VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE LIX
Vigiliae
Christianae A
of
Review Christian
Early and
Language
LIX
VOLUME
-<.X 16 8 3
BRILL LEIDEN
*BOSTON 2005
Life
Editors-in-chief J. den Boeft,Amsterdam J. van Oort, Utrecht/Nijmegen W.L. Petersen,Pennsylvania D.T. Runia, Melbourne C. Scholten,Koln J.C.M. vanWinden, Leiden AssociateEditors A. Le Boulluec (Paris)- A. Davids (Nijmegen)- R.M. Grant (Chicago) Marguerite Harl (Paris)- J.-P.Mahe (Paris)- Elaine Pagels (Princeton)G. Rouwhorst (Utrecht)- R. Staats (Kiel)
?
Copyright 2005 byKoninklfke Brill NV, Leiden,TheNetherlands
may be reproduced, translated, storedin All rightsreserved. No part of thispublication a retrieval or transmitted in anyformor by anymeans,electronic, system, or otherwise, without recording mechanical, priorwritten photocopying, of thepublisher. permission tophotocopy orpersonal Authorization items for internal use isgrantedbyBrill providedthat toCopyright theappropriate fees arepaid directly ClearanceCenter,222 RosewoodDrive, Suite 910, Danvers,MA 01923, USA. Fees are subjectto change.
ISSN 0042-6032
CONTENTS I ARTICLES CAIN, A., Miracles, Martyrs, and Arians: Gregory of Tours' Account for his
CASIDAY, A.M.C., St. Vincent
of
the Vandal
Grace
and theHumanity
of Lerins
Alchemical
Literature
8.
Constitutions
12
438
...................................................
(250-325 ap. J.C.)
Alexandria
Influence upon
..............
the Anaphora
............
Infinity in Gregory of Nyssa
GROOTE, M.
I
of Apostolic 355
and Philo of
...................................................
GNILKA, Ch., Bemerkungen
135
..........
....................................
...............
GELJON, A.-K., Divine
298
II, 1) and the Graeco
Rhetoric and Tertullian's De virginibusvelandis
GAVRILYUK, P., Melito's
to
chretienne et romanesque: Le De morti
de Lactance bus persecutorum DUNN, G.D.,
412
...............................
CHARRON, R., The Apocgyphonofjoohn (NHC Egyptian
...............
of Christ According
....................
COLOT, B., Historiographie
Sources
.....................
Kingdom
152
zum Text der Confessionen Augustins
178
de, Anonyma TestimoniaAdversus Iudaeos,Critical Edition
of an Antijudaic
Treatise
.................
..................................
HARVEY JR., P.B., Jerome dedicates his Vita Hilarionis
...........
315
....... 286
KAMESAR,A., Hilary of Poitiers, Judeo-Christianity, and the Origins of
the LXX
264
...................................................
KELHOFFER, J.A., Basilides's Gospel
.......... 115
and Exegetica (Treatises)
RAsIMUs, T., Ophite Gnosticism, Sethianism and theNag Hammadi Library
und
die
235
...................................................
SCHOLTEN, C., Welche Antike
Seele hat der Embryo? Johannes Philoponos
paraison Orphee-Felicianus VIELBERG, M., im
Emesa
.................
com .............
in the Sermons
63
of Eusebius
of 31
...................................................
"Constantius", and a Church-Inscription
...................................................
187
zur Farbgestaltung
...................................................
The Natural World
WOODS, D., Malalas, Antioch
chez Dracontius
omnibusunus?Beobachtungen JVitor
'Martinellus'
WINN, R.E.,
377
...................................................
Embryologie
STOEHR-MoNJou, A., Structure allegorique de Romulea 1: La
from 54
vi
CONTENTS
II Reviews BANDINI,M.,
...... 207
GREGORIO DI NISSA, Contro il Fato (J. Leemans)
BRADsHAw, P., JOHNSON, M.E.,
PHILIPS, L.E.,
7he Apostolic Tradition.
.............................................
A Commentagy(G. Rouwhorst)
337
77TeLibray ofEusebius of Caesarea (S. Inowlocki) 462 85 CERRATO, J.A., Hippolytus betweenEast and West (C. Scholten) COOK, J.G., 7he Interpretation of theOld TestamentinGreco-RomanPaganism . .465 (P.W. van der Horst) CARRIKER, Aj.,
DROBNER, H.R.,
Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Buch Genesis .341
(A. Bastiaensen)
HARGIS, J.W., Against theChristians: 7TheRise of Early Anti-Christian . Polemic (P.W. van der Horst) .205 HOLLERICH,
Eusebius
Mj.,
of Caesarea's
Commentary on Isaiah
.460
(S. Inowlocki) .93 KINZIG, W., Asterius. Psalmenhomilien(C. Leonhard) . 209 KOFSKY, A., Eusebius of Caesarea againstPaganism (A.P. Johnson) LAURET, B., Ado/f von Harnack: Marcion. L'evangile du Dieu etranger (E.P.
M
eijering)
NORuDSIECK,R., Das
..............................................................................
Thomas-Evangelium(G. Quispel)
103
........................
POULAT, E., Ado/f von Harnack: Marcion. L'evangile du Dieu (E.P.
M
eijering)
204
etranger
..............................................................................
103
.213 REBILLARD, E., Religion et sepulture(L.V. Rutgers) . RHODES, J.N., 7he Epistle of Barnabas and theDeuteronomic Tradition . .457 (T. Nicklas) Nubiens (J. van der Vliet) 219 RICHTER, S.G., Studien zur Christianisierung Vom Glauben der Christenund seinerBewdhrung inDenken
RI1rrER,A.M., und Handeln
(E.P.
TARDIEU, M., (E.P.
............................................
Meijering)
217
Ado/f von Harnack: Marcion. L'evangile du Dieu .....................
Meijering)
TEIXIDOR, J., Aristote en syriaque(A.P. Bos)
etranger
..........................
103
..............................
223
TURNER, J.D., MCGUIRE, A. (eds.), 7heNag Hammadi Libragy afterFifty Years
(M.
Scopello)
Books
received
OORT,
J. VAN
..............................
....................
........................
110,
104
225,
347,
468
Vigilae
ristianae
Gb
Review of
A
Christian
Earvly
Lif
Language
and
VOL.
LIX
A^^FI M-_301r?
i
I
NO.
2005
w
www.brill.nl ?
BRILL LEIDEN-BOSTON
I
!
VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE a review of Early Christian Life and Language J. DEN BOEFT,Amsterdam, J. VAN OORT,Utrecht/Nijmegen, W.L. PETERSEN, State College, Pennsylvania, D.T. RUNIA,Melbourne, C. SCHOLTEN, Koln, J.C.M. VAN WINDEN,Leiden ASSOCIATEEDITORS: A. Le Boulluec (Paris) - A. Davids (Nijmegen) - R.M. Grant (Chicago) Marguerite Harl (Paris) - J.-P. Mahe (Paris) -Elaine Pagels (Princeton) G. Rouwhorst (Utrecht) - R. Staats (Kiel) This quarterly journal contains articles and short notices of an historical and SCOPE: cultural, linguistic or philological nature on Early Christian literatureposterior to the New Testament in the widest sense of the word, as well as on Christian epigraphy and archaeology. Church and dogmatic history will only be dealt with if they bear directly on social history; Byzantine and Mediaeval literature only in so far as it exhibits continuity with the Early Christian period. The journal will also contain reviews of importantstudies, published elsewhere. Each volume appears in 4 quarterly issues. All manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be sent to the Secretary of MANUSCRIPTS: the Editorial Board, Professor J. den Boeft, Commanderijpoort4-6, 2311 WB Leiden, The Netherlands. Books for review should be sent to Professor J. van Oort, Department of Ecclesiastical History, P.O. Box 80105, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail:
[email protected]. Brill Academic Publishers PUBLISHER: PUBLISHED: Four times a year: February, May, August and November The subscription price of Volume 59 (2005) is EUR 214.- (US $ 268.-) for SUBSCRIPTIONS: institutions, and EUR 105.- (US$ 131.-) for individuals, inclusive of postage and handling charges. All prices are exclusive of VAT in EU-countries (VAT not applicable outside the EU). Subscription orders are accepted for complete volumes only. Orders take effect with the first issue of any year. Orders may also be entered on an automatic continuing basis. Cancellations will only be accepted if they are received before October 1st of the year preceding the year in which the cancellation is to take effect. Claims for missing issues will be met, free of charge, if made within three months of dispatch for European customers and five months for customers outside Europe. Once the issue is published the actual dates of dispatch can be found on our website: www.brill.nl. Subscription orders may be made via any bookseller or subscription agency, or direct to the publisher. U.S.A. OFFICES: The Netherlands Brill Academic Publishers Inc. Brill Academic Publishers 112 Water Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 9000 2300 PA Leiden Boston, MA 02109 Tel: 1-800-962-4406 (toll free) Tel: +31 71 535 35 66 Fax: (617) 263 2324 Fax: +31 71 531 75 32 E-mail:
[email protected] E-mail:
[email protected] Back volumes of the last two years are available from Brill: please contact BACK VOLUMES: our customer services department. For back volumes of the preceding years please contact: Swets & Zeitlinger. P.O. Box 830, 2160 SZ, Lisse, The Netherlands. Back issues of the current and last two years are available from Brill. BACK ISSUES:
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF:
VISIT THE BRILL WEBSITE: WWW.BRILL.NL
BRILL LEIDEN . BOSTON
RHETORIC AND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGINIBUS VELANDIS BY
GEOFFREY D. DUNN ABSTRACT: Tertullian'sde Virginibus Velandis is
not simply a somewhat neglected ascetic treatise but a rhetorical treatise about asceticism. The use of classical rhetoric as a modern interpretativetool for early Christian literatureis common, although, as witnessed in an article recently in this journal, not without its critics. In this deliberativetreatise Tertullian argued from Scripture (3.5c6.3), natural law (7.1-8.4) and Christiandiscipline(9.1-15.3) that from puberty Christianfemale virginsought to be veiled when in public. The custom of some Carthaginianvirgins not being veiled when the church gathered was attacked as being contraryto the truth. What we find is Tertullian'soverwhelmingconcern for fidelity to the regulafidei.The presence of a well-developed rhetorical is an argument for dating it after de Oratione, structurein de Virginibus Velandis where Tertullianmade some similarpoints, though in a less cohesive and more rudimentarymanner. I. Introduction Scholars who conduct research on the topic of Tertullian and women tend to seek either to rehabilitate or vilify a misogynist.' After all, he has
F. ForresterChurch,"Sex and Salvationin Tertullian,"Harvard Review68 Theological (1975)83-101, arguesthat to takeone statementof Tertullian'sout of contextas the basis for assessinghis position(andwith regardto women that statementhas been tu es diaboli ianuaof de Cult.1.1.2) leads to an incorrectinterpretation.He points out that in every otherinstanceof Tertulliancommentingon the Fall, the blameis placedon Adam alone or on both Adam and Eve equally.He also points out that de Cult.appliesthe requirementsof modestyin appearanceto men as well as to women, and that men and women are equally capable of being saved. Elizabeth A. Clark, Womenin the Early Church (Collegeville,Minn. 1983 [Messageof the Fathersof the Church 13]) 38-39, selectsonly this passagefrom de Cult.to illustrateTertullian'spositionon the originsof sin. If this is indeed an uncharacteristic passagethen her selectionof this passagealone gives a misleadingimpressionof Tertullian'sattitudes.AverilCameron,"EarlyChristianityand the inAncient Societies: Discourseof FemaleDesire,"in Women AnIllusionof the ight,ed. Leonie and Susan Fischler Maria J. Archer, Wyke(London1994) 153, reliesupon Clark'sselec? KoninklijkeBrillNV, Leiden, 2005 Also availableonline- www.brill.nl
