liacis tradantmedacia biblis: Curego,Davitics adsuetuscantibusodas Cordarum resonare verenter decemsanctoque 25 Starechoroet placidiscaelestia psallereverbis, ClarasalutferitaceammiraculaChristi?
T6nen Wo doch heidnischeDichter ihre Tauschungenin groBklingenden zu suchen,und mit tragischemBombastoder einem aufwendigdarzustellen lacherlichen oderin welcher getischenSklaven[einertypischenKomodienfigur] dichterischen auch immerdie schlimmenBefleckungen freDarstellungsweise velhafterGegenstandeereuern und literarischeDenkmalerverbrecherischer Stoffedarbietenund unterdem pragendenEinflul3der Traditionsehr viele triigerischeStoffedem Papyrusder Biicheriibergeben: 28
Lact. divin. inst. 1, 11, 24 f.
DIE MUSENIM DIENSTECHRISTI
437
Warumsoil da ich, der ich gewohntbin, von den GesangenDavids [den Psalmen]den Ton der zehn Saitenerklingenzu lassenund in frommerWeise im heiligenChor zu stehenund mit lieblichenWortenhimmlischeStoffeauf der Zitherertonenzu lassen,schweigenvon den beruhmtenWunderndes Christus?29 heilbringenden Damit haben wir in der Mitte des funften Jahrhunderts und in einer schon relativfortgeschrittenenPhase der christlichenDichtung erstmalseine sachliche,auf den Inhalt des vorgelegtenGedichtsbeziiglicheRechtfertigung christlichenDichtens, deren Bedeutung man schwerlichgerecht wird, wenn man sie mit Kartschokeals eine ,,Aufnahme der obligaten Topoi in modiansieht. Auch DanielJ. Nodes verkenntdie entscheischem Manierismus30" dende Neuerung, die in der absolutenHerausstellungdes inhaltlichenWerts der Dichtung liegt, wenn er den einzigen Unterschiedin der Argumentation des Sedulius gegeniiberJuvencus in der ,,Hinzufigung einer abschatzigen Bemerkung uber die Aufgeblasenheitantiker Schriftsteller"sieht31. Die adversativeTendenz der zitierten weitausgreifendensedulianischen Periode (,,Wo doch heidnische Dichter lautstark ihren Trug verkiinden, warum soil ich da von der Wahrheit schweigen?")verrat noch den EinfluB des Sedulius sicher vorschwebenden Argumentum a minore ad maius in der Praefatiodes Juvencus. Doch ist der Zielpunktder Argumentationnicht mehr wie beiJuvencus die Selbstverewigungdes christlichenDichters, sonder der Inhalt der von ihm vorgelegten Dichtung. Diese erstmaligeprogrammatischeHerausstellungder inhaltlichenUberlegenheit christlicherDichtung gegeniiberihren heidnischenVorgangerinnen hat auf die lateinische Dichtung des Mittelaltersstarken EinfluB ausgeiibt, viel starkeren als irgend ein anderes der zuvor erorterten poetologischen Programme: Huemer hat in dem seiner Ausgabe beigegebenen Testimonienverzeichnis32 eine iiberwaltigendeMasse mittelalterlicherNachbildungen der oben zitierten Adversativ-Periodeangefuhrt,die sich bei systematischer Durchsicht mittelalterlicherDichtung sicher noch wesentlich vergroBern lieBe. Ein wesentlicher Grund fur die Wirkungskraftder sedulianischen Formulierungdiirfte in dem enormen christlichenSelbstbewuBtseinliegen, welches aus ihr spricht: Wahrend die friihesten christlichen Dichter ihr Schaffen nur mit dem geradezu angstlichwirkendenHinweis darauf recht-
Sedul. cann. pasch. 1, 17-26. Dieter Kartschoke, Bibeldichtung (Munchen 1975) 64. 31 Daniel J. Nodes, Doctrineand exegesisin biblicalLatinpoetry(Leeds 1993) 19. 32 CSEL X (1885) p. 361 ss.
29
30
438
THOMASGARTNER
fertigten,daB das dichterischeTun ihrem eigenen Seelenheil (im Gegensatz zu anderen Tatigkeiten)niitzen werde, wird hier mit groBem SelbstbewuBtsein das Produkt des christlichenDichtens als in seinem inhaltlichen und inneren Wert heidnischen Vorlaufern uberlegen praesentiert. Insbesondere im Vergleich zur Praefatio des Juvencus erhoht sich das dichterische SelbstbewuBtseinbetrachtlich: Wahrend Juvencus in seinem Argumentum a minore ad maius an antiken poetologischen Vorstellungen festhalt und diese fur die neue Art von Dichtung nutzbar zu machen sucht, formuliertSedulius einen schroffen Gegensatz, der den hoheren Wert des Christlichen eigentlich bereits voraussetzt. Bei Juvencus heiBt es ,,Wenn heidnisches Dichten poetische Verewigung herbeifiihrt, dann erst recht christliches";bei Seduliuswird aus dem graduellenArgumentein qualitativkontradiktorisches: ,,Wenn Heiden ihren Unfug dichterischdarstellen,warum sollen dann wir Christen schweigen?". Im Zusammenhang des mittelalterlichenNachwirkens dieser poetologischen Konzepte konnen zwei Adaptionen der sedulianischenAdversativPeriode - eine dichterische und eine prosaische - besonderes Interesse beanspruchen,in welchen mit den Worten des Seduliusjeweils eine Formulierung aus der Praefatio des Juvencus verschmolzenwird. Im Prooemium der metrischen Blaithmaic-Vitades Walahfrid Strabo heiBt es: Si tantam meruere suoprocarmine famam, mores etfactatulerunt Quiscelerosorum in caelum, arte Laudibus perfusidaemonis Frivola nectentes hominum monimenta malorum: Curnon liberiussanctorum facta canamus?
Wenndiejenigen,welchedie SittenundTatenverbrecherischer Menschenmit in den Himmelgetragenhaben,undvon desTeufelsHeimtticke Lobpreisungen widerlicheDenkmalerschlechter Menschenerschufen,so groBen durchdrungen Ruhm fur ihre Dichtungdavontrugen,warumsoil ich nicht mit groBerer Freiheitvon den Taten der Heiligenberichten?33 Ein formal noch engerer AnschluB an Sedulius erfolgt in der einem Gottschalkvon Liittich zugeschriebenLandbert-Vita: si paganifigmentasaevaet nefandaprolixastudeant pompaplurimamendaciacodicibus ut eorumvanagloriadiscurrat, suis commendare, cur nos Christianisalutiferitaceamus miraculaChristi...?
33 MGHpoet.lat. II
297.
DIE MUSEN IM DIENSTE CHRISTI
439
Wenndie Heidenihregrauenvollen undfrevelhaften Erfindungen, Tauschungen in groler Zahl,in langeraufwendiger anzuDarstellungihrenHandschriften vertrauensuchen,auf da3 sich ihr nichtigerRuhm verbreite,warumsollen wir Christenvon den Wunderndes heilbringenden Christusschweigen...?34 In beiden Fallen werden unverkennbaresprachliche Elemente aus der Praefatio des Juvencus in das sedulianische Satzgefiige versetzt: Im ersten Fall die Wendung ,,wenn sie so groBen Ruhm fur ihre Dichtung davonsuopro carmine famam,vgl. Iuvenc. praef. 15 Qu0odi trugen" (Si tantammeruere tam longam merueruntcarminafamam), im zweiten Fall in der Formulierung ,,auf daB sich ihr nichtiger Ruhm verbreite" (ut eorumvana gloria discurrat, vgl. Iuvenc. praef. 11 Nec minoripsorumdiscurrit loria vatum).In beiden Fallen
haben es die mittelalterlichen,genauer gesagt: karolingischenAutoren fur wiinschenswerterachtet, den in der rein sachbezogenenAntithese zwischen heidnischemTrug und christlicherWahrheitbei SeduliusfehlendenGedanken des personlichen Ruhms des Dichters aus dem Wortlaut der Praefatio bei Juvencus nachzutragen. Beide spatantiken Programme waren also als prototypische Rechtfertigungen christlicher Dichtung in ihrem Wortlaut gegenwartig. Wahrend Walahfrid Strabo gewissermassendas bei Juvencus vorliegendeArgumentuma minore ad maius in die sedulianischeSatzstruktur zu restituieren sucht, halt sich der Verfasser der Landbert-Vita,wie das von ihm zu ,,Ruhm" (gloria)hinzugesetzteEpitheton ,,nichtig"(vana)bekundet, an die strikteAblehnung des heidnischen Dichterruhms,wie sie zuvor in den Praefationesder Dichterin Proba und des Hagiographen Sulpicius Severus beobachtet werden konnte. Doch zuriick zu Sedulius.Die Antithese zwischen heidnischemTrug und christlicherWahrheit,welche Seduliusin einer sprachlichungemeinwirkkriftigen Adversativ-Periodeformuliert,bildet, wie wir gesehen haben, die erste programmatische Fundierung christlicher Dichtung in Hinsicht auf den Inhalt des produziertenWerks. Doch ist Sedulius noch einen Schritt weiter gegangen und hat die Existenz christlicherDichtung auch in Hinsicht auf den anderen entscheidenden Aspekt des vorgelegten Werks gerechtfertigt, namlich in Hinblick auf dessen metrische Form. In dem prosaischen Widmungsbriefan den PriesterMacedonius,welcher dem Carmen paschale beigegeben ist, formuliert Sedulius: saecularium multisunt quosstudiorum diciplinaperpoeticasmagisdeliciaset carminum hi oblectat. rhetoricaefacundiae quoneglegentius adsequuntur, perlegunt, voluptates quicquid
34
Act. Sanct. Sept. V 574 A.
440
THOMASGARTNER
niamiUudhauddiligunt;quodautemversuum viderintblandimento mellitun,tantacordis aviditate ut in alta memoria et reponant. houm constituant suscipiunt, saepiushaeciterando aestimosedpro insitaconsuetdinevel naturatractandos, ut itaquemoresnonrepudiandos Deo. quisquesuo magisingeniovoluntarius adquiratur Es gibt viele Menschen, welche die Lehre in saekularen Studiengebieten in hoherem MaBe erfreut durch den GenuB der Poesie und das Vergniigen der Dichtung. Was immer diese Leute in der Form rhetorischenAusdruckslesen, eignen sie sich nachlassigeran, da sie diese Form nicht so hochschatzen.Was sie aber durch das verlockendeKunstmittelder Verse gesiBt sehen, das greifen sie mit solcher Gier ihres Herzens auf, daB sie es tief in ihrer Erinnerung durch haufige Wiederholung festsetzen und immer neu verarbeiten. Deshalb meine ich, daB man die Sitten solcher Leute nicht von sich weisen darf, sondem sie entsprechendangeborenerGewohnheitund natiirlicherAnlage behandeln muB, so daB ein jeder vorzugsweise entsprechend seiner Begabung freiwilligfur Gott gewonnen wird35. Damit ist auch die Versform als Medium zur Ubermittlung christlicher Stoffe gerechtfertigt. Die dichterische Darbietung erhoht nach dieser Argumentation bei einem bestimmten Menschentyp die innere Aufnahmebereitschaft. Da man aber das Christentum jedem einzelnen Menschen in der seiner Naturanlage gemaBen Form nahebringen muB, rechtfertigt das Vorhandensein dieses Menschentyps sogleich auch die Versifikation christlicher Stoffe. Michael Mazzega hat in einer von Christian Gnilka betreuten Dissertation36 gezeigt, daB sich das Carmen paschale seiner Intention nach nicht nur an Christen, sondern auch an heidnische Vertreter der hochgebildeten spatantiken Oberschicht wendet. Die Versform hat also eine wichtige Funktion im Rahmen der missionarischen Zielsetzung des Carmen paschale, insofern die Freude an der Dichtung gewissermaBen einen gemeinsamen Nenner bildet, welcher dem Vermittler des Christentums die Kommunikation mit Nicht-Christen (die hier naturlich als Mitglieder einer hochgebildeten Oberschicht zu denken sind) erleichtert37. Eine Vorstufe solcher Rechtfertigung der Bibeldichter laBlt sich bereits beim Kirchenvater Lactanz finden, der im sechsten Buch seiner Divinae
35
epist.ad Maced.p. 5 Huemer. MichaelMazzega,Sedulius, Carmen BuchIII, Chresis5 (Basel 1996) 15-36. paschale, 37 Allgemeinzu dem Verfahren,,,den asthetischenReiz der Poesie in den Dienst christlicherDidaxe zu stellen",vgl. (ohne Bezug auf irgendwelchetheoretischenTexte) SiegmarDopp, ,,Die BliitezeitlateinischerLiteraturin der Spatantike(350-430n.Chr.). Charakteristika einer Epoche",Phil. 132 (1988) 19-52, hier 32. Dopp verweistbesondersauf die paralleleUtilitarisierung Formbei der lucrezischenVermittlung dichterischer des epikureischenLehrgebaudes. 36
DIE MUSENIM DIENSTECHRISTI
441
institutiones die verderblichen Geniisse (voluptates) der Sinne abhandelt. In dem Kapiteliiber die Geniisseder Ohren3 kommter auch auf das Phanomen der Dichtung zu sprechen,welche im Vergleich zu nicht-verbalenmusikalischen Klingen eine groBere Gefahr darstelle, insofer sie dem Gemut des Rezipienten starker,,anhafte"und uberdies schriftlichfixiert werden konne. Diese Aussage belegt Lactanz durch folgende Beobachtung: et oratiocumsuavitatedecurrens carmenautemcompositum capitmenteset quo Dei accesserint ab aliquo volueritinpellit.indehomineslitteraticumad religionem fundati,minuscredunt.adsuetienimdulcibuset politissive orainperitodoctore tionibussive carminibus divinarum litterarum sermonem simplicem communemque autem prosordidoasperantur.id enimquaerunt quodsensumdemulceat, persuadet suave est et dum insidit. animo delectat, penitus, quidquid Ein wohlgefiigtesGedichtund eine Rede, welche mit angenehmemKlang fesselnden Sinnund treibenihn dorthin,wohinsie wollen.Daher einherlauft, kommt es, daB gebildeteMenschen,wenn sie sich der christlichenLehre Lehrers,weniger genaherthabendurchden Unterichtirgendeines ungebildeten glaubigsind. Denn da sie an siiBe und geschliffeneReden bzw. Gedichte Sprache gewohntsind,verachtensie die einfacheund allgemeinverstandliche der HeiligenSchriftals schmutzig.Sie suchennamlichdas, was ihren Sinn es uberzeugtsie aberalles,was siiBist, und,indemes erfreut, umschmeichelt; setzt es sich tief im Gemutfest39. Dies ist - wohlgemerkt - kein Programm einer christlichen Dichtung, sondern nur die Konstatierungeines MiBlstands,den Lactanz wohl bei der ChristianisierunggebildeterHeiden haufigerbeobachtenkonnte. Gleichwohl ist der Schritt zu einem poetologischen Programm, wie es Sedulius formuliert, nicht mehr weit. Lactanz tut diesen Schritt (der darauf hinauslauft, eine eigentlich abzulehnende Disposition gebildeter Heiden im Sinne der christlichen Missionierung auszunutzen) nicht, sondern beharrt dogmatisch auf der Ablehnung solcher sinnlicher Geniisse: ,,Das Wahre soil dem Falschenvorgezogenwerden,das Ewige dem Kurzlebigen,das Niitzliche verafalsis, aeternabrevibus,utilia iucundis)4. dem Angenehmen" (praeferantur er Satze ist dennoch geneigt, die eigentlich verwerflicheDisWenige spater Lehre zu utilitarisieren:,,Wenn man deshalb im Sinne christlicher position
38 Zu diesem Abschnitt vgl. Pieter G. van der Nat, ,,Zu den Voraussetzungender christlichenlateinischenLiteratur:Die Zeugnissevon Minucius Felix und Laktanz", de l'antiquite FondationHardt, Entretiens etformeslittiraires Christianisme tardiveen occident, xxiii (Genf 1976) 191-234, hier 222 ff.
