THEOLOGIE HISTORIQUE
"53 '
rJLI
'
EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND THE CLASSICAL INTELLECTUAL TRADITION IN HONOREM ROBERT M. GRANT
edited by WILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL ROBERT L. WILKEN
The interaction between Christianity and Greco-Roman culture has been the most alluring and persistent issue among those which have dominated the study of early Christian literature and thought since the nineteenth century. The process of transfonnation of Christianity from a Palestinian Jewish sect to a universal religion has fascinated historians. theologians and philosophers. The essays gathered in this volume challenge the thesis of a sharp dichotomy between Christianity and GrecoRoman culure and reftect a slow but deliberate shift which is taking place in the understanding of Christianity in relation to ancient culture. The essays are written by scholars from various parts of the world. each writing from his own perspective. but taken as a whole they indicate that Christianity and GrecoRoman culture were not two independent worlds but that Christian writers. from an earlier date than has been recognized. became part of the intellectual world of late antiquity. The essays are presented as expressions of respect and friendship for Professor Robert McQueen Grant, Carl Darling Buck Professor of Humanities at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. No single formula can capture the significance of the wide range of Robert Granfs contributions to the study of the early church. Among honors accorded Professor Grant were : Fulbright Research Professor at the University of Leiden (19505 I) : three Guggenheim fellowships (1950, 1954, 1959) : visiting professor at Yale University (1964-65): president of the Society for Biblical Literature and Exegesis (1959) : president of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research (1963-64) : president of the American Society of Church History (1970) and North American Patristic Society (1975): a director of the Anglican Theological Review, an associate editor of Vixiliae ChristiantJe and co-editor of Church History. The contributors to this melonl!es offered to Robert Grant share with him the conviction that the interaction to the early church with the Greco-Roman tradition is among the most fascinating topics in contemporary historical and theological debate.
lmprimC
ell
France
THtOLOGIE HISTORIQUE
EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND THE CLASSICAL INTELLECTUAL TRADITION
Robert M . Grant Cart Darling Buck Professor of the Humanities Divinity School, Un.iv. Chicago
TH£0LOCIE HISTORIQUE COWmON FONDlE PAR JEAN DANiiLOU DIIIGll PAl CHAILES lANNENGIWEI
54 EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND THE CLASSICAL INTELLECTUAL TRADITION IN HONOREM ROBERT M. GRANT
edited by
WILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL ROBERT L. WILKEN
EDITIONS BEAUCHESNE PARIS
Pour tous rcnsei&nements concemant nos publieatioas s'adresser au service documentalion t!JmONS IEAUCHESNE -
72, rue des Saints·Pt:res, 7!5007 PAiliS
Tow droit• d~ traduction, de reproduction 011 d'atlaptation en qu~lqu~ langue et de quelque faron que ce 10it rlservls pour tous pays. @ 1979 by tomONS BI!AUCKUNB
CONTENTS
In honorem Roben M. Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 I. Tertullian 's Principles and Methods of Exegesis 17 by J.H. WASZINK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Theological Speculation and its Limits by W .C van UNNIK ......................... 33 3. The God of the Greeks and the Nature of Religious Language by FRANCES M. YOUNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4. Enclosing, not Enclosed : The Early Christian Doctrine of God by WJLLIAM R. ScHOEDEL . . . . . . . 75 5. The Transcendence and Freedom of God : lrenaeus. the Greek Tradition and Gnosticism by RICHARD NORRIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 6. From Gnoek Hairesis 10 Christian Heresy by MARCELSIMON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 7. Pagan Criticism of Christianity: Greek Religion and Christian Failh by ROBERT L. Wn.KEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 8. The Relativity of Moral Codes : Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity by HENRYC!w>WJCK 135 9. Greek and Jewish Heroes: Founh Maccabees and the Gospel of Milk
by SHERMAN E. JOHNSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 10. Greek Rhetoric and Pauline AQ!umentation by Wn.HELM WUEu.NER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 11. God is Eros by G. QuiSPEL . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
IN HONOREM ROBERT M. GRANT
Friends and students ofRobert McQueen Grant have contributed the essays in the following pages to honor an outstanding scholar of the twentieth century. When W. C. van Unnik surveyed the field of Patristics for Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (5. 154-156) in 1961, he noted that the study of the churcl,fathers had ''experienced after 1945 a new period of flowering" and named Robert M. Grant along with Johannes Quasten and Werner Jaeger as the American
participants in this renaissance. Robert M. Grant was born in Evanston, J/linois. November 25, 1917.
He is the son of Frederick C. Grant, the wt?ii-Jcnown New Testament scholar, and He/en McQueen (Hardie) Grant. He obtained his A.B.
from Northwestern University in /938, anended Episcopal Theological School in Boston in 1938-39, moved on to Columbia in 193940, and took his B.D. from Union Theological Seminary in 1941. His higher degrees include a S.T.M. from Harvard in 1942, a Th. D. from the same irutitution in 1944, and a D.D.from Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in /969 and the University of Glasgow in 1979. Roben Grant mtJrried Margaret Huntington Horton, December 2/, 1940. He was ordained in the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1942 and ministered at St. James Church, South Grove/and, Massachusens,
1942-44. Robert Grant served as instructor and ultimtJte/y professor of New Testament studies in the School of Theology at the University of the South from 1944 to 1953. He became associate professor at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago in 1953 and professor in 1958. In 1973 he was nmned Car/ Darling Buck Professor of the Humanities. Among the honors accorded Professor Grant were his appointment as Fulbright Research Professor at the University of Leiden ( 195051 )and his winning of three Guggenheimfellowships ( 1950, 1954, and 1959). He has served as visiting lecturer at Vanderbilt University ( 194547), visiting lecturer at Seabury-Western Theological Seminmy
IN HONOREM ROBERT M. GRANT
( /954-55 ), and visiting professor at Yale University ( 1964-65 ). He was lecturer in the history of religions for the American Council of Learned Societies in 1957-58. He has served as president of the Society for Biblical Literature and Exegesis ( 1959 ), the Chicago Society ofBiblical Research (1963-64), the American Society of Church History ( 1970), and the North American Patristic Society ( 1975). He is a-director ofthe Anglican Theological Review. an associate editor of Vigiliae Chrislianae, and co-editor of Church History. No single formula can capture the significance of the wide range of Robert Grant's contribuJions to the study of the early church. He has always avoided the hackneyed and has always foand himself among those seeking to illuminate the early period from fresh points of view. Here we mDY mention especially his explorations of the history of Biblical interpretation, his contributions to the study ofGnosticism. his participation in the rediscovery ofthe importance ofOrigen arul Origenism, and his attention to the Graeco-RomtJn intellectutJI background of the church fathers. At times he has brought to light unexpected features of the thinking of the fathers by asking to what extent they anticipqted problems that preoccupy scholarship and theology todaytheir use, for example. ofrhetorical criticism on the gospels as a kind of early historical-critical method. In all his work., however, Robert Grant has avoided the temptation ofthe churclurran to exaggerate the intellectual depth or sanctity of the fathers. Indeed, it often appears that he talces the religious substance of the tradition for granted, regarding as more significant and interesting the qua"els about it and the anempts of groups and individuals to use it to satisfy their ambitions. it i~ perhaps for this reason that the interaction with the Graeco-RomtJn intellectual tradition and (especially more receruly) the social dimensions ofthe life ofthe early church have played so important a role in his work.. Although it moy appear to some that in this way the central issues are often simply by-passed, the old questions also take on fresh life when looked at from the perspective of the scholarship which Robert Grant represents. The essays in this volume are intended as expressions of respect and friendship for Professor Grant. The contributors share with him the conviction that the interaction of the early chiU"Ch with the GraecoRoman tradition - the *me to which this voiUJM is devoted - is among most fasciiiQiing topics in contemporary historical and theologiCfll.Ubute.
*
INTRODUCTION
Among the issues which have dominated the study of early Christian literature and thought since the nineteenth century, the intelliCtion between Christianity and Greco-Roman culture has been the most alluring, and the most persistent. The reasons for this are not far to seek. Christianity began as a movement within Palestinian Judaism, but it rapidly moved beyond the confines of its native environment. Its earliest writings are written in Greek but it is not the Greek of Plato or Demosthenes; it has a strongly sernitic cast. If one turns, howcter, to later Christian writers, little more than a century later, they seem thoroughly at home in Greek ideas, Greek rhetoric, Greek mores. Christians speak the language of Plato, freely citing Greek poets and philosophers. When Christianity appears to public view within the larger cultural world of the Roman Empire, it seems changed, transformed, embracing enthusiastically what it had rejected at an earlier stage outright. A striking illustration of the change can be seen in the Christian attitude toward philosophy. •'Take care that no one comes to take you captive by the empty deception of philosophy, based on a man-made tradition of teaching concerning the elements of the material world, and not based on Christ", wrote an early Christian influenced by St. Paul. Several centuries later Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea could say, •'Nobody can deny that our Savior and Lord was a philosopher and a truly pious man''. Christianity was presented as the supreme philosophy and its teachers, including Paul, were rhought to have surpassed Socrates and Plato. The process by which this transfonnation from a Palestinian Jewish sect to a universal religion took place, as well as the evaluation of its cultural and religious significance, has long fascinated historians, theologians, and philosophers. What is more, the judgments made on the events of this period have seldom been calmly historical, balanced; they
10
IN HONOREM ROBERT M. GRANT
have been passionate, sometimes emotional, filled with in1ellectual fervor, as though this distant past reached across the century to touch the
present. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, ..The whole labor of the ancient world was in vain: I have no word to express my feelings about something so llemendous ... All the presuppositions for a scholarly
culture, all scientific methods were already there ... What today we have again conquered with immeasurable self-mastery ... that had already been there ooce before". Christianity was considered to have been the
great anti-intellectual movement of antiquity. Other lovers of antiquity use less emotive, but no less telling language, "the twilight of the gods''. the ''exhaustion of Greek rationalism''. blotting out the ''sunshine ofhellenism''. For Christians this period is equally charged with intensity. To some the adaptation of Christianity to Greco-Roman culture symbolized the ''fall of the church''. that fateful accoinodation to culture which
marked the demise of primitive Christianity. To others it offered an intellectual bill of rights, an ancient legitimation of modem efforts to
construct a ''liberal'' Christianity, as one scholar subtitled his book on Clement of Alexandria. For Harnack and his school it was a time of the "hellenization of the Gospel", when Christian faith was reduced to "a
deistical religion for the whole world"". a disastrous mixing of religious faith and philosophy which would mark catholic Christianity for centuries. The interaction of Christianity with Greco-Roman culture was paradigmatic for an understanding of the church's later history. Modem writers are equally divided. Even today the study of Chris-
tian and classical antiquity is not simply a field of specialization but a historical period which interests and often excites modem intellectuals. Several years ago a book appeared with the tide The Death ofClassical Paganism. Echoing a theme which has resounded for centuries in our civilization, the author, John Holland Smith, lays the ills of western civilization at the doorstep of Christianity. "From the beginning the Christians set out to destroy the gods of the classical world. They all but succeeded. And there can he no doubl that of all the crimes commined
in Ouist"s name this has been the most devastating in its consequences. During their attempts to murder the gods, the Christians destroyed the world of those who loved them and could laugh at them while serving
them". Modem attitudes toward Christian and classical antiquity echo the
ancient conflict between Christianity and paganism. but it was the
INTRODUCTION
11
Enlightenment which gave modem discussions their unique character. The philosophes set Christianity and classical antiquity in opposition to one another. Christianity symbolizing religion and authority. paganism symbolizing reason, learning. and enlightenment. Christianity opposes the rational spirit of fiee inquiry. "Contempt for the humanities", wrote Condorcet, ··was one of the principal characteristics of Christianity ... It had to avenge itself against the insults offered by philosophy". This polarity between Christianity and classical antiquity demanded a choice, either religion or reason, classicism or Christianity. One must, it seemed, love either the Greeks or the Christians- not both. The Christian movement was set in opposition to the culture in which it emerged and the spiritual world created by Christianity was seen not as an outgrowth of classical antiquity but as a reaction against its gods,.its philosophies, its life style, and finally its politics. This antinomy between Christianity and classical culture still exists in many circles today as the book by Smith indicates. It has also had enormous influence on the way scholars approach the perind 9f Christian antiquity. Polarity seems the rule. Terrullian, supposedly the foe of culture, the "Christ against culture" theologian par excellence is contnsted with Clement of Alexandria, the great compromiser. Ecclesiastical and "churchly" theologians are distinguished from the apologists. Christianity and Greco-Roman culture are viewed as though they are two independent entitieS. each with its own spiritual and intellectual visions. The essays gathered in this volume challenge the sharp dichotomy between Christianity and Greco-Roman culture. They reflect a slow, but deliberate, shift which is taking place in the undentanding of Christianity in relation to ancient culture. They offer an attempt at synthesis, not by an analysis of the problem as a whole, but by the patient scholarly discussion of what sometime appear as minor points but which illustrate the changes which have taken place in the study of the early church since the nineteenth century. They present Christianity not as a reaction against classical culture, but as a new spiritual force uniting the classical world with the religious impulse which came from Palestine and the Jewish Scriptures. As good an example as any is lrenaeus, the Christian bishop from Gaul at the end of the second century, author of the massive AdversiU Haereses, a defense of Christianity against Gnosticism. In the handbooks on the early church Inonaeus is usually sharply conllllsted with
12
IN HONOREM ROBERT M. GRANT
apologists such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, who were roughly his contemporaries but who wrote in defense of Christianity to pagans. It is assumed that these men were concerned chiefly with interpreting Christianity to the sophisticated culture of the Greco-Roman world, whereas Irenaeus devoted himself to pastoral and ecclesiastical matters, as he himself announces in the pn::face to his Adversus Haereses. Irenaeus is seen as a representative of "catholic onhodox.y" as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church calls him.
In the scheme of interpretation handed down since the nineteenth century, then, lrenaeus plays a role in early Christianity distinctly different from that of the apologists. His method of doing theology was based chiefly on the regula fidei, the Scriptures, and the succession of bishops in the chief cities, whereas the apologists appeal to what is most universal, i.e. philosophical, to substantiate their religious claims. Though lrenaeus wrote in Greek, his use of stylistic and rhetorical devices familiar to pagan writers, is limited and controlled. Franz Overbeck, a contemponuy of Hamack, in his little book, On the Beginning of Patristic Literature. wrote, ""lbe work. of lr-enaeus still leaves it undecided whether the fonn of the world's literature. as found in the Christian church, is destined only to remain a weapon to combat its enemies, or is to become an instrument of peacefullabor within its own territory''. In his scheme Clement and Origen are the first to move fully into the literary world of the Roman Empire. Over the last sevend decades this judgment of lrenaeus has been gradually undermined by the study of his rhetoric and his use of philosophic reason. Robert Grant, as well as sevend of the contributors to this volume. have shown that Irenaeus, no less than the apologists (or Clement and Origen) was not only familiar with the intellectualtradi· lions of Hellenistic culture but used them with skill and understanding in his refutation of Gnosticism. Irenaeus, like othen, in his time. used philosophical handbooks to develop his arguments, not simply the Scriptures or the church's tnldition. Indeed it now seems that the neglected secood book of lrenaeus' Adversus Haereses. the philosophical section of the work. was as important to lrenaeus as were the arguments from Scripture and tradition in books three to five. In this volume van Unnik offers an analysis of a passage from book 2 dealing with, of all things, the overflowing of the Nile, and uses it to underscore the new interpretation of lrenaeus ... Irenaeus". writes Professor van Unnik, citing Roben Grant, "chooses from the maelstrom of Greek
INTRODUCTION
13
thought what he thinks will he adaptable [and I should like to add: useful) to the Christian religion''. Another example is Tertullian who, because of his sharp and tempestuous style, has been widely pn:sented as a foe ofGn:co-Roman culture. Every beginning theology student, indeed many intellectuals who know nothing of theology, has heard ofTertullian and n:ad the famous words attributed to him, "I believe because it is absurd". Recently the New Yorlc Times Book Review ran an article pn:faced with this very formula, "Cn:do quia absurdum". Many haveileard his other famous dictum, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem". But Tertullian, like other educated Christians of his day, n:cognized and used the intellectual traditions of'the Gn:co-Roman world, discriminating between those he could accept and those he rejected. J. Waszink's massive commentary on Tertullian's treatise, De Animo. as well as the study by Fn:douille, give ample documentation of Tertullian's intellectual style. In the pn:sent volume Waszink pn:senrs another side ofTertullian, the neglected area of his exegesis of the Holy Scriptun:s. Tertilllian, as Fre'douille
remarks ''disconcens''. and one area where he has been most puzzling is his use of the Bible. In a world where multiple meanings abounded Tertullian defends simplicity, insisting that exegesis should nO! be
arbitrary. He seems to presage later Christian exegesis intimating an early fundamentalist attitude.- But Waszink carefully draws out some of the principles which governed legal code• and courtroom argumenta-
tion and shows that Tenullian reflects the lawyer's interest in precision, perspicacity, simplicity. The interest in avoiding arbitrariness does not arise out of Christian theological ideas but out of a way of dealing with legal texts and legal argumentation.
Let these two illustrations, then, serve as a general introduction to the essays in this volume. In a volume of essays written by scholars from various parts of the world it is perilous to generalize. Each writes from his own penpective, but taken as a whole the essays in this volume indicate that one can no longer talk about Christianity and GrecoRoman culture as though these were two independent worlds. Christian writen, from a much earlier date than has been Reognized, became part of the intellectual world of late antiquity and went ahout their work in much the same style as their pagan counterparts. This is not to say there were no differences or to ignore the conflict, but to suggest that many of the differences have less to do with Christianity than they have to do
with tht panicular views each Christian thinker espoused from the
14
IN HONOREM ROBERT M. GRANT
options available within the larger cuhure. The question is not "how does a Christian relate to Greco-Roman culture··. but what panicular use does he make of specific resources within the culture. Greater discrimination in our analysis of the writings from this· period helps us recognize that differences between Christians are explicable. not on the basis of their attitude toward the cuhure as a whole, but on the critical and selectfve use of materials from within that culture. Christian writers shared a similar education. as well as similar social, and intellectual backgrounds wilh pagan thinkers. In many cases Christians appear as conservative spokesmen of the values which non-Christians from similar backgrounds also look for granted. The essays in the volume are arranged to reflect different aspects of the interaction between Christianity and classical culture. In the fi~t two essays the stress is on intellectual sryle or method. The first deals with the flamboyant Tertullian and the second with the sober lrenaeus, two figures who, as we have already seen, are usually thought to stand against the intellectual currents of antiquity or at least independent of their pagan contemporaries. The next three essays explore the same theme but with particular emphasis on the doctrine of God. Christians and pagans worked within the same intellectual traditions often interpreting earlier philosophers in a similar way. Frances Young's interest is chiefly on fourth century Christian writers, in itself interesting, because by the founh-century the Christian intellectual tradition was much more firmly fixed than it had been at the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Nevertheless the intellectual sryle of second and third century Christian thinkers was not abandoned. F. Young cites passages from Gregory Nazianzen reflecting an approach 10 lhe doctrine of God similar to Albinus, Apuleius, Celsus, Nwnenius, Maximus of Tyre, all second-century pagan authors. The essays by Schoedel and Norris draw on similar material to show that Christians did not simply reflect pagan ideas but used them to develop a new interpretation of the doctrine of God. Greek tradition, argues Schoedel, had identified the intelligible with the limited. Consequently it was difficult to associate the unlimited, the boundless with the divine. If there were no bounds there could be no perfection. Origen, for this very reason, refused lo call God ''unlimited'' and his translators in the founh-century deliberately mistranslated this passage in his De Principiis. At a later date, however, after the Nicene controversy, some Christian thinkers, notably the Cappadocians, discovered the resources within this same tradition
INTRODUCTION
15
''for a new doctrine of a God that ultimately resulted in a reversal of the Greek evaluation of the infinite.'' In the next group of essays we have tried to show several ways in which Christians and pagans shared a common spiritual and ethical horizon; in the surprising approbation of heresy in some Christian writers, in the attempt of the philosopher Porphyry lo offer a posilive interpretation of Jesus within the tradirional Greco-Roman religious framework, and in the approach lo moral codes. Even though Diocletian was the great persecutor of Christianity, observes H. Chadwick, Christians preserved and defended his Jaws on incest and sexual customs, opposing Persian practices, e.g. intermarriage between uncles and nieces, on the grounds that this was not the custom of the Romans. The essay by M. Simon raises critical questions about the work of W .Bauer, Heresy and Orthodoxy in Earliest Christianity. a book which has achieved an almost orthodox status in modem scholarly circles. Simon shows that some Christians viewed heresy not as deviation from orthodoxy. but in the same way that pagans viewed differing philosophical schools. Differences between Christian sects were not a sign of error but of the seriousness with which they pursued truth. In the final section we have included essays dealing with GrecoRoman culture and the New Testament. We think this important for two reasons: I) The New Testamept cannot be arbitrarily set off from early Christianity. The study of later Christian literature and thought sheds interesting and important light on the earliesl Christian documents. 2) Many of the features which marlc. second and third-century Christian literature are present already in the New Testament. As the studies of E. Bickennan, M. Hengel and others have shown, Palestine was deeply hellenized at the time Christianity began. Shennan Johnson ·s essay on Mark shows how an early gosptl. Marlc., presents Jesus in a way to make him intelligible to hellenistic reader.;. ln his essay on Paul. Wilhelm Wuellner pushes the use of Greek rhetorical devices back to the writings of Paul, arguing that Paul's use of such devices was not accidental or peripheral but "self-consciously Greek" and essential to this style of argumentation. The essay by G. Quispel offers a fresh interpretation of the old problem of agape and eros in early Christian literature, and returns us lo the problem posed at the beginning of this introduction. Quispel challenges the sharp dichotomy between Ems and Agape, one representing Greek love, the other uniquely Christian love, a dichotomy which has
16
IN HONOREM ROBERT M. GRANT
been repeated over and over in Christian theological and exegetical
writings. Not only did Christians speak about Eros, but pagans spoke about divine love in a way similar to Christians, and, argues Quispel,
Greek ideas oflovelutlt behind the Gospel of John, the apostle oflove. A collection of essays always runs the risk of arbitrariness; often
unity is apparent and not real, and the relation of the essays accidcnlal and idiosyncratic. The essays in this volume, however, reflect. we think, a common set of problems, as well as broad agreement as to the direction modem scholarship is moving in its interpretation of the interaction between Christianity and Greco-Roman culture. Many of the contributions to this volume are by the same people who have been
responsible for the vitality and the originality of patristic scholmhip in the twentieth-century as well as for the revision of our understanding of the early church. We offer them as an indication of the state of scholarship in the present as well as a conttibution to the larger questions of the relation between Christianity and the inheritance of classical antiquity. They reflect, we believe, a tradition of scholarship and a style of intellectual inquiry of which Roben M. Grant is a preeminent representative.
J.H. WASZINK
TERTULLIAN'S PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF EXEGESIS
There is no one exegetical method in Tertullian. The more one studies Tertullian 's intensive activity in the field of biblical exegesis, the more one reaches the conclusion that the whole of this activity cannot be summed up in a single formula without straining the sense of a considerable nwnber of passages. If I am not mistaken, there are two reasons which prevented Tertullian from succeeding in constructing a unified exegetical method. The first reason is that Tertullian, both on account of his character and of the situation in which he found himself after his conversion, was driven at once into a series of controversies which were as various as they were continuous. The debate bolh with the pagan authorities and with many fonns of the Christian faith which he felt constrained to regard as faulty or even corrupt, remained for him throughout his life a living reality and even a necessity. It has often been said that in this entire activity the only vital element was Tertullian's own personality. But in saying this one loses sight of the fact that the critical controversy with Marcion on the one hand and the debate with the docetism of various sects of Gnostics on the other hand were unavoidable in that stage of the evolution of Christian doctrine, and that such controversies, be it less vehement and personal, occur equally in the work of his contemporaries. With a certain amount of exaggeration for the sake of clarity, the second reason may be stated as follows: for the Christians in the western part of the Empire, exegesis in ti1e ancient sense of the word- that is, a thorough interpretation based upon an examination of the question and a judgment as to which fonn of the various possible methods was best adapted to the case at issue - was not yet an immediate requirement before the Edict of Milan. In the given situation the first necessity was
18
J. H. WASZINK
the production of increasingly more effective fonns of apology and the refutation not so much of interpretations regarded as faulty as of erratic doctrines in their entirety. It is true that a capacity for a clear and unambiguous interpretation of controversial passages from Holy Scripture was constantly in demand, but in the given situation lhere could not yet be any question of exegesis for its own sake. Yet even this primarily polemical activity required a familiarity with methods which had along history in the Greek intellectual tradition; and it is for this reason that the Latin apologists were for almost a century greatly behind their Greek colleagues who, as Greeks, had been educated in this tradition. In the time of Tertullian there did not yet exist - a fact often overlooked detailed commentaries on Vergil and Cicero that could be compared to the commentaries on Homer, Pindar and Demosthenes which were so important for the development of the technique of exegesis in general, and consequently also for Christian exegesis. The only really thorough form of commentary which existed in the Roman world of his time is found in the sphere of law, its starting-point being the explication of the Law of the Twelve Tables and of the edicta pra.rorum. especially after the collection of the latter by Salvius Julianus; in fact, it is particularly this knowledge, and also the mental training which its perusal required, with which Tertullian was familiar. From these statements and considerations it is evident, tint, that Tenullian could not yet produce an exegesis of Holy Scripture for its own sake (in the Roman world this activity begins with St. Hilary and St. Jerome); secondly, that he drew upon the achievements of the Greek apologists and upon his own rbetorical and legal training. I want to observe here in passing that, in my opinion, the endlessly discussed question whether he was identical with the Tenullianus who is quoted in the Digest, or merely a solicitor, is not of primary importance for our theme. For here the essential thing is that at all events he had at his disposal that general rhetorical and legal training which led to the possession of the technique of the genus iudiciale. In this context the observation may not be superfluous that for a correct understanding not only of Tenullian's technique of debating but also of his exegetical methods Quintilian's ln.stitutio oratoria is much more imponant than the lnstitutiones of Gaius. If I am not seriously mistaken, it is from this training. conferring as it did familiuily with a number of basic notions of Roman Law, that we may explain a leading principle of Tenullian 's exegesis of Holy Scrip-
TERTULLIAN'S PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF EXEGESIS 19
ture - namely, the continuous endeavour to exclude by all means arbitrariness from inte~tation. His conscious aim was to attain a certitude that the opponent cannot undennine by any fonn of argument. The point at issue is that in the debates with the heretics, and afterwards with the official Church, Holy Scripture is, in Tenullian's opinion. to be cited as a witness for the correctness of his statements and assertions, and the only thing requin:d from witnesses is that they be reliable. I wonder whether enough attention has been paid to Tenullian's frequent references to the testimonium Sacrae Scripturae (or sacrae paraturae or Ulriusque TestD~Mnti). In this phrase the word testimonium is not just a metaphor, for the courtroom is never far from his mind: Tenullian is the plaintiff, the heretic in question (or the pagan opponent or, in the last stage of his life, the official Chun:h) is the defendant, and Holy Scripture is the chief witness. Very quickly Tertullian's own explication of the relevant passages from the two Testaments becomes less important to him than the refutation of the ever increasing stream of surprising and even horrifying interpretations given by the Gnostics. 1be aim is certitude, and the certitude based upon truth has, according to Tertullian's conviction, two main qualities: it is concise, and it is simple. The fiBt point is explicitly expressed in a number of statements, which have been collected almost completely by Zimmermann in his inaugural dissenation1. Particularly clear is the introduction of the Treatise on the Soul (eh. 2. end): ''For the Christian, however. few words are necessary for the understanding of this matter. For certainty attends brevety, and he is not at liberty to give a w1der range to his search than the solution permits''. As to the second point, J. P .O'Malley rightly observes: •• for him the simplicitas naturae is not a fault of style, but the directness of the truth ''2. A connection of the two leading notions of conciseness and simplicity occurs in a sentence in which Tenullian characterizes the interpretation which Carpocrates the Gnostic had given of the worlds from the Gosf"l of Matthrw "until he has paid the last lanhing" (Matt. 5:26) in the following terms: "For this is how he tampen with the whole of that allegory of the Lord which is clear and certain in its meaning and is from
I. Die ~I"WWMutisdten Pritllipien Temllisn.s (Leipzig, 1937).
2.
Tem.llitulandtMBible(Ni~pn,l961)
117.
20
J. H. WASZINK
the start to be understood in its simple sense" (De anima 35) 3 • 1be expression simplex intel/ec:tus. which afterwards was adapted by Jerome and Rufinus in order to denote the intel/ectus corpora/is in the thn:efold interpretation of Holy Scripture, cenainly goes back to the term ll:rtwri),; of the oldest Christian interpretation of the Bible. In the Epistle of Bamabas ( 17 .I) simplicity (WtMmJ\;) is opposed to parables (naQCifkJAai). This striving for certitude and simplicity had as its
natural consequence a continuous fight against any fonn of superfluous curiositas in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. This notion is of such fundamental importance forTertullian's polemics, and also so frequent in his works, that it requires special attention. I can be brief since Professor J.-CI. Fredouille's very important book, Tertullien er la
Conversion de la Culture Amique 4 , devotes a whole chapter to the topic ••curiosite et conversion'' (pp. 411-442). But as Professor Fredouille
does not discuss this notion primarily in connection with the exegesis of Bible, !here is still room for a few remarks. The point at issue bore for Tenullian is !hat the form of Holy Scripture
presents an opportunity for speculations which could go on forever and which may lead us away from !he truth. Particularly important in !his context is a statement in De praescriptione haereticorum 14. where (quoting Luke 18:42) Tertullian observes (par. 3) : •· "Your faith", it says, 'has saved you' - not your preoccupation with Scripture (exercitatioscripturarum)". Then there follows a passage (par. 4-5) in a form highly concentrated even for Tertullian : • 'The Faith [the subject of !he preceding sentence!] has been deposited in a rule; it has a law and salvation which comes from the observance of that law. Preoccupation (exercitatio}, however, consists of inquisitiveness (curiositas) which has its sole glory in its pursuit of proficiency. Let inquisitiveness yield to faith, let glory yield to salvation".• Here !he essential thing is !he connection of the three notions exercitatio, curiositas. and gloria; a continuous occupation- for that must be the meaning of el:ercitatiowith !he exegesis of Holy Scripture is strongly connected with, nay, even proceeds from curiosity, and this curiosity is in its ·rum equally 3. Hue: enim tempreral toWn illam allegorian domini certis inlerpretalionibus relucenlcm et primo quidcm simplidler inlelleJCildam. 4. Paris, 1972. 5. Fides in rqula posilaesl, habcllesem Cl sa1utcm de observalionc legis. Excrcilalio autem in curiositate consislil, habcns gloriam solam de pcritiac studio. Cedat curiosita..o;; fidei, ccdal gloria saluli.
TERTULLIAN'S PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF EXEGESIS 21
strongly connected with a striving for glory. As to the concluding sentence. Cedar curiositasfidei. cedar g/oria sa/uti. Fredouille (427. n. 65) rightly points out that fonnally it must have heen suggested by the well-known verse of Cicero: Cedant armo togae, concedat laurea /audi. However, by pointing out the literary reminiscence we have not yet said the essential thing- namely, that even in this purely Christian context these words retain their full function, since forTertullian g/oria is strongly connected with another notion, that is, with pagan philosophy. The nwnber of relevant passages is remarkably high- it is evident that this is a fixed element ofTertullian's thought. I limit myself here to quoting the most famous of these passages - namely, the words occurring at the beginning of the De animo: philosophus, gloriae anif11lll. From the construction of the sentence in the De praescriptione haereticorum it is evident that, for Tertullian, as Faith is on one level with Salvation, an erroneous kind of curiositas is on one level with the equally erroneous striving for glory among the philosophers. From these statements it becomes understandable that Tertullian regards exegesis of Holy Scriptuce in itself as a risky undertaking which may lead from start to finish to faulty interpretations and which, for that reason, needs an equally continuous control. This attitude was, of course, primarily caused by a long familiarity with the consequences of exegesis as practised by the Gnostics; but this fact, which in itself might be a causa sufficiens does not offer a complete explication. After all, lrenaeus had the same or even more experience in this field than Tertullian, but there is a clear difference between the two authors. (In this context we should not forget that Tertullian knew Irenaeus' work thoroughly.) Kattenbusch observes that, in spite of all his activity and all his vehemence, Tertullian, at least in his pre-Montanist period, is almost listless ("fast verdrossen ") in his explication of the Bible, whereas a definite pleasure in exegesis is evident throughout lrenaeus' work 6 . I cannot subscribe to this statement, though I must agree that the evenness which characterizes lrenaeus' interpretation is entirely absent from Tertullian' s work. In this context it is interesting to note that for his description of the doctrines of Simon Magus and Carpocrates, Tertullian gave a paraphrase, which is as much rbetorical as it is sarcastic, of the description of these syste:ns by lrenaeus. But Tertullian does not do
6. Dasapoltolische Symbol (l.eipzig, 1894) 2. 71.
22
J. H. WASZINK
exegesis in a mirthless mood, as is suggested by Kattenbusch, but rather in a concise and severe fonn, because he wants to avoid at any price an interpretation which is incorrect either juridically or theologically. This consideration, it seems to me, leads us in an entirely natural way w the two main features ofTenullian's exegesis of Holy Scripture. Let us fint examine the idea of an interpretation that is juridically correct. As a lawyer Tenullian knows perfectly well that, as Kuss obser-
ves7, ''it belongs to the essence of every written text. that it often admits of various and partly opposed explications ''. In this connection two notions become particularly important and suggestive. The first is
the famous rule of the praescriptio, as it is explicitly developed in the De praescriptione haereticorum. I limit myself here to a paraphrase of the major theme : "In he debate between the onhodmt Christians and the heretics the latter need not even be admitted to an appeal to Holy Scripture. for we, the onhodox Christians. can prove without appealing to lhe Bible. that Holy Scripture does not even concern them ... Therewith a discussion with the heretics about the Bible haS a limine become superlluous so that there is no need further to examine their fal.sa curiositas in exegesis. This rule, however, which Tenullian had established himself, does not prevent him from using scriptural passages continuously in his polemics against the Gnostics. This was unavoidable, since all the Gnostic systems were founded on interpretations of scriptural passages. But the concept of prae.scriptio provided the advantage that, at the beginning of the debate, the heretics could be considered to be already defeated. Particularly important in Tertullian's exegesis of the Bible is the status or controversia ex scripta et sententia. which is too often overlooked in the literature concerning this subject. In the schools of the rhetors this notion used to be treated with panicular thoroughness, as is immediately evident from the treatment which it receives in Cicero De inventione 2.42.121 ff. This status concerns all cases in which the text of the law could raise doubts and lead to technical discussions. Cicero makes the following distinction concerning controvenies which turn on written documents (2.40.116): "this arises from ambiguity, from the letter and intent (ex scripta et sententia), from conflicting laws (ex 7. "Zur Hcnneneutik Tertullians", N~ul~stQ/Mnllidt~ AufsDrz~. Festchrift J. Schmid (Regensburg, 1963) 140-158;~p. 144, n. 24.
TERTULLIAN'S PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF EXEGESIS 23
contrariis legibw). from reasoning by analogy, from definition". For Tertullian the important issues are die categories ex scripto et sententia and ex contrariis legibus. The first case concerns the endeavour to state
a contrast or at least a difference between the literal text of the law and the intention of the lawgiver, the second the statement of a contradiction between two laws. Thus in the De exhortatione castitatis (ch.4) in the discussion of I Cor. 7:9 and 27-28 Tenullian makes a distinction between passages in which Paul speaks in his own name (where he permits second maniage) and passages in which he proclaims God's will. The case is then declared to be one of leges contrariae in which, of course, the lex divina has precedence. The status scripti et voluntatis occurs in Adv. Marc:ionem 4.12.5 ff.• a difftcult passage, in which the text is probably corrupt•. The starting-point in the passage is the Gospel of Luke (6:1-5) in which it is narrated that Christ was rebuked by the Pharisees because he had allowed his disciples to rub grains of corn between their hands on the sabbath. On this Marcion observed that in that case Christ is said to transgress an order of the just Creator of the Old Testament, which statement may serve as an argument in favor of his thesis that the just Creator of the Old Testament is different from the good God of the New Testament. Tertullian's reaction is that the situation is entirely different - namely, that in this case there is a divergence between the scriptum of lhe Law and the voluntas of the Creator who is the one and only God; a1 all events it is not necessary to assume that Christ is acting here against the will of God. To this Marcion is said to have given the following reply (whether he actually ever did so is not entirely certain since Tertullian often follows the rhetorical practice of occupatio, that is, the anticipation of his opponent's possible objections•): in this case the law of the Creator God does not diverge from His own will but from that of Christ, and that consequently the distinction between the two Gods postulated by him can be maintained. At this point two observations are in order. In the first place, Tertullian 's habit of quoting so great a nwnber of passages from Holy 8. 1lte tu. I gives (4. 12.S; CMpw Christianorum pp. S69-S70): Marcion captat statum conlrovcrsiae quasi ... "scripti et VC'Iuntatis'. De scripcura enim swnitur creatoris et de Ouisli voluntate color, on which Kroymann observes: ''de Christi voluntate: animadverte TO cl:r.:poaMICl)TOV; postulature:.im : de creatoris. •• 9. cr.. for instance. my note on lk animo 35.5 (pp. 415-416 of my edition. Amsterdam, 1947).
24
J. H. WASZINK
Scripture has undoubtedly been prompted by rhetorical practices, as was rightly observed by Heinrich Karpp 10 , but also by the habit of quoting earlier experts in the entire legal literature of the time. Secondly, the way of employing the regula fidei, which we are aboul to discuss, is, as Karpp has also observed (40), clearly parallel with "the way in which the Roman lawyer handles his regula iuris''- that is, ''as the latter derives his decision from recognized law, not from its summary in fonnulas, so Tenullian draws from the Christian faith as it was handed on and from Holy Scripture, both of which are summarized in the regula fidei." We turn now to the second point- Tertullian's polemic against any form of exegesis which is, in his view, theologically incorrect. From
what has been observed it is evident that this negative fonnulation is to be preferred to a positive one since Tenullian never considered composing a running commentary on one of the books of Holy Scripture 11 • The
only thing which occupies him is to maintain correct norms of exegesis in a polemical context. At this point, Tertullian's opinion concerning the relation between Holy Scripture and the regula fidei must be examined once more since here there is still sub iudice lis, and a decision is necessary before we cao take further steps. Let us first examine the different points of view. O'Malley arrives at the conclusion that in Tertullian 's workS the Rule of Faith is much more important than Holy Scripture- to say it in his own words: '' Tenullian has taken a long step towards making the Scripture irrelevant". A similar view is held by G.T. Armstrong: "In Tertulliao the norm [for exegesis] is firmly rooted in the regula fidei. The correct interpretation of the Bible will always agree with the regula fidei, i.e. it will he dogmatically comet. For that reason we may call the regula fidei the
fundamental principle of his henneneutic" 12 . The opposite view is defended by Flessemao-van Leer: ''When ... Tertullian demaods that each passage should be interpreted according to the meaning of the entire Scripture, this is essentially the same as saying that it should he interpreted according to the regula'' 13; and a little later: ''But Scripture 10. SrlrrijtundG~ist~iT~nullian(Giitcnloh, 1955) 22, n.l. 11. A commentary on • shon pasSIIje Is lhe Dr orotiOM, which is an Cll.pliclllion orthc PG,r NOSttr. 12. Di~ G~Msis in d~r alr~n Kirch~ (TUbingcn, 1962) 97. 13. TraditiontJJJdScriptur~inWEarlyChurch(Assen, 1953) 179.
TERTUU.IAN'S PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF EXEGESIS 25
in its entirety expresses the regula" (see also 177, where the regula is called an expression of Revelation itself: ''not merely the fixation of faith, but its innermost intention''). A similar view is held by Moingt, who hardly mentions the Rule of Faith and observes: '' 'La consonnance des declarations de la Prophetie et de celles du Seigneur' est la
grande regie d'exegese que Tenullien n\pete et applique partout" 14 . In my opinion, the "'l!ument of Aesseman-van Leer cannot be fully maintained. She begins with the observation that only in three passages in Tenullian's works is the Rule of faith explicitly i:onnected with the exegesis of Holy Scripture. First she quotes De praescr. haer. 12: "Let us seek ... that which is able to become a topic of investigation without harming the rule of faith.'' On this text she observes: "That Tenullian is thinking here in the fmt place of an investigation of the importance of Holy Scripture is evident from the fact that a few chapters after he calls these investigations proficiency in the scriptures. •• In support of this interpretation she quotes from chapter 14 the words exercitatio scripturarum. However, these words are part of a sentence already quoted in which the starting-point is Ut. 18:42, "Your faith has saved you", to which Tertullian adds non exercitatio scripturarum. In that context, however, the expression exercitatio scripturarum is contrasted with fides: therefore, it cannot mean ''proficiency in the scriptures'' but as an almost pejorative secondary meaning: ''a continuous. restless preoccupation with passages from Holy Scripture''. After all, as we have seen, this exercitatio is put there on a level with the wrong kind of curiositas. Consequently it is not possible to quote the first passage as a statement concerning the relation between the Rule of Faith and Holy Scripture. But more damaging is the rash conclusion that the words ''an exegesis which is in accordance with the regula" mean the same as ''an exegesis which is in accordance with the whole of Holy Scripture". In support of this she cites De came Christi 8 where it is said that the texts, on which Marcion and Apelles based their docelic Christology, should be interpreted secundum veritatem integri et incorrupti EWIIIgelii. But here Flesseman over~ the fact that. when using the expression integrum evangelium, Tenullian is not thinking of ''The Gospel- or the New Testament- in its entirety" but of a pure text of it which is free from
26
J. H. WASZINK
Marcion's continuous expunctions and alterations. In other words. nowhere in Tertullian's work do we find a passage in which Tenullian declares with so many words that for him the whole of Holy Scripture is identical with the Rule of Faith. Therefore we shall, with the great majority of scholars, stick to the statement that for Tertullian the regula fidei (which he quotes four times apart from the passage under discussion in Apol. 47.10, Adv. Praxean 2, andDepraescr. hoer. 13-14), and Holy Scripture exist beside each other as autonomous magnitudes. However, as Kuss fonnulates it excellently (150): ''Though the Rule of Faith is the last and highest instance of the correct knowledge of Divine Revelation and consequently of the legitimate meaning of Holy Scripture, the Scripture remains the source of the Revelation.'' In a similar way H. von Campenhausen says that the tenn lulnon/regula fidei denotes "the essential contents of the Christian Faith itself, as it is living in the Church, expresses itself in the tradition and the testimony of the Church, and so, actually identical, also finds itself in Holy Scripture' ' 15 . A second argument may be advanced for my interpretation of the relation between the Rule of Faith and Holy Scripture. The Rule of Faith provides a nonn for a correct and legitimate interpretation of Holy Scripture only with respect to the true statements, the veritates, of Biblical revelation which are contained in the Rule. Apan from these, there are numerous things in Holy Scripture which can hardly be judged immediately by the norm of the Rule of Faith. It is at this point that the real exegetical work begins for Tertullian; and for this the most reliable nonns which are possible must now be created. About these norms much has already been written, and in general we may say that, thanks to the worlc ofZimmennann and Karpp we see the main lines ofTertullian's thought on the subject with sufficient clarity. Nevertheless, the subject is in my opinion more complicated than Zimmermann realized. For we cannot- as this scholar does to a rather high degree - limit ourselves to collecting a nwnber of general statements by Tertullian which pertain to the subject since, as we all know, Tertullian has a gift for presenting a locw communis adapted ad hoc as one of his firm and lasting convictions. lberefore we must always
IS. Die Entst~lumg dlr chrinli£Jv,. Bibrl (Tiibingen, 1968) 334.
TERTULLIAN 's PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF EXEGESIS 27
examine with great care - and caution - whether such a general maxim is regularly, or at the very least more than once, at the base of his interpretation and panicularly whether it is in accordance both with the general tendencies of his argumentation and of his conviction as a Christian. Now it is undeniable that the striving for cenitude which. as already observed, is the base of his entire system of thought, leads immediately to two rules founded on the notions of clearness and frequency. The staning-point should always be taken from clear and unambiguous passages, and these should always have precedence of figurae and aenigmata. 1be most explicit statement occurs at the beginning of the De resurrectione carnis 19. Here Tenullian is fighting opponents who assen rhat in Holy Scripture the term 'resurrection' only indicates the cognition of ttuth. Now Tenullian says: ''If our opponents try to throw any confusion into the discussion under the pretext of figurative and allegorical language, everything will he established more clearly and certainties will enter a demurrer against uncenainties.'' To be sure. according to Tenullian allegorical interpretation should not be entirely
rejected, as demanded by Marcion; but as the old rule for allegories (which we find already in Philo) has it, it may only he applied in cases in which the literal sense of the words cannOl possibly he regarded as the conect one. This is stated in Scorpiace 11: .. Nothing else will be signified in Scripture than the very thing that occun in actual fact.'' Further, it is frequently said that Tertullian required the exegesis of a
passage to he in accordance with the whole of Holy Scripture. I must confess that, in spite of repeated and intensive reading of his works, I have never managed to find such a statement. The passage most frequently quoted in this context is from Scorpiace 12: ''Whom the Lord chose both as disciples for himself to be instructed in all points and as teachers for us to instruct us in all points.'' But from this no principle can be deduced; and consequently we must conclude that there is no reason to reganl an accord with the whole of Holy Scripture as a principle in Tenullian's work. On the other hand, Zimmermann is undoubtedly right in saying that, according to Tenullian, the whole of the Christian Faith sitoUid always he taken into account. But much more imponant than is usually indicated is the requirement expressed in Adv. Praxean 20 in the words "the few are to he understood in light of the many (secundum plura intellegi pauciora)' ·. This is clearly directed against the allegorical interpretation practised by the Gnootics who
28
J. H. WASZINK
frequently based a highly complicated construction of thought on just one or two passages. It is hardly necessary to say explicitly that Tertullian 's thought is influenced here by the rules which applied to the examination of statements of wimesses in Roman Law. "The term testimonium is here certainly more than a worn metaphor. And, if I am not mistaken, it is also for this reason that, whenever it is somehow possible, Tertullian wants to regard the literal sense of Holy Scripture as the only one. Father Moingt observes in this context ( 1.177) : ''car sauver la lettre, c'est sauvegarder Jes realites de la foi". That is entirely correct but it is on exactly the same level as the image of the witness who has to speak in clear and explicit language. And parallel to the statements in Holy Scripture are the utterances of the Soul which in De testimonio animae 1.5 is formally treated as a witness: .. Step up, soul (consiste in medio animo)." Ir is this circumstance that e1tplains Tertullian's insistence on the correct description of the srnsus vocabulorum and his defence of the fidrs vocabulorum. This also explains why whenever Tertullian regards a typological or an allegorical interpretation as the only possible one, he still does his best to give aJso a purely literal explication. He insists that whenever one supposes that the text contains a parabola or an allegoria, one has to stick to the tertium comparationis and not look for an allegorical interpretation of every detail which often only adorns or completes the metaphor; such ''overinterpretation'' is a fixed habit of the Gnostics, who thereby come to lose themselves in endless and useless phantasmagories. One more nonn is mentioned so frequently that we cannot but regard it as an official requirement by Tertullian and give it the fourth place after certainty, clearness and frequency. This is the rule that the coherence, both of the fonn and the matter of the text, should always be taken into account. Of this rule we can find a great number of instances in Tertullian's work, especially in the Treatisr on the Soul. It leads to the requirement in the interpretation of the Epistles not to allow Paul to contradict himself. In De monogamia 11 we read: .. Nothing is to be so carefully guarded as to see that he [St. Paul) not be found selfcontradictory", and, more generally, in De anima 21: "But the state-
ments fowtd in Holy Scriptures will never disagree." Further, no contradictions between the Apostles are ever to be assumed, De pudicitia 19: ''Consequently it is of importance for the whole sacnunent to believe nothing is conceded by John which has been denied by Paul. Whoever observes this hannony of the Holy Spirit will be led by the
TERTULLIAN'S PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF EXEGESIS 29
latter into his meaning: for the Old and the New Testament are inspired by the one Holy Spirit, and it is there that their unity lies.'' Here we must turn our attention to the importance of allegorical interpretation in Tertullian's work. Tertullian fully acknowledges the existence of such interpretation as it had been mentioned explicitly in Galatians 4:23-24; but he only wants to apply it in passages where the literal meaning cannot possibly be what was meant. As we have already observed, Tertullian tries to accept the literal interpretation as far as possible. He seriously discussed this problem in two treatises- namely, in the third book of the Adversus Marcionem and in the De resurreclione earn is. In the former case his aim is to prove, or at least to bring out continuously, that Christ, the son of the good God, is announced all the time in the Old Testament which, according to Marcion, is the book of the merely just God. This leads to continuous typological exegesis, in which allegorical interpretation, which was rejected by Marcion, is also occasionally exhibited. But much more intensive, and also more fundamental, is the discussion of allegory in the De resurrectione carnis, the subject-matter of which is clearly for Tertullian one of the most important articles of the Rule of Faith. Since for the dogma of the Resurrection of the Flesh not many passages from Holy Scripture could be cited, Christian thinkers had, for sprne rime, begun to advance further arguments; and Tertullian has tried, in the words of Zimmermann (15), "in ever new fonns and with all his ingeniousness to formulate structural laws of allegory" ("Strukturgesetze der Allegorie ... aufzustellen"). Thus we read: "So if allegorical passages and significant actions and simple language throw light on the resurrection of the flesh (even though the topic itself is not mentioned), how much more detenninative ... are those which actually mention it? .. (Res. cam. 29). In Tertullian's opinion, the passages in Holy Scripture in which gannents are mentioned (the most important being Matt. 22: 11 and Rev. 3:5) may be taken allegorically as indications of the resurrection. Further, this 119tise contains long discussions of the level of reality in imagines andfigUI'QI! which culminate in the sentence: ''And if all are figures, what are they figures of?" (Res. cam. 20). Karpp (28) observes at the eod of his enumeration of the rules of interpretation: "Our conclusion is that it is true that, for his rime, Tertullian understood the rules of e•egesis particularly clearly and that he enunciated them with equal clearness, yet that his s-.nents have the weakness of being accidental: they are not rooted in an equally clear ~logical
30
J. H. WASZINK
perspective''. From what I have said it is evident that I agree with this conclusion, though I must add at once that this fact should not be reganled as a personal shortcoming of Tenullian. For Tenullian was still fully occupied in building up a theology for the Latin speaking Occident, and he was performing that task partly on the basis of his knowledge of Holy Scripture, which he has acquired with such difficulty. panly on the basis of his intensive education in rhetoric which Fredouille and Sider16 have recently clarified. And although he has not yet managed to acquire in this way a theological ''Gesamtanschauung'', we must at the same time say that on account of this very training his works display a fundamental tendency throughout - namely, the striving for a certitude and a clarity which admit of no ambiguity. Hence his continuous preference for what he calls the simplex intellectus. that is, the literal sense of the words in question; hence also the requirement, first, of the absence of contradictions and, second, of an interpretation which, in the wont case, is in accordance with the majority of the relevant scriptural passages. This is exactly what Tenullian wanted to achieve and what he could achieve with the means at his disposal. Whoever requires in his works a ''theologische Gesamtanschauung'' is asking too much and is moving, so to speak, against the course of history. For the absence of such a 'general view' is the immediate consequence of the phase of the evolution of Christian docaine in which Tertullian lives, not of a personal wish to stick to rhetoric and to rhetoric only. On the other hand, we are certainly justified- a point strongly and rightly emphasized by von Campenhausen - in speaking of a ''Christian basic perspective'' which is found throughout Tenullian's works. For he is deeply convinced of the truthfuloess of the basic rules of the Christian Faith as they had been formulated in the Rule of Faith which formally had not yet been entirely established; it is in its defence that he needs all the techniques and all the arguments furnished by his training both in rhetoric aod in the rules of Roman Law. Not infrequently this defence is carried out with much spiritual fueworks and not without some very had sophisms. lt is the fueworks and the sophisms which make us too often forget the strength of the basic convictions which frequently have penetrated so deeply into Tenullian's mind that he left them unmentioned where they could or even should have been mentioned. But these basic convictions are 16. 'R.. D. SmEa,AncilntRiwtoriciJIIdrlleArto/Tenu/liiiii(Odon:l, 1971).
TERTULLIAN'S PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF EXEGESIS 31
always there, and it is these which induced a very imponant theologian like Bossuet, who also knew better than anybody the limitations of eloquence, to speak of "le grave Tenullien " 17 .