59, 1-30 IgiliaeChristianae
2
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
been described as "the writer who made some of the most hostile pronouncements concerning women in all of patristicliterature."2While there have been any number of studies on the general topics of Tertullian'sattitudes towardswomen (particularlywith regard to marriage)and their place in the North African churches,3and while his de CultuFeminarum has been
tion of Tertullian's texts to state that he was "writing in luridly misogynistic terms." For a detailed revisionist approach to Tertullian's misogyny see Daniel L. Hoffman, The Status of Womenand Gnosticismin Irenaeusand Tertullian(Lewiston, N.Y. 1995 [Studies in Women and Religion 36]) 145-207. In his conclusion (214) he goes as far as to write that "if any early orthodox Church figure would be considered exceptionally positive toward women, it should probably be Tertullian in his Montanist phase..." 2 Clarence L. Lee, "The Search for Mrs. Tertullian," African Theological Journal 14 (1985) 46. See Elizabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, In Memoryof Her (London 1983) 55. 3 Claude Rambaux, "La composition et l'ex6egse dans les deux lettres 'Ad uxorem,' le 'De exhortatione castitatis' et le 'De monogamia,' ou la construction de la pensee dans les traites de Tertullien sur le remariage," Revuedes EtudesAugustiniennes 22 (1976) 3-28, 201-217; 23 (1977) 18-55; idem "Le jugement de Tertullien sur les femmes," VitaLatina 122 (juin 1991) 1-20; Carlo Tibiletti, "Matrimonio ed escatologia: Tertulliano, Clemente Alessandrino, S. Agostino," Augustinianum17 (1977) 53-70; idem "La donna in Tertulliano," in Misoginia e maschilismoin Greciae in Roma (Genoa 1981) 69-95; idem e matrimonio in antichiscrittoricristiani(Rome 1983); Renato Uglione, "I1matrimoVerginita nio in Tertulliano tra esaltazione e dispresso," Ephemerides Liturgicae93 (1979) 479-494; idem "Interpretationes tertullianae (De Monog. 1,1; 8,2; 8,6)," Latinitas27 (1979) 259264; idem "Tertullianus in secundas nuptias," Latinitas27 (1979) 94-100; idem "L'Antico Testamento negli scritti Tertullianei sulle seconde nozze," Augustinianum 22 (1982) 165178; idem Tertulliano:Le uniche nozze (Turin 1993); Claudio Micaeli, "L'influsso di 19 Tertulliano su Girolamo: le opere sul matrimonio e le seconde nozze," Augustinianum idem e cristianesimo di filosofia scritti matrimoniali 415-429; "Retorica, (1979) negli di Pisa, Serie III, 11 (1981) 69-104; Charles Tertulliano," AnnalidellaScuolaNormalesuperiore d son epouse(Paris 1980 [Sources Chretiennes 273]); idem Manageet virMunier, Tertullien: ginitedans l'Egliseancienne(I"-III sicles) (Bern 1987 [Traditio Cristiana 6]); Marie-Therese Raepsaet-Charlier, "Tertullien et la legislation des mariages inegaux," RevueInternationale desDroitsde l'Antiquite29 (1982) 253-263; Henri Crouzel, Maiage et divorce.Celibatet caracdans l'Eglise ancienne.itudes diverses(Turin 1982); Claudio Moreschini and tire sacerdotaux a la chasteti(Paris 1985 [Sources Chretiennes Exhortation Jean-Claude Fredouille, Tertullien: 319]); S. Isetta, Tertulliano: L'eleganzadelledonne(Florence 1986 [Biblioteca Patristica 6]); Paul Mattei, "Tertullien De monogamia. Critique textuelle et contenu doctrinal," Rivistadi Storiae Letteratura Religiosa22 (1986) 68-88; idem "Le divorce chez Tertullien. Examen de la question a la lumiere des d6veloppements que le De monogamiaconsacre a ce sujet," Le mariageunique(Paris 1988 Revuedes SciencesReligieuses60 (1986) 208-234; idem Tertullien: [Sources Chr6tiennes 343]); idem "La place du 'De monogamia' dans 1'6volution th6ologique et spirituelle de Tertullien," Studia Patristica 18/3, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, papers presented at the 9th International Conference on Patristic Studies at Oxford, 1983 (Kalamazoo 1989) 319-328; idem "Divorce, de Tertullien, et de quelques
RHETORIC AND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGINIBUSVELANDIS
3
the subject of several editions, commentariesand examinationsin the past Velandishas not received nearly the quarter of a century,4his de Virginibus same degree of attention.5Perhaps that is due to the more limited subject
39 autres sujets... Perspectives nouvelles et idees re;ues," Revuedes EtudesAugustiniennes nel cristianesimo Ad uxorem,De preniceno. (1993) 23-35; Pier Angelo Gramaglia, I/ matrimonio exhortatione castitatis,De monogamia(Rome 1988); idem "Personificazioni e modelli del e Femminile nella transizione dalla cultura classica a quella cristiana," in Interpretazione e Modellidel Femminile,ed. Giuseppe Galli, (Genoa 1988) 17Personifcazione. Person#ficazione 164; Stevan L. Davies, "Women, Tertullian and the Acts of Paul," Semeia38 (1986) 139nel cristianesimo Ad uxorem,De exhortatione 143; Pier Angelo Gramaglia, I matrimonio preniceno. castitatis,De monogamia (Rome 1988); Brigitte du Plessis, "La celebration du mariage dans 16 (juin-juillet 1988) 57-60; Emilien Lamirande, les premiers sicles chr6tiens," Risurrection "Tertullien et le mariage. Quand un moraliste s'adresse a son epouse," Eglise et Thiologie 20 (1989) 47-75; Alberto Viciano, "La Feminidad en la teologia de Tertuliano y Cipriano," in MasculinidadyFeminidaden la Patristica,ed. D. Ramos-Lisson, P. J. Viladrich and J. Escriva-Ivars (Pamplona 1989) 63-82; Karen Jo Torjesen, "Tertullian's 'Political Ecclesiology' and Women's Leadership," StudiaPatristica21, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, papers presented at the 10th International Conference on Patristic Studies at Oxford, 1987 (Leuven 1989) 277-282; Elizabeth Carnelley, "Tertullian and feminism," Theology92 (1989) 31-35; Pierre Nautin, "Tertullien 'De exhortatione castitatis' 7,3," Orpheusn.s. 11 (1990) 112-116; Kerstin Aspegren, The Male Woman:a FeminineIdeal in the Early Church (Uppsala 1990); Marie Turcan, "]tre femme selon Tertullien," VitaLatina 119 (septembre 1990) 15-21; Hans-Veit Friedrich, Tertullian:De exhortatione castitatis.Ermahnungzur Henri Keuschheit Concordance verbale de l'Ad uxorem de Tertullien 1990); (Stuttgart Quellet, (Hildesheim 1994); Esteban Monjas Ayuso, "Visi6n del matrimonio en las obras de Tertuliano: 'Ad uxorem,' 'De exhortatione castitatis' y 'De monogamia'," Actas del VIII de 1991, 2 (Madrid 1994) 759congresoespafiolde estudioscldsicos,Madrid23-28 de septiembre 766. 4 Mauro Donnini, "Iperbole, sarcasmo e ironia nella scelta lessicale del primo libro del 'De cultu feminarum'," AnnalidellaFacolti di Letteree Filosofia,Universitadi Perugia14 (197677) 235-269; Katharina M. Wilson, "An Affront to Gold and Silver: Tertullian's De cultu feminarumand More's Utopia,"Moreana.BulletinThomasMoreXIX, 73 (mars 1982) 69-74; Sandra Isetta, "La struttura unitaria del 'De cultu feminarum' di Tertulliano," Civilta Classicae Cristiana4 (1983) 43-68; L. Raditsa, "The Appearance of Women and Contact: Tertullian's De habitu feminarum," Athenaeum63 (1985) 297-326; Henri Quellet, Concordance verbaledu De cultu feminarum de Tertullien(Hildesheim 1986); Maria Tasinato, Tertulliano:Gli omamentidelle donne (Parma 1987 [Biblioteca Medievale 2]); Emilien Lamirande, "Tertullien misogyne? Pour une relecture du 'De cultu feminarum'," Science et Esprit39 (1987) 5-25; Jean-Claude Fredouille, "Sur la genese et la composition du 'De cultu feminarum' de Tertullien," VitaLatina 121 (mars 1991) 37-42. 5 Eva Schulz-Flugel, Tertullien-Le voile des vierges(De uirginibusuelandis)(Paris 1997 [Sources Chretiennes 424]); C. Stucklin, Tertullian.De uirginibusvelandis. Ubersetzung, Ein Beitragzur altkirchlichen Einleitung,Kommentar. Frauenfrage (Frankfurt 1974 [Europaische Hochschulschriften 23, bd. 26]) 93: "De virginibus velandis ist praktisch die einzige
4
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
matter of this treatise, it being a "Bagatellfrage"according to Stiicklin.6 My intention is to argue that the treatiseis best understoodas a piece of writing produced by someone with rhetoricalskills and that its arguments are best appreciatedwithin the context of its rhetoricalstructure.I propose to defend the use of classical rhetoric as a hermeneuticaltool for scholars today, to offer a rhetorical structurefor the treatise, to outline the arguments of the treatise within the context of that structure,to comment on issues of dating, and to suggest how rhetoric may help us obtain a more complete picture of Tertullian'sattitude towardswomen. II. Use of ClassicalRhetoric as Interpretative Tool It has been stated that "[t]he Latin Church Fathers show an extensive knowledge of the conventions of classical rhetoric"7and that "[f]rom the beginning it was taken for granted that the writings produced by early Christianswere to be read as rhetoricalcompositions."8To recognise that early Christianwriterswere profoundlyinfluenced by the highly developed rules of classical rhetoric is to recognise their works for what their authors intended them to be-arguments which sought to convince and persuade readers to believe the point being made. This enables modem readers to read a work not so much as a scientificstatement of fact but as an artistic advertisementor appeal.9I have argued elsewhere that while much of classical rhetoric in the imperial age, at least according to Tacitus and Quintilian, had become interested mainly in delighting and impressing audiences through virtuosic display, Tertullian was more interested in one of its other, more original, functions, viz., persuadingaudiences.10 Schrift Tertullians, zu der so gut wie keine Sekundarliteratur erschienen ist."; P. A. femminilenelleprimecomunitdcristiana(Turin Gramaglia, De uirginibusuelandis:La condizione
1984). 6 De virginibus 93. velandis Stticklin,Tertullian. 7 PhilipE. Satterthwaite, "The LatinChurchFathers,"in Handbook Rhetoric of Classical in theHellenistic Period,330 B.C.-A.D.400, ed. StanleyE. Porter(Leiden1997)671. 8 BurtonL. Mack,Rhetoric andtheNew Testament (Minneapolis1990) 10. 9 George A. Kennedy,New Testament Rhetorical Criticism Interpretation Through (Chapel Hill 1984) 4: "Rhetoricalcriticismtakes the text as we have it, whetherthe work of a single author or the productof editing, and looks at it from the point of view of the author'sor editor'sintent,the unifiedresults,and how it wouldbe perceivedby an audience of near contemporaries." 10GeoffreyD. Dunn, "A RhetoricalAnalysisof Tertullian'saduersus Iudaeos," (PhD diss.,AustralianCatholic2000).