39 Lact. divin. inst. 6, 21, 4 f.
40Lact. divin.inst.6, 21, 7.
442
THOMAS GARTNER
Vergniigen daran hat, Gesang und Gedichte zu horen, so soil man eben sein Vergniigen daran haben, vom Lob Gottes zu singen und zu horen" (itaquesi voluptasest audirecantuset carmina,Dei laudescanereet audireiucundum sit)41.An solchen Stellen ist eine poetologische Rechtfertigung christlicher
Dichtung, wie sie in der Macedonius-Epistelgegeben wird, geradezu greifbar nahe. Mit diesem auf die Aufnahmebereitschaft des Rezipientenhinauslaufenden sedulianischen Raisonnement ist zugleich ein wesentlicher Fortschritterreicht gegenuber dem bisher einzigen Argument, mit welchem in der Bibeldichtungdie Versform gerechtfertigtwurde. Paulinus von Nola hatte in seinem Panegyricus auf Johannes den Taufer seine dichterische Rolle auf die Versifikationvon bereits vorher vorhandenem Material beschrankt: dictacanoris Nos tantummodulisevolvere et versumenteslaxarelegentum. Vovimus 20 Sic (nammagnalicetparvis,antiquanovellis, aetemacaducis) Perfectaindoctisconferre, Deo quicquiddixerepriores Inspirante David. Aptavitcitharisnomenmemorabile Ich habe mich nur dazu erboten, die Worte in klingenden Versen auszubreiten und durch die metrische Gestaltung die Gemuter der Leser zu entspannen. Ebenso (denn man darf GroBes mit Kleinem, Altes mit Neuem, Vollkommenes mit Ungelehrtem und Ewiges mit Verganglichemvergleichen) hat David, ein ehrwiirdigerName, das, was Fruhere unter der Inspiration Gottes sagten, zum Klang der Kithara gefiigt...42.
Auf diese Weise wird das Verfahren, biblische Stoffe zu versifizieren, gerechtfertigt durch den Umstand, daB gewissermaBenschon Teile der Heiligen Schrift ihrerseits eine Versifikation darstellen. Seine sachliche Grundlage hat dieses Argument in der Einleitung des Hieronymus zur QJbersetzungdes biblischen Buchs Iob, wo behauptet wird, daB bestimmte Partien der heiligen Schrift (darunterdas Psalterium)in ahnlicher Weise metrischsind wie die SchriftenantikerLyriker43. Eine noch deutlicherdieser Hieronymus-Stelleverpflichtete Rechtfertigung der metrischen Form von Bibeldichtung findet sich in dem Widmungsbrief an den Papst Vigilius,
Lact. divin.inst.6, 21, 9. 42Paulin.Nol. carm.6, 18-23. 43 metra scilicetesseapudHebraeos et in morem nostriFlacciGraecique PindarietAlcheiet Safo velPsalterium velLamentationes Hieremiae velomniafenne canticacomprehendi. Scripturarum 41
DIE MUSEN IM DIENSTE CHRISTI
443
welcher Arators - nach Sedulius' Carmen paschale entstandener - dichterischer Bearbeitung der Apostelgeschichtebeigegeben ist44. Es liegt auf der Hand, daB die argumentativeKraft, welche man aus der Aussage des Hieronymus fir das Beweisziel ,,Rechtfertigungdichterischer Bearbeitung biblischer Stoffe" ziehen kann, begrenzt ist. Denn aus der Tatsache, da3 gewisse Partien der Heiligen Schrift wie das Psalterium, die Klagen des Ieremias und verschiedene Cantica lyrischen Charakter haben, laBt sich kaum ohne weiteres die Notwendigkeit ableiten, erzahlende Partien der Bibel in epische Verse umzusetzen (was die Bibelepik tut) oder Teile des christlichen Lehrgebaudes zu metrifizieren (wie es christliche Dichter wie Prudenz oder Orientius tun). Abgesehen von dem formalen Gegenargument, daB man aus einem Sein kein Sollen folgern darf, lieBe sich hiergegen einwenden, daB, wenn eine metrische Form der nicht-metrischenPartien der Heiligen Schrift vonnoten ware, der Heilige Geist (den man gemeinhin hinter der Gesamtkompositionder Bibel wirksam sieht)diese Partienschon von vornhereinso gestaltethatte. Offenkundig bedeutet die sedulianische Rechtfertigungsstrategie,welche sich an der Aufnahmebereitschaftdes Rezipienten der Bibeldichtung orientiert und damit gewissermaBenrezeptions-asthetischeZiige tragt, einen bedeutenden Fortschrittgegeniiberder herkommlichen,die sich an dem von Hieronymus behauptetenmaterialenZustand des zu versifizierendenBibeltextsorientiert. Es ist also unbestreitbardas Verdienst des Sedulius, die Bibeldichtung sowohl in Hinsicht auf ihren sachlichen Wert als auch in Riicksicht auf ihre metrische Form erstmals programmatisch gerechtfertigt zu haben. Allerdingsfinden sich die beiden Argumentationenan verschiedenenStellen der poetologischen Praeliminar-Textezum Carmen paschale: die eine am Anfang des Versprooemiums,die andere im Widmungsbriefan Macedonius. Daraus ergibt sich notwendig, daB die beiden Aspekte ,,Inhalt"und ,,Form" in keinen inneren Zusammenhang gebracht werden. Diese bei Sedulius noch fehlende Verbindung zwischen den beiden konstitutiven Aspekten ,,Inhalt" und ,,Form" wird gewissermaBennachgeliefertin einer mittelal-
44 Arator epist. ad Vigil. 21-26:
Alternisreserabomodisquodlitterapandit Et res si qua mihi mysticacordedatur. Metricavis sacris non est incognitalibris: Psalteriumyrici composuere pedes; Hexametrisconstaresonis in originelinguae Cantica,Hieremiae,lob quoquedictaferunt.
444
THOMAS GARTNER
terlichen Adaption des sedulianischen Programms, auf die hier abschlieBend eingegangen werden soil. In ottonischer Zeit schafft das dichtende Klosterfraulein Hrotsvith von Gandersheim einen christichen Gegenentwurf zu den Komodien des lateinischen Dichters Terenz45. Im Prooemium zum zweiten Buch der Sammlung ihrer dichterischen Werke, in dem die dramatischen Werke gesammelt sind, erlautert sie in Reimprosa ihre Absichten: catholici... quipro cultioris (1) pluresinveniuntur facundiasermonis'gentiliumvanitatemlibrorum utilitatipraeferunt sacrarum (2) suntetiamalii, sacrisinhaescripturarum.' rentespaginis, qui licet alia gentiliumspernant, Terentiitamenfingmenta frequentius sermonis notitiarerummaculantur. lectitant,'et, dumdulcedine delectantur,' nefandarum illumimitaridictando,'dumalii coluntlegendo,quoeodem (3) undeego... nonrecusavi laudabilis sacrarum dictationis recitabantur, incestafeminarum genere,'quoturpialascivarum iuxtameifacultatemingeniolicelebraretur. castimonia virginum Es finden sich recht viele Christen..., die wegen der formalen Qualitat der recht gepflegten Sprache die Nichtigkeit heidnischer Biicher dem Nutzen der heiligen Schrift vorziehen. Es gibt auch andere, die sich eng an die heilige Schrift halten und die, obwohl sie die anderen Errungenschaftender Heiden verachten,dennoch die Falschheitendes Terenz recht haufiglesen und, wahrend sie sich an der SuiBeder Sprache erfreuen, sich durch die Kenntnis der frevelhaften Inhalte beflecken. Daher habe ich... es nicht unterlassen,jenen [Terenz] durch eigene Schriftstellerei nachzuahmen,wahrend ihn andere durch Lekttireverehren, damit in derselben Schreibart, in welcher die schandliche Unzucht lasziver Frauen gepriesen dargestelltwurde, die lobliche KeuschheitgottesfiirchtigerJungfrauen werde, soweit dies die Fahigkeit meiner geringen Begabung gestattet46. Offenkundig liegen diese programmatischen AuBerungen der Hrotsvith genau in der Wirkungslinie des Sedulius, wenn sie nicht sogar den direkten EinfluB des spatantiken Bibeldichters verraten. Wie in der Macedonius-Epistel wird eine typologische Charakteristik eines potentiellen Lesers in der Form ,,es gibt Leute, die usw." entwickelt und im AnschluB daran das von der Autorin proponierte Verfahren erlautert, welches dem formalen Geschmack dieses Lesertyps entgegenkommen soil. Anders als in der Macedonius-Epistel wird jedoch der stoffliche Aspekt wesentlich starker in den Blick genommen: Die Kom6dien Terenz werden mit dem Begriff ,,Falschheiten" (ftngenta) bezeichnet, der auch im ersten Hexameter des sedulianischen Versprooemiums
45 Zur Terenz-Imitation Hrotsvithsvgl. K. de Luca,,,Hrotsvit's of Terence", ,,imitation" Classical Folia28 (1974) 89-102. 46
P. 132 Berschin.
DIE MUSEN IM DIENSTE CHRISTI
445
begegnet (wo iibrigensdie heidnischeLiteraturbesondersdurch die Gattung Kom6die reprasentiertwurde).Vor allem aber scheint der Ausdruck,,durch die Kenntnis der frevelhaften Inhalte befleckt werden" (nefandarum notitia renum von der beeinfluBt sedulianischen schlimmaculantur) Formulierung,,die men BefleckungenfrevelhafterGegenstande" (nefandarum...contagiarenru). Hrotsvith hat aber in ihrer Reimprosa nicht nur sprachliche Elemente des Macedonius-Briefsund des Versprooemiumsbei Sedulius kombiniert, sonder auch die sachlichen Aspekte ,,Inhalt" und ,,Form" in eine innere Beziehung gebracht. Dadurch, daB im Gegensatz zu den beiden SeduliusPartien diese Aspekte in einen Zusammenhang gebracht werden, entsteht gewissermaBenein durch zwei Koordinaten geregeltes System, welches der Hrotsvitheine differenziertereTypologisierungpotentiellerLeser ermoglicht, als sie bei Sedulius vorliegt. Im Gegensatz zu dem spatantikenBibeldichter unterscheidetsie zwei Typen von Lesern (wobeiin beiden Fillen an getaufte, aber nicht vollig glaubenskonformeChristenzu denken ist, nicht an Heiden wie im spatantikenUmfeld des Sedulius):Die eine Gruppe akzeptiertmit der Form heidnischer Literaturauch ihren Inhalt und kiimmert sich nicht um den Nutzen der heiligen Schrift; auf diese Gruppe scheint Hrotsvith mit ihrer Schriftstellereinicht einzuwirkenzu wollen. Die andere Gruppe aber verachtet infolge ihrer christlichenBildung an sich heidnische Stoffe, erfreutsich aber an der sch6nen Sprache Terenzens, liest ihn folglich doch und wird somit in den Bann seiner stofflichen Verkommenheit gezogen; dieser Gruppe kommt die mittelalterlicheDichterin entgegen, indem sie eine Ersatzdichtungvergleichbarerformaler Qualitat und moralisch saubereren Inhalts bietet. Mit einem solchen sich durch die Kombination der beiden Koordinaten ,,Inhalt" und ,,Form" ergebenden differenzierteren System ermoglicht sich Hrotsvith auch die Herausarbeitungeines interessanten Phanomens der Interaktion zwischen diesen beiden Faktoren:Die Vorliebe fur die Form einer literarischenGattung kann denjenigen Leser, der ihrem sachlichenSujet an sich innerlichfernsteht,auch ihren stofflichen Aspekten nahebringen. Eine solche Wechselwirkungzwischen Form und Inhalt ware unter den Voraussetzungen des sedulianischen Dichtungsprogramms (wo die Aspekte ,,Form" und ,,Inhalt" getrennt blieben) noch nicht faBbar gewesen. Sachlich wurde der Gedanke, daB man sich durch dieses die terenzische Sprache an der moralischen HaBlichkeit (turpitudo) Autorsinfizierenk6nne, iibrigensbereitsin der Spatantikein den Confessiones des Augustinus vorweggenommen47. 47
verbaista conmodiusdiscuntur,sed per I 26: non omnino,non omninoper hanc turpitudinem
446
THOMASGARTNER
An dieser Stelle konnen die gewonnenen Ergebnisse zusammengefaBt werden: Bei einem Durchgang durch die poetologischen Rechtfertigungen christlicher Dichtung seit ihren fruhesten Anfangen in der lateinischen Literatur wurde festgestellt, daB christliches Dichten in seinen fruhesten Phasen zunachst durch das Seelenheil des Dichters bzw. im Falle des Orientius durch eine soteriologischeWechselwirkungzwischen Dichter und Leser gerechtfertigtwurde. Erst in einer verhaltnismaBigspaten Phase, im Cannen paschaledes Sedulius,entwickeltsich - nach einer gewissenVorstufe bei Juvencus - eine an den materialen, sowohl stofflichen als auch formalen Qualitatendes eigentlichenWerksorientierteRechtfertigungsstrategie. Die hierbei formuliertenRechtfertigungsmomente(einerseitsinhaltlich die UberlegenheitchristlicherWahrheitgegeniiberheidnischemTrug und andererseitsformal das die Aufmerksamkeitdes gebildeten Lesers stimulierende Mittel des Verses) durften seit den ersten Anfangen christlicherDichtung de facto bewuBt oder unbewuBt wirksam gewesen sein: Im Prinzip wird jeder christliche Dichter das Bedurfnisempfunden haben, etwas inhaltlich Wertvolles und zugleich formal Ansprechendes zu schaffen. Eine programmatischeFormulierungerhielten sie jedoch erst im Carmen paschale des Sedulius. Dessen Formulierungentwickelte eine enorme Wirkraft,die uber Jahrhunderte hinweg bis weit ins Mittelalter ausstrahlte. Universitat zu Koln, Institut fur Altertumskunde Klassische Philologie Albertus-Magnus-Platz,50923 Koln
haecverbaturpitudoista cofidentiusperpetratur. non accusoverbaquasi vasa lectaatquepretiosa,sed vinumerroris,quodin eis nobispropinabatur ab ebriisdoctoribus.