17. Tbc: pluuc is anribuled 10 Bossue!: by A. d' Alis, La tltiologi~.U Ttnulli~n (Paris, 1905)498.
W.C. van UNNIK
THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION AND ITS LIMITS
In an article published in 1949 and later reprinted in the collection of essays After the New Testament. Robert Grant showed that Jrenaeus in his Adversus haereses (2.28.2) made use of a philosophical handbook very much like that of Aetius or Plutarch 1 . Irenaeus himself makes no
mention of his source. At first sight, it appears as though he sets down in a casual way a number of topics where human knowledge falls short; and the items listed appear to have little connection with each other. lrenaeus starts the list with the flooding of the Nile, continues with the migration of birds, the tides of the seas, et al., and he ends with the differences between various metals and stones. Because the passage fits the context so well, the impression is left that the bishop invented the list himself. The only thing that makes a reader pause is the fact that the Nile
comes first of all. What importance could that Egyptian river have had for an Asian living in Gaul? Readers as long ago as Feuardent in the sixteenth century had seen that some of these topics were controversial in antiquity 2 . Grant was able to go fanher and to establish beyond any doubt the fact that lrenaeus had made use of a doxography. And this fact. which can be corroborated by other observations pointing in the same direction 3 , throws an interesting light on the bishop's cultural heritage and his relation to the Greek intellectual tradition. I. R. M. GRANT .•. l~naeu.o; and HellenislicCullu~ "". Aft,lh~ N~wT~SIIJIMnl (Philadelphia, 1967) I 58-164 (originally published in HIUWird n.~ological R~~irw. 1949). 2. F. FEUARDANT (1539-1610: see F. L. 0toss and E. A. l.MNGsroNE. Tll~ O~oTd OiCJitHtllry of~ ChTislilm Cluu-c-11 2, Odord. 1974. S09) published his edilion of l~naeus in 1576; his IIOlCS WC~ ~primed by A. STIEREN. Sant1i lu~~Mi .. 911111 SJIIMTSIUII omnia (Leipzig. IBSJ) 2. 823. who also men1ions Pl.l!TARCH.lkplac.p/lil. 3. bulonlyon one ilem. See also lhe note ofGRABE(in Slie~n. 2. 828). 3. Cf. H. DIELs.DomtfroplriGTa«i(Berlin, 19S8;rqwintoftbecditionof 1879) 171, on l~nacus. Adv. "-'· 2.14.2: W. R. 5cttoEDEL. "Philosophy and Rheloric in the
34
W. C. VAN UNNIK
Once he has set the passage of lrenaeus in the framework of scientific discussions on the points at issue in antiquity. Grant finds that lrenaeus · attitude is much like that of the Stoics who ''avoid inquiring into causes because of their obscurity''. This verdict, however, is not the last word, for he modified it by adding: •'But lrenaeus inclines toward skepticism ... With the skeptics he would say that there is no evident criterion of truth" (163-64). Three years later he returned lo the subject in dealing with the role of do•ographical manuals in education and remarks that ·· the obvious result of the study of such a compendium is complete scepticism... In any event, our earliest witnesses to its use employ ir for sceptical pwposes''. Among these wimesses he finds the case of ln:naeus "perhaps the most inreresling because of the sceptical conclusion he explicitly draws. He is stressing the complete adequacy of scrip!ure and the impiery of looking for solutions of problems no! given there. While he admits thar there are problems in scriprure itself, he argues thal they are not grealer than the insoluble difficullies in science'' 4 . Some seven years later William Schoedel took up the point again in an article on ··Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Adversus Haereses of lrenaeus". He likewise demonsllaled the bishop's use of a compendium and then concluded tharln:naeus ''goes far beyond the Sceptics in using philosophical doubt as a device by which lo recommend Biblical revelation .. (24). Does that mean that lrenaeus was a companion and a forerunner of those Christian theologians who had God serve as the ..ptanalion of thal which cannOI be ..ptained by human reason? Our German colleagues have a fine e<pression for the phenomenon: ''Gott als Liickenbiisser" ("God as sland-in"). The hisrory of scientific discoveries has revealed the dangers thar besel this road, for the more knowledge e<pands, the more God is replaced as e•planation. Is lrenaeus on thal path? 11 may he, and if so, we may deplore il, bur we cannOI call him back. The question, however, is whether we can draw this inference from his handling of thal do•ographical handbook. Before we discuss the question. it will be helpful to look at the words
Adwrsus H•r~s~s of lrenacus'', VigiliM Christiantle, IJ (1959) 23-24; W. C. VAN UNNIK. "Two notes on IR:naeus", VigiiUwChrislitUtM, J0(1976)208-209onAdv.latur.
3.2U. 4. R. M. GRANT. Miracle tJIId NIIIUral Li1w in Grt11e0-Roman Gild Early-Chrisrian Tlwvghz(-.1952)80.
THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION AND ITS LIMITS
35
which serve as introduction to the topics picked from the manual. In his refutation of Gnostic opponents Irenaeus reminded them that ''we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence lhan the Word of God and His Spirit, are on lhat very account destinue of the knowledge of His mysteries''(Adv. haer. 2.28.1) 5 . And then he continues in lhis way: ''And it is not surprising if lhis is our experience wilh spiritual and heavenly things and in lhings lhal must be revealed to be known, since even many of those things lhat are before our feet (ante pedes) - 1 mean (dico). lhat are in lhis creation, lhat are also examined by us and are visible and are wilh us- have escaped our knowledge'' (Adv. haer. 2.28.2) 6 . To illustrate lhis point- namely, lhat some phenomena in this world of ours are beyond our understanding- he mentions certain cases which he has taken from his doxography. In the passage quoted one expression attracts our attention, ''those things lhat are before our feet" (eorum quae ante pedes sunt), particularly because Irenaeus adds a personal note of explanation: "I mean" (dico), etc6 . He wants to make it perfectly clear thal he is speaking of things that belong to this world of ours in contrast with the spiritalia et coelestia. It looks as though lrenaeus is using a familiar phrase in the words "ante pedes". but thinks it necessary to give it a certain definition so that misunderstanding is excluded. There is another passage in which this expression ''ante pedes'' is found in lrenaeus' work, namely in the last part of this same chapter (Adv. haer. 2.28. 9), where he is bringing his argumentto a conclusion. He directs his comments againsl men like Valentinus, Ptolemaeus, Basil ides and others who boast of their "univerul knowledge" (universam cepisse eorum quae sunt agnirionem). Let them who pretend to have such a "knowledge"about the invisible things, first explain the causes for things on earth which we do not know. Then he rounds off his argument by saying: "But if those who are perfect 7 do not yet understand the very things in their hands and al their feet, and before their eyes, and on the earth (quae in manibus sunt, et ante pedes, el in oculis, 5. Te:lt according to the edition or W_ W. HARVEY. Sancri /r~trMi ... libros qui114w H~reses (Cambridge. 1857); English translation or A. ROBEltTS and W. H RAMBA.lTT in the A.nu-NiuM Christian Library (Edinburgh. 1868-1869). 6. Dico = ).iyw, in the sense: ''I mean''; see H. G.l...mDw...R. SronandH. SruART JONES,A. Gred·EnglishUxicon1 (0dord, 1940) 1034.s.v. m 9. 7. For the Gnostic as "perfect" see, ror eumple, Adv. lrot!r 1.6.4 ("they exalt themselves by calling themselves perfect'').
Atlvrrsw
36
W. C. VAN UNNIK
!!"I terrenis) ... how can we believe them regarding spiritual and supercelestial things, and those which, with a vain confidence, they assert to be above God (de spiritalibus, et supercoelestibus, et de his quae super De urn vana persuasione confinnant !) •·. Here again the expression is used to define what is visible, earthly. in contrast to the heavenly; it describes those things we can touch and see as distinguished from the invisibi/ia ... vel quae osteruli non possent, as lrenaeus had said in this same conre:d. In the description there is a certain climax: in hand- at their feet- in their sight; the distance becomes greater. but it is still within the reach of human perception. It may appear that this is no more than pan of a series involving the senses: hand, feet, sight. Here lies the test for the ·'knowledge'' of the Gnostics: if they can explain what is inexplicable on earth. they may be trusted in their exp:>Sitions of heavenly things. But of course lrenaeus is absolutely certain that they cannot stand that test. Is there not more, however. to this e:~~.pression "ante pedes"? his striking that in the fonner passage it is used without reference to other parts of the body and that by itself it has the same significance as the fuller series in§~- Moreover, the explanation that lrenaeus gives in§ 2, introduced by the word "dico", prompts us to ask why it was added. The impression is given that the author took up a familiar phrase to which he wanted to give a special sense. The combination ante pedes may mean "close by" or "in front of sometxxly" in contrast with a long distance 8 . But it often has a more specialized sense, as in Pliny. Nat. his/. 18.252, where the following question is put to a fanner: ''Why then should you look still higher and examine the very heaven? Look, you have Pleiades [i.e. natural signs of the changing seasons] before your feet (ante pedem)''. He should not look to heaven for signs of the changing season. for he has them close at hand. The peculiarity of the usage here is the contrast with heaven. Pliny the Elder gives in this text a special application of a general rule: man should not gaze at and search the heavens forgetting that he lives on earth. In the Latin world it became almost proverbial 9 in the famous line of the poet Ennius which 8. CrCEJto, De oratore 3.160: ingenii specimen est quoddam transilue ante pedes posita et alia longe {ntita s~~~Mre, of an orator who use far-fetched me1aphors: Tuscul. 5.114 :cum alii SDI!fH, quodantepedesesset. non vitkrenl, ille (se. the blindDemocritus) in injinitatem OMNm {Hregrinabatur. 9. A. Orro. Die SprichwOner unJ sprichwOnlichen Redensanen der ROmer (Leipzig, 1890) 274.
THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION AND ITS LIMITS
J7
is quoted twice by Cicero : Quod ~sr ant~ p~d~s n~mo .specrar; caeli scrutantur plagas, .. no one examines what is before their feet; lhey search the regions of heaven'' (Cicero, D~ r~publ. 1.18.30; De divin. 2.13.30). The dangers of such an attitude were often illustnlted by the famous story about Thales who looked to the heavens bul fell into a pit. The oldest tradition of the accident that befell the Ionian philosopher is found in a famous passage of Plato. Theaet. 174a, where a slavewoman mocks at the astronomer' 'that he should be so eager to know the things in heaven yet should miss what is there before his feet". And as Plato has Socrates say, the same holds good for a philosopher who. when forced to speak on ordinary matters (''to discourse about what is at his feet and before his eyes '' 10), arouses roars of laughter as he ·'falls into a well and every kind of perplexity through inexperience'' ( 174c). But the name of Thales is not always mentioned, and the rule is generally applied to astronomers and other people who occupy themselves with the heavenly world without knowing what happens on earth. A storehouse of parallels collected from many authors was brought together by the immense learning of A. S. Pease to which we may refer the reader 11 . From these texts it appears how well-known this rule was in .the days of lrenaeus, attested as it is by Lucian, Diogenes Laertius. Tatian, Tertullian, and the do•ography used by Hippolytus (Ref. 1.1.4) 12. In this connection it is also good to remember the words spoken by Creon in Sophocles, Oed. trag. 130, about the Sphinx: "She caused us to let unclear things go and to consider what was at our feet''. My colleague W. J. Verdenius, professor of G~k in Utrechl University, pointed out to me that the idea is already found in Pindar: men must keep themselves within their own limits and leave the rest to the gods; see, for eumple, Pindar,l'yth. 3.58-60: "A man must seek from the divinities what suits the mind of monals. knowing what is at our feet and of what estate we are'' 13 . It is, I think, clear that Jrenaeus appealed to this well-known rule in calling his opponents with their lofty speculations abnut the heavenly world back down to earth (that is, to what is ante pedes). He could have said about the Gnostics what the 10. Cf. mnacus'cxprcssion in Ad\'. Wr. 2.28.9quou:dabove. 11. A. S.I'EI.sl.M. TulliCiurOtlislhDit~intUiDMlibriduo(~ntDannstadt, 1963) 397-398; alsoJ.G. P. BoluDR, D~ T~m.llilJIIO~t MinwioF~liu(Groningcn, 192!1i)43, n. 3, with Olher references. 12. lnadditionlolhe~~nccs inPeucscealsoAesop,FabMI. 72. 13. Sec also PINDAR.l1thm. 8.12-IS.
38
W. C. VAN UNNIK
unknown author of Pseudo-Justin's Cohort. ad Graecos 36 wrote somewhat later about the Greek philosophers after Socrates: "Not being able to know things on earth, they claim to know things in heaven as though they had seen them ... It is curious that the anecdote about Thales is not found in Irenaeus • polemics since it would have served his purpose so well. One mon:: observation may be added. It is interesting to
see that the pagan Caecilius made use of this rule against the Christians: If you have any wisdom or modesty, cease prying into the regions of heaven and the destinies and secrets of the world: it is enough to look before your feet, especially for those who are unlearned, crude. boor-
ish, and rustic: those who have no gift for understanding civil matters are all the more denied the privilege of dicussing divine CMinucius
Felix, Octavius 12.7.). Here the same weapon is turned against the churchmen. The illustrations taken from Hellenistic usage will have elucidated the contrast lrenaeus is making. Now the question remains why Irenaeus added that amplification in Adv. haer. 2.28.2. The expression JtQO Jtol)OOv (also with other prepositions) or ante pedes has the meaning of ''close by''. ''just in front of''; it could be used of any distance either of space or time, but the distance is always very short indeed. Some examples will suffice as illustration: Xenophon, Laced. republ. 3.4: "to look about in no ditection but to fix their gaze on the ground hefore their feet"; Aelian, De nat. anim. 16.33: in Libya one finds cattle which are forced by the fonns of their horns to graze going backwards, because nature "does not allow them to see the ground before their feet". Very interesting are two texts in 3 Maccabees 14 about the Jews who had been driven together in the stadium during a pogrom and expect death at any moment, ''seeing the grave already yawning at their feet" (4:8); they call upon God to rescue them with a mighty manifestation of his power "from the fate already yawning at their feet" (5:8) 15 •
14.C.W. EMMET. in R.H. ctwles(ed.). TlteApocryplraattdPs~wkpigrapluJofth~Oid TrsttUIW'nt(O,ford 1913) I. 168-169. 15. The teltt of Addition to Esth" E 7 =LXX 8:12 g is slighlly coi'TUpl, but for the present pwposc it is surfJCient to sec that the coniJaSI is theft: between 6oa kni:v :rcaQCi :rc66or;; andh: Wv:rccV.aun:t:(Md'Y lotov&.Wv (d. J. A. F. GRmo. inChartes. 1.681). cr. LutlAN.fh tut~ conscribe~ hist. 13: onlr a stupid man can be pleased by pmsc of which "the ~futations aft! so obvious (TCQlXI n66ar;;)"; AiutJnMr 33 about an cnc:le that was proYCd to be false because the boy who was conc:emed died a few days later:
THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION AND ITS LIMITS
39
From these and other examples of this expression given in the preceding pages it will be clear that taken by itself the words ante pedes and the Greek equivalent denote a very shon distance in space or time ahead ofaartain person. In the context of the contrast with ''heaven'' it is an excellent expression to bring home to a penon the small reach of his existence. But Irenaeus while maintaining the absolute difference between God and man, heaven and eanh. grants his opponents a wide extension of that reality expressed in what is '' anle pedes''. within his reach. namely this world ("'such as belong to this world, which we handle, and see, and are in close contact with"). After baving brought down to earth his opponents lrenaeus demonstrates that the physical world offers a number of phenomena, the causes of which are beyond our knowledge. He does so, as we have seen, by picking a number of topics from a philosophical handbook. He is well acquainted with what was going on in the schools of his day: "on all these points we may indeed say a great deal while we search into their causes •'. For ages the discussions on these points had been intense and lively in Greek and Hellenistic culture, as is seen in the history of philosophy. They left their deposit in the manuals. It was not just curiosity. It reminds us of the "beatitude" of Vergil in Georgics 2.490-92: "Happy is he who can understand the causes of things and who can trample underfoot all fears and the belief in an inexorable fate". The first item in Irenaeus • list deserves separate comment. Grant has already pointed out, that the curious phenomenon of the rise of the Nile had aroused a lively discussion among Greek travellers and philosophers ever since the days of1bales 11 • It is n:markable that Irenaeus at this point shows his acquaintance with such debates. as is seen from his words: ''We can say many things- persuasive perhaps. or not- on the subject'' (multa quidem dicimus, et fonassis suasoria, fonassis non suasoria). The word '' slliJSoria' · is taken from the school-tenninology
"The oracle havinR been ~ruted so obviously (naQCi 1C66ac;l •·. From l..alin Lileralllft we may tab two iiiUSiralions: Tc~ntius. A*lplti 386: ''This is whal it means to be wise: not only 1o sec what is bcfo~ one·s rce~. but also 1o foresee whallhc rU~UM brinp ··;
TER1lJWAN.IHaltima 6.8: ''Bill incense meDial pmx;cupuion is p:ncrally unable to sec even bcfo~ its feel".
16. GRANT,A,/kriMNrwTestDIM"', 161-162,andlbemonographofD. 8oNNEAu,Lil crwdu Nil (Paris, 1964) which does nolmc:ntion tm.cus.
40
W. C. VAN UNNIK
of the rbetors 17 • Among the many others who tried to find a solution for this problem there is one to whom some special attention may be given. because he was a fellow-countryman and a slightly older contemporary of lrenaeus, namely Aelius Aristidcs. This famous rhetor devoted a long discourse to the question (Aegyptius, 48 Dindorf = 36 Keil) 18 • For our present purpose it is not relevant to go through the arguments and to evaluate the scientific value of Aristides' discounc. Suffice it to say that
he informs his readers that he has travelled Egypt to its southern harder four times and has investigated everything. Unfortunately he had lost his notebooks; otherwise it would have been very easy to solve the problem. On this subject (he says) it is unlikely that anyone can take anything forcenain; but people talk much nonsense, some because they stick to their own opinions, and others because, though not themselves really convinced, nEnELaf'£vm 19, they pretend to be so to give the public the impression that they possess knowledge about obscure subjects (Dindorf, 438). Aristides passes in review various solutions that have been brought forward and finds them inconclusive. In the final pan of his discourse he returns to his tint point: those who express an opinion on the subject do it only for the sake of controveny; they all refute each other and ''all guess, nobody knows'·: and he confesses that he himself is not so clever that he can find a physical cause (Dindorf. 4 77). His own answer ascribes the solution of the problem ''to the great wisdom and providence of the God" - thal is, Serapis (Dindorf, 488)0'. We do not know whether lrenaeus had ever heard of Aelius Aristides. But the latter's discourse is relevant here not only because it has an interesting verbal parallel to the passage under discussion but also because it reveals the opinion of an esteemed author in Irenaeus· homeland who had visited Egypt himself. When such a man could offer no solution, it was clear proof that the truth had not been found 21 • In this 17. Cf. H. 1...\NsBERO, Handbllch tkr lir~nuisc#wn Rh~rorilt. (Mi.inchen. 1960) 2. 819, § 1244, s.v. for ~femac:es. See also the word in Aelius Aristides ar: note 19. 18. Refe~nc:es ~ by page: numbers to the edition of Wilhclm OINDOitF, ArisliMs (Leipzig, 1829). The Mgyptiw is contained in the second volume of this edition.
~: g: =~~ ;::;:':h,-;,,~
:
a
I~
1 ZfatiguC son tourd'elllminer chose en nnte pages, il finit son expose de f~ fort peu scientif~quc:: il anribue lacrue a la puissance de Sarapis". 21. Corn~ the words of benaeus,fugeriUII nomtlm sci~llliam, with the statc:ment of Aelius Aristidcs, Or. 48, Dindorf, 488: ''how it comes to this point and whence it took its rise escape observation". The last word (larOQiav) rl!fen to scientifiC observation, science; see LtDOa.l., Scurr, JONES,UJfinm, 842,s.v.
THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION AND ITS LIMITS
41
way views of the pagan rhetorfrom Asia shed an interesting light on the statement of lrenaeus who, as is most probable, had spent his boyhood inSmyma. For illustration of the other items 22 in the list we may refer to Grant's article. There is one final question: what is the structure of Irenaeus' argument here? He reminds his Gnostic opponents of their actual situation as human beings, living on earth. not in heaven. How do matters stand with our knowledge of the physical world? It may be thought that implicitly Irenaeus makes use of the argument a minori ad maius: if even here on the world we see that so many questions remain open, how can one dare to speak so audaciously on heavenly matters. Some time ago I came across an interesting parallel to such an argument in the Testament of Job 38:2-5 23 . In a discussion with his friend Bildad, Job says: "Who are we to pry into heavenly things as men of flesh whose lot is earth and ashes''? Then he poses a question about human physiology 24 ; and when Bildad confesses his ignorance. Job declares: ••So, if you do not grasp the ways of the body. how will you grasp heavenly things"? Consider also Wis 9:16, "And we can scarcely guess at things on earth, and things at hand we find with labor; but who has traced out things in heaven 25 "? Is this similar to Irenaeus' train of thought? It certainly seems so from the end of the chapter(Adv. hoer. 2.28.9), but is it really the same? This question brings us back to the point at issue. Did Irenaeus draw a sceptical conclusion from his use of the doxograophic manual? In answering this question it should not be left unnoticed that Irenaeus has something more to say. He accepts, indeed emphasizes. that there are open questions about phenomena in the physical world, where men have not reached a generally accepted, conclusive answer, bu11hat
22. On the passage about rain, thunderetc. one may also compare the journey ofEnoch in I Enoch 17-18. They an: in mysterious places and Enoch is pennined to see them in a vision, but that is a unique distinction. 23. The date is uncertain: 1st or 2nd cent. A.D.; A. M. DENts. Introduction au.t Psew:kpigraphes grecs d. Ancien TesttunLnt (leiden, 1970) 103. We follow the edition of S. P. Brock (leiden, 1967) 24. Test. Job 38.3: ''Food enters through the mouth. and again water is drunk through the sarne mouth and travels in the same throal. But when the two go into the latrine, they are separated from each other. Now who divides them·'? 25. John 3:12 has a similar contrast but a different focus: ''If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things''?
42
W. C. VAN UNNIK
does not lead him to conclude that for that reason ttuth is impossible to
attain. Nor does he simply say with Aelius Aristides: God's providence is the cause. lrenaeuscould have done so. but refrained. What is his position? His admission ''many things (se. on eanh) have escaped our knowledge", is followed by !he words: "and these very things we leave to God''. This confession is repeated with regard to the. open question about the flooding of the Nile: There is no conclusive answer: ''What is true and cenain and sure belpngs to God''. At the end of the list, he declares that we may ''say a great deal (loquaces) while we search into their causes''; ''God alone who is their maker can speak the truth''. So, when there are these open questions where men cannot find the causes, lrenaeus is not led to resignalion and a state of unending doubt; but he leaves such matters in the hands of God. His answer ''God knows'', is not one of despair. but offinn faith in God. We men on earth have partial knowledge. Irenaeus finds his epistemological position in the words of St. Paul: "we know in part, and prophecy in part" (I Cor 13:9, quoted in Adv. haer. 2.28.9). So Irenaeus does not hold !he view that uncertainty reigns everywhere and that no knowledge wharever can be obtained by men. However from the study of his handbook and the questions it raises, he draws the conclusion that in nature- that is. in creation - ·'there are some matten that are unknown to man and reserved for God, while others have come within the range of our knowledge" (2.28.3). Arguing then a minori ad majus he concludes: if this rule holds good in the created world, it can also be applied to the spiritual world: ''we shall leave some questions in the hands of God" (§ 4). One such qUestion, and a famous one at that, Irenaeus mentions here: what did God do before He created the world? His answer is this: Scripture teaches us that the world has been made by God. but nowhere does it say what he did before that moment ( § 4: Quid autem ante hoc Deus sit
operatus, nulla Scriptura manifestat. Subjacet ergo lulec responsio Deo). Irenaeus also refers to the eumple of Jesus who admitted His ignorance (Matt 13:32). All this serves to confirm his thesis at the beginning of Adv. haer. 2.27.1: ''A sound mind, and QDe which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God had placed within the power of mankiod and has subjected to our knowledge ... These things are such as fall (plainly) under our observation and are clearly and unambiguously
THEOLOGICAL SPECULATION AND ITS LIMITS
43-
set fonh in express tenns in the sacred Scriptures •'. There is no need for us to enter into a full discussion of the role of revelation, Holy Scripture and Regula Fidei in Irenaeus' works after the excellent treatment of that subject by Brox 20 • Let it be sufficient for the present purpose to state that lrenaeus distinguishe~ between two levels of knowledge, namely the spiritual or heavenly and the earthly. In the latter some phenomena can be known by men and others cannot; about the former, knowledge is found in the clear statements of Holy Scripture. though there may be difficulties that can either be solved by-staning from what is evident or that must be left in the hands of God. But what God has revealed is sufficient for man to anain full communion with him. The experiment with doxographical knowledge did not lead to scepticism, but to differentiation in our human knowledge of physical phenomena: some things are known, other things are not. It should bring the Gnostic who ''imagines that he has acquired not a panial but a univenal knowledge of all that exists" (Adv.luler 2.28.9) to the confession that now even with regard to the physical world this fligh opinion" of his cannot be maintained. What then arc we to think of his knowledge of the heavenly world that goes beyond and against God's revelation?! It has to be rejected as totally unfounded. That is why lrenaeus calls his Gnostic opponents back to what is ante pedes and confronts them with questions from the handbook. The opinion of Grant, expressed at the end of his anicle in 1949, still stands: ''The camen needs to be refocussed and the picture (of Irenaeus) taken over again ... He represents the confluence of Hellenism and Christianity no less distinctly than the apologists do". And though I do not follow Grant's inclination to see a tendency toward scepticism in Irenaeus, as I have argued in this contribution in his honor. I wholeheartedly subscribe to Grant's words: Irenaeus ''is choosing from the maelstrom of Greek thought what he thinks will be adaptable [and I should like to add: useful] to the Christian religion" (After the New Testament. 169). This I hope tohavedemonstratc:dat a particular point. May it be accepted as a symbol of continuine friendship!
26." N. Baox. 0/f~nbarunR. G110sis IUld gno:rri:rclt~r Mythos lwi lrrMus vorr L_wm (Salzburg-Miinchen. 1966). See the indc1. (p. 221) for the pages of his book whe~ BroJ. deals with Adv. lrtwr. 2.28 and itsooniClU.
FRANCES M. YOUNG
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS AND THE NATURE OF RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE
In his Miracle and Natural Low in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought, a book whose scholarship and clarity of exposition is characteri~lic of its author, Roben Grant showed that a debate. generally assumed to be peculiar to modem thought, in fact had its counterpan in ancient philosophy and in early Christian apologetiC and theology. In a paper written in his honour, it seems not inappropriate to take another philosophical problem which looms large in modern discussions and enquire how far it was recognised and discussed by philosophers of the ancient world and in particular by patristic theologians. The problem
chosen is that of religous
lan~uage:
to what does such language refer?
What sort of meaning does it have? How does it function? My purpose is to show that ancient philosophers and the early Christian Fathers were aware thar religious language has peculiarities, and does nor funcrion in precisely the same way as ordinary language. Of course, the inrellectual context of the ancient world was markedly different from our contemporary situation; the questions do not always appear to be the same, and the arguments were conducted according to different presuppositions and tenns of thought. Underlying modem discussions is the suspicion that God-talk is somehow all a misleading hoax, that in the absence of empirical tests theology can have eo claim to be a fonnal discipline of enquiry into reality; whereas in the ancient world the issue was how to talk about a being defined as inexpressible. It is important that this difference not be obscured, and that we avoid the pitfall of distorting the ancient intellectual tradition in an artificial attempt to solve modem problems. In order to keep the discussion firmly anchored in its proper intellectual context, a patristic text will be taken aS a basis from which arguments and presuppositions may be
46
FRANCES M. YOUNG
extracted, then to be explained and illustrated from other ancient material. The Five Theological Orations of Gregory Nazianzen seem admirably suited to serve as a springboard of this kind, partly because they may be regarded as a concise summary of the patristic theological consensus, but more especially because a central issue in the controversy with Eunomius, the extreme Arian theologian of the time, was the possibility of knowing and talking about God. Selected passages relevant to these issues will provide ttiggers for our discussion.
I. RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AND rnE BEING OF GOD
The Second Theological Oration (Or. 28) is concerned with the question of God's being, and it is here that. we find statements about the possibility of using meaningful theological language. Gregory distinguishes two problems, the question of God's existence and the problem of his essence or nature. His concern is with the latter. At the outset, then, we meet the difference between ancient and modem discussions -though the problem of God's existence is not entirely independent of the question of what sort of a being we are discussing. Gregory. however, assumes an intellectual tradition which required a cosmological first cause in order to avoid an infinite regress, and indentitied that first cause with God 1 . Gregory dismisses the whole question of God's existence in a brief paragraph whose very language reflects a long tradition of philosophical thought (Orat. 28.6): For, that God exists and that he is the creating and sustaining cause, sight and natural law teaches us, sight by encountering visible things beautifully ordered and progressing, immovably moved, so to speak, and carried around, natural law by reasoning back through things seen and ordered to their author. For how could all this be established or constituted unless God brought it all into being and sustains it? For no one who sees a beautifully made lyre, well-tuned and in good order, or who hellrs its melody, thinks of anything else but the lyre-maker or musician, and I . Ploa..us. EktMnls of TMology Proposition 11: the~ must be a first cause to avoid an infinite ~gras (cf. AluSTOTU. .ll,aphysics 994a). For discussion of the cosmic god as the fm;t principle, see e.g. Amold &tflHARDT. Th~ B~ginning (Manchcsfer. 1968); A. J. fUruolf.R.E. /...Q RiviltJrion d'HmMs Trismigislt:. Vol. 2: Le Di~uCosmiqw(Paris. 1949).
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
47
inevitably imagines him even if he does not know him by sight; so the creating principle is clear to us also - the one which moves and preserves created things- even if he is not comprehended by mind. Anyone who does not willingly proceed thus far in following natural demonstrations is wilfully ignorant2. At first sight it might appear that Gregory is using a form of the cosmological argument and that therefore he did feel it necessary to prove God's existence. However, the argumentative style belongs to the tradition on which he is drawin~ and is by now no more than shadow-boxing. For he goes on: "but even this which we have formed in our fancy or imagi~a tion, or which reason has sketched for us, is oo proof that God is,'' and proceeds to argue that God's being is not demonstrable or comprehensible. Gregory, then, is concerned with the difficulty of expressmg, or indeed of knowing, one whose existence is presumed. For in the background of Gregory's Second Theological Oration is the Ednomian claim to define the nature of God. Gregory summarises his position as follows: To know God is difficult, to speak of him impossible, as one of the Greek theologians taught- quite cleverly it seems to me; for in saying it is difficult,'be appears to have comprehended him and yet escapes examination because of his inexpressibility; bul in my opinion, to speak of God is impossible and lo know him even more impossible. For what is known, some word can perhaps make plain, if not adequately at least obscurely, la anyone who has not completely lost his hearing or is mentally slow. But it is altogether impossible and impracticable mentally (Tf16taVOLQ) to encompass so great a subject, not merely for the indolent with lowly inclinations, but even for those who aim high and love God - indeed for all created nature, in that this darkness and this thick fleshiness gets in the way of perceiving the Truth ... (Orat. 28.4 ). [A little further on he adds:]lt is not just the peace ofOod which passes understanding and knowledge ... but his very nature, which is beyond our grasp and comprehension (Orat. 28.5).
2.·Tile aJiusiveness of his words may be quickly observed by tuming IO lhe following
passages: PI..Aro. TilfJIUus 37-39, 47; l.tJws 10, 896D-902E: l.tJws 12, 9660 ff.; A.RIS"T'OTi.E. M~taphysics 1073a; 0CERO. D~ nall.lra d~orum. book 2.
48
FRANCES M. YOUNG
As Gregory himself hints, a respoc:table philosophical heritage enables him to indicate the intellectual abswdity and blasphemous chanK:ter of Eunomius' claims. The Greek theologian to wbom he refers is Plato, and the te•t to which he alludes is Plato's much quoted ~~:mark in the TimQeus (28e): But it is an effon to discover the Father and Maker of all this
universe; and it is impossible for the discoverer to speak of him to all men 3 • Gregory clearly lakes this to mean that Plato thougbt that God was ine•pressible though 001 incomprehensible, and be proceeds to argue that it is necessary 10 go beyond Plato. Thus he asserts both the indescribability and the incomprehensibility of God. Hetherefor<: recognizes the problems both of religious language and religious knowledge. Let us e•arnine the baekgroun4to these assertions.
I. God's indescribability: from anthropomorphism to the apophatic
theology of PI<Jtonism. It is important 10 remember that all through the history of Greek philosophy the gods of literary myths and religious rituals wer<: in the background if not the foreground of theological discussion. Philosophers moved from criticism lhrougb toleration 10 what can only be described as sophisticated credulity in respect of these beings, and their philosophical theology was undoubtedly affected by these reactions to
traditional religion. 1be issue at stake was the character and nature of the god or gods.
Cristicism of popular religion began in the presocratics. and is especially associated with the figure of Xenophanes. Since in their attacks on polytheism and idolatry Christian apologists used criticisms drawn from the philosophers to reinforce motifs borrowed from Judaism, it is 001 surprising 10 find several of Xenophanes' fragments preserved in the works of Clement of Alexandria. From tbese'we learn that Xenophanes had observed that men make gods in their own image:
3. A list of places where this is quoced will be found in I. GEFKKEN.Zwft griedrisdw (Leipzig, 1907). 11 is found in two piSSIJCS to be discussed laler in this paper: Cl..EMEHT.Sir'Dm. 5.12;0RJGEN.COIIIrDCII!'I.nun 7.42.
Apolog~ten
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
49
Ethiopians make their gods black with turned up noses, Thracians make them with red hair and blue eyes; mortals think that gods are born and have their own f<X>d, voice and shape; but if oxen or lions had hands and could draw or produce images like men. horses would draw the shapes of the gods like horses, oxen like oxen, and they would produce such bodies as the bodily frame they have themselves 4 . Elsewhere fragments survive in which Homer and Hesiod are criticised for attributing to the gods human faults like stealing, adultery and mutual deception, and those who tell stories of the birth of gods are accused of blasphemy no less serious than the blasphemy of those who say they die (Ritter and Preller, §§ 98, 99). According to Clement, Xenophanes asserted that there must be one god who is quite unlike mortals in form and thought; and elsewhere we find accounts describing this god as eternal, unoriginated (clytvr)to~) and impassible (
50
FRANCES M. YOUNG
he cannot describe because he cannot see it; whose size he cannot estimate, since he cannot touch il. "The divine is invisible to the eyes, unspeakable with the voice, untouchable with the flesh, unknown to the hearing; only by the most beautiful, most pure, most intellectual ... aspect of the soul is it seen through its likeness and heard through its kinship, the whole together being present to the whole understanding ... " God has no size, no color, no fonn, nor any other accident (Jt(i9o£:) of matter, but he has a beauty unlike any other beauty. Clearly, Maximus interprets Plato in the same way as Gregory did: God is indescribable but he can be perceived by the mind. Such is the position found also in Albinus, Apuleius, Celsus and Numenius, as well as some Christian philosophers6 . Even though there is a possibility of religious knowledge by means of direct intuition, religious language is not possible, because there is no category by which we can speak of God; Albinos puts it thus, so indicating the influence of Aristotle in the Platonist traditions of this period: God is unspeakable (
differentia or accidents; no quality or lack of quality. for he is not deprived of anything nor is he composed of parts; he is neither identical to nor different from ~ything else; he is not affected by anything; he neither moves nor is moved (Dida.fkalikos 10). In respect of such a Being. description, analysis and definition are impossible. The categories of human logic are inapplicable.
2. God's incomprehensibility: other influences on apophatic theology. Given that Gregory's interpretation of Plato is clearly consistent with that of the Middle Platonist traditipn, we might suppose that the more far-reaching idea of God's incomprehensibility even by the mind has a different source and background. In fact this very question has been the subject of some debate since the publication of Norden's Agnostos Theos in 1913. It is in Gnosticism that e,;treme emphasis is placed upon the unknow-
6. A J. FE.<m.JGIF.RF., LD. Rivilalion
lnconnu ~/la gnou (Paris, 1954), eh. 6.
d'H~rmes trismigist~.
Vol. IV: U
Di~u
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
51
ability of God. In theApocryphon ofJohn, for example. God is presented not only as invisible aod imperishable, bcyood quality, perfect and without needs, immeasureable, and undifferentiated, unnameable and therefore indescribable, but he is also infinite and incomprehensible; and in the Gos{HI of Truth, he is repeatedly called the illimitable, inconceivable one7. The more graphic Bythos or Depth of Ptolemaic Gnosticism expresses the same idea. Sophia's hybris was a desi~ to know what is incomprehensible (lreancus, Adv. hoer. 1.1.1; 1.2.2.). Two questions can be asked. Where did Gnosticism get the idea from? Is there any possibility that Neoplatonism and later onhodox Christian tbeology reached the conclusion that God tranccnds knowledge through Gnostic influence? To give a clear answer to these questions is as difficult as it is to produce a theory of Gnostic origins. At a time when scholarship was dominated by the tbeory of the History of Religions School that Gnosticism was derived from Iranian religion, Norden argued that God's incomprehensibility was not a genuinely Greek idea, but was an adaptation of oriental mysticim in a syncretistic age - so confirming the suspicion of some scholars that Plotinus and the Neoplatonists came under eastern influence. E.R. Dodds8 , however, showed that Plotinus based his teaching upon certain Platonic texts and the case for indigenous Platonist development was further argued by A.J. Festugiere (Le Dieu lnconnu). Three passages in Plato are of particular importance : In the Symposium (210e - 211b; Festugi~re. 79f0. absolute beauty is described as beyond time, change, relativity, definilion or knowledge. In the Parm.enides (142a; Dodds, 311), we read that the One ""is not named, nor defined, nor conjectured. nor known, oor sensed ... ", aod this text was undcmood to refer to the Supreme God by the Ncopythagoreans as early as the First Century A.D. And the passage in the Seventh Letter (341 c-d; Dodds, 31 1): ""it cannot in any way be exPressed in words like other studies, but is suddenly born in the soul, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter nourishes itself', was interpreted by Plotinus as meaning that the One is unknowable except by a mystical union with it which is incommunicable. 7. R.M. GRANT. A Gnostic- AlllholofiY (Lonckln, 1961) provides convenient translations ofboch these documents: see pp. 70-71 and 146-161. 8. E.R. DoDos. Proc/w, TM Ele~~Urlls of TheoiORY (Odord. 1963). Appendi•
t.
52
FRANCES M. YOUNG
Thus Plato himself suggested to Plotinus that the One is beyond knowledge (Enneads 5.3.12ff.); and in Proclus, the word ciyv
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
53
Norden was certainly right in noting that this idea is more obviously to be found in the writings of Jews like Philo and Josephus. and texts where there is the most striking development of these doctrines, namely the Hennetic writings and the literature of Gnosticism, are now thought to have come under the influence of Judaism as well as Hellenistic philosophy. If Judaism in general and Philo in particular had little influence upon mainstream Platonism, both certainly affected Christian philosophy; and it is the congruence of Platonic and Hellenislic-Jewish motifs which contributed 10 the Christian understanding of God. The fact that Jews never pronounced God's name, never made images of him, and used scriptures which asserted that the greatest.prophet of all had no direct confrontation with God. "for no one can see God and live", undoubtedly contributed to this "negative" Jewish theology. Words emphasisinJ!: God's othemess and incomparability seem to have been particularly characteristic of Helleni~tic Judaism. and so entered Christian tradition: God is unapproachable (Cvt()Oonor;). untraceable (0.vEf;Lxvlacnoc;) and inscrutable (CtvEl;EQEii'V'11tOt;) 15 ; so he is incomprehensible (0.Katcl1..rpnor;). Not ~urprisingly many of the terms of Hellenistic Judaism and of philosophy overlapped, and in Christian tradition they tended to be amalgamated, as previously in Philo, so as to point to a more ultimate transcendence than the mainstream Plalonist tradition suggested. Thus God came to be regarded as beyond human understanding, as well as beyond human language. 3. The apophatic tradition in Christian writings. In Gregory's Second Theological Oration, many of the terms of apophatic theology make their appearance: the divine is incorporea.l (Ciml>!Jatov) and therefore infinite (futELQOV). unlimited (06Qtotov). without shape (
J..olwtov),imperishable (d
15. I Tim 6: 16; Rom 11 :33; Ephes 3:8; +LXX, Philo, Josephus.
54
FRANCES M. YOUNG
what the subject is in order to present these objects clearly to the mind. Eunomius' claim to define God asagennetos, and so to know his Being. is therefore a false claim. God's Being is beyond our grasp and comprehension (dAT)ntoc;: Kai MEglAT)J'tto~). In using these negative tenns Gregory was drawing upon a tradition of Christian theology reaching right back to the early apologists, who had not been slow to adopl a philosophical inheritance which so admirably suiled 1heir purposes 16. On the one hand, Christians had quickly adopted the refined theism of philosophy to characterise the God they proclaimed as the one being to whom worship should be offered; on the olher hand, Christian apologists emphasised the crilicisms of anthropomorphism produced by earlier Greek philosophy. However, as a result of adopting these two intellectual traditions, Christians were driven into a defensive (X)Sition in respect to the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament. This problem pervades the works of Origen. He is not by any means an isolated case, but he is an interesting one in that he was obliged to deal wilh the problems in two quite different contexts. In the fir51 place he was confronted with the problem in his exegesis of scripture, where he found it necessary to allegorise not only God's hands and face, but also his wrath and his repentance 17 - for emotions and change are alike foreign to the nature of God as Origen conceived him. Secondly. Origen faced the criti.cism and ridicule of the pagan Celsus for whom the bibical narratives made an identification of the Christian God with the Supreme Being incredible (Contra Ce/sum 4. 13,7 I. 72). ''God·talk'' which uses personal language of the divine bristles with difficulties for the Greek intellectual tradition, a·nd those difficulties were fully acknowledged by an intellect as fine as that of Origen. Origen was certainly aware that to speak of God reacting lo or intervening in the affairs of men was distinctly problematical. Neither pagan nor Christian philosophers took traditional religious language • 'literally''; but it suited their convenience to accuse each other of doing
so. 16. Typical passages will be found as follows: ARISTIDES.Apology 1.1 :JusnN.Apology 2.6: Dialogu~ 114, 127; TATIAN. AdGraecos 4.1.2; ATHENAOORAS.lLgatio 10.1; THEOPHIU.:s.Ad A:.tto/ycum 1.3.4. For discussion see G.l. PRESTtGE.God in Palristic Thought (London, 1936): R. M. GRANT. The Early Christian DoctriM of God (Charloncsville, 1966). 17. E. g. Hom. inJ~r. 18.6. For discussion seeR. P.C. HANSON.A/legoryand EvetU (London. 19!19). e~pecially eh. 8.
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
55
The problem of anthropomorphism is still at issue in G~gory's time; for in the Second Theological Oration, Gregory replies lo the objection that Spirit, Fire, Light, Love, Wisdom, Righteousness, Mind, Reason and so on, a~ all intelligible descriptions of the FiBt Nature by saying that none of these can we envisage without corpo~al associations (Orat.
28.13): How do you conceive of mind'! Is it not lhal which is inherent in something not itself, and ~ not its thoughts, silent or unered, its movements'! ... And Justice and Love, are lhey not praiseworthy dispositions ... making us what we are and changif'!g us as colouB do bodies? (His point is that mind as we know it is contained, moves, and is subjeclto change and interaction, while justice and love are mere qualities of something else.) Mus1 we not leave all these things. (he continues.) and look at the Deity absolutely ... ? What then is this subtle concept (JI.TJlPaVYl- mental conlrivance), which is (built out) of 1hesc (notions) and yet is not them ... '! For every rational nature longs for God and for the First Cause, but is unable to grasp him. The radical rejection of anthropomorphism meant that the problem of religious language certainly did not go unrecognised. In facl Chrislian theology has proved incurably anthropomorphic. and one suspecls that some of the problems with religious language today are related to the fact that Christian theism has tended to ~place the apophatic tradition with a kind of refined and sophisticated anthropomorphism; for God is usually regarded as in some sense personal. The problems of that kind of theology we~ patently obvious to the Greek intellectual tradition. and Christian theologians affected by this tradition could not avoid recognising that religious language is not like ordinary language. To so~e extent this was even imparted to the masses in the effect it had on liturgical language, where apophatic tenns heightened the sense of God's mystery and were a constant corrective tO the highly anlhropomorphic language predominantly found in scripture and in expressions of the Christian Gospel". For Gn:gory, however, the prime objccl was to discredit Eunomiu~t, and simply to reassert the lraditional negative theology was not suffi-
....
18. F.E. BRxilriMAN.Lillll"giesE&rtem and Westem (O:donl. 1896) I. 310.322,
56
FRANCES M. YOUNG
cient for his purposes. Eunomius too inherited the traditions of apopha-
tic theology. indentifying God as the single, absolute One which is invisible. without size or fonn, incomposite, undifferentiated and unchangeable. The problem was that Eunomius thought thal God's identification as the First Cause meant that his nature was definable in terms of the negative anribute agennetos; and that God's unitary simplicity implied two things, first that any secondary being. like the Son. must be totally unlike Him. and secondly that definition and knowledge of God was not merely possible but simple. An already observed tension within the apophalic tradition itself became polarised in the Eunomian debate: on the one hand. God was regarded as beyond the senses but known to the mind; on the other hand, he was conceived as infinite and incomprehensible. though known indireclly lhrough his works. Gregory takes the latter position; Eunomius lhe fonner. The Alexandrians. Clement and Origen. provide a good illustration of the lypicallack of clarily to be found among Christian lhinkers before the Eunomian debate. In the De Principiis ( 1.1.6: 2.4.3: 4.4. 9-10). God is identified as incorporeal substance of Mind, invisible because he has no shape, size or color, but perceived by inlellectual beings through their kinship with him. Yet even so Origen states that God is incomprehensible and immeasurable. In what sense then does he understand lhese words? Origen explains thal God is incomprehensible to the human mind because ''he is far and away better than our thoughts about him"; for ''our mind is shut up within bars of flesh and blood and rendered duller and feebler by reason of its associalion with material substances'' ( 1.1.5). In fact Origen has picked up an idea found in Albinos alongside the insislence that God is Known by the mind (Dida.fkalikos IQ), and indeed this explanation is the one later offered by Gregory in our passage from lhe Second Theological Oration. God's incomprehensibility does not mean that lhe mind cannot ultimately comprehend him, but that it cannot until purified and released from earth. But Origen also suggests that· 'no created mind can ... possess the capacity to understand all'', and 1hat even inlellectual natures purified of the flesh, though they acquire a good deal of knowledge, cannot comprehend everything (De princ. 4.3.14: cf. Comm. inJn. 19.6.37). lsthis a hinttbat Origen may have recognised that God's being is in principle incomprehensible? Hardly. for Origen in facl denied God's infinity on the grounds that this would mean he was by nalure incomprehensible - even incomprehensible to himself (De princ. 2.9.1). Festugii:re has argued tbat God's
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
57
incomprehensibility was admitted in the Platonist tradition in the sense that God is beyond the nonnal processes of reason and definition; but though incomprehensible to reason, he was not regarded as in principle unknowable since he may be grasped by the direct intuition of the mind after a process of purification (Le Dieu lnronnu, Ch. 6). On the whole. Origen's thought moves finnly within this Middle Platonisttradition19. though his suggestion was to be developed more radically by the Cappadocians. Philo had argued thal God was incomprehensible in his essence, and only known indirectly through his works20; this suggests a different sense of the word '·incomprehensible''. Funher hints of a more profound understanding of God's incomprehensibility are to be found in Clement of Alexandria. In an important discussion in Stromateis 5.12.81-8221, Clement repeats familiar texts from Plato and many Middle Platonisl axioms:
the first principle of everything is hard to find: ... how could that be spoken of which is neither genus, nor differentia. nor species, nor individual, nor number. and on the other hand is neither accident nor that 10 which an accident pertains; ... he is not undentood by scientific demonstration, for this depends on prior and more readily known principles, and there is nothing prior to the Unoriginated. But Clement also accepted thal lhe logic of the Parmenides was right when it passed from indivisibilily. fonnlessness and namelessness to infinity: Therefore it is infinite, not merely in the sense that one cannot give an exhaustive account of it, but in the sense that one cannot analyse it into pans and that it has no limit and is therefore without fonn or name. Clement thus seems to acknowledge God's inexpressibility and incomprehensibility in a way more radical than that of most Middle Platonism
19. Cr. J. WHrTTA.KER. ''tJtfKtLva Y01h:ai o\lolac;;'', VigilitwCirri;stiarvw, 23 (1969) 91-104, forambiva~nc:e inOrip:nandOiherMiddle Platonisls. 20. PHILO.Leg. tJIIeg. 1.9l;l'osl. 169. cr. JOSEPHUS.ContraApioltem 2. 167: ARI5n· D£5. Apology I. I: JusnN.Itpology 2.6. for discussion and n:fcn:nc:es 1o Arislodc, sa: FEsruGIBt.E. Le Die• lrtcoiWI, eh. I. 21. For discussion sec E.F. OsBORN. ClnneNojAle:umJritl (CambridBc. 1957).
58
FRANCES M. YOUNG
which did not easily accept the idea of infinity in1o its understanding of God; for, as we have seen the concept was finnly attached to the
fonnlessness of matter. As far as our evidence goes, bolh Philo and Clement, probably under the influence of the Neopythagoreans. made more of this aspect of the argument of the Parmenides than their Middle Platonist contemporaries22. Yet even lhey do not seem to have deduced from such a radical understanding of God's 'unlikeness' that knowledge of him becomes impossible even for purified and perfected intellectual
beings. In Gregory's Orations, we can detect a growing awareness of the extent of God's incomprehensibilily. In the Second Theological Oration {28), Gregory largely follows the position of Origen in that he explains God's incomprehensibility as the result of impurities and deficiencies of the human mind. especially in its incarnate state; he has, however. adopted the distinction between essence and existence, claiming that God's works give us knowledge of the latter, though his essence remains incomprehensible to us. By Oration 38.7-8, however, his understanding of incomprehensibility seems to have advanced funher: The divine nature is infinite and hard to understand: and all thal we can comprehend of him is his infinity- granted that one may assume that because his nalure is simple, he is lherefore either wholly incomprehensible or perfectly comprehensible. He goes on to speak of the mind having no resting place as it seeks lo contemplate the ''depth above''. affirming again that God is infinile and it is impossible to get to the end of him. Thus Gregory seems to suggest that God's Being is incomprehensible because there is no possibility of completely comprehending something that is infinite; God's incomprehensibility is no longer attributed to the inadequacies of the imperfect mind, but to God's very Being. Such a radical assenion of God's incomprehensibility is reminiscent of the extreme stalements of Gnosticism. Throughout most of the orthodox tradition it had been overlayed by the Platonist confidence that once the mind was sufficiently purified, it would know God through its likeness to him. Where then did Gregory get il from? Gregory's imme-
22. S.R.C. LILLA. Cl~m~rzJ of A.lr.umdriJJ (Oxford, 1971) 206: but see J. WHmAJC:. ER
mote 19).
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
59
diate source seems to have been the Contra Eunomium of his fnend. Gregory of Nyssa. E. Mlihlenberg has made a largely convincing case that the latter Gregory was the fir.;t philosopher-theologian to use the idea of infinity in a positive sense. and that it was in the context of the debate with Eunomius that this notion was fully developed23. Mlihlenberg dismissed the hints in writers like Philo and Clement too cavalierly. I think. but it is certainly true that God's incomprehensibility is more consistenlly grounded in the infinity of his Being. and more positively developed as a central theological concept in Gregory of Nyssa's works than in any earlier writer. Gregory's Contra Eunomium contains more explicil discussion of the problem of religious knowledge and religious language than any other patristic treatise. except perhaps for Clement's StromtZteis. Gregory asserts I he utter unlikeness of the infinite creator and finite creatures. so that no intuition of God's being is possible lhrough realising one's kinship with him24: and he insists that the traditional negative tenns suggesting that no rational discour.;e can give an account of God. and that no analysis or definition is possible of an infinite being. means that complete knowledge of God is logically impossible. He thus takes Clement's assertions to their logical conclusion. God has no limit or boundary: he cannot be compared with anything else; so he is inconceivable. This is not simply due to the disabilities of human reasoning. but it is a feature of God's very Being. The simplicity oftrue faith assumes God to be what he i!i, namely, incapable of being grasped by any tenn or any idea or any other device of our apprehension remaining beyond the reach not only of the human but of the angelic and of all supramundane intelligence. unthinkable, unutterable. above all expression in words, having but one name that can represent his proper nature, the single name being ''above every name"25. Thus the apophatic tradition reached its epitome and the possibility both of religious language and of religious knowledge was denied. The denial was partly philosophical: there is no logic common to ordinary
23. E. MUHLENBERG. Dir UnrNllichkril Gonrs bri Gngor V011 NysSG (Gortingen. 19661. 24. E.g. ConrraEIIIItHIIilllfl 1.373-4(JAEGER I. 132): 1.446ff. (JAEGER I. IS6ff.)denies che possibilily of analogy on lhe basis of likeness: 2.67ff. (JAEGEJI. I. 24!5). 25. Contra ElllkHftilllft 1.683 (JAEGEA. 1.222):cf. 2.!586 UAEGER. I. 397) ..
60
FRANCES M. YOUNG
language and language used of the divine. But it was also panly religious: a God worthy of worship is beyond comparison with anything derivative from him. Gregory Nazianzen already recognises the latter point in his Second Theological Oration when he a,ks how is God ''worshipable'' if he is circumscribable26. If God is God. he cannot be pinned down. Chrysostom too when he preached against the Eunomian position stressed not merely the philosophical basis of apophatic theo-
logy but the religious awe inspired by one beyond speech or knowledge27. The possibility of religious language has thus been denied not just in the context of modem empirical scepticism, but as an assertion of the profoundest religious faith. However, the nearest prece-
dent to Gregory of Nyssa's position is to be found in the Gnostic Basilides. who wrote .. the truly ineffable is not ineffable but above every name which is named'': and even spoke of the non~xistent God making a non~xistent universe out of the non-existent CHippolytus,
Ref. 7.20-21 ). Cenainly it is ironic that Gregory attributed to God all the characteristics attributed by Plato to non-being (Sophist, 238c) perhaps after all the logic of Gregory's position was a denial of the existence of God.