RHETORIC AND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGINIBUSVELAMDIS
5
should not be termed simply an My argumentis that de VrginibusVelandis ascetic treatise but a rhetorical treatise about asceticism. In other words, Tertullian sought not simply to present his theology about Christianvirginity. He went further and sought to persuade those in his community who held contraryviews that his position on asceticalliving ought to be followed by that community. There is a degree of polemic in everything Tertullian wrote-there was a point of controversyand Tertullian sought to persuade opponents to adopt his opinion. The polemic involved a theological difference of opinion and Tertullian utilised his rhetoricaltraining to marshal his argumentsto present his opinion in as persuasivea light as possible. This may seem to be labouring the point, especially for those to whom the news that Christianwriterswere influencedby classicalrhetoricis nothing new. After all, the importance of classicalrhetoric to Tertullianwas the subject of a study by Robert Sider, who made brief comment about this treatise." Others too, myself included, have accepted or investigated his position.12This paper seeks to add to that appreciation.First, though, like
11 Robert Dick Sider, AncientRhetoricand the Art of Tertullian(Oxford 1971). See also idem "Structure and Design in the 'de Resurrectione Mortuorum' of Tertullian," Vigiliae Christianae 23 (1969) 177-196; idem "On Symmetrical Composition in Tertullian," Journal of TheologicalStudiesn.s. 24 (1973) 405-423; idem "On the Shows:An Analysis," Journal of TheologicalStudiesn.s. 29 (1978) 339-365. 12Jean-Claude Fredouille, Tertullienet la conversion de la cultureantique(Paris 1972) 23; Latomus27 (1968) 864-877; LouisJ. Swift, "Forensic Rhetoric in Tertullian's Apologeticum," David Tertullian: A Historical and Literay Barnes, Timothy Study(Oxford 1985 [rev. ed.]) 206-212; idem "Tertullian's Scorpiace," Journalof TheologicalStudiesn.s. 20 (1969) 105-132; G. Bray, "The Legal Concept of Ratioin Tertullian," VigiliaeChristianae 31 (1977) 94-116; Mark LeTourneau, "General and Special Topics in the De baptismoof Tertullian," Rhetorica5 (1987) 87-105; Averil Cameron, Christianityand the Rhetoricof Empire:The of ChristianDiscourse(Berkeley 1991) 85; Paul McKechnie, "Tertullian's De palDevelopment lio and Life in Roman Carthage," Prudentia24 (1992) 44-66; Eric Osborn, Tertullian:First Theologian of the West(Cambridge 1997); David I. Rankin, "Was Tertullian aJurist?" Studia Patristica31, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone, papers presented at the 12th International Conference on Patristic Studies at Oxford, 1995, part 3 (Leuven 1997) 335-342; Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Tertullian and Rebekah: A Re-reading of an 'Anti-Jewish' Argument in Early Christian Literature," VigiliaeChristianae Condicione: 52 (1998) 119-145; idem "Pro Temporum Jews and Christians as God's People in Tertullian's AdversusIudaeos,"in Prayer and Spiritualityin the Early Church2, ed. Pauline Allen, Wendy Mayer and Lawrence Cross (Brisbane 1999) 315-341; idem "Two Goats, Two Advents and Tertullian's adversus 39 (1999) 245-264; idem "The Universal Spread of Christianity as Iudaeos,"Augustinianum Rhetorical Argument in Tertulian's adversusIudaeos,"Journal of Early ChristianStudies8 (2000) 1-19; idem "Tertullian and Daniel 9:24-27-A Patristic Interpretation of a
6
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
any decent orator, we must confront the arguments of our opponents that classical rhetoric is not a helpful method of interpretation. The "New Rhetoric" of the second half of the twentieth century distanced itself from its classical antecedent. The works of Richards, Burke, and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, to name only the best-known founders of this movement, sought to broaden rhetoric beyond merely the logic of persuasive argument.'3 In a recent article in this journal dealing with Tertullian's de Came Christi,Willemien Otten has a number of negative criticisms about the value of classical rhetoric as an interpretative tool. I believe it is important to make some response to them in order to justify what I am offering in this paper, even though I am not interested here in the details per se of Otten's argument about de Came Christi. and refutatioof chapters 17 to 23 of de First, Sider's inversion of confirmatio Came Christiis labelled as "a tenuous one at best."'4 In response, one could say that Otten has not paid enough attention to the precepts of classical rhetoricians. The author of ad Herenniumpresented material on confirmatio and refutatiotogether (emphasising their inseparability)'5 and recognised that there could be circumstances in which it was appropriate to demolish an opponent's arguments before constructing one's own (as I am doing in this paper!).'6 Indeed, one must not forget Quintilian's instruction: ". . . si respondemus, prius incipiendumest a refitatione."'7Although the rules of classical rhetoric were many, no classical rhetorician demanded they be followed in a procrustean fashion. The rules were intended to train the rhetorical student to develop their own instinct for argument and to be flexible and adaptable according to situation and need. Sider has recognised Tertullian's familiarity with this notion by highlighting any number of examples where
Prophetic Time-Frame," Zeitschriftfir Antikes Christentum6 (2002) 330-344; idem "Probabimusvenisse eum iam-The Fulfilment of Daniel's Prophetic Time-Frame in 7 (2003) 140-155; idem Tertullian's adversusIudaeos8," Zeitschrififir AntikesChristentum "Rhetorical Structure of Tertullian's ad Scapulam,"VigiliaeChristianae 56 (2002) 47-55. 13 I. A. Richards, The Philosophyof Rhetoric(Oxford 1936); Kenneth Burke, A Rhetoricof Motives(Berkeley 1962); Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric:A Treatiseon Argumentation, trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (Notre Dame 1982 [Eng. ed.]). 14 Willemien Otten, "Christ's Birth of a Virgin Who Became a Wife: Flesh and Speech in Tertullian's De Came Christi," 51 (1997) 248-249. Egiliae Christianae 15 Rhet.Her. 2.1.2; 3.10.18. 16 Ibid. 3.9.17-3.10.18. See also Cicero Part. Or. 5.15; idem de Or. 2.19.77-83; Quintilian Inst. 5.13.53. 17 Quintilian Inst. 5.13.53.
RHETORIC AND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGIN7BUS VELANDIS
7
Tertullian deals creatively with the standard pattern. To dismiss the distinction between confirmatio and refitatioby saying that Tertullian did not in really separate them this instance (in de CameChristi)is, I think, to miss the point that classical rhetoric makes, which is that a complete argument needs both, but not necessarilyone after the other.'8 Second, Otten offers a much broader criticism by accepting the postmodem challenges presented by reader-responsecriticism. This denies we can ever know what an author intended, and argues that whatever was intended is of little relevancefor what readersunderstandtoday as they read texts.19While acknowledgingthat the meaning a modem reader discernsin a text may have little to do with the author's intentions, and that this is a valid method of interpretation,I would not be so quick to say that such an intention can no longer be determined and is of no relevance. Further, to suggest that practitionersof classical oratory were detached and objective, as Otten implies, is not to understandthe very genre of rhetoric, which, as an art rather than a science, involved the very subjectivity of the orator/author.20I would think that appreciatingclassical rhetoric helps us understandthat there are at least two sides to every argumentand that what we read in a text is generally only one side. Rhetoric helps us realise that its practitionerswere not attempting to be objective, they were attempting to be persuasive(or virtuosic).A rhetoricalconsciousnesson the part of the modern reader helps them appreciate the very subjectivityof texts. Third, Otten rejects the distinction between rhetoric and theology because form and content can never be separated.21We are told to allow 18 Otten, "Christ's Birth of a Virgin" 257 n. 5, states that Tertullian's statement in the exordium(and here we see Otten accepting at least some classical rhetorical structure to the treatise) would seem "to imply that confirmation and refutation go indeed hand in hand." Otten's point that those who have attempted to discern a rhetorical structure in de Cam. have neglected the importance of chs 17-23 may well we true, but that Tertullian was writing the work according to the rules of rhetoric, as applied in this particular instance, cannot be so easily dismissed as irrelevant. 19 Ibid. 249: "First, the position of the detached, objective narrator has crumbled under the weight of ever new theories which present the text as an amorphous and largely autonomous edifice over which the author and his audience exercise only marginal control. Second, with the disappearance of the idea of e menteauctorisas providing scholars with the clear aim of rhetorical analysis, the rhetorical enterprise threatens to become not just obsolete but even suspect." See Mark Allen Powell, What is NarrativeCriticism? (Minneapolis 1990) 16-18, for introductory comments on reader-response criticism. 20John C. Poirier, "Some Detracting Considerations for Reader-Response Theory," CatholicBiblical Quarterly 62 (2000) 250-263. 21 Otten, "Christ's Birth of a Virgin" 250-251.
8
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
the text to speak to us directly without "imposing yet another rhetorical structureon it.. ."22Indeed, one does not have to be well versed in classical rhetoric to be able to read Tertullian profitablyto some extent. I am suggesting, however, that with the insights provided by classical rhetoric one's reading of Tertullian can be that much more profitable.Otten's own question that guides this research, which is one about the extent to which the theological topic informed Tertullian'srhetoric or his mode of speech, acknowledgesthe distinctionbetween rhetoric and theology while affirming their interconnectedness.23Sider has illustrated the ways in which Tertullian'stheology has shaped his rhetoric at times.24Indeed, in this paper I wish to suggest how a rhetorical maxim found in Cicero has shaped not only Tertullian'srhetoricalform but the theologicalcontent of his argument as well. While readers may indeed impose their own structureon any text they read, there is often a desire to know what the author intended because it guides the reader's own interpretation.Indeed, having sought to free de CameChristifor the contemporaryreader from the 'misguided'quest for the author's own mind, Otten immediately becomes concerned precisely with that quest in attempting "to see how Tertullian sets his agenda."25Even Otten cannot ignore completely authors' connections with their works. Of course there is a theological argumentin Tertullian'swritingsand of course rhetoric was not the only or even the main determinantin shaping Tertullian'stheology, yet to dismissa distinctionbetween form and content, or rhetoric and theology, as artificialis ignoring the historical reality, as I that for Tertullian see it and as I shall illustratefrom de Virginibus Velandis, such a distinction did exist. Tertullian did have a theology of ascetical living. It was shaped by his interpretationof the Scriptures,Christian tradition, and naturallaw. These were the buildingblocks that providedmaterial for rhetorical presentation.26Rhetoric provided him with the vehicle to argue for the validity of his interpretationof these normative measures of Christianityover against other interpretations.To understandthe rhetoric enables us to see how the theologicalargumentwas crafted.In other words,
22
Ibid. 250.
23
Ibid.251.
24
Rhetoric 31-32, 64. Sider,Ancient Otten, "Christ'sBirthof a Virgin"251. 26 Incidentally,I believethat same thingis evidentin deCam.The Scriptures(andreason) provideTertullianwith his theologicalmaterial,even the paradoxesof faith,which his rhetoricalskillcan mould into an argument. 25
RHETORIC AND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGINIBUSVEIADIS
9
it is not a question of there being both a rhetoricalreading and a theological reading. One finds one in the other. My own attempt here to discern the rhetoricalstructureof the treatise may be influenced by my own theological agenda, but I believe Tertullianoffers us enough explicit signpoststo his own intended structurein the text itself to reduce this risk. The response of this reader to Otten's rhetoric is to say that I have not been persuaded by the arguments advanced. I believe there is a certain degree of overlap in that it is Tertullian'stheology that is being sought by both of us. Yet, I remain convinced that classical rhetoric remains a valuable tool for examining the author's intentions as revealed in the text and that such an examinationis not only possible but is indeed useful in the first instance. Particularlyfor those interested in historical interpretation, the gaining of an understandingof what an author meant and how an author was understood by contemporaryreaders is of no little importance. III. Rhetorical Structure Barneshas made a brief comment on the structureof de Virginibus Velandis. He notes that most of the treatise is an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11, that Tertullian claimed that his position agreed with Scripture,nature and discipline (de Virg.16.1), and that there is a peroration (de Virg.16.3ff).27Sider points to Tertullian defining what a woman is and how this definitionwas crucial to the rest of the treatise, although the definition did not shape its structure.28The exegesis of 1 Cor. 11:1-16 occupies chapters 4-8 and consists of the use of three formal topics: the argumentfrom definitionin chapters 4-6, from comparativesin chapter 7, and from similarsin chapter 8.29 Schulz-Fliigeloffers a detailed structurefor the text but does not comment on how it was determined.3 What her structurethus fails to provide is any explanation of the connection between the various parts of the work. I believe the work is in need of more thorough comment about the rhetorical influences at work in its composition. Here I wish to offer my own rhetorical analysis of the rhetorical structure of the treatise and to make comments about some of the arguments employed, which will provide a coherent insight into Tertullian'smethod of writing.