REVIEWS
Aaron Milavec, The Didache.Faith, Hope, & Life of the EarliestChristian 50-70 C.E.,The Newman Press,New York/Mahwah, NJ. 2003, Communities, XXXVIII + 984 S., ISBN 0-8091-0537-3. Man kann wohl sagen: das ist nicht nur ein dickes, sondern auch ein anregendes Buch. Es kommt nicht haufig vor, dass ich ein 1000-seitiges wissenschaftlichesBuch mit Vergnugen von Anfang bis Ende durchlese. Es ist das Verdienst von Aaron Milavec, dieses Wunder fertigzubringen,und zwar aus zwei Grinden: Erstensschreibter vorziiglich(es ist ein Genuss,bei ihm Englischstunden zu nehmen),ja geradezuspannend,indem er den LeserbehutsamSchrittfur Schrittmit sich nimmt,Riickblickeeinlegt,das bisherErreichte- bisweilen in visuellerForm- zusammenfasst und auf das noch Kommendeneugierig macht;dazuist er ein geschickter Padagoge,der den Text vor Ueberlastungen in eingeblendeten "Boxen"unterbewahrt,indemer die Spezialuntersuchungen bestens bringt, die auch beweisen,dass er die gesamteDidache-Literatur versteht(wie ermtubeherrschtund die Spreuvom Weizenzu unterscheiden dend ist die Lekturevon wissenschaftlichen Biichern,die alles und jedes in Revue passieren!). Hundertenvon Anmerkungen Zweitensist der Verf. ein engagierterMensch, Christund Wissenschaftler, der nicht nur "nackteTatsachen" zu ubermittelnweiss, sondern der seinen Text abklopft und abklopft, bis aus den sproden Buchstaben der Funke springtund die Satze zu reden beginnen. Der "pastoralgenius"der Didache, wie er ihn zu nennen pflegt, ist auch ein wenig der "pastoralgenius" von Aaron Milavec. Ich muss dankbar anerkennen, dass ich, der ich die Didache und ihre Probleme einigermassenzu kennen glaube, dank dem Verf. vieles neu zu sehen gelert habe. Um nur einige Beispiele zu nennen: 1. Wer hat schon je daran gedacht, die Rolle der Frauenin seine Betrachtung der Didache einzubringen? (Milavec sind die besten Ideen dazu z.T. von seiner Frau inspiriertworden);2. Wer hat die Didache vollstandigerals er in den sozioRahmenihrer jiidischen und griechisch-romischen logischenund kulturellen Umwelt hineingestellt?3. Wer hat sich redlicherals er darum bemuht, sich vorzustellen, was es hiess, sich zu "bekehren",namlich aus dem bisheri? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also availableonline - www.bril.nl
VtgiliaeChristianae58, 447-449
448
REVIEWS
gen Familien- und Gesellschaftsverbandauszutreten und sich mit neuen Briidem und Schwesternauf den "Lebensweg"zu begeben? (Seine Analyse der ersten 7 Kapitel der Didache ist dadurch sehr spannend geworden: Wer war der/die Bekehrende? Warum liess sich eine(r) bekehren? Wie wurde er/sie in die neue Gemeinschaft eingefuhrt?). Freilich ist die Fantasie des Verf.s so rege, dass man sich oft fragt, wie er das alles aus dem wortkargen Text herauslesen will? Z.B. entwirft er ein m.E. zu anschauliches Bild einer Tauffeier mit anschliessendererster Kommunion (zu Kap. 7-10), das dadurch zu vielen Fragen Anlass gibt (ich will jetzt nicht darauf eingehen, das wurde zu weit fiihren). Meine zwei grossen Fragen an Milavec sind die folgenden (und er hat sie mir auch mit seinem 1000-seitigenBuch noch nicht beantwortet): 1. Ich respektieresein Bemuhen, die Didache als ein Werk"auseinem Guss"verstehen zu wollen (gegen uns andere, die immer noch glauben, der Text sei aus einer Zusammenstellungverschiedener, ursprunglichauch zeitlich - voneinander unabhangigen Quellen entstanden). Milavec beteuert,der Text - als Vademecum zu miindlicherUeberlieferunggedacht - spiegele in alien Details und in logischer Abfolge die fortschreitende Einfiihrungeines Neubekehrtenin die fur ihn neue christlicheGemeinschaft (Er weicht aber seine eigene These auf, indem er annimmt - annehmen muss -, das Vademecum sei in langem Unterricht erganzend kommentiert worden). Mag man das noch fur den ersten Teil (Kap. 1-10) hinnehmen, so wird es gegen Ende immer schwieriger,diese These aufrechtzuerhalten. Was soil denn in diesem "Katechismus"die Abhandlungiiber Apostel und Propheten, die er ubrigens einander gleichsetzt (Kap. 11-13)? Und kann man die "Gemeinde"-Eucharistie von Kap. 14 mit Sundenbekenntniswirklich von der "Erstkommunion"in Kap. 9-10 abheben? (Kap. 10,6 spricht m.E. dagegen). Und ist die Ablosungder Apostel und Propheten durch die Episkopen und Diakone, wie wir andern das interpretiertenund daraus Schliisse fur die zeitliche Ansetzung der Didache zogen, wirklich als ein von sich erganzenden Funktionen zu verstehen? Nebeneinander 2. Das fiihrt mich zum zweiten Punkt. So sehr ich es begriisse, dass Milavec die Unabhangigkeitder Didache von den synoptischenEvangelien (insbesondereMatthaus)nachweist,was eine zeitlicheAnsetzungder Didache - und vor allem ihrer Quellen - ins 1. Jahrhundert ermoglicht, so ungewohnt ist mir noch seine Frihdatierung des Werks als ganzes in die Zeit vor der Zerstorungdes TempelsinJerusalem(wasihm z.B. eine Neuinterpretation der Bezeichnung"Heuchler"im Kap. 8 ermoglicht).Man ist dann berechtigt zu fragen, wer denn die "framers"der Didache, wie Milavec sie regelmassig bezeichnet, in Wirklichkeitwaren?
REVIEWS
449
Wie dem auch sei, das Werk Milavecs ist aufjeden Fall ein Meilenstein in der Geschichte der Erforschungder Didache, mit dem sich jeder kunftige Herausgeberund/oder Kommentator dieses einzigartigenSchriftstiicks wird auseinandersetzenmiissen. Erwahnenwir noch, dass das Buch mit einer reichhaltigenBibliographie und mit ausfiihrlichenRegistern ausgestattetist. P.S. Das Schlusskapitel iiber die "Spiritualitat der Didache" ist ein ergreifendespersonliches Bekenntnis des Autors, inspiriert von dem, was er in diesem altchristlichenText gefunden hat, zu der gegenwartigenLage der Christenheit.Was er da zu bieten hat, ist nicht mehr "wissenschaftlich", aber eine sehr menschliche, sehr warme und leidenschaftlicheAnregung zu einer Ereuerung, die von Herzen kommt und darum den Weg zum Herzen findet. Neuchatel wrordorf(,vtx.ch
WILY RORDORF
Kristijan Domiter, GregorvonNazianz,De humananatura(c. 1,2,14): Text, Kommentar (Patrologia.Beitrage zum Studium der Kirchenvater, Ubersetzung, am Main-Berlin-Ber-Bruxelles-NewYork-Wien, Frankfurt 6), Peter Lang, 1999, 313 pp., e 46.80, ISBN 3-631-34570-4. 'Who was I, who am I, who will I be?'. These words from verse 17 of Gregory of Nazianze's de humananatura(carmen 1,2,14) reflect a fundamental uncertainty about what a human being essentially is and about what it means to be one. The poem, 132 verses in lenght, presents itself in the guise of the literary genre of the (pagan) elegy. Its form is that of a soliloquy, situated in the bucolic context of a garden. The poet pursues his inquiry along three main lines, treated in the three subsectionsthe corpus of the text can be divided into. In its first part (w. 17-62) the poem takes the form of an address to the body. Is the body the essence of what it means to be a human being? The question is answered in the negative: since the body is permanentlychanging, it is far too unstable to fulfill that role. In the second part (w. 63-92) the poet addressesthe soul: would he be the essence of human nature? In this context two possibilities are explored: the soul is material or the soul is immaterial. Again both possibilities do not lead to a definitive answer. The poet then introduces, as a way of 'healing medicine', the remembrance of Gods loving acts of salvation, from Creation to Incarnation. In the third part of his poem (w. 93? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christianae58, 449-452
450
REVIEWS
122) Gregory explores the presence of suffering, to which not only any human being in its body and soul is subject but which is omnipresent in the entire world and even, says Gregory by way of rhetorical exaggeration, in the Trinity itself (w. 119-121).At the same time this thought makes the poet see to what gross errors his torturing soliloquy is leading him. Thus these verses make the transitionto the final insight:only in adhering to God the poet's tormented soul finds peace. Having been unable to find the meaning of his own existence in himself or in the world, the tormented I-person of the poem finds at last a satisfying answer: ultimately it is in God that man can discoverwhat his true natureis. 'Alleindie Unterordnung des Zweifels unter die Autoritat des unbedingten und unbeirrtenglaubenden Festhaltens an Gott und der von ihm zugesicherten Heilsgewissheit vermag G.'s Kummer und Zweifel zu beseitigen und wahren Trost zu spenden'. Or: the divine logosprevails above the human logismos(p. 247). All this looks pretty much like a way to show that ultimatelyChristianity is the verareligio.Though this was certainlypart of Gregory'sintention, the Christian element is far from omnipresentin the poem. Firstly:as already said the work presents itself as a pagan elegy. Moreover, the theme of the poem itself, the question of what the human nature exactly is, links up with a pagan tradition that goes back for centuries. Thirdly: the language and style of the poem is not the Greek of the fourth century AD but a literarylanguage ('Kunstsprache')stronglyinfluenced by Homer and Plato. Consequently the poem abounds in allusions to the common pagan heritage. Besides Homer and Plato as the most important ones, the influence of Sappho, Pindarus, Simonides, Sophocles and Euripides,Theocritus and Callimachus can also be detected. The result is that the poem presents itself in a mainly pagan dress that to a certain extent even conceals the Christianelements. The latter are certainlypresent but cover only a minor part of the garment of the text. Given its difficult language, the countless allusions it contains, the matters of style and metre, this is a difficult text to study. In this book, basically his doctoral dissertation submitted at the Department of Classical Philology of the University of Mainz, KristijanDomiter rose to the challenge and succeeded with distinction. Besides a detailed, chiefly philological, commentary, the reader gets a brief survey of the transmissionof the text, the Greek text itself with a reliable German translation and some excursuseson capita selecta. At the end of the book there is an index of Greek words (includinga separatelist of hapax legomena) and a large bibliography (add to the list of translationsthe one in P.L. Gilbert's unpub-
REVIEWS
451
lished dissertation:PersonandNaturein the Theological Poemsof St. Gregory of Nazianzus,Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 179-182). With regard to the Greek text it should be noted that it is not the result of a complete collationof all the manuscriptsbut a "bereinigterText" (p. 19). To establish this text Domiter relied on the (intermediate)results of the study of the textual transmissionof Gregory's Carminaacquired through the researchof inter alios Sicherl, Gertz, Oberhaus, and Wessel. The result of this exercise is a more trustworthytext than the one printed in PG 37, though it should certainly not be considered, as Domiter himself acknowledges, as the definitivetext edition. A list of differences(17 in sum) between the text in PG 37 and Domiter's text is duly provided. The lion's share of the monograph is devoted to a detailed commentary on de humananatura.To this end the text is conveniently broken up in smaller units. Each unit opens with the Greek text and the translation. This is followed by a brief presentation of its structure and contents as well as its place in the overall argumentation.Since Gregory'spoetic language is loaden with images and it is therefore not always easy to determine what he exactly means, this structuringof the text is already its first interpretation.In a second step Domiter then offers a word-by-wordcommentary on the text. It comprises not only the solving of the many allusions to classical authors but also philological and linguistic comments as well as elucidations with regard to matters of style and metre. Here the author also justifies the changes he brought into the Greek text of the PG edition. All in all Domiter's commentary is useful and reliable. One could object that it is too philologically-orientedbut this would be a bit unfair: after all Domiter's monograph started life as a dissertation in Classical Philology. Moreover it has the advantage of providing a solid foundation upon which scholars can safely build in addressingfurther questions. One of these questions could be that of the intended audience of a poem such as this. I venture to put forwardthe following idea. This poem was surely meant to circulate in the milieu of the highly educated persons with paideia,a milieu to which the three Cappadociansbelonged. The members of the networksthat constitutedthis culturalelite were all well acquainted with the poem's form, language style and its reminiscencesto the classical heritage. Can it be that Gregory had as his intended audience those members of the cultural elite in mind who were not Christians but who, for various reasons,were consideringChristianityas a good option?This poem, written in a language and style they understood, could then have been
452
REVIEWS
intended to give them a push in the right direction. Another question that must be addressed is that of the relation of this poem to the writings of the other Cappadocians. Domiter provides some references in this regard but it seems to me that a much fuller treatmentis possible and could yield new insights. One example: in w. 33-36 Gregory speaks about a child's stay in the mother's uterus as an illustrationfor the argument that man does not know much about his past. The doubts and uncertaintiesthe poet had with regard to the subjectresulted,accordingto Domiter, in a restraint to express himself about the topic. Certainly Gregory is extremely brief about this subject but this needs more qualificationthan Domiter provides. What exactly the humanity of the embryo entailed was in Late Antiquity a debated issue for pagans and Christians alike. Gregory of Nyssa, to name just him, discussed the topic quite extensively in various texts (cf. M. Canevet, L'humanite de l'embryon selonGrigoire deNysse,in NRT 114 (1992) of Nazianze's restraint seems at least atypical; 678-695). Thus, Gregory it one might even wonder whether wasn't only introduced for the sake of his argument. Faculty of Theology
JOHANLEEMANS