11. THE REENTRY OF RELIGIOUS lANGUAGE.
The Second Theological Oration (28.31) concludes that the nature of the First Being surpasses the power of mind (voU KQELnwv): yet in the following discourses, Gregory is able not only to give a detailed account of his Trinitarian God and relationships within the Trinity. but also to discuss many names given to God. particularly to the Second Per.;on of the Trinity. Does he give us any clue as to how he is able to use religious language when his previous discussion suggests that it is impossible? The only explicit clue in Gregory's theological orations is his statement that God is not known in his essence but in his attributes (Oral.
30.17): The divine cannot be named ... For no-one has ever breathed the whole air, nor has any mind located or language contained the 26. OrtJt. 28.7; cf. GasooRv of NYSSA. ContrtJ EIIIIDifliwn 3.109ff. (JA.EOER. 2.
4011.).
.
27. CHJ.YSOSTOME, Sur I' incomprilterasibilite de D;n (Soun:cs Chrcticnncs. cd. R. Flaceliere; Paris 1957).
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
61
Being of God completely. But sketching his inward self from his outward characteristics, we may assemble an inadequate, weak and partial picture. And the one who makes the best theologian is not the one who knows the whole truth, for the chain (of the flesh) is incapable of receiving the whole truth, but the one who creates the best picture, who assembles more of Truth's image or shadow, or whatever we should call it. It is on this basis that Gregory proceeds in the following paragraphs to list significant names of the Godhead and of each person within it, distinguishing names which are of God's essence and names which are 6 'relative'' to his creatures. Gregory was not, of ~ourse, the first to be faced with the problem of speaking about the unspeakable. 1be problem had long since arisen in the Platonist tradition. Platonism recognised three ways of knowing or speaking about God, namely synthesis, analysis and analogy. According to Origen (Contra Celsum 7.42-44). Celsus quoted the famous saying from the Timoeus and then added: You see how the way of truth is sought by seers and philosophers, and how Plato knew that it is impossible for all men to travel it. Since the reason why wise men have discovered it is that we might get some conception of the nameless first Being which makes him manifest, either by synthesis with other things, or by analytical distinction from them, or by analogy, I would like lo teach that which is otherwise indescribable .. Albinus (Didaskolikos 10) explains lhe three ways for us: synthesis means building up a picture starting from the beauty of physical objects. going on to the beauty of the soul. from there to the beauty of customs and laws, and on to the vast ocean of the beautiful. so proceeding to the good, lovable and des\rable (an example taken straight from the Symposium); analysis means successive abstracrions. just as we get to the concept of a point by removing the idea of surface and then that of line; the way of analogy means the kind of thing Plato did when he used the simile of the sun in the sixth book of the Republic. In this way. the Platonist tradition asserted the possibility of knowing God. and a more popular account of a similar process is to be found in Maximus of Tyre (Dissertationes 11. 7-9). The way of analysis clearly produces the apophatic theology discussed in the previous section. but is counterbalanced by constructive processes of enlarging as well as purifying
62
FRANCES M. YOUNG
human experience so as to reach an intuitive grasp (sometimes regarded as a mystical union) with the divine. Underlying these ways is the assumption that man in his intellectual being is akin to God; by compari-
son with our knowledge of physical entities, God is unknown and indefinable. but kinship with him makes possible a cumulative process of overcoming the restrictions of the physical world so that the intellect
achieves an immediate rather than discursive knowledge of him. This account derives, I suggest, from the need for an epistemology rather than some kind of mystical experience, yet the Platonisl tradition cenainly spoke of purification and of a process closer to religious devotion than to a logical exercise. The earlier Christian Platonists knew of these approaches to the problem. but were not entirely satisfied with them. Thus, Clement accepts the way of analysis (Strom. 5.11. 71 ): Abstracting from the body all physical attributes, taking away from it the three dimensions of space. we arrive at the conception of a point having position; from which if we abstract position, there is the concept of unity. As in other Platonist writings, the way of analysis. or the via negativa produces the radical apophatic theology discussed in the last section: ''We know not what he is. only what he is not''. Origen (Contra Celsum 7.42-44) quotes Celsus'description of the three ways, and admits in reply that what Plato has to say is impressive and that it is probable that knowledge of God is beyond the capacity of human nature, but Origen was less inclined to radical apophatic theology than Clement. Neither of them make much positive use of the three ways. Rather they introduce a quite different factor which enables them to speak of God positivelynamely the revelation of God through the incarnate Logos. We affinn (says Origen) that human nature is not suffiCient in any way to seek for God and find him in his pUre nature, unless it is helped by God who is the object of the search ... (Plato) does not say that he is indescribable and nameless, but that although he can he described it is only possible to declaro him to a few ... (God is seen; for) ''he who has seen me has seen the Father''. (God is not known by synthesis, analysis or analogy. but) by a cenain divine grace ... by God's kindness and love to man ... Earlier(Contra Cei.Jum 6.65ff.) too in reply to Celsus' claims that God is unattainable by reason and unnameable, Origen had already asserted
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
63
that God is comprehended through his Logos and that it is possible by names (in fact. those revealed in scripture) to show something of his attributes so as to give an idea of his character. lr is not philosophy but revelation and grace which makes religious knowledge and so religious language possible. The contrast between the philosopher's hopeless search for God and the Chrislian's revealed access to him was becoming commonplace in Christian apologetic literature, but Clement could put the Christological claim in a more obviously philosophical framework (Strom. 4.25.156): The divine then being indemonstrable. is not the object of knowledge. bullhe Son is Wisdom and Knowledge and Trulh and whatever else is akin to these. and so is capable of demonstration and definition. All the powers of the divine nature gathered into one complete the idea of the Son ... He is not then absolutely one as unily. nor many as divisible, but one as all in one. Clement is utilising the Platonic distinction between a simple unity, a one. and a composite untity, a one-many: for Clement, God is the transcendent One. but the Logos is the composite One-Many. the ontological link between the One and the muhifarious creation to which he gives unity. This being is knowable. but he is also the image of the One. and therefore the one through whdm some knowledge of the transcendent God is revealed. The way of analysis may be counlerbalanced by "casting ourselves inlo the grealness of Christ" (Strom. 5. I 1.71 ); for the unknown is known by divine grace. Clement gives further philosophical backing to the Christian way of knowing the incomprehensible divine by a careful evaluation of the epistemological value of faith, building up his discussion on the basis of both Platonist and biblical precedents (Srrom. 2.2.4-6.31; 10.46-12.55)'". Thus the notion of divine revelation also provided justification for the Christian claim to religious knowledge. The Logos of God was not simply identified with the person incarnate in Jesus, bul with revelation in the word of scripture and in the works of creation. Thus. scripture and tradition supplied possible "names" of God. all of which could be regarded as revealed by the Logos; and further attribules could bt adopted from philosophy. since the best philosophy was plagiarised
28.
Fordiscussionsee~.C/~JMN.
118ff.
64
FRANCES M. YOUNG
from Moses and so was equally derived from the revealing acrivily of the Logos (e.g. Strom. 2.5.20ff.: S.l4.89ff. ). But what exactly was the stalus of the names? In what sense could such language be regarded as descriptive of or conesponding to the reality it sought toe>press? For Clement CStrom. 5.4.20-10.66: 12.82). all religious tnllh was to be found in prophecies and oracles spoken in
enigmas: rhe mysteries were nor conveyed to all and sundry, but only to certain people after certain purifications and previous instructions. He poinrs out thal symbols are characteristic of Egyptian religion. the mysteries and Pythagoreanism. and that in the Old Testament the tabernacle and irs fumirure have mystical meanings. Plato composed myths which should be interpreted allegorically; myriads of enigmatical utterances by poets and philosophen;, are to be found. So it is proper rhat the "barbarian philosophy .. should prophesy obscurely and by symbols. The truth of scripture comes through a veil; we need an interpreter and guide. The language of scriplure is only an expression of the inexpressible God in a very indirect way. and the problem of religious language is closely connecled wilh lhe problem of exegesis. Yet Clement is confidenl that somehow the hidden mysleries have been unlocked; for the key is Chrisl. The true Gnostic inherils an unwriuen tradition by which he comprehends what is incomprehensible to others: for nothing is incomprehensible to lhe Son of God. Through his incarnation. faith has become knowledge. and the solution of riddles and enigmas. The gnostic is taught by Chrisl to become like God and so to know him. However in the last analysis, Clement's religious ideas are DCJ:'!ative. His God is the One. above change and passion, his Christ a vinually docetic revelation of this static God. and his ideal Christian (gnostic) an ascetic trying to emulate such a being. Clement is not really attempting to find a basis for a religious language which has any life to it. He reganls the traditional language of the Church as allegorical and symbolic. and the reality of God remains elusive and abstract. The One is ''without form or name, and if we name it, we do not do so properly. even in terming it the One. or the Good .... or God, or Creator, ... etc. We speak not as supplying his name, but out of helplessness (OltoQLa) we use good names, so that the mind has these for suppon and does not wander after others''. At bottom. the via Mgativa has obscwed more positive use of religious language. and Clement is remarkably close to his contemporaries who accepted Homer by removing through allegory
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
65
the anthropomorphic elements and so the dramatic impact of the poema. Origen. though sharing many of Clement's philosophical presuppositions. was perhaps more successful in providing a basis for religious language. For. recognizing the parallel between the Logos-in-scripture and the Logos-in-flesh he spoke of both as divine accommodation to the conditions of fleshly existence. Thus religious language, while recognised to be inadequate. was grounded in God's character and acrivity. The scriprural ''names'' of God may need inlerpretation, and Origen is the master of allegorical exegesis. but they cannot be dismissed as wholly misleading. Indeed. Origen delighrs in lisring the fascinating anay of attribules and titles which scripture gives to the Logos (e.g. Comm. in Jn. 1.22: Contra Celsum 6.65): for these names are indicative of his lo.ving accommodation to mankind. jusr as the names of God himself show something of his attributes and character. ForOrigen. the problem was not quite so acute, since he clearly stated that God was knowable, at least 10 spiritual beings: in Jesus Christ as much as possible of that knowledge was made available to men in rheir present incarnate state. Ultimately it seems. Origen allowed the Gospel of a loving God lo modify the God ofPiatonist philosophy (Grant, Doctrine ofGod, 29ff. ); he accepted that God's loving care for his creatures was real, however anthropomorphic the idea, simply because of the evidence of divine accommodation to the condition of men. Religious language, like the incarnation, could thus serve as the flesh in which truth was clothed and panially hidden; but the veil was not totally opaque. Thus it was that Gregory inherited a tradition which dwelt upon the attributes and names of God as indications of his being, as a basis for religious language which was not totally misleading. This tradition he assumed. He also inherited the assumption that the incarnation was the basis of religious knowledge. But it was precisely this assumption which was threatened by the Arian controveny, as many of the chief protagonists realised. Athanasius repeatedly asked how Christ could he the revelation of the Father if he was not truly his Son and entirely one with him in.his being; but it was Gregory's friend. Gregory of Nyssa, who came closest to grappling with the profound problem raised by the
29. FordiiCUISion ofHcllcnistic:udC'hrislian allqory, accR.M. GIANT, 'l"MUtrer anddt.Spirit(l.oDdon, t957).
66
FRANCES M. YOUNG
Arian-Eunomian debate. and so with the difficuhies of the relationship between religious language and thal to which it refers. What was the problem he faced? Up to the time of Arius. the prevailing assumptions of Christian theology were those of the Platonist tradition, expressed in more or less
sophisticated fonn. The ultimate transcendent God was linked with creation through a hierarchy of being which in varying degrees shared a cenain kinship with the divine. The Logos was at the apex of this hierarchy, linked, as Clement had explained, with the one uanscendent God in his oneness and with the multifarious crealion through his many aspecls and activities. Thus he fulfilled the same functions for religious knowledge as the ways of synthesis, analysis and analogy. emodying bot IT the difference and likeness between creator and creature. For this ontological, indeed epistemological. structure to work, the Logos had to remain poised between the transcendent God and everything else. Arius, however, destroyed the hierarchy by focussing altention upon the utter unlikeness of creature and creator, an emphasis cenainly present in scripture as well as implicit in the via negaliva, but not so farallowed to disrupt the continuous chain of Being. Arius in effect raised the question where tf'!e line between God and his creation was to be drawn across this hierarchical triangle, answered it by placing the Logos firmly on the side of creation, and so destroyed the possibility of genuine revelation of God in the incarnation, or genuine knowledge of God based upon man's kinship with the divine. The onhodox reaction was not to deny the existence of the line, but to re-draw it, so that the Logos was placed on the divine side; but that solution also destroyed the hieran=hy. made the problem of Christology intractable, and undermined the account so far offered of the basis of religious knowledge and religious language; for now the Logos as well as God was defined as transcending human comprehension. The consequences of this development and the new theological structures it produced are to be seen most clearly in Gregory of Nyssa, who more than any other, recognised that the radical distinction between crear:or and creature rendered the traditional accounts of religious knowledge unusable. Gregory's answer to the problem seems to have been two-fold: in the fil5t place, he grounded all religious knowledge in God's will to make himself known; in the second place, he established on this basis a symbolic theology through which some degree of theological knowledge was made possible (Miihlenherg, Die Unendlichlreit Got-
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
67
res). These two poinls may be clarified by ex.amining his trealmenl of ''names''. a recurring lheme in lhe works againsl Eunomius. Gregory basically believed lhal "reason supplied us wilh but a dim and imperfecl comprehension oflhe divine nature; but nevenheless the knowledge that we can gather from the names which piety allows us to apply toil. is sufficient for our limited capacity''JO. I . The names are inadequate and humanly contrived expression.
Gregory grounds his theory of religious language in a general theory of language: all language depends upon created human speech and the ex.istence of different languages is a clear indication thal God allowed men the freedom to invent and develop linguistic ex.pression:J 1 • This means that no human language is God-given. not even Hebrew32. Gregory. because of his high doclrine of God's transcendence. has come close to recognising the cultural relativity of scriplure. and he cenainly assens that Ihe names of God are the work of human thought and conception. Gregory does not hesitate to speak ofthe vast range and variety of nomenclature devised by man. and he thinks men "have a right to such word-building":n. "We allow ourselves the use of many diverse appellations in regard to him. adapting them to our point of view. For whereas no one suitable word has been found to ex.press the divine nature. we address God by many names. each by some distinctive touch adding something fresh to our notions of him- thus reaching by a variety of nomenclature to gain some glimmerings for the comprehension of what we seek"34. Gregory realised lhat man creates his own conceptions of God.
2. The names are nol arbitrary, but are grounded in the prior existence and activity of God. The inventive activity of man is not independent of a prior reality: •• we do not say thal the nature of things was of human invention bul only
30. ContraEwwmium2.l30(JABGe11:. I. 263). 31. 2.200ff; 246-2SO; 284; 406(JAI!OER. I. 283; 298-9; 3t0; 344). 32. 2.2ti0-61 (JABEt. I. 302). 33. 2.148 (JAEIOI!Jt. I. 298).
34. 2.145 (JAI!OI!R. I. 267).
68
FRANCES M. YOUNG
their names''35. Likewise religious language is grounded in what man perceives of God's operations•: through contemplalion of Ihe works of God, certain peculiar and appropriate names are derived. Creation and scripture guarantee that the names of God are more than a figment ofthe
human imagination: for creation and scripture are expressive of God's will and God is truth. They provide an adequate though limited means of communication, like the gesture and signs used in communicating with the deaf37. Though he has to accommodate himself to the· limitations of human perception. God cannot be a party to deception31. So when scripture honours the only-begotten with the same names as the Father, it must imply that he shares the dignily and honour of lhe Godhead. Furthermore, if the Word of God names God the Father, he musl eternally and unchangeably have been Father, and therefore must have had a Son•. The names have sufficient grounding in reality to fonn a basis for theological argument.
3. The names cannot~ totally misleading, but they do have to~ interpreted by indicaJing the similarities and differences between their application to human beings and to the divine. ''There is a similarity of names between things human and things divine. revealing nevenheless underneath this sameness a wide diffe· rence in meanings .. ...,. For example, ··we think of man's generation one way; we sunnise of the divine generation in another''; for in the case of divine generation, the mind has to reject notions of sex. and passion, of time and place, and think simply of the Son as being eternally derived from the Father. So wide is the gulf between creator and creature. finite and infinite, that different attributes or names have to be associated together in order to correct one another. But Eunomius • attempt to treat all titles of the Logos, including Son of God, as metaphorical will not do41. Even though ''the infinity of God exceeds all the significance and
3S. 2.283(JABGER. I. 310); d. 2.171 (JAEOER. I. 27S);Ood is no1 a concept of mind. 36. 2.149-IS4(JAIIO!R. I. 268-70);cf. 2.12ff. (JASJER. I. 230). 37. 2.4t7-2t (JAI!OI!II. I. 348-9). 38. ~.32.5 (JAJ!OER. I. 321). 39. 2.1S (JAI!OI!R. I. 231); d. l.SS6, S91ff. (JAEOI!R. I. 181, 196ft). Rt/ullllio Confessionh ElllfDmii 1 (JABll!lt. 2. 315). 40. 1.6~33 (JAIIOI!Il. I. :!m-208); 3.76-7 (JAI!OI!II. 2. 30-31). 41. 2.294ff(JAEGI!R. I. 313ff); cf. 3.128-9(JAEOER. 2. 46-7).
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
69
comprehension that names can fumish"-42, if such names are truly predicable of God, they should be understood in their most natural and obvious sense, though with a heightened and more glorious meaning43.
4. The names do not all have the same status; som~ ref~r to God absolutely and some are relative, and theological discourse can only proued by distinguishing these senses. In a number of passages..,., this kind of distinction is made: "God is called Father and King and other names innumerable in scripture. Of these names. some can be pronounced absolutely ... like immonal etc.; others express his service towards something. like Helper. Champion. Rescuer ... Some are both absolute and relative. like God or good." Gregory makes use of this distinclion when he insists that Fatherftood is an absolute not a relative tenn: "Son of the Father" must be distinguished from "Shepherd". "Light". "Resurrection". etc. This discussion easily slips into a rraditional Christological pattern with a tendency to assign I he fonner kind oftenns to Christ's Godhead and the lanerto his Manhood; thus the rhetorical use of Chrislological paradoxes, so characteristic of Christian preaching and lirurgy. is grounded in an anempt at logical distinctions. The whole point oflhe exercise was to clarify the status and therefore rhe theological usefulness of the symbols implied by the names. The kind of thing they wanted to say was thal God is absolutely Father of the Son, but not absolulely ourFalher-47. They were anempting lo distinguish degr«s of symbolic usage in religious language - from the purely metaphorical to a closer approximation to truth. Hence this analysis of the status of names and also the somewhal tedious effon to explain in what respects the names are and are nor applicable. If this analysis strikes us as somewhat arbitrary, that does not detract from the fact they recognised the need for a crilical evaluation of the symbols used in religious language.
42. 3.110(JABJ!Jt. 2. 41).
!!: ~~~~~~~=~~)2~j=JAEOD.
I. 263-4); J.IJiff. (JAEOEJt. 2. 47ff). Cf.Gu:ioRYNA21AN2ZN.Orat.18(Muson,I3Sff).
45. 2.558 (JABJER. I. 389). 46. 3. IJlff(JABJeR. 2. 47ff.). Cf. Gu.ooR.v NAZIANZEN.Orar. 30.20ff. 47. 1.570ff(JAfJOI!JI..I. 190ff.).
70
FRANCES M. YOU NO
S. The IUJineS can provide a positive theologic:allangutJge by indicating a variety of anributes without endangering the transcendent unity of God's nature.
Gregory's discussion appears in the context ofEunomius' attempt to reduce the names to one essential definition entirely expressive of God's Being. Gregory counters this by insisting that no name provides a definition, all are simply attributes•, and all are necessary to express different aspects of the total infinite reality beyond our grasp: ''while the
divine nature is simple ... and cannot be viewed under any fonn of complex fonnation, the human mind ... in its inability to behold clearly the object of its sean:h. feels after the unutterable Being in divene and many-sided ways, and never chases the mystery in the light of one idea alone''41, and ''because in such cases there is no appropriate tenn to be found to mark the subject adequately. we are compelled by many and differing names ... to divulge our sunnises as they arise within us with regard to the deity" •..,. Statements of this kind take us back to the passage of Gregory Nazianzen with which we began this section. The two Gregories adopted earlier traditions. but in a new theological setting they concluded that theology can only produce a panial picture of divine reality. The meaning of religious language can only be made clear by endless qualifications. But through the attributes revealed by God"s will. some grasp and advance in understanding is made possible. The biblical narratives, treated imaginatively mther than litemlly. can become luminous of a divine reality beyond human expression; and the complete incarnation of one who was by nature totally transcendent was the crown of God's loving accommodation to men and the triumph of sheer grace which made possible man's assimilation to God. The possibility of religious language was located not in man's natural kinship to the divine, but in God's will to create and redeem; and the symbolic character of religious language was no longer confined to allegorical exegesis but was fully recogoised in formal theology. lt is likely that the epistemological questions at issue were more imponant for this deve-
48. 1.587fr(JABOEII.I. 195ff.). 49. 2.475 (JAI!GI!Il. I. J64.57). 50. 2.577(JABOER.I. 394-5).
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
71
lopmentthan the mysticism so long presumed to be the basis ofGregory Nyssen's theologys1. The Eunomian debate forced him to face the question how we can speak about an unutterable being. or know an incomprehensible God.
Ill. RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE AND ITS USER
If God is beyond the grasp of human comprehension, then the nonnal processes of human logic are inapplicable; as Gregory Nazianzen says (Oral. 30.17), "the best theologian" is not the one who can give a complele logical account of his subject, but the one who "assembles more of Truth's image or shadow". The one best able to do this will need special qualities of perception, and it is not unimportant that the first of Gregory's theological orations (Orat. 27) is devoted to the characler of the I rue theologian. In lhis discussion, Gregory draws upon two traditions: on the one hand, he picks up the moral contrast between those who just talk and those who act, a contrast which reflects the scriptural insistence on doing God's word and not just saying, "Lord, Lord"; on the other hand he utilises the calch-phrases of philosophers condemning sophists, criticising the clever lricks of logicians who perfonn acrobats wilh words, twisting absurdity into apparently reasonable syllogisms. Herelics are accused of priding themselves on their eloquence and delighting in the antitheses of knowledge falsely so-called (a phrase reminiscent of the earlier battle with the gnostics); they make theology cheap by disputations in the market-place and at the dinner-table. Throughout the works against Eunomius, the other Gregory also confronts his opponent with the charge that his theology is confined to false syllogisms and quibbling sophistries; his eloquent phrases and rhetorical rhythms are lhe producl of fussy conceit; his claim to have mastered God by the powers of human reason is nothing short of blasphemous; he has been· misled by the pretensions of philosophy. By contrast, the true theologian, according to the First Theological Oration, must qualify by meditation, by purification of soul and body. and by genuine concern about the subject. 51. The case is argued by Miihlenberg (Dk UMI'Idlichkit Gones), (or the Contra Eunomium; and is developed in relation to the Villi Moysis by R.E. HmfE. P~rfecrion VirtuoMS Lif~ (Palristic Monograph Series, 2; Pltillldelphia, 1975).
;,.,~
72
FRANCE$ M. YOUNG
A hostile listener is incapable of receiving what the true theologian has 10 say: he is bound to misundenland it. For what the true theologian has impan is strictly speaking incommunicable, and the reward of both moral and intellectual purification. The need for purification has deep roots. of course. in the Pythagorean and Platonisl traditions. and was reinforced in Christian literature by the scriptural stress on morality as the way of response and access to God; it had reached profound Christian expression in Clement of Aleundria's description of the true gnostic. The description of the true theologian is rooted in a tradition. and conventional polemic also supplied the motifs for characterising the 10
obnoxious heretic.
Yet these traditional elements should not blind us to a significant point about religious language which is being recognised. Just as modem discussions of language have drawn anention to the importance of the language user and his intellectual, social and cultural context. so Gregory and his friend have come close to recognising that the language of theology may have different meanings depending upon who is using il and how it is being used. Ultimately religious language is grounded in a Sitz im Leben outside which it is inevitably distorted. It is the Sitz im Leben of religious language which pennits the use of traditional. biblical and paradoxical expressions, for in their proper context. these symbolic unerances are grasped by the attuned imagination. The attitude of worship. the activity of contemplation and devotion to a particular life-style contribute to developing the necessary faculties for perception of meaning in what is meaningless according to the nonnal functioning of human logical categories. For the Gregories. the Sitz im Leben was the orthodox tradition of the holy catholic and apostolic church. This tradition was their safeguard against arbitrariness in exegesis or analysis of theological meanings. The heretic. they assumed. had put himself outside the moral and spiritual context in which theological language could be property understood. But their condemnation of this particular heretic was also closely related to the theological problems examined in the last two sections. According to the Gregories, Eunomius • principal error was to imagine that God could be defined. that a complete analysis of the divine nature was possible by using human reason. How easy it was to link this particular theological position with blasphemous pride and relate tbe epistemological question to the whole moral and religious life! It was natural to suggest that Eunomius dragged Aristotelian syllogisms into a
THE GOD OF THE GREEKS
73
field of study to which they were totally inapplicable. and so condemn him for distorting the biblical revelation with philosophy. But the fundamental conflict was not between Christianity and philosophy; nor was it between a revived Aristotelianism and a Christianised Platonism. It was a conflict within an intellectual tradition made up of all these elements, a conflict involving different evaluations of the status of religious language. For Eunomius. religious language, though often utilising metaphon. ultimately had sothe objectivity since God's Being was definable: the consequence of his position would be to regard theology as an objective science available to all reasonable men. For his opponents, however. religious language referred only obliquely to its object. and yet not all theological language was merely metaphorical; the theologian therefore had to operate within the context and rules of this particular ''language-game". Religious language could never be completely accurate but must be symbolic; it is ~herefore in need of constant correctives. and can only be appreciated in its proper Sitz im Leben by a person totally committed and prepared by moral and intellectual purification. Such a position never implied the absence ofthe object to which religious language referred - simply the impossibility of access to it. and the importance of sympathetic awareness in gaining some faint glimmering of this incomprehensible reality. The theologian is one who is sensitive to "disclosure situations". In this brief concluding section, a process of natural drift has shifted some of the tenninology used from that of the ancients to that of our contemporaries - for it should be clear by now that there are points of similarity as well as difference in the two intellectual traditions. I do not wish to pretend that there ~re patristic solutions to the problems of modem theology- our self-consciously pluralistic world has become too sceptical of appeals to a unique special revelation to accept such an idea as a basis for religious epistemology. and the fragmentation of Christendom into a welter of differing groups has rendered impracticable an appeal to the catholic orthodox tradition as guaranteeing Truth. What I do suggest. however, is that there are patristic counterparts to some problems of modem theology and some of what they have to say is extremely suggestive. A persistent conundrum is the relationship between the logic of scientific explanation and the logic of theological discourse. A penistent defence of religious language is based upon the need for insight - for the response of faith - in order to appreciate its meaning and to grasp in some measure both how religious language
74
FRANCES M. YOUNG
functions and lo what object it refers. A suggestive direclion is provided
by the patristic denial of anthropomorphism and consequent recognition of the entirely symbolic character of religious language•. But how are the symbols to be evaluated? By what criteria are they to be classified. and interpreted? These are questions worthy of further ex.ploration53.
52. Since this paper was wril1l"n, Joseph C. Mcl.s..I.AND·s God the Anonymow(PalriW Monognph Series, 4; Philadolp!Ua, 1976) has rearlled me. A rnon: deWied KCOWtloflhc ~Ievant llllllaial in Philo, ClcmcntandOripn will be found in lhalwort.. and a somewhat diffaen1lhcological uscssmem. 53. Note lhc importanl book by David BURIU!L, Analogy and PhilosophiC'tll u..,...,.(Yolc, 1973).
WJLLIAM R. SCHOEDEL
ENCLOSING, NOT ENCLOSED THE EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD
One of the baffling philosophical issues that sends Lucian's hero, Menippus, on his flight to heaven for answers is whether the universe is finite or infinite, whether the All is circumscribed or not (/caromenippus 7). It is generally conceded that the Greek intellectual tradition indentified the intelligible with the limired and found it difficult therefore to associate the unlimited with the divine. Yet it was in this same tradition that Philo and the church fathers found resources for a new doctrine of God thal ullimately resuhed in a reversal of the Greek evaluation of the infinite. The imponance of the development can hardly be exaggerated. On one reading of the evidence, it may even be said that the conception of God's infinity served, after many transformations, as a presupposition in the emergence of the modem physical sciences1. It was one of the merits of Robert M. Grant's book on the early Christian doctrine of God to have uncovered some of the complex sources of the new teaching2. it is our intention here to extend the range of considerations that have a bearing on this issue. The debate in the early church came to a focus in the formula ''enclosing, not enclosed'' and related expressions. The use here of the verb· 'to enclose·· (JtEQLfXELV) seems to have two main sources: (a) the pre-Socratic description of the originative substance as divine and enclosing all thingsl, (b) Aristotle's discussion of the infinite (Phys. 3.4-8. 202ti 30). of place (4.1-5. 208a 27). and of the void (4.6-9.
I. lvor l.Ect.ERc, Tire Nat11re of Physical ExistefiCe (London, 1972). 2. TheEarlyChristi(UIDoctrineo/God(Charlortcsville, 1966) 105·10 3. Cf. ARISTOn.E.PIJys. 3.4. 203b1:Dectulo 3.5. 503b IO;Melllplr. 12.8. 10748 38.
76
WILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL
213a 12). The anlithesis, "enclosing. not enclosed". first gains currency in Philo as a description of God and seems to owe its striking formulation to an impulse to go beyond the Greek tradition in emphasizing the divine transcendence". To say lhat God encloses all things and is not enclosed means for Philo (a) that God is immaterial and not in a places. (b) thal he is unknowable in his essence&, and (c) thal he is creator of all things (Migr. Abr. 183; cf. Leg. a/leg. 3.51). Such themes presuppose a God who transcends the cosmos and is not simply (as in Greek philosophy) a factor in the totality of things. To be sure. the emphasis on God's immateriality reflects, as an isolated theme, Plato more than the Bible. But it poinls here in a new direclion. For ultimately. il was to provide a context wilhin which the infinile "could lje delached from 1he concept of the corporeal, with which il had been essenlially united in Greek
thought"7. An indication of the novelty of Philo's thought in 1his connection is the emphasis. perhaps for the first lime, on the idea lhal the essence of God is unknowabtee. Philo. however. has an ambivalenl anitude toward the infinile as such&. Once he goes so far as lo say that it is not right to think that God is in contact with "infinite and confused matter" (Spec. leg. 1.329). In such sentiments the influence of the Greek philosophical tradition is slrong. To be sure, that tradition was ilself changing. bul the very restricted application of the tenn ''infinite'' to the divine hypostases by Plotinus illustrates how eveR the most myslical of lhe Greek philosophers drew back from a positive evaluation of the unlimited 10_ One reason that the church falhers went farther lhan Philo in this regard is
4. Cf. Hany A. WOLFSONPhilo (2 vols.: Cambridge. 19471 I. 247-51. 311-22. Wolfson connects the formula with the Rabbinic teaching that God .. is the place of the world, but the world is not his place .. (G~"· R. 68.9). 5. Migr. Abr. 182: 192-93:Somn. 1.63: 1.185:Sobr. 6J:Post. Cain. 15: 18. 6. Somn. !.!84:Conf.ling. 138;Post.Cain. 15; 18. 7. LEcuac. Physical &ist~na. 65. L.eclert is speaking ofOrigen. but the comment is equally ~Ievant to Philo. 8. Wot.FSON. Phi/o, 2.94-164. But see now John M. Dillon (The Middle Platonists (London, 1977) I 551 who suggests that Philo was dependant on Platonism for his view of God :tS incom~hensible. 9. A.M. J. fESTIJGitRE. UJ riviiDtion d'H~nrris Trismigis1~. Vol. IV: lL Di~ll ifl('onnu ~~ID g110se <Etudes Bibliques; Paris, 1954) 109. ID. Hilary ARMSTRONG ... Piotinus's Doctrine of the Infinite and Its Signiftcance for Christian Though!'', Dowtuitk Rrt~iew 73 ( 1955) 47-58.
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD
77
that (largely because of the connict with Gnosticism) they looked more deeply into Greek sources and found there arguments that linked the
Oneness of Being with its infinity.
I. IRENAEUS AND THE GNOSTICS
That God "contains (XIJII1tilv) all things and is alone uncontained
(OXWQY)'tos)"' was given a position of central importance in Christian thought by Hermas (Man. 1.1; cf. Sim. 9.14.5). The verb XIJII/Eiv expresses fundamentally the same idea as the verb ltEQLfxELv' '· and the
two come to be used side by side12. The close relation between place ('t6:rtos) and space (XWQ
11. In a say1ng anributed IOThales (Oiogenes Laenes I.J!i) we •told 1hat ""pl.a: ("tmws) is lhe g~alesllhing. for il conlains (XtoQfll alllhings"". 12. Cf. HIPPOLYTUS,Pcuc/1. 3 :CLCMEHT.Strom. 2.2.6.1·3 :DIDVMUS,Dtotri.il. 2.6.2: GREGORYOFNVSSA.COI!IrGEIUI. 2.67-70.PG4!i. 9l2C;MAXIMUS.AiflbiBM.lb .. PG91. 11848. 13. Cf. SEXT1JS EMPIRICUS. Pyrrll. lryp. 3.124: Mtii pltJC. 1.20.1-2; PttiLO. Somll. 1.63-64; 1.185:Confli"8. 136. 14. G. W.H. l.A.MPE.A Patrislic Grult. U~ietHI (Oxford. 1961-68) 280-81. 15. KerygntiJ Petri, in CLDtENT. Slrom. 6.S. 39.3: ARIS"nDES.I&po/. 1.4-S (Syriac): JusnN.Dia/. 127.2;ATMENAOORAS.IAR. 10.1. 16. William R. ScHoEDEL. "'Topological Theology and some Monislic T~nds in Gnoslicisnf". Essays 011 IN NtJB HtllfllltlJdi Te~t.s ;,. HOIIDIU of AlamtMr Biilrlig (ed. Manin Krause: Nad Hammadi Studie5 J; Uidcn, 1972) 88-108. 17. Cr. Ekkehard Mmn.ENIERG. Die Urwndlici!Uit Gone.s lwi G~pry WM Ny6MJ (GCiuingen. 1966) 178-83.
78
WILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL
quency of the view in the Corpus H~rmeticum that the cosmos or God encloses all things (11.18-20; 16.12; Exc. 6.3; 14.1; 15.1; 23.7, 48; Frg. 26) suggests the inevitability of its appeal to Gnostics. The problem that this language raised for dualistic Gnosticism is. obvious. and it was exploited 10 the full by lrenaeus in the second book of his work Adversus haereses. lrcnaeus, who strongly advocates lhe fonnula ''enclosing, not enclosed'' (the verb isconlinere orcircumcon.tinere -that is, 11EQLtx,nv)1•, first attacks Gnostic lheology on the assumption that its two gods are outside each other. The main points are as follows: (I) If there is more than one Fulness or God. he is no longer the Fulness: he will lack what is beyond him; morever he will have ''beginning, middle, and end" with respect to those beyond him and will be limited and enclosed by tbem (2.1.2; cf. 2.1.5). (2) Again, if there is something outside the Fulness. either (a) lhe Fulness will enclose it (apparently by definition) yet be enclosed by it (since there is a Fulness outside tbe first Fulness), or (b) if they are separated by an immense distance. there will be a third kind of thing that separates them and encloses them; mo~over. if it is assumed that this third thing is itself limited, the process will go on ad infinitum (2.1.3-4). This argumentation shows the influence of a stream of ideas reflected most clearly in the Pseudo-Aristotelian. De Melissa, Xenophane, Gorgia (first century A.D. according to Diels) wbere tbe thought of Xenophanes and the Eleatic philosophers are inextricably mixed. First. it should be observed that lrenaeus is leading up to a description of the divine being (Adv. luJer. 2.13.3; 2.13.8) modelled on Xenophanes' "One" of whom it is said, "All of him sees, all thinks, and all bears" (Frg. 24; cf. De Me/isso 3, 977a 36; Diogenes Laenes 9.19)- that is, he is undifferentiated thmughout111. The ancient opponent of polytheism
18. Bruno REYNDERS.l.l:riqw comptui dut~:rt~ Gr« ~I des ~Tsicms l.aliM, Amv· ni~nM ~~ SyTiGqJU th I'AtJw,sw HtuT~s~s de Sointl~nft (Corpus Scriptorum Chrislia· norumOricntalium 141-42;Louvain.I9S4) 1.87;2.52.68. 19. The formulation is not unknown clscwhe~ in the early chun:h. In OT«. Sib. 8.284-28!5 it is applied lO God as the cf9lor. Mo~ comple1. and iniC~Siing ror our purposes is lhc conncclion bccween il and lhe description of God as enclosing cveryahing (cf. CLEMENT. Strom. 7.2, S.S;E,nostos 73.6-11; HILARY,lh Trillit. 2.6; Trwt. suptr psalm. 118.19.8: 129.3: AMBROSE,!h,/itk 1.16.106). JumN (Dial. 127.2)andTHEOPHI· LUS (Ad Aut. 2.3} offer what look like Bibli.:izcd versions or the same lhouglu (God secs and hcan alllhinp) -lhough a similar modifacalion in OT«. Sib. 8.282 finds its bcs1 parallel inOrplr. Hyn~~~. 64.8. Pagan iniC~SI inlhe formula iscemplifiCdbyPuNv.Nm. lUst. 2.!5.14 (apinsl polytheism).
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF 000
79
is pressed into service against Gnostic dualisls who. as lrenaeus sees it, are led into enur by thinking too anthropomorphically (2.13.3-4)20. lrenaeus' description of God as ''altogether like himself' (lotus ipse sibimet similis) also reflects language especially characlerictic of the Eleatic theology". Second. the argumentation ilself reflects feaiUres of the Eleatic rejection of the many. Xenophanes (like lrenaeus) begins by ruling out the possibility of two or more gods by definilion: God. to be God. must ''rule and not be ruled"" (3. 977a 27)- observe that this is a reasonably close parallel to the fonnula "enclosing. not enclosed"22 - which leaves no room for more than one. "For if there were two or more, he would no longer be mightiest and best of all"" (3. 977a 24)". Again. both Melissus (I. 974a 11) and Xenophanes (3. 977b 6) were understood to argue that if the One is lhus supreme (or infinile. in the case of Melissus) another existent would set limits to it (:n:E{KlLVElv de; or :n:QOc; or ~ome such expression bulks large in the discussion) and thus negate ils supremacy (cf. Melissus. Frgs. 5-6). Moreover. having beginning. middle, end is regarded as the mark of something finile in lhis context (3, 977b 4: see also Melissus. Frgs. 2-4, where reference is made to beginning and end and where these lemporal categories acquire spacial significance)z.t. lrenaeus • second set of arguments reflects the same atmosphere. The contradiclion involved in the firsl alternative of thinking of a being which both encloses and is enclosed reflects the mental habits of one exposed to an argument like that of Xenophanes according to which if God were not everywhere alike. the pans of God would both rule and be ruled by one another. "which is impossible"" (3. 977a 38). The second
20. Philo probably harks back to Xenophanes too when he says (against Stoic and Epiclm:an views of divinity) lhal God is "like (6!AOLOV) nolhing of things in crution" (SOIM. 1.184-185; cf. XENOPHANES. Frg. 23; DIOOENES l.AERTES9.19). Otherwise Philo
shows no special interest in this Pft·Socndic philosopher. 21. PARMENIDES. frg. 8.22; Mclissus, in lH M~lisso I. 974a 13; 974a 1.5; 974b 8; OIOOENESl.AERTES9.24: XENOPHANES. in!H M~lis:so 3. 977a 37: 9T7b I. 22. For the close ~lalion bcl:ween :ru:pLtxuv and ~epdv in ~Ievant contnts see PHit.o.A~t.IIUUid. 106; 114:ATHENAOORAS.Ltg. 8.5;1'MmPtm.us.AdAMI. 1.4;AD.\MAN. nus.Dial. 3.12. 23. Tcrtullian (Adv. Marc. 1.3) also argues ap1ns1 MudoniiC dualism from lhe definition ofQod as sup~me. 24. Cf. G.S. KIRKandJ.E. RAVEN. 7Jit'Pusocrt1lkl'llilo&opllln (CambridF, 1957) 301.
KO
WILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL
alternative takes us fanherafield. One feature ofMelissus' argument for the sole existence of the One is that the many would have to be separated by the void (a possibility which he rejectsl"': Zeno's pa111dox (Frg. 3) that a plurality would have to be both limited and unlimited relies in part on the point that there would always have to be something ''belwcen .. the entities and so on ad i'!finitum (cf. Frg. I); and elsewhere Zeno argued that ''if everything real is in a place, then there will be a place of the place and soanad infinitum" (Aristotle, Phys. 4.1, 209a23)21. The parallels with lrenaeus are not exact here but they are close enough to leave little doubt about the tradition at work. Irenaeus' use of such arguments shows that he is nearer lhe conclusions of Melissus (lhat the One is infinite) than of Parmenides and Zeno (that the One is a limited sphere sunounded by absolutely nothing) or of Xenophanes (that the One is neither infinite nor limited: De Melisso 3, 977b 3; cf. Clement, Strom. 2.2. 6.1-3: Allogenes 67.1-4). Thus a teaching, more or less heretical in the classical tradition. enters the mainstream of theological thought. lrenaeus' Gnostic opponents were not unaffected by such arguments. Some, we learn from lrenaeus, were prepared to grant that God contains all; and they went on to argue that talk of things within and without the Fulness have only to do with knowledge of God or the lack of it and that the (evil) creation is within the All like a center in a circle or a spot in a garment27. lrenaeus wonders how in that event defect and error can be within God(Adv. haer. 2.4.3; 2.5.3: 2.8.2)orhow things in God can he ignorant of his existence - though lrenaeus himself takes it for granted (like Philo) that creatures cannot know God's essence•. The Gnosticizing Teachings ofSilvanus gives us some clues as to how Gnostic monism presented its case21. The Gospel ofTruth, however, is
25. Leon ROBIN.GruA: ThOMglrl (lr. M.R. Dobie; New York. 1928)96·7. Cf. MELIS· sus, Frg. 7.7. (reflecredinfkM~lisso 1,947a IS);ARISTOTl.E.Degen. rlco". 1.8.325a
2.
26. AriSiode (Phys. 3.4, 203b20) gives as a founh argument advanced by some in favor of rhe infinile that ''there cannot be a limil if one rhing must always te1 limits lo another (:n:EQOLVElv ... hEQOY HQOc; fnpov) ''. An ad irljinirum argument seems implied. AriSiotle is probably rhinking ofMelissus. 27. Adv.luur. 2.2.2-3; 2.4.2; 2.5.1-3: ~.8.2-3; 2.13.6: 2.3 1.1. Norc especially 2.5.2 whe~ l~naeus explicirly uys that "certain of them" advance this line of argumenr. 28.Adv.lflur2.6.1;cf. Philo,Sp«. leg. l.32:Pon. Cain. 168-169. 29. Sec note 16.
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD
81
probably an even more direct witness to such a theology. To be sure. ''the All'' which is said to be in the Father yet ignorantofhimconsistsof the Aeons30. And the maeit (tmtOI., places?) mentioned in connection with .. Him who encloses every place, whereas there is nothing that encloses him'', seem connected in some way with the aeons31. Yet the line between Aeons and human beings is fluid in our gospel. Gnostics. in fact, appear to be regarded as fallen Aeons32. And statements about the restoration of the All or the Aeons merge imperceptibly with remarks that have a direct bearing on life in this world (cf. 18.29-19.27; 20.14-23.18; 23.33-24.28). No doubt a literal understanding of what it would mean for a spiritual being to exist in the Father would be inappropriate. Yet there is scant evidence that even matter, after it had been produced from the anguish of the All and the labor of Error (17.10-21) was in any sense ellpelled. In one passage, the redeemed Aeons and/or Gnostics who are in the Father are in turn said to devour matter in themselves (25.15-16). In shon, it seems likely that the refonnulation of Valentinian doctrine in our gospel reflects the monistic interpretation of the Gnostic myth mentioned by Irenaeus. We are not surprised to find. then, that cosmologicallanguage frequently takes on marked epistemological significance (18.7-11; 22.27-29; 24.29-32; 25.10-25; 27.22-23)33. It also coheres with this interpretation that two figures of great importance in the dualistic mythology ofValentinianism - Sophia and the Demiurge - have disappeared from the scene><. On any reading of the Gospel ofTruth, the Father emerges in an unexpectedly impressive way as the ground of existence of all things35.
11. TRANSCENDENCE
Echoes of lrenaeus' critique of Gnostic cosmology continue to be heard in the early church. Methodius' debate with Valentinianism about
30. Sasagu ARAI. Die Cllristologie des tvangelilllfl Veriltllis (l.cidcn, 1964) 46. Cr. EPIPHANIUS.Pan. 31.5.3. 31. 22.25-27; cf. 20.22. 35: 22.22: 25.10; 26.15; 27.10. 25: 28.11:42.8. 32. A.J.AJ.CIIrUtologie, 52, 57, 59. 33. AKAr.Chrinologie, 60. 34. ARAI. Cllristologir, 34. 53-4. 3S.ARAI.CIIrinologie, 61.
WILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL
God and matter covers a somewhat different range of alternatives. but especially with his argument againsltwo unoriginaled subslances (God and maner. if separated, require something that separates them ... and so on ad infinitum) we are on familiar ground (De autexous. 5.1-5)•. Adamant ius' anack on the existence of two unoriginated substances ..of infinite greatness'' first poinls out the contradiction involved in positing two substances that must be everywhere and then argues that if they are separated. they must he limited and have a beginning and end (Dial. 2. I; 3.13)31. In another passage he takes up (in the manneroflrenaeus) the unfonunate implications of the admission of his Gnostic opponent that God contains everything (Dial. 3. 12). Mani. on the other hand, is made to insist in the Acta Archelai 16 ( 14) that God cannot fill everything and to reject the idea that there is no ''place·· outside of him. John of Damascus still makes much ofthe fact that Mani's theology implies not only that God is ''in a place" and "enclosed". but also chat the enclosing place is ilself circumscribed (Disp. cum Man. 2, PG 96. 1321C). A much earlier passage - Athenagoras. Leg. 8 (directed against polytheism rather than Gnosticism)- apparently has somewhat diffe· rent affinities. The apologist argues that ''ifthere aretwoormore gods''. they are either (a) in one and the same category and (i) similar (but in that event, says Athenagoras, they would have to be individuals derived from a model) or (ii) dissimilar (forming a composite unity); or (b) they are distinct beings who. however, (i) cannot be in or around our world (which is ruled by the creator)or(ii) inoramundanotherworld(among other things because the second god would have little power and no place to sland since the creator ''fills'' everything). Now the arguments of Xenophanes in De Melisso (3, 977a 24) can be schematized as follows; "if there are two or more" (gods), either (a) each is supreme, or (b) 1hey are superior to one another in different respects, or (c) they are equal. And the finttwo of these could plausibly be seen as answering to Athenagoras' arguments (a) (i) and (ii). Moreover, Athenagoras • point (b) depends heavily on Xenophanes' argument by defini-
36. Cf. A1HANASJUS (COIIIrtl pnus 7) who also men 10 the lhird lhinslhal must be invoked 10 sepuW: the two sods ofMartion. 37. Cf. 0uooRY OFNAZIANZUS, 'l'hlol. or. 4.18; Bcina: is limillld "neither by thlt bcftn it nor thal after it".
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD
83
tion which we have already discussed•. But there is a complication. Proclus in his commentary on Plato's TimtJew argues in favorofthe one Animal of Timt~eus 31 A (the world of Ideas) on the grounds that if there were more than one, either (a) each would have all things. or (b) one would have all, one nol all that one would be a pan. the other a whole"). or (c) neither would have all. Thai is so close to lhe three alternatives in Xenophanes thal there must be a connection between the two traditions. The point to be made here. however. is that Athenagoras echoes the Platonic criticism of the first alternative (OOth Plato and Proclus argue lhat there would have to be a prototype for two like entities) and seems closer to Proclus also on the second alternative. Another imponant passage - this time from Gregory of Nazianzus, Theol. or. 2. I0 - is too complex to analyze here. It shows acquaintance with many of the arguments about place already encountered. lis novelty is that not only does it profess to spell out the significance of God's immateriality, bul also lhat it exempts from difficulties none of the traditional language about God enClosing all things. This is taken by Gregory as an illustration of God's unknowability- a point which is upheld here against Eunomius who can make a case for Arian Christology only if words like generate and ingenerate can be taken to reveal the nature of God and Christ. Gregory feels compelled to improve on Plato and to say that it is impossible- not simply difficult- to know God as he is (2.4). And in a line of thought that goes back through Clement (Srrom. 2.2. 6.1-3) to Philo (Post. Cain. 13-16) and on to Gregory of Nyssa (Vit. Mos. 86.12 Musurillo; PG 44. 3760). he assens that all we can know of God is his unknowability- or more precisely. his WtEtQia or infinity (Or. 45.3). It was Gregory of Nyssa who gave such thoughts their definitive expression in Greek theology•. In his hands, t~ discussion of God's place became associated with the clearest statement of the dislinction between the creator and his creatures. the unknowability of God in his essence .a. and the precedence of faith over knowledge (Contra Eun. 2.92-93. PG 45. 9418). Such themes are associated inGregory not only
c·so
38 Cf. AlHANASIUS(CtHUrtJ prrle;r 6) who also appeals (against Man:ionllc aualism)to lhe sinsle fact thal God "fills" everything as he embrxes heaven and earth. 39. MUHLENBUO,Ole UMrtdlicltUitGontl. 40. CONraEIMI. 2.67-70,PG45. 9J2C;cf.COIIIrGEIUI. 1.168-17J,PG4S. JOJC;Vit. Mm. 4.3 MDSurillo. PG 44. JOIA.
WILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL
with a rejection of Eunomian rationalism but also with. his effon to avoid difficulties inherited from Origenism. In particular, God's infinity has as its corollary the strictly endless ascent of man to God- a doctrine which avoids the Origenistic teaching of the fall of pure spirils lhrough ··satiety" and all the queslionable consequences that flow from it 41 • Origen 's interpretation of the formula ·'containing, nol contained'' and his thoroughly Hellenic delimitation of God's power (De princ. 2.9.1; 4.4.8) is decisively overcome. lt appears thal Gregory's proof of God's illimilabiliry looks to yet a different philosophical model. His teaching (Vit. Mos. 115.9 Musurillo; PG 44. 4048C) that ''ifthe divine is conceived of in any limil, then that after the limil must be thought of along wilh it'' and that whal is limited must come to resl in something of a different kind (ds hEQOYEVEs k:Otai..Tjynv) like fish in water or birds in air (with a surface. tnupavda between)- all this and more is derived from arguments made by Stoics such as Cleomedes against Aristotle's denial of the existence of a void outside the cosmos (Cieomedes, De motu 1.1.5-8). Cleomedes uses precisely such terms in defending the Stoic teaching that there is an infinite void beyond the world and enclosing it42. Cleomedes holds that the void has a certain substantial existence even though he regards the conception of it as .. most simple" and insisls that the void has no maleriality whatever (I .1.4). What Gregory has done is to apply arguments about lhe infinite void to God himself. lt would seem that the Stoic view had the advantage of permitting more clearly than previously a distinction between the finite cosmos and the infinite God. It was left to Maximus the Confessor in Greek theology to return directly to Aristotle's discussion of place, to reexamine it, and to show (at least to his satisfaction) that it is precisely the uncircumscribed and the infinite that is unmoved and that creation oul of nolhing is the corollary of such infinity (Ambig. lib .• PG 91. 11808-11888).
41. Ronald E. HEINE. P~r/ection in IM Virtuous l.if~ (Pattistic Monograph Series 2: Philadelphia, 1975). 42. According toCieomedes, the cosmos itself is limited and encloses all bodies within
it(l.l.l).