Barnes, Tertullian140-141. Sider, AncientRhetoric103. 29 Ibid. 112-113. 30 Schulz-Fliigel, Le voiledes vierges36-38. 27
28
10
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
The rhetorical art was divided into three kinds of causes (triagenera causarum) according to Quintilian, to choose one ancient rhetorician who wrote about a century before Tertullian:forensic, deliberative,and exhoris an example of deliberativeoraVelandis tatory.31I believe that de Virginibus This branch deals with the tory. question of what is expedient and/or honourable (Cicero and Quintilian both preferredthe second)32and sought to persuade people either to adopt or reject a future course of action.33It was the rhetoric of the political assembly rather than of the law court. III.1 Propositio We can establishthe deliberativenature of the treatise by consideringits first sentence. It opens immediatelywith a propositio (or partitioaccording to Cicero).34In this part of a speech one either outlined where one agreed with one's opponent and sketchedwhat was left in dispute or outlined the points Velandis Tertullian did not so much simply to be discussed. In de Virginibus offer own nostrasuelari the as his state uirgines position: "... ostendam question in the ex quo transitum aetatissuaefecerint..."35 The use of ostendere oportere future tense makes this unmistakable.He stated also the basis for his position: the demand of truth, which was not swayed by time, person or place.36 supported by some reason becomes Quintilian had noted that a propositio more moving and hastens the decision.37By claiming truth as his basis we can suggest that Tertullian was arguing for what was honourable, not simply expedient.38He was calling for virgins to be veiled not for any gain to himself, to them, or to the rest of the community but because simply it was Quintilian Inst. 3.4.14-15. Cicero de Or. 2.82.334; idem Inv. Rhet. 2.51.156; Quintilian Inst. 3.8.1-3. 33 Quintilian Inst. 3.8.6: "Ergopars deliberativa... de tempore fituro consultansquaeritetiam depraeterito.Officiisconstatduobussuadendiac dissuadendi." 34 Rhet. Her. 1.10.17 (here called divisio);Cicero Inv. Rhet. 1.22.31-32; Quintilian Inst. 3.8.11; 3.9.1-3; 4.4.1-4.5.28. Quintilian saw propositioas the first of these two tasks and partitioas the second (which could be found anywhere throughout a speech). Cicero applied the term partitioto both functions. Sider, AncientRhetoric21, has not realised that partitiowas not used to mean exactly the same thing in Cicero and Quintilian. 35 Tertullian de Virg.1.1 (CCL 2.1209): "I shall show... that it is proper that our virfrom when translation be veiled reach by Geoffrey D. Dunn, they gins puberty." English Tertullian(London and New York 2004 [Early Church Fathers]). 36 Ibid.: "... hoc exigereueritatem,cui nemopraescribere potest, non spatiumtemporum,non non patrociniapersonarum, priuilegiumregionum." 37 Quintilian Inst. 4.4.4: ". .. nec indicatquaestionem sed adiuvat." 38 Cicero Inv. Rhet. 2.52.157: ". . . quodgenusvirtus,scientia,veritas." 31
32
RHETORICAND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGIIBUSVELANDIS
11
the right thing to do. Indeed, in claiming that he was respectingthe truth, Tertullian was claiming that it was not he who was responsible for the demand to veil virgins but God. Although rhetoricians had recommended only brief introductions in deliberative speeches,39to open immediately with the propositio is unusual and rather abrupt. However, such a tactic was not entirely foreign to Tertullian. Sider finds the same technique at work in the opening chapter of de CameChristi.4 III.2 Exordium An exordium follows the propositio in de Virginibus Velandis (1.lb-7). SchulzFliigel divides chapter one into the first two sections ("rapportentre la verit6 et l'heresie, la nouveaute et la coutume" and "role du Paracletdans le plan du salut")of the first part of the work, which contains the first three chapters ("veriteet coutume").41The purpose of an exordium was to make the listener (or reader)receptive to what was to follow. Indeed, part of making an audience receptive was to mention the point at issue in the opening of the speech.42So Tertullian'sopening can be understoodeven more clearly as a recognised ploy. Cicero had mentioned,43that truth was part of the honourablemotive. A little later he offersa more detailed analysisof what could be said to demonstratethat a recommendedcourse of action was honourable.It is worth presenting the detail of Cicero's discussion as I think we see a reflection of it in our treatise. To achieve what is honourable one must exercise virtue, and virtue is divided into four parts (partesquattuor): wisdom, justice, courage and temWisdom consists of Justice perance.44 memory, intelligence and foresight.45 consists of natural, customary and religious laws. This can be further 39 Cicero Part. Or. 4.13; Quintilian Inst. 3.8.6. 40 Sider, AncientRhetoric27. 41 Schulz-Fliigel, Le voiledes vierges36. 42 Rhet.Her. 1.4.7; Cicero Inv. Rhet. 1.16.23; Quintilian Inst. 4.1.25: "Quidvero?si, utfreiudicispetendaex aliis partibuserit, sed non quenteraccidit,paulo est duriorcausa, non benevolentia ante conciliatoeius animonudaquaestionum committetur asperitas?" 43 See n. 38. 44 Cicero Inv. Rhet. 1.53.159. See also Rhet. Her. 3.2.3. For my purposes it does not matter whether or not this was original to Cicero. See Aristotle, Rh. 1.9.5 (1366b); idem, Eth. Nic. 2.1 (1103a-b). 45 Cicero Inv. Rhet. 1.53.160. See also Rhet. Her. 3.3.1.
12
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
subdivided:the natural consists of religion, duty, gratitude, reverence and truth;customaryconsistsof covenants, equity and decisions (and there is no furthermention of religiouslaws as a separatesubcategory).46 Courage consists of highmindedness,confidence, patience and perseverance.47Temperance consists of continence, clemency and modesty.48 What is of interest is the division of justice into natural, customary and religiouslaws, which, for Cicero, related to each other organically.In other words, what is customary grows out of what is natural, and so on. What Tertullian sought to do in this exordium was contrast truth (part of natural with custom. His in this debate had defended their position law) opponents with an appeal to custom. Tertullian wanted to undermine their position not only by outrankingcustom by the authority of truth ("SedDominusnoster Christusueritatemse, non consuetudinem, but by showing that, cognominauit"),49 whereas truth is unchanging, custom develops ("Nihil sine aetateest, omniatem-
pus expectant").50 Although some customs may have developed from the natural truth (as Cicero believed), some, like that of virgins not veiling themselves,had developed contraryto nature. We find Tertullian adding a qualifierto Cicero's system. It is not possible here to analyse all the arguments of the treatise or Tertullian'sstyle of writing, although both of these are important parts of rhetoric. Some observations,though, are appropriateand will be made in the light of my comments about the treatise's structure. The paradox or conflict of opposites is central to Tertullian'stheology.51Truth admits of no opposition, for any opposition to truth, no matter how ancient the custom, was heresy (1.2). The practice of some virginsnot being veiled seems to have been an old one in the CarthaginianChristian community, for Tertullian was concerned to explain at some length in the exordium how a custom that was time-honouredcould be at variance with the truth. The concept of the 46 47
CiceroInv.Rhet.2.53.160-2.54.162.See also Rhet.Her.3.3.4. CiceroInv.Rhet.2.54.163. See also Rhet.Her.3.3.5.
Cicero Inv. Rhet. 2.54.164. See also Rhet.Her. 3.3.5. Tertullian de Virg.1.1 (CCL 2.1209): "But Christ our Lord has named himself truth, not custom." 50 Ibid. 1.5 (CCL 2.1210): "Nothing is without its time; all things await their opportunity. " 51 Osborn, Tertullian 256: "Conflict is his life; opposites are his reality; and paradox is his intellectual delight." See idem "The Conflict of Opposites in the Theology of 35 (1995) 623-639. These paradoxes are found in the Scriptures Tertullian," Augustinianum themselves, the main source of Tertullian's theology; what his rhetorical training enabled him to do was to exploit them according to the rules for dealing with paradoxes. 48 49
VEIANDIS DE VIRGLIVBUS RHETORICAND TERTULLIAN'S
13
development of discipline, as announced in Jn. 16:12-13 and witnessed in the growth of living things in nature, gave him scope to make this point (1.4-7). It also gave him the opportunity to emphasise the role of the nisi haec,quoddisciplinadirigitur, Paraclete:"Quaeest ergoParacletiadministratio, reuelantur, reformatur, quodad melioraproficitur?"52 quodscripturae quodintellectus There was a custom more ancient and more authoritativethan that of not veiling virgins and it was the custom found in the Scriptures. What Tertullian advocatedwas that the incorrectcustom, as practisedby some in Carthage of not having virgins veiled, needed now to develop and change into the more authentic Christiancustom, as revealed by the Spirit through the Scriptures,of veiling virgins. I believe that here Tertullianprovided an insight into the structureof the treatise:Scripture,intellect and disciplinebecome the central argumentsfor in describing the him to argue his case. Indeed, at the end of the exordium mentioned the natural Tertullian of (would it be too growth righteousness, much to equate this with intellect?),the scriptural(which I am suggestingis Tertullian's authentic custom), and the enduring (usque)state of righteousness under the Paraclete (the time of ecclesial discipline,which concern the Here I think we see Cicero's threefold divireligiouslaws of Christianity).53 sion of justice into natural, customaryand religious having some influence. Tertullianwould consider the scripturalargumentsfor the veiling of virgins, the natural or intellectualarguments,and the religiousor disciplinaryarguments.54These three groups of arguments would reveal the truth, a truth opposed to the common Carthaginian custom. The rhetorical division of justice gave Tertulliana way of arranginghis theological opinion into a systematic pattern. Is his Montanist inclination to the fore here? The organic understanding of righteousnessmeans that only those who have received the Paraclete have reached fullness. There is almost a note of elitism at the end of the exordium: those who have received the Paracleteput truth before custom and keep virgins veiled.55 52 Tertullian de Virg.1.5 (CCL 2.1209-10): "What then is the function of the Paraclete if not this: that teaching is directed, the Scriptures are made known, understanding is reformed, and that it is advanced towards better things?" 53 Ibid. 1.7 (CCL 2.1210). 54 Admittedly, Tertullian's order to Scripture, intellect and discipline does not follow Cicero's natural, customary and religious law order, but I do not see this as a problem. 55 ueritatem conTertullian, de Virg.1.7 (CCL 2.1210): "Huncqui [the Paraclete] receperunt, suetudinianteponunt."