St. Michielsstraat6 B-3000 Leuven A.-M. Denis (avec le concours de J.-C. Haelewyck), Introduction a la littiraturereligieuse 2 vols.; Turnhout: Brepols, 2000; xxii + judio-hellnistique, 1420 pp.; ISBN 2-503-50981-9; e 330. In 1970 the Dominican Father Albert-MarieDenis from Louvain published his Introduction aux pseudepigraphes It was a grecsdAncientTestament. valuable work that has served many students well. Denis was aware of its limitations: it covered only the Greek pseudepigrapha, and because the book was published in a period that witnessed the beginning of an impressive revival of the study of this literature,it became bibliographicallyoutdated at a rather high speed. For that reason he soon resumed work on the book in order to prepare an enlarged second edition in which also the non-Greek material would be covered extensively,i.e., the Jewish works of which the original is lost and only a later version has been preserved. For this he recruitedsome ten specialistscholars:J.N. Birdsall(Georgian),S.P. Brock (Syriac),Chr. Burchard(interalia Armenian),J.-D. Kaestli (Christian apocrypha), M.A. Knibb (Ethiopic),J.-N. Peres (Ethiopic), P. Piovanelli ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristiaae 58, 452-455
REVIEWS
453
(Ethiopic),R. Rubinkiewicz(Slavonic),E. Turdeanu (Slavonic),J. Verheyden (Latin). Of course, Denis himself remained responsiblefor the material in Greek and other languages, and J.-C. Haelewyck saw the book through the press after Denis' death in 1999. Two impressivetomes are now available and they are bound to remain a major standard work for the first decades of the 21st century. The book deals not only with all ancient Jewish pseudepigraphabut also with all Jewish authors writing in Greek aside from Philo and Josephus. Why review a book on Jewish literaturein a journal of Early Christian studies?There is more than one reason to justify doing this. Most importantly, all of the many dozens of Jewish writings that are the subject of this book have been preserved only because early Christians felt a need to hand them down to posterity;in Jewish circles the interest in most of these literary products had by and large come to a halt by the second century CE. The fact that Christiansnot only copied but also translated, revised, adopted and adapted so many of these writings is a powerful testimony to the fact that the Jewish heritage of early Christianitywas much more than just a matter of the initial stage of this new religion in the first century CE (that is why, e.g., Kaestli, a specialistin 'apocryphal'Christian literatureof the 2nd-5th cent., is one of the collaborators).The numerous manuscriptsof all the writings discussed in these massive tomes were all of them written by Christians,not even one by a Jew! The material is arranged in roughly the biblical order; that is to say that the first part deals with documents related to the historical books of the second part the Bible (from the Life of Adamand Eve till 4 Maccabees); till deals with parallels to the prophetic books (from the Livesof theProphets the third part discusses parallels to the biblical the Apocalypse of Sedrach); of Job), but this loose category comprises 'Writings'(such as the Testament also the Jewish-Hellenistichistorians(Demetrius,Artapanusetc.) and poets (Ezekiel, Theodotus etc.), plus documents such as the LetterofAristeas.The book consists of 38 chapters, but the number of works dealt with is much greater, not only because some chapters cover broad categories such as Jewish-Hellenistic historians, but also because the various versions of one and the same writing often are so different from each other that there is good reason to treat them as separate entities. So altogether more than 300 writings pass in review here. Each chapter follows the same format: Firstly,the contents of the document are summarized;secondly, testimonies of ancient authors or documents (cataloguesof apocryphalworks) are discussed; thirdly, versions in the various ancient (or medieval) languages are
454
REVIEWS
dealt with, and of each version all known manuscriptsare described and editions mentioned;fourthly,there is a survey of the scholarlydebate about authorship,provenance, date, and original language. The work concludes with 114 pages of exhaustive indices: biblical passages, ancient authors, modem scholars.The treatmentof every document is substantial;the chapter on 1 Enoch,for instance, has no less than 85 pages. The bibliographies are exhaustive. (The interestedreader has been treated to voluminous bibVeteris liographies in this field of late: J.-C. Haelewyck, ClavisApocryphorum A. den Tumhout zu jidischen 1998; Lehnardt,Bibliographie Testamenti, Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit, Gutersloh 1999; L. DiTomasso, A Bibliography Research1855-1999, Sheffield 2001. A lot of double work of Pseudepigrapha has been done here!) By way of example, I will review in some detail one chapter (17), on in order to show the relevance for early Christian the VitaeProphetarum, studies. The first 7 pages are taken up with a paraphrase of the contents (which I find rather too long for so short a document). After half a page about possible allusions to Vit. Proph.in Church Fathers, there follow 14 pages where all mss. of the Greek, Syriac, Latin, Ethiopic, Armenian and Arabic versions (more than one hundred)are listed with informationabout their whereabouts and sigla. Of the Greek mss., their division in no less than 6 diverging recensions is duly noted. All editions that ever appeared of either a manuscriptor a recension or version as well as moder translations are listed in lengthy footnotes (although not always according to a consistentformat).Of manuscriptscontaining other writingsaside from the Vit.Proph.the contents are briefly but usefully mentioned (for instance, the LXX text of the biblical Prophets in our oldest mss.). Finally it is noted that all manuscripts"sont christianiseesdans une mesure variable" (590). Parts of the Syriac versions have even found their way into scholia of Ephrem the Syrian and into various medieval Syriac chronicles. It is also noted that in the mss. there is a wide divergence in the order of the various Vitae;each group seems to have its own system of ordering. Next the identity of the author is discussed:he is "insaisissable"because there is not even one manuscriptthat contains a text that has not been doctored with by Christians. Even so, the thesis defended recently by some scholars to the effect that the whole treatise is not a Jewish but a Christiandocument, written in early Byzantine Palestine, is to be rejected. The document is indeed Christian in the forms handed down to us, but there can be little doubt that there is a 'Grundschrift'in which a Jewish author collected popular tales about the biblical prophets and provided these with precise
REVIEWS
455
descriptionsof the locations of their graves (a prominent trait in all of the 23 Lives),so as to have it serve as a short pelgrim's guide to the tombs of the prophets. It is most probably not a piece of Christian hagiography, and usually the Christian insertions are easy to detect and remove (many would disagreewith this, but see also the discussionin my Die Prophetengrdber im antiken Judentum[Delitzsch-Vorlesung2000], Miinster 2001, passim).The many diverging proposals for the time and place of origin pass in review but the matter is left rather open: sometime between 100 BCE and 135 CE, probablyin Palestine.Finallysome thematicallyrelated Christianapocryphal documents about biblical prophets are listed and discussed briefly of the ThreeYoungMen andDaniel). (e.g., TheMartyrdom The reviewer hopes that this all too short presentation of this magnum opushas made clear that the mass of data gathered by Father Denis and his collaboratorsis of great interest not only for Judaic scholars but also for students of the early church in which this kind of literaturewas read with great interest and used for theological purposes. I wish this volume in many hands, but alas, the price for privatelibrariesis more than forbidding. Utrecht University
P.W. VANDER HORST
P.O. Box 80.105 3508 TC Utrecht Athanasius von Alexandrien, Epistulaad Afros.Einleitung, Kommentar und Ubersetzung von Annette von Stockhausen (PatristischeTexte und Studien 56), Berlin-New York: De Gruyter 2002, X + 366 S., ISBN 3-11-017159-7, e 98 (Leinen). Studies on both the last decade of Athanasius'life and the writings that originatedduring this period are relativelyfew. In offeringa detailed analysis of the important Epistulaad Afrosthe book under review, based on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat Erlangen-Niirnberg(promotor:H.-C. Brennecke),goes a long way in filling a lacuna. The work is divided into two parts: part I (pp. 5-69) discusses introductoryquestions and part II (pp. 70-307) offers an extensive wordfor-word-commentary,which also includes the Greek text and a German translation. The book is exemplary in its genre and makes a significant contribution to patristic scholarship. The results of the research laid out in von Stockhausen'sintroduction may be summarisedas follows. First of all she provides a convincing con? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christianae58, 455-459
456
REVIEWS
text for the Epistulaad Afros(Ep.Afr.):it was written in the years 366/7 to put the bishops of the overall Nicene diocese Africa ('grundsatzlichim Sinne des Nizanum gepragt';p. 9) on their guard against Arian heretical currentsof homoian signature.Athanasius'basic argument runs as follows: since its formulationin 325 the Nicene Creed has always been and still is sufficient as articulation of the Christian faith; hence all previous synods convened by "the Arians" in which they formulate ever-changing credal statements must be rejected. In her section on the authenticity of EpAfr. (pp. 27-32) von Stockhausenconvincinglyproves its Athanasianauthorship AdAfrosExamined, in H. Brennecke (againstC. Kannengiesser,(Ps.-)Athanasius, et al. (eds.), Logos.Festschriftiir LuiseAbramowski, Berlin, 1993, 264-281). Besides the argumentsbrought forward in this section, the many parallels between Ep.Afr.and Athanasius' other writings highlighted in the commentary show beyond doubt that there is no reason to deny the Athanasian authorshipof Ep.Afr.Drawing on the typology of M.L. Stirewalt(Formand in K.P. Donfried,TheRomans Function Debate,Edinburgh, of theGreek Letter-Essay, the author the describes form and 19912), literary genre of EpAfr. as a In the following section (pp. 37-53) she demonletter-essay (pp. 33-37). strates how in many passages of Ep.Afr.Athanasius is amply drawing on arguments and formulationsof his earlier writings (esp. De decretisand De synodis).These are inserted not so much in the form of direct and complete quotations but rather as ad hoc reformulatedstatements that re-use standardkey-termsand often recurringconcepts (for the issue of Athanasius' method of working, see also D.W.H. Arnold, Excursuson theAthanasianUse of Sourcesin De Decretis,in PatristicandByzantineReview11 (1992) 33-51). On pp. 55-64 von Stockhausen offers a survey of stylistic and grammatical features of EpAfr. A presentation of the structure of the letter (pp. 6567) rounds off the introduction and makes the transition to the commentary proper. The close reading of the argument of EpAfr. at the start of each subsection of this commentary is very helpful, as well as the German translation and the Greek text which precede the commentary on each of the separate lemmata. The primary concern of this word-for-word-commentary is to indicate parallels with the other writings of Athanasius. Where applicable,extensive quotations (often with German translationin the footnotes) are provided to illustrate those parallels. The nature of the commentaryon the separatelemmatais best describedas historical-grammatical, meaning that the explanation is concerned with observations regarding grammar, style, syntaxis and historical context. The commentary is inter-
REVIEWS
457
rupted by excursus on 'The sources of the synod of Rimini' (pp. 131-137) and on 'An exegesis of the Nicene Creed' (pp. 219-239). Von Stockhausen'swork will be indispensablefor students of fourth century theology in general and Athanasius in particular, while it may also serve as an example of how rewardingresearch focusing on one brief document can be. Is there then, after von Stockhausen'sdetailed research, still something left to be wished for? The present reviewer,for one, would have liked a concluding discussionbringing together the most significantthreads and ideas. A consequence of von Stockhausen'sapproach to her subject is that the focus is largely limited to Athanasius himself, while the issues EpAfr. brings to the floor also merit to be placed into the larger framework of the theological developmentin Late Antiquity.This would be especially worthwile with regard to the idea, elaborated briefly upon in the introduction(pp. 1-2), that EpAfr.and the person of Athanasiusfunctioned of orthodoxy and markers against heresy in general and that as Leitbilder they greatly contributedto the identificationof the Nicene Creed as "the" Creed par excellence. At some places of von Stockhausen'sotherwise detailed commentaryone would have wished for a more lenghty explanation.In EpAfr.2.5 Athanasius mentions as causes for the council of Nicea the Arian heresy and the issue of the date of Easter. Regarding the latter he adds that the difficultieswere caused by Christiansfrom Syria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia who were celebrating the feast on the same day as the Jews. While a detailed discussion of this thorny question is surely beyond the scope of the monograph under discussion (cf. p. 127, note 146 with bibliography on the topic), a brief outline of the problem, the proposed solutions and the presence of the issue in sources contemporary to Athanasius would have been apposite. When Athanasius is using in EpAfr. 2.2 the term "barbarians",one would also expect some clarificationregarding his use of this term. I conclude with three brief addenda. In EpAft. 1,2 Athanasius writes that in the preceding decades many local synods endorsing the decisions of Nicea had been held. To stress his point he provides a long enumeration of the provincesin which these gatheringswere held. Von Stockhausen observesthat, allowingfor small mistakes,the order in which these provinces are mentioned is geographical (clockwisearound the MediterraneanSea). With reference to Ep.Jov2,1 (Nicea) and Apol.sec.1,2 (Serdica)she observes the same quasi-geographicalorder in 'die anderen Provinzenlistein den Schriften des Athanasius' (p. 87). To this material EpAeg. 8; HistAr. 28,2 and De Incanatione 51 might be added. A second addendum concernsEpAfr.