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD
85
Ill. IMMANENCE
From the earliest period. the term ''enclosing .. served to express not only transcendence but also imfl18.nence. Philo more than once couples .. enclosing" with "filling" or "pervading" in his description of God's
relationtotheworld(Conf.ling. 136;ug.alleg. 1.44;Post.Cain.l4). In this connection he introduces the imponant distinction between God as transcendent (that is. enclosing all. in the proper senst of the tenn) according to his nature or essence and God as immanent according to his
power and goodness (Migr. Abr. 182). Such themes were laler taken over into Christian theology 43 and were naturally extended to include the theme of incarnation. The idea that the One Containing became the One Contained was obviously more sharply paradoxical than anything found in Philo. And. as is lo be expected. it expressed itself with least reservations in the naiver theologies and in modalism.w. Elsewhere various qualifications were made, aild one observes a tendency to treat the incarnation as the supreme instance of the presence of God in the world45. However qualified, the theme of incarnation powerfully reinforced the unwillingness of Christian theologians to permit a doctrine of God's transcendence to negate the possibility of revelation and the manifestation of the divine in time and space"'. 43. Cf. AntANASIUS. Ep . • dlcut. Nic. 11: EPIPHANIUS./'an. 70.7: GltEOORY OF NAZIANZUS. Tlwol. or. 5.29; OIDYMUS.!ktrirtil. 2.6.2;THEOOOAET./n£ucll. 3: 12:CYRIL OFALEXANDRIA./nJo. COMm. 11.9(17.13): P5EUDO-MACARIUS.£kwri.IMN.8. 44. Cf. Marro. Frg. 13; PIUch.lwm. 5.37-38; HIPPOLYTUSor Psf.uoo-HII'POLYTUS. Ptuch. 3; HIPPOLYTUS.Rq: 9.10.9·10: AntANASIUS,Ouynod. 26.7. 45. EusEBIUS.lhm. rvtJ/18· 4.6:0eud. IMol. 2.17.128; AntANASIUS.Oeincamat. wrb. 17;GREOORYOFNYSSA.Oral. cakch. 10; 14; /n Christ. asuns .. PG 46. 693A. 46. Augus~inc's use of the fonnu1a "containing, not contained" deserves sepame treatment and can only be touched on he~. Among the imponant passages dcVOied 10 the theme is the opcnina discussion of God's being in thc:Ctmfrssion ( 1.2.2-1.3.3;d. 1.6.7; 1.18.28; 3.7.12; 5.2.2; 5.10.20; 6.3.4; 6.4.5: 7.1.1-2: 7.5.7: 7.15.21: 7.20.26: 10.26.26: 12. 7.1; 12.27.37: 13.11.12). One oflhe norcwonhy fcaru~s of Augusaine's discussion is the enrichmc:nl of lhe ''enclosing. no1 enclosed'' fonnula with the tcaching that God is ''p~aenteverywhe~ in hiscotality.(lolu.rubiqwf'. R.J. O'Conncll (''Enncad VI, 4 and 5 in lhe Works of SI. AugllSiinc'', R~vw•s~lul'ksiUIRWlini~nMs. 911963) 1-39) has argued pcrsuuively for a Plolinian source for this complex of motifs. At the same lime, Augustine's discussion may also have been ~infoltcd by lhe dcvelopcment of the· 'enc:lofing, not enclosed" fonnula in lhe chun::h. especially as il was used apinllllhc: dualism of the Gnoslics (cf. Conf 5.10.20). Tbe~ may also have been some c:onncdton between Xcnopllancs' view of the One as "like every way" (n:G\rtn 6pmov. or. as Jreueus has it. lotrU ipH sibilrwr similis; see note 21) and Plotinus' r~~~R sophisticated
86
WILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL
We may well ask. then. whether the Biblical model of God as actor was not more alive in the development that we have sketched than may appear at first sight. We have noted the tendency to interpret the polarity of finite and infinite in terms of creatures and creator. Moreover, it was the Gnostics more than any others who exploited the mystical possibili-
ties of talk of God's infinily and ineffability. The Hellenistic Jewish view. developed by the chun::h fathers. that God though unkoowable in his essence communicates hi,nselfthrough his works. may well depend
on an awareness that ·'interpersonal knowledge depends on the oth~r· s acts and not simply our observation. that is, on something intrinsically inacessible to us, something that we cannot at will make accessible''47.
leaching that the One is tonu ltlbiqw. 11 is particularly inlriping 10 find thal Hilary U&CS a fonn of the lotus ubiqw fonnula in contexts closely ~laled to those with which we have been dealing: Semper exlla locum. quia non continclur Dcus alllem et ubique ~~ IOtiU
ubicumqwcst(Ch Trinit. 2.6); Noncorporalibus locis DeusCOI'IIinctur... Adcstubiqwn lotus llbicumqw CSI (Trtld. supw PSGim. 118.19.8); Ileus aurem, qui et ubiqw et in omnibus est, totus audit, IOius vidcl, IOIUS, eff~eit, 101us incedit ... Ileus ergollbiqw estn llbiclllfttiW adest. audit. vidct. cff~eit(Tract.superPMJbrr. 129.3; noccalsolheclcarecho in lhis lw passage ofXenopllanes' insistancc: that the One hears and secs and acts in his lollalily). 47. Gonion D. KAUFMAN.GodtlwProbkm(Cambridge, 1972)74. cr.G.L. PltE.mGE, GodinPatristicTIICNiglu(London. 1936) 1-24.
RICHARD NORRJS
THE TRANSCENDENCE AND FREEDOM OF GOD : IRENAEUS, THE GREEit TRADmON AND GNOSTICISM
lrenaeus of Lyons unquestionably falls into the category of early Christian writers whose thought has not been neglected. The texts of Ad••ersus haereses and of the Demons/ratio have been pored over with immense care. Scholars have turned to lrenaeus not merely for his historical interest. but also because there are certain aspects of his thought which seem to 1ouch responsive chords in the minds of contem-
porary theologians. In consequence. there have been anicles or monographs dealing, directly or indirectly. with many sides. and corners. of his leaching: his idea of history. his anthropology. his eucharistic theology (supposing, of course. that he had one in any but a Pickwickian
sense of the term). his eKegetical methods. his views about tradition. his place in the formation of the New Testament canon ... and so on. Panicular and special attention has been paid to the several aspects of his understanding of the pen.on and work of Christ, and to his use of the idea of recapitulation. There is nothing to complain about in all this. lrenaeus. after all. wa~~; in spite of. or perhaps because of. the broadness and frequent imprecision of his theological brush, the creator of an unusually influential theological synthesis: one which had the double advantage of being relatively clear in its outlines and at the same time fuzzy in ils details, so that those who followed him could manage at once to be persuaded of his essential rightness. and to sit loose 10 his panicular nolions on any given subject. One might almost write the history of Christian thought in the late second and third cen~uries as a series of essays in the reconsideration a11d correction of Irenarus. the man who. in ways which were alternately embanassing and irritating to more learned and perceptive souls. had summed up lhe proponions and drift of ordinary (one hesita-
RR
RICHARD NORRIS
tes for various reasons to say ''catholic'')Christianity in a lime of crisis. And such being the case. it would be hard to complain about the amount of scholarly attention which has been accorded him. On the other hand, there is perhaps ground for some complainl about the foci of scholarly attenlion to lrenaeus. lt is a notorious problem for any son of historical study thal scholars tend to lake their own interests and questions to their sources. and to notice in the sources whatever
most nearly corresponds to their own agenda. So long as this procedure serves in the upshot to illuminate the object of their study. it affords no ground for captious criticism or for despair of the historian's ''objecti-
vity''. Nevertheless. the very fact that it is habitually and inevitably employed provides reason for a constant questioning of lhe scope and focus of any historical inquiry. And in the case of Irenaeus there is at least one matter which seems to have been unduly neglected. lt seems apparent from litenuy-crilical consideration of the Adversus haereses1, lhal lrenaeus originally conlemplated a work in two books. The first was to be his'' detection''. and the second, his ''refutation'' of the .. falsely-named ·gnosis"". The last throe books thus represent something of an expansion of the work as originally contemplated. It is, therefore, a matter of some inlerest to detennine what it was that Irenaeus set about doing in his initial and unexpanded effort to deal with his Ptolemaean Gnostic adversaries. What was the issue to which he turned immediately, as the central matter at stake in the controversy with Gnosticism? The opening of lhe second Book makes the answer to this question quite clear. Having stated the purpose of lhe Book (to "'ovenurn their entire system by taking up its principal topics·· (Adv. ha
I. Sec. fore11.ample. A. BENOIT, SGintl~nir: llllrotluclimtli Ntwk (Paris. t960). 1551.
de~e~
thiologir
THE TRANSCENDENCE AND FREEDOM OF GOD
89
throughout all five books of the Adversus htJereses2. But more important, perhaps. for present purposes is the fact that the question of God preoccupies almost the whole of book 2. Having taken up this ''first and most central topic'· in chapter I, he finds it almost impossible to relinquish consideration of it, and only in great haste. towards the end of the book. manages to get around to dealing with the other ''absurdities'' in the system of his opponents. It is difficult. therefore. not to suppose that for lrenaeus the question of a doctrine of God. of theology in the strict and nanuw sense. is the primary and most crucial issue at stake in his confrontation with the Gnostics. Yet for all that. his attempts to deal with this problem have not met with much scholarly attention: and it may be the case that this neglect of lrenaeus' central concern has a tendency to introduce a serious distonion into contemporary appreciations and criticisms of his work. This essay. accordingly, will sketch an approach to lrenaeus' teaching about God and the transcendence of God, dwelling for the most pan on some of the mauerofbook 2. but at the same time alluding to the connections of this material with lrenaeus' treatments. in later books. of other. and to us more familiar. themes.
It is necessary to observe, to begin with. that from cenain points of view the relative neglect of this theme in lrenaeus' theology is entirely understandable. There are serious and significant obstacles, not merely to a critical understanding of his position on the doctrine of God. bul even to a ~ognition that he has a position which is his own and not merely the repetition of what looks like catechetical commonplaces. We must begin, therefore, by indentifying these difficulties: for their analysis constitutes in itself something of a step on the way lo our goal. The first two concern what one might call the intellectual .. style'' of book 2 of Adversus haereses: the third concerns a verbal srnokescreen which ln::naeus. no doubt unwittingly. throws up around his teaching. In book 2. as has been pointed out by several students3, lrenaeus
2. See. roreumple,A.b.ltur. 3.1.2;3.9.1;4.1.1;4.2.1. 3. See A. BDIOI"T,Sailfllrirli~. S1[
RICHARD NORRIS
rather fancies himself a logician, though in a somewhat rhetorical style. He makes intenninable. and not always very credible. use of the device of the dilemma". in order to reduce the Gnostic position to the absurdity to which he thinks it comes in the end. In 1he process he conlrives to make of book 2 something of a logical and rbetorical molllSs, through which il is not easy to pick one's way. In consequence. it is all too simple for the student to imagine lhat the positions which lrcnaeus develops in book 2 are as convoluted and obscure as the intellectual style in which he sets them out. That this is not necessarily the case- that there may be real and significant subslance to an ill-contrived argument -is a point which need scarcely be made in the abstracl. Nevertheless it is not in practice a natural or easy business to set about extracting from a difficult and rather inept series of arguments the substance which the author means to convey through Ihem; and this fact constitutes a real- if in pan psychological- barrier lo serious analysis ofthe doctrine of God which Irenaeus proposes in book 2 of Adversus haereses. This difficulty. however. concerns what is, after all, merely a matter of fonn: but there is another more serious difficulty which arises from the very substance of what Jrenaeus argues in book 2. There can, as Sagnard clearly established•. be lilt le doubt that lrenaeus had a fairly direct first-hand acquaintance with the teachings of at leasl one Gnostic school; and by the same token. there can he little doubt that he is on the whole honest in his presentation of its teachings. Hones1y, however, is no guarantee of accuracy, or of perfect understanding, or for that matter of absence of bias; and one thing which the argument of book 2 makes quite clear is that lrenaeus is cheerfully uncenain how to apply or use the word ''God'' within the framework of the Ptolemaean system. From the manner in which he opens his discussion, it would appear that he supposed the Demiurge to represent, as it were, the truncated equivalent within the Gnostic myth of what he means by "God". The primum et nu:uimum capitulum, we have seen him say, is 41! dl!miwgo deo; and one gets the impression that he conceives-it to be his business to defend the honor of a maligned Creator. No sooner, however, does he begin serious argument, than it becomes apparent that he has shifted his
4. See. forcxample,Adv. IIMr. 2.1.!5; 2.2.2.; 2.4.1. S. F.-M. SAGNARD. La Grw. ~ ~~ ~ ,._.,... 12 Sllilll /Mth
(Paris. t947) 82ff.
THE TRANSCENDENCE AND FREEDOM OF GOD
91
ground. The question of God, it now seems, is not properly raised by discussing the Demiurge. Rather it arises only as one considers the Gnostic idea of the pleromae. This. lrenaeus seems to think. is the real locus of divinity within the Gnostic system; and he proceeds. according· ly. to explain what a correct conceplion of the meaning of "God" might be by pointing out the inadequacies of the Ptolemaean understand· ing of pleroma. Following this argument along. the reader gradually becomes convinced that lrenaeus has settled in and is pursuing a more or less consistent course. This impression, however, is in its turn dispelled when lrenaeus begins to consider the problems raised by the way in which the Aeons of the pleromo. come to be7. At that point, he begins intennittently to talk as though the proper denotation of ''God" in the myth is neither the Demiurge nor the pleromo. as such. but the unknown ground and origin of both. the ineffable Pro-pater. Now of course it might plausibly be argued that these shifts in the tenns of lrenaeus' argument reflect no more rhan the ambiguities of the Gnostic myth itself; and cenainly the indecision and lack of clarity which his polemic reveals are equally observable in modem discussions of Gnostic thought. lt may be the case that in the Valenlinianism oflhe Ptolemaean syslem there is, in the strictest sense. no equivalenl of what lrenaeus wants to mean by' 'God''. Nevenheless lrenaeus himself does not notice this fact. if it is a fact; nor does he organize his discussion in such a way as to suggest that he has grasped it implicitly. Rather he lets the several different possibilities be taken in turn as correct, according as each one seems to serve the purposes oft he point he currently wishes to make. The result is not merely that he exhibils uncenainty about the meaning of the system he is attacking, but also that the contours of his own position are obscured by the successive shiftings of his ground. In describing or interpreting his position, therefore, it becomes necessary to abstract somewhat from his characterizations of the Gnostic idea of God, and to lel his own formulations speak for themselves- that is, to understand them, not in terms of the view he opposes, but in terms of the position he himself finally reaches. A third difficulty, however, creates problems for the interpreler which are even more troublesome than this. Here it is a question of the language which lrenaeus himself elects to use to characterize the nature 6. This shift occurs in the very first chapter of book 2. 7. SeeAdv.luur. 2. I. S.
RICHARD NORRIS
of God. lt hardly needs to be pointed out that in his discussions of this problem he regularly employs as key concepts in his arguments tenns which have, to the trained ear. a very familiar ring indeed. God is innatus -agennetos. As one would expect, therefore, he is also semper idem, elemally self-identical. and impassibilis, not subject to detennination by enlities outside himself. He is by consequence also simple in nalure- not composed of pans. or. in the nice expression of the Latin version. similimembrius. Above all, he is beyond human grasp: invisible, incomprehensible. and ununerable (inennarabilis = a"etos). One could go on wilh such a list of epithels; but the point is plain. These are terms whose use is reminiscenl of any number of other philosophical and theological writings of the time. from Plutarch and Albinus. through Philo, to the Gnostics themselves: and the scholar who cOmes across them in Jrenaeus immediately experiences the son of interior illumination and relief which appean only when a problem can be defined methodologically as a question of sources. If you want to understand what lrenaeus is saying about God, get at the origins of the terms he employs. This son of counsel is more often than not a very sound one: and at first glance it seems to promise help in the case of lrenaeus. For are not these terms in current use with the Gnostics themselves; and might it not be useful to test the hypothesis thal Irenaeus' conception of God is influenced directly by the one he is opposing'? Of course there is an immediate objection to this proposal. The same tenns are current in the diffused and eclectic Platonism of the time - in which. moreover. they may have slightly different meanings than those which they have in the context of a Gnostic system. (The ''incomprehensibility'' of God. for example. seems to signify something quite different for Albinus (Epitome 10.4) than it does for Ptolemy and his disciples.) So why not look for lrenaeus' sources in that quaner'? But then the same language also occurs in earlier Christian writers with whom lreiJaeus seems to have some acquaintance. There is Justin. for example; or one might mention Theophilus of Antioch. How does one choose'? This problem. however, which might be discussed with profit even if it were not finally resolved, ignores a funher factor: while Irenaeus is quick to take over words and ideas from other people. he is equally quick to employ them in expanded. or contracted, or slightly skew senses. One cannot often gather what Irenaeus means by understanding what his "source'" meant by the same son of language. His use of
THE TRANSCENDENCE AND FREEDOM OF GOD
93
anakephaiDioo and its derivatives is a shining example of this type of procedure; and indeed so is the content of the concept of genesis as he develops it in Adv. haer. 4.38.1. The fact is that Irenaeus is not always very good at accurate use of someone else's ideas. He garners and employs notions for what they mean to him, or what he can make of them. Consequently- and quite a pan from the question whether one can in fact detennine with reasonable cenainty the sources of Irenaeus' theolo· gicallanguage- it is dangerous to let his use of a familiar set oftenns deceive one into supposing that he knows what they ought to mean, or that he employs them with an understanding of all the presuppositions and consequences which they nonnally entail. It would be convenient if one could deal with the question of lrenaeus' notion of God simply by noting that he employs moSt of the philosophical commonplaces of his time: but they might turn out to be a smoke·screen. The best policy is to catch lrenaeus as he pursues his own interests and questions. and then 10 see what he makes of this language - or rather. what becomes of it in the setting of his polemic.
11 But where can one catch lrenaeus thus 'pursuing his own interest' in regard to the doctrine of God? Here, for purposes of a brief discussion, one must obviously make some choices. What will be anempted here is a development of the connections and implications of two ideas or images as lrenaeus uses them- images which will suggest some of the themes which govern and infonn his understanding of God. The two ideas in question are adumbrated by Irenaeus in a summary passage at the end of the fiBt chapter of book 2. He is employing, as one might expect, his technique of the dilemma, and sening out what he regards as two exclusive alternatives only one of which can possibly be considered correct by a reasonable man. The "correct" alternative he states as follows: ''There must ... be one Being who includes and contains everything there is, and who made as his very own each of the things that has come into being, according as he willed" (Adv. haer. 2. 1.5). The wrong - that is. as l"'naeus for the purposes of his argument sees it, the Gnostic- alternative is lhat of a multiplicity of mutually limiting principles, ''linle creators" (factorrs) as it were:
94
RICHARD NORRIS
"multos ... et indeterminatos factores et deos ab invicem quidem incipientes. ad invicem autem desinentes per omnem partem". This alternative. he asserts. is simply imJXJssible, because no such principle could reasonably be called "God". and because. as he puts it. "the title
'omnipotent' would disappear'' (so/vetur omnipotentis appellatio) (Adv. hoer. 2.1.5). I am not concerned here to defend lrenaeus' implicil characterization of the Gnostic position in lhis passage: nor, for that matter. to defend the validity of his argument- which of course depends on the truth of his conviction thal the two allematives stated are indeed exclusive. Rather the value of the passage lies in its identification of what for lrenaeus are two-1 almost said. and half believe. the two-essential anddefinilive characteristics of the divine nature: that it "contains everything". and that it is understood in tenns of power. Moreover, I want to suggest thal lrenaeus' development of these themes- that is, the chain of associations and arguments by which he shows their implications for him exhibits that they have a clear connection with other elements in his theological p:Jsition. 'consider first the idea that God "contains everything". It is clear from the context in which this turn of speech first appears that lrenaeus connects it in his mind with the idea of pleroma. ''fulness ··. Indeed, it appears that for him il defines more or less euctly what the idea of the pleroma properly meanss. This meaning, however. is twofold, corresponding 10 a nice ambiguity in the sense of the expression "contains everything" - an ambiguity which lrenaeus obviously regards as proper. useful, and significant. The first thing, of course, which is implied by the proposition that God. aspleroma, ·'contains everything'', is that there is nothing outside him. He encompasses all things within the sphere of his being. In at least one passage, Irenaeus seems to say that this divine containing of all things can be understood spatially, in a way not unlike that in which the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De mundo (397b20-35. 389bi-IO) characterizes the relation of the divine sphere of being to the lower sectors of the world~rder. Thus lrenaeus asserts that God is "in summis ~t super coelos" (Adv. haer. 2.6.3), "in the heights and above the heavens".
8. No doubt this fact panly explains why it is ttw lrenaeus perreives the toW
assemblage of Aeons as the functional Valentinian equivalent of God.
THE TRANSCENDENCE AND FREEDOM OF GOD
95
The divine is a distant, celestial kind of being, whose power is aptly compared, for this reason, with that of the Roman emperor. ''Shall not people who live under the rule of the Romans-even though they have never laid eyes on the emperor, but are widely separated from him both by land and by the sea- be aware. because of the dominion which he exercises, of this man who has the highest power of the principate'!'' (Adv. haer. 2.6.2). The suggestion isthatGod.liketheemperor. is from the point of view of most creatures, located somewhere else, even though his power is always present and felt. lt seems uncertain, however. whether this comparison represents a serious idea of Irenaeus. or a handy illustra.tion which he seized upon to make the point that even a presumptively distant God (like that of the Gnostics) cannot really manage to remain unknown to his ra.tional creatures, since, if he is all-encompassing. his power and presence must extend to all. Certainly one implication. as lrenaeus sees it, of the idea that God as pleroma ''contains everything'' is lhal the idea of a cosmic hierarchy. and thus of intennediaries between .a distant God and the lower orders of creation, is superfluous. This point, however, emerges more clearly in Irenaeus' understanding of the power of God. What the fact that there is nothing "outside" or "away from" God signifies for Irenaeus is primarily the impossibility of limiting God, of setting bounds to him. For him, the notion that the pleromD of things constitutes only one plane or level of existence is incredible. If it does not "contain everything''. it is limited externally; and if it is limited externally, one can hardly suppose that it qualifies as divine. The way in which Irenaeus presses this argument suggests his serious dissatisfaction with any conception which dallies with the idea of the divine as a distinguishable sector of reality. God for him, one might say, is the inclusive context of the world; but neither a first principle co-ordinate with the world, nor a ''highest" reality within it. Anyone who takes the latter position must in fact, by lrenaeus' standards, be at least tacitly thinking of the world order itself as God. since it is the truly inclusive reality. The fact that God is pleroma, however, and thus ''contains eve· rything'', implies still more for lrenaeus. He is baffled by the Gnostic myth which populates the p/.roma with Aeons generated (apporontly) as separate individuals. or separate pairs. from Bythus. If Deity is '"fulness ••, if it includes all things in the sense that it has no external limit, then neither can it be limited within itself by the existence of
96
RICHARD NORRIS
grades and divisions and distinction. God ''contains everything'' in the sense that he is all things simply and uniquely and in a preeminent way. 11 is to make this point that lrenaeus three times t appeals or alludes to a
passage from Xenophanes which had come down in lhe doxographic lradition. God is at once simple. and uncompounded. and alike in all his parts. and as a whole both equal to himself and like himself. since he is entirely mind, and entirely spirit, and entirely understanding, and
entirely thought, and entirely reason. and entirely hearing, and entirely seeing. and entirely light. and entirely the source of all good things ... (Adv. haer. 2.13.3). The exlemal unlimiledness of God requires his internal unlimitedness and inclusiveness, and thus his simplicily and uniqueness. This too is part of what is implied by his ··containing all things''. But God's inclusiveness (which is perhaps a more useful English tenn for this characteristic of God) means also that his power and influence extend equally to all; and this brings us to the second of the notes of the divine nature on which lrenaeus centers his attention: namely. God's power- his responsibility and his freedom. lrenaeus frequently argues that God's indusiveness puts all things ''in suis'', ''among his possessions'', or perhaps ''within his scope'', and that this in turn implies his direct and positive responsibility for them. This responsibility is direct in the sense that even when God employs. or seems to employ. intermediaries, it is ultimately and in the last resort always he who is the author of things and events:·· ... we do not say that it was lhe axe which felled the tree or the saw which cut it; but one might quite properly say that the man did the felling and cutting ... '' (Adv. haer. 2.2.3)- and so in the case of God. lrenaeus expands this argument into a polemic against any son of mediation in the creative and providential work of God. by dwelling further on the sufficiency of the power of the all-inclusive God. As his power is di~t in the sense that it extends uniformly to all things, so it is sufficient in the sense that ''being in need of nothing. the God of all established and made everything by his Word; nor did he need angels to assist him with the making of created things, nor any power distinctly inferior to himself. .. '' (Adv. lul~r. 2.2.4.) This theme is taken up in other sections of Adversus lultr~sts: 9. AI.Ath.lt«r. 2.13.3, 2.13.8, ud 2.28.4.
THE TRANSCENDENCE AND FREEDOM OF GOD
97
God's power is such thal ''he does nol require other insuuments for the establishment of the things which are made"(Adv. haer. 4.20.1). His Word is sufficienl. Thus it is with this theme of the power of the all-inclusive God that Jrenaeus associates his doctrine- transmitted in at least segments of the tradition he had received- of creation ex nihilo. This doctrine. as he sees it, assens the most obvious consequence of the ideas of the sufficiency and inclusiveness of God's power. There is nothing which falls outside its scope, and lherefore it alone is the eJLplanalion, not merely of the ''what'' of things, but of their very existence. What there is, is there because God wills it. and for no other reason. Such a conception naturally excludes any notion of a preeJListent or resistant matter which God fonns. just as it eJLcludes any notion that "lhe way things aR'' can be accounted for by appealing to the operation of agenls inferior 10 God. Matter itself. and all agents other than God. fall in suis. within lhe scope of his power. and theRfore lhe only way of understanding the givenness of the world is by appealing to the God whose direct responsibility and sufficient power make him its sole ground. The understanding of the inclusiveness and 1herefore power of God - his ultimate authority. and hence ultimate responsibility- is immediately connected in lrenaeus' thought with another theme which is central to his whole theology. God is suae potestatis (a Latin phrase which I am inclined to think renden lhe Greek autexousios) and hence liber (Adv. haer. 2.5.4.). He is, that is to say. in control of what he himself does and therefore free. This conception is most often expressed simply by allusion to the will or the decision by which God creates and governs things. He makes up his mind how things are 10 be and go, and thal is the way it happens. This freedom of God. however. is an aspecl of his power. It is, for lrenaeus, emphatically a freedom in relation to the world-order which God creates. The Gnostics, or so it seemed to our author, make God the slave of necessity or (what comes to the same thing) of nature. The divine will is, on this view of the maner. somehow subject to or expressive of the structures of things; and God himself. in consequence. is merely one factor. even if the highest. in an order which includes and surpasses him. For lrenaeus, on the contrary. it is God who ··contains all things'', and nature is what he makes it to be. He is free in reference to his creation, autexDILfios- 'self-propelled'. perhaps- in relation to it.
98
RICHARD NORRIS
Ill Now the significance of this way of developing and under.itanding Ihe idea of God is not difficult ro assess. either from the point of view of
what is characteristic of it in distinction from nonnal understandings of God in lrenaeus' time. or from the point of view of its significance for the rest of his thought. In the first place. it needs to be said that in spite of his failure to
express or conceptualize in a clear fashion the Gnostic concept of God, his own doctrine of God is obvious directed against a view of which we can discern the outlines even if lrenaeus himself was not aware of doing so. Or put it another way. There is. in the series of rather muddled
arguments by means of which Irenaeus develops his picture of God, an implicit (but only implicit) characterization or diagnosis of the error of Gnosticism. The interesting fact is, however, that this diagnosis turns out to take a somewhat surprising form. lrenaeus does not. in the last reson. fix on dualism. or the extravagances of mythology, as the root problem in Gnostic thought. In book 2. where he is discussing what for him is the primum et maximum capitulum of the Gnostic system, his real problem with the Gnostics turns out to be their apparent substitution of nature for God. What his argument comes to is the conclusion that in the Ptolemaean system there is no God in the proper sense of that tenn. There are cosmic powers of one son or another; but all of these do their work in accordance with the way they are constituted - in accordance with what they are and with the way in which they are properly related to other beings or levels of being within the cosmic system. What is supreme, then, in the Ptolemaean vision of things is not God, but the nature of things - the system whose givenness and unalterability is represented by the Depth and the Silence which are its ground. In other words, the Gnostics seem, as lrenaeus secs the matter, to make some impersonal framework of things the supreme reality: and their position therefore turns out in the end to be necessitarian (Adv. luur. 1.7.5.). There is of course no reason to suppose that the Gnostics saw their position in this light. This view of their ideas, which seems implicit in lrenaeus' development of his own doctrine of God, is after all a diagnosis, not a description; and the diagnosis may have been wrong. What it does explain is lrenaeus' constant recurrence, throughout Adversus haereses, to his own first principle: that of the ultimacy of the free and
THE TRANSCENDENCE AND FREEDOM OF GOD
99
all-inclusive Creator God. This is the principle that one sets against the idea that the ultimate meaning of things is simply their given makeup. Thus lrenaeus. with his rather individual interpretation of pleroma, insists that the converse is rather true. It is God who, as personal will, is ultimate; and world ornalure require to be understand in relation to him. Consequently,lrenaeus is permanently uncomfortable with hierarchical conceptions of the way things are. because notions of hierarchy seem to set everything. but especially God himself. within an over-arching order, rather than to envisage him as the source of order. By the same token Irenaeus is dissatisfied wilh portrayals of the working of God which interpose rnediatorial beings between him and the world of eanhlings, because this too relalivizes God. and fails to grasp him as what I have called 'the conte"t' - perhaps one might bener say 'the immediate conte"t' - of all things. It is lhis fact. no doubt, which explains the gingerly fashion in which lrenaeus treats the Logosdoclrine which was handed down to him by some of his 'orthodo"' predecessors. The language of that doclrine can be found in lrenaeus; but its substance is essentially missing from his thought. He wants above all to prove himself faithful to lradilion; but he has become naturally suspicious of mediatorial beings. This attempl of lrenaeus' lo reconceive the idea of God, no matter how inchoately it is carried out in his polemic against the Gnostics, reveals its effects in olher aspects of his theology. For one thing, the idea of God's freedom, his authority over nalure to, is a key nolion in Irenaeus' portrayal of the meaning of redemption, that is, ofthe shape of human history with God. Like Origen laler, but in a deeper and more thorough going way, Irenaeus detects in Gnosticism a tendency to conceive redemption as little more than the reassenion of the unchanging natural struclures of the cosmos: i.e., as a maner of nalure or even of necessity. He himself. however, proposes to envisage it as the continual transformation of the given world(Adv. Mer. 4.38.3), which is not a static and inviolable order. but on the contrary a creature of the all-inclusive God, subject to the purposes implicit in his creation of it,
and open to the fulfilment of them. And this last point is the essential one. lrenaeus' assertion of the freedom of the all-encompassing God leads, or contributes, to a reconJO.SeeR.M.GL\Hr,MinfcletlltdNIIIIIIVIII.4JwiiiGrtJ«
100
RICHARD NORRIS
ception of humanity and the world of human history. As 'crealure'. the
world of human experience is intrinsically finite. Its finitude, however. does not consist in an incapacity, a mere inferiority to the 'higher' world. Rather. its finitude consists in a potentiality: an openness lo the purpose of the Creator. lrenaeus' doctrine of God, therefore. opens the way for his idea of a creative history of God with humanity. which looks to the finishing and completion of humanity's creation through its elevation to a new quality of life: and iri this conception there lies implicit the ground of Irenaeus' doctrine of recapitulation. lt is by his insistence on the ultimacy, the inclusiveness, and the immediate power of the one Creator God that Irenaeus makes room for his picture of a changing world-order within which significanl groWih. and hence redemption. can occur.
MARCEL SIMON FROM GREEK HAIRESIS TO CHRISTIAN HERESY
In the introduction to his classical study, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Waiter Bauer summarizes the view of the early church on the historical relation between orthodoxy and heresy as follows : "The development takes place in the following sequence: unbelief (Unglaube). righl belief (Rechtglaube), wrong belief (lrrglaube}. There is scarcely the faintest nolion anywhere that unbelief might be changed direcdy into what the church calls false belief. No, where there is heresy. orthodoxy must have preceded 1 . " lt is of course true that many writers in the early church assumed that heresy. in comparison to orthodoxy. is (and can only be) a secondary phenomenon. Orthodoxy constitutes the pure tradition as handed down by successive generations in an unbroken line from the authentic Gospel of Jesus and his Apostles. We should note. however. that according to this scheme. the priority of trulh to error appear.. only from the moment lhat Chrisl began to preach. In a larger sense. heresy can sometimes claim- and certain ecclesiastical writers have acknowledged this- a higher antiquity than onhodoxy. When Hegesippus, cited by Eusebius ( Hist. eccl. 4. 22.5), attributes to.a cenain Thebouthis the responsibility for first dishonoring the virgin church by his false opinions:he is in line with the scheme suggested by Bauer. Nevenheless, the rool of error. in his view. is to be found at a lime prior to the establishment of the church. Hegesippus·found it in the seven Jewish sects which he mentions in this same context and from which he regards Thebouthis himself as having come. It seems out of place to apply lhe tenn Ung/Qube (unbelieO to
I. Wailer BAUER. Ordtotltu;y ONl Heresy;,. Ear~Un Clrristimtily, ttans. R.A. Knit and G. Krodel (Pbiladelphill, 1977) u:iii.
102
MARCEL SIMON
these groups, since this term. according to Bauer. applies to the fina stage in the religious development of mankind as the early church sees it. Since lhe sects mentioned by Hegesippus were Jewish, not pagan, they necessarily possessed a fragment of the truth. and. in lhe words of the Epistle to the Hebrews. at least "a shadow of the good things to come'' We can suppose that in using the word hairesis for Jewish sects Hegesippus already gave it the pejorative sense that it assumed in early Christian usage. If so, we would be speaking of seven deformations of authentic Judaism and lhe question arises where one should look for authentic Judaism. What school of thought in Israel represented it? In this view /rrg/aube (wrong belieO would cenainly be present, in its Jewish fonn, at the beginning of an evolution which passes through orthodoxy and ends finally in Christian heresy. In fact. lhe orthodox stage that Theboulhis experienced was not always present. There were probably cases when a dissident Christian sect sprang directly from a marginal Jewish group without any other identifying mark than simple adherence lo Jesus as Messiah. This seems evident- as I have shown in other writings2 - at least in the case of the pre-Christian Nasaraeans (NaaaQO(OL) described by Epiphanius (Hoer. 18) who are carefully distinguished from the Jewish-Christian Nazoraeans (Na~OJ(Kii:OL). The chief characteristics of the fanner appear point for point. with only the addition of faith in Christ. in the Judeo-Christian sect of the Ebionites as described by Epiphanius (Haer. 30). who were also responsible for the Pseudo-Clementine writings in their earliest fonn. The Pseudo-Clementines propose a relation between lruth and error that is the inverse of the one Bauer attributed to the entire ancient church. "First. ignorance, then knowledge ... Just as in the beginning God. who is one, made first the heavens and then the earth as things set (so to speak) on the right and the left. so also he created all the syzygies. But for men this is not the case since the order of all lhe syzygies is inverted: while it is the first works of God which are superior and the second ones which are inferior, we see the contrary to be lrue of men; the first things are inferior, the second ones are superior" (Hom. Clem. 2.15). Cain comes before Abel, lshmael before lsaac, Esau before Jacob, Aaron before Moses. "From this order of succession one can 2. M. SIMON.St. St~pMn and tM H~lknUts in tM Primitive Chwd (London, 1958) 91-94; SIMON,Jrwish Sects ill du Tim~of JesiU (Philadclphill, 1967) 103-105.
FROM GREEK HAIRESIS TO CHRISTIAN HERESY
IOJ
undenitand the allegiance of Simon, who came first before me (Peter) to the nations. and to whom it is that I give allegiance, I who came after him and succeeded him like light succeeds darkness, knowledge ignorance, and healing sickness. A false gospel preached by an impostor must first come and only then should the true gospel be sent abroad secretly to redress future heresies" CHom. Clem. 2.17). The latter are in direct continuity with the heresy of the impostor Simon. and it is the onhodox preaching which comes in course of time to break. but only for the initiated, the continuity of error3. A similar scheme is found in Hippolytus who wishes to tr.ace Christian heresies not to the Jewish sects but to the Greek philosophical schools and. in a larger sense. to pre-Christian systems of pagan thought. "We should not ignore any of the fables of human invention renowned by the Greeks. For their inconsistent doctrines deserve consideration because of the extreme folly of the heretics ... To justify their enterprise the latter have derived nothing from Holy Scripture or from the traditions of any holy person; they have extracted the principles of their doctrines from the wisdom and philosophical systems of the Greeks. on the one hand, and from the systems in vogue and the aberrations of astrologers. on the other. The best procedure is. first. to explain the doctrines of the Greek philosophers and then show our readers that 1hey are older than those of the heretics and then show that Greek philosophical ideas about the divine are more noble than the heretical notions ... " (Ref. I. pro/. /). "To succeed in their enterprise. the founders ofa heresy begin by borrowing the principles ofa philosopher. Then, from these principles, and focussing on the errors contained in them, they constitute their own system ... " (Ref. I. prol. 8.-9). ''like someone patching old clolhes. they reamnge the various errors of the ancients in their own way and present them as new
doctrines" (Ref. 5.6.3). Hippolytus, then, proposes a process of gradual degeneration. But this process does not include the hiatus which in the scheme of Hegesippus intervenes between the Jewish heresies and the Christian heresies J. Simon (who is only a SII11W-man for Paul in the Pseudo-Clementines) appears, at least as a fisure in Christian history. in the Acts of the Apostles only after the apostles begin lo pruch. The leAl. however. emphasizes that he had alrady pmc~iccd magic 1n Samaria bc:fon: the arrival of Philip. Eusebil.tl (HUt. «Cl. 2.13.14) tcknowledps lhal Simon was in Rome prior to Peter. Earty Christian writers art: unanimous in seeing him. not Theboul:his, "as the falher of all heresy <mimJs QoxrryOy alc!faewi;)"(Hin. eccl. 2.13.61.
104
MARCEL SIMON
namely. the preaching of Jesus and his disciples. The degeneration. beginning with systems of thought which are already enoneous. but which are nevenheless more acceptable than lheir end producl, continues uninterrupted here. lt is not clear whelher Hippolytus- and (as we have seen) Heg.esippus- already gives a pejorative coloring to the term hairesis when he applies it to pre-Christian systems of 1hought. We would be inclined to think so since 1hese Greek ''heresies''- themselves already corruptin spite of rheir superiorily in some respecls, are the source of lhe Christian heresies. We know thatlhe term in its original sense carried no value judgment. h simply meant. according to its etymology. ''choice''. and specifically lhe choice of embracing a panicular school of thought. There could be in the Greek. as well as in the Jewish view. depending on the point of view of the speaker. good and bad heresies. But. in principle. they are neither good nor bad, since there existed no universally recognized criterion of authority by which to classify them in two opposing categories and to distinguish truth from error. lsidon: of Seville accurately underscores this primary sense of the tenn: "Hairesis in Greek takes its meaning from 'choice', because in fact everyone chooses something as his own which appea~ bener to him. as. for example. lhe Peripalelic philosopheB..... (Etymo/. 8.3.1.). He judiciously distinguishes from this initial sense the one that Christian usage gave to the word: ''Or as otheni who. because they believed false leaching. will fully left lhe church"" (Etymol. 8.3.1 ). The criterion here is confonnity or opposition to the nonns fixed by the authority of the chun=h. lsidon: differs from Hegesippus or Hippolytus in that he apparently does 1101 relate the second category of heresies to the first. Indeed. his judgment on this first category is quite positive: error cannot derive directly from what contains even a particle of truth since it is based on a choice made by each one in his soul. As long as the revelation of the scriptures, interpreted correctly by the orthodox tradition. had not come to guide minds by furnishing a criterion of judgment, diversity of opinions(doxai) is nonnal in the universal search for truth. For, as Plato says, ''no one willingly goes after evil or what he thinks to be evil" (Protag. 358c). On lhe basis oflhis principle Man:us Aurelius founded four chairs of philosophy in Athens. one for each of the great • 'sects''Platonists, Aristotelians, Epicureans, and Stoics4 • 4. H.l. MARROU,A HistoryofEduaJlioninAruiqllity (New York, 19S6)40S.
FROM GREEK HAIRESIS TO CHRISTIAN HERESY
105
The same point of view can be found in Josephus the Jew. He applied the term hairesis to the great currents of thought and practice among the Jews- Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and even Zealots (Ant. 13.5.9; 18.1.2: Bell. Jud. 2.8.14). In his time. they comprised the chiefpanies in Paleslinian Judaism. Although he does not hide his personal preferences for the Essenes and rhe Pharisees. he describes them all in the same terms. Wirhoul a universally recognized authorily to fi"' nonns- the Sanhedrin itself was divided between Sadducees and Pharisees- and as long as the fundamental beliefs ofthe.Jews (the unity of God. election of Israel. the sacredness of the Law) are respected, a cenain amount of diversily is to be expected. Thus there is place for different sects (haireseis). An identical point of view appears in the Acts of the Apostles. Here the author refers to the sect (luJiresis) of the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and even of the ChriSiians (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5; 24:5: 28:22). it isthe Jews who in the two last instances are supposed to apply the tenn hairesis to the Nazarenes of whom Paul is considered the leader, and the vehemence with which they denounce the group suggests that the word has a different nuance here than it bore in common usage up to that time. Note the context. In his defense before the Roman governor Paul declares: ''I am a follower of the new way (the 'sect' they speakoO. and it is in that manner that I worship rhe God of ourfalhers'' (Acts 24: 14)5. Two interpretations are possible here. Either the Jews, contesling the term ··Way·· ('I'J600~) which seems to claim for Christianity an absolute and unique character, insist that Christianity is but one sect among many; or. contrariwise. the term hairesis has lost its neutral sense and has already taken on the coloring that the church will give it later. The second interpretation receives some suppon from an interesting passage in Justin which uses a similar e"'pression. Answering Trypho. in a discussion concerning ''the other God.''. he defends himself against the charge that he professes what the Jews call "the heresy" (Dial. Tryph. 62.3). Different suggestions have been made about the idenuty of this presumed sect which seems. based on the context, to have given the angels a role in the work of creation. But identification is difficult. 5." A linJe lalcr: Paul, using the customary_ tenninology
or G~k speaking Jews,
~lares befu~ Agnp,-: "I belonged to the slnctest sroup (hair~:si.r) in our religion; 1
hvcd as a Pharisee" (Acts 26:5).
106
MARCEL SIMON
However. when this passa~. written in the middle of the second century. is compared wilh 1he passage in Acts. il seems that 1he 1enn hairrsis has undergone in Judaism an evolulion identical to, and parallel with. the one it underwenl in Christianity. This is no doubt due to the triumph of Pharisaism which. after the catastrophe of70 C .E .• established precise nonns of onhodoJLy unknown in Israel before that lime. Pharisaism had been one heresy among: many: now it is identified with authentic Judaism and the tenn hairrsis. now. given a pejonllive sense. designates anylhing lhat deviates from lhc Pharisaic way. Almost simultaneously. lhe notion of orthodoxy becomes established in the lwo rival religions. On the Jewish side the 1uming: point was marked by the insertion of lhe birkath-ha-minim ("'blessing of lhc minim'') in the liturgy of the synagogue (ea. 8()..95 A.D. ). On the Christian side. the development is not so sharply defined. Here there was a gradual development and the rapidity by which onhodoxy was established differed among the various Christian groups. 1t is noteworthy that Justin. in the text cited above (Dial. 62.3. ). is aware of only one Jewish heresys. I would be inclined to think that in this case hairesis is the translation of the Hebrew minuth and that Justin by insening the definite anicle before the tenn has arbitrarily narrowed. indeed. altered the sense of the tenn. In common usage it is more comprehensive and would include all doctrinal as well as ritual deviations. In the anicle on hairesis in Kittel's Theological Dictionary ofthe New Testament (I. 182-3). H. Schlier says that the concept of hairesis was suspect fmm the beginning in the church because it designated. as the technical tenn applied to Greek philosophical schools and to Judaism. groups which are either non-Christian or outside of the true church. In Schlier's view ecclesia and hairesis are fundamentally opposed to one another. But this view must be modified somewhat if not entirely revised. For the primitive sense of the term heresy appears from time to time in the usage of early Christian writers. In the Greek text of what is known as the Edict of Milan. cited by Eusebius, the emperors say that they ''invited the Christians to preserve the faith of their sect andoflheir religion" (Hist. -eccl. 10.5.2). It is of course expected thal an official document would retain the neutral sense of lhe term hairesis. It is. 6. This is all the more so since in Dial. 80.4 he enumerates seven hcraical groups. including the Pharisees. whom Justin does 1101 consider authentic: Jews. Sec M. SIMON. "Lcs scc:tes juives d'apft:s les ttmoignages palristiques". Stilt& Patri111ica I (Bertin. 1957)S26-539.
FROM GREEK HAIRESIS TO CHRISTIAN HERESY
107
however. much more interesting to observe that within the church. even as late as the third century. the tenn is sometimes employed in this way. Celsus. cited by Origen. criticizes Christianity because almost since its beginning it has splintered into many different sects (hair~s~is) which repudiate each other. This argument of Celsus had already been used by lrenaeus but only against dissidents(Adv. haer. 1.9.4: 3.12.7.) since naturally he treats the "great church'' separately as the one and only depository of truth. Much later. in the seventeenth century. the same argument was used by Bossuet in his Histoir~ d~s variations d~s iglises Protestantes. The common axiom of these author.. is that the multiplicity of diverse and contradictory opinions proves that these opinions are all erroneous. The use made of this same argumen1 by I he sceptics is well known: in the face of the inevitable disagreements among philosophers on every question they thought the only appropriate response was to suspend judgment. But Origen' s response to Celsus is remarkably different. He offer... in some respects. an apology for heresy: ··Any teachiilg which haS had a serious origin, and is beneficial to life. has given rise to different sects (hair~s~is)" (Contra C~lsum 3.12; cf. 2.27; 5.61). In support of this thesis he invokes the existence of numerous medical schools among the Greeks as well as among the barbarians. lt was. in Origen's view. inevitable that sects ari~ irr Christianity "not at all on account of factions and love of strife, but because several learned men made a serious auempt to under..tand the doctrines of Christianity··. Consequently the existence of Christian sects is what one would expect. and their existence is useful. Just as the practice of both medicine and philosophy presupposes a choice that is based on an adequate knowledge of different schools, so also "it is necessary to have looked carefully into the sects of Judaism and Christianity to become a Christian of deep learning" (Contra C~lsum 3.13). Origen only abandons to his adversaries sects such as the Ophites and the Cainites who "do not share with us even the name of Jesus''. One could not. in his vie.w. point to these sects in good faith in support ofCelsus's argument, since they are outside of Christianity. The others, however. have their raison d' err~ in that they help to discriminate between true and false Christianity. H. Schlier mentions this passage from Origen but he takes it to mean that Origen deviates from the position commonly accepted in the church from the beginning. i.e. Origen sees no contradiction between the
lOS
MARCEL SIMON
concepr. of heresy and of the church. But to say this is to forget that Origen suppons his argument by quoting the familiar words of Paul: '"Dissensions are necessary if only to show which of your members are sound'' (I Cor 11: 19). One might object that Origen reads his meaning inlo the text since he suggests lhal wilhin the Christian communities perception of the tnllh will always be the resull of a choice between' conflicting anitudes. though not necessarily false or evil altitudes: whereas for Paul such divergences are judged to be an evil. revealing the weakness of human nature. and an: vfluable o~ly as a test forsoning oul
the good from the bad. The same argument. however. based on the same passage from Paul. had appeared already in Clemenl of Alexandria. To those who objected to Christianity on the basis of the multiplicity of sects he responded: ''Bolh among lhc Jews and among the .most approved of the Greek philosophers. lhere have been mullitudcs of sects, yel of course you do not say 1ha1 one should hesitate 10 be a philosopher or a follower of the Jews on account of the internal discord of those sects" (Strom. 7. 15.89). To which he adds. before introducing a comparison with medical schools: "The seed of heresy is sown upon the truth''. lt appears lhat Clement. like Origen. already finds the same opposition between ''heresies·· (in lhe sense of false teachings) and truth in pagan philosophy as well as in Judaism. Nolhing. at leasl in lhe conlexl. suggests that his last slatement. which he borrowed from the parable of the wheat and the lares. was limiled to Christianily. On lhe pagan side. then. as well as on the Jewish side. there are good and bad haireseis. Among the many errors there is at leasl a glimpse of the trulh which announces in some way the perfect lruth ofChristianily. This idea fully agrees with what is the general opinion of the church fathers. The Logos, which is one. prepared the way for the one church. "The Law and the prophets were given to the barbarians. and philosophy to the Greeks. to accustom lheir ears to the kerygma" ($1rom. 6.6.44). When applied to Christian secls. the tenn hairesis for Cleq1en1 has its usual pejoralive sense; but when speaking of philosophers in general or of cenain specific schools it does not have this sense. "Since il is said lhat the Greeks have also taught certain things com:ctly. it is permissible to seek truth from them" (Strom. I. 19. 91). "The Word, as if to draw a comparison between philosophers and those called heretics. says very clearly. •A close friend is worth more than a far-off brother' .. (Strom. 1.19.95; cf. Prov 27: 10). Pagan philosophers are, it seems. more to be
FROM GREEK HAIRESIS TO CHRISTIAN HERESY
IOQ
valued than Christian heretics. This is the same opinion as that of Hippolytus. No doubt Clement was thinking of pagan philosophical schools which he values when he presents the church as the best school. i.e .. hairesis. ''One must be taught from the Scriptures themselves how the heretical schools went astray. and how it is only in the true and ancient chun:h that there is the most exact knowledge and the really best school of thought (hairesis)" (Strom. 1. 15.92). We should also nore that in the oldest Christian writings the tenn hair~sis does not necessarily have the.. sense of doctrinal deviation. In addition to I Cor 11: 19 (cired above) hairesis appears in the catalogue of vices in Gal 5:20 alongside of lu.xootaaiaL (dissensions): "Anyone can see the kind of behavior that belongs to the lower nature: fomica· tion. impurily, and indecenCy; idolatry and son:ery; quarn:ls. a contentious temper. envy. fits of rage, selfish ambitions, dissensions. party intrigues (haireseis), and jealousies ... The cause of lhese divisions is not necessarily to be found in points of doctrine: it may be simply a matter of personal rivalries and matters of prestige and boner. The pejorative coloring. however, is clear. In the later books of the New Testament and in certain passages from the Apostolic Fathers this pejorative sense becomes more pronounced without always identifying the aberrations as strictly doctrinal. In Titus 3:10 we read. ''A heretic shQuld be warned once, and once again; afler that have done with him''. Here the initiative to break with the chun:h does not proceed from this ·'wayward sinner'' but from rhe ecclesiastical authority: there seems to be some fonn of e"communication but il is motivated primarily by a moral or disciplinary failing. Also in lhe Shepherd of Hemi/Js (Similitudes 9.23.5) the word haimis, judging by the conte"t· only designates rhose who are guilty of vengefulness toward those who have wronged someone. The tenn here deviales from its original sense in two ways: it bears 11 pejorative sense but il designales a moral, not a doclrinal fault, and is for that reason, not properly a hairesis. On the other hand, 2 Peler 2: I denOunces the "false teachers" ('IJEt.t6o6..000kaAoL) who introduce "disastrous heresies··. This same sense. a specifically Christian one, also appears in lgnatius of Antioch. He praises the Ephesians for their good order in God because "all live according to the truth and no her<:sy lives among them" (Eph 6:2). He urges the Trallians .. to use only Christian food and abstain from every strange plant, which is heresy''. The heretics ••mingle Jesus Christ with
110
MARCEL SIMON
themselves. feigning faith, providing something like a deadly drug with honeyed wine. which the ignorant man gladly takes with pleasure ••
(Trail. 6: I ). From the time of lgnalius the sense of the term is defined and the first treatises on heresy will appear in the not too distant future7. One would like to know if the Christian use of the tenn luliresis in the pejorative sense has any antecedents in pagan usage and whether a philosopher would have used the label hairesis for the teachings of an adversary which he considered enoneous. To my knowledge no text allows such a conclusion. On the contrary. it seems (to judge from a curious passage in Diogenes Laertius) that the tennhairesis can be used for praise and for that reason cannot be applied indiscriminately to any system of thinking. The term is reserved for those systems which meet certain criteria. as Diogenes indicates. ··As to Ihe Pyrrhonians. so indefinite are lheirconclusions that hardly any authorities allow them to be a hairesis,· some allow their claim in cenain respecls. but not in othen. It would seem, however. that they are aluJiresis, for we use the tenn of those who in their attitude to appearance follow or seem to follow some principle; and on this ground we should be justified in calling the Sceptics a hairesis. Bul if we understand by hairesis a bias in favor of coherent positive doctrines. they could no longer be called a hairesis. for 'they have no posilive doctrines" (Vit. phi/os., introd ; trans. R.D. Hicks, Loeb). This text echoes a polemic having to do with the Sceptics and their onponents where the Sceptics claim the character of a hairesis and othen contest the claim. There is a clear echo of such a controversy in Sexrus Empiricus. himself a Sceptic, who responded to the question as to whether the
Sceptics had a doctrine (d fx£L alpEOlV). First note the expression • 'to have a hairesis'' where the tenn hairesis no longer designates the choice but the result of the choice, i.e. the content of the teaching, the
nonn for both thought and conduct. Sextus responds as follows: ''For if one defines luliresis as adherence to a number of dogmas which are dependent both on one anal her and on appearances. and defines dogmas as assent to a non-evident proposition, then we shall say that it is 1101 a hairesis. But if one defines hairesis as procedure which, in accordance with appearance, follows a cenain line of reasoning, that reasoning
7. The tenn/talnsU ..,.an often in Juslia: Apol. 1.26.8; Dltll. 11.1; 3S.3; Sl.2;
tOI.l.