14 III.3
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
Narratio
Before we reach the main body of the treatise, however, Tertullian wished to write more about custom. In doing so, the next two chaptersread like a narratio (2.1-3.5b). Schulz-Fliigelsees these chaptersas the last two sections ("commentjuger des coutumes" and "situationa Carthage")of the first part.56Deliberative oratory did not need much narration of past events.57Tertullian outlined the history and situation of the two customs (one which reflected the truth and the other which did not) of veiling and not veiling virgins.58Given that there were churchesin Africa as well as elsewhere that kept virgins covered (2.1), given that some of those churches were of apostolic origin (and hence ought to be imitated),and given that all churches form a single unity (2.2),59Tertullian asked which of the two customs was approved by God (2.3). The custom of allowing virgins to be unveiled stemmed from the lust of wanting to see and be seen (2.4).60 This custom could not come from God (either as revealed through natural law or through the Scriptures).In his own local community ("apudnos ad usque proxime"-and we may take this as another indication that Tertullian still saw himself as part of the one Christiancommunityin Carthage and that at this point in this treatisehe was narratingthe backgroundto his argument)61
Schulz-Fliigel, Le voiledes vierges36. Cicero Part. Or. 4.13; idem de Or. 2.81.330; Quintilian Inst. 3.8.10-11. 58 An important question, but one reduced here to a note because it does not affect a rhetorical reading of the structure of the text, is whether Tertullian meant those who had embraced a life of sexual abstinence or unmarried women in general. It would seem that the former were meant when we consider de Virg.16.4 where Tertullian referred to virgins as brides of Christ. However, we may be reading this in the light of later tradition. The opening exhortation that all females should be veiled from puberty would seem to suggest that Tertullian was concerned about a larger group than consecrated virgins. How many non-consecrated, unmarried women (those who were simply single rather than deliberately celibate, if we can make such a distinction) there were is unknown. See M. K. Hopkins, "The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage," PopulationStudies18 (1965) 30927. The evidence from de Cast. 13.4 (CCL 2.1035) is that there certainly were orders of virgins (for both men and women) in Carthage. 59 For comment, see n. 107. 60 Joyce E. Salisbury, ChurchFathers,Independent Virgins(London 1991) 17: "Of course, Tertullian's solution for this shared lust fell more harshly on women, for he said women should remain veiled." 61 Cf. Stucklin, Tertullian.De virginibusvelandis94-95, believes that Tertullian the Montanist "der Kirche schon den Riicken gekehrt hat" and that de Virg.2.2 must therefore be taken as proof that Tertullian had not yet become fully Montanist. 56
57
RHETORICAND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGINIBUS VELANDIS
15
both customs existed side by side (3.1) until the unveiled, claiming to be scandalised by the veiled, began forcibly to unveil the veiled in Christian gatherings(3.2-5a). This was the last straw for Tertullianwho claimed that truth could no longer tolerate such custom any more (3.5b). The custom Tertullian was attackingis described by Peter Brown: freeto abandonthe veil Thoughfullyadultwomen,theyconsideredthemselves that was held to exteralize the sexual shame associatedwith women old enoughto undergothe 'commonslur'of the marriagebed. Far frombeing shockedby this gesture,manymembersof the Carthaginian churchpositively relishedit. The uncanny,non-normalstate of dedicatedvirgingirls, raised aboveshameandsplendidly unveiled,stoodfor a fleckof divinegloryin a dark world.62
Unfortunately, as we have only Tertullian's side of the debate, the arguments used to support the position of the unveiled virgins remains obscure. III.4 Confirmatio and Rejftatio From here Tertullian moved to the main body of the treatise, the and refutatio, confirmatio by which he sought to win his argument and demolish his opponents' arguments(3.5c-15.3). Schulz-Fliigeldivides the text into two parts:the first,from chapters4 to 10, she entitles "preuvesde l'Ecriture, de la nature et de la discipline"and the second, from chapters 11 to 15, she entities "exceptions eventuelles: filles, fiancees, celibataires, ascetes."63In their comments on deliberativeoratory, rhetoriciansrecommended that the topics concerned with honour and expediency be developed as needed.64 It
was also important what examples were offered as precedent-settingand authoritative.65Tertullian began with the authority of Scripture,66not only because a good orator could start with their strongest argument,67but because his opponents too had turned to Scriptureto supporttheir custom. In essence then this treatiseis an argument about the correct interpretation of Scripture.What we find in this treatiseis Tertullianmixing confirmatio and in a of refitatiotogether dynamic interplay argumentation. 62 Peter Brown, The Body and Sociey: Men, Womenand Sexual Renunciationin Early Christianity (New York 1988) 80.
63 Schulz-Fliigel,Le voiledesvierges 37. Rhet.Her.3.4.8; Cicero Inv.Rhet.2.56.176; QuintilianInst.3.8.22-35. 65 Ibid. 3.8.36: "... refert auctoritas et quibusadhibeatur." tamen,quorum 66 Tertulliande tuas[truth]interpretare..." Virg.3.5c (CCL 2.1212):"Ipsascripturas 67 Rhet.Her. 3.10.18; Cicero de Or.2.77.313; QuintilianInst.7.1.11 (cf. 5.12.14). 64
16
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
One of the issues (constitutiones or status)was the legal, and one of the subtypes of the legal issue was definition.68The opponents had turned to 1 Cor. 11:5-16 and had argued that when Paul directed that women have their heads covered he was excluding virgins.69In 1 Corinthians7, they argued, Paul had distinguishedbetween virgins and women and, as there was no specific mention of virgins in 1 Corinthians 11, they must have been excluded from his directive about veiling (4.1). This position must be rebutted: "Sed et nos eandem argumentationem Here we find retorquemus."70
Tertullian engaging in refutatio rather than confirmatio but, as Cicero noted in words assigned to Antonius, these two parts sometimes could not be separated neatly.71Just as an accomplished orator knew standard topics to speak, for example, either for or against the value of witnesses or of testimony obtained under torture,72so too Tertullian could find a way to use 1 Corinthians7 and 11 to his advantage.While Paul had indeed made a distinctionbetween virgins and women in 1 Corinthians7 (and Tertullian at this point accepted his opponents'definitionof woman as non-virgin),the fact that virginswere not mentioned specificallyin 1 Corinthians 11 did not mean they were excluded for, in the latter chapter, 'woman' is used in the more generic sense. It had been necessary for Paul to make a distinction between women and virginsin 1 Corinthians7 because his comments were about the difference between those females who can devote themselves entirely to the Lord and those females who must devote themselvesto their husbands.73Several chapterslater, according to Tertullian'sargument,Paul
was 68 Rhet. Her. 1.12.21;Cicero Inv.Rhet.2.17.52-2.18.56 (where the entire constitutio named as definitiva; idem Part. Or. 12.41; Quintilian Inst. 3.6; 7.3. 69 On the Corinthian situation see Dennis Ronald MacDonald, "Corinthian Veils and Gnostic Androgynes," in Imagesof theFemininein Gnosticism, ed. Karen L. King (Harrisburg, Penn. 2000 [Studies in Antiquity and Christianity]) 276-292. 70 Tertullian de Virg.4.2 (CCL 2.1212): "But we too can throw the same argument back. " 71 Cicero de Or. 2.81.331: ". .. tum causaeconiuncteet infirmandis suntfirmamenta suggerenda contrariiset tuis confirmandis. Namqueuna in causisratioquaedamest eius orationisquaead probanet reprehensionem dam argumentationem valet,ea autemet confirmationem quaeritsed quia nequereprenisi illa reprehendas, hendiquaecontradicuntur idcirco possuntnisi tua confirnes,nequehaecconfirmari haecet naturaet utilitateet tractatione coniunctasunt." 72 Rhet.Her. 2.6.9-2.7.10; Cicero Part. Or. 14.49-51; idem Inv. Rhet.2.16.50; Quintilian Inst. 5.4.1; 5.7.3-4. 73 On this Pauline chapter see Margaret Y. MacDonald, Early ChristianWomenand
Pagan Opinion:The Powerof the HystericalWoman(Cambridge 1996) 134-143; Ben (Cambridge 1988) 26-42. Witherington, Womenin the EarliestChurches
DE VIRGINIBUS VEIALDIS RHETORICAND TERTULLIAN'S
17
was not interestedin making distinctionsand so his injunctionapplied to all females (4.2-3). As the author of ad Herennium had advised, one must offer a definition that suited one's argument.74So Tertullian did: "Igiturquasnon As Tertullianacknowledged,this definitionwas in alterauniit."75 diuisittacendo, 'woman' is the genusand 'virbased upon an argumentof genusand species:76 to in 1 Corinthians 11 When Paul referred 'women' the species(4.4-5). gin' he meant non-virginsand virgins alike. Tertullianwas aware that this argument did not fit with 1 Corinthians7 where 'virgin'and 'woman' were taken by his opponents to be two different He accepted that in this chapter 'woman' was not used as the genus species.77 but as the species.He needed other arguments to support his claim that 'woman' was mainly a generic term (5.la). Here he turned to Gen. 2:23 to establish that Eve, while still in the garden and still a virgin, was called 'woman' (5.lb). He anticipated an objection (that this was a reference to Eve's future, not present, condition) and responded that Gen. 2:25 spoke of Adam and his woman ("Adamet mulierem eius")not because she was a wife but because she was a virgin created of his substance. He maintained this even though Gen. 2:24 mentioned a man leaving father and mother and clinging to his woman ("obmulierem"-heremeaning wife) (5.2-5).78 Tertullian embellished his argument, still from Scripture,by examining whether Mary, the mother of Jesus, was both virgin and woman (6.1-3). This is a refining of the argument (expolitio) through comparison (similitudo), one of the stylistictools an orator or rhetoricalwriter could use to improve their presentation.79Comparisonis even a more substantialpart of cotfirmatio itself.80There are scripturalpassageswhich establishthat Mary is virgin (Lk. 1:27) and woman (Gal. 4:4; Lk. 1:28). Tertullian responded to an objection Rhet.Her. 2.12.17: "... et ad utilitatemadcommodate causaedescribitur ..." Tertullian de Virg.4.2 (CCL 2.1212): "Therefore, by saying nothing about those whom he has not divided, he has united [them] with the other [type]." See also 4.3 (CCL Spiritussanctusunonominemulierisetiamuirginem 2.1213): "Cuiusnullamuolensessedisceptationem a non nominando muliere non separauit,et non separandoconiunxitei a quam uoluit, intellegi proprie qua non separauit." 76 Cicero Top. 3.13-14; 7.31; Quintilian Inst. 5.10.55-57. 77 Elizabeth A. Asceticismand Scripturein Early Christianity Clark, ReadingRenunciation: (Princeton 1999) 117 n. 90, says that Tertullian struggled over the meaning of the word 'woman.' 78 Tertullian's response to the challenge presented by Gen. 2:24 was to write that this passage referred to future marriages and not to any relationship between Adam and Eve. 79 Rhet.Her. 4.45.59; Cicero de Or. 3.53.205; Quintilian Inst. 9.2.100-101. 80 Quintilian Inst. 5.11.32. 74
75
18
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
to his interpretationof Mary, not this time by way of anticipation but to one that seems to have been put forwardby his opponents earlier.81Mary was not a woman because she was betrothed but simply because she was female, for otherwiseJesus would have been born not of a virgin but of a betrothed (married)-a woman in the specific not generic sense. At this point I must disagree with the comments offered by Sider about where chapter 6 fits into the overall structure of the treatise. As I noted earlier, he considers this chapter to be part of Tertullian's exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 and part of the argumentfrom definition.It is clearly not part of the exegesis of the Pauline letter. It is a supportingargumentfor the definitionbased on a comparison(a search for likeness)with other passages of Scripture. Sider thinks that in chapter 7 of our treatise Tertullian returned to his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11, which, in that case, it would seem that chapter 6 is an interruptionto the naturalflow of the argument.This is not the case, I believe, because I do not think Tertullianreturnedto his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11 in chapters 7 and 8. Instead, I find him moving from Scripture to the second basis of his confirmatio-natureor intellect-which he had foreshadowedat 1.5 and 1.7 (and which he acknowledgedat 16.1). He announced at 7.1 that he was going to examine the reasons ("adipsas... behind the scripturalinjunction. We can suggest that Tertullian rationes") was supportinghis scripturalinterpretationwith a natural law argument.82 I would suggest this section runs from 7.1 to 8.4. Perhaps we read Tertullian at his most casuisticin this part of the treatise. The Pauline text had announced the natural order that the man was head of the woman (1 Cor. 11:3) and this must be applied to virgins too. The fact that virgins did not form a third division of humanity ("tertium genus")meant that, like all other women, they were subject to a man. The Pauline text had also stated that it was shamefulfor women to have shaven heads (1 Cor. 11:6)and this applied to virginstoo. The same argument,this time from 1 Cor. 11:10 about women having a sign of submission upon their heads, is repeated at 7.2a. The reference to 1 Cor. 11:10, with its mention of angels, led Tertullian to a digressio (7.2b-4a). Gen. 6:2 described how the angels ('flii Dei") mar-
81
Tertullian de Virg.6.2 (CCL 2.1215): ". .. ingeniosequidamrespondisse sibi uiss est. .." Of course, one could mount a healthy if not compelling refutatioto Tertullian by pointing out that what we find in chapters 7 and 8 is not really based on natural law but upon social custom, something against which he had already provided the ammunition. 82