458
REVIEWS
2,2, where Athanasius argues that the Nicene Creed is the Creed which "even the Indians" recognize. Commenting on this (pp. 113-115) von Stockhausen correctly interpretsit as an image applied to underline that the entire world recognized the Nicene Creed. For corroboration,she refers to other passages in which "India"is described as a region at the end of the world (Eusebius,Demonstratio III, 4,45; VitaConstantini IV, 50 Evangelica and Basil, In Hexaemeron 6,9). A similar use is documented in Gregory of Nyssa's SecondHomilyon theFortyMartyrsof Sebaste,where he writes, in the context of an ecphrasis on the Armenian cold, that inhabitants of that province inquire about a bunch of grapes as Cappadociansabout the crops of India (cf. GNOX,1/2, p. 161, 1. 17-21). The third addendum I would like to propose concerns the commentary on the words cKa0axpoeicogev in EpAfr. 3.1. The author shows that this kind of back-referenceis typical of writers of the fourth and fifth centuries and of Athanasius in particular ('Diese Art der Betonung... ist eine typische Gepflogenheit der Schriftstellerder 4. und 5. Jahrhundertsund unter ihnen ganz besonders des Athanasius').She substantiatesthis (p. 141, note 16) by describingthe results of a TLG-search, which yielded 46 instances, all from works of fourth and fifth century authors. But when one uses only ipoeioogev as a search-termmuch more passages are retrieved from the TLG. Moreover, this search shows that Cyril of Alexandriabeats, as far as numbers is concerned, his predecessor on the see of St. Mark. Often together with the 38 times, practiCyril is using the term Cpoei7cogev proposition cKaOd&ep a all of which indicate back-reference. The same cally goes for Proclus, who also uses it almost forty times. Thus, while von Stockhausen'spoint is well taken and her conclusions are valid, they need some modification and it cannot be said without qualificationthat Athanasius is the person who uses this kind of back-referencepar excellence. Let me wind up with two technical questions. The first one is that a list of abbreviationswould have been useful. The second one concerns the book's production and is more serious. Together with the book a letter has been distributedin which the publisher apologizes for the fact that it "unfortunatelycontains several orthographicerrors.A draft which had not yet been through a final proofreadingwas inadvertentlysent to print". The publisheralso points out "thatthe Greek citationstaken from the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae were not adjustedthroughoutto match the text from the editions indicated". While these shortcomingsshould obviously have been avoided, it must also be said that their consequencesfor the usefulnessand
REVIEWS
459
the reliability of the information in the book are by no means unsurmountable and that they do not detract from the author's achievement. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculteit Godgeleerdheid, St. Michielsstraat6, B-3000 Leuven.
JOHANLEEMANS
Ps.-Paulino Nolano, [carm.32]. Introduzione, testo critico, traduzionee commento di MarinellaCorsano e Roberto Palla, Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2003, 179 pp., ISBN 88-467-0726-5 (broche). In February 1695 Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750) became attached to the AmbrosianaBibliotheca at Milan. This first stage in a distinguished scholarly career was spent in strenuous research of the manuscripts in the vast library. One of the early results of these efforts was the discoveryof a 9th century codex containingworks of severalearly Christian poets, among which three as yet unknown 'natales'of Paulinus Nolanus. The young and ambitious scholar made some haste in publishing these (carmina19, 20 and 21 in Hartel's CSEL edition) in the first volume of his Anecdota(Milan 1697). To the three carminanatalidahe added a further poem which he found in the manuscript (AmbrosianusC 74 sup.), also Neither the title ("absque ascribingit to Paulinuswith the title Poemaultimum. titulo", Muratori)nor the name of the poet is mentioned in the codex or, for that matter, in its next of kin, the MonacensisLat. 6412. The title does not denote a late stage in Paulinus'oeuvre, since Muratoriassumesthe end of 395 or the beginning of 396 as its most plausible date of publication. The genesis of Muratori's'editio princeps' is described in an interesting paper which Prof. Palla contributed to the collection Anchoravitae,edited has been edited by G. Luongo (Naples 1998). Since 1697 the Poemaultimum and studied by a number of eminent scholars.Its last and until now authoritative edition can be found in Hartel's 1894 CSEL edition (vol. 30.2, pp. 329-338). In cooperation with Marinella Corsano, Palla now presents a new edition. He has taken care of the critical edition of the text, Dr. Corsano provides the translationand a full commentary. It is the fifth volume in a new series of editions (with translationand commentary)of early Christian poetry, directed by Palla, which also comprises three editions of ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christianae58, 459-462
460
REVIEWS
poetical works of Gregory of Nazianzus and one of the anonymous camnen contra paganos,publishedby A. Bartalucciin 1998. So the book under review has a predecessor in this attractive series, since the Poemaultimumis also essentially a specimen of anti-pagan polemics. Nowadays few scholars will be inclined to follow Muratori in ascribing the poem to Paulinus.As to its date, the hypotheses cover a range between 384 and 436. There is, however, a remarkablepiece of evidence: the metrical part of ICUR 13355, an epitaph of a certain Maximilla, contains two verses which look to be a collage of the poem's verses 233-234 and 222. The epitaph is dated to 389. If it is indeed more likely that it borrowed from the poem than the other way round, a 'terminus ante quem' is the result. Curiously, ICUR 11435 also shares the best part of a verse with the poem. This inscription, however, cannot be dated. All these briefly mentioned problems and the full evidence are amply discussedin Corsano's part of the introduction. In his presentationof the text Palla does not confine himself to a (quite full) apparatuscriticus at the foot of the pages. On pp. 80-89 he adds an "apparatocritico completo", in order that the reader can "ripercorrerela in poi" (54). This thesauruscriticusmakes storia del testo, dall' editioprinceps up for the rather scarce discussionof textual problems in the commentary. Corsano's translationis clear and reliable and her commentary testifies to sound learning in various departments.In some cases one would have welcomed more enlightenment about the precise construction of a complicated sentence or the line of thought in a particularpassage, but the wealth of parallel texts and other types of information is an asset. Because text, translationand commentarybelong closely together, in the following remarks I follow the order of the poem's verses. 1. The most lucid explanation of parentheticalfateorhas been given by A.E. Housman in ClassicalReview20 (1906) 40; one of the meanings proposed by the renowned Latinistfits the present text to a T: "it means to confess or concede something which one might be thought willing to deny". Most scholars follow Muratori in interpretingAntoniusas nominativus pro vocativo. C. adheres to this plausible tradition, but she should not have based her adherence on e.g. Hor. Carm.1.2.43 (see Nisbet and Hubbard ad loc.) or Ov. Fasti 4.731 (the vocative of populusis a rarity and deemed incorrect by ancient linguists; see also Szantyr 24). 18. Disappointingly, the commentary seems to regard mss misitas unproblematical,and no attention is paid to ShackletonBailey'sfinxit,based on LXX 'rkaacevin Ex. 32,4 (Vulg.
REVIEWS
461
Christianpolemics fecit).24. One would have liked some discussionof miseras. sacrifice tend to stress its against bloody pathetic aspects. 35-39. A reference to K.A. Algra e.a. (edd), The Cambridge Historyof HellensticPhilosophy pp. 323-351 would have been timely in the discussion of "Academic epistemology". 45. For drinking manibussupiniswithout the use of a drinking vessel the commentary mentions i.a. Verg. A. 4.205 and Ov. Met. 8.681, passageswhich are concerned with prayer. 88. For the difficultphrase mysteriaturpiaplanguntabout the cult of Attis C. refers to some texts about "le lamentazioni funebri", but fails to explain the Latin, which she smoothly translatesas "si celebrano questi turpi misteri". Perhaps Stat. Theb.3.197 invidiamplanxeredeis could be helpful: H. Snijder ad loc. explains this as "planctum invidiosum planxere deis; translate: 'they beat their breasts in hatred of the gods"'. 92. si castioripsesacerdosis P.'s only personal emendation; the mss have sic artior,Bursianconjecturedsic castior.Without doubt si castioris close to the mss., but it involves the rapid succession of two siclauses in 91 and 92 with differentfunctions:"in case that" (91) and "dato che" (C.) in 92. 101. What does fictemean here? 114. Commenting on the Mithraic details in 113 sqq. C. quotes Min. Fel. Oct.8.4 (latebrosa et lucifugax natio),but this passage characterizes the pagan view of Christianity. 117. P. prints A's Quidquodet Isiacasistrumque which implies caninum, caputque a syllabaproducta in caesura. This is not uncommon in hexametricpoetry, though lengthening of a final vowel is quite rare. It does, however, already occur in Ennius: Et densisaquilapennisobnixavolabat(Ann.139 Skutsch).In vs 72 is more remarkable:possetrespicere, the Poemaultimum duplicihuncpinxere figura.So, from a metrical point of view Isiaca,"gli oggetti del culto isiaco" in C.'s translation,is not impossible, but one would have liked some parallels of Isiaca denoting cultic objects being adduced. In this respect Zechmeister's conjecture in WienerStudien2 (1880) 128 ("lesen wir dagegen Isiaci, so erhalten wir fur den Satz in passender Weise ein Subject") has better credentials:see Plin. nat. 27.53 and HA VitaCommodi 9.6. 152160. Scholars have punctuated these verses in various ways, which have much to do with the decision to print either mss cum,as does P., or an emendation (quamor sum)in 152. In whichever form the passage poses a problem: up to 157 the poet's personal spiritualcareer is worded, but 158160 are concerned with "la storia della salvezza" (C.) in general. The difficulty is more pronounced in P.'s punctuation, since it has the main clause beginning at 158. 204. Rejecting Muratori's si vitatidola,P. prints mss Nec se paganuslaudet,si qui idola vitat,which is not satisfactorilyren-
462
REVIEWS
dered by C. as "E il pagano non si vanti, se qualcuno rifiuta gli idoli"; si qui is generalizing: "anyone who" (OLD s.v. quis2 1): "any pagan who rejects the idols should refrain from self-praise." These remarks may show how Palla and Corsano invite discussion by their expert and instructive treatment of an interesting testimony to the late antique debate on true religion. For the study of the Poemaultimum this fine edition is indispensable. 2311 WB Leiden, Commanderijpoort 4-6
J. DEN BOEFT
aux Jean-Claude Larchet, SaintMaximele Confesseur (580-662) (= Initiations Peresde l'Eglise),Paris, Les Editions du Cerf, 2003, 288 p., ISBN 2-20407156-0, e 25 (broch6). In principle the value of a book should be judged by the new insights it presents, the innovative conclusions it draws, or the clarity of the way in which it sums up earlier research;and not by the fame of its author. Yet, in practice, some scholars tend to be considered as authorities and the presence of their name on the cover gives a publication a touch of trustworthiness, so important in the rat-race of commercial book trade (and modern scholarship).As far as the research on Maximus the Confessor is concerned, Jean-Claude Larchet has definitely reached the status of an authoritativescholar. Apart from a number of articles on the 7th century theologian, he can rightfullyboast such important publications as La divinisationde l'hommeselonsaint Maximele Confesseur and Maximele Confesseur, entrel'Orientet l'Occident,'and the quite sound introductions to mediateur Emmanuel Ponsoye's very poor French translationsof Maximus' Quaestiones ad Thalassium, et dubia.2 Ambigua,Epistulae,Opusculaand Quaestiones His latest book, entitled SaintMaximele Confesseur (580-662), presentsitself on p. 9 as an "ouvrage d'initiation"and on the back cover as responding
Published as volumes 194 and 208 of the CogitatioFidei-series(Paris, 1996 and 1998). See Saint Maxime le Confesseur,Questionsa Thalassios,Paris-Suresnes, 1992, pp. 7-44; SaintMaximele Confesseur, Ambigua,Paris-Suresnes, 1994, pp. 9-84; SaintMaximele Confesseur, et polemiques, Lettres,Paris, 1998, pp. 7-62; Saint Maxime le Confesseur,Opusculestheologiques et Paris, 1998, pp. 7-108 and Saint Maxime le Confesseur,Questionset dfficultis (Quaestiones dubia), Paris, 1999, pp. 7-26 respectively. On the translation of Maximus' Opusculatheologicaet polemica,see my review in VigiliaeChristianae54 (2000), pp. 214-218. 2
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
tgiliaeChristianae58, 462-467
REVIEWS
463
"a un besoin en mettant a la disposition d'un large public une presentation abordable, mais neanmoins aussi exacte et complete que possible, de la vie, des oeuvreset de l'ensemble de la pensee de Saint Maxime". The intention is excellent: after a century of ever-increasinginterest in Maximus the Confessor and an ever-acceleratingstream of publications, even specialists run the risk to be off the track, not to mention the non-specialists. In this review, however, I will try to show that the outcome is anything but excellent and, I dare say, unworthy of the good scholar Larchet has proven himself to be in the past. I will start with the final part of the book, Part V (pp. 229-283), where Larchet presents an alphabetically ordered, comprehensive bibliography. Some years ago a similar bibliographywas presented by Peter Van Deun, in chronologicalorder and accompanied by a very useful index.3Although Larchet does mention Van Deun's article in the course of his own bibliography, he apparently thought he could dispense himself from referring to it explicitly as one of his sources. It is indeed patently obvious that Larchet used, not to say, plundered Van Deun's bibliographyin order to draw up his own list. To give only two examples:the studies by Griet Van der Herten and Katrin Hauspie are unpublishedLeuven licentiate'stheses which cannot be read outside the University Library.4Admittedly, upon publication Van Deun's bibliographybecame public property, but using it to present a bibliography of your own without referring to it properly is ethically questionable, to say the least. It is equally remarkable-and it further strengthensmy conviction that Larchet's bibliographyheavily depends on that by Van Deun-that while stating to have gathered a comprehensivebibliography,Larchet, in the first
3 Cf. Maxime le Atat de la questionet bibliographie exhaustive,in SacrisErudiri38 Confesseur.
(1998-1999), pp. 485-573. A first update will appear soon. 4 Cf. Griet Van der Herten, De taal vanEvagius Pontics en MaxmnusConfessor. Licogrqfische van 'De oratione'met 'De caritate'(unpublished dissertation), Leuven, en stilistischevergelyking an septuagesimus 1984 and Katrin Hauspie, MaximusConfessor primusauctortextusgraeciVeteris in Maximus' Quaestionesad De aanhalingenuit de Septuaginttekst Testamentidicti Septuaginta? Thalassium(unpublished dissertation), Leuven, 1992. The fact that Larchet missed my 2001 dissertation on the majority of the texts edited by S.L. Epifanovich (cf. B. Roosen, Revisited.(Pseudo-)Maximi Confessoris Opusculavaria:a criticaleditionwith extensive Epifanovitch traditionand authenticit[unpublished doctoral dissertation], Leuven, 2001) noteson manuscript seems to be sufficient proof that he is not that well-informed about the research in Leuven, so as to have knowledge of these theses without having consulted Van Deun's bibliography.