FROM GREEK HAIRESIS TO CHRISTIAN HERESY
Ill
indicating how it is possible to seem to live rightly (the word rightly being taken. not as referring to vinue only. but in a wider sense) and tending to enable one to suspend judgment. then we say that he has a doctrinal rule. For we follow a line of reasoning which. in accordance with appearances. points us to a life confonnable to the customs of our country and its laws and institutions, and to our own instinctive feelings" Pyrrhon. hypotyp. I. 16; tnms. R.G. Bury. Loeb). It is evident that the Sceptics. as represented by Sextus Empiricus, wanted to be recognized as having the character of a hairesis. The tenn carried with it a kind of prestige. To profess a hairesis, i.e. a coherent and aniculated doctrine founded on principles grounded in reason, demonstrates that one is intellectually alen, fitted for reflection and philosophical discussion. Whatever the nature of this hairesis, to profess it is to belong to an intellectual elite and to be spiritually superior to other men. Something of this altitude appears clearly, as we have seen, in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. It is not surprising. then. that the epithet hairelikos came to designate not only a partisan for a sChool of whatever kind. but. more specifically, one who is capable of a right choice (Ps. Plato. Definil. 412a). This is exactly the opposite of the nonnal Christian meaning of the term. If we look for possible pagan antecedents of the Christian notion of heresy. they are to be found fn the history not of the tennhairesis but of another term destined to play a remarkable role in the vocabulary of the Christian tradition - a word that will become a synonym for heresy: heterodoxy. In its initial sense the terms hEQOOOI;ia - hEQOOoi;Ew meant the act of mistaking one thing for another. Plato. in whose writings the word is first attested. refused to identify a judgment that mistakes one thing for another (tO heQObof;ELv) with a false opinion (ool;av 1j>EU&j) !Theaet. 190e). Such an identification can only be accepted in cenain cases: for instance·. ''as the sight is affected when we use a minor and the sight as it flows makes a change from right to left, and thus makes a mistake. it is in such cases, then. that interchanged opinion occurs and the fonning of false opinion arises" (Theael. /9Jc, trans. Fowler. Loeb). In the same Platonic treatisecillo&>~iahas the same sense. (Theael. 189b-c). Thus. there can only be false judgment when the process of reasoning confirms an enor made by the senses. Parallel to this sense of the term heterodo~ia there is yet another sense used particularly for the adjective h.rerodo.tos. H.rerodo.tos can designate a difference of opinion and is used as the opposite of homodo~os.
112
MARCEL SIMON
Lucian. for example. writes: ''No doubt. says Pamphilus. the philosophers were bickering aboul their doctrines. as usual, being of different
sects? (heterodoxoif'. To which lycinus replies. ''Not at all: this was something different, for they were of rhe same sect (homodoxoi) and agreed in their doctrines'' (Eunuch 2: trans. Hannon, loeb). One can easily distinguish the process by which helerodoxia and heterodoxos came to be burdened with pejoralive ovenones. Of course in Platonic usage heterodoxia has such connotations from the beginning. i.e. in the situation in which heterodoxia and doxa pseudes were equated. The latter 1101ion is of coune opposed to dDZIJ onh• (Philebus lib). Similarly. when heterodoxos is opposed tohomodoxos. this difference will be seen by opponents as designating each other's enor. For lhis reason heterodoxia could easily become. as in Platonic usage. identical with pseudodoxia (false opinion). This development occurred in some of the earliest Christian writings. e.g. in the pastoral epistles and in lgnatius of Antioch. as we have already nOled. I Timothy I :3 exhons its recipient not ''to leach different doctrines"" (heterodidasluJiein} and laler calls such a peB<>n a "pompous ignoramus'' (I Tim 6:3). lgnatius warns the Magnesians (8: I) not to themselves be seduced by foreign doctrines (het.rodoxiais). and to the Smymaeans he says : ''Observe well those who hold heterodo• views aboul the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us- how opplsite they are to God's purpose" (Smyr 6:2). And he warns Polycarp: "Do not let those who seem plausible but teach strange doctrine (heterodidaskiJiountts) buffet you" IPolycarp 3: 1). The evolution of the terms hairesis and heterodoxia to an unmistakably (indeed. exclusively) pejorative sense. happened at approximately the same time as a parallel phenomenon. When Athanasius. for example. speaks of "heterodo• heresy".
FROM GREEK
HAIRE,.~S
TO CHRISTIAN HERESY
113
tenn is unclear since Eusebius is speaking not about a matter of doctrine but abour differences in liturgical practice. The issue centcni more about the authoritarian temperament of Victor who confused unity and uniformity rather than on a point of dogma. On the other hand. when Eusebius remarks that after the passing of the apostolic generation ''godless error began to appear through the deceit of false teachers, heterodidoslulloi''. it is clear that he means heretics even before he characterizes them as those who ''attempted to counter the preaching of the truth by preaching tbe knowledge falsely so called" (Hist. eccl. 3.28.8). Elsewhere. Eusebius cites Dionysius of Alexandria as follows: ''Those who came over from the heretical sects ... those who were reponed as regular pupils of some heterodox teacher... they expelled them from the church" (His/. ~eel. 7.7.4). The opposite of h~t~rodoxio is no longer. as was the case in Greek philosophical usage, homodoxio, but rather orthodo.tia. After castigating false teachers. panicularly the gnostics for their lies, Eusebius declares that lrenaeus and Clement of Alexandria are wonhy of confidence ''since they were ambassadors of the onhodoxy of the church" (Hist. eccl. 3.2).2).
Conclusion The analysis of the tenns hair~sis and heterodo.titJ has attempted to clarify the process by which the tenns were transfonned from the general meaning they had in the Roman world to the distinctively Christian usage. Eventually. as we have seen, htJir~sis and h~terodo.ritJ became synonymous. They both designate whatever diverges from the authentic position of the chun:h. However, if such an evolution is easily understandable in the case of heterodo.titJ, it is somewhat more difficult to understand in the case of hairesis. Christian writers in antiquity seem to have been aware of this semantic problem; at least this is what the differences in viewpoint on the question of the historical origin of heresies seem to indicate. The viewpoints ofHegesippus, Hippulytus, the Pseudo-Clementines are, a!. we have seen, distinctly different, at times even contradiclory. But at least they haYC in common a concern to show that heresy, though it pretends to be Christian, has its origin elsewhere. lt makes no difference whether this source is prior to the apostolic age, or as Ignat ius
114
MARCEL SIMON
thought. that il results from an unnatural amalgamation of certain elements of the true gospel and of false teachings. Whether there is a direcllink with a pre-Christian system ofthoughl. ora contamination by beliefs which were historically cotenninous wilh Christianity. or the most common view in the early church. that heresy was a lalerdistortion of the message of Jesus. the verdict on heresy remains. in spile of these differences. fundamentally the same. Heresy is sharply distinguished from Christianity because it is a deliberate and wilful choice of a system of thought which is antithetical to the Chrislian way of thinking. Most often. however. it is the third explanation which appears in Christian writers from 1his period. because they. like their pagan and Jewish counterpans. believe that antiquily is a sure criterion of lruth. Wharever is more recenl is considered lo be eilher plagiarism without any originality. or a harmful devialion from an earlier truth. Jewish apologists. for example. claimed that what truth could be found in Greek philosophy derived from Moses who was prior to the Greeks&. Judaism was recognized and protected by the Roman authorities because it was supponed by an ancient tradilion. If Jewish rites. says Tacit us. are given protection it is because of their antiquity, even though Tacitus himself does not like the Jews•. On the other hand. if Christians are banned from society. it is because as newcomers they have cut themselves off from their Jewish roots and from the Roman mos majorum•o. In order to refule this charge. people like Eusebius and Lactantius try to prove that Christians are in fact more ancient than their Jewish rivals, because Christians are to be identified with the Hebrews who appear in the Bible before Ihe Jews 11_ Bul whatever the point of view adopted concerning lhe historical origin of heresy. it is always the choice. the hairesis itself. thal constitutes "heresy". In the proper sense of the 1erm. there is no change of meaning in the passage from pagan- or Jewish- use of the tenn to its Christian use. The change is to be found more in 1he moral ovenones; 8.This is a common theme of Jewish hellenistic apologetics from Anapanus to Aristobulus and Philo. 9. Hist. 5.5. ThecomcttitleofJosephus"st~atisecommonlycalledContraApitNWm appe41rs to ha11e been Conc~rning th~ Antiquity of th~ }~ish P~opl~. 10. They ~present a t~rrium g~nus for which there is no place within the framework of the Empire. The charge of a double apostasy is formulated in a penicularly notewonhy fashion by the emperor Julian; d. M. SIMON, V~rus lsra~l. 2nded. (Paris, 1964) 139ff. 11. EusEBIUS. Praep. Evang. 7.6; cf. Hist. ucl. 1.4.6; LACTAN'nUS./nst. div. 4.10: ''Majores nostri. qui erant principes Hebraeotum''.
FROM GREEK HAIRESIS TO CHRISTIAN HERESY
115
the choice cannot be anything other than a bad choice. For the Greeks, however. choice was praisewonhy. a legitimate decision to embrace a cenain way of thinking by the use of human reason. The choice was also considered legitimate by the Jews. for they recognized that the Bible was not explicit on all points and was thereby open to differing interpre· tations and funher explanations which, within limits. could all be considered allowable. But for Christians. since a complete and perfect revelation took place in Jesus C~-ist. choice i~ condemned. Tenullian is the most representative exponent of this position. "The term 'heresies' in Greek has the sense of 'choice' (ex iRterpretatione e/ec:tionis), the choice which one makes when one either teaches them (heresies) or accepts them for oneself. .. We, however. are not pennined to cherish any object after our own will. nor yet to choose what another has introduced by his own authority. We have the example of lhe apostles of the Lord who chose not to introduce any doctrine on their
own authority but faithfully dispensed to the world the body of doctrines received from Christ" (Praes. haeret. 6.2-4). After having perfunctorily dismissed the philosophical schools. Ter· tullian declares: ''We do not need curiosity after the coming of Jesus Christ. nor need we search after the gospel". Then he refules at length
the heretics' use of the phrase from the gospel "seek and you will find", thereby condemning in advance Clement's and Origen's defence of the quest for truth across the lines which divide the various sects. According 10 Tenullian this phrase was spoken by Jesus at the beginning of his ministry when people still doubled whether he was the Christ. It was first spoken to the Jews but can be applied to all men. But the seeking which Christ commends ceases "at the moment one has found and believed in the teaching of Christ who encourages us to investigate nothing other than what he has taught" (Praes. haeret. 9.4). To continue to seek after finding Christ is to succumb to a blamewonhy curiositas, and to make a choice that is necessarily bad: hairesis can only be negative. Hencefonh it is. by definition, opposed to the truth. Tenullian's way of handling the historical question of the relation of heresy and onhodoxy is somewhat contradictory. On the one hand. he emphasizes that "heresies recdve their weapons from philosophy .. (Praes. haeret. 7.2), and he suggests, in passing. that some sects had a historical priority 6ver the church. He also mentions several heresies contemporary to the apostles and which were combaned by them. This view is close to that of Hegesippus. Hippolytus, and the Pseudo-
116
MARCEL SIMON
Clementines. But his more characteristic position is that heresies come later. i.e. they are historically posterior to the truth. ''Our doctrine is not
posterior: what is more. it has priority over all the others. This is proof of the lruth. that it always comes first'' (Praes. haeret. 35.3). The statement of a brief symbol of faith furnishes a touchstone of the truth (Praes. haeret. 36.4-5): ''Here is the doctrine. I do not say that it announced the future arrival of heresies. but I do say that from it heresies were born ... They come from our lineage but they do not belong to our family. They come from the seed of truth. but lies have made them
wild"' (Praes. haem. 36.6-8).
This is the same theory expressed in other tenns by lgnatius of Antioch. Tenullian confronts those who would argue from the priority. or even the contemporaneity which he himself occasionally admitted, of certain heresies ve.sus original orthodoxy. with one decisive objection; they may be as ancient. even more ancient, than orthodoxy, but they are no! apostolic. Indeed they have been condemned by !he apostles (Pra-.. haerer. 35.). In the end it is apostolicity that is the infallible criterion of the truth as it was conceived by the whole ancient church as well as by Tertullian. Apostolicity joined to the idea of an ecclesiastical magisterium marks the difference between the hairesis of Greek philosophy. which to some offered a Praeparatio Evangelica, and that heresy which the church took pleasure in combatting.
ROBERT L. WILKEN
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY: GREEII: RELIGION AND CHRISTIAN FAITH
To the modem lover of classical antiquity. it is puzzling that the
arguments of Greek inrellectuals against the early Christian movement were not simply philosophical but also religious. The most notewonhy critics. Celsus. the second century philosopher. Porphyry. the third century scholar. and Julian. the founh ccnlury emperor. were all committed, in varying degrees, to the. traditional religion of Greece and Rome. To understand them one must enter not only the world of ancient philosophy. but also the world of Greco-Roman religion. a vocation which has marked the work of Roben Grant1, Each of the three critics of Christianity. Celsus. Porphyry. and Julian are known to us almost entirely through the books of Christians written to refute them. Celsus' True Word can be reconstructed with some confidence from Origen's Contra Celsum and Julian's work Against the Ga/ilaeans can be pieced together (with much less confidence) from Cyril of Al. .andria's Contra Julianum. But Porphyry's work, though the most brilliantofthe three, and the one most feared by Christians, can be reconstructed only with difficulty (and much conjecture) from numerous fourth & fifth century Christian writers. This is all the more unfortunate not only because of Porphyry's vast learning and acute mind but also because he wrote at the time when the Christian movement was on the verge of establishing a new relationship with the Roman state. Porphyry was one of the most articulate public voices raised against accommodation by the state to Christianity. and it may be that he was
I. Sec most ~nlly "The Religion of Emperor Mniman Daia'' in Jacob Neusner, ed .• Cllrisrianlty, JlllllllsmtJitdotMrGr«<-Roman Cuhs (LcKien. 1974), 4, 143-166.
IIH
ROBERT L. WILKEN
asked by the emperor to prepare a defense of the traditional religion and to provide a philosophical basis for Ihe repression of Christianity. How seriously such speculalion should be taken rests finally on how one answers the complex and puzzling queslions associated-with Porphyry's work Against the Christians. That he wrote against Christianity is evident from citations of his books by critics: bul what he wrote. and whether he wrote one book or several, is slill dispuled. Most sludy of Porphyry as critic of Christianity has focused on his work Against the Christians (Ad Christ.), but every anempt la recons· truct this work founders on our fragmentary and largery second hand knowledge of it. Fully half of the fragments which allegedly make up the book come from the Apocritus of Macarius Magnes with no sure evidence that they acrually derive from Porphyry. A m:enl anicle byT. Bames2 has raised anew the question of the authenlicity oft he Macarian fragmenls. This question has been discussed off and on since lhe discovery of the Apocritus fragments in the nineteenth century. and it is evident thal they can be used only with great reservation. Without them. however. any reconstruction of the Against the Christians is out of the question. Some of the citations of Porphyry by Christian aulhors come not from the Ad Christ .• but from the Philosophy from Oracles (Phi/. orae.). This work. an elaborate defcnse and interpretation of traditional religion based on an appeal to the authority of oracles. is usually considered a youthful work of Porphyry prior to the time he becomes interested in Christianity. Yet Christians who cite it consider it a work hostile to Christianity. Because of the vagaries of scholarship the Ph it. orae. is usually studied by specialists on Porphyry and it is ignored by those interested in his relation to Christianity. Almost all work on Porphyry as a critic of Christianily concenlrates on the presumed work in Ihe fifteen books enlitledAgainst the Christians. I wish then to ask what place. if any, the Philosophy from OracleS played in Porphyry's criticism of Christianity and whether some of the material usually assigned lo Ad Christ., belongs rather toPhi/. oraca. In this way it may be possible 10
2. T. D. BARNES. "Porphyry ApiDst the Christians: Dale aDd the Anributioa of Fragments'' n.s. 24 ( 1973)424-442.
.ns.
3.Jami~IOtheworkofJ.J.O'MEAM..Porplryry'sPitiltHDpilyfrmn01't11t:ksill
A"'IUriM (Paris, 19S9), for callinl aacnlion to this aspect of !he Pllil. ONIC. and showinJ
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
IIY
reassess the unique contribution of Porphyry lo the dialogue between the Greek intellectual tradition and early Christianity.
Against the Christians and Philosophy from Oracles In the edition of Porphyry's Ad Christ. published by Adolf von Hamack in 1916 the first fmgment. assigned to the preface. is a long passage from Eusebius' Preparatio El•angelicu (PE>. identified as belonging to Porphyry by the great classical scholar WilamowitzMoellendorf". lt reads in part: Our opponen1s say we agree neilher wilh 1he opinions of the Greeks nor the customs of the Barbarians ... What is the slrangeness among us and the newness of our life? How can men not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostasized from the cusloms of our falhers. through which every nation and city is sustained? What good can reasonably be hoped for from those who stand as enemies and warriors against their benef<Jctors? What else are lhey than fighters against God? What types of pardon will they be worthy of who have turned away from those recognized as Gods from the earliest times among all Greeks and Barbarians. both in cities and in the country. with all lypes of sacrifices. and mysteries and initiations by all. kings and lawgivers and philosophers. and have rather chosen what is impious and atheistic among men ... ? They have not adhered to the God who is honored among the Jews ... but cut out for themselves a new way .. (PE 1.2.1·4). The book from which this fragment is taken, the PE. was a massive apologetic work written against paganism at the beginning of lhe fourth century. In conrrast lo earlier apologeric works which cited pag~n aurhors only sparingly. Eusebius states thal he will allow pagan authors to speak for lhemselves. "I will not present my own words to set forth
!he importance of Augusline in ~onstrucling the work; but I am nol convinced by his arguments on the n:lation of the Phil. orae. to Porphyry's D~ uxr~ssu anima~. For criticism of O'Meara sec: P. HAOOT, "Cilalions de Porphyre chez Augustin". Rtvunks Etudes Augustinil'IIMS 6 ( 1960) 205-244. Foran amplification ofO'Meara 's views see his ''Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Eusebius' Pra~paratioEvanx~lka and Augusti· ne'sDilllogus ofCassicWcum''. inR~cMrch~s Augustini~nM:J 6 ( 1969) 103-139. 4. A. von HARNAC'k. Porphyrius. ··G~g~n di~ Christ~n", 15 Bu~chrr. Uugniss~. Fragm~nl~ unJ R~f~rate (Abhandtu.lgen d. koen. preuss. Akademie d. Wissenschaft Phil.-hist. Klasse 1: Berlin. 1916). U. von Wilamowitz-MoeUendorf. "Ein Bruchstueck aus der Schrift des Porphyrius gegen die Christen", ZNW I ( 19001 IOiff.
120
ROBERT L
WILKEN
whal I wish to exhibit, but the words of those who are especially well known for their zealous devotion to those whom they consider gods in order that my book will be free of any suspicion that it has been
fabricated" CPE 1.5.14). Eusebius carried out this intenlion. The PE is a remarkable compilation of opinions from antiquity and to this day it is the only source for a number of lost works. He cites writers on ancient Phoenician and Egyptian religion as well as on Greek religion. Among the Greek writen the most frequently cited author, after Plato, is Porphyry whom he cites ninety-six times. It is appan!nt that Eusebius had some of Porphyry's works before him as he wmre the PE and among these works was the Phil. orae. Unfonunately Eusebius· method of citation is sometimes vague and imprecise. In some places he gives the title of the work he cites; in others he does nol. And like all ancient authors he was not adverse to citing from other works withoul acknowledging his sources. Plagiarism did not Offend ancient scholan. The question then arises:
does the long passage cited or "paraphrased" by Eusebius at the beginning of the PE he long to the Ad Christ. of Porphyry or does it come from another work, possible his Phi/. orae? To answer'this question I shall tint consider some other testimonies about Porphyry's antiChristian works and then return to Eusebius, our most imponant source.
AUGUSTINE As late as the fifth century Porphyry was still being attacked by Christian writen. His writings which were considered "against tnae religion". composed by an ''enemy of piety" (Socrates. HistorUJ ecc/esiastica I. 9), wen: finally destroyed in the middle of the fifth century. Before that time his ideas and books were discussed by Chris-
tian apologists such as Cyril of Alexandria, Theodo"'t of Cynbus and Augustine. Fora reconstructionofhisanti-Christian works Augustine's
City ofGod. is the most imponant work from this period. In De civitat~ dei 19.23 Augustine remarks that Christians and philosophers such as Porphyry worship one and the same supreme God. We agree, says Augustine, that adoration belongs to the "God whnm Porphyry, the most learned of philosophers, though the most bitter enemy of Christians. acknowledges as a great god, even through the oracles or those whom he considers gods, For in his books called be ).oy!onl cpo).oooq>l-
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
121
a~
in which he sets forth and discusses 1he divine oracles on mauers concerned with philosophy. he says ... •·. Augusline then cites an oracle from Phil. orae. critical of Christians for not acknowledging the one high God and a second oracle praising the Jews for worshipping this God. According to Augustine. Porphyry said that the oracle from Apollo ''exposed the incurable corruption of the Christians. saying that the Jews, rathert~an the Christians. recognized God'' (Civ. dei 19.23). After this introduction to the Phi/. orae. Augustine goes on to cite other passages from Porphyry as well as several oracles quoted in the work. Porphyry introduces these oracles as follows: "What we are going to say will certainly be contrary to one's expectation. For the gods have declared that Christ is very pious (piissimum) and has become immortal. and that they remember him with high praise (cum bona praedicatione eius meminerunt); that the Chrislians, however, are polluted. contaminated, and involved in error. And many other such things do the gods say againsl the Christians". An oracle from Hecate follows which says thallhe soul of Jesus was lhatofa ''very pious man'' and that Christians "worship it (his soul) because they mislake the truth". Finally. another oracle says that Jesus was a "good" man. and like other good men, he had access to heaven. "You are not lo blaspheme him, but have pity on the folly of men ... " .ICiv. dei 19.23). All of these oracles together with Porphyry's comments indicate that Augustine know the Phil. orae. as a work directed against Christianity. but which also praised Jesus as a good and pious man. It did not anack Jesus. but the apostles whose ''folly'' led them to worship Jesus as God. Porphyry praised Jesus as a pious man. a sage. a hero like Pythagoras. whose life Porphyry had written; but lhe Christians he accused of ignorance and foolishness for luming their backs on the one supreme God and worshipping Jesus. The oracles in Porphyry's book, says Augustine. ''praise Christ'' and ''vituperate the Christianss·•. The wise men of the Hebrews. the prophets and rhe sages. among whom Jesus should be included, taught men to flee evil demons and "to honor the heavenly gods, and especially to worship God the Falher". but his ignorant followers did not heed his words and "turned away from all gods'' to worship only Jesus. Here lies the great danger of Christianity:
S. Forsimila"commentsofPorphyryon the foolishness of the Christians, seeCiv. tki 20.24.
ROBERT L. WILKEN
it leads men away from the worship of I he gods and elevates Jesus to the place of the gods. In another work D~ cons~nsu ~\·ang~listarum (Cons. evang.) Augustine again cites pagan critics of Christianity and mentions Porphyry by name. Some pagans. says Augustine. criticize Jesus because he wrote no books and because his fame was spread abroad by his disciples through the use of magic. The pagans anribute "~xcell~missimam sapientiam" to Jesus, bur "only as a man" (s~d tamen tamqWJm homini). His disciples. however. mistakenly considered him the son of God and the one through whom all things were made (John 1: 1). The pagans. continues Augustine. believe that Jesus should be ''honored as a very wise man. but they deny that he should be worshipped as god"". Such men honor Christ but attack the Christian religion. The reason for this is that ""some of their philosophers. as Porphyry of Sicily has related in his books. consulted their gods to discover what they would respond about Christ and were compelled by their own oracles to praise him''.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
123
''heroes'' or ''divine men" who were venerated by the Greeks and Romans. 2) Criticism of Jesus' follower.; for misunder.itanding his teaching and apostasizing from the wonhip of the gods. 3) Defense of the wonhip of the gods. especially the one supreme God as the proper object of worship and adoration. 4) Praise of the Hebrews for worshipping this one God. In sum. Augustine's citations of the Phi/. orae. suggest that it was a book directed against Christianity. but it took the fonn not of an attack on Christianity as such bul a positive stalement of the traditional Greek religion. modified by Porphyry's neo-Piatonism. By praising Christ as a wise man rather than by attacking him as a deceiver Porphyry sought to give Jesus a place within his religious scheme. The fault of Christianity lies not with Jesus but with the disciples who mislead people and led them away from the true religion.
ARNOBIUS AND LACTANTIUS
At approximately the same time as Eusebius. a century before Augustine, two other writer.;, Amobius and Lactantius, also wrote apologetic works. Amobius' Adversus nationes (Ad. nat.) written in 311 A. D .• presents a defense of Christianty and aq attack on traditional pagan worship. the sacrifices. temples. and the myths and legends about the gods•. Some have charged, says Amobius in the preface, that since the coming of Christianity men have abandoned the traditional wonhip and, as a consequence, mankind has been afflicted with many ills (Ad. nat. 1.1). We cannot understand, says Amobius, why the pagans attack us and the gods are hostile to us because we have ''one common religion with you''( una religio est nobis vobisque communis) and join with you in wonhipping the one true god. To which the pagans reply: "The gods are not hostile to you because you worship the omnipotent God but because you maintain that a man. born of a human being ... was God and you believe that he still exists and you wonhip him in daily prayers" (Ad. not. 1.36). Amobius does not mention Porphyry by name, but the views to which he responds are similar to what Augustine reponed about the Phi/. orae. 6. Tiw AmobilD had Porphyry in mind when writing Ad 1111tioM.r can be seen in E. Fortin's inlelligenl article "lbc Viri Novi or AmobilD", in T1w H~~ of ~M &rly ChMrch (Oricntalia ChriSiiana Analecla 19!5; Rome, 1973) 197-226.
124
ROBERT L. WILKEN
I) The gods are hoslile 10 lhe Chrislians. Porphyry had said lhal lhe "gods say many things against the Christians" in the oracles. 2) The Christians mistakenly worship the man Jesus. 3) Both Christians and pagans worship the one high god. In this same passage where Amobius repons on charges that Christians only worship a man, he also repons the corollary criticism: the worship of Jesus "causes injury'' to lhe traditional gods. panicularly Juppiter, because it leads men away from the worship practiced in the cities. In book two he returns to the same point: "You charge us with turning away (aversio) from the religion of earlier times" (2.67). To the pagans. the worship of Jesus. unlike the worship of other Greek heroes. led irrevocably to apostasy from the other gods. The followers of Jesus insist that he alone be worshipped. For lhat reason the gods are hostile to the Christians. The other apologist. Lactantius. who wrote approximately a decade before Amobius (ea. 303 A.D.) also seems to have the Phil. orae. in mind when he presented pagan objections to Christianity. Lactantius wrote his book in response to two recent works against the Christians. the one in three books by an unnamed person who considered himself ''anristes philosophiae' · and the other by Hierocles. the governor of Bithynia whom we have already mentioned (Divinae institutiones 5.2). The idenlily of lhe "ptiesl of philosophy'' is unknown. bul il may he Porphyry himself. a question to which we will return. But first. let me cite one passage which confirms what we have already learned from Augustine and Amobius. Lactantius cites pan of the oracle from Ap>llo cited by Augustine in Civ. dei 19.23: ''He (Jesus) was monal as to his body. being wise with wondrous works··. This oracle speaks pan of the truth, says Lactantius. but it cm in ''denying that he was God"; funher. ··if he (Jesus) is wise. then. his system of instruction is wise ...• and they are wise who follow it ... ". Why then an:: we considered "foolish. visionary, senseless, who follow a master who is wise even by the confession of the gods themselves'" (Div. inst.· 4.3). Here again the same motif occurs: praise for Jesus as a wise man and criticism of Christians for their folly in worshipping him as God. Funher, Lactantius cites the same oracles which Augustine had read in Porphyry's Phi/. orae. Though Lactantius does not mention the Phi/. orae., it seems that it was from this work that he derived his infonnation on pagan criticism.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
125
EUSEBIUS As we have already observed. Porphyry is lhe mosl fJequenlly ciled author (after Plato) in Eusebius. PE. In the opening honks of lhis work. Eusebius presents the theology of the ancient Greeks, the Phoenicians. the Egyptians. relying on material from Porphyry"s Phi/. orae. His purpose in citing lhis material is to show that .. our revolt" from lhis earlier theology is ··reasonable""(Book 2. prf.). After discussing Egyptian theology Eusebius says that one can understand why we ''revolted with abhor~ence·· (2.1.51) and that ••our Jevoll from gods falsely so called'' is reasonable (2.4.3). In book four he criricizes Greek theology to answer the charge ''that we are guilty of the greatest impiety in making no account of power.; so manifesl and so beneficient, but directly breaking the laws, which require everyone to reverence ancestral customs. and not disturb what should be inviolable, but to walk orderly in following the religion of his forefather.; and not to be meddlesome through love of innovation" (4.1.2-3). The issue, then, as it emerges in PE is the apostasy of Christians from Ihe traditional religious worship. Throughout the honk. Eusebius Jelies on Porphyry"s Phi/. orae. for the interpretation of the traditional religion. In another apologetic work of Eusebius, the Demonstratio Evangelica (DE), a work written not against Porphyry but against critics such as Hierocles and the Jews. he mentions the Phi/. orae. In the DE Eusebius defends Christianity against the criticism of Hierocles and of the Jews who had accused Jesus of practicing sorcery. To defend Jesus against this accusation Eusebius cites the ··oracles of your gods'', i.e. of the Greek gods who testify rhat Jesus is not a ''sorcerer but pious and wise and has access to the heavens''. What could be a more convincing testimony, he says, ''than the writing of our enemy against us which he entitled Philosophy from Oracles whe"' he says in the third honk word for word: 'What I am about to say may seem surprising to some, namely that the gods have proclaimed Christ to he most pious and immonal. and that they Jememher him in a laudatory way• •• (3.6.39-3.7.1). This is the same passage cited by Augustine inCiv. tki. 19.23 and summarized by Lactantius in his Div. inst .. Eusebius, relying on Porphyry's positive appraisal of Jesus, cites one critic against the other. Porphyry refutes these critics, says Eusebius, because he did not consider Jesus a magi-
ROBERT L. WILKEN
cian or sorcerer bur one who was ''pious and mosl jusl and wise and an inhabitanl of the vaults of the heavens''. Whal can we conclude from lhese scanered references lo the Phil. ora('.? The Phil. ora(". was a positive slatemenl of rradilional theology into which Porphyry had incorporated the figure of Jesus. By drawing on oracles which menlioned Jesus (and praised him) Porphyry was able to inlegrale Jesus into the tradilional religion. He presented him as a sage. a Greek hero. who taught men to worship 1he one supreme God. Porphyry. like orher Greek intellecluals. thoughl that the highest fonn of worship was spiritual and was to be directed at lhe one immaterial God: this was also the view of Jesus and of Christianity. Bur Porphyry also believed in practicing the lraditional forms of worship. i.e. the physical worship reflecred in animal sacrifices. He saw no contradiction between such worship and the higher spiritual worship. Each had ils place. Although Jesus did not promole the sacrificial worship. he taughl men about the higher spiritual worship. the only worship appropriale to the one God who is a spiritual being. For this reason Jesus should be venerated by the Greeks and honored in the way men honorother heroes or divine men. Pythagoras was venerated because. among other things. he taughl a philosophy which led men lo a ··vision of the eternal and bodiless rhings''. to perceive ''those lhings which are truly existent''. and which make .. men blessed .. IVita Pythag. 46-47). Jesus. then. is made to confonn lo the religious ideas of Porphyry. At lhe pinnacle of this hierarchy was the ''first God ... lhe Father and king of all Gods ... After lhis supn:me god was lhe ··race of gods"" which included lhe heavenly bodies. The lhitd calegory included lhe daimones and the fourth was thal of lhe heroes. sages. divine men (PE 4.5) 7 . The supreme God requires only spiritual worship because he is "incorporeal. imrooveable and indivisible''. but the visible gods, e.g. stars. and the daimones, require sacrifices. In Porphyry's theological syslem each type of god had its unique place and appropriate fonn of worshipl.
7. Sec aJsoG. WcxrF.PtWphyriitMpltilosopltilluoTGciiiUIIIUirimda(Berlin. 18561
42-41. 8. There is some tenston in Porphyry's anilude loward sacrifices. In IN tJbslill .• as Eusebius realized, Porphyry says 1h11 lhc only offering worthy or the philosopher is a spiri1111l offerins (Ik tlbstill. 1.28: 48; S2-S6; EusEBJUs. PE 4.9). Bill in De ab.rrift. Book IWO he del"ends sacrifas 110110 theoneGodowrall, tu 10 lesser pMis (2.31-34). In 1his section he also sels rorth his hicran:hy or divine beings, the first God is incorpolal, whereas dtJitr~DMs haw bodies and .:an be appeased by animal SKrifas (/k ab.rrift.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
127
In this hierarchy of divinity Jesus belongs in the lowest category. i.e. among the heroes, men who have become divine after their death. To the Greeks this was a lofty place indeed. for it placed Jesus in the same category with Heracles or Pythagoras: to the Christians. however. it was a stinging rebuttal of their claims for Jesus. For Christians were not satisfied with the elevation of Jesus to the level of a hero; they claimed that he was a much higher God. Some (e.g. Athanasius) wished to identify him with the one high God. Porphyry was not concerned with the intricacies of internal theological debates among the Christians. What did concern him. however. was that in elevating Jesus beyond what was reasonable within the pagan theological tradition, Christians had desened the traditional system of wor.ihip. Thus the charge that Christianity had desened the traditional wor.ihip of the cities (the chief issue discussed in the opening books of the PE) is closely linked with the view that Jesus belongs among the pious and wise men. For Jesus did not make himself into a God: this was the work of his follower.i. In light of these considerations lhe long passage cited by Eusebius at the beginning oflhe PE should be assigned not to Porphyry's Ad Christ. but to hisPhil. orae. Its chief argument is that Christians have ••apostasized from the customs of our father.;'' and waged war against the gods of the cities. They are ''fighters against God" who have abandoned ''sacrifices. mysteries and initiations'' to fOllow ''what is atheistic and impious". Rejecting even the God of the Jews. they have "cut out for themselves a new way''. What is missing from this fragment is Porphyry's positive appraisal of Jesus, but as the passage cited from DE above indicates. this view was known to Eusebius. It may well be that Eusebius was not wholly out of sympathy with Porphyry's efforts to offer a positive ponrayal of Jesus. Eusebius, it is wonh recalling. was never able to go along fully with the Athanasian notion that Jesus be identified with the one high God. Eusebius' n:luctance to embrace the Nicene fonnulation of the relation of Jesus to God betrays not only his philosophical conviction that God was one, without beginning. agennetos, wholly transcendent; it may also reflect his apologetic effon to present a reasonable interpretation of Christianity to critics such as Porphyry.
2.37-42). On the distinction belwccn various dcilies sec also!Jellllh'o ,.,,.,.,..,. 6. The anc:ienll, says Porphyry, ''consccniCd lemplcs, shriaes ud al1an 10 the Olympian JOds, 10 lemsbial deities and heroes, YCrificial hearlhs, and 10 thc ps of the Wlderworld, ritual pits or wncbes ... "
1~8
ROBERT L. WILKEN
Under p~ssure from Porphyry to defend Christianity against the charge that Chrislians had apostasized from the lraditional worship because they mistakenly elevated Jesus to unity with God. Eusebius rejected the excessive claims being made by some other Christian thinkers•. For Eusebius, then. the chief point of contention was not Porphyry's characterization of Jesus, but his charge that Christians had deserted the traditional worship. And it is this charge. as set forth in the Phi/. orae .. which detennined rhe shape of rhe PE.
PoRPHYRY AS CRmC OF CHRISTIANITY
The argument set forth above is not without difficulties. The most important objection is that in I he PE most of Eusebius' references are to a book called ·•syskeye againsr us·· (oumcElitj Ka9· TJI'Wv; 1.9.20;
5.1.9; 5.5.5; 5.36.5: 10.9.11). These refenmces are usually rhoughrro refer ro Porphyry•s Ad Christ. In rwo places Eusebius quotes from rhe founh book of rhe syskeye (I. 9.20; 10.9.11 ); rhe Phi/. orae. had only rhree books. Larer wrirers also say rhar Porphyry•s work againsr rhe Chrisrians had more rhan rhree books: Jerome cites book rwelve (Comm. Daniel prolog.): book rhineen (Comm. Mt. 24; 16). and book fourteen(DeprincipioMarciad 1.1 ).lnS.S.S Eusebiussays he is citing from rhe book Phi/. orae. of rhe ••one who made rhe sysuye againsr us.'' From this passage it seems that the Phi/ orae. and the syslceye are two different works by the same author. The common interpretation is that the syskeye was the work. known as Ad Christ. (whose fragmenrs Hamack edired) and that ir comprised fifreen books. Funhermon:. rhis work is usually considered Porphyry•s chief, or only work, against Christianity. For this reason the long passage from rhe beginning of Eusebius • PE, if ir is from Porphyry. had to be assigned to the Ad Christ. However, those who mention such a work (the title does not occur until ea. 1000 A.D. in Suidas' lexicon under Porphyry's name) give the distinct impression that this book was
9. Euscbius' apolo&Wc stuce helps KCOWII for his "subordinationism", i.e. his iDsislence tballbc: ODe hiab God be distinpisbcd fiom aU Olber diviDe beinp, iD:IudinJ lbe Lop. ForevideDCC in Eusebius' worb IIC lbe colleclion of lr:XII in FR:do RICKEN. S.J., ''Die Loplehredes Eusebios von C.SUU undderMinelplaloailmus'' .17r«NDri~ 11N1 Philosophk 42 ( 1967) 341·358.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
129
concerned largely with Porphyry's criticism of the Scriptures 1o. But the material from the Phi/. orae., as cited by Eusebius. Amobius. Lactantius and Augustine. was not concerned with the Scriptures but with Jesus and the apostasy of Christians from the traditional wor.ihip. Furthennore. references to Porphyry in the fourth and fifth cen1uries refer to his anti-Christian works in the plural,,. lt would seem. then. that Porphyry wrote at least two works against the Christians. one a positive statement of the traditional theology. and the other an analysis and attack on the Scriptures. Porphyry's criticism of the Scriptures. his ridiculing of the apostles. are reHected in works such as Macarius Magnes' Apocrirus, in fourth century Christian commentaries. and in Augustine's De consensu evangelistarum. For example Jerome's commentary on Daniel is a sharp attack on Porphyry's titerary and historical analysis of Daniel12. Porphyry proposed a new (and correct) daling for lhe book. Arguing 1ha1 lhe book referred lo contemporary events rather than future. he showed that the book should be dated at the time of Anliochus Epiphanes in the second century B.C. Both Christians and Jews had placed it in sixth century B.C. By interpreting the work as a description of events in the author's own time, Porphyry undercut the claims of Christian apologists that Daniel prophecied the date of the coming of the Messiah. Jesus. How threatening these conclusions were can be seen in the vigorous defense of the traditional dating by Chrislian scholars such as Jerome. What lhese observations suggest is that Porphyry's criticism of the book of Daniel as well as of other sPCtions of the Jewish and Christian Scriplures belongs1o a work, prohably in fifleen books. la1er called Ad Christ. At times Eusebius uses the tenn syskeye to refer to this work. This tenn. somewhat rare. refers either to a compilation or an underhanded attack or plot against someone (Herodianus 3.12.3 and 12.9). Perhaps Eusebius has both senses of the terms in mind. though it seems more likely that he simply means compilation. The · 'sysk.eye against
10. Forcumplc. JEROME.Comm. in Dtmicl. ~r. and p.ssim;Comnr. in Mt. 24.16; Comm. inlcwi2.28;Comm. in Mt. 9.9; AUGUmNEEp. 102.JO;theMKarian fiagmc:nts •~ concerned .Jmost cnti~ly with lhe Scriptura. 11. SocRAns. Hilt. «cl. l.9;Cotkzlust. 1.1.3: RURNUs.COIIIra Hieron. 2.9; 2.10; lEROMEAdv. Ruf. 2.33. 12. JEROME.Comm. inDMi~l. pmloJ;SCCJ. l.ATAIX. ''Lccommenlai~ck saini:Jcrixne surDanici'',R~d'lrWoiN~ttfelitrit'tllllnNiigioMI2(1897) 167-173;268-77.
130
ROBERT L
WILKEN
us'' may have been a selection of biblicialtexts. i.e. a compilation of passages showing contradictions in the Bible. to which Porphyry added critical comments. Its purpose was to embarrass Christians by exposing
the fabrications of the Christian and Jewish scriptures. Sophisticated Chrislians tried to gloss over such passages with allegory; Porphyry unveiled them for public scrutiny and ridicule. In his literary effons Porphyry may have been helped by Origen who recognized the difficulties within 1he scriptures and had published a work entitled Stromoteis on the problem. In this work he attempted 10 rid the Scripture of its crudities and contradictions. As Roben Grant observed in an anicle on Origen's Stromateis: ''When he (Porphyry) encountered the Strom~~teis of Origen. with their criticism of the Bible and their subsequent allegorizations, he presumably found that a good deal of his anti-Christian task had been done for him. All he had to dn was accept Origen 's negative statements (although in many instances he went farther along this line) and reject the deeper spiritual meanings which Origen had sought to find. In this regard the critical work of Origen provided a praeparalio Neoplatonica for the work of Porphyry""· If the ''syskeye against us" could be identified with a work of Porphyry attacking the Jewish and Christian Scriptures14, it may be that the Phil. orae. can be identified with the work mentioned by Lactantius in his Divine Institutes (5.2). There Lactantius mentions that while he was living at Nicomedia in Bithynia, emperor Dioclelian's eastern capital. at the beginning of the fourth century. two works were written against Christianity. One was written by a "priest of philosophy ... Although Lactantius seems to be referring to Porphyry, his reference has puzzled scholars beeause the anti-Christian work included only three books (Bames, 438). It is assumed that Porphyry's work against the Christians bore the title Ad Christ. and included fifteen books.
13. Robcrt M. GRANT. ''The StromaiCis of Origc:n'', in Epdrasis. Milmlges Plllristi· qrus of/ms Qll CtmliMI JunlJGniiiDM (Paris. 1972) 292. 14. Thc~ a~ diffiCulties with this identifiCation. The fra,mcnt from Porphyry ciiCd in PE S.l.IO CHamack Frg. 80) deals with the rivalry bclween Asclc:pius and Jesus and seems to fit better in Phil. orae. Yet Euscbiu.s says it comes from the "~~ apirw us''. Her~: sy~ does noc seem 10 r~:fer to a book on the Scripcurts. A further possibility is lhal the syslceye was a compilation of several works written apinst the Chrisaians. amonr which was the Ad Christ. and the Phil. or«., bul this hypolhcsis coo has difftcultics.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
131
However. if Porphyry wrote more than one work against the Christians and one of these works was the Phi/. orae. it could be that Lactantius has in mind the Phi/. orae. which did include three books. In his Ad Marcellam (4). a letter written to his wife when Porphyry was an elderly man. he mentions that he had undenaken a trip because of a ··need of the Greeks''. Porphyry's destination as well as the purpose of the nip is not stated. Henry Chadwick has made the ingenious suggestion that Porphyry was requested by the emperor to prepare a defense of traditional religion to be used in repressing Christianity•s. When this suggestion is placed alongside Lactantius' mention of an anti-Christian book written by the "priest of philosophy" it is not implausible to suggest that the Phi/. orae. was the resull of this trip. These circumstances would account for its novel approach to Christianily. when compared with other anti-Christian works. Instead of a frontal attack on the Christian movement. Porphyry offered a positive statement of traditional religion drawing his material from oracles and the writings of ancients. Arguing from tradition and accepted religious authority rather than philosophical ideas, Porphyry was able to give the defense of traditional religion a popular appeal.
DATE OF THE PHIL. 0RAC
A major difficulty with the above argument is that rhe Phi/. orae. is usually considered a youthful work of Porphyry before he had become the disciple ofPiotinus. This view. championed by Bidez and Beutler. is based panly on the statements of Porphyry's biographer Eunapius in his Vita sophist. (457). and panly on an interpretation of Porphyry's philosophical development 1&. A work defending sacrifices and appealing to
IS. HenryCHADWICK. ThrSrrrurrusofSrxtus (Texis and Studies, S:Cambridge, 19591
66. 16. R. Beutler in Pauly-Wissowa. RE XXII Cl953) 287: so also Granl in "Porphyry among the Early Christians", in Romarritas rl Christianittl.f, ed. W. den Boer rl al. (Amsterilam. 1973) 181-187 In dating Plril. orae. the stalemenls of Eur.ebius should also be considered. In lhe PE Eusebius refen; to Porphyry as 1he one ''who gained distinction in our time (~ea9' ~!'d~J for the things against us" (PE 1.9.6). He saysthal he prepared lhe ":ryskLyr against us in our time" (5.1.9): that he was "celebraled in our time for his accusations against us'' (4.6.1 ). 11 seems thatlhe phrase ''in our time'' refers tolhe very rteenl past: inHist. red.
132
ROBERT L. WILKEN
the authority of ~ligious oracles seems out of place after Porphyry has come under lhe influence of Plotinus. But the reference in Eunapius is unclear. as O"Meara (33-34) has shown. and cannot be used to date Phi/. orae.; funhermore. the assumption that Porphyry moved from a traditional and credulous religious outlook to a crilical view of religion oversimplifies his intellectual development17. All through his life Porphyry respected the traditional worship and his student lamblichus. building on idea.'i he had learned from Porphyry. gave a theoretical
justification for animal sacrifiCe and even extended his religious practices to include theurgy. Within the Plotinian school the Phil. orae. can be seen as a continuation of work begun by Plotinus 10 refute the .. Christians and orhers. sectarians who had abandoned the old philosophy ..... IVita Plot. 16). Plotinus. it should be remembered wrote a work against the Gnostics in which he criticized them for their ''innovations'' which had degraded the teaching of the ancients. paniculatly Plato (EnOI!ads 2.9.6). The work of Porphyry against the Christians may have grown out of the series of polemical treatises wrinen by members of the school of Plotinus against upstan philosophical schools within the Empire. Porphyry, however, made his unique contribution by grounding his views in traditional religious authority. i.e. oracles. thereby making his arguments more accessible to non-philosophers. i.e. emperors and provincial governors.
8 prf. Euscbius beginsanaccountof''things inourownday'', i.c.the ''pcrsecUiion in our day" by which he means the )'Car5 immediately after JOO A.D. When he wishes 10 speak ofevenl:s twenty or thirty years earlier he often uses phrases such as me· 6v CHisl. ~«1. 7.29.1). in the time of A~lian me· OOt; (7.32.1). in the time of Fclix; or similar phrases, e.g. katcl ToVobE (7.32.2). BUI Euscbius is not consislcnt. He ~fersto PaW of Samosata who flourished ea. 270 A. D. by the phrase "in our time" (.::a9'"fl~t;) (Hist. ~cd. S.28.1)10Theolecnus, whobec:amcbishopofCacsareaca. 260A.D. with the same phrase (Hisr. ~«l. 7. 14). He distinguishes events of the past from those "in our own generation'' but his own generation seems 10 include the ycan ea. 270 A.D. and followins (Hist. eccl. 7.26.3). The one reference to Porphyry's attack on the Christian scriptum (Nisi. eccl. 6.19.2) places them "in our time" (m8' ft~t;). The contc~~:l sugests thal Euscbius did not mean the very mccnt past, yctthc citation from Porphyry mentions that he mctOrigcn whcnhc(Porphyry) wasstill"quitcyouns" (6.19.!5). 8Uithisphructoo is ambituous: Porphyry could be looking t.ck some fifty ycaJS, i.e. from ca. lOO A.D. 10 2SO A.D.• or he could be writing ea. 270 A. D. and looking back some twenty years. 17. A.C. lLDYD in 771e ClJIIIbridp History of Lakr Grui fUfd &rly Medkval Pllilosophy (Cambridge, 1967)28!5.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY
133
Conclusion The Phi/. orae. was a mature and sophisticated work designed to defend the traditional religion of the Greco-Roman world. Reflecting a profound understanding of the religious customs of the ancient world, it was not an uncritical and naive collection of oracles. but an attempt to link the religious traditions of the cities with the philosophical religion of belief in the one high God. Although the Phi/. orae. was primarily a positive statement of traditional religion and theology. its further purpose was the refutation of Christianity. To accomplish this purpose Porphyry distinguished between the Christians and Jesus, praising Jesus for his piety and wisdom. vilifying the Christians for their foolishness in making him a rival to the supreme God. The growing importance of oracles as authoritative religious sources in lhe third century provided Porphyry with a new way of grounding the philosophical and religious concerns of the neo-Piatonic school. ts Phi/. orae. is a testimony to his brilliance in appropriating new developments within the religious milieu of the Roman Empire and his ingenuity in adapting 1hese religious currents to serve his philosophy as well as expose the weakness of Christianity. Porphyry's Phi/. orae. also sheds light on the relation of Christianity to Greco-Roman culture and on lhe milieu in which the Nicene contro-versy took place. The reluctance of many Eastern bishops. among them Eusebius ofCaesarea, to go along with the theology of Athanasius may in pan have been detennined by the presence of pagan critics looking over his shoulders. For a man who took the apologetic task as seriously as did Eusebius, it was surely disconcerting that some Chrislians claimed Jesus was homoousios with the Father. How could Christians hope to answer men such as Porphyry who argued thal Christians had abandoned belief in the one high God by making Jesus an object of worship? In his apologetic works Eusebius' characteristic phrase for God is the "God above all" (DE 3.7 .30-35; 8.3.13-15), a view he shared with Porphyry and many other religious thinkers, both pagan and Christian.
18. Hans LEwv. CluMd«m Oracks and 1Jrftugy. Mysticism, Mark. and Plalonism in tM Loter ROIMII Empin (Cairo. 1956); K. BuaESCH. Claros. UI'Wrs~ll zrun OraUMsentkrspanuenAnlike (LeipziJ. 1889).
134
ROBERT L. WILKEN
If. to appease some Christians. Eusebius were lo compromise this belief in the one God. there was no way he could offer a reasonable defense of
Christianity. A study of Porphyry's Phi/. orae. and Christian response to it during the period lhat the status of Christ was being debated within 1he church
will help us understand why lhere was such resistance to the creed of Nicaea throughoUI the fourth century. h was not simply tbat 1he bishops of the East were committed to a certain theological idea of the unity of
God, but rhat 1hey were faced with a pagan opponent who offered a different. though positive. interpretation of the relarion of Jesus to God.
HENRY CHADWICK THE RELATIVITY OF MORAL CODES : ROME AND PERSIA IN LATE ANTIQUITY
The arch-perxcutor of the ancient Church. the emperor Diocletian, was treated by his victims with a generosity that has not been much noticed. Not only did they preserve at Spalato his palace and transfonn its noble mausoleum into a Cathedral used to this day. but they also allowed his ponrait to remain on its ceiling 1 • lt is also almost entirely through Christian sources that a large quantity of his edicrs have been transmitted2: the great majority (many hundreds) through Justinian's Codex of the sixth century3, a few through an earlier more curious work, probably but nol certainly Christian. the anonymous comparison between the Mosaic and Roman legal systems which modem scholars (not the mediaeval manuscripts) have agreed to call Mosaicarum et
Romanarum Legum Collario4. Two exceptionally imponant edicts,
I. For a dear summary of lhe Rmllllnls of Dioclelian's palace sec J.J. WJLKES. DallfiQtia (London. 1969) 387-391. J. Zf.ILUR and E. HEBII:ARD.LI PaliJis d~ Diocliti~nd SpolatoCParis, 1912). ~mains valuable. 2. The price edicl is olherwise 1111nsmined: sec S. LAuFRR. Diokleticuu Preiudila (Berlin. lVII): K.T. E11:1Mand Joyce REYNOLDS. ''TheAphrudisiascopyofDioclecian's edict on maximum prices", }Otlnllll ojRomtJn Studies 63 ( 1973) 99-110. 3. The sheer size of the materill from Dioc:lelian and the lf:tnln:hy included by Tribonian can be sc:cn at a Jlancc: from P. Kriipr's index to his edition in the second volume of the Corpus /liTis Civilis. 4. The Colllltio is critkally edited by T. MOMMSEN. Coll«tio libronun iuris al'fkiusfi· niani (Berlin. IIJCXI) 2. 108·198, and by M. HYAMSON (Oxford 1913). A convenient text without critical 8ppl111tUS by J. BA VIERA is in Forws iuris I"OIIIIJIIi ant~iiUfinidlli (FIRA) 2 (ed. s. Riccobonoandochers: 2nded.: FloRnce, 1968). Forbibltography sec: F. ScHvrz..
HistoryofRDirlllllllgal Sciena COdord. 1946) 311-314, 344: M. KAsER.lJGsriimixM Prl"lltllr«
136
HENRY CHADWICk
against lhe Manichees and againsl incest, owe their preservation to this strange workS. The Collatio raises too many complex questions to be treated here without a gross exlension of this offering to a scholar who has always been a master of terse statement. Suffice it to say that the author of the Collatio transcribed both edicts from the Codex Gregorianus, that is, from a juristic compilation made during the last decade of Diocletian's reign by an Eastern lawyer. possibly a prominent member of the chancery. named Gregorius. Mommsen thought Gregorius likely to have been a professor in the law school al Beryius (Beirut), but it is no more than a guess&. From his reference to Dioclelian and Maximian as 'd(omini} n (ostri)' when citing an edict of2907. it is clearthatGregorius published his work under Diocletian. The latest dated edict attested for inclusion in the Codex Gregorianus is Diocletian's edict against incest of I May 2968. so that the presumptive date of publication ofGregorius' collection is not long after that time. Gregorius' collection was not the only collection of Diocletianic material used by Tribonian and his assistants in the making of the Codex /ustinianus. A second standard collection of imperial edicts was also made, apparently on different organisalional principles, by Hermogenianus. lt is certain that Hennogenianus included in his collection many Diocletianic edicts of 293 onwards, and a few of earlier years as well. The fifth century Consultatio veteris cuiusdam iurisconsulti expressly cites several edicts of the years 293-295 from Hermogenianus. The same juristic Consultatio gives two edicls of the year 294 ·ex corpore Gregoriano''. It would be tidy if one could simply adopt the view advocated by Rotondi in 19141o, that the work of Gregorius was completed and published in 291, that the large mass of constitutions of 293-4 and later years preserved in the Codex /ustinianus were all drawn from Hennogenianus, and that the edicts preserved by the Collatio and
S. Diocletian's edict against the Manichees is also cited by Ambrosiasler, in his commentary on 2 Timothy 3:6; an allusion also in his Qt~MIIiolws 127.18. Ambrosiasll:r and the Collatio have other points in common also. 6. Th. MOMMSEN,CdltiiMWI~Schrift~n. (Berlin, 1905)2. 366-370. 1-.Collatioi.IO. 8. CoiiGtio 6.4. 9. ComultGtio9.18-19(FIRA. 613). 10. G. ROTONDI. Scrini gi11ridici (Milan, 1922) I. Ill ff.. reprinted from 8111/elliiiD d~ll'/stitutodidirittoromtJII026(l914) 175 ff.