DE VIRGLIVBUS VEIAMNIS RHETORICAND TERTULLIAN'S
19
... acceperunt ried the daughtersof men ("conspicati... sibiuxores .filias hominum how the Greek for 'women' here ex omnibus Tertullian noted quaselegerunt"). obviously meant wives.83When they married they were virgins (because of the reference to their fathers).Rather than draw a conclusion about virgins being women, Tertullian argued that if virgins could tempt angels it was all the more reason for them to be veiled. Even if these daughters had been i.e. unmarriedbut sexually experiencedfemales, contaminated(contaminatas), this was even more of a reason why virgins should be veiled. If such contaminatedfemales could, in theory, tempt angels, how much more the pure (virgins)could have tempted them! At 7.4b Tertullian returned to the pattern of argument from nature, citstate of women having long ing 1 Cor. 11:14-15 about the natural (naturae) wear their hair long. since did which must mean hair, they virgins too, a about the natural or rationext as What supportingargument begins nal order from the contrary,viz. men having short hair and not needing to be veiled because they had not tempted the angels (8.la), turns quicklyinto something else. Tertullian returned to Genesis 2. Just as Adam was called 'man' (vir)not 'boy' (puer)while still in a virginal state (Gen. 2:23), so too Eve could be called 'woman' not 'virgin' while still virginal (8.1b-2a). Further, in 1 Cor. 11:5, Paul called for every woman (omnismulier)to be veiled. If there are only male and female, and if 'man' includes 'boy,' then 'woman' must include 'virgin' (8.2b-3). Again, Tertullianbased his argumentson the naturalorder of things and the natural meaning of words, at least as he perceived them to be.84As he Tertullian indicated that what he moved to a new section of his confirmatio had just examined were arguments from nature85and that what he was about to examine were argumentsfrom discipline.86Argumentsfrom discipline or moral behaviour make up the last section of the confirmatio/refutatio (9.1-15.3). In many ways these argumentsfrom discipline at first appear simply to be more arguments from Scripture. We could suggest that here he was appealing to those parts of Scripturethat imposed a pattern of behaviour Here it is clear that Tertullian was working from a Greek text of 1 Corinthians not a Latin translation. T. P. O'Malley, Tertullianand the Bible: Language-Imagery-Exegesis (Nijmegen 1967) nowhere mentions de Virg.7.3. 84 Tertullian de Virg.8.3 (CCL 2.1218): ". . . secundamnaturam..." 85 Ibid. 9.1 uirginiquoquecompetere (CCL 2.1218): "... an sicut naturaeet causaeargumenta . ." monstrauimlus 86 de mulierein uirginemspectant." Ibid.: ". .. ita etiamdisciplinaeecclesiasticae praescripta 83
20
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
and which still were being observed in his time. Here they related to the organic sense in Cicero of religious laws that grow out of custom. So Tertullian was speaking of ecclesial practice that grew out of (and at the same time, one could point out, were contained in) the Scriptures. The first of the disciplinarypractices came from 1 Cor. 14:34-35 about the ban on women speaking in the public assembly. In this treatise Tertulliansupportedthat ban (9.1-3). The argumentis simple:if women do not speak in the assemblyand virginsdo not speak in the assemblythen virgins must be women. Then, however, the argument moves away from the Pauline text and onto contemporarypractice (which more obviously falls under the heading of discipline or religious law). If the Church wished to single out virginsfor distinctionthen there were much more prestigioushonours that could be offered them besides allowing them to be unveiled (honours like exercisingministries).Further,widows and mothers, who, because of their greater experience, ought to be honoured before virgins, are not honoured in this way. The conclusion with regard to virgins was therefore obvious.87
The use of 1 Corinthians 14 is intriguing. The Montanism to which Tertullian was attractedfeatured Priscillaand Maximilla as two of the cofounders of the movement who exercised a ministry as female prophets.88 One has to ask whether they or the African Montanists uttered their prophecies in liturgical assemblies. If they had, how could Tertullian support both Montanism and this Pauline ban on women speakingin Christian assemblies?De Animawould seem to indicate that the female prophets only spoke after the gathering.89Tertullian was content to support the Pauline ban on women speakingduring the liturgicalassembly,provided they could engage in their prophetic ministry afterwards.Could Tertullian have been 87
If Tertullian held that virginity was superior to marriage and motherhood, then
againwe find him in 9.3 offeringan argumentthat could be helpfulto his case but one that he did not believe. 88 Christine Trevett, Montanism:Gender, Authoriyand theNew Prophecy(Cambridge 1996) 151-174; Gramaglia, De virginibusvelandis159-173. 89 Tertullian deAn. 9.4 (CCL 2.792) would indicate that these female prophets received their inspiration during liturgical assemblies but reported on their visions after the service had ended and the assembly had been dismissed. We may presume that those who remained to listen to her were Montanist devotees. If that be the case, then this is another piece of evidence to suggest that Montanists were not schismatics; they participated in the eucharistic liturgy with their fellow Christians before holding their own gathering afterwards. See Cecil M. Robeck, Prophecy in Carthage: Perpetua,Tertullian,and Cyprian(Cleveland 1992) 128-134.
RHETORICAND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGINIBUS VEIAMDIS
21
passionate about all women being veiled in the liturgical assembly not because he wanted to segregate them but because he wanted no woman to be prevented from being allowed to make prophetic utterancesif not during, then at least after, the liturgy?90 Velandisdoes not even make mention of the Why is it that de Virginibus role women could play after the rest of the assembly had gone as we find in de Animaand adversusMarcionem?91 Tertullian knew that not allowing women to speak in the assemblywas not the whole story. If this treatisewas directed to the non-Montanistelements of the CarthaginianChristiancommunity (whom we can identify as those who permitted their virgins to be unveiled)92then there was no point in confusing the issue here by mentioning the fact that he supportedthe rights of veiled women to deliver prophecies after the liturgy.93If the work were addressed to rebellious Montanist
90 Hoffinan, The Status Women148, seems to be one of the of only scholars I have read who also observes this paradox between Tertullian's Montanism and misogyny. The statement of Frederick C. Klawiter, "The Role of Martyrdom and Persecution in Developing the Priestly Authority of Women in Early Christianity: A Case Study of Montanism," ChurchHistory49 (1980) 250, that, because he is known as both a misogynist and a Montanist, Tertullian's Montanism would have been different than the earlier Asian Montanism (which was more open to women in ministry) does not consider the other possibility that his misogyny needs re-examining. Stiicklin, Tertullian.De virginibus velandis194-195, has Tertullian treating Maximilla and Priscilla as unique and therefore denying women in his own community a prophetic role at all. 91 Tertullian de necofferre, nec Virg.9.1 (CCL 2.1218-1219): "... sed necdocere,nec tinguere, ullius uirilismuneris,nedumsacerdotalis officiisortemsibi uindicare."In adu. Marc. 5.8.11 (CCL 1.688), written roughly at the same time as de Virg.,we find Tertullian referring to 1 Cor. 11:5-6 (the text at the heart of de Virg.)to say that women could prophesy so long as they were veiled. This does not get mentioned in de Virg. 92 From the fact that the practice of not veiling virgins is well established, as reported in the exordiumand narratio,one could suppose that it was to be found among the general Christian community. The rigorism of Montanism would tend to suggest that they would be more likely to uphold a traditional practice like veiling virgins than more moderate Christians, unless one wished to argue that Tertullian was addressing some wayward Montanist virgins. His comment at 17.3 would seem to support this possibility. 93 Tertullian de Bapt. is generally accepted as a pre-Montanist text (Barnes, Tertullian 55). In it at 1.3 (CCL 1.277) and 17.4-5 (CCL 1.291-292) we find Tertullian supporting the Pauline ban on women speaking. Just because the argument is similar to that found in de Virg.(with no mention of the possibility of women speaking after the liturgy) does not mean that we should date these two works together (and at a different time from de An. and adu. Marc.). Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels(London 1980) 60-61, takes Tertullian's comments in de Virg.at face value (as a complete ban) and does not mention the passages in de An. and adu. Marc. See Hoffinan, The Statusof Women,166-168.
22
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
women, then I suspect Tertullian would have made some reference to the fact that by not being veiled these virgins were denying themselvesthe possibility of deliveringthe prophecies, according to the Pauline rules for such a practice. A rhetoricalreading of the text suggeststhat we should not necessarilyread what he wrote in this chapter as the full extent of his opinion. The second argument from discipline is an embellishment of the first. There Tertullian had contrasted the honour due to virgins and other women. Here he contrastedthe honour due to female virgins and male virgins (10.1-4). Tertullian'simpatience with the unveiled female virginsin the community showed itself. While I suggestedjust before that perhaps Tertullian was not as totally negative towards women as some would have us believe, no one should make the mistake of thinking that I believe Tertullian had an enlightened view about them. A man had "sexusauctoritatem" (10.2) and male virgins had to work harder at preservingtheir virginitythan the female virgins because a man was "auidior et calidiorinfeminas....94 I would point out, though, that Tertullian did not describe women as tempting men but described men being more prone to temptation than women. Further, those who exercised continence who had previously experienced a sexual life (the widowed and separated) deserved more honour than virgins (of either sex presumably) because they knew what it was they were going without (10.4).95 At 8.2b-3 he had argued that when Paul wrote "every woman" in 1 Cor. 11:5 he included virgins. Now he made an exception. The provisions about veiling did not apply to girls (11.1-12.2). In doing so he was anticipating a possible objection from his opponents who could have argued that if every woman meant virgins as well, it should also mean girls. Tertullian's first argument was that Adam and Eve only covered themselves after they became self-aware (11.2).96 His second argument was that if veiling were
only to prevent temptation to the angels then one would only begin to veil girls when they became sexually attractive to men (11.2). His third argument was that as soon as Rebekah became aware that Isaac, whom she had
94 Tertullian de Virg.10.3 (CCL 2.1220): "The more their gender grows eager and hot for females ..." 95 Hoffman, The Statusof Women153, states that Tertullian's argument in 10.4 about only men being in the image of God was for rhetorical effect and was not indicative of his beliefs. 96 To this a good orator would have replied that, in that case, men should be covered as women were.
RHETORICAND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGILNBUS VEIANDIS
23
seen, was her betrothed she covered herself with her veil (Gen. 24:64-65) (11.3).97But what about the non-betrothed?Here Tertullianseemed to concede to his opponents and accept that virgins did not have to be veiled. Immediately,however, he redefinedvirginityand womanhood. Once a girl reached the onset of sexual maturity she was no longer a virgin but a woman. It did not matter whether she had been marriedoff by her parents, as was usual, or not. Once into adolescence at the age of twelve a girl became a woman and had to be veiled (11.4-6).98There was no escaping nature or the practice of the pagans. Adult virgin females (as well as adult marriedfemales)were women, and all women had to be veiled. Unmarried women wanted to have the best of both worlds Tertullian claimed: they wanted to dye their hair and wear make-up, like women, and yet not wear the veil, like young girls (12.2). From this inconsistency Tertullian could point out what he believed to be other inconsistenciesamong his opponents. If these unmarried females were preparedto be veiled when outside the Christianassembly(in the presence of pagans), as they were, then they should be veiled inside the assembly (13.1). God has no need for the virgins to identify themselves when they come to the assembly by being unveiled because Christian discipline was about putting into practice the reality that God knows what is done in secret (Mt. 16:2-4) (13.2-3). That they wished to be identified meant they were interested only in their own glory and (here Tertullian made use of rhetorical and their own infirmity(14.1). Their pride in their virginitymeant gradatio)99 that any virgin who lost her virginity without first having married would continue to dress without the veil as though she were still a virgin, thus living a lie (14.3-4). 111.5 Peroratio The Roman rhetoriciansadvised orators to do several things at the end of their speeches. They could recapitulate(enumeratio), amplify to arouse the or appeal for pity or sympathy(commiseratio or indignatio), listeners(ampltficatio 97 This argument seems a little weak in this position in that, while it contributes to an overall position that even unmarried women should be veiled, it does nothing to support the immediate argument that this does not apply to young girls. 98 Susan Treggiari, RomanMarriage:Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Ciceroto the Time of Ulpian(Oxford 1991) 149-150. 99 Rhet.Her. 4.25.34; Quintilian Inst. 9.3.54-57.