464
REVIEWS
three parts of his book, fails to present a decent bibliographyof the subjects he is adressing.In PartII (pp. 27-114), for example, the nearly ubiquitous references to P. Sherwood,5to the meritorious,but outdated bibliography by Maria Luisa Gatti,6 and to the introductions to the listed translations hardly suffice. For example, where are the articles by J.D. Madden and M. Richard on the definitions of will in CPG 7697. 26?7 Where is P. Speck's contributionto the discussion concerning the end of Maximus' 8th letter?8Where are the studies on John of Scythopolis and the CorpusDionysiacum, indispensablefor the study of the Maximian scholia on the Corpus?9 The fact that these studies are mentioned in the last part of the book hardly qualifies as a valid excuse: since the book primarily aims at students and scholars new in the field of Maximus studies, the necessary bibliography should have been listed wherever it is appropriate and useful. But also on a more basic level, that is as concerns the texts themselves, Larchet's listings in the second part are lacunous. For example, where is the reference to the extant Syriac translation of the seven chapters of Eulogius of Alexandria'sDubitationes orthodoxi (CPG7697. 23b and CPG6971) and to the anonymous twelve chapter version of that
5 Cf. An Annotated Date-Listof the Worksof Maximusthe Confessor (= StudiaAnselmiana 30), Roma, 1952. 6 Cf. Massimo e contributi il Confessore. ragionata generale perunaricostruzione Saggodi bibliogrqfa del e relgioso.Introduzionedi G. Reale (= Pubblicazioni metafisco scientficadelsuopensiero di Ricerche di Metisica. Sezionedi Mefisica delPlatonismo e nella Centro nelsuosviluppo storico Studie testi2), Milano, 1987. filosofia patristica. 7 Cf. J.D. Madden, TheAuthenticity in F. Heinzerof Earl Definitions of Will (Thelesis), C. Schonborn(ed.),MaximusConfessor. surMaximele Confesseur, ActesduSymposium Fribourg, 2-5 septembre 1980 (= Paradosis 27), Fribourg(Suisse),1982, pp. 61-79. M. Richard,Un in P. Wirth(ed.),Polychronion. au diacreDimetrius, Festschrift faux dithlite.Le traitedeS. Irenee dergriechischen desMittelalters F. Dolgerzum75. Geburtstag Urkunden undderneueren (= Corpus undGeschichte zurgriechischen Zeit,Reihe D: Beiheft.Forschungen Diplomatik 1), Heidelberg, MinoraIII, Turnhout-Leuven, 1977, 1966, pp. 431-440 (reprintedin M. Richard,Opera n. 65). 8 Cf. MaximosderBekenner unddieZwangtaufi durchKaiserHerakleios, in VariaVI. Beitrage zum ThemaByzantinische Feindseligkeit nebsteiner gegendieJudenimfrihen siebten Jahrhundert demPerser(= PoikilaByzantina15), Bonn, 1997, pp. 441-467. zu Anastasios Untersuchung 9 Cf. desJohannes vonSkythopolis zu denaree.g. Beate Regina Suchla,Das Scholienwerk Traktaten in seinerphilosophieundtheologiegeschichtlichen in Ysabel de opagitischen Bedeutung, Andia(ed.),DenysI'Ariopagite etsapostiritienOrient et enOccident. ActesduColloque International. 1994 (= Collections desttudesAugustiniennes. SerieAntiquite Paris,21-24 septembre 151), Paris,
1997, pp. 155-165.
REVIEWS
465
text in the DoctrinaPatrum?Why is the so-called RecensioAtheniesis(BHG (BHG Mosquensis 1233n) of Maximus' vitanot mentioned while the Recensio several of are the dubia et most where is? spuria, 1233m) And, importantly, which have enjoyed considerableattention in earlier Maximus researchand therefore should have been discussed,at least for the sake of completeness? PartsI (pp. 13-25) and III (pp. 115-217) also pose an ethical problem. Devoted to Maximus' biography and way of thinking respectively,the former is a new reprint with some mostly minor changes of a text Larchet has published already twice before,'1while a large part of the latter turns out to be a catena-like selection of passages from Larchet's earlier publications." In neither case did Larchet deem it necessary to point this situation out to his readers.For the third part in particular,this situationraises the question whether a novice will benefit from reading a text made of a selection of passages from texts written for specialists. I fail to see how such a procedure can enhance the clarity of the expose so indispensable in an "ouvrage d'initiation". In PartIV (pp. 219-227), finally, Larchet presents the French translation of Maximus' CapitaXV and CapitaX announced already in 1994.12Both texts are available to scholars only as chapters 1-15 and chapters 16-25 of the first century of the Ps. Maximian Diversacapita[CPG 7715]. The discovery of a direct tradition of these texts-more than thirty manuscripts for the CapitaXV, six for the CapitaX-is a fairly recent achievement.13 Even if future research would show that the original wording of both texts was not altered when incorporated into the Diversacapita,still the fact
10 Cf. La divinisation[cit. n. 1], pp. 7-20 and pp. 7-16 of his introduction to Ponsoye's translation of the Opuscula[cit. n. 2]. One of the not so minor changes with regard to the first time Larchet published this text, is the omission of a discussion concerning the extant Syriac vita (ed. S. Brock, An Early SyriacLife of Maximus the Confessor,in Analecta on LateAntiquit [= Bollandiana91 [1973], pp. 299-346; reprinted in id., SyriacPerspectives VariorumReprints.CollectedStudies 199], London, 1984, n. XII). The fact that Larchet clearly favours the information provided by the Greek vita results in an almost complete disregard for the Syriac text. To be sure, the Syriac vita deserves more attention. 1 For pp. 130-131 e.g., see Larchet, Maxime le Confesseur, mediateur..., pp. 64-65, pp. 66-67 and p. 72. 12 Cf. p. 4 of Ponsoye's translation of the Ambigua[cit. n. 2]. 13 For the CapitaX, see the article by C. De Vocht, Un nouvelopusculede Maxime le sourcedes chapitresnon encoreidentifis des cinq centuriesthologiques(CPG 7715), in Confesseur, Byzantion57 (1987), pp. 415-420.
466
REVIEWS
remains that Larchet cannot pretend to have translated the CapitaXV or the CapitaX as such. The translation itself is considerablybetter than the ones by Ponsoye, but on the whole the exactness and precision indispensablein the case of such technical texts is lacking. Some strikingmistranslationsreally call for rectification. The first half of chapter 6 of the CapitaXVis translatedthus-my underde ceux liningsto indicate the problematic passages-: "Si touteparticipation estpreconfue, alors la Cause des etres qui, par nature, preexiste quiparticipent aux etres et est con9ue avant eux, depasse clairement et indubitablement tous les etres, d'une maniere incomparableet de toutes les facons, non en tant qu'essence des creatures-caralors le Divin se revelerait compose, ayant l'hypostasedes etres pour completer sa propre existence-, mais en tantque de l'essenceelle est la suressence. (...)". In Greek the beginning of the chapter reads: Ei n&aa etozil &tOvgeTxtOVrOV xcpoe?mvoeitat.Larchet (see the
first italics) translated it as if there is a connection between the genitive and JLEo Xil, while actually the genitive is governed by xpoectvoeirat.Thus, the correct translationis something like: "Si toute participationest concue avant ceux qui participent".Maximus continues by saying that the cause of what is transcends({ineptcxrat) all that is and to illustratethis he makes both a negative and a positive comparison: oiX)% ooaia (sc. 1ictepKeitai) a1OPepcitKOV (...)
XX' x; olxoiat; (sc. ibneplcetlai) TX'7Tcepooatov.In other
words, Larchet should have translatedit this way: "non comme une essence (depasse)les qualitesnon-essentielles(...) mais comme la suressence(depasse) l'essence". His own translation (see the second and third italics) does not make sense. Finally,in chapter 12 of the same text Larchetunderstoodrinp d&vOpOuov the same way as the inrepav0potov some lines further on and translated "I reste toujoursau-dessusde l'homme", while Maximus is actually speaking about Christ's incarnation. The correct translationtherefore is "pour l'homme". Together with the strikinglyhigh number of mistakes and typing errors in the bibliographicreferences,Larchet'slatest book gives the strongimpression of having been made quickly and without much consideration for accuracy and scholarly ethics. Larchet's initial co-operation in preparing the chapter on Maximus the Confessor for the future first volume of La et sa tradition theologie byzantine (a co-operation which was terminated by the editors of that encyclopedia)and the blatant similarityin concept and structure between Larchet'sbook and the chapters in the already available sec-
467
REVIEWS
ond volume of that encyclopedia,14 clearly suggest an answer to the question why he felt the need to publish this book. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Instituut voor Vroegchristelijkeen ByzantijnseStudies, Blijde Inkomststraat21, B-3000 Leuven
BRAMROOSEN
Stephen Emmel, Martin Krause, Siegfried G. Richter, Sofia Schaten Zeit. Aktendes 6. (Hgg.), Agyptenund Nubien in spdtantikerund christlicher in Minster20.-26. Juli 1996, Band 1: Materielle IntemainalnKoptologenkongesses Kultur, Kunst und religioses Leben; Band 2: Schrifttum, Sprache und Gedankenwelt(Sprachenund Kulturen des ChristlichenOrients, Band 6,1 & 6.2), Wiesbaden:Reichert Verlag 1999, 549 + 583 S. (inkl.ca. 200 s/wAbbildungen),ISBN 3-89500-095-7, E 110 (Gebunden). Die Koptologie beschaftigt sich mit der KulturgeschichteAgyptens in der koptischenZeit, die vom 3. Jahrhundertnach Chr. bis heute andauert. Da dabei versucht wird, eine Kultur in ihrer ganzen Vielfalt und iiber eine lange Zeitspanne hinweg abzudecken, ist die Koptologie im wesentlichen ein interdisziplinaresFach, das insbesondere auch mit der Patristikviele Verbindungen, Parallelen und sogar Uberschneidungenaufweist. Die eindrucksvollenund vom Reichert Verlag mustergiltig herausgegebenenzwei Bande AgyptenundNubienin spdtantiker undchristlicher Zeittragen die Resultate der neuesten koptologischen Forschung zusammen, die auf dem 6. Internationalen KoptologenkongreB1996 in Miinster prasentiert wurden. Die zahlreichen, in deutscher, englischer, franzosischerund italienischer Sprache verfaBtenEinzelbeitrageinternationalerWissenschaftlergeben ein Bild von der Vielfalt der Interessengebieteinnerhalb der Koptologie. Dreizehn meistenteilssehr ausgewogenenund bleibend wertvollenUberblicksbeitrage fassen die Forschungin den verschiedenenHauptbereichender Koptologie zwischen 1992 und 1996 zusammen, wie z.B. die Beitrage von Peter Grossmann ('Christliche Archaologie'), Paul van Moorsel ('Coptic Art'), Wlodzimierz Godlewski ('Christian Nubia'), James Goehring ('Coptic
Cf. C.G. Conticello - Vassa Conticello (ed.), La thiologiebyzantineet sa traditionII Turnhout, 2002. (XIIT-XIXe s.) (= CorpusChristianorvm), 14
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae58, 467-471
468
REVIEWS
Monasticism'), Heinzgerd Brakmann ('Liturgie der Kopten'), Tito Orlandi ('Letterature copta'), Peter Nagel ('Koptische Bibeltexte'), Birger Pearson ('Gnosticism') und Wolf-Peter Funk ('Manichaeism in Egypt'). Der Themenschwerpunkt des ersten Bandes liegt auf der Archaologie, der Kunst, der Liturgie, der Theologie und der Kirchengeschichte. Der zweite Band konzentriert sich auf das Schrifttum, die Sprache und die Gedankenwelt. Die Kodikologie und Palaographie, die Papyrologie und die Epigraphik als Teilwissenschaften liefern wichtige Einsichten bei der Beschaftigung mit den Quellen, der Literatur, der Bibel und auch der christlich-arabischen Literatur. Band 2 enthalt auch mehrere wichtigen Beitrage zur Gnosis und zum Manichaismus. So entsteht ein lebhaftes Panorama der mannigfaltigen Landschaft Agyptens und Nubiens in spatantiker und christlicher Zeit, das nicht zuletzt fuir die patristischen Studien zentrale Bedeutung hat. Aus diesem Grund wird hier zur Ubersicht der vollstandigen Inhalt der beiden Bande, die zusammen den sichtbaren und bleibenden Erfolg des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses darstellen, aufgefiihrt: Band 1 Martin Krause, Vorwort; Archiiologie, Peter Nubienund Monchtum: Kunst,Christliches Grossmann, ChristlicheArchaologie in Agypten: Bericht iiber die Forschungslage; Paul van Moorsel, Some Words about these Years of Plenty: Fieldwork and Publicationson Coptic Art in 1992-1996; WlodzimierzGodlewski,ChristianNubia: Recent Studies (1990-1996); James E. Goehring, Recent Research in Coptic Monasticism (1992-1996); Dominique Benazeth avec la participation d'A. Conin, Un ensemble de bronzes coptes recemment acquis par le Louvre; M. L. Bierbrier, Coptic Antiquities in the Department of Egyptian Antiquities, British Museum; Karl-Heinz Brune, Die Verkiindigungsszenedes Syrischen Klosters: Ergebnis der Entwicklungeiner eigenstandigenfriihchristlichenBildsprache;Georges Descoeudres, Zur Entstehung einer Reprasentationshaltungim monastischen Gebet am Beispiel der Kellia; Marianne Erikson, Golden Anonymous and St. Mena - or Daniel in the Lions' Den: Two Late Antique/Coptic Depictions in the Weave; Olga Etinhof, The Coptic Art Collectionof Vladimir SemjonovichGolenischevin Moscow; Cacilia Fluck, Eine koptische Puppentunika; Gawdat Gabra, The Story of the Coptic Museum [i.e., the Coptic Museum in Cairo;JvO]; Girgis Daoud Girgis, A Centaur on an Object from a Private Collection; Wlodzimierz Godlewski, Naqlun 19931996; Gisela Helmecke, Priestergewanderoder Votivgaben?; Suzana Hodak, Die ornamentalen koptischen Purpurwirkereien:Untersuchungen zum strukturellen Aufbau;Ulrike Horak, Die koptischenTextilien imJoanneum/Graz; Virpi Huhtala, Koptische Textilien im FinnischenNationalmuseumund in finnischemPrivatbesitz; K. C. Innemee,New Discoveriesat Deir al-Sourian,Wadi al-Natrun;Lucia Langener, Isis lactans- Maria lactans:Untersuchungenzur koptischenIkonographie;Magdalena Laptas, Comments on Wall Paintings from "House A" in Old Dongola; Petra Linscheid, Kapuzen im spatantikenund koptischen Agypten; GertrudJ. M. van