THE RELATIVITY OF MORAL CODES
137
the Consultatio as coming from Gregorius wilh a dale lafer 1han 291 attached 10 them must have been drawn from an edifion of Gregorius which had suffered inlerpolation and expansion. Although lidy. it is a conjeclure that deals roughly with the evidence. 11 seems 1ha1 Hermogenianus did nol merely compile a supplement to his predecessor Gregorius. but composed a work wilh a different structure and purpose and with considerable overlap wilh the Cod$x Gregorianus 11 • That there was such an overlap between the two collections is directly attested in the Collalio, where the compiler notes that the constitution he is ciling appears in both Gregorianus and Hennogenianus but with divergent dates anached to it- 287 in Gregorianus. 291 in Hennogenianus 12 . Accordingly. although Rotondi"s hypothesis has been followed by distinguished authorities13, the evidence suggests ralherthan the publication of the Codex Gregorianus was nof as early as 291. and thal one ought 10 date it a year or two after lhe last dated consrifution anesled as having been drawn from it. that is. Dioclerian's edict against incest dated from Damascus on I May 295. This considerarion. however. affects the probable date of the same emperor's edict against lhe Manichees. The edict against the ManichJ:es is a rescript addressed from Alexandria on 31 March of a year thal is unspecifted, to Julian proconsul of Africa1". The edict is an expression of strong religious conservatism, combined with that fear of occull forces which may be discerned in Diocletian's mind both in an edicl which he issued against astrology in 29415 and in his reaction againsl the Chrisrians in 302 when he found that Christians in his train by making the sign of lhe cross could nullify the traditional sacrifices for lhe purpose of divinationus. ''It is". he 11 . On Hennogenianus sec D. LIEBS. H~rmog~nians Juris EpitOIIUI~ (Abhandl. GOninF"· phil.hist.KI .. Drittc Folge57 (1964): A. CENDERELLI.Riurch~:sullCothx H~rmo (Milan. 1965). 12. Collatio4. 5-6. 13. F. Sc:HlJT"l..HistoryojROIIUinUBtJISci~nu. 287 •.309:J. GAUD£MET.LaFomurtion du droit siculi~r ~~ du droit d~ I" iglis~ GW" W ~~V"" sikl~s (Paris. 1957) 42: C"ENDERELLI. Ricerch~. 21. Mommscn dated the publication of the Cod~x Gr~1t0rianus in 29.5 (JRfacc to his posthumous edition of the Codex lModosianw, 1905. xiii. uix). as also JOrs in Pauly-Wissowa (PW)4(1901) 162. 14. Collatio 15.3. Thert: is also an allusion eo the edict in the 18th novel ofValcntinian Ill of 19. June 44.5. issued after Pope Leo the Grt:at's inquisition of Manichccs hiding among his flock in Rome. 15. CJ9.1~.2. 16. LAcrANTJUS fhmon.pr,S«. 10. Cf. AMBROSIASTER.QUMsl. 114.8: pracseme signa crucis obmUICscil paganitas: 114, 22: etiam modo (• nunc)dcmonianominaaacruce ChristiiCrrcntur. g~nianus
138
HENRY CHADWICK
declares. '"a very great crime to revise those religious customs which have once been determined and defined by the ancienrs and which still retain and possess their validity and status''. The Manichees. however. are not merely wrong because they are new. They suftCr from the even graver demerit of being an import from Persia. ··a race hostile to us''. and commil acts of the gravest enonniry lo the disturbance of quiet citizens. Because they may corrupl men with the execrable customs and savage Jaws of rhe Per.;;ians. drastic acrion is necessary to suppress the new cult. Accordingly. their leaders. with their abominable books. are to be bumr. I heir property confiscated. If any person of rank orqualiry i~ converted to this immoral and infamous sect or to the doctrine of the Persians. his eslale is confiscated and he himself condemned to the mines at Pheano in Palestine or Proconnesus in the sea of Mannara. The biner hostility towards the Persians expressed in lhe language of this edict has led to various allempls to assign it to a period when a Roman army was engaged in hostililies in Mesopotamia. The difficulty is to combine this with rwo other requirements. namely that the year be one in which Diocletian could have been in Alexandria at the end of March. and Ihat the records of the proconsuls of Africa should nor make il impossible simultaneously to fit in a proconsulate for Julian. A fourth requirement is that the edict cannor be dated too lale to have been included in theCoduGregorianus, from which source the author of the Collatio expressly notes that he has drawn il. As noted above. the latest dated edict in Gregorianus is of I May 295. so that the presumptive dale of publication is not very long after that time. The date of the edict against the Manichees has frequently been invoked by recenl sludies in attempts to detennine lhe chronology of Diocletian's and Galerius' campaigns between 296-298. In Egyplthere was a revolt against Diocletian's rule led by Achilleus. a corrector. on behalf of the usurper L. Domitius Domitianus 17 . A papyrus (P. Cair. /sidor. I) preserves an edict by the prefect Aristius Oplatus which 17. This ~voh has lately been the suject ora fundamental study by J.D. THOMAS. ''The date of the ~volt of l. Domitius Domitianus". 'UiiSchrift for Papyrologi~ und Epigro.· phill 22 ( 1976) 253-279. He thinks March 297 possible for the anti-ManK:hre edict. but March 302 mo~ probable (p. 262) because 'psychologically this edict would fit well in the same period as the edicts against the Christians'. This last conjectu~ has. I think. no substafY."e to it as an argument. The detailed evidence for the chronology of events is admirably set out in Thomas' article. and it is needless to ~peat it he~. See ai~Dthe ~marks by A.K. BowMAN.JourNJI ofRomanStwii~s66(1916) 159L
THE RELATIVITY OF MORAL CODES
139
inlroduced fiscal changes in Egypl on 16 March 297. lt seem!ii a probable hypolhesi!ii lhal lhe new lax anang.ements may have been the cause for the rebellion. If so. the rebellion began in the summer of 297 and ended in 298. Both Eu1ropius and Jemme speak of lhe revolt ending after an eig:hl-month siege of Alexandria. Some modem scholars have suggested that lhcy really meant 10 say lhat the duration of the entire rebellion wa.~ no more than eight months. If. however. they meant what they said. then the revolt did not finally receive the coup de grace until the summer of 298. The chronological point may be of importance for the year of the anti-Manichee edict, since if the siege of Alexandria ending the rebellion did not end until May 298. then Diocletian could not have. issued an edicl from the ciry on 31 March 298. lt remains possible that he was in Alexandria in March 297. The anti-Manichee edicl cannot be used to dare the rebellion of Achilleus. But the possible date oflhe latler. now emerging from Ihe study of papyri and ostraca. may help to exclude years from consideralion for the anti-Manichee edict. Diocletian'!ii first encounter with the Persians fell in 288 and ended in amicable exchanges. The panegyric delivered by Mamertinus to salure Diocletian's imperial colleague Maximian at Trier on 21 April 289 speaks of ''gifts offered by rhe Persians ... His speech to celebrate Maximian 's binhday in 291 speaks of· 'the Parthian currying favor with you by wonderful presenls11' '. Such courteous exchanges of munificence were often molivated by more warlike long-term intentions (an instance on rhe Roman side is recorded by Ammianus for the year 35819), and two years later Diocletian was in Syria fighting against Arab tribesmen apparently stirred up by the Persians to cause trouble lo lhe empire20. A subscriplion to a law of 10 May 290 records Diocletian in Emesa2t. An inscription of 294 found in Swilzerland (Dessau./l.S 640) gives Diocletian and Maximian lhe litle ''Persicus Maximus''. celebrating the victory of Roman arms on the Mesopotamian fronl. Mamertinus in his panegyric of 291 rejoices thal the power of Rome exlend5 to the Tigris. The unnamed panegyrist who saluled Conslanlius Chlorus on I
18. PllNgyrici LaJ;,.; 10 (2).9.2: doma Perska: d. 10.6 Parthum vobis mWJerum miraculis blandienlem. 11 (3). 5.4. 19. Ammianus Martellinus 17.5.15. 20. PtJMg. Lot. 11 (3). 4.2. W. ENssuN. "Valerius(Dioclelianus)"'. PW, 7A. (1948) 2431. 28ff. 21.CJ9.41.9
140
HENRY CHAOWICK
March 297 speaks of 'the Panhian driven back beyond the Tigris22'. In 290 Diocletian seems to have been able to pursue the. usual Roman policy of containing Persian power by installing a client king in
Annenia23. Diocletian 's second war wilh the Persians was a graver and more farreaching affair. and is more fully reported by .r:he sources (Lactantius, Eutropius, Festus, Aurelius Victor. Orosius). Unfortunately precise dates are not easy to obtain. The Codex /ustinianus includes no edicts of
Diocletian at all for the three years 296-298, so that his movements cannot be easily controlled. It seems certain that the war opened with an invasion of Armenia by the Persian king Narses. Diocletian moved with his Caesar Galerius to check the pressure. But the Romans went into battle with too modest a force. were caught by Narses between Callinicum and Carrhae. east of the Euphrares. and suffered a humiliating defeal. Galerius withdrew to the Balkans to obtain large reinforcements and returned. probably in 297. to advance with startling success through Annenia. He captured not only Narses· camp but his harem. Galerius proceeded beyond the Tigris but came back (reluctantly according to Aurelius Victor. who suggests an ambition to turn Persia into a new province) to meet Oiocletian at Nisibis. There peace tenns were imposed on the Persians. The chronicle of Joshua the Stylite. wrinen near Edessa about 507. dates the fall ofNisibis to the 'Greeks' in the year609 of the Seleucid era (October 297 to October 298). As an example to the ethically uncivilised Persians and as a political tool in the peace negotiations2s. Narses· harem had been preserved inviolate. The Persian negotiators, records the historian Festus. were happy to acknowledge the moral superiority of the Romans. They also conceded territory to the Tigris and five provinces beyond it. But they felt difficulty about a Roman demand, evidently motivated by fear for the security of a frontier virtually impossible to defend. that henceforth all exchange of trade and immigration control between Persians and Ro-
22. PaMg. Lat. 11(3). 6.6; 8(5).3.3. 23. SeeENSSLIN.PW. 7A.2432 f. 24. The evidence is penetralingly assessed by T. D. 8ARNES. "Imperial campaigns. A.D. 2!15-311". PhtHnix 30 ( 1976) 174-193. 25. In the drive towards Amida in 359 Sapor with similar motives ~spected some Christian virgins capeu~d in a fort: Ammianus 18.10.3-4. Julian in 363 ~spectedcapcive Persian girls of outstanding beauty (24.4.27) to show his self-control.
THE RELATIVITY OF MORAL CODES
141
mans must be concentrated at Nisibisltl. A similar demand recurred 110 years later. when the Roman frontier was much contracted after Jovian's humiliating peace of 363. In 408-9 merchants in Mesopotamia were forbidden to hold markets anywhere they pleased, for fear that such occasions would be used to spy out the defences of the frontier, but must concentrate their commercial exchanges at Nisibis, at Callinicum on the Euphrates, and at Anaxata on the Armenian border27. (The decisive role played by spies in Mesopotamian campaigns has many illustrations in the pages of Ammianus.) If the date for the fall of Nisibis offered by Joshua the Sty lite is to be accepted. which seems inherently probable. then the campaigns in Mesopotamia could have been going on during 295-298. with a period of considerable intensity in 297. At the same time. tension on the Tigris frontier created by humiliating peace tenns imposel;l on the Pen;ians is very likely to have been sustained after Narses' defeat and withdrawal. While. therefore, March 297 would be a possible moment both for high aoti-Pen;ian feeling and for the presence of Diocletian in Alexandria. it need not be regarded as the only possible or probable time. Although the frontier remained unnegotiated until 363. Persian raids can have been fairly continuous at any time. In any event the Fasti for the proconsulate of Africa in the period 290-305 make it difficult to fit in Julian except in 1wo periods when gaps in the evidence offer no rival claimant28. The first gap occurs between July 296 and 297. This looks possible, and would be compatible with Dioclelian writing from Alexandria in March 297. On the other hand. it is perhaps a tight squeeze, and there is a longer gap in the records of the African proconsuls for 301-303. The attraction of this latter period is increased by evidence that Oiocletiah may have visited Ale:rtandria about 302. Such a visit at this time is assened by the sixth century
26. The evidence for this point is in the sixth century 1-'eter the Patncian (MULLER.
Frag.Hisl.Gr. 4. \88-89). 27. CJ 4.63.4. Such an edict if enforced must have been fatal to the grut fair at Batnae near the Euphrates held each September, at which goods from India and China could be bought (Ammianus 14.3.3. ). 28. See the list of proconsuls o( Africa in A.H.M. JONES. J.R. MARTINOALE and S. MORRIS. Roman Empir~ (Pl.RE) (Cambridge, 1971) I. 1073. The authors~ tempted to identify Julian wilh Amnius Anicius lulianus (23), consul in 322. prefect of Rome 326-9. lt seems a long gap between his proconsulship and his consulship, slightly reduced i£ the edict was of 302 rather 1han 297.
142
HENRY CHADWICK
Paschal Chronic/to and by the Annals fir.n printed in 1606 by Scaliger and since known as Barbarus Scaligeri21. The Barbarus is a Latin text (from cod. Paris. lal. 4884. s. viii/ixl. and is an uncouth version of a Greek original apparently composed at Alexandria nor long: after 412. Both the Paschal Chronidl' and the Barbarus Scaligeri assign to the year 302 the beginning of a distribution of free bread. aulhorised by Diocletian. to the people of Alexandria: thereafter. as Procopius shows. it was an annual grant associated with Diocletian's nime30. The two chroni-
cles also record Peter the manyred bishop of Alexandria. The Barbarus, unlike the Paschal Chronidr, makes Diocletian responsible for the penecution of the churches in which Peter died. Since Peter cenainly did not die until 311. six years after Diocletian's abdicrion. some have felt rhal a visit to Alexandria by Diocletian in 302 is ill grounded31 . This exaggerates the uncenainly. The visit remains a probability. Dr. A.K. Bowman has recently drawn attention to a papyrus text (P. Flor. 33)
written
between
305
and
307.
and
lately
republished
by J.R. Rea. lt records an official of Hennopolis Magne in the Thebaid whose activities have required several public examinations. one of which was in presenceoftheemperorDiocletian. The unsatisfactory official was still in office when the papyrus was written: accordingly. the process before Diocletian is more likely to have been in 302
than in 297 or 298•. The arguments. however. for moving the anti-Manichee edict to March 302 do not need to include lhe consideration that the psychological attitudes reflected in it show kinship with the attitude expressed in the-penecution of the Chrislians inilialed early in 303. It is noteworthy that the anti-Manichee edict says not a word to suggest that the Manichees are also objectionable because their religion is a deviant fonn of Christianity. They are morally offensive. new. and Persian. bul do not have the funher disadvantage of being a para-Christian group. In fact. if the edicl we~ of 302. one might have expected some such argument to
29. PG92. 688:111. MOMMSEN.CIIroniaiMinonJ (Berlin. JJI92) I. 290. 30. PltOCOPIUS. Hi1toria AI"CCM 26.40. C. VANDERSLEYEN. Cllrorrolorie des {H'i/nl d'Egypt~th284QJ95
(Coli. Lalomus 55; Brussels. 1962)68-70. wanlslodalclhr:s&anof the distribution soon after the end of the revoll of L. Domilius Domilianus. The dale given by the chronicles is accepted by A.K. BowMAN.JournalofRomDnSIIttlks. 66(1976) 160. 3l.I'UIE t. 474. 32. 8oWMAN.JRS66(1976) IS9f.
THE RELATIVITY OF MORAL CODES
143
have been deployed. Accordingly. while 302 may remain easier in providing more space for Julian's African proconsulship. 297 has not yet been shown to be impossible; and it has the additional advantage of bringing back the publication of the Codex Gregorianus to a time nearer to that of the latest dated edict known to have drawn from it. There is one last consideration concerning the anti-Manichee edict. namely. that there is no inherent improbability about a date as early·as the nineties. The Manichee mission in Alexandria led by Addai seems to
have begun very early. probably by the 250s. and was met by far· reaching success33. The strength of the Manichees in Alexandria and Egypt is clear from the well known Rylands papyrus 469. published in 1938 by C. H. Robens. containing a formal denunciation of the Manichees by a high official of the church who is in all probability a bishop of Alexandria34. This encyclical is wrinen in a hand that Robens would assign to the second half of the third century. without absolutely excluding the possibility of a date early in the founh ceniury. The entyclical is much bener informed about Manichee belief than Diocletian's edict. It is aware that they have a group called the Elect. that they sing special psalms. and that they ver.erate the sun. 1t is also the earliest source to accuse the Manichees of obscene cultic practices. A date in the nineties or even in the eighties for this encyclical would be compatible with the spread of the Manichee mission. which always tended in practice to be shadowing the church and to be specially appealing to those many Christians who desired a stricter asceticism and a darker view of this world. Athanasius' Life of Antony (68) singles out for panicular praise the saint's refusal to associate with Manichees. in a way which suggests that this might have been unusual among Christian ascetics. Round about 300. Alexander of LycoJXJiis was moved to produce a philosophical refutation of Manichee dualism3S. He knew that Mani was a Persian
33. See Robcn M. GRANT. "Manichees and Chnstians in the thud and early tounh centuries··, in Ex Orlu R~ligionum. Studio G~o Wid~ngr~n obl4ta (l.eiden, 1972) I. 430-439: Peter BROWN. ··The Diffusion ofManichaeism in the Roman Empire'·. reprin· ted from JRS 59 ( 1969), in R~ligion and SO('i~ty in th~ A.g~ ofSainrA.ugwtiM(London, 1972)94·118(atp. 112). 34. Publi~hed with an excellent commentary in Catalogu~ of th~ Grnk and Latin Papyri in th~ John Rylonds Library Manch~st~r 3 (1938). The text is ~printed in A. ADAM. T~x1~ ZWI'I MQIIichaisnws (2nd ed. Berlin; 1969) 52-S4 (no. 35). 35. This important work. edited by A. Brinkmann for the Teubner texts (1895), is translated and annotated by P. W. van der HORST and J. MANSFELD.A.n A.l~xandritln Platonist asaiiUt D~M~Iism (l.eiden. 1974).
144
HENRY CHADWICK
execuled (he thought) by king Shahpuhr and that the first Manichee missionaries at Lycopolis had been 'Papos' and Thomas. According to the Acta Archelai ( 13). Addas preached Mani's doctrine in the East. Thomas in Syria. Hennias in Egypt. Later(64) it is said that Addas went to Scythia. Thomas to Egypt. Hennias staying with Mani. The heroic status of Pappos and Addas appears in the Coptic Manichaean PsalmBook (p. 34 Allberry); and Thomas may be the author of the famous psalms which conclude 1he book (pp. 203 ff. ). In shon. Manic he ism spread fast in Egypt from the fifities of rhe third century on. provoking a denunciation from episcopal authority that may well be before 290. and eventual notice from the emperor himself. when the proconsul of Africa wrote to inquire about its spread lhere. Diocletian is poorly infomted about any derail of Manichee belief or practice. For him it is enough condemnation that the religion is Persian. and encourages moral enormity. lt would be ex.travaganl to go further and lo speculate that lhe Manichees in Egypt of Africa were fell to be an active fifth column hoping for Persian victory in the Mesopolamian campaigns36. But this is not to say Ihat Diocletian himself may not have regarded the Manichee mission. spreading so r.tpidly through his empire. as evidence of a most dangerous infiltr.ttion from a morally depraved nation. designed to erode the inlegriry of Roman family life and religious tradition: much as in England during the Wars against Napoleon. Shute Barrington. bishop of Durham (according to rhe report of his speech in the House of Lords on 2 March 1798. as reported in Hansard 33. 1818. col. 1307) could believe that troups of French dancing girls who crossed the Channel to entertain the English had been deliberately sent over by the French government with the specific purpose of undermining the moral fibre of the British people. while behind it all lurked a vast conspiracy against the Prolestant Establishment organised by the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever may be the final verdict in regard lothe yearofDi~letian's edict against the Manichees. its attitude towards Persian social ethics is
36. W. Seston's plea for dat•ng the anti-Manichee edict in 297 (Milangrsdr philologir, de litteraturr, et d'histoire offert~ ti Alfrrd Ernout (Paris. 1940) 354) is accompanied by unconvincing speculations on this point (p. 352). For a much mo~ ~stmined view see E. VoLTEAIIA. "La cosrituzione di Diocleziano e Mas~imiano contro i Manichei"'. Problemi anuali di scirfl:lll r di cultura (Accademia dei Lincei, 76: Rome, 1966) 27-50.
THE RELATIVITY OF MORAL CODES
145
of considerable interest. Is his edict against incestuous marriages connected with the same concern? This latter edict has a precise dating from Damascus on I May 295. Its full text is preserved by the Collatio, (6.4) and a brief excerpt of the essential section is also given in the Code of Justinian (5.4.17) where the same date and place are given. The edict against incest explains that the emperors hold in the utmost awe the chaste provisions of Roman law which have the sanction of religion. They do not think it right to conceal that in times past cases of incest have occured in the empire. But it is now their duty to undenake the repression of the practice in accordance with that new discipline which is the mark of their times. Moreover. they can then be sure of a quiet life under the favour of the immortal gods who can be expected to be propitious to the Roman name if incest is stamped out. The institution of matrimony is necessary for the legitimacy of the offspring:. In time past. whether because of inexperience or because of ignorance of the law. by a rite of uncivilized barbarians. some offspring: have been accepted from illicit unions. Although such unions ought to be judged severely. yet Diocletian mercifully rules that those who in the past have polluted themselves with illicit or incestuous maniages may know themselves to be pardoned for offences up to this point in time. They may congratulate themselves on being granted life after committing such dreadful crimes. But let them know that their children are not accepted as legitimate. For the future none shall dare to give way to uncontrolled lust. All are to keep religion and sanctity and to remember that they belong to the discipline and laws of Rome. Only those maniages are licit which are allowed by Roman law. The following kindred fall outside what is pennitted in marriage: daughter. granddaughter, greatgranddaughter. mother. grandmother. greatgrandmother, paternal or maternal aunt. sister. sister's daughter and granddaughter. stepdaughter. step-mother, mother-in-law. daughter-in-law, and other degrees prohibited by ancient law. So the majesty of Rome will be brought to greatness by the favour of all the gods. Past faults are pardoned only down to 30 December 294. Any offence after that date will be treated wih severity. This statement was not Diocletian's first attack on incestuous marriages. The Collatio (6.5:.6)also preserves an earlier. much brieferedicton the same subject - the edict of which the author interestingly records that different dates are appended to it by Gregorius and by Hennogenianus. In the Gregorian Code its date is given as 9 June 287. whereas in
146
HENRY CHAOWICK
Hermogenianus it is given as IS March 291. We have already seen reason to think Diocletian's campaign of 290 had brought him to Syria and Mesopotamia. He would then have had opponunity to discover that
Mesopotamian marriage customs were strikingly different from those of the rigidly exogamous Roman empire. He may also have been made
aware of continued endogamy in the Nile valley. The acceptability in Persian society of marriages between a brother and sister. or even between father and daughter or mother and son, had
for many centuries been a matter for astonished comment among both Greeks and Romans. Herodotus (3.31) was so surprised that he attributed its beginning to the madness of Cambyses. who fell in love with his sister and. having ascenained that by law the king of Persia could do as he pleased. made her his wife. The fifth century Lydian Xanthos wrote a book on the PeBian Magi, cited by Clement of Alexandria (probably indirectly). in which Xanthos repons on Persian incest37. Clesias, a Greek who was physician to the Persian king Anaxerxes Mnemon (king from 405). fixed the Greek tradition about Persian customs by his accounts of the hair-raising lady Parysatis. mother of Anaxerxes Mnemon and Cyrus, and wife of her brother Dareios Ochos. Ctesias' work was much used by Plutarch for his life of Anaxerxes: it is ~served in jejune summary by Photius, Bibliorheca 7238. Naturally conservative minds were stretched on being asked to believe that such diver.;ity in fundamental ethics was possible. Xenophon (Memorabilia 4.4.19 fO affinns that cenain moral rules are so basic that no one disagrees about them: viz. that the gods should be venerated, parents honoured. incest avoided (transgressors of this last rule. he remarks, are punished by the gods and have bad children): also the golden rule in positive fonn. If there is an actual diversity in existing codes. nevertheless conservatives can appeal to transcendent ''unwritten laws'' in the mind (see Sophocles. Anrigone 454 ff.. or Pericles in Thycydides 2.37). But the radical sophists ofthe fifth century delighted
37. CLEMENT, Strom, 3.11.1 =F. JACOBY. FGH, 3 C (19.58). 76.5 F 31. Jacoby (p. 757 n.) SU!Ipecls Xamhos" Magka of being inauthcmic. The repon is attepled by K. ZicJicr, "Xanthus", rw. 9A (1967) 1371-2. Athcnacus (12.11, .51.5 DE) slmws Xanthos' inlerest in unusuaJ sexual phenomena. On evidence in the ninth century Dcnkan for consanguineous marriages in Iran see A. Christensen. L'ITGn sous l~s StJSSQnid~s (Copenhagen, 1944) 323-32.5. 38. JACOBY.FGH. 3 c (1958l. 688 F 15. cr. l"ERTULLIAN.Apoloptic:"llm 9.
THE RELATIVITY OF MORAL CODES
147
to point out the differences in moral code between various races and regions lo reinforce their contention that all morality is relative and conventional. withoul any element of ''objectiviry'' -lhat is. withoul anyone being able plausibly to say 1ha1. iflwo people disagree on some major point of ethical principle. at leasr one of them must be mistaken. Aristotle. who was well aware of the argument that morality is merely an anificial social convention. not a divinely ordered system inherent in the nalure ofthings (Nicomachean Ethics 1.3) wrote a lost treatise on the customs of barbarian nations (frg. 604-10 Rose). Colleclions of such ethnographical material came to be a common inlerest in ihe hellenistic age. Porphyry preserves a piece of Hellanikos on this subject Clement of Alexandria cites Nymphodorus of Amphipolis as a contribulor to the same debale39. From such works Sceptic philosophers derived rich material for argument about the relativity of morality (see Sextus Empiricus. Adv. moth. 11. 42-67). Cicero summarises the contentions of Cameades a century before his time: each race has its own customs. If God had provided law. all men would keep the same laws. The diversity proves that the various codes are based on utility. not on objective justice40. Sextus Empiricus provides one of his neat school-masterly summaries. listing practices wholly unacceptable in the Graeco-Roman world which elsewhere are thought to be right and to have religious sanction: sodomy in Germany, public acls of sexual inlercourse in India, cultic prostitution in Egypt, incest in Persia4 1_ The Sceptics also 39. Porphyry cited by Eusebius, Pra~poratio ~VatiRI'Iica 10.3.16, 466 B. Clement of 65.1. Seelahrbuc:hfur AmiU urrdChri.Stl'tllwrr 10( 1967) 25.5b. 2S6b. Barbar . 40. CtCf.RO, D~ r~publica 3.14ff. 41. SuiUsEmpiricus.Pyrr. hyp. I. 148-151: 190-218. On Egyptian brolher/sister marriages see Diodorus Siculus 1.27: Sutus. Pyrr. ltyp. 3.20.5. The papyri have been combed for supponing evidence. Instances of uterine brother/sister marriages undoubtedly occur in papyri both of the Plolemaic and of the Roman periods. See H. I. BELL. "Brother and sister marriage in G~co-Roman Egypt", Rl'vuiln.,morionoll' th.s Droits th I'Antiquiti 2 ( 1949)83-92: M. HOMEilT and C. P'REAUX.RI'chrrchl'.s .surk r~urul'~tll dam l'Egypt~romainl' (l..eiden 19.52), 149-153: H. THIEAFELOEA.Dii'GI'.schwi.stl'ri'Mim h~/l~ni.sti.sch-rdmi.sr:hl'tl Al'gyp"n !MUnster, 1960); above all. J. MOOAEZE.IEWSKI. ''Die Geschwisterehe in der hellenistischen Pruis und nach rOmischem Recht'' Uit.schrift thr Savigny Stifrung, Rom.Abf. 81 ( 1964) J2-82. His view that incest was acceptable among Greek families, however, seems ineconcilable with Plato. Rl'public 9, .571 8 ff. (cf. Ancmidorus 1.79): L.aw.r-8, 838f. And could Sophocles then have had a play to write about Oedipus? The Co11.Stituti011 Ant011iaM of 212 made the G~ks of the Nile vaUey citizens subject to Roman law. lberu.fter instances of incest ~ ~ and the m:ords concem penalties: BGU. 1024. late 4 cent cf. CTh. 3: 12. I (342). AleJt.~ndria. \;otr.
s.v.
148
HENRY CHADWJCK
found in this monl diveBity an additional argument against the validity
of astrology<>. The varieties of local moral and religious custom came to support a well known argument for polytheism: if in Scythia sons ritually killlheir fathers. if in lhe Chersonese the Taurians offer up strangers in sacrifice (like lphigeneia), if in 'Eihiopia' (black Africa) men are cannibals. lhis demonstrates not that morality is a private guess or that there is no divine providence active through the human conscience. but rather lhat each region of the world. each race, is under its own tutelary deity. Local deities are subordinate. provincial administrators for Zeus, and are allowed as much individual freedom as provincial governors under the empire. Each god should therefore be worshipped according to ancestral custom. Hence the basis ofCelsus' declaration that while the religion of the Jews may be utterly peculiar (and to him contemptible). yet it is at least the religion of their fathen;43. What is valid in religion is whatever is valid for the particular community tradition- a striking anticipation
of Durkheim. The Jews of antiquity were disinclined to be grateful for such considerations. Philo of Alexandria regarded the deplorable Persian marriage customs as an explanation of that nation ''i miserable record of civil strife and continual warfare 44 . As a loyal Jew Philo would naturally see in Gentile departure from the divinely given commandments (Noachic if not Mosaic) a transgression bound to entail social penalties, in much the way that the apostle Paul treats the matter in the fin;t chapter of Romans. If the argument to assert the relativity of all moral codes is equally valid
for !hose who believe !hem (wilh lhe happy corollary lhal all ar< equally invalid for the na1ural sociologist and detached observer). then it is an effective criticism of this contention to show thatlhose who live under a code of social ethics dramatically divergent from that of the majority of mankind enjoy little felicity in their dealings with one anot~r.
42. See, e.g., FIRMJCUSMAtDlNUs.MtJih. 1.2; AMBRaiiASTER.Qu.n. 11.5. 16-20; a clll55ic starcmcnt in Bardaisan's1Aw1 ofdw NGiitJtu (Pidlolo&ia Syriaca 2). See also F. BOLL, "Siudicn iiberCiaudiusPiolemius'',Jb.jirdar.s.
Plailologi~.
suppl. 21 (1894).
1811f. 43. See C>.tlciEN. Conrra Cdsutrl.5.2.5; lk PrillcipiU 2.2•.5-6. For lhc 'cuius ~po eius ~ligio' principle, sec Claudius cited by JosEPHUS.AIIIiq. 20.13; or JUUAN.Ab. GalU.O.S 143AB.
44. PHILO.O.sp«. ~~- 3.13;cf.lkPnwitklflia 1.84-8.5.
THE RELATIVITY OF MORAL CODES
149
Philo's altitude of frank disapprobation is not. of cou~. peculiar to him nor does it arise from his loyalty to Judaism. Catullus (90) speaks of incest as a scarcely credible part of the "impious religion of the Persians''. When Tacituscame to write his biting chapter on the Jews in the fifth book of his Histories (echoing perhaps much anti-Jewish propaganda at the time of the fi~t Jewish revolt). he did not adopt the tolerant scorn we find in Celsus. Tacit us thought it disgusting that "everything we hold sacred is profane to the Jews: whatever is abhorrent (incesta) to us is permissible to them". The consideration jusrified the obliteration of Jerusalem by the Roman legions. Christian write~ in many cases notice the old Greek argument about moral variety or relativity and in this context mention the acceptability of incest among the Pe~ians. Their general view. however. is that such moral dive~ily is to be expected in pagan society and is contrasled with Ihe homogeneous ethic of Christ's followe~. The most interesting and imponant author is Bardaisan ofEdessa. about 200 A.D .. whose openness to mythological speculation seemed dangerously gnostic to Ephrem and later orthodox write~ofthe Syriac-speakingchurches. The Book ofthe Laws of the Nations catalogues the dive~ity of local national customs with the intention of refuting the astrologers. and includes the observation that Persian marriage customs are practised by Persians not only in Persia but wherever they have settled. He is writing at Edessa and evidently felt his argument reinforced by observation. He notes that when the Romans incorporated Arabia as a province. they enforced changes of social customs on the Arabs. But all the diversities. for Bardaisan. stand in antithesis to the universal ethic of the Christians shared by all believers irrespective of their ethnic origin. He specifically mentions the Persians among those whose customs. need the reformation of the gospel. much as the Gauls among whom not incest but homosexual practice is socially acceptable 45. In the fifth century. one of the letters of Theodoret of Cyrrhus4& protests to three magislrates ofZeugma on the Euphrates at the news that
4.5. Bardaisan's book is edited with UtiD ba115lalion by F. NAU in PQ/rologilJ SynoctJ (1907, Paris). See H.J.W. ORuvER.J,&rdoi.uul ofEdeJSG (Assen. 1966) 90--92; Roben
M. GRANT, Mirock and NtJtwoJ Law in Graeco-ROMIUI and etJTiy Cllristima (Anwerdam. 19S2) Ill f. 46. lbeodort:l, Ep. 8 (7 Sakkclion), rccdited by Y. (Paris, 19S.5)79-81.
A~11111
nw...,ht
in Sofuc~.f C~ffN.f 40
ISO
HENRY CHADWICK
some of them. even though descended from episcopal families and claiming the name of Christian. have nevertheless affianced their daugther.; to their nephews. while uncles have undertaken to marry their nieces. Theodoret sternly reminds the magistrates that such marriages are contrary not only to divine but to human laws. Such customs are (he adds) Persian. not those of Romans who are sons of the faith. Theodoret's letter shows that Diocletian's edict laying down a table of kindred and affinily had not had much effect on social cusloms in Mesopotamia where the influences from the East were sure to be slrong. The contraction oft he Roman Empire after the humiliating peace which Jovian was forced to make on the death of Julian in 363 (though to frontiers which in the long tenn were far more defensible. as Sapor 11 had 1old Conslanlius 11 in 358•7) did not mean that lhere were not slill many Roman citizens within Ihe northerly province of Osrhoene and in frontier towns and fanns of Mesopotamia whose marriages failed to confonn to the more slringenl requiremenls of Roman law. In the sixth century Justinian's !54th Novel continued 1he anempt to check the continuance of unlawful marriage customs in Mesopotamia and Osrhoene4.8. The lemporary emigration of the mosr inveterate pagans from the Roman to the Persian empire in the time of Justinian. recorded by Agathias, provoked Agathias to further comment on the dive~ily of moral codes4.9. Each nation. he remarks. thinks that any custom generally accepted in its sOciety and with a long history must necessarily be perfect and sacred: anything differing from il is wrong. abhorrent, and unworthy. Agathias is content to show the relativity of Pe~ian customs by observing that they have not survived in that part of the world without changes. Present-day Persians, he observes. think nothing of sexual inlercourse with sisle~ and nieces: fathe~ lie with their daughters: worst of all. sons with mothe~. But' the ancient Assyrians. who occupied that territory. did not accepl incest When Queen Semiramis of Assyria approached her son Ninyas, he thought matricide better than 47. AMMIANus 17.5.7. 48. Justinian's Novei1S4 is probably fmm 535-6A.D., andseemstoo'NC sornething10 model. Incestuous marriages up to the date of the edict are not subject of penalty, but hencefonb the death penalty will be inc:IURd by any, whether of high or low estate, even by bishops and clergy, if they nwry kindred within degrees forbidden in tiE Diocletian~s
Roman cmpi~ and foUow the conupt example of the neighbourina Persians. 49. A8Bihias 2.24.
THE RELATIVITY OF MORAL CODES
151
incest. Parysatis loved her son. who rejected her. Agathias concludes that Zoroastrianism has entirely changed rhe Persian ethic. so lhat they are now dualists like the Manichees. The demonstration of historical change proves the invalidity of Persian mores. Agathias · argument does nol appear to be directed towards showing that rhe Persian ethic is perfectly acceptable in Persia and just as right for them as the Romans' ethic is in the Meditenanean world. Despite the relativism. worthy of any social anthropologist. with which his discussion of Persia begins. all the thrust of his argument is to the effect that the present Persian customs are the consequence of an unhappy and. he hopes. remporary abemtion introduced by Zoroaster. The emperor Julian instances the Persian view that it is right to many one's sister or daughter as a fact lefl sadly unexplained by Moses in the story of the tower of Babe I: for human customs differ more than human languagesso. Yet one wonders what Julian"s own opinion was? Probably he followed lhe line we find in Porphyry who remarlts 1ha1 if some races are savages. that is no reasoQ for failing to uphold the values of civilised ethicss,. In late antiquity one may find bolh pagan and Christian agreeing that despite all local variety there is one and lhe same principle of moral law. whose pressure is felt through the conscience. and which nevertheless speaks to men in diverse wayS' in accordance with their circumstances in time and space. The language here is lhal of the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus (27.6.14). But almost identical sentiments spring lo the lips of Augusline himself when making reply to Manichee attacks upon the Old Teslament which picked on the polygamy of the Jewish patriarchs. Augustine rejects lhe view that. because Abraham could sleep wilh Hagar as well as Sarah. Christians of the fifth century could sleep with 1heir serving girls as well as with their wives (as pagans commonly did). In his inscrutable providence God. knows what is right and appropriate for differenl times and places. In any event. The Golden Rule remains for Augustine. as it was eighl centuries earlier for Xenophon. an absolute elhical principle universally valid in all circumsrances for all peoples52.
SO. JUUAN.Adv. Gali/Mo$ 138 B. SI. PDDHYRY.!Halutirwlllill4.21. 52. AUOUS"I"'NE.COI{. 3.7.13-8.17; COIIIra FtiiUlrlm 22.30-59; lH bono conillfllli 2S.33-34;Senno. 51.15.25 and 18.28.!Hdot:rriltGclrr. J.IO.IS ff. (csp. 14.22).
152
HENRY CHADWICK
The Romans were very tolerant in religion, and did not generally regard the worship of one god as exclusive of many others. Indeed. it
was often argued that one ofthe causes of Roman success in establishing its empire lay in Rome's hospitable reception of the cults of all the peoples it had conquered. The pagan Caecilius in the Octavius (6) of Minucius Felix observes that each race and tribe has its own individual rites and worships its local gods. but the Romans worship all. so that they have been rewarded with tule over the entire world. There Wa.'i one exception to the principle that lhe gods of conquered peoples should be propitiated by incorporalion in the state pantheon. namely. the God of the Jews: an exception which to Augustine seemed ironical, since only the one true God had willed to grant the Romans world power53. The Edict of Milan. agreed between Licinius and Constantine in 313. includes the God of the Christians at this level by enunciating the principle that free choice of worship is granted to Christians and to all men ··in order that all the divine powers may be propitious54"'. But Roman hospitality to foreign deities did not include foreign mores. Diocletian had a strongly conservative mind. Pannonians were adverse to change. lt would have been natural to such a man to feel that Persian marriage customs were a scandal that would provide an additional ground for conquering Mesopotamia to the Tigris and beyond. The two edicts here considered. against the Manichees and against incest. look like part of Diocletian's general justification of his eastern cam-
paigns. When on I January 364 it fell to the orator and philosopherThemistius to deliver a speech before the emperor Jovian. who had just made so humiliating a peace with the Persians after the death of Julian, Themistius seized the moment to commend to the emperor the merits of religious toleration. God. he said. actually enjoys diversity of belief. for it shows his mysterious transcendence. The reason why each man sacrifices to his own god is that he has no immediate knowledge of the ~upreme power. Moreover. this recognition of human ignorance justifies lovian in having made peace with the Persians. This last argumenl betrays that under Julian intolerance of Persian maniage customs had continued to provide additional impetus for the Mesopotamian cam-
S3. AutiUSTINE.lkCOIUOSIUWing. 1.12.1-IIJ. S4. EUSEBIUS, Hist. «el. IO.S.4"'
l.AcTANTJUS,/hmonibiU,WrHt:U~Dnm~48.2.
THE RELATIVITY OF MORAL CODES
153
paign which had ended so catastrophically in June 363. Themistius advises Jovian that he has been right to live and let live. Even moralily may be less than absolutess. A believer in theological relativism is obviously more likely to be also an exponenl of moral relativism.
S5. 'THEMisnus.Orm. 5 (67~70c), tJBnsllted intoFrenchanddiscusseclbyG. DAORON. "L'empire romain d'Orient au rv• siecle et les tnlditions politiques de l'hellenisme: le temoinage de Themistios '', in Tra\ldi&X ~~ M~moius dM C~nne dl r~clwrclle tfllirtoiu ~~ dviJisoliOII bywltliMS (Paris, 1968) 3. 168ft.
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
GREEB: AND JEWISH HEROES : FOURTH MACCABEES AND THE GOSPEL OF MARX
In recent years there has been much discussion of miracles in the Gospel of Mark and their alleged relation to a lheios aner or hero Christology. So far as I know, however. New Testament specialists have paid little attenlion 10 lhe Fourth Book of Maccahees. allhough Moses Hadas and D.L. Tiede have mentioned aretalogical uaits in that
book'. In Ibis essay I wish lo lesl several hypolheses. (I) 4 Maccahees has been called an aretalogy of ''impure type2''. but it actually belongs to a distinct type of aretalogy which is not a collection of miracles; at the same time. the immortal life of the martyrs has a miraculous element. (2) Mark can be considered an aretalogy of a mixed type in thal Jesus is portrayed through epiphanies and miracles, but also has some of the traits of an ideal teacher and sage; the latter is given a special dimension lhrough a lheology of lhe Cross and oflowly service; and. finally, Mark contains an idea of Jesus' life after death that is usually expressed as his resurrection but at other times contains elements that suggest translation or assumption. These latter traits are found further developed in Luke. (3) All lhese, including lhe Crucifixion ilself, conslilule lhe glory of Jesus. In this respect there are analogies between Mark and 4 Maccabees, even though Mark does not very explicitly make the connection
I. M. HADAsandM. SMmt.Heroe1tutdGod.r (NewYortr:. 1965)87-97; D.L.nEDE.
71re CharirlfiQ/ic FiBuniU Mihlck WOI'Ur (Missoula, Monc .• 1972) 57 f. 2. HerwlaMGotb, 90: "In itself the 1101) ofEieiDr may be only an imperfect eumple of art:lalogy, but il is an importanl monument in the history of the JCilft because on 1he one hand il is so palpably influenced by the imase ofSocmles and on 1hc 01hcr ic is so palpably a piOIOI)'Pt for along series of subscquen1 manyrdoms. ''
156
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
between the Cross and the other elements. It is more plausible to suppose that he holds these together as signs of glory than that he sets the miracles up in order to expose them as examples of a false Christology. Ludwig Bieler's 9EI0l: ANHP3 is the starting point for all discus~
sions of divine men. This collection of hero stories is very miscellaneous, and Hadas and Smith have made it clear that "aretalogy''. as most scholars understand it. covers a wide range of accounts, usually with certain common features that can be summarized as follows: the hero is a human being. or at least begins as such: he manifests certain unusual. praetematural or superhuman qualities. and does mighty deeds
or miracles; usually he leads a life of signal ethical virtue and teaches wisdom: frequently he dies as a martyr and is deified or assumed into heaven. He does not become a hero, strictly speaking. until after his death 4 . David L. Tiede has argued for a distinction between two types of divine men, one whose arete consists in the working of miracles and the other who is the ideal sage and teacher, who does not resort to the miraculous or at least is portrayed in such a way that the miraculous element is subsidiarys. It is not surprising that most previous studies do not make a distinction between the two types, for in the early case of Pythagoras. images of the shaman. the divine philosopher, and the idealized statesman are already combined, and the traditions about Empedocles indicate that he professed to be both wonderworker and philosopher. When we come to a much later period. Apollonius ofTyana is presented in the double role. But much happened in the meantime. The later Pythagoreans divided sharply. some understanding Pythagoras as the miracle worker and others as the philosopher and scientist (Tiede, 15-20). Thus there arose a clear distinction between two types. Socrates becomes the Greek ideal ofthe divine man, and Plato portrays him as the sage, whose rational and moral virtues constitute his godlike quality. The situation, however, is complex; Socrates had a daimon., he attended 3. l. BIELER. 9EIOSANHP(Vienna, 1935-36). 4. HtrtHs and Gods, 16: ''For a true arela.logy we desiderate a subject who is. to be sure, human bul who can make a claim lo prelematuntl potency by miraculous works or by !he circumstances surrounding his dealh. •· 5. TIEDE. 4-13, Cf. lhe crilicisms of Ono BETZ. "lbe Concept of lhe Socalled 'Divine Man' in Marlc's ChristoLogy", in D.E. Aune ed., Studirs in N.T. IJitd &uly Chrisliatl Liltrll/urt (Leiden, 1912) 229-40.
GREEK AND JEWISH HEROES
157
to dreams and oracles. and he was a religious man and nol a mere rationalist. This left lhe way open for varying inrerprelations of Socrates. as in the case of Pythagoras CTiede. 31. 38). Diog:enes and Epicurus were regarded as divine men in the sense that they were sages. not miracle worker5. The same is true of the Stoic tradition of the divine wise man, though of course reverence for such a sage has a re1igious quality. This tradition can be seen clearly in Plutarch and Seneca. and it is only when one comes to Lucian that one can see that the two types have been mixed. Philostratus and Porphyry witness to the same phenomenon, although they are aware of the philosophical standard (fiede. 43-55. 59.99). lt can be argued. therefore. that the separation of the two types of divine men was due to rationalism and rhat most ancient autho1'5 were not aware of the distinction. When we turn to Jewish Hellenistic literalure, we find that Anapanus. in the second century B.C .. includes mostly miraculous elements among Moses' aretai, while Aristobulus tends to demythologize (Tiede. 151-66. 142). Philo is a much more considerable theologian. He believed in the veracity of the Old Testament and therefore could not disparage Moses' miracles. The Pentateuch made Moses a lawgiver. revealerof divine truth. and a saint. but also one through whom wondel'5 were wrought. Philo understands these latter as functions of Moses' vinue and wisdom: because he surpassed all men in undel'5tanding and was the greatest of all prophets. God acted through him. He was the culmination of a line including Enoch. Noah, Abraham. lsaac and Jacob, but he differed from d1em in degree, not in kinds. Josephus actually calls Moses a theios aner (Ant. 3. 180). referring to Moses' arrangements for the tabernacle. vestments of the priest and so on, to show that in his arete Moses measures up to criteria for Ihe divine man mentioned by anti-Jewish writers. Philo also refel'5 to Moses in this way (Virr. 177). None of this is surprising. for in Deut. 33: I; Josh. 14:6; Ezra 3:2; Ps. 89:1 LXX. Moses is called "man of God"" and the phrase
6. TIEDE. 103 f .. Ill, 120. H.C. Kechai'iobjecledthai.Philo'sUfoo/Mru~s. which for our purposes is the mosl signif~eam ~logy prior to the gospels. is Jewish and based on O.T. stories. Sec "Aretalogies. Hellenislk 'Lives' and lhc Sou~s of Mark", Protocol S~ri~s of tM Colloq14i~s of tll~ C~rwr for HmMnnuical Studi~s. N° 12 (Berkcley, 8 Dec. 1974). The answer is that it is whal. Philo does with the earlier swrics lhal is sisnif~eanl: the changes he makes are in line wilh lhc ue&Uogical1111dition: cf. H~rwstuldGotb. 129-31.
158
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
is also applied to Elijah in 4 Kgdms. I:9 f .• 11 f .. 13. and to Elisha in 4 Kgdms. 4:7. 9. 21: 8:4.7. Yet the fonn theios aner is probably a technical tenn that Jewish writers have adopl:ed from the Hellenistic world. The interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in this period is now so well known that one should no longer have doubts about it. From one point of view. Jewish culture at the beginning of our era was simply a very special kind of Hellenistic culture. Judaism was more distinctive than other religions and often more resistant to the dominant culture. but the differences must always be defined, and one must be cautious in
tracing genetic relationships.
Founh Maccabees is appropiate for us to consider. panly because of its date: as Hadas has shown, it was probably written about A. D. 407. There is almost no possibility that this document had any literary influence on any of the four gospels: the most thal can be argued is that it reflects ways of thinking that were current at this time in Hellenistic Jewish circles. almost cenainly in Syria. perhaps in Palestine itself (Hadas. 122). The OOok presents itself as a diatribe or memorial oration on the heroism of Eleazar, the seven brothers. and their mother, possibly delivered on the anniversary of their manyrdom (I: 10; 3: 19). lt begins as a philosophical discourse designed to prove that the devout reason is sovereign over the emotions (I: I). and it carries this argument through. The theme is in the Platonic and Stoic tradition. but according to the orator devout reason is always in hannony with the Jewish Law. and this can be seen in the attitudes and behavior of Hebrew saints from the time of the patriarchs down to the manyrs of the Maccahean period. The book is therefore a philosophical interpretation of d religious position. The simpler account ofEieazar's manyrdom in 2 Mace 6:18-31 is developed in 4 Maccabees in such a way that Eleazar becomes a philosophical saint". Of course. as Hadas and Smith say. the ultimate 1. M. HADAS.TiriTIIirdtllfdFOIIrfliBooluojMtl«ttbus(NewYork, 1953)95-99. 8. Jonachan A. GowsmN.l Mtl«
GREEK AND JEWISH HEROES
159
pattern is Socrates, and the ideas are basically those expressed in the Gorgias and Protagoras&. This underlines Tiede's point: there are two types of aretalogies, with their corresponding aretai. 1t is true. as Smith says, that in the Hellenistic world arete usually means "miracle" 1o. but this is not necessarily so in Philo, and certainly not in the New Testament. where it is almost always used in the sense of "excellence" or ''virtue'' (Phi I. 4:8; 2 Pet. I :3. 5). The only other occurrence is in I Pet. 2:9, where Christians are bidden to declare the aretai of "him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light". Here the RSV lranslales the word as ''wonderful deeds''. and while lhis can refer to Jesus' miracles the reference is more probably to all of Jesus' minisuy. including his death and descent into the underworld (I Pet 3: 18-22). In 4 Maccabees aretai are nol miracles11.
11 The orator begins by saying that his purpose is lo discuss "whether devout reason is sovereign overthe emotions" ( 1:1: cf. 1:9. 13) 12. The highest virtue arete is ralional judgment (I :2). and he inrends lo praise the vinues of those who died for the sake of virtue (I :8,10). Reason is the guide of the virtues (I :30), and these are essentially the four cardinal
work. TIED£ . .57. ~martts lhat 4 Maccabees lones down lhe minu:ulous molifs: cf. R.M.GRANT.Mirad~ and Nanual Law (AmSierdam. 19.52) 163. 223. Thal4 Maccabees eliminates ~fe~nces to the resurm:tion of the flesh only indicates a different type of eschatology. 9. H~rCHS and Gods. 88-93; HADAS. 11.5-18. See especially Gorgim 472e. S08e, SlOa, .522c~. Tile Protagorm develops similar themes. 10. Morton SMmt (''Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies. Divine Men. the Gospels and Jesus''. JBL. 90 ( 1971) 174-99), definesawai as minu:les ( 17.5). Amalogia ''means both 1elling tall s1oriesand 1he praise of a god ... Tile useorar~ti in 1he sense of'a demonslntion of divine power. a minu:le'. is also common" ( 17.5 f.). like Tiede. he recognius lhatlhere are two 1ypes of aretalogies. ''bare collections or miracle s1ories wilh almost no connective material, and the life of the hero as a holy man" ( 177·79). 11. Thus 4 Maccabees does not de mythologize: a~talogy; it simply undeBtandsame in one of ils recogniz.ed uses. On 1he 01her hand. aretoi of God himself are present, e.g .. in the judgment on Appollonius (4:9-14). 12. 4 Mace 1: 13. i;lJt'oU~ lril tOLVOv d aittokQ6:TWQ bti.v TliN n:atkirv 6 >..6yt~ JOSEPHUS. Ant. 4. 327-31. says thal: Moses had complele command of the passions(tWv na8Wv aVtolcQCilU)Q): cf. nEDE. 236. Josephus writes at a later time. and the phrase may be a commonplace.