24
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
or conquestio).'1? Employingthose techniquesin his treatise,Tertullianbegan the peroratioof de Virginibus Velandiswith enumeratio. He summed up the he had their under arguments developed headings: Scripture, nature and discipline. In his consistit nostrae secundum secundum secundum opinionis naturam, defensio scripturam, natura ex Cui his consuedisciplinam. contestatur, Scriptura legemcondit, exigit. disciplina tudoopinionis sententiae color?Dei est scriptura, Dei est natura, prodest,uel qui diuersae Dei est disciplina.Quicquid contrarium est istis,Dei nonest.'0'
In the enumeratio the only detail we find is the repetitionof the contrastthat is to be found at the end of the confirmatio/refutatio is (16.2). The enumeratio for it was in seldom needed deliberative rhetoric.102 brief, Following this, Tertullian appealed to the unveiled directly (16.3-4). Schulz-Fliigelagrees that the treatise ends with a "resume"and "exhortation generale"along the same lines I am suggesting.103 If furtherproof were needed that this is a deliberativepiece of oratory, it is to be found here: "uelacaput".104His appeal was because of the dangers any lack of reform of this unacceptable practice would entail.'05His admonition was that veiled virgins were indeed married-to Christ-and ought to behave as such (16.4). His next admonition was to married women who attempted to circumvent their obligationto be veiled by wearing scarvesthat were too short (17.1-2). Even the prophecy deliveredto a Christianwoman was enlistedfor support (17.3). The woman who does not cover her head sufficientlywas compared with the ostrich: the bird hides its head and thinks, much to its peril, that it is entirely covered (17.4). These comments demonstratethat it was not just some of the unmarriedwomen (virgins)who sought to be free from wearing the veil when gatheredin liturgicalassembly.Thus, it is a mis100Rhet.Her. 2.30.47-2.31.50; Cicero Inv. Rhet. 1.52.98-1.56.109; idem Part. Or. 15.5217.60; Quintilian Inst. 6.1. 101Tertullian de Virg.16.1 (CC1 2.1225): "The defence of our opinion consists of these [arguments] in accordance with Scripture, nature and [ecclesiastical] teaching. Scripture establishes the law, nature is called to witness [to it], [ecclesiastical] teaching carries [it] out. To which of these is the custom that comes from opinion beneficial, or what is the complexion of the opposite way of thinking? Scripture is of God. Nature is of God. [Ecclesiastical] teaching is of God. Whatever is contrary to these is not of God." 102Cicero Part. Or. 17.59. 103Schulz-Fliigel, Le voiledes vierges38. 104 Tertullian de Virg.16.3 (CCL 2.1225): "... veil your head!" 105Salisbury, ChurchFathers,Independent Virgins17, points out how Tertullian highlighted the dangers of visual stimulation.
DE VIRGIWBUS VEIADSIS RHETORICAND TERTULLIAN'S
25
take to think that Tertullian's treatise is about the veiling of virgins;it is about the veiling of all adultfemales. Further,the woman mentioned in 17.3 draws attention once again to the question of just for whom this treatise was written. Can we identify the unveiled virgins? Was this woman a Montanist? That she received a prophecy would indicate that she was. That she received an admonition about failing to be veiled sufficientlycould be taken as indicatingthat it was not only the non-Montanistelements in the Christiancommunitywho were wanting to be rid of the veil. While Tertullian'swords are addressedto all the unveiled (includingthe married women), they seem in particularto be addressed to those Montanist women who had abandoned their veils (as Tertullian's appeal to the Paraclete at 1.7 would suggest). If he could not persuade everyone, at least he should try and persuade those who identified with his version of Christianity.Even though he was indignant with those unveiled virgins (who could well have been both non-Montantists and Montantists)who had started to force their opinions on others (particularly the remaining veiled Montanist virgins)(3.2-5a), Tertullian did not address that issue in his treatise (which he could have covered with topoiabout the wrongs of imposing one's beliefs on another), he simply appealed to the unveiled to consider their own choice and reverse it. IV. Comparison withotherTextsandDating Otto Bardenhewerdates the treatiseto between 204 and 207, in the same Castitatis,during the Montanist period period as a work like de Exhortatione of Tertullian'slife.06 Timothy Barnes dates this work to late in Tertullian's literarycareer, in 208/9, because it fulfilsfour of his eight criteriafor identifying Montanist influence.'07He describes the text "as an appeal to the
106Otto Bardenhewer, Geschichteder altkirchlichenLiteratur2: Vom Ende des zweiten bis zum Beginndes viertnJahrhunderts Jahrhunderts (Darmstadt 1962) 420. 107 Barnes, Tertullian43-47. The criteria are: reference to New Prophecy; mention of spiritual gifts possessed only by Montanists; reference to the Spirit as Paraclete; and use of nos and nosterto refer to Montanists. David Rankin, Tertullianand the Church(Cambridge 1995) 35, 104-105, on the basis of de Virg.2.2, claims that Tertullian's commitment to the unity of the Church meant that, even though Montanist, he was never schismatic. See idem "Was Tertullian a Schismatic?" Prudentia18 (1986) 73-79, where he claims (77) that apud nos of de Virg. 3.1 cannot refer to Montanists alone; Douglas Powell, "Tertullianists and Cataphrygians," VigiliaeChristianae 29 (1975) 33-54.
26
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
catholic laity against the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Carthage."'08JeanClaude Fredouille dates it between 208 and 212 which, for him, was Tertullian's middle phase when he was "sous l'influence montaniste."109 Christoph Stucklin,depending heavily upon Harack, dates it between 202 and 207 between the Severan persecutionand Tertullian'sfinal rift with the Church as evidenced in aduersus Eva Schulz-Fligel dates the Marcionem."0 work after de Corona,de Animaand de Oratione and at the same time as de Resurrectione after 213 but before the writing of deMonogamia.1" Mortuorum, The topic of the veiling of virgins is not restrictedto de Virginibus Velandis alone among Tertullian's works. We find it discussed in de CoronaMilitis and de Oratione.What is the relationship between these three treatises? Barnes dates de CoronaMilitis to early 208, 12 not long before de Virginibus and de Oratione to anywhere between 198 and 203 (even as late as Velandis, of 206).13 Similarity argumentis not to be confused with similarityof date, he argues.14
In de CoronaMilitis Tertullian applauded the action of the Christian soldier who refused to wear the military crown. Against other (nonMontanist)"5Christianswho were disturbed at the attention this drew to their faith, Tertullianlaunched himself in attack. They had argued that the Scriptureshad not forbiddenwearing the crown."6Tertullian employed his rhetoricaltraining:one should be able to make a negative argument out of the same facts from which someone had drawn a positive one. In this case, the silence of the Scriptureson the wearing of crowns was not to be taken as permittingwhat was not forbidden. Rather, it should be understood as forbiddingunless expresslypermitted.'7 There were some things that happened amongJews and Christiansthat were not mandated by the Scripturesyet they had been instituted by cus108
Barnes, Tertullian46. 109 de la cultureantique(Paris 1972) 488. Jean-Claude Fredouille, Tertullienet la conversion 110 Stucklin, Tertullian.De virginibusvelandis,95-96. Given that evidence for a Severan persecution is debatable and that Tertullian's Montanism may well never have entailed a complete split from the Church, I find these arguments far from compelling. "I Schulz-Flugel, Le voiledes vierges17, 44-46. 112 Barnes, "Tertullian's Scorpiace"120, n. 5 and 129. "3 Idem Tertullian55. 114Ibid. 49. 15 Tertullian de Cor. 1.4 (CCL 2.1040). 116Ibid. 1.6 (CCL 2.1041). 17 Ibid. 2.4 (CCL 2.1042): "Sedquodnonprohibetur, ultropermissum est. Immoprohibetur quod non ultroestpermissum."
RHETORIC AND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGIJfBUSVELANDIS
27
tom or nature. Women wore the veil. The fact that Paul had commanded this for Christianwomen in 1 Corinthians 11 was put to one side.18Jewish women wore the veil and there was no scripturaldirective for them to do so; it was customary.What Rebekah did (Gen. 24:64-65) and Susannah did (Dan. 13:32) did not amount to an obligation binding all Jewish women.119 That they did so was because traditionhad turned the practice into custom and Paul had enshrined the custom in his letter not just because of tradition but because of reason (naturallaw) as well.120 Militisand de Virginibus Although Rebekah is mentioned both in de Corona the use of Rebekah was differentin each. In the first, no precedent Velandis, could be drawn from her action. In the latter, her action was considered to be precedent setting in that even before a formal ceremony of betrothal, girls of marriageable age should be veiled. Had Tertullian changed his mind? We can safely say no because once we realise that Tertullian was rhetoricallyeducated we understandthat he would use whatever argument suited his purpose at a particulartime, even if it contradictedan argument he had earlier used. Like any good advocate, he could speak for or against a topic, depending upon what was more helpful to his position. There is no hint in this chapter of de CoronaMilitis of any controversy about women being veiled (and no real mention of virgins being veiled except his statementthat if what Rebekah did was to be interpretedas being a precedent then it would apply only to virgins as they came to be married). a work presumablywritten even earlier Yet, when we turn to de Oratione, than de CoronaMilitis, we find reference to the controversy about virgins being veiled. If de CoronaMilitisbelongs in time between the two, why was there no mention of this issue?A simple answer can be offered. In the work attacking the practice of wearing military crowns Tertullian was extolling custom. The custom of not veiling virgins was one of which he did not approve, so it would weaken his argumentif, on the one hand, he supported custom and, on the other hand, took exception to some customs. It was betMilitisnot to complicate the matter. ter for his argument in de Corona Does it make sense, though, to separate de Orationefrom de Virginibus be Velandisby so many years? Could not de Oratione,like ad Scapulam,l21 written during Tertullian's Montanist phase even without reflecting that 118 Ibid. 4.2
(CCL 2.1044).
119Ibid. 4.2-3 (CCL 2.1044). 120 Ibid. 4.4 (CCL 2.1044). 121 Bares, "Tertullian's Scorpiace"106; Geoffrey D. Dunn, "Rhetorical Structure in Tertullian's ad Scapulam"48.