REVIEWS
469
Loon, Church of Abu Sayfayn:Wall Paintingsin the Chapel of Mar Girgis;Fatma Mahmoud Mohamed, Quelques exemplaires choisis de motifs releves sur des ceramiques du Musee Copte; Malgorzata Martens-Czarnecka,Wall Paintings from the Monastery on Kom H at Old Dongola; Bozena Mierzejewska,Murals in the Bishops' Chapel, Faras: The Visual Expression of the Ruler's Ideology in Nubia; Ashraf Nageh, The Restoration of the Wall Paintings in the Coptic Museum; Claudia Nauerth, Zu spatantikenLeichentiichernaus Agypten - eine Skizze; Olga W. Oscharina, On One Coptic Lamp from the Hermitage Museum; Krzysztof Pluskota, Pottery from Old Dongola; Marguerite Rassarth-Debergh, Bilan des Fouilles aux Kellia: Peintures;MargueriteRassart-Debergh,Nouveautes; Dorothee Renner-Volbach, Magischer Lotos? Ein Rundeinsatz im Purpurwirkerei;MarieHelene Rutschowscaya,Le redeploiement des collections coptes dans le musee du Louvre: .tat des travaux (1996); Bishop Samuil & Peter Grossmann, Researches in the Laura of John Kolobos (Wadi Natrin); Hans-Georg Severin, Anmerkungen zur Rezeption koptischer Skulptur im Koptischen Museum; Zuzana Skalova in cooperation with Youhanna Nessim Youssef, Sobhi Shenuda & Magdi Mansour, Looking through Icons: Note on the Egyptian-Dutch"Conservationof Coptic Icons Project"1989-1996; CatherineThirard, L'organisationarchitecturaledes monasteres d'apres les textes et l'archeologie (les monasteresd'ltpiphane et du Han el-Ahmar); Katarzyna Urbaniak-Walczak,Koptische Stoffe aus der Sammlung des Nationalmuseums in Warchau: Geschichte der Sammlung; Ewa Wipszycka, L'organisation economique de la congregation pachomienne: Critique du temoignage de Jer6me; Bogdan Zurawski,Faith Healing, Philanthropyand Commemorationin Late Christian Dongola; Liturgie,Theologieund Kirchengeschichte: Heinzgerd Brakmann, Neue Funde und Forschungen zur Liturgie der Kopten (1992-1996); Achim Budde, Einsetzungsbericht und Heiligungsbitte der agyptischen Basilios-Anaphora: Zur Sonderstellungder bohairischen Version; Anba Damian, Die koptische Kirche in Deutschland;Fayek Mattheos Isaac, The Orthodox Eschatologicaland Ontological Metaphysicsof Being and the Incessant Quest after Supernal Knowability;Maged S. A. Mikhail, An Early Glimpse into the Thought of St. Shenouda of Atripe; Mark Moussa, The Anti-ChalcedonianMovement in ByzantineEgypt:An Evaluation of Past Scholarship and Current Interpretations;Youhanna Nessim Youssef, Les rituels de la reconsecration[sc. des eglises et des sanctuaires;JvO];Rachad Mounir Shoucri, Plato at Heliolopolis of Egypt:A CriticalLook at the Relationshipbetween Egyptian Philosophy, Platonic Philosophy, and Alexandrian Theology; Zakaria Z. Wahba, The Copts in the Diaspora with Emphasison the United States of America; und der syrischen DietmarW. Winkler,Ein Passusaus der koptischenBasileiosliturgie VitaDioscorials Quellen der Wiener christologischenFormel. Band 2 Tito Orlandi, Lo studio della letteraturacopta 1992-1996; Peter Nagel, Die Arbeit an den koptischenBibeltexten1992-1996;Johannes den Heijer,Recent Developments in Coptic-Arabic Studies (1992-1996); Stephen Emmel, Recent Progress in Coptic Codicology and Paleography (1992-1996); Samiha Abdel Shaheed Abdel Nour, A Project of Arabic Palaeography of the Christian Arabic Manuscripts from the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth Century; Gonnie van den Berg-Onstwedder, The
470
REVIEWS
Descent into Hell in the Coptic LiteraryTradition; Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Neue Bibeltexte:Fragmente koptischerHandschriften- ein Werkstattbericht;Roelof van den Broek, An Early Chronology of Holy Week in Pseudo-Cyrilof Jerusalem's On the Passion(Pierpont Morgan Library, M 610); Stephen Emmel, Editing Shenute: Problems and Prospects; Michel van Esbroeck, Koptische Fragmente der ApaJeremias Legende; Clara ten Hacken, Coptic and Arabic Texts on Macrobius, an Egyptian Monk of the Sixth Century; Charles W. Hedrick, A PreliminaryReport on Coptic Codex P. Berol. Inv. 22220; A. Fouad Khouzam, Le manuscrit Copte 44 de Paris de la Bibliotheque Nationale de France; Michael Kohlbacher, Minor Texts for a History of Asceticism:Editions in Progress;Jos van Lent, An Unedited Copto-ArabicApocalypse of Shenute from the Fourteenth Century: Prophecy and History;Gesine Schenke Robinson, Codex BerolinensisP 20915: A ProgressReport; Jens Schroter,Zur Menschensohnvorstellungim Evangeliumnach Maria; Karlheinz Schiissler,The "Biblia Coptica" Projekt;Hany N. Takla, The Thirteenth-Century Coptic (?) Martyrdom of John of Phanidjoit, Reconsidered; Berd Witte, "Sur la negligence" - einige Bemerkungenzu einem Fragment aus dem WeiBen Kloster; undEpigraphik: Papyrologie Roger S. Bagnall, Greek Papyri and Coptic Studies 19901995; Anthony Alcock & Iain Gardner, The Coptic Economic Texts from Kellis (Dakhleh Oasis); Seyna Bacot, Avons-nous retrouve la grand-mere de koloche?; Anke-IlonaBlobaum,Bemerkungenzu einem koptischenBrief:Das OstrakonLouvre N 686; Anne Boud'hors, Le catalogage des textes coptes du Louvre; Sarah J. Clackson, Ostraca and GraffitiExcavated at el-'Amarna;Raffaella Cribiore, Greek and Coptic Education in Late Antique Egypt; Marvin Meyer, The magical Book of Mary and the Angels (P. Heid. Inv. Kopt. 685); Tonio Sebastian Richter, Die neun Stelen AgyptischesMuseum der UniversitatLeipzig Inv.-Nr. 680-688 mit der Qasr Ibrim;Sofia Schaten,Griechischeund koptischeBauinschriften; Herkunftsangabe Ariel Shisha-Halevy,Coptic Linguistics:1992-1996; Nathalie Bosson, De Linguistik. l'expressiondu rapport a l'object en langue copte; Rodolphe Kasser, Langue copte bohairique: Son attestation par les inscriptions des Kellia et leur evaluation linguistique;BentleyLayton,A PenultimatePersonalObject Morph in ClassicalSahidic Coptic; Wolf B. Oerter, Die sogenannten Nominalprifixe: Zur Anwendung eines Begriffsin Grammatikendes Koptischen (Saidischen);Helmut Satzinger, Koptische Vokalphoneme und agyptische Pluralformation; Ariel Shisha-Halevy, Bohairic Narrative Grammar; Adel Sidarus, Contribution des scalaemedievales a la lexicologie copte: Compte-rendud'un projetde recherche;Jiirgen Tubach, Bemerkungen zur geplanten Wiederaufnahmedes Worterbuchprojekts"GriechischeLehnworter im Koptischen" in Halle; Ewa D. Zakrewska,Adverbial Clauses in the Structure of the Text: The case of the Bohairic"Participium Absolutum";GnosisundManzchdicus: Gnosticism Wolf-Peter A. 1992-1996; Funk,Researchon Manichaeism Birger Pearson, in Egypt 1988-1996; Niclas F6rster, Die Bedeutung des sogenannten Eucharistiesakramentesder Markosierund die Texte aus Nag Hammadi;Judith Hartenstein, Gedanken zur Koharenz und Absicht des "Brief des Petrus an Philippus" (NHC VIII, 2);Jan Helderman,ManichaischeZiige im Thomasevangelium;Alexandr L. Khosroyev, Der Eugnostosbrief(NHC III, 3) und die SophiaJesu Christi (NHC III,4); Paul Van Lindt, Light and Dark in the Apocryphon of John; Silke Petersen, Zitate im Dialog des Erlosers (NHC II, 2); Uwe-Karsten Plisch, Probleme und Losungen: Bemerkungenzu einer Neuiibersetzungdes Thomasevangeliums(NHC
REVIEWS
471
II, 2); SiegfriedG. Richter,Die manichaischeToten- oder Seelenmesse;Eugenia der koptischen DieterTaillieu,In the Margin Manichaica; Smagina,Besonderheiten of Psalmof Thomas 20; Jacquesvan der Vliet, The Coptic GnosticTexts as ChristianApocryphalLiterature; GregorWurst,Die Bedeutungder manichaischen Psalmenbuch I, 127). Sonntagsfeier (manichaisches Ale diese DivitiaeAegypti(et Nubiae)in zwei stattlichen Banden kosten nur
e 110, eine bemerkenswerte Tatsache, fur die nicht nur dem Reichert Verlag, sondernauch den Organisatorendes Kongresses,den Herausgebern und insbesondere der Deutschen ForschungsgemeinschaftDank gebiihrt. Erwahnen wir noch, daB die Erscheinungder Akten des im Sommer 2000 in Leiden veranstalteten 7. Kongresses fur 2004 angekindigt worden ist: M. Immerzeel, J. van der Vliet, M. Kersten, C. van Zoest (eds.), Coptic Studieson the Threshold of a New Millennium (OrientaliaLovaniensiaAnalecta 133, Peeters Publishers,Leuven). Nijmegen/Utrecht [email protected]
J. VANOORT
Sulpicio Severo, Vitadi Martino.Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento a cura di Fabio Ruggiero (Biblioteca Patristica,vol. 40). Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane 2003, 320 p., ISBN 88-10-42049-7, 23 Euro. In 1866 Karl Halm inauguratedthe Corpus Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Scriptorum with his edition of Sulpicius Severus' opera. The Life of SaintMartincan be found on pp. 109-137. A century later J. Fontaine published a new critical edition of the Vitaas vol. 133 of the SourcesChretiennes (Paris 1967). In his introduction he acknowledges his debt to the studies of P. Hylten and B.M. Peebles, who were preparing a new edition of Sulpicius Severus a project which did not materialize. The text for the CorpusChrstianorum, of Fontaine'seditionprovidedthe basisfor the bilingualeditionsof Bastiaensen and Smit in VitedeiSantiIV (Milan 1975) and K. Smolak (Eisenstadt1997). Fabio Ruggieronow presentsa new criticaledition,in which the differences with Fontaine are neither spectacular nor insignificant. Sometimes these alterationsare prompted by R.'s preference for the most important manuscript, the early sixth century Veronensis (V). A few examples, with 6.1 Mediolmin(Mediolmmz), Fontaine'stext in parenthesis: praef.1 schida(scheda), 7.5 virtutium 17.4 Domino Iesu credidit Iesumcredidit),18.1 (Dominum (virtutum), cives(civitatem), 23.7 unumdefratribus(unumdefratribusSabatiumnomine).In some cases V has a lacuna, e.g. 7.1, where R. chooses ita of most mss ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae 58, 471-472
472
REVIEWS
instead of Hylten's conjecturePictavos, printed by Fontaine, and 14.1, where he prefersthe 'Italian'family's iniecisset to inmisisset. However, R.'s predilection is not rigid, witness his reasoned acceptance of Paulinusveroin 19.3, where Fontaine follows V's omission of vero. R.'s translationis reliable, giving cause for doubt in only a few places, e.g. "se credi" is not a satisfactoryrendering of the 'Hoflichkeitsformel'si tibi videtur(praef.6); meditabatur (2.4) is an instance of the verb expressing "exercendo praeparare"(TLL VIII 578.25 sqq.), so that Smolak's "bereitete sich vor" is better than R.'s "meditava";vidimus(20.9) means 'we (i.e. our generation)have seen', not "io ho visto". The commentaryis certainly helpful, but leaves something to be desired too. R. registersthe many allusions to Scripture, refers to important scholarly literature in various languages and lavishly provides full quotations from the rest of Sulpicius Severus' 'dossier' on Martin, viz. the epistulaeand the dialogi.This is no doubt useful, but here and there the reader could have done with some further enlightenment:in 3.5 vir beatissimus the suddenly appearingsuperlative deserves comment; it would have been wise to delineate the true proArrianaper totumorbem... pulportions of the hyperbole in 6.4 cumhaeresis the random lulasset, (fortuito)opening of the Bible in 9.5 should have been explained as a specimen of a wider 'divinatory'phenomenon: see the relevant chapter in P.W. van der Horst, Japhethin the Tentsof Shm (Louvain 2002) pp. 159-189; the remarkablephrase opulentissimum superstitione religionis (14.3) requires explanation;ad 19.1 a reference to Arborius 3 in PLRE I 97-98 is indispensable;the fact that nobody ever saw Martin laughing (27.1) does not betray morosity or lack of humour, but illustrateshis genuine asceticism, as would have been worthwhile to explain. These critical remarksdo not impair the conclusion that this edition of the VitaMartiniis a worthy member of the admirable series to which it belongs. 2311 WB Leiden,Commanderijpoort4-6
J. DEN BOEFT