160
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
virtues (I :2-4. 18: 5:23 f. )13. A man may not abandon virtue even for the sake of his parents (2: 10). Indeed God's Law is a virtuous law ( 11 :5). The seven bmrhers were all educated by the same law and trained in the same virtues ( 13:24). so that they had virtuous habirs ( 13:27). They mainlain that they are suffering because of this godly training ( 10: 10). and that where virtue is concerned the sons of the Hebrews alone are invincible (9: 18). Well-known athletic metaphors appear. The brothers are contestants or champions (agonistas) for virtue ( 12: 14) and believe that they will have its prire and will be with God (9:8). The tyrant, whom they address as ''Hater of virtue'' ( 11 :4). observed the courage (andreia) of their virtue ( 17:23 )14. All of lhis is used for the purpose of instilling loyalty to the Law; note the e~hortations of6:22: 7:8: 18•1f. Thearetai mentioned in 4 Maccabees. therefore, are not "miraculous" but they are certainly marvelous. ·'Who did not wonder at 1he athletes of the divine legislation? Who was not amazed?'' ( 17:16: cf. 17: 11-15). Although the great miracle, as we shall see, comes after the death of the martyrs. the incidental background contains wondrous elements. The orator mentions past e~ploits of heroes that are not miracles, those of David (3:6-16) and Phineas ( 18: 12), along with the more miraculous stories of Abraham and lsaac (13:12: 16:20; 18:11). and especially Daniel, Mishael, Hananiah and Azariah ( 16:3, 21: 18: 12f.). Thusarete can involve both the nalural and supemalural. but all aretai are wondrous and can receive a miraculous reponse from God. In 4:8-14there is an epiphany in the Temple that is reminiscent of 2 Mace 2:21-23: 6:18-22. Nevertheless for the nine martyrs there is no escape from death. Eleazar is the first example. He reminds us of the men bearing the same name in 3 Mace 6: 1-15 and 2 Mace 6:43-46. He is an aged priest, leader of the flock. learned in lhe Law. with a good reputalion at Antiochus' coun because of his philosophy (4 Mace 5:4). He is even
13. The variations on the virtues in Plalo are interesting, for sometnnesepisteml! 50ems to take 1he place of phrOMsis or sophiD, and holiness (hosiotes) is a fifth. !hough it is equated wilh justice, in that the former is directed toward the gods and the laner 1oward men; cf. Gqrgias 507 a-c; Protagoras 329 f., 361 b. This may be signifiCant for 4 Maccabees. 14. TtEDE. 108 and n. 14, cites several passages where Jacobthe wrestler is an ''alltlete of virtue"; cf. aJso tk Somniis I. 59. Cynics and Stoics used the tenn to describe the vinoous Hcracles.
GREEK AND JEWISH HEROES
161
called panagios (7:4 )". Before his martyrdom he utters two noble speeches (5: 16-38; 6: 17-23). and when he is at the point of death he raises his eyes to God and prays (6:27-29). Unlike Jesus. who gives new teachings as well as old. the martyrs of 4 Maccabees offer no strictly new doctrines. but Eleazar's speeches ~ cenainly didactic; thus he carries on his vocation to the very end. The seven brothers are similarly ponrayed in ideal colors. They were "handsome (lcJJ/oi). modest. noble (gennaioi). and accomplished in every way" (8:3). as well as unswerving in obedience to the Jewish Law: ''they were righteous and self-controlled and brave and magnanimous. and loved their brothers and their mother. so that they obeyed her even to death"" (15: 10); thus they had all the good qualities admired in Judaism and in the Hellenisiic world (cf. 13:19- 14: 10). Before they die they uner heroic speeches and encounge one another to martyrdom (e.g .. 13:9-18). They are confident thatat their death Abraham. lsaac andJacob will receive them (asEieazaralsosaid. 5:37). The brothers lit the pattern of the ideal sage in that they have complete control o>'ertheir emotions and are absolutely unflinching in their resolution to be loyal to the Law. The mother makes no speeches to the king and the guards. but throws herself on the flames so that no one may touch her body (17: 1). Yetshe also is a teacher. She had pn:viously told her children the story of her holy life and that of her husband (18:7-191 and had exhorted them to stand fast in martyrdom (16:16-23). Both of these speeches are filled with biblical examples. She is the greatest of all the heroes; note the panegyrics. 14:11-15:32: 17:17-7.
Ill The result of this heroism is salvation. The tyrant was conquered and the native land purifiedtl. But. even more. the manyrs became. as it IS. The Liddcii-Scoti-Jones lexicon gives only thispassageasanexampleofthe word. In pttristic literature il is used frequently to refer to God, the Logos. the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary, Jesus' human body, and also to saints. ascetics. etc.;cf. G.W.H. LAMPE.A PatristicGudl.Lxirot~(Odord.l961).
16. cr. Goi..DSTEIN. 33. 73, 224. The tradition of 2 Maccabees, which is continued here. is lhal Israel had been afflicted because of its sins and was mkemed by loyal obsei'vancc: of lhe Law and mal'lyrdom. I Maccabccs holds lhal sin had caused the amic:tion bul that the land was saved through the heroism of Manathiah and his sons, whom God raised up.
162
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
were, a ransom (antipsychon) for the nation, ''and through the blood of those devoted ones and their death as an expiation (hi/asterion), divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been afflicted" (17:21 f.: cf. also 6:27-29: 7:4; 8: 15; 9:30; 11:24 f.: 18:4). This is the public, national side of the marvel. On the other hand. the heroes run the course toward immortality (athanasia). Signs of this appear as they are dying. Eleazar was "unmoved. as though being tortured in a dream·· (6:5), and the eldest of the brothers was' 'as though transfonned by fire into incorruptibility" (aphtharsia. 9:22). The mother gave ''rebirth for immortality to the whole number of her sons·' ( 16: 13): all of these heroes ''have received pure and immortal souls from God'' (18:23). They went to death believing that Abraham and lsaac andJacob would welcome them ( 13: 17). and the orator proclaims. "Those who die for the sake of God liv~ in God (or to God). as do Abraham and lsaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs'' ( 16:25), although in another place this is promised to ''as many as attend to religion with a whole heart" (7: 18 f.). The heroes "were deemed worthy to share in a divine inheritance" (18:3; cf. 17: 18). The mother is given the highest honor of all: ·'The moon in heaven, with the stars, does not stand so august as you, who after lighting the way of your star-like seven sons to piety, stand in honorbefore God and are finnly fixed in heaven with them" ( 17:5). The orator never steps outside the boundaries of Jewish monotheism, but in his narrative and panegyric he freely uses motifs belonging to the thought-world of pagan aretalogy and comes as close as possible to the divinization of human beings. The heroes are savior-figures. Historically. their actions put an end to persecution and inspired the holy people- who are called ''the flock'' (5:4). "Hebrews" (5:2: 9: 18). and "ls
GREEK AND JEWISH HEROES
163
wrath of the Almighty (7:38). In 12:43-45, however, when Judas collects a sin-offering on behalf of the soldiers who had fallen in battle, the author explains this was an atonement (exhilasmon) for the dead in hope of their resurrection.
IV
When parallels from the New Testament are considered. the theological language of 4 Maccabees seems closest to that of Paul and I Timothy. Three times in 2 Cor I I: 13-15 Paul refers to the false apostles who transform themselves. (spuriously. however) into apostles of Christ, and to Satan, who also disguises himself as an angel of light. In Phil 3:2 I the verb is used in a good sense of the "transformation" of the bodies of Christians into "confonnity" with Christ's glorious body. The word for change or transfiguration in 2 Cor 3: 18 and Mark 9:2. is a synonym. but it is not found in 4 Ma~cabees. "In1monality" occurs in I Cor 15:53 f. and I Tim 6:16, and "incom.Jptibility" in I Cor 15:53 f. Hi/asterion is found in Rom 3:25. lgnatius of Antioch uses the word antipsychos to refer to his own martyrdom (Eph. 21: I; Polyc. 2:3)17. The word does not appear in the New Testament, but we have antilytron in I Tim 2:6, and ifl. Mark 10:45 the Son of Man is to give his life as a "ransom (lytron) for many". While these words are the obvious ones to express such ideas. one may conjecture that theological ideas and language similar to those of 4 Maccabees were current in circles with which Paul and Mark were in contact, particularly since Paul's opponents in 2 Corinthians evidently called themselves Hebrews, Israelites, and seed of Abraham (2 Cor 12:22: cf. the passages previously mentioned and 4 Mace 5:2; 9:18; 18: I). The orator of 4 Maccabees refers to his people by such honorific words and never calls them simply ''Jews18''.
17. Ignat ius uses so many expressions found in 4 Maccabees that if he does no1 know document they must already have been commonplaces; e.g .. , chorus (Jgn. Rom. Z:Z: Eph. 19:2). painsofbirth(Rom. 6: I). the prize ofGod'sathlete is immonality and eternal life(Pol. 2:3). Cf. 0. PERL£R. ''Das vierte Makkabaerbuc:h. lgnatius van Antiochien und die iitesten Mii'tyrerberichte ·•. Rivisto di arch~ologia cristillNl 25 ( 1949). 47· 72. 18. S. Zeitlin has argued (JQR 43 (1953) 365-79) that the Jews of Antioch called themselves Hebrews and reserved the tenn lotlbalol. for the Jews of Palestine and Egyp:.
164
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
In describing wonder all he miraculous. Mark seldom uses the words employed by 4 Maccabees. All "wonder" at Jesus' deeds only once (Mark 5:20). And people are "amazed" at his teaching except in Mark 7:37 where "he both makes the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak". The usual reaction lo miracles is fear (4:41: 5:15; 33: 6:50: 16:8). Elsewhere fear is the response to Jesus' leaching (9:32) and his mysterious bearing. but such fear is also coupled with astonishmenl ( 10:32. !hough expressed by a verb not found in 4. Mace): and this last is significant because Jesus is on the way to Jerusalem to suffer.
V At first glance it might seem unlikei:Y thal a comparison with 4 Maccabees would throw some light on the theology of Mark and its
sources. The two books differ greatly in Kenre and purpose. One can contrast the erudite philosophy of the orator with the rich and complicated theology of Mark. As an aretalogy. 4 Maccabees belongs to the type celebrating lhe ideal sage and manyr. though it includes some supernatural elemenls. The writer of Mark. so far as we know. invented a new and complex genre, the gospel. The first pan of the book contains epiphanies. exorcisms and wondrous healings that establish Jesus as a hero with divine power. and these have analogies in pagan tales. though the influence of the old Testament is also present. Mark resembles Philo and especially Anapanus in that traits of the divine man have been mediated through Hellenistic Judaism. The latter half of Mark is dominated by t~ themes of the suffering Son of Man and the discipleship of lowly service. and. as we shall see, in all pans of the gospel there are elements that picture Jesus as the ideal sage and teacher, though these do not stand out so obviously. How then is Mark's purpose to be explained? Does he set up the miracles only as examples of a false theo/ogia gloriae in contrast to the true theo/ogia crucis 19. Or. on the contrary, is Mark saying that both of these elements are pan of the truth about Jesus' nature. and that together they manifest the divine glory? In that case, how does he make the synthesis? 19. This is lhe thesis ol· T.J. WE£oEN. Made: Traditions in Confli~t (Philadelphia, 1971). Forcrilkisms. seeS. BROWN. Tlleol. Stud. 33 (1972)7S4f.; Q. Q~NELL.CBQ 35 ( 1973) 124 f.; E. ScHWEIZER.EVT 33 (1973) .533-37; TIED£. 257-60
GREEK AND JEWISH HEROES
165
Mark's miracle stories can be classified as (a) epiphanies, including nature miracles; (b) exorcisms; and (c) other healings20. Although the epiphanies have fonns much like those of pagan theophanies, every one of them except perhaps the Cursing of the Fig Tree ( 11: 12-14. 20) contains an echo of the Old Testament as an essential pan oft he story. and here Jesus is to some degree a Man of God like Elijah or Elisha. As in 4 Maccabees. we have a coalescence of Jewish and pagan elements. The epiphanies occur at significant points in the story: at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (I :9-11. 12f. ). at the end of the discourse on lhe parables of the Kingdom (4:35-41). just before the crucial controversy over the clean and the unclean (6:30-44, 45-52), after the healing of the Deaf Mute (8: 1-9). and after Peter's confession and the first announcement of the Passion (9:2-8). There is no suggestion of secrecy in any of these except in the warning given after the Transfiguration (9:9f. ). The essence of an epiphany is revelation. not hiddenness. lt is true that Mark tells of the Baptism and Temptation in such a way that Jesus can be thought of as the only witness of the marvels. so there can be a secret epiphany (cf. Luke 10:18, where it is Jesus who sees Satan fall); on the other hand, nothing could be more public than the miraculous feedings2'. The exorcisms differ from the epiphanies in that they contain no reminiscences of the Old Testament. Exon:ism does not occur in the Hebrew Bible; the nearest approach is the story that David restored Saul to sanity by playing the lyre (I Sam 16:23). Exorcism is known in other Jewish literature. Tobit (6:7. 16 f.; 8:2 f.) tells of channs for driving a demon away. Josephus ascribes exorcism to Solomon and says that he himself saw a man named Eleazar heal demoniacs in the presence of Vespasian22. The motif of secrecy hardly arises at all in the exorcisms. The demoniac ofGerasa is actually told to announce the news of his cure
20. For a differenl dassiftealion. see H.D. BETZ...Jesus as Divine Man ... in F.T. Tronered., JeSw tJIId tM Historiml (Philadelphia. 1968) 117-19. 21. Morton SMI'llf (''The Are1aLogy used by Mark'', Protocol ojdwSUdr Col/oqltyoj the Cenierfor HenMMwictJI Studies, ed., W. Wuellner(Bertceley, 12 Apritl913) 16) agrees with Cadbury lhat it is fwile to try to find a single motive for all the details in the gospel dw can be interpR:Ied as secm:ive; cf. H.J. CADBURY. ''Mi-.ed Motives in the Gospels". Proceedings ofW AlneriC'dll Philosophicol Society 9S (19SI) 117-24; see especially 119 f. 22. Ant. 8. 46-49. R. Johanan ben Zakbi also had a technique forupelling demons: cf. I. MEM>EI.3JHN.s.v. ''Exon::ism", TMinurpretlr'sDictUwuyofdwBibll. 2. 199.
166
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
(5: 19 f.). Although the exorcism stories may have been told primarily to exhibit Jesus' power. lhe ''Lord'' of 5: I 9 may be not Jesus but lhe God of Israel: Luke 8:39 of course makes rhis explicit In the story of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter. the emphasis is not on the exorcism as such but on rhe failh of the woman and the fact that a Gentile is
healed. The narratives of the other healings are not all of one pattern. In four cases. Mark introduces an element of secrecy or heightens it. Sometimes the srory itself contains at least a suggestion of secrecy. but in most of the incidents Mark makes secrecy almost impossible. Indeed i1 is not at all certain that Mark disapproves when. for example, the healed
leper spreads the news ( 1:45). It seems. then, that Mark has no hesitation in ponraying Jesus as a hero with wondrous powers. Rather he takes delight in the stories. The epiphanies describe the glory that is to be seen again, the exorcisms show Jesus' triumph over demonic forces, and the other healings. like the miraculous feedings, not only exhibit his power but also the benefit to hungry and suffering people. Even the element of compassion comes in occasionally. although it is a minor motif. Not only does the Jesus of Mark have traits of the miracle-working divine man; he is also presented as the teacher and sage. He teaches with authority (e.:cousia I :22, 27), and, like the head of a philosophical school, he gathers disciples and trains them. Goodspeed long ago pointed out that in the Gospel of John the discourses resemble the Platonic dialogues23. Mark contains a substantial amount of teaching, and in this respect is meagre only by comparison with Matthew and Luke. In the apophthegms, he resolves the problem or controversy with a pithy saying which may be a wisdom logion (e.g., 2: 17b, 21 f.; 3:25; perhaps 6:4), an interpretation of the Old Testament (e.g., 2:27; 3:4; 7: 15; 10:11 f.; 12:27, 37), or a pronouncement that exhibits his authority as revealerof the will of God (e.g., 2:10, 28; 9:37, 39 f.; 10:15, 25). In this last respect, he may be compared with Philo's Moses (Tiede, 123-32); the diff~rence is that Mark does not have to show that this is due to Jesus' vinue. The story itself establishes that. There are three major teaching sections in Mark. The pericopes
23. E.J. GooosPW>.AnlmroductiontotheN.T. (Chicago, 1937)308f.
GREEK AND JEWISH HEROES
167
4: J-34 and 13:5-37 frame most of the public ministry and deal respectively with the themes of the Kingdom of God and the coming oft he Son of Man. The third collection might be considered as beginning with 9:9, 9:14. or 9:33. and concluding with 10:45. lt is more miscellaneous. but its principal theme is discipleship. and here Jesus is pictured as substantially completing the education of the Twelve. The parables, which go back to the earliest Jesus-tradition. and no doubt to Jesus himself. may have been collected, as Robinson believes, as pan of wisdom tradition2". If so. the original motive was to preserve what Jesus. as a sage, had uttered. Chapter 4 includes other wisdom sayings (4:21 f .. 24). These parables are eschatological in nature, but, since Mark includes the interpretation of the parable of the Sower (4: 13-20). he may not be quite conscious of this. What is most probable is that Mark wishes to collect all the imponant teachings of Jesus that have been handed down in his chun:h. Chapter 13 is a Jewish apocalypse combined with directions for disciples. some of whom must flee Jerusalem. and others bear witness. lt is interesting rhat Jesus' discourse on the end of the age comes at the end of his ministry. and one can compare Philo's starement that when Moses is about to be summoned to heaven and to be transformed, soul and body. into a single unity. that of mind, pure as the sunlight, he is possessed by the spirit, making specific prophecies, no longer general ones. ofrhe destiniesofthe twelve tribes(VitaMos. 2.288;cf. Deut 33). The ponrait of Jesus as the ideal sage is nol confined to his teaching. He exhibits the bearing of a divine man; he exercises such self-control that he is not swayed by the enthusiasm oflhe crowds or mastered by his own emotions (I :37 f.: 3:34 f.). AI times he can seem disrant and detached. Was such a stance thought to~ appropriate to a rabbi, and, if so, was this too a legacy from the Hellenistic world? We simply do nor know. Eccl 32 teaches reslraint in speech. lhough the principal motive here is modesty. The three Passion Predictions. which are highly stylized (8:31; 9:31; 10:33 f.). picture a strong resolve to carry on in the face of sufferir)g and death, and in this Jesus is like Socrates and other sages (cf. also 10:38). At the hearings before the high priest and Pilate he is silent
24. J.M. ROBINSONandH.K~. Tt'G~cloriesdrrottgh&ulyChrislioniry(Philadel phia. 1971)71-113.
168
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
eM:ept for the words lhat in some sense admit his messiahship ( 14:62: 15:2-5).
Yet this must not be pressed too far. for Mark is not consistent in this. perhaps because he is tmnsmining a tradition. Jesus shows strong emotion in some of the Q traditions. and similarly in Mark he occasionally shows compassion (I :41; 6:34: 8:2). affection ( 10:21), or indignation (1:41, D and some Old Latin MSS.: 3:5: 8:12). The Gethsemane scene ( 14:33-36) and the cry from the Cross ( 15:34) display him as a human being in torment or the Son of God appealing to his Father. which or bolh? In these respects the Jesus of Mark is not as imperturbable as the martyrs of 4 Maccabees.
VI The theory of T.J. Weeden should how be conside..,d. Several criticisms of his book have already been published, and it is not my purpose to deal with all parts of it. My principal difficulty with this brilliant and stimulaling monograph is that I do not think that an evangelisl like Mark. whose work rests on a variety of tra.ditions. can have had one single theological and polemical purpose. We should not, of course. suppose that he is simply naif and combines traditional materials with no concern as to whether they fil together. There are too many signs of deliberate slructure and theological reflection on lhe pan of the evangelisl himself to make this plausible. I am not sure lhal we can understand how all of his lheological posilion fits togclher, but it seems clear to me that Mark has a ponrait of Jesus that combines the hero who fights the demonic world, heals the sick, is an ideal teacher who accepts the Cross willingly. and bids his disciples to follow the same road of humble service25. Much of Weeden's thesis rests on Mark's picture of the disciples as blind. deaf, stupid, and rebellious. This is connected with the .. messianic secret''. The two issues musl be distinguished. 2S. Similarly H.D. BETZ. 116-25, holds thlt Mark completely transforms the ''divine man" type of Christology. whKh is the earliest in the ~-Synoplic tradition, witholll substantially changing the pericopes which contain it. Thi!l he does through his theory of the mcssianic scc~l. by historicizing the material, and by his eschatological emphasis. I can see the logic of this, but I am not certain thalthe early Christians were always so theological.
GREEK AND JEWISH HEROES
169
The disciples are sometimes almost unbelievably stupid and stubborn, particularly in their rejection of the prophecy that the Son of Man must suffer. and at times Ihey are arroganl. Vel on other occasions they are successf~l in healing and casting out demons (6: 12 f.). They follow Jesus most of the lime, and the implication oflhe entire gospel is thal the tradition of Jesus' words and deeds comes from lhem. From what olher source would Mark have claimed to receive his tradilion'!The Twelve in fact represent lhe leadership of the Church, which. allhough it often fails, does not always do so. Wrede and many commentalors have held 1ha1 the stupidily of the disciples and the molif of secrecy about the beatings are pan of a single theological theory held by the evangelist Mark. We have shown, however. that the note of secrecy is nol consislently carried through. nor is the adverse criticism of the disciples. The .. messianic secret" in lhe strictest sense ought to mean the secret of Jesus' nature, and this we do have in Mark. There is also the secret of the Kingdom of God, which is bound up with the obscurity of the parables in chap. 4. Bur it is doubtful that all of this is directed against the Twelve and lheir later successors. The story of the Crucifixion itself contains two elements. Johannes Schreiber has attempted to account for this by assigning them to separate traditions. Thus he supposes that 15:20b. 22. 24. 21 comprise a theological apologetic resting on quotations from the Old Testament. and that Mark. in order to present Jesus as a th~ios an~r. added 15:25 f.. 29a, 32c, 33. 34a, and 37 f.28. Weeden turns lhis theory completely around and holds that Mark added the Old Testament apologetic to an earlier hem-tradition ( 145-7; 165 f.). This is ingenious. and if such a separation can be made, Weeden has the better of the argument; but both critics arbitrarily cut to pieces a connected account in support of their theories. If Mark had wished to deny the hero Christology he could have concluded the account with Pan of 15:37, ''and Jesus ... breathed his last''. He did not need to add the cry from the Cross and the testimony of the centurion. We should not exclude the possibility that Mark added elements. particularly Old Testament reminiscences, to the story; but if he had wished to slant the theology in either of the two directions indicated above, he could have done so more clearly.
26. J. SctiREIBER. ThftliogW/Ms
V~11n1WIU
(HamburJ. 1967) 24-40,66-82.
170
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
VII Both Jesus and the nine manyrs arc presented as exemplary figures. and the message in each case is that lhe ell.emplar must be followed and imitated. But whereas it is presumed that any truly devoul and courageous Jew might equal the deeds of the Maccabean heroes and receive the same reward. no deed of Jesus' disciples could have the significance for salvation that is expressed in Mark 10:45 and in Jesus' actions at the Last Supper. The disciples can only drink the cup that he drank and be baplized with the same baptism ( 10:38): Jesus disclaims the right to assign them special places in the Kingdom of God. In both Mark and 4 Maccabees, then, we have stories of arelai that culminate in martyrdom, and the deaths of the heroes lead to their reception into heaven. We may now consider a view of the future life that is found in the materials of Mark's gospel and possibly in the mind of·the evangelist himself. Mark 12:26f.. like 4 Maccabees. presumes that the patriarchs are living in heaven. The ultimate background of this is probably the story ofEiijah (2 Kings 2:11 f.). coupled with the statement in Deut 34:6 that no one knows where Moses' grave is. The pericope Mark 12:18-27 is of course a controversy over the resurrection doctrine, but it concludes with the affinnation that there can be life after death before the general resurrection. lt has always been known that such a conception was present in ludaism. In Wis 3:1-9 it is said that the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God. The Messiah will open the gates of paradise (T. Levi 18: 10). and elsewhere in the Testaments of the Twelve Patrian:hs there are allusions to the patrian:hsas living (T. Levi 18:14; T. Judah 2S:I;T. Benjamin 10:6). Another book, the Testament of Job, teaches that the souls of the righteous are taken to heaven and live there in a glorified state, while their bodies are buried on eanh in hope of the resurrection. We cannot be certain of the date of this document, although most scholars assign it 10 the first century B.C. There are tantalizing parallels to 4 Maccabees. lt is revealed to Job lhat when he is raised up he "will be like an athlete who spars and endures hard lahors and wins the crown" (T. Job4:8). His throne is in heaven (33:2-9). He says that his children were taken up into heaven by
GREEK AND JEWISH HEROES
171
their Creator (39:9). In the lanerpartofthe book. where Job is no longer giving his ••testament''. and his brother Nereos is evidently telling the story (53: 1). Job"s wife and tbe four ""kings"" see the children crowned alongside the splendorofthe heavenly one (40:5; cf. 47:3). Finally. one who sits in a gmat chariot comes for Job's soul. while his body is buried (52:4·6). Thus Job is another figure wbo lives a life of piety. suffeB grievous tonures, and at last is glorified in the presence ofGod27. The view of tile future life in 4 Maccabees contains less of the mythological than this. and there is still less in tbe gospels. It has. however. been argued that behind the gospels there is an early Christian doctrine that Jesus was lranslated into heaven, and that this can be found even in Mark. Midrashic useofPs 110:1 may have had much to do with this28. Thus it is not necessary to say more than that Jewish speculations provided an atmosphere in which the idea of translation was acceptable, and it may be pointed oul thal only the souls of Job and his children, not their bodies, were taken into heaven. The same is evidently true of the manyrs of 4 Maccabees. The Gospel of John combines the idea of Jesus' resunection with the thought that his lifting up on the Cross is also his exaltation (John 3:14 f.; 12:32 f.). Neill Hamilton has even soughttoprove that in Mark Jesus' resurrection is a translation like that of Moses and Elijah•. Jercmias holds that Mark's use of the verb ai'IDstenai (8:31 ), which Matthew and Luke usually replace by egenhenai (e.g.. Matt 16:21 = Luke 9:22). is earlier, and Jewish rather than Hellenistic30. Luke usually presupposes the more dominant idea of resurrection. and in 24:39, 42 f. he emphasizes the physical resunection of Jesus. Part of the apostolic preaching is that Jesus will be judge of the living
27. Rderences are to the edition of R. A. KRAFT. Tile Te:riQiflent of Job CMissoula, 1974), which has a new system or verse numbering. The latter part or the book, from chap. 46 on, contains ideas that suggea gnostic influence. Job's 1hree daughters. born 10 him after his miseries, learn the language or the angels. who are also called uthons (49:2) and cheNbim (S0:2), and sing hymns in lhat new dialect. I have no1 tried 10 investig.ate 1he question or sources in this book. 28. B. L1NDARS,NewTeSIIIIfVIVApoloptic(LondoD,I961)4S-!51)tmccslhisdc:velopment. 29. N. Q. HAMILTON. "Resumc:lion Tradition and lhe Composition of Mark". JBL 84 (196!5)41S-21: d. also WEEDEN. 106-IBOand.C.H. TALBERT. WhcrtisaGrupe/?(Philadc:lphia, 1977) 40-41. 30. J. JEREMIAS.NewTe.rldltVIIITMology(2 vols.; New York, 1971) I. 277 r.
172
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
and the dead (Acts 10:42). and Luke pictures Paul asconlending for the Pharisaic doclrine ofresuneclion (Acls 26:8: cf. 17: 18. 32). Yel Luke is able to combine with this a doctrine of translation. Not only does the story of the Rich Man and L.azarus say lhatthe beggar was carried to
Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22). bul Jesus is also quoled as saying, ''Today you will be with me in Paradise" (22:43). Luke rewrites Mark 14:62 to read. ''but from now on the Son of Man will be seated althe righl hand oflhe pnwerofGod"" (Luke 22:69). and Lindarsnace51hi51o Ps 110: J31. This 1ype of belief in the future life in no way excludes the general resurrection, but il does tend to make illess important. What is perhaps most significant is Luke's idea of the Cross aad its sequel. As in John 20: 17. the Resurrection is a stage toward the Ascension. Neilt~er of the 1wo evangelists minimized Jesus' physical resurrection. but the idea of assumption was in their tradition. For Luke it is the Ascension that is the climax32. In Luke 9:51. Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem when he knows that the time for his .. taking up .. has come. The corresponding verb is used in the LXX in 4 Kgdms 2:9-11 of Elijah's being received into heaven, and in I Mace 2:5833. Luke rewrites the Transfiguration story to show that Moses and Elijah spoke to Jesus of his exodos which he would accomplish in Jerusalem (9:31)34. The cloud (in 1he singular) of 1he Transfiguntion (9:34). corresponds to the cloud of Exod 19: 16 and the cloud of the Ascension (Acts I :9). Thus the Transfiguration is connected with the Ascension rather than the Parousia. All of this lends significance to the fact that in the controversy with lhe Sadducees. Luke adds ••for all live 10 him"" (20:38). words lhalare almost identical with those in 4 Maccabees.
31. 8. LINDARS. ''Rc-cnlertheApocalyptic:SonofMan,'' NTS22(1975)66. 32. H. CONZEIJoiiANN.TiwTh«JioRYo/St.l..ah(NcwYortc.. 1960)202-6:EricFranklin,
Christ th~ I...Drd(Philadelphia. 1975) 29-41. 33. GoLDSTEIN. 241: ''Atleast from the time of the G~k translation ofKinp, the~ we~ Jewish authorities who we~ ~hac:tant to believe thal Elijah, a mortal, had bcc:11 taken up all the way into heaven (cf. Ps 115:16)''. 34. EvcrythinJ in Luke from 9:51 on isJcsus·~~otbu. and theCentnl.l Seclion is the new Deuteronomy; cf. C.F. EVANS. in D.E. Nineham, ed., Sltldks ill tM Gospds (Odoni, 1955) 37-53.
GREEK AND JEWISH HEROES
173
VIII
I have attempted to isolate one or more collections of miracle stories used by Mark 35. Reconstructions will continue to differ. depending on the criteria used. but it is likely that much of the material had heen collected, probably in written fonn. before Martc received it. A few of these stories may already have contained traditions that Jesus forbade publicity of the miracles contained therein31. Mark exaggerated this motif, perhaps with the laner part of his gospel in mind, to indicate that the healings and exorcisms were only part of Jesus' ministry. To this extent - but only to this extent - Weeden 's perceptions are correct. Here we must try to imagine the situation in which the evangelist found himself. Like many others in his local church. he knew stories that Jesus had cast out demons. healed lepers. fed a multitude. walked on the water. and raised the dead. He accepted all of this witbout question, and could ~ognize in the Old Testament analogies or types for at least part of the items. Are we to suppose that he said to himself, .. Now I am going to sit down and compose an aretalogy of Jesus" or ··Here is a nice aretalogical collection that I can use in the first part of my gospel"? Instead he was an evangelist with the task of winning outsiders and instructing those who were already within, and these stories filled him with awe and zeal. He knew other traditions that pictured Jesus as a teacher. proclaiming the Reign of God, engaging in controversies with the scribes over points of the Torah (these were of concern to his community. which had not yet perfected its identity and came into contact with non-Christian Jews). and also training his disciples and unering words of wisdom. The tradition be had received was panly that of the ideal teacher. Mark's church also had a lively expectation of Jesus' return u Son of Man; he knew its apocalyptic-eschatological traditions. But what 35. P. J. Ac:hrcmeier. JBL 89 ( 1970} 265-91, concludes that Mark U.'ied two parallel calenae or miracles. Monon Smith ("The Aretalogy used by Mark"(cited n. 21 above) 2-13) cites fifteen passaps rmm the firsl pad or Mark which he believes belonsed to an arelalogy. By oon1ras1. lhe second hair or lhe gospel shows Jesus's supematuml plwer chieHy ahrough prophecy. while J=."'phecy is Cllll~mely rare in 1he aretalogy (13-15). Smilh combines variouselemenls in reconstructing the aretalogy. whetuS I woulddtaw a distinction belwccn lhe eAOn:isms, whe~O.T. mutirs a~ not obvious, and lhe epiphanies andhealings. wheretheO.T. is echoed. 36. Cr. A. fRIDfi.KltSEN. ~ Problmr of Mil'tiCir in Early ClrrlllilJlliry (Minneapolis, 1972) 110-118.
174
SHERMAN E. JOHNSON
controlled his theological purpose most was what he had learned about the night of Jesus' benayal and Last Supper, his Crucifixion and burial. and the message to the women at the Empty Tomb. In this sense. as Marxsen says, the gospel is written backwards, with lhis always in mind37. From this point of view, it does not matter greatly whether Mark received the Passion Narrative as a unit or as several stories, or whether he understood the promise as a resurrection appearance in Galilee or as the return of the Son of Man. What is important to Mark are the Cross and the fact that Jesus is alive. It is conceivable that someone before Mark. thinking of the suffering Servant in 11 Isaiah. concluded that the Son of Man must suffer. sometimes it has happened that an unknown teacher gets an insight and
another theologian develops il. But, so far as we know. it is Mark who first explicated this doctrine clearly. 11 tied together eschatological predictions of the Son of Man with three sayings that he placed early in his gospel. One of these proclaimed Jesus' authority to forgive sins on earth as Son of Man (2: I0) and another expressed his same authority as lord of the Sabbath (2:28). A third. which he related closely to the other. was a saying of Jesus as teacher, that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath (2:27). Mark may not have been conscious that he was combining the miracle worker and the ideal teacher, as Philo did in a different way. He was a theologian but he did not disclose the workings of his mind, because his purpose was to proclaim the Good News. not to explain himself. The curious context of the Feeding of the Four Thousand may. however. give us a clue to his purpose. The miracle is follOwed by Jesus· categorical refusal to give a sign (8:12). Does Mark include this because no sign will be given the Pharisees as representatives of a faithless generation? Or is it Mark's thought that the feedings are not a ''sign" in the sense of an arbitrary miracle worked to prove Jesus' authenticity (cf. Man. 4:3 f.= Luke 4:3 f.)? Mark follow• this up with 8:14-20. on the blindness and deafness of the disciples. which in tum leads to the transition miracle ofthe Blind Man of BethsaidO (8:22-26). the Caesarea Philippi pericopes. and the Transfiguration. The point here seems to be that no signs will be givrn except those that you should
37. W. MARXSEN.Marlt.dre.Evanplist(Nashvillc. 1969) 30f.
GREEK AND JEWISH HEROES
175
have been able to see. Although the disciples are criticized severely. the epiphanies and other miracles are not repudiated; on the contrary. they are emphasized. The disciples have simply failed to understand what they mean38. It is very significant that 8: 14-20 presents Jesus as the teacher. His next teachings (8:34-9: I). on the way of the Cross, set 1he theme for much that follows. The epiphany of the Transfiguration is next explained (9:9-13), but what is most important is that the second Passion Prediction (9:31) leads to the teachings on humility and service which dominate most of the gospel through I0:45. This pan of Mark ponrays Jesus as the model of the modest and humble leader. a trait that we see also in Philo 's Moses. although Moses was also used by God as the agent of miracles. Jesus in Mark never ceases to be a man of power (cf. 11 :20), and there are signs of theophany in the Crucifixion story itself ( 15:37-39). yet the man who was crucified was also the one who spoke in 10:35-45. Mark seems to have been saying to Ihe Church of his own time: ''(a) You must not think of Jesus as onJy a hero who could heal, cast out demons. forgive yours ins. and teach you the will of God; (b) he acted as servant and slave toward God and toward other human beings; (c) but equally. his shameful death is not the whole story. for he was victorious in his work of proclaiming the Kingdom of God and in his life after death''. Alllhis is pan of his glory. Founh Maccabees is. as we have said, very differenl from Mark. Yet it shows, when it is compared with Mark. that in bmh Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity. it is possible lo combine the idea of the ideal leacher and martyr with some elements of the miraculous and especially with the idea that the sufferings and death of such heroes are glorious examples of arete and end in immediale union with God. The difference is that Jesus was, at least from the time of his baptism, in some sense divine, and that although Christian martyrs can imitate him in suffering and death, they do not have the unique soteriological significance that Mark ascribes to him.
38. E.C. Hobbs has pointed oUI lhal Mart's pattern is not so much secm=y as "hidden-then-revealed"; cf. his article in H.D. Betz cd., Cltristology and 11 MoUrn Pilgrimog~
(Mis.o;oula. 1971) 87-90.
WILIIELM WUELLNER GREEK RHETORIC AND PAULJNE ARGUMENTATION
In a survey of Hellenistic Elements in I Corinthians 1 Robert Grant noted that in his use of materials Paul is Jewish but "his method is self-consciously Greek". Among the cases cited in support of this thesis he mentions two from ancient rhetoric: analogies and digressions. According to Grant the clause and sentence structure in I Cor 13
indicate ''rhetorical skill'' based on ''a careful study eilherofrhetorical manuals or of some lilerary model or models". In this essay I wish to follow up Grant's suggestions and show that digressions in Paul's letters are illustrative of his rhetorical sophistication and that they serve to support his argumentation. This view runs counler to the current scholarly opinion that Paul's digressions are interruptions in his arguments and often carry him off inlo irrelevanl malerial2. Already in the third century Methodius. bishop of Olympus. had a sounder view of Paul's disgressions: •• ... the sudden shifts in Paul's discussions, which give one 1he impression lhat he is confusing the issue or bringing in irrelevanl material or wandering from the point at issue, .. (are part of Paul's) most varied style (charakter to11logonpoikilotatos) ... Yet in all these transitions he never introduces anything that would be irrelevanl to his doctrine, but gathering up his ideas into a wonderfully hannonious pattern he makes 1hem all reil on the single poinl at issue which he has proposed3 ••. In modem times Johannes Weiss considered digressions "a solid I. Roben M.GRANT ... Hellenistk Elements in I Corinlhians"'. in Early Chri.niDn Origins. Snulil!s in hoMr of Harold R. Willm.ghby (cd. A. WikFn; O..K:aso. 1961) 60-66. 2. F. W. BEARE.SI. PlUiland HisLetrl!rs (London, 1962) 17. J. Mitltotkd'Olympe: Le8anqw1ed. H. Musurillo(Sourc:esC"tuiticnnes9S: Paris, 1963). 3.2.SS-S6.
178
WILHELM WUELLNER
structural principle"'' serving different functions. One such digression. I Cor6: I-ll. as Weiss saw il. served the function of ''casting light on the main theme''. while other digressions. such as 7: 17-24 and chapters 9 and 13. were means by which Paul moved from the panicular to the generalS. Modem exegetes have by and large ignored or thought to have refuted the ideathat Paul's letter.; reflected any deg~ of metorical skill. Conzelmann's recent commentary on I Cor is a good case in point. On the one hand he can maintain that, despite the "breaks and
joints'' (such as those in I Cor9. or 13, or 10:1-22), one can indeed ''detect interconneclions that are plainly from the hand of Paul6''. On the other hand, his argument for the integrity and unity of 1 Cor rests solely on theological considerations. By considering the fonn and substance of Paul's argumentation separately he inevitably resuicts rhetoric to the level of ornamentation. Hand in hand with this restric· tion, scholars have accented the inational aspects of rhetoric7. manifesting itself in fanciful constructions of Paul's allegedly sanguine personality traits. Grant's thesis must be seen against the background of sustained opposition to the idea that Paul's method of arguing was selfconsciously Gt=k. Bultmann had criticized Heinrici and Johannes Weiss for their effons at demonstrating the conscious use of rhetoric in Paul•. Vielhauer in turn. while fully acknowledging the importance of rhetorical elements for the precise understanding of Paul's letters. argues like Conzelmann that the rbetorical features in I Cor are not due to conscious rhetorical skill nor to literary ambitions, but due only to Paul's school training'. I wish to show that digressions. as pan of Paul's
4. Johannes WFJss.lkr rrstr Korindllrbrir/(Meyer 9th ed; GOninsen, 1910) xliii. 5. J. WFJSS. 145on I Cor6: I-ll; 183on7:17-24: 198on 7:29-35;231 on eh. 9:249on
IO:Iff.; 3 I I on eh. 13; 362 on 15:29·34. J. JEHMJAS(AbbtJ, StudlftzurNftlkSllllfW"'Ii· elun 1'111ologie tlltd bilpschichu (GOninscn. 1966) 289) secs in eh. 9 and eh. 13 digressions with diffCRnt purposes. 6. H. CONZEL.MANN.Der rrne Brk/ tJ/1 die Korilllhrr (Meyer IIth ed.: GOningen,
1969) t9-22. 7. Ch. PERE~MAN and L. Ol..aRECHTS·T'vTEcA. Tlw Nft' Rlutoric . .4. Trmtise on .4.rglinwllllllion(Nocre0ame,I971)S07-508. 8. R. BUL'TMANN.Chr StiltUr ptllllilli3cMn Pmligt llltddir Jcynisch-.noisdw Dilllribr (OOninsen. 1910) 2. 9. P. VIEUIAUEJt. Geschichrr tUr wclrristlicllln Uterahu (Berlin, 1975) 68. On the inOuencc of the Hellenistic school milieu on the Nas Hammadi scrolls, lee A. IIOHUGund F. WISSE, Zllln He/IIIIUtruu Ur tUn Sdtrijten WM NIJf HtiiMflllli (GOltinger Orientfor· schunscn, VI Reihc: Hellenisrica, Band 2; Wiesbadcn, 1975) 9-53.
GREEK RHETORIC AND PAUliNE ARGUMENTATION
179
rhetorical skill. demand a different explanation. Our text-books on introduction to New Testament literature acknowledge the existence of digressions in 1 Cor, but offer poor accounts of their function 10 • It is wonh noting that for some time now effons have been made to account for digressions. as well as other rhetorical features, in terms of specific literary genres. such as diatribe. homily, letter. narrative. and wisdomH. In this literary approach to digressions one discerns an interest in the function of digressions within the literary suuclure in which they are employed. But there has been a gradual shift from the traditional preoccupation with literary genre and with the historical situation toward a concern with the argumentation and rhetorical situation. Let us look at some passages in I Cor in light of their rhetorical function.
Ancient and modem works on rhetoric offer helpful suggestions for the understanding of a letter such as I Cor. But before turning to I Cor itself let us look at some recent discussions of ancient rheloric 13. 10. W. G. KUMMEL.IntroductionrorheNewTesttuMIIl, tr. H.C. Kce(Nashville. 197.5) 278. For samples of modem Catholic views, sec A. WJKENHAUSER and J. ScMMlD. Einleitullg in das N~u~ T~.stament (Herder 1973) 432: also E. B. Auo. Sainl Paul, Pr~mi~r~ ipitr~ aux Corifllhi~n.s (Paris, 1956) b;ii 11. See J. W. BowKER. "Speeches in AciS: A Study in Proem and Yellammedenu Form" ,Nl'S 14 ( 1967)96-111. FollowingP. BORCEJo!.SreodfromMaven (NovTSup 10). see W. WUELLNER. "Haggadic Homily Genre in I Corinthians 1-3". JBL 89 (1970) 199-204. For comments on the puzzle of certain breaks in the sequence of thoughts in the Sennonon the Mount, seeW. D. DAVIES, TM~ningoftkSmncmontkMOfiN(1964) 5-9, esp. 7: and 304-31.5 on Oavies' solution of the puzzle. On the innuence of Jewish homiletical tr.ilditions on Paul. see H. THYEJol. lHr Sri/ d~r JiM/i.sch-Hdlenistischln Homili~ (GOningen. 195.5). On disgression.s in nam.tives, see N. ScMMJD.KI~irwringfor mige Kompo.sitiorwn in thn vi~r Evang~li~n und in thr Apo.st~lg~schicllt~ (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation: Ti.ibingen 1961 ). See E. GALBlATI. La Stn41t14ra Un~raritl thl I' Esodo (1956)0n the roleof''intennezzos'' in the E:.;odus namtive. R. G. MouLTON. '1'hl litt!rary Study ofthl Bibk (London. 1896) 342, points out that the ''elabon~re series of dign:ssions, and digressions from those digressions'' functions in the Wisdom of Solomon ''not as an accidental device, but as an end in itself'. For''flashbacks'' and digressions in the Wisdom of Solomon see more rccc:nt1y J. M. RWE. H~lhrlistic JnjlwMe on W Booi. ofWi.sdomanditsCmu~qwMe.s(Rome,l910) 11.5, 120,122ff. 12. SeeW. J. BRANDT.TMRMtoricojA.rgwrvttlation (8obbs-Menill, 1970)48. 13. H. LAUSBf.RC. £1~1111!111~ thr Lit~rarischLII Rhltorii (Mwtich, 1967), and his Handbud thr lit~rari.Jchln Rhltorilt. (Munich. 1960), 2 vols.
180
WILHELM WUELLNER
Lausberg. for example. categorizes digressions as ''figures'' of speech serving the function of aheralions in a given whole, which in turn may be linear or circular by nature. Of the four categories of alterationsomission. exchange. apJX)sition. replacement 1" - only the latter two allow for the possibility of digressions. For a digression may simply be appositive. i.e. an amplification of what is said: or it may function as replacement of the expected development either by transforming the argumenl or changing it 1s. Lausberg observes that digressions may serve the purpose of soflening the transition from the exordium to the main body of the argument!&, or serve as amplification like topoi or loci communes17. He can also simply list them as excursus 18. More to the point, however. are his comments on digressions as a form of "invention"within the various parts of a speech: the exordium, the narration. the argumentation. and the concluding peroration. (a) Digressions in the exordium are called for if the aim from the start is to "affect" the audience. Quintilian cites such a digression in an exordium of Cicero. According to Quintilian any expression of ''indi· gnation. pity, hatred, rebuke. excuse. conciliation", or e:~~.pression of that which rebuts invective, is worthy of a digression. Other occasions for digressions offer themselves ''when we amplify or abridge a topic. or make any kind of emotional appeaJ19". (b) Digressions in the narratio or the statement of the case or plot or main issue of the argument provide the foundation for the following argumentation. As in the exordium, digressions may be employed again for affective purposes. either at the beginning20 or at the end of the narration21. Quintilian (4.3.1) indicates that most rhek>r.; "are in the habit, as soon as they complete lhe narratio. of digressing lo some 14. LAUSBERG.Eil'mt'lllf', 32 • .58-63. 1.5. On avusio as a "figure of thought", see LAUSBEII.G. Handbuch. I. §§ 848-8.51. Digression is defined there as ''eine Sach--uv,-rsio'' (§ 849, see also§ 340) as over againsl digressions of the speaker's orientation loward Ihe audience(§§ 762 - 76.5 on opostrophl' as a special case of the general category of metaba.Jis: see also §&48). According to l..ausbcrg. digressions can serve as avl'rsio for !he purpose ei1her of averting from the speaker, or of averting from the irnmediale subjecl matter under discussion, or even of averting !he audience its.elf(ibid. § 340. &48). 16. l.AUSBERG.£1f'nlf'll/l', 54 11./bid, 83. 18./bid, 434. 19. QUJNTTl.lAN,/n.st. or., 4.3. 1.5 and 17. 20. L\USBEII.G. Handbuch, I. §§ 301 - 340. 21./bid. §314.
GREEK RHETORIC AND PAULINE ARGUMENTATION
181
pleasanl and allractive lopic with a view lo securing the utmost amount of favor from lheir audience". Though Quintilian warns against the excesses in the use of digressions, he says thal digressions can be advantageously appended to the narratio as well as to different issues under debate (4.3.4.). A digression may serve as the conclusion of the narratio or as the beginning of the following argumentatio (4.3.5). Quinlilian believes lhat digressions al the poinl oflhe transition from the narratio to the argumentatio as the more useful (like a second exordium) since they help the audience to be favombly disposed to the proofs to be presented (4.3.9). The necessity for digression at this point varies according to (I) the nature of the issue under consideration, and C2)the disposition of the audience (see 4. 3. 10-11)". (c) Digressions in the argumentatio of a speech, which in lhe case of Paul's letters would be the "body", are noted by Lausberg in tenns of the use of loci communes for the sake ofamplificationzs. H.A. Fischel has shown that the Rabbis use topoi in their arguments because of influence by Hellenistic rbetoric24. (d) Digressions in the concluding peroration because of some affective orientation, similar to that in the exordium and narratio25, should be clearly distinguished from perorations which sometimes follow digressions•. Since one of the two goals of the final exhortation is to influence the readers or audience. digressions appear to heighten the effect of the speech". Lausberg's contribution to the study of digressions shows that the use of rhetorical devices is detennined less by the literary genre and more by the rhetorical considerations.
22. QuiNTIUAN.Jn.rt. or. 4.3.15 judacsdigrasionson topics desisnecJto.ddc:hannand elegance to oratory, and lhalsuch topics as ~ligion for inslancc, may .. hardly seem 10 be digressions as lhey ~ closely anached 10 arpuncniS on similar subjcc:ls lhu lhey form part oflhc tc~olurcoflhc speech" (lrans. Ruder, Locb, 2. 129). 23. LA.ussnG.Ek,..,.,l!', §397; seealsoHtlllllbuch, tf-«n-409. loftlinus 13.1 saw in digressions as amplifalions (IJII.U8&) a means by which a 10pic: is inVCSICd wilh
grandeur. 24. H. A. fiSCHEL, RtlbbUtic Uli!'NIIIW dNI Grwco-R011t1111 PIUIDsophy (l.ciden, 1973). 25. I...AUSIJEitG. HtJIIdiMd, ff 436 - 442. Ac:conlinJ 10 Cicem, di~ssions ~ acconled a special role ~ HcrtniJOrU who couniCd lhcm for 1hc sake of ampliftc:arion just beg thc~rtmllio asoncoflhe basic: paruofevery speech (see G. A. KENNEDY. T1w A.nofRMtorlc;rrtMRDm1111World(Princclon,l912) 1161.). 26. LAusaERO.Htlllllbwll,
f 441. Sec below on I Cor 3:21-23 and 10:12-13.
27.lbid,ll436- 439.431. >141.
182
WllHELM WUELLNER
11
Let us now turn to I Cor. The framework of argumentation in I Cor is delennined by three basic factors: (I) the "argumentative situation" by which is meant ''the influence of the earlier slages of the. discussion on the argumentative possibilities open to (Paul)28": (2) the need Paul felt to interpret his audience. i.e .. the audience·becomes "a construction of the speaker29", and (3)"the effects of argumentation and the relation between argumenlation and commitment30. The argumentative situation is nolthe same as the historical situation or the Sitz im Leben of form criticism. Rather i1 is constituted by three relations: (a) the one between the Corinthians and their Lord; this includes the thanksgiving section (I :4-9). the boasting and awareness of having been "called". of being "wise" and "malure". and lhe eagerness for manifeslalions of 1he Spiril (12:12); (b) the relalionship belween lhe Corinlhians and olher churches, as in I :2; I I: 16: 16: I ff, and presupposed in 4:17 (''everywhere in every church''); and (c) the relationship between the Corinthians and all those who are workers, laborers, guides. as well as associates of Paul, such as Timothy and Sosthenes. lt is also importanl for the identification of the argumentative situation in I Corthal the Corinlhians are acknowledged asphronimoi capable of judging for lhemselves ( 10: 14). In this light we see Paul doing two things: he sets a goal for himself, and he aims at altering convictions or refuting certain views. 1be desired goal is clearly stated in the tirstparakalo sentence (1:10) which expresses lhe main theme oflhe whole of I Cor. Like the other passages introduced in this way (4:16; 16:16)3' it expresses intimacy and trust between speaker and audience and strikes a tone that is free of injunction or submissivesness32. The goal as stated in 1:10 suggests that Paul consciously chose the genos endoxon from among different
28. PERELMAN.TheN~Rhrtoric, 491. 29. Ibid. 17-23. esp. 19-23; see also BRANDT. Rhetoric of A.rgumemation, 20S. See here l..ausberg's work on the genLru cuusarum. 30. PERELMAN. Thr N~ Rhi!toric, 4S-41. and 59-62. 31. SeeC. J.8JERKEl..UND,P...tRA.A:i\L.O:Form,FunbionUJJdSinnlhr{Nlrnklllo-S6rze in den paWiniscMn Bri~en (Oslo, 1967). 32. So H. BoERS. "The Fonn-Critical Study of Paul's lenen". NTS 22 (1976) 154(., andW. G. DoTY.LenersinPrimiti11eChrisrianity (Pfliladelphia, 1973)39.
GREEk RHETORIC AND PAULINE ARGUMENTATION
183
approaches33. The choice of the actual argument in 1 Cor is mainly made in the light of lhe aclion or commitment desired by Paul, and only secondarily so by lhe attitude of opponents:M, i.e. the arrogance of ''some·· (4: 18). which calls for lhe refutation. To see the audience as a construction of the speaker, which is the second basic factor in the framework of Paul's argumenration in I Cor. is to recognize that one cannot conceive of the knowledge of an audience ''independently of the knowledge of how to influence it (as Paul has to). The problem of the nature of an audience is indeed inlimately connected with that of its conditioning35". This conditioning and construction of the audience both precedes Paul's wriling to the Corinthians and it is achieved in the discourse by Paul's continuous adaptation to his audience. The audience as a constRICtion of the speaker is balanced by the author becoming "a construction of the audience•·' as we see Paul adapting himself to the Corinthians. The third factor necessary for appreciation of the framework of argumention in I Cor is the relation between argumentation and commitment. Such ''acting on the minds of the (Corinthians)'', whose goal it is to produce "strong adherence" has two ramifications: it aims at effective action and replacement. Reinforcement means ''urging (an audience) ... to carry out the decisions once they were made''. Reinforcement is canied on ''until the desired action is actually perfonned37''. And the desired action for 1 Cor is not the obtaining of "purely intellectual results'' (such as the answering of questions, controversies, or ''problem•''), nor the ''declal'lllion that a certain thesis (e.g. Paul's versus Cephas' or Apollos •) seems more probable than another"'". but is the one stated in 1:10, and restated in the recapitulatio in 16:13-14, namely that they all be of "one mind". The latter introduces the concluding peroration; the fonnerconcludes the exordium. To accomplish this end Paul employed throughout what is known as
33. LAusBEIIO. Hmtdbucll. I 64: I. ~ttdoxml (lhc issue is agftable lo the raders): 2. tunphidtuon (provokes serious quc:slions); 3. pGI'adtnOII (shocking); 4. tldtwm (uninle~sling): !5. dysptJrtJkol~ron (baffling and obscu~). 34. PERELMAN. Th~ N~ RMIDric. 96. 35. Ibid. 23. 36./bid. 31./bid. 49. 38. Encycl.,..m,.Ju.loica ll (1971)5Slf. 39. PERELMAN.TMNniRMIDric. 49.