BOOKS RECEIVED Becker, Adam H. & Annette Yoshiko Reed (eds.), The WaysthatNever Parted.Jews and Christiansin LateAntiquityand the EarlyMiddleAges (Texts and Studies in AncientJudaism/Texte und Studien zum AntikenJudentum 95), Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck 2003, VIII + 410 pp., ISBN 3-16-147966-1, e 74 (clothbound with jacket)-New volume in the distinguished series edited by Martin Hengel and Peter Schafer, with seventeen fine studies by leading specialists in their fields, mainly as a result of a new OxfordPrinceton Research Partnershipand focussing on the interactions of Jews and Christians between the Bar Kokhba Revolt and the rise of Islam: Foreword by Martin Goodman, Simon Price, and Peter Schafer (v-viii); AnnetteYoshikoReed & Adam H. Becker,Introduction:TraditionalModels and New Directions (1-34);Paula Frederiksen,What "Partingof the Ways"? Jews, Gentiles,and the Ancient MediterraneanCity (35-63);Daniel Boyarin, SemanticDifferences;or, 'Judaism"/"Christianity" (65-85);Robert A. Kraft, in The Weighingof the Parts:Pivots and Pitfalls the Study of EarlyJudaisms and their Early Christian Offspring (87-94); Andrew S. Jacobs, The Lion and the Lamb: ReconsideringJewish-ChristianRelations in Antiquity (95118); Martin Goodman, Modeling the "Parting of the Ways" (119-129: nine highly interestingdiagramswith brief introduction);David Frankfurter, Beyond 'Jewish Christianity":Continuing Religious Sub-Cultures of the Second and Third Centuries and Their Documents (131-143); E. Leigh Gibson, The Jews and Christians in the Maryrdomof Polycarp:Entangled or Parted Ways? (145-158); Amram Tropper, Tractate Avot and Early Christian Succession Lists (159-188); Annette Yoshiko Reed, "Jewish Christianity"after the "Partingof the Ways":Approachesto Historiography and Self-Definitionin the Pseudo-Clementines(189-231); Alison Salvesen, A Convergence of the Ways? The Judaizing of Christian Scripture by Origen and Jerome (233-258); Daniel St6kl Ben Ezra, Whose Fast Is It? The Ember Day of September and Yom Kippur (259-282, with ample disof his cussion of texts from, among others, Leo the Great; the nudipedalia sermo89, however, may refer to Manichaean and not to Jewish practice); Naomi Koltun-Fromm, Zippora's Complaint: Moses is Not Conscientious in the Deed! Exegetical Traditions of Moses' Celibacy (283-306, discussing the exegesisof Aphrahatamong others);Ra'anan S. Abusch, Rabbi Ishmael's ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2004 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChrstianae58, 473-475
474
BOOKS RECEIVED
Miraculous Conception: Jewish Redemption History in Anti-Christian Polemic (307-343);Averil Cameron,Jews and Heretics-A Category Error? (345-360);John G. Gager, Did Jewish Christians See the Rise of Islam? (361-372); Adam H. Becker, Beyond the Spatial and Temporal Limes: Questioning the "Partingof the Ways" Outside the Roman Empire (373392); List of Contributors (393-395); Modern Author Index (397-402); Subject Index (403-410). - Martyr.English translaBrandle, R., John Ch?ysostom: Bishop- Reformer tion by John Cawte and Silke Trzcionka with revised notes by Wendy Mayer (EarlyChristian Studies 6), Sydney: St Pauls Publications2004, XV + 169 p. (incl. 15 ill.), ISBN 0-97522138-0-6, AUS$38.50 (pb).-Polished English translation of the original German edition (Kohlhammer, 1999). The book is written for the general reader rather than the specialistscholar; includes 15 b/w plates, a Glossary,list of persons and brief bibliographies of sources and modem works. A Gazetteer Mullen, Roderic M., The Expansionof Christianity. of its First ThreeCenturies to Christianae Leiden-Boston: (Supplements Vigiliae LXIX), Brill 2004, X + 407 pp., incl. several maps + small added map, ISBN 9004-13135-3, e 109 / US$ 135 (hardback).-An impressive work, though being at many puzzling points at variance with e.g. F. van der Meer & Chr. Mohrmann,Atlasof theEarlyChristian World:Preface(ix-x);Introduction (1-17); Part One: Christiancommunitiesin Asia before 325 C.E.: Palestine (21-33);Syria Phoenice (33-39);Syria Proper(40-47);Arabia(47-53);(Roman) Mesopotamia (54-59); Assyria and Babylonia (59-65); Persia (66-70); India and Bactria (70-73); Isauria, Cilicia, and Cyprus (74-83); Dioecesis of Asia (83-114);Dioecesis of Pontica (114-132);Pontus Polemoniacus,Colchis, and Transcaucasian Iberia (133-135); Armenia Major (136-139); Part Two: Christian communities in Europe before 325 C.E.s: Dioecesis of Trace (143-152); Nort and Northwest Coasts of the Black Sea (152-154); Greece (154-169); Province Dalmatia (170-172); Moesia Superior (172-175); Dacia Traiana (175-177); Pannonia (178-183); Dioecesis of the City of Rome (184-210); Dioecesis of Italy (211-220); Noricum (220-221); Raetia (221222); Germania(Superiorand Inferior)(222-226);Gaul (226-242);Britannia (242-248);Hispania (248-259);Part Three: Christiancommunitiesin Africa before 325 C.E.: Egypt (263-293); Cyrenaica and Libya (294-297); Africa Proconsularis(298-310);Numidia (311-319);MauretaniaSitifensis(319-321); Mauretania Caesariensis (321-326); Mauretania Tingitana (326-327); Unlocatable Christian Communities in North Africa (328-329); Ethiopia (Aksum) to the mid-Fourth Century (330-332); Maps (333-346, with an
BOOKS RECEIVED
475
enumeration of Unplaced Sites on p. 333); Bibliographyand Abbrevations (347-385); Index (387-407). desJohannesundpolitisc-theologische Texte.Aus Peterson, Erik, Offenbarung demNachlassherausgegeben vonBarbara ichtweijf und Werner Lser (Ausgewihlte Schriften, Band 4), Wiirzburg:Echter Verlag oJ. [2004], XLVII + 268 S., ISBN 3-429-02597-4, ? 42.90 / CHF 74.00 (gebunden mit Umschlag). Thomas J. Kraus & Tobias Nicklas (Hgg.), Das PetrusPetrusevangeium: und die Die griechischen mit deutscher und evangelium Petrusapokalypse. Fragmente (Die Griechischen ChristlichenSchriftstellerder ersten englischer Ubersetzung Jahrhunderte, Neue Folge, Band 11, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen 1), Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter 2004, X + 153 S. + Bildanhang (15 S.), ISBN 3-11-017635-1, E 49.95 (Leinen). et Theologie de Nazianze(Collection chezGregoire Richard, Anne, Cosmologie des ttudes Augustiniennes-Serie Antiquite 169), Paris: Institut d'Etudes Augustiniennes 2003 [Diffuseur exclusif: Brepols Publishers, Turnhout, Belgium], 552 pp., ISBN 2-85121-193-5, e 72 (pb).-Introduction (9-31); Premiere partie: De Dieu au monde, et retour (33-373); Deuxieme partie: Le monde et le Dieu Trinit6 (375-471),avec interalia discussionde 'Gregoire de Nazianze et la crise Arienne'; 'Trinite divine et independance de Dieu par rapport au monde'; 'La generation divine n'est pas a l'image de la generationhumaine';'Generationet creation:le Fils n'est pas o du monde > mais ; 'La generation divine et l'independancede Dieu par rapdogmaport au monde'; 'Le Verbe Mediateur'; Annexe: Poematatheologica, tica1,1,4-5: Traduction et notes (483-507);Bibliographie(509-523);Indexes (525-547). J. VAN OORT
[email protected]
The Bible in Ancient Christianity The Bible in Ancient Christianityseries examines how the Scriptureswere interpretedin ancient Christianiy, in liturgy,in exposition,homilies, in art, in spirituality,and in social issues. particularlyas Scriptureifunctioned
Thechronological parameters for thestudyarethefirstthroughthefifthcenturies.Questionsof howScripture wasinterpreted as wellas howRomans functionwillincludeboth,forexample,howAugustine interpretedRomans, breadthof thestudymeansthatEasternas wellas amongvariouswriters.Thegeographicandchronological Western Christianauthoritieswill be examined. Althoughthefocus will be on widelyacceptedcanonicaltexts "readingsofthetexts.Nonetheless theserieswillnotrestrictitselftoonly"orthodox (withinthesetwotraditions), in ancientChristianity. theprincipleaimwill be to lookat howcanonicaltextsfunctioned
Handbook
of
Patristic
Exegesis
ListpriceEUR295.-/ US$ 295.TheBibleinAncientChristianity, 1 Through this Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, the reader will obtain a balancedand cohesive pictureof the Early Church.It gives an overall view of the reception,transmission,and interpretationof the Bible in the life and thoughtof the Churchduringthe first five centuries of Christianity,the socalled patristic era. The handbook offers the context and presuppositions necessary for understandingthe developmentof the interpretativetraditions of the Early Church,in its catechesis, its liturgy and as a foundationof its systems of theology. The handbookpresents a comprehensiveoverview of the history of patristicexegesis. Apart from a general introductionto the majortopics in this field, it containsessays by leadingpatristicscholarson the most important ChurchFathers,such as Augustine,Irenaeus,Origen,GregoryofNyssa, andothers.The essays aresupplemented by bibliographiesof editions and studies on patristicexegesis publishedfrom 1945 until 1995. Together,these bibliographiesform the only comprehensivebibliographypresentlyavailable on this topic.
Scholarsandstudentsof earlyChristianity, biblicalstudies,historicaltheology,classicalstudies, Readership: ancientphilosophy and hermeneutics. Charles Kannengiesser was successor of the late CardinalJean Dani^louat the InstitutCatholique,Paris; CatherineHuiskingProfessorof HistoricalTheology at Notre Dame University,Indiana(1982-92); Fellow of the Institutefor Advanced Study,Princeton,NJ. Since 1992 he is Professorat ConcordiaUniversity,Montreal. He has publishedseveral books and many articleson Athanasiusof Alexandriaand the Alexandriantradition. 'T$interpretation of the Bible in the ChurchFathers attractsmore and moresophisticatedresearch;but u*ow we have lacked a really comprehensiveoverview.In these volumes,one of theforemostcontemporarypatristic scholars provides a superb conspectusof thefield, which will be indispensablefor thefutu this research.I amprofoundlygratefulfor the enormouslabours and the expertcriticaljudgementshown Professor Kannengiesser' work' Rowan Williams,The Archbishopof Canterbury. Academic
www.brill.
nl
Tel+31(0)7153 53 566 P.O.Box 9000 2300PALeiden Fax+31 (0)7153 17 532 TheNetherlands E-mailcsbrill.nl
Publishers
B R I L L P.O.Box 605 Tel 1-800-337-9255(toll fee USA&Canadaony) 1-703-661-1585 Hemdon,VA20172 USA Fax1-703-661-1501 [email protected]
andresidents Allpricesaresubjecttochangewithout oftheNetherlands ofotherEUmember states priornotice.Pices donotincludeVAT(applicable onlytoresidents intheprice(applicable to whereshipping andhandling withouta VATregistraton Pricesdonotincludeshipping &handling is included number). exceptforjournals inUSdollars.Pleasenotethatduetofluctuations intheexchange allcustomers inCanada, USAandMexicowillbecharged Customers rate,theUSdollar worldwide). tocreditcardholdersmayvaryslightlyfromthepricesadvertised. amounts charged
INSTRUCTIONS
TO AUTHORS
(1) Contributionsshould be submittedin duplicateand be accompaniedby a disk.Both WordPerfect and Microsoft Word are accepted word-processingprograms. ASCII-formatted disks are also accepted. Contributionssubmitted should not have been published elsewhere. (2) Manuscriptsshould be printed with a wide margin and double space between the lines. Please use one side of the paper only. The first page should have ample space at the top around the title. (3) Titles should be as short as possible. (4) Italics should be used sparingly (but see below nrs. 6 and 7). (5) Latin quotations should be underlined to be printed in italics. Syriac, Hebrew and Coptic quotations should be transcribed. (6) References should be given in footnotes with continuous numbering. Titles of books and of journals (not of papers in journals) should be in italics to be printed in italics. For example: H.A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the ChurchFathers1 (Cambridge, Mass. 41964) 106-111. L.W. Barnard, "The Antecedents of Arius," VigiliaeChristianae 24 (1970) 172-188. Gregory of Nyssa, De hom.opif. 24 (PG 44,212D) - Greg.Nyss. Hom. opif. 24 (PG 44,212D). Tertullian, Adv.Marc.4,28,1 - Tert. Adv.Marc.4,28,1. (7) Correction. Authors are requested to check their manuscripts,and especially their quotations, most carefully, and to type out all Greek, as later corrections in the proof stage are expensive and time-consuming. Corrections by which the original text is altered will be charged. (8) Offprints.Contributorswill receive 15 offprintsfree of charge for articles and 3 free offprints for reviews.
? Copyright 2004 by Koninkljke Brill NV, Leiden,TheNetherlands All rightsreserved. storedin a retrieval No part of thispublicationmay be reproduced, translated, system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, withoutpriorwrittenpermission recording of thepublisher. to photocopy itemsfor internal Authorization personaluse is grantedby Brillprovidedthatthe appropriate Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, fees arepaid directlyto Copyright Suite910, Danvers,MA 01923, USA. Feesare subjectto change.
ISSN 0042-6032 (print version) ISSN 1570-0720 (online version)
This journal is printed on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS
J.N. RODES,Barnabas 4.6B: The Exegetical Implications of a Textual Problem . .................................................... S.M. HILDEBRAND, A Reconsideration
of the Development
of
Basil's Trinitarian Theology: The Dating of Ep. 9 and Contra ............. Eunomium .......... .............................................. Y.-M. DuvAL, Une reponse d'Ambroise a 1'Empereur Gratien (CPL 160A) Edition, Traduction, Commentaire ........................ Th. GARTNER,Die Musen im Dienste Christi: Strategien der Rechtfertigung christlicher Dichtung in der lateinischen ............. Spatantike ........... ............................................. Review s
365
................................................................
Books Received ....................................................................................
393 407
424 447 473