184
WILHELM WUELLNER
··rokens of contradiction''. The primary emotions of praise. commendation. affection. love, and the like are systematically contrasted by evocations of shame (see I: 10 followed by 1: Jiff; the pathos evoking rhetorical questions in 4:21 followed by 5:1-6:8; I 1:2-16 followed by 11:17ff; 15:1-11 followed by 15:12ff. and several others). Why does Paul do lhis? He does it because the commitment of his l:leare~ can be ''measured'' only by the obstacles overcome. which can be demonstrated by (a) the action desired, (b) the sacrifices entailed, or(c) choices to which such adherence leads and which can be justified by commit-
ment-40. h is in this connection that a case for the epideictic or demonstrative genre of I Cor must be made. For "the argumentation in epideictic discourse sets out 10 increase the intensity of adherence to certain values, which might not be contested when considered on rheirown but may nevertheless prevail against other values that might come into conflict with them. The speaker tries to establish a sense of communion centered around particular values recognized by the audience. and to this end the whole range of means available to the rhetorician for purposes of amplification and enhancement• 1 • •. Digressions are one of the means traditionally used in epideictic discourse. The appeal to the audience to imitate the speaker, has a similar function. Paul's ''ways in Christ" (see 4:16 following 4:9-13; or 10:33-11: I following eh. 9) are an example, a paradigm of the values lauded, with Paul seeking to increase adherence to these values on the one hand. and on the other hand to strengthen the disposition toward action42. When Nils Dahl says about I Cor I - 4 that it is distinct from the following chapters, he rightly insists that ''before Paul could answer the questions raised (i.e. chs. 5-16) he had to overcome both false appraisals and false objections". but this is not because Paul had "to re-establish his apostolic authority as 1he founder and spiritual father of the whole church at Corinth43''. Paul's references to himself and his apostolic office in 1 Cor are evidences of his rbelorical sophistication.
40. Ibid. 49. 41./bid.51. 42. Ibid. 50. 43. N. A. DAHL. ''Paul and the ChurchatCorinthaccordingto I Corinthians I -4", in: Christitm History anJ lnterpretalion. SIII/Jies pres,lled to John Knox. ed. W. R. Fanner andC.F.D. Moulc and R.R. Niebuka(Cambridge. 1967). 329.
GREEK RHETORIC AND PAULINE ARGUMENTATION
185
''Epideictic discourse is less directed toward changing beliefs than to strengthening the adherence to what is already accepted''. With this statement Perelman and Olbn:chts-Tyteca give us another clue for the rhetorical genre of I Cor and for the rhetorical functions of digressions in it. While deliberative and forensic letters of Paul can be seen aiming at obtaining a decision to act, the epideictic letters. among them I Cor and Rom, are designed to ''create a mere disposition toward action ... This distinction between kinds of oratory ... offers the advanlage ... of providing a single, uniform framework.,for the study of argumenlation: seen in rhis way, all argumentation is conceived only in terms of the action for which it paves the way or which it actually brings about"".
Ill I have selected only three major digressions in I Cor (1:19-3:21; 9:1-10: 13; and 13: 1-13) to make the case for their rttetorical functions. The first major digression appears as a .. ring-composition" right after the exordium. To understand the function of this digression we must appreciate what leads up to it. In the opening section, 1:1-10, the major point is expressed in I: 1-3. Paul returns to this very same point, i.e. the call status of the Corinthiaos in the conclusion (6: 11) of his first argumentative unit. The major term is followed by the second term found in I :4-9. Both of these lead to the main theme stated in 1:10. The following section 1:11-18. the first of several "shaming" sections, concludes with the contrast (v. 17: ''not this ... but that ... ,lest ... ; v. 18: contrasting the perishing and the saved) concerning the apostolic call and the call of all believers. It emphasizes the paradoxical nature of divine power in "the word oflhe cross". AI this point Paul could have continued with the wording which is now in 4: I ff, but instead he inserted this first major digression (I: 19-3:20) followed by a brief peroration (3:21-23) which is a familia! ending for longer digressions45. The function of this digression becomes immediately clear when we recognize that the conclusion of the "shaming" section (1:11-18) expresses in I: 17 strong indignation or even rebuke which may be taken 44. PERELMAN. Tll~ N~ RMtoric, S4. 45. Sec above: n. 26.
186
WILHELM WUELLNER
as one of the "lokens of contradiction" mentioned above. Quintilian had declared as' 'wonhy of a digression'' any e:~~.pression of indignation
or rebuke, or the like, even if it came as early as the exordium of a speech. This first digression offers an amplification. in "intensive tenns". of what awaits all believers no less than all apostles (regardless
whether they are ''fathers'' or merely one of the numerous ''guides'' or· the believers), namely the only alternative there is to the ''call''-status, or being subject to the power of God (or kingdom of God in 6:9-10): either doom or salvation. That this is the central concern in the first argumentative unit (I: 1-6:11) which prepares us for the second (6: 1211: I) can be seen in rhe climax: oflhe "shaming" section (I: 11-18) and in the climax of the final "shaming" section (5: 1-6:8) in 6:9-11. Here the deceivers or fools are once more contrasted as those ''perishing'' or ''not inheriting the kingdom'' with those ·:saved''. The function of this first major digression is to highlight how "faithful God is" (1:9) to those who wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ and as such keep or hold themselves "to the end guiltless in the (last) day" (I :7-8). The second major digression is not itself a ring-composition, bur is pan of a ring-composition which begins in6:12 and ends in 11:1 with an imitation appeal that is related to the second digression (9: 1-10: 13).1t is significant that this whole second major argumentative unit contains not a single ''shaming''section, but has the Corinthians asphronimoi judge for themselves with respect to the two case studies of marriage and food what are the appropriate actions when it comes to "glorifying God in your body''. The primary symbol from 6:12 on till the end of chapter 15 is' 'soma''. Just as the first argumentative unit (I: 1-6: I I) is based on the thoroughly traditional notion of the conflict between human nous, gnome, logos etc. and divisive passion or the "irrational" side of human nature46. so is the second unit (6: 12ft) based on the same notion. but this time the new premise is introduced and tested that certain actions or attitudes are not profitable. The theme of the ringcomposition is stated in 6: 12-20 with the two case studies op food and sexuality, which are developed in chiastic order in chs. 7 and 8. Why. then, the digression in 9:1-23. followed by a metaphor with application to the speaker (9:24-27) and a Scriptural ''proof' with application to
46. See F. SoLMSEN.Int~ll~ctiUJI fjpen"m~nts ofth~G,.~d En/igh,nnwm 1975). csp. chs.l and 11 on ''Argumcnlalion'' and ''Persuasion''.
(Princ~lon,
GREEK RHETORIC AND PAULINE ARGUMENTATION
187
"us" ( 10: 1-ll)and a concluding briefperomtion (10:12-13) which, as noted above. is a conventional ending of digressions? The reason for the digression at this point of the unfinished argument can be inferred from the brief peroration at the end of the digression: inescapable temptation had opened up the discussion over how the believer who lhought himself completely free would use his knowledge (8:4-6) in relationships with the weak believer who was bound by his conscience. The function of the digression is tint of all to serve as aversion and then prepare the Corinthians to be favorabl)l'disposed to the lask of judging ( 10: 14-22) on the basis of the proofs presented. There may be another reason for this second digression besides turning away from the immediate subject matter under discussion. That reason is brought out in ihe concluding peroration of lhis ring·composition which starts in 10:23 and makes a final appeal in 10:31. 11 is here that the main theme of I: 10 with its appeallo one mind and one judgement surfaces again. as well as Ihe model character of the apostle and his ways in Christ as they are laught ''everywhere in every church'' by Paul himself (4:17; 11:1). For Paul introduces in this digression himself as a model to assure that salvation reaches not just some but all. That such a commitmenl calls for sacrifice is the point of the metaphor and the Scriptural appeaJ47. The third major digressio• (13:1-13) functions more like the fiBt digression; it amplifies by intensifying the point Paul leads up to with a series of seven rhetorical questions ( 12:29-30). the premise of agape. The digression is pan of the third argumentative unit (11 :2-14:40) which. like the first unit, has 1wo "shaming .. sections (11:17-34: 12: 1-3) following a praise or commendation section which, of course, is the primary value in any epideictic speech. The three "tokens of contrast'' with which the digression opens ( 13: 1-3) can be taken as three aversions from excesses generated by eagerness for manifestations of the Spirit ( 14: 12). As with the two other major digressions there is here an apocalyptic conclusion which is related to its first significantplace in the exordium (I :7b-8)•. 47. On the function of similes or metaphors followed by an appeal to classical litcraturt:. see M. H. McCAU.. Jr., AnC'ieru RMtoricallMoriesofSimiletutdCompariSOII (Cam.bridge. 1969). 48. See J. BAUMGARTEN. Paulw und die Apokolyptilc: Die AwllgiUig llpOI&alyptischer
OIHrlieforrmgen intkn echten Paulwbrirfen (WMANT 44: NeukirthencrVerlag. 1975). He ignoreS, however. any rflciOrical consident1ions.
188
WJLHELM WUELLNER
The function of this third major digression is clearly to serve an affective purpose. that of inlensifying adherence, or .. to enhance the value of some of the elements of which one has actually been made conscious 14: I. just as he could have gone from 1: 18directlyto4: I, but only at" ••. Logically Paul could have proceeded from 12:31 immedia; tely to 14: I. just as he could have gone from I :8 directly to 4: I. but only at a loss of what Perelman calls ·' presence '' or intensified adherence. To pantphrase Paul"s own words: logically it would be lawful. but rhetorically it would not be helpful.
IV There are other digressions in I Cor, but none of such magnitude as the three we have reviewed briefly. The result of our analysis can be summarized as follows: the use of digressions in Paul's writing is pan of his method which Roben Grant had called ""self-consciously Greek"". The superficial impression that Paul in his writing ''is confusing the issue or bringing in irrelevant material or wandering from the point at issue'', mentioned by Methodius of Olympus in our introduction, has been shown to be incorrect and Methodius' observation has been confinned that Paul by ""gathering up his ideas into a wonderfully hannonius pattern makes them all tell on the single point at issue which he has proposed"". The alternative to Deissmann"s legacy will be found neither in fonn-critical nor in epistolographical studies of Paul, but in renewing the legacy of Methodius and other Patristic exegetes of Paul with their appreciation of rhetorical traditions. We have advocated, however, not simply a revival of classical rhetoric for modem students, but incorporated the effons of what is known as ''the new rhetoric'' as developed by Perelman. The combination of ancient and modem rhetorical studies has led us to an appreciation of the nature and function of Paul's "most varied style" in communicating his gospel. Digressions, like other rhetorical devices, must be viewed as more lhan evidences of Paul"s "'style"'. Instead we have demonstrated that the scyliscic devices are functionally de!ennined by the rhetorical situation. The implication of the study of rhetoric is far-reaching, both for the exegesis of Pauline epistles. and for the approach to Pauline theology. 49. PERELMAN.The-NewRIIeotoric, 117.
G. QUISPEL
GOD IS EROS
Dante ends his Divino Commedia with lhe following words; All' alta fantasia qui manco possa: ma giil volgeva il mio disio e 'I velle, si come rota eh 'igualmente emossa. /' amor che move il sole e I' alrre stelle.
Here power failed the lofty phantasy; but already my desire and my will were revolved. like a wheel that is evenly moved. by the Love which moves the sun arulthe other stars. (Translation Charles S. Singleton.) Although the commentaries which I consulted do not mention it. cenainly someone will have observed already that the last line is a quotation from Boethius:
That this fair world in settled course her several fonns should vary, That a perpetual law should lame the frightening seeds of things, That Phoebus should the rosy day in his bright chariot carry, That Phoebe should govern the oights which Hesperus forth brings, That to the floods of greedy seas are cenain bounds assigned, Which them, lest they usurp too much
190
G. QUISPEL
upon the earth, debar, Love ruling heaven. and earth. and seas. them in this course doth bind. And if it once let loose their reins, their friendship turns to war. Tearing the world whose ordered fonn their quiet motions bear.
By it all holy laws are made and marriage rites are tied, by it is faithful friendship joined. How happy ye monals are. if the Eros which governs the heaven does also reign in your heart. 0 felix. hominum genus. si vestros animos amor quo celum regitur regat. Consolatio PhUosophiae 2.8 (Trans. H.F. Stewart). The love of which Boethius speaks is a cosmogonic Eros, nor only ruling heaven and earth and seas, but also working in man as a social sense and public spirit (''by il all holy laws are made'') and, moreover. as the instinct of procrealion by which "marriage rites are tied" and friendship is instigated among males 1 • Very much the same concept is to be found in the contemporary of Boethius. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, in his On the Divine Names (4.11-18). It is possible that both are using a common sou~e. The passage in Dionysius is one of the most daring and delightful in Greek literature2. No wonder that translators did all they could to make it incomprehensible, translating Ems by "Yearning" and glossing over the erotic relation between David and Jonathan! Ems has several aspects according to Dionysius.
I. The technicallenn "cosmogonic Ems'' has been coined by 1he Gennan philosopher Ludwig KLAGES in his Vom/cosmogonischen Eros (41h cd.; Jcna. 1941). 2. Dionysius is leaning heavily he~ on Origen; cf. John. M. RIST. Eros tutd Psyche, (Toronto, 1964) 204.
GOD IS EROS
191
Inferior things yearn for the superior by being attracted (~pistrep tilcos). And lhoseofthe same rank love their equals in communion (lcoinonilcos). And rhe superior love their inferiors by taking care of them (pronoetilcos). And everything loves itself through lhe instinct of self preservalion, self love (synelctilcos). Erns is alive in all its ramifications. Dionysius observes that he is not conkadicling the Bible when he uses the word Erns instead of Agape. He finds ir unreasonable and foolish to focus on the words rather than lheir meaning. As if addressing an invisible opposition, he remarks that such is the way of them that receive the empty sounds without letting 1hem pass beyond their ear.i and shUt them out. not wishing to know what such and such a phrase intends, nor how they ought to explain it in other terms expressing the same sense more clearly. ''Nay''. he says, ''some of our writen aboul holy lhings have thought the word Eros mo"' appropriate for divine thinp than Agape". This latter (agape) is used for human love, as in 2 Samuel ( 1:26): "Your love (agopesis) was more delightful forme than the love (agapesis) of women·'. On this basis this great mystic can describe Ems as a mighty stream, coming from God and ruling the /cosmos: this is condescending love of the higher for the lower. eros pronoetilcos: And we m'ust dare to affirm (for it is the truth) that the Creator of the universe himself in his beautiful and good Ems towards lhe universe is through the excess of his erotic goodness transponed outside of himself in his providential care for all things that have being. and is touched by the sweet spell of goodness. love and Erns and so is drawn from his transcendence up there to dwell within the bean of all things. Here on eanh Ems also works as a uniting and commingling power in men urging them to create community. "moves co-equal to a communion'', be it in society or maniage. And finally this life force can be sublimated into a desire for God: it ''moves the inferion to turn lowards their superiors in vinue and position'' (eros epistr~pti/cos). And so the cosmogonic Ems forms a cycle. originating in God. penetrating the /cosmos, transformed in man into public spirit and sexual desire and returning to its source as love of God, "revolving in a
192
G. QUISPEL
perpetual circle ... with unerring revolulion, never varying its centre or direction, perpetually advancing and remaining and returning to itself'. And he quoles from the Erotic Hymns of his mysterious teacher Hie-
rotheos: There is one simple power which of itself moveth alllhings to be combined into a unity, s1aning from the Good and going to the lowest of crealures and lt~ence again returning through all stages in due order unto the Good. and thus revolving from ilself and upon ilsclf and towards ilself. in an unceasing orbit. Love (Ems) comes from God and returns to God. In facl Dionysius here explodes the theories of all those who tell us thal Ems is never used in the Bible, and Agape alone is found there and not in profane Greek literature. and that the Hebrew notion of Apape. unselfish love, is lhe complete opposite of Greek Ems which is egoistic, self-realising love. They forget to tell us that Agape in the Sepluagint (the Song of Songs) and in the Fathers as often as not has erotic. sex.ual connotations and is vinually identical with Eros3. It has been established long ago that in this passage. as so often. Dionysius is leaning heavily upon Proclus4. This is obvious from the fact that he. Dionysius, uses the same tenninology as the Neoplatonist philosopher of Athens in his commentary on Plato's I Alcibiadess. The latter. too, uses such tenns as eros pronoetikos (eh. 45. 55) and eros epistreptikos (eh. 21). Bul. as Comelia de Vogel has poinled oul.
3. Like Dionysius, his pedeccssor Macarius (ea. A.D. 3SO. Mesopotamia) opposes the "sarlcos tiRtlfM" as "fleshy love" (of man and wife) to the "OMronios eros" or spiritual love of God (Homilies 4.15; cd. Dorrics 38, 234-243). In Horn. 25.5 (Dorrics 202, 74-75) Macarius speaks abour: ''being wounded'' by love. rtfening 1oSonR ofSongs 2:5, whert the Scpcuagint uses ''tJBtiiW". Verlaine says: "Mon Dieu, vous m'avezblessi d'amour" (nol: "decharitC"). 4. J. STIOLMAYR. Historisches Jahrbuch der GOrresrrsellsdraft ( 1895) 748. proves that Dionysius used Proclus' worlr.lh ~Mlonun subsistrmia (prHCrved in t"e translation of Willem van Moerbekc. archbishop of Corinth. 1277-1281) when he arsued that ev!l is noching bUI privation of good (Div. Nom. 4. 18-35). Stiglmayr also mentions thal Dionysius knew Proc:lus' commenwy on Plato's PanMrtitks and his commentary on the First Alcibit~Ms. For the latter assertion he ckles not adduce any proof. H. KocH. Tlteolorischr Qllllrttllsdlrift ( 1895) 353-420, also discovered Dionysius' dependence on Pnx:lus but does noc mention Eros in this coniCAl. S. Edited by L. G. WESTER!NK.Proc/KJ Diodoclaw. Cotr~~Mntary on the First Alcibiod~s of Pltlto (Amsterdam. 19S4); translated by W. O'NEIU.. Proclw: Alcibimlrs I. A TTtUUIGriontutdaComnvllltlry(ThcHague.l965).
GOD IS EROS
193
Boerhius. in the quoted Hymn on Eros musl have used the same sources. Proclus died in Alhens on April 17. 486. Boethius is sup(X>sed lo have been born about 480 A.D. and died in the autumn of 524. Therefore he probably was not a direct disciple of Proclus. In de disciplina scholarium he is sup(X>sed lo declare: annis duobus de viginti Athenis convalui (PL 64. 1232 8). But this trealise is generally held to have been written in the thirteenth century and to have been falsely attributed to Boethius. King Theodoric wriles lo Boethius in a letter: sic enim Atheniensium scholas /onge positus introisti (Cassiodorus. Variae 1.45.3). This passage means only that the philosopher. though far removed from Athens. nevertheless in spirit has visited the schools of lhat city. lt refers to the famous translations and commenlaries of Boethius. Therefore the great masler Pierre Courcelle denies that Boethius ever visited the Neoplatonic school at Athens in his youth7. He sup(X>ses that Boethius has learned Greek not in Rome. but in Alexandria. where he visitied the Neoplatonic shool of the pagan Ammonius. Be lhat as it may. the curious fact remains that two prominent and jnfluenlial Christians appropriated Proclus when they wanted to write about divine Love. This has troubled some Christian scholars. They had been taught that according to the Greeks the world loves God. whereas according to the Christians. God loves rhe world; these generalizations (Aristotle = the Greeks; John= the Christians) belonged to the basic presup(X>sitions of some theologians. but it seems thal at least one Greek, Proclus, had taughl that love comes from God. Anders Nygren. author of Eros and Agape, supposed that this must be due to Christian influence on Proclusa. According to Nygren only a Christian could know what divine love really is. Comelia de Vogel. an eminent scholar in this field who probably knows the sources better than anyone else, admits in the above mentioned article that. however strange and un-Greek it mighl seem to us, Proclus actually applied the tenn Ems to the gods, and lo the gods of the noetic level. Thus, in the mind of this late Greek philosopher lhere proves lo be in fact a divine
6. C. de VOGEL." 'Amorquocaelum ~gitur' ". Vi"arium I (1963) 1-34. 7. P. COURCELLE.Us lettres grecques en Occident (Paris, 1943) 260. 8. A. NYGREN.ErosetARapt (Paris, 1943) 133.
194
G. QUISPEL
descending love. stretching from the transcendental level of Nous down to the souls of human beings living on earth. In the Elementa Theoloxiae and the Theologia Platonis ofProclus the
concept of eras pronoetikos and even the term eros are said to be lacking. From this Comelia de Vogel infers that the idea of divine Love was not very much alive in Proclus' mind when he wrote his theological works proper. She fears that otherwise we might come to think that the idea of divine Love took an important part in Proclus' theology and by this might be led to suppose (as Nygren did) that he may have introduced
this idea in order to create a counterpart of the Christian God of love. Such an intention must have been far from his mind, for the idea of
divine Love did not take a cenual pan in Proclus' theological thought anyway. My eminent colleague goes on to show that for Greek thought in general it is a kind of anomaly (she says ''monstrum'') to speak of divine love. Plato could not attribute Ems to the gods. Aristotle, too, was very far from such a use of the term. The supreme principle moves that which directly depends on it. the first heaven. by a kind of attractive powerthat is. by "being loved". But it could not possibly be said that that which is first would love that which is inferior to it. The siruation is similar with the Stoics. lt is alleged that they never spoke of the love of God either towards the world as a whole or towards man. It is a moot point whether Plotinus defines God as love: "He is loveable. Love itself and self love" (Enn. 6.8.15: BrChier 152). But interpretation makes clear lhal Plotinus meant ''Love itself, lhal is (kai explicativum), self love". According, then, to Comelia de Vogel, Proclus does speak about divine love: but this does not mean anything, because this was an anomaly in Proclus. and a concept completely alien to Greek thought. I find it very difficult to accept this view. Although I am not a specialist in Greek philosophy and am therefore hesitant lo contradict a distinguished scholar in her own field, in reading Plato's dialogue I Alcibiades (about the unselfish love of Socrates for Alcibiades) and Proclus's allegorical interpretation of this love. I find in them the cosmogonic Eros, which emanates from God: eros proeisi ek. tou Dios (233)9 .
9. Cf. 1 John 4, 7: "agape ek cou cheou escin''. and my commentary. infrtJ p. 204.
GOD IS EROS
195
Indeed, this is Proclus' basic idea. to which he comes back again and again: If. then. the lover is inspired by love, he would be the sort of person who turns back and recalls noble natures to the good. like love itself (27; O'Neill 17) . ... The whole order of love is for all beings the cause of reversion to the divine beauty. on the one hand elevating to. uniting with and establishing in it all that is secondary. and on the other filling therefrom what lies subsequent to itself and radiatirig the communications of divine light that proceed from it (30; O'Neill 19). The whole series of love. then. produced from the cause of beauty, gathers all things 'owards it. recalls them to participation therein, and has set up a procession midway between the object of love and the beings elevated through love ... (31; O'Neill 19). After the unitary primary principle of love and the triple and self-perfecting substances thereof appears the manifold mass of loves. whence the choirs of angels are filled with their share of love. the bands or spirits through the fullness imparted by this god accompany the gods in their ascent to intelligible beauty. the armies of heroes revel with the spirits and angels because of their share in the beautiful. and practically everything is aroused. re-kindled and wanned around ''the effluence of beauty". Furthermore. men's souls receive a share of such inspiration. through intimacy with the god are moved with regard to the beautiful, and descend to the region of coming-to-be for the benefit of less perfect souls and out of forethought for those in need of salvation (32; O'Neill 21). I must also take exception with the contention that this is nol lo be found elsewhere, for it emerges in another work by Proclus. For also the specific effect (idiot~s) of Ems firsl enlightens the gods (and then descends down to matter). (In Cratylum 164; Pasquali 90, 16). And of course the Ems of Aphrodite must be conceived of as good •
196
G. QUISPEL
in its effects and prt111Mtikos. because it is lavished by a higher god on a lower god. (lnCrarylum 180: Pasquali 107. 15)'•. Moreover how can one fail to trace the origin of this concept, since
Proclus indicates his source four times in his commentary on I Alcibiades? He says:
In general, too. since the whole order of love proceeds from the intelligible Father (in all things, as the Oracles say. the Father "has sown the fire-laden bond of love", in orderthatthe wbole world may he held together by the indissoluble bonds of friendship ... )(26:0'Nei1116). The reference is to the Chaldaean Oracles, a wridng as authoritative and canonical for Proclus as the Bible was for Christians of his day. Proclus' recenr translator. O'Neill says: ''Proclus is always concerned with hannonising his Neoplatonism with what he regarded as rwo sources of divine revelation- the ChaldtJean Oracles and the teachings oft he Orphics". Another passage about cosmogonic. unselfish Ems also contains a reference to the ChaldDean Oracles: From above, then, love ranges from the intelligibles to the intramundane making everything revert to the divine beauty, tnJth illuminating the universe with knowledge, and faith establishing each reality in the good. ''For everything'', says rh~ Oracle, ''is governed and exists in these three" ... (52: O'Neill34). Proclus quotes the "l.ogia" a third time: What effects this bond of union between the inferior and the superior if not love? For this god the Oracles call "the binding guide of all things", and not, ''binding together some and not others''; he it is, then, who unites us with the care of the spirits (64; O'Neill41 l. And in a fourth passage Proclus clearly sbows where he found the basic idea that cosmogonic Ems comes from God: 10. Eusenio CORSINI. 11
tr'tlltllto
eotr~~MIIli MOpldfOIIki al Ptll'fMnitk
lh
Dit~inis
Nominibus tkllo Puudo-Dionisi
(forino. 1962)49.
~
i
GOD IS EltOS
197
.. .the Oracles have termed the fire of this love binding: ''who
first lept forth from Intellect: clothing his binding fire in the fire [of Intellect =God]" (65; O'Neill42). If one does not disdain Gnosis (to which the CluJ/daean Oracles belong) and realises that Greek philosophy sprang from mythology.
then he will see that Proclus took his ideas on divine love from the Chaldaean Oracles which had preserved the Orphic myth of cosmogonic Ems. And in the Re;naissance L.eo Hebraeus, when writing his influential Dialogues on Love, used Proclus' ideas on Eros 1 t. Even ifProclus had not acknowledged his soun:e. the parallels would
be clear. This is what the fragments of the Cha/daean Oracles have preserved of their author's concept of Ems: The Paternal Self-begotten Mind [God). having conceived his
works, inseminated in all things the fire-laden bond of Eros, in order that the All should continue to love forever, and that the weavings of the Father's intelligent light should not collapse: it is owing to the Ems that the stars of the univer5e keep revolving (Cha/daean Oracles 39; edition E. des Places [Paris, 1971]77; cf. Hans Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theology [Cairo, 1956] 126). [The ponions of the world are held together] by the bonds of admirable Eros. who first leapt forth out of Mind [God], wrapping his binding fire in the fire [of Mind]. that he might mix the
mixing-bowls of the Sources, spreading there the flowers of his fire (42; des Places 77; cf. Lewy 127, and the fiB! begotten Eros or Phanes of Orphism).
Having mingled the spark of the soul with two like minded faculties. with mind and divine will, [God] added to them as a
third chaste Eros, the binder ofall things and their sublime guide (44; des Places 78; cf. Lewy 179). ... The choking of true Eros ... (45; des Places 78) . ... Faith, truth and Eros ... (46; des Places 78).
11. Leone &REO. Diolor/ti d' Amol"!!o. ed. C. Gebhardt (8ibliocheca Spinoziana 3; Heidelbcrz-London-Paris-AmsiCrdam, 1929).
198
G. QUISPEL
From these few lines il seems evident not only that Proclus but also the author.i oftheChaldaean Oracles were familiar with the notion that love comes from God. Our next question is: How did spiritualistic verses of lhe second
century A.D .. which contain a curious mixture of Iranian. Babylonian and Jewish lore. come to incorporate Eros. an eminently Hellenistic concept? It was because of syncretistic tendencies that the Near East integrated Ems. originally so alien to its mind and spirit. Indeed. we now have a striking parallel from Nag Hammadi. which proves this was the case. Codex 11 of Nag Hammadi contains seven tractates in Coptic, the fourth of which is entitled ''The Hypostasis of the Archons''. It consists clearly of two different parts, which originally were perhaps two different writings. to which a redactor added some Christian texts and views. This small work of 384 lines (page 86, 20 to page 97. 29) seems not 10 have originated among Christians. It seems to have originated in lhe Jewish-gnostic sect ofSethians 12. It tells a myth very similar to that oftheApocryphon ofJohn: from the Unknown God a spiritual world emanates, which in 1um is the origin of the ma1erial world. The beginning of the work shows a definite antiGreek tendency: the Greeks allegedly say that the gods come from chaos. whereas the aUihor of this esote·ric documen1 affinns that chaos comes from God. A lower Aeon. Sophia. has made the finnamenl. She cast her shadow which became matter. from which the rulers of the world arose. headed by Jaldabaoth or Sakla (the Fool). Thereupon a female entity. Aphtharsia. looked into the primeval water of chaos and projected her image into il. The powers of darkness saw this, loved it and made a human body after this image. But it could not rise until it was given a living soul. namely the spirit. So man is more than the rulers of this world and contains an element which is indestructible. He is forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge in Paradise, but instructed by a messenger of God. the serpent. he does acquire this Gnosis.
12. Edited by R. A. 8UUAFID. The Hypostasis ofth~ Archons. Tlrr Coptic T~.xt with Translation andCt»>''IMntary (Berlin. 1970). Other translations by M. KRAUSE/R. Mcl. Wn.soN in W. Foetsler (ed.). GMsis. A Srlrc-tion o/GMstic T~.ns, 11 (Oxford, 1974) 41-52. and by Bentley LAYTON. in HarvardTheolbgical R~virw 67 11974) 352·393.
GOD IS EROS
199
As a consequence. world history as described in this writing is the conlinuous struggle of the spirit in man against the rulers ofthe world: it is in fact an inversion of the biblical history. The document is meant to be an interpretation of Genesis. full of allusions to the Bible and Aramaic puns. lt must have been written by a Jew. but a heterodox Jew. who was familiar with the deviating view of the "minim" that the creation of the world was due not to God himself. but to the anthropomorphic·· Angel of the Lord 13''. Immediately following in the same codex is the writing variously called "The untitled Treatise" or "The Origin of the World1 4 ". The material is the same as in the "Hypostasis of the Archons". though rearranged. The most plausible explanation of this is that the author of ''The Origin of the World'' used the other writing as a source. or at least a version very similar to it. The elucidations on the Phoenix and on Eros. both typically Greek themes. are new. This is what the author says about Ems. a cosmogonic figure. born from the blood of a virgin and engaged in the organisation of chaos: From this first blood Ems originated, who is androgynous. His male part is Himems [Desire]. who is fire from light. His female counterpan that is with him is blood Soul {Psyche) being from the substance of Providence [cf. eros pronoetikos] ... He is exceedingly comely in his beauty. having more charm than all creatures of Chaos. When all the gods and their angels saw Ems. they fell in love with him. When. however, he manifested himself among them all, he set them on fire. Just as from one single lamp many lamps are lit and yet remain one and the same light and the first lamp is not reduced, similarly Erns dispersed himself among the creatures of Chaos and was not diminished .. As soon as in the middle region between light and darkness erns manifested himself among angels and men; then the first copulation of Eros took place. So on eanh the first lust was born. The
13. A. SEGAL. TwoPow~rs in Heaven (leiden. 1978)showsthatthedoctrineofthe two Powers in Heaven is older than Philo. 14. Edited withaGe!Tnantnmslal:ion by A. 8oHLIG and P. Lt.Bta,Die lwplischgnostis· eh~ Schrift ohn~ TiMI aus Cotk:x 11 von Nag HamntDiii im KoptiscMn MuseiUJI 7.11 Alt·Kairo (Berlin. 1962).
200
G. QUISPEL
female arrived with the earth. And marriage arrived with the female. Birth anived with marriage. Death arrived with birth.
(OriginoftheWorld 157. 1-25.) We notice that this Ems is androgynous (Himeros and Psyehe), like the old Orphic Phanes. There is a remarkable parallel with Apuleius' story of Amor and Psyche (Voluptas is born here and there). And Ems is here the origin of death. as in the Poimandres of the Corpus Hermeticum. Michel Tardieu has shown in his excellent study of the myth ofEros in this gnostic writing. that every detail of this myth can be traced to Greek
antecedents 1s. For our purpose it is imponant to establish that the cosmogonic Ems was still alive at that time in Greek civilizalion. Of course it is true that Plato had demythologised and humanised Ems by saying that he was not a god. but a daemon and by identifying him with the yearning for Being in the soul. And Aristotle had perverted cosmogonic Eros by saying thal the world loved God and not the reverse. But that does not mean that Ems. cosmogonic Ems, was not a principal feature of Greek civilisation. It is found in Orphism. There are two different versions of the binh of Ems. The first i& recorded by Hieronymus and Hellenikoste. In this version from the very beginning there was water and some solid maner that was to harden into eanh. Out of water and eanh was born a monstrous figure. Endless Time. Out of Time was born Aither and Chaos and Darkness. In them Time brought fonh an egg (which contained Phanes or Eros. the androgynous god, the demiurge of all things and the wbole world). The second version is the version found in the cosmogony according to the Orphic Rhapsodi~s17. There Time is the first principle. but here too Phanes (l~ros) comes out of the world egg. There cannot be any doubt that the cosmogonic Eros was an Orphic myth. The study of Orphism has been hedevilled by the desire of critical scholars to prove that their theories are correct and that the tradition is incorrect. Hence arise the theories that the above mentioned views are not older than the Alexandrian era. The Derveni Papyrus. from about 350 B.C .. has shown how wrong they were. It contains a theological 15. M. TAII.DIEU.Troirmythe:rgno.ffiqw:r(Paris, 1974) 141-214. 16. W. K. C. GUTHII.IE.Orplreus and GruA: R~ligioll (London, 1935) 79; ICXt in 0. KERN.OrphiCOTIIIfl/rGIIIVIUa (2nded.; Bertin. 196]) 130, rra. S4. 11. KEAN.OrphiCOIVIfl/rGI•IW. 143. rra. 60.
GOD IS EROS
201
commentary on a myrhicaltheogonic poem of the Orphics made in 1he sixth century. And this commentary showed that rhe Orphics were perfectly able to replace the imagery of their myths by abstract concepts wilh the help of pre-Socratic philosophy18. Professors of Greek Philosophy are extremely reluctant to admit that their beloved thinke~ have been influenced by mythology. especially Oriental. And yet whal is more plausible than that the image precedes the concept? Therefore it is exceedingly probable that the Orphics spoke about androgynous Ems sprung from the world egg long before Ems was mentioned by the Presocratics. or even Hesiod (Theogony 120122).
In any case there seems to be Iin le doubt that according to Pannenides the All-God. a female being, planned and conceived cosmogonic Love: ''fi~t of all the gods she conceived Ems'' (frg. B. 13). We may then conclude that cosmogonic. demiurgic, divine Love was conceived by the Orphics. received by the Presocratics, saved by later unknown mystics, perhaps Orphic, in a period of demythologisation and revitalised by the Gnostics. both pagan (Chaldaean Oracles) and Christian (Origin of the World)19. The observarions are of some importance for the interpretation of the Johannine Corpus of the New Testament. Recently RobertT. Fortna has argued that the Fourth Gospel is based upon a Jewish-Christian gospel. which has undergone a thoroughgoing revision20. I agree wirh him. I
18. Cf. F.SI. KAPSOMENOS.Gnomon 35 ( 1963) 222. 19. In a recension oflhe well-known sixlh-cenlury hymn: ''Zeus is the head. Zeus IS Ihe middle, from Zeus comes 1he end" it is said lhat both Metis and "the first begener. much-delighting Eros ''originate in the All-God Zeu.'i, ''for all this lies in the great body of bus'' (KERN.OrphicorumFragm~nta, 201. frg. 168, 9-10). Thisshowsthatapantheistic interpretation of the atthaii: myth. according to which Eros comes from God. did already exist in Orphic circles at an early date. In the course of time this interpretation obviously has been combined with Stoic, Posidonian ideas on providence, sympathy, :ryndesmos and oiUiosis (instinct of self-preservation, self-love). When and where this happened, I for one do not know. Cf. K. REINHARDT. Pos~idonios VDII Apameia, tkr Rhodi~r g~NJnlll (Stuttgart, 1954 (= artK:Ie in Pauly-Wissowa's R~al~ncyclopodi~)l. lt is clear that Chaldaean Omde 42: "Eros. who first leapl fonh out of Mind <= Godl" is an interpretation of the Orphic concept of Eros as born from bus. The concept that he binds together all things (44) seems to show tllat the Orphics had integrated the Stoic concept of syndesmos. Therefore the unknown mystics who ~served cosmogonic Eros in a period of de mythologization might have been Orphic 20. R. T. foRTNA. TM GosJNI of Signs (Cambridge, 1970); ''TheTheological Use of LAx:a~ in the Fourth Gospel", A.nglic:Oif T11eologic:al Rn>Ww, SupplemcnlU')' Series 3 (1974) 58-95.
202
0. QUISPEL
think that the prophet John, the author of the Apocalypse, wrote a gospel for the congregation of Ephesus, which was heavily edited by a Hellenistic Jew, a member of the same community. We will designale the author as John. The final redactor we will term his ''editor''. That this editor used a written Gospel is fairly obvious. because he implies. but does not say. that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist (I :32). lt was a Jewish-Christian work because even in its present form it still says that Jesus, the Pascal Lamb, died on lhe 14th of Nisan, lhe day on which the congregations of Jerusalem and Asia Minor mourned and fasted in remembrance of what had happened and expected the Second Coming. Indeed this was the Quanodeciman, i.e. JewishChristian. Easter. The framework of this source probably comprised the
baptism of Jesus. sayings, miracles, passion and resurrection. These sayings showed marked affinity with the Jewish-Christian logia in the Gospel of Thomas: John, like ''Thomas'', does not speak of the love of neighbour, or love of God, but of love of brother (John 15:12: I Jobn 2: 10; Thomas 25). From these sayings the editor made discourses, amplifying them and linking them with each other and insening them into a cenain situation (the Farewell discourses. etc.). Of course, he added his own view. namely the kerygma. Similarly he introduced the Greek Eros into his redaction, just as the Chaldaean Oracles and The Origin of the Wor/J had done, writings which are roughly contemporary with this editor. We may suppose that John wrote in his Gospel, as he did in his Apocalypse (I :5), that Jesus has loved us (agap<Santi) once and for all and has delivered us from our sins through the sacriface of his life. And he may have used the imagery of the Pascal Lamb, vicariously victimised to save others from death and suffering. John's editor might have used this as the staning point for very remarkable developments which reveal not the slightest influence of Pauline theology (like the Apocalypse)21 and have no parallel in Jewish or Old Testament literature, but show a very high appreciation of Greek Eros. We give only three examples. I. ''This is my commandment: love one another, as I have loved you. No man has greater love for his friends than he who gives his life for them" (15: 12-13 ). The editor may have found in his souroe, the Jewish-
21. U. B. Mul.LEII.,Zivfri;hcluinlidu'IJ'17wo11Jgilpdidlu(Giilcnloh, 1976) 13-SO.
GOD IS EROS
203
Christian Gospel of John. something like logion 25: "Love thy bro1her as thy soul. preserve him as the apple of thine eyes22'' He made the general commandment hislorical. adding ··as I have loved you". and that our love should be like His. self-denying. Then he adds something for which there is no parallel whatsoever in the Old Testament. Talmud, Midrash nor Jewish literature in general. for the simple reason that the Greek term phi/os which occurs in the Septuagint has no precise Hebrew equivalent. and the Greek idea of friendship is quite foreign to the Hebrews23. Friendship. however. is a well known topic in Greek and Latin literature. Let us quote just two _examples: a) Love will make men dare to die for their beloved- love alone (Plato. Symposium 1798; translation B. Jowett). b) For what purpose. then, do I make a man my friend? In order to have someone for whom I may die. whom I may follow into exile, against whose death I may stake my own life, and pay the pledge (inpendam) too (Seneca, Ep. 9.10; trans. R.M. Gummere). Seneca says that out of love a man is ready to give his life as a guarantor for his friend. This possibly is an allusion to the story of 1he Pythagorean friends Damon and Phintias.Jwo young men in Syracuse. This ancedote, as narrated by lamblichus, Vita Pythagorica. 233ff. (Deubner 125). tells how Damon is ready to risk his life. giving it as a guarantee (thanatou eggue). for the return of his friend, Phintias. "Those two men lived together and had everything in common". lamblichus alludes to the story of the hind that has replaced lphigeneneia as a victim in Aulis. "They mocked Damon suggesting that he would be left alone by his friend and said jeering that he would be given instead as a hind (elaphon antididosthai)''. He clearly conceives of Damon' s act offriendship in terms of a vicarious sacrifice. To suffer for your friend and lo die instead of him was for the Ancients, and possibly also for John's editor, implied in the notion ofEros.
22. See my article 'John, QunuanandJewishChriltianity'. iDJ.H. Chadelworth,JoM antiQumran (London, 1972) 143. 23. Cf. G. STAHUN, "Philos'', TPt«HogicolOictlottGryofiMNnvTeSitllfWftl, 9,a... &ed. G.W. Bmmilcy(GrandRapid:s,l974) IS4.
204
G. QUISPEL
2. ··one of his pupils. whom Jesus loved, was reclining on his bosom during the meal"' ( 13:23). Here again we must says that the notion of the special favorite of a teacher. who is the privileged object of his affection and even has a place of honour during lhe meal. is not Jewish, but typically Hellenistic. Hundreds of examples of such special relationships can be quoted from Greek literature, as for example the relation between Socrares and Alcibiades. lt is unlhinkable lhallhe edilor found this in his source. the Jewish-Chistian gospel wrinen by lhe prophet
John. He has introduced something new by making the Last Supper into a symposium. 3. No prophet. priestorwrileroftheOidTestament, nor any author of Hebrew or Aramaic literature is known to have said that God loves the world. And yet the Founh Gospel says: "God loved the world so much ... •• (3: 16). Bullmann is probably right when he slresses the aorist ( egapesen): God loved. i.e. he showed his love fort he world once and for all by suffering on the cross to redeem mankind. Nevertheless the co'ncept of love descending from the Ground of being and coming to the kosmos is thoroughly Hellenic, as is shown by Pannenides, the Chaldaean Oracles and Proclus. Nor is our editor afraid of such generalisations. if he is the same as the
aulhor of I John. He writes: Beloved friends. ler us love one another, because love is out of God. Everyone who is loving is born from God and does know God. Whoever is not loving does not know God. because God is love. And his love was disclosed to us in this event, that he sent his he loved Son to the world to give us Life (I John 4:7-9). This passage is very characteristic of the redactional work: by the anonymous editor. He stans. again, with the JeWish-Christian injunction to love the brother, but gives a very peculiar motivation for this commandment. The Christian should love his brethren. his beloved friends; this proves he has the love of God within himself and may consider himself to be a child of God. because this Ground of being is the source of all love. comes from God. because God as such is love. Love originates in God. enters the human heart as a unifying fon:e. an eros koinonikos, the foundation of community and brotherly togetherness. and returns as love of God from man to God. The initiative is in
GOD IS EROS
205
God. ero.s pronoetiko.s, it founds the cong~gation. eros koinonikos, and at last returns to God. eros epistreptikos. Therefore John's editor. describing love as the motivation of God's and the public spirit of the congregation. at last also speaks of love of God.
condescensi~n
This is real love. that God was the first to love us by sending: his Son to cover our sins and that we are only secondarily loving: God (I John4:10). We love (God) because he loved us first (I John. 4: 19). All this is typically Orphic and Hellenic. The best parallel for the statement that love comes from God is in Proclus (In Ale. 233). as we have shown above; and for the definition that God is Love, we find the equivalent in Plotinus(£nn. 6.8.15). From this we conclude that the Orphic and Hellenic tradition on Ems is imponant to understand the true meaning of love in the Johannine corpus of the New Testament and that its most thoughtful and sagacious exegetes were Dionysius Areopagi~a and Boethius. Moreover. both Dionysius and Beothius show how easily a Christian could integrate the Orphic and philosophical concept of Ems into his own system. when he wanted to speak about the love of God. Tbe editor of John might have done the same. In fact he did.
AchevCd'imprirncrcnoelobft: 1979 sur lcs psascs de l'lmprimcric Labl.llcry et C .. 58500 Clunecy DCpOI tepl : 4• trimcsa~ 1979 Numtmd'imprimcur: 19191
TB!OLOGIB HISTOBIQUE 1. -
2. -
3. 4. -
5. 6. -
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. -
PAUL AUBIN. Le problCme de la conversion. Etude sur un terme commun d /'helltnisme et au christianis~M des trois premiers siicles. Avant-propos de JEAN DANJttou. AUGUSTB LUNEAU. L 'bistoire du salut chez les Peres de l'Eglise. La doctrine des dges du monde. FRANQ)IS ROD~. Le miracle daos la controverse modemiste. JEAN COLSON. Ministre de Jesus-Christ ou le sacerdoce de l'Evangile. Etude sur la condition sacerdotale des ministres chrttitns dons /'Eglise primitive. JEAN DANI~wu. Etudes d'exegese judeo-chretienne. Les testimonia. YVON BODIN. Saint Jer6me et l'Eglise. J. VAN GOUOOEVER. FStes et Calendriers Bibliques. Traduit de l'anglais par MARIE-LUC KERREMANS. Troisieme edition revue et co"igee. Preface de c. A. RIJK. eusABErn GERMAIN. Parler du salut ? Aux origines d'une mentalit6 religieuse - La catichtse du salut dans la France de la Restauralion. Pr~face de JOSEPH BOURNIQUB. RAYMOND JOHANNY. L'Eucharistie. Centre de l'histoire du sa/ut chez Ambroise de Milan. JEAN COLSON. L'~nigme du disciple que Usus aimait. J.-P. BROUDEHOUX. Mariage et famille chez Clement d'Alexandrie. HENRI HOLSTEIN. Hi~rarcbie et Peuple de Dieu d'aprCs Lumen Gentium. HBNRI CROUZBL. L'Eglise primitive face au divorce. Du premier
au cinquiime siicle. 14. -
15. 16. -
17. 18. 19. -
20. 21. -
22. -
La condition collegiate des pretres au me siCcle. L'experience de l'Esprit par l'Eglise d'aprCs la tradition syrienne d'Antioche. JEAN LAPORTB. La doctrine eucharistique chez Philon d'Alexandrie. ANDR~ TARBY. La priCre eucharistique de I'Eglise de Jerusalem. LESLIB w. BARNARD. Athenagoras. A Study in second Century Christian Apologetic. EDWARD NOWAK. Le cbretieo devant la souffraoce. Etude sur la pensie de Jean Chrysostome. CHRISTOPH VON SCHONBORN. Sopbrooe de Jerusalem. Vie monastique et confession dogmatique. LOUIS BOISSBT. Uo coocile provincial au XII~ siCcle. Vienne 1289. Eglise locale et Sociiti. Pr~face de J. GAUDEMET. ALAJN IUOU. Le Monde et l'Eglise selon Maxime le Confesseur. ~face de M. J. LE GUILLOU. ALBANO VILELA.
EMMANUEL PATAQ SIMAN.
LOUIS LIGIBR. La Confirmation. Sens et conjoncture acumlnique hier et aujourd'hul. La crise contemporaioe. Du MotUrnisme d la crise des hertneneutiques. -TON H. c. VAN EUK. La Rsurrection des morts chez les P~res apostoliqucs. - J.-a. MOLIN ET P. MUTEMBL. Le rituel du mariage en France du XII' au ·XVI' si~clc. Preface de P.-M. GY. - c. I:ANIII!NGIESSBR Id. Politiquc et thl!ologie chcz Athanasc d'Alcxaudrie. Actes du Col/oqu. do Chtmlilly, 23-25 scptcmbre 1973. - R.•P. HARDY. Actualill! de la revelation divine. Une ltude des • TrDCtatua in Johannis Evangelium • de saint Augu.stin. - Y. MARCHASSON. La diplomatic romainc et la Republique franl"'isc. A la recherche d'une conciliation. 1879-1880. - P. lltGY. L'autorill! dans le calholicismc contcmporain. Du Syllabus t1 Vatican 11. - a. de MA.RGBRIB. La Trinit~ chr~tienne dans I'histoire. - MAXIMOS DB SARDES. Le patriarcat CI!CUmeniquc daDS l'Eglisc ortbodoxe. Etude historique et canonique. - M.-T. PBRRIN Id. Laberthonni~re et scs amis : L. Birot, H. Bre· mood, L. Canet, B. Le Roy. Drusiers de correspondance (19051916). Preface de Mgr POUPARD. - D. DIDBBBRG. Augustin et la JN Epitre de saint Jean. Une theo/ogie de fagapi. Preface d'ANIII!•MARIB LA BONNARDibRB. -c. I:ANIII!NGIESSBR Id. Jean Cbrysostome et Augustin. Actes du Colloque de Chtmli/ly, 22-24 scptcmbre 1974. - P. LBVILLAIN. La mecanique politique de Vatican Il. LtJ majorite et l'unanimitl dans un conciie. Preface de REN~ REMOND. - B.-D. BBRGER. Le drame liturgiquc de Paques. Thldtre et Liturgie. Preface de PIERRB JOUNEL. - J.-M. GA.RRIGUES. Maxime le Confesscur. Lll clulritl, avenir divin de /' homme. Preface de M.J. Le Guillou. - J. LBDIT. Marie dans la Uturgic de Byzancc. Preface de Mgr A. MARTIN, Erique de Nicolet. - A. PAIVRB. Naissanc:c d'une hierarcbie. Les premiires ltapes du CID'IUS c/JricaJ. - P. GISBL. Verite et Histoire. La theo/ogie dans la motkrnitl. Brnst Kiiseman. - P. CANIVET. Le monachisme syricn scion Theodoret de Cyr. - J. R. VILLALON. Sacrements dans l'.Esprit. Existence humaine et thlologie sacramentelle. - c. BRBSSOLETIB. L'Abbe Maret. Le combat d'un tht!ologien pour une tUmocrati• chrlltienne (1830-1851).
23. 24. 2S. 26. 27.
28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
40. 41. 42. 43. 44.
J. GllBISCH. ~. NBUFBLD, C. THEOBA.LD.
4S. 46. 47. -
48. 49. -
SO. SI. S2. -
S3. 54. -
OOUIIVOJSJBR. De la R~forme au Protestantisme. &.m tl«:r:lbiologie rtfomrh. G. P. CHBSNUT. The Fint Christian Histories. EuubiUJ, Socrttlu, Sozorrwn, TlleodDrtt flllll Evagriu.r. 11. H. Slllnt 111. And Taking Bread. Th~ d~~loprMnl of IM A.zy~~W ContTOWrsy. 1. PONTAINI! ET 11. PERRJN. Lactance et son temps. A.ck1 du Ill' Colloqw tiEtudu hi.rtoriques n patriltiqw1. ChanliUy 21-23 septembte 1976. J. Dl!atANBT. GuiUaume de Saint-Thierry. Aru IIOIIICel tiUM pens«. a. IIENGUS. Thtorie et pratique chez Dietricb Bonba:trer. B.-o. MARUANGEAS. Clts pour une lb~logie du minist~re. In perrona Christi -In persona Eccl~•iae. Prtface de Y.M. CONGAR. F.-M. LBTHEL. Thtologie de l'Agonie du Christ. LD liberte humaine du Fils de Dieu et son importance sotlriologique mises en lumiire par Saint Maxime le Confesseur. !»reface de M.J. LE GUtLLOU. Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition. MdLANGES ROBERT GRANT publits par William R. ScHOEDEL et Roben L. WtLKEN. B. GJRARDtN. Rhttorique et Thtologique. Calvin. Le commentain: de I'Epirre aux Rornairu. J.
EN PRUARATION
v. SAXER. Mons Manyn Reliquea. A./riqw c/WtienM de• premi~rs sik/es. B. PRAIGNEAU·JULIEN. lea SCIIS spirituels et la vision de Dieu selon Symeon le Nouveau ~logien. J. OOUlSTAIN. Lea valeun de la Loi. LD Thora, une lumiere sur la route. R. STAUFFER. Interpr~tes de la Bible. Etude sur les Rl/ormaJeurs du uizii!~M sik/e. 11. PERRJN. L 'bomme antique et chrttien. A.nthropologie tk LDctance (2SD-32S). P. L'HUILUER. L'a:uvre diBciplinaire des quatte premien conciles CliCUIIItniques.