28
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
Montanism? While Barnes is prepared to accept such a thing with ad Scapulamhe is not with Scorpiace (and presumably not with de Oratione).'22 Tertullian about complained virgins not being veiled at the time Although he wrote de Oratione, it was not until the unveiled began a campaign of forcing their practice onto others (de Virg.3.2-5) that Tertullianfelt the need to develop his position into a separate treatise.Yet, in de Or.22.10 there is an indication of the pressure on the veiled to renounce that practice. It still could be, though, that somethinghappened in 208 to intensifythe campaign and it was this that prompted the writing of de Virginibus Velandis. Coming to an understandingof what relationshipexists between the two a texts is not easy. Is one the extended version of the other or is de Oratione shortened version of the first? I believe an appreciation of the rhetorical structureof de Virginibus would support the notion that it was writVelandis ten after de Oratione. The structureof de Virginibus Velandis seems more logieven more coherent. It would not make to me to consider that sense cal, this was abandoned to produce the jumble we find in de Oratione. SchulzFlugel presents the parallelsbetween the two texts but does not offer much commentary about the significanceof the similarities,nor does she use the passages to help determine relative dating.123 The repetition from one text to another is overwhelmingand the sense of jumble in de Oratione is self-evident. The argument of the opponents is mentioned: Paul had written that women, not virgins, must be veiled.124It than in de Virginibus Velandis is, in fact, a little more spelt out in de Oratione this would make sense: it in detail the first time some (and having dealt with Tertullian felt that he could abridge some of the detail the second time, or he abandoned those parts which had not fitted the first time). Their position was thatfeminaewere the genuswhile mulieres and virgines were the species. Tertullian's response included the argument from Gen. 2:23 about Eve being called a woman.'25There is an oblique referenceto 1 Corinthians7.126 There is discussion about the difference between yuvaiKa; and riXeia;, which we do not find in de Virginibus The fact that Paul insisted Velandis.'27 on omnismulier(1 Cor. 11:5),which must include virgins, and that all men, Barnes, "Tertullian's Scorpiace"107. On 115 he finds other evidence to support his hesitancy in dating Scorpiacelate. 123 Schulz-Fliigel, Le voiledes vierges26-30, 32-35. 124 Tertullian de Or. 21.2-4 (CCL 1.268). 125 Ibid. 22.1 (CC1 1.268-269). Cf. idem de Virg.5.1-5. 126 Tertullian de Or. 22.2 (CCL 1.269). Cf. idem de Virg.4.1-5. 127 Tertullian de Or. 22.3 (CCL 1.269). 122
RHETORIC AND TERTULLIAN'S DE VIRGINBUSVELAJNDIS
29
even boys, were to be unveiled features in both texts.128That virgins, not married women, tempted the angels (Gen. 6:2) is also in both,129as is the natural argument of 1 Cor. 11:14.130The exemption for under-age girls is repeated.'31The argumentsabout not needing to declare one's virginity in the assembly by being unveiled because God knows what is done in secret and that a veiled virgin is indeed married (to Christ) are also repeated.132 He finished with the fact that Rebekah was veiled from her betrothal.'33 Whereas those argumentsare centred around the Ciceronian division of justice into natural, customary and religious laws in his sections on in a systematicfashVelandis Scripture,intellect and disciplinein de Virginibus ion, in de Oratione they appear in a much more random fashion, suggesting that Tertullian had not yet worked out a frameworkin which to assemble all his arguments. A rhetorical reading supports the dating proposed by de Corona Militis Barnes and Schulz-Fliigeland suggeststhe order:de Oratione, and de Virginibus Velandis. V. Conclusion This article has argued that the tenets of classical rhetoric shaped the structure of Tertullian's de Virginibus Velandisproviding us with a propositio narratio and refitatio(3.5c-15.3); exordium (1.lb-7); (2.1-3.5b);confirmatio (l.la); a and peroratio Not can such structure be determinedwithin (16.1-17.5). only the text, but finding such a structureis helpful in interpretingthe purpose of the treatise. To understandthe work rhetoricallyis to approach it with the realisation that its author was trying to win an argument and would employ whatever argument could plausiblybe used to support his position. For the sake of argument, Tertulliancould exaggerateor downplay or even contradictwhat he actually believed.'34 128Ibid. 22.4 (CCL 1.269-270).Cf. idem de Virg.8.1-4. 129Tertulliande Or.22.5-6 Cf. Idem de
(CCL 1.270). Virg.7.2-4. The emphasisin the first,though,is to demonstratethat the angelswere not temptedby marriedwomen. 130Tertulliande Or.22.7 (CCL 1.270).Cf. idem de Virg.7.4-8.1. 31Tertulliande Or.22.8 (CCL 1.270).Cf. idem de Virg.11.1-12.2. 132 Tertulliande Or.22.9 (CCL 1.270-271).Cf. idem de Virg.13.1-14.5;16.4. 33Tertulliande Or.22.10 (CCL 1.271).Cf. idem de Virg.11.3. 134 R. F. Evans,"On the Problemof Churchand Empirein Tertullian'sApologeticum," StudiaPatristica 14, ed. ElizabethA. Livingstone,paperspresentedat the 6th International Conferenceon PatristicStudies,Oxford 1971 (Berlin1976) 25, points out that in works addressedto a pagan readershipTertulliancould suppresshis beliefsabout such issues like Christiansservingin the militaryin ordernot to antagonisehis readers.
30
GEOFFREY D. DUNN
De Virginibus is a deliberativepiece of rhetoricin which Tertullian Velandis sought to persuade some free-thinking virgins within the Carthaginian Christiancommunitywho had taken to not wearing their veils to do so. He sought to counter their argumentsthat Paul had only commanded 'women' not 'virgins'to be veiled by offeringhis own interpretationsfrom Scripture, nature and disciplineto show that the custom of not veiling virginswas contrary to the truth. This is not a treatise that praises virginityat the expense of marriage. The point was not about sexuality as much as it was about faithfulnessto the regulafidei found in the Scriptures. This is a well-structuredpiece of writing, a product of Tertullian'smost developed thinking on the topic. In understandingthe nature of his threefold pattern of argumentswe can conclude that Tertullian'sattitudetowards Christianwomen was no worse than that held by men in society in general. He did not see that Christianitymade any difference to the wider social practice of women veiling their heads. When it came to unmarriedwomen, though, Tertullianwanted there to be a clear distinctionbetween Christians and others in that he wanted the unmarriedto be veiled like the married. This need to be separate from the world, while not explicit in the treatise, seems to be an importantone for him. Although part of a movement which gave greaterprominence to the activity of women, Tertullianfelt bound by what he believed to be divine directive and natural law to insist that Christianvirgins (and marriedwomen as well) remained veiled. Centre for Early ChristianStudies AustralianCatholic University P.O. Box 456 Virginia Brisbane4014 Australia
THE NATURAL WORLD IN THE SERMONS OF EUSEBIUS OF EMESA BY
ROBERT E. WINN In his extant sermons, Eusebius of Emesa rejected the use of natural analogies, such as the sun and its light, to clarify the relationshipbetween the Father and the Son. This is remarkablenot only because he was otherwise committed to the theologicaltraditionof Origen as mediated through Eusebius of Caesarea, both of whom used such analogies, but also because he was willing to direct his audiences' attention to the natural world in many of his sermons to establish other theological positions of the church. In this article I will argue that his rejection of natural analogies in this instance must be understood in the broader context of his use of nature in general in his sermons. I conclude that his affirmationor denial of the usefulness of the natural world depended on whether it would affirm or undermine the religious identity of the church.
ABSTRACT:
Since the publication of his sermons extant in Latin and classical Armenian, Eusebius of Emesa (c. 300-359) has attracted the attention of scholars interested in various aspects of early Christianity.' Students of fourth-century theology have especially come to appreciate his sermons as evidence of
en latin,I. La collection de Troyes; II. La collection conserves The Latin sermons:Discours de Sirmond, ed. EligiusM. Buytaert,2 vols. (Louvain,1953). On the authenticityof the des dix-septopusculescontenusdans le MS. T. sermonssee Buytaert,"L'Authenticit6 43 (1948), 5-89 and 523 sous le nom d'Eusebe d'Emese,"Revued'histoire ecclesiastique d'Eusebe d'Emese idem, L'Hritagelittiraire (Louvain,1949).In what follows,volumesI and II of Buytaert'seditionare abbreviatedas B I and B II. All referencesto the Latin sermons will includethe Latin title of the sermon(as listedin CPG,3525-3526),paragraph numberfrom the text, and then the volume and page numberfrom Buytaert'sedition. Eusebius vonEmesa,ed. NersesAkinian,in The Armeniansermons:Die RedendesBischofs 70 (1956):291-300, 385-416;71 (1957):101-130,257-267, 357-380, 513HandesAmsotya 524; 72 (1958): 1-22. On the authenticityof these sermonssee Henning Lehmann,Per Version Studiesin theArmenian Piscatores: of Emesaand of a Collection of Homiliesby Eusebius is abbreviatedas HA Severian of Gabala(Aarhus,1975). In what follows,HandesAmsogya and, for the sake of convenience,all titles of the Armeniansermonswill be given in their Latin version as listed in CPG,3531. ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
Vigliae Christianae59, 31-53
32
ROBERT E. WINN
what bishops in the eastern Mediterraneanunderstood about the theological controversyof the mid fourth century.2He emerges from these studies as a bishop who, with many of his colleagues in the mid fourth century, occupied a broad theological space between the creed of Nicea with its and the equally objectionabletheology of Arius. questionableterm homoousios He also emerges as a bishop who is an heir of the theology of Origen as mediated through Eusebius of Caesarea and, therefore, as an opponent of the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra.3One of his sermons extant in Latin provides a ringing endorsement of Eusebius of Caesarea's theology and may have been intended as a panegyric for the bishop.4 In one respect, however, Eusebiusof Emesa departed from the tradition of Eusebiusof Caesareaand Origen:the latterwere willingto draw on analogies from nature, particularlythe sun and its light, to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son.5 Eusebius of Emesa, however, was not only unwillingto use these analogies but he even warned against them. Thus, as he was discussing the relationship between the Father and the Son in one sermon he remarked:"Let us take nothing visible as an explanation for what is invisible; do not introduce to me at this point springs nor the sun and its light."6 His refusal to acknowledge any value in natural analogies for God is noteworthy in part because his sermons reveal a bishop who otherwise is clearly committed to the theological tradition of Eusebius of Caesarea.
2 The following are the most useful studies of his theology: Ignace Berten, "Cyrille de Jerusalem, Eusebe d'Emese et la th6ologie semi-arienne." Revuedessciencesphilosophiques et theologiques 52 (1968), 38-75; Pieter Smulders, "Eus6be d'Emese comme source du De Trinitated'Hilaire de Poitiers," in Hilaireet son temps(Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1968), 175-212; Manlio Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo(Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1975), 192-198; Richard P. Hanson, The Searchfor the ChristianDoctrine of God (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 387-398; Maurice F. Wiles, "The Theology of Eusebius of Emesa," in StudiaPatristica19 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 267-280; Joseph T. Lienhard, ContraMarcellum:Marcellusof Ancyraand Fourth-Century Theology(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 186-197. 3 On this point see especially Lienhard, ContraMarcellum,186-197. 4 The sermon AdversusSabelliumis dedicated to the memory of "that blessed man." Buytaert initially suggested that it was a panegyric for Eusebius. AdversusSabellium1. B I, 105. 5 See for example Origen, De Principiis 1.1.6, 1.2.11; and Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica4.3.2, 4.3.7; and De EcclesiasticaTheologia1.8.3. 6 De fide 25. B I, 93. Nihil accipiamusvisibilead exhibitionem invisibilis;non mihi isticfontes adducasin medium,non solemet eius lumen.See also AdversusSabellium19. B I, 116-117.
THE NATURAL WORLD IN THE SERMONS OF EUSEBIUS OF EMESA
33
What makes this rejection striking,however, is that throughouthis sermons Eusebiusfrequentlydirected his audience to observe the naturalworld with him and to discover in it theological tenets of the church. In fact, there are entire sermons whose purpose is to train his audience to understand nature as an ordered system revealing truth about God. Why, then, did Eusebius reject analogies from nature for the relationship between the Father and the Son? In what follows I will answer this question by discussing the two primary ways he put the natural world to use in his sermons: his argument for the incorporealityof God and his argument for appreciatingJesus as creator and intimately involved with creation. Having established how and for what purpose he used the natural world in his sermons, I will then return to the question I have just posited and suggest that his rejection of natural analogies for the relationship between the Father and the Son must be understood in the context of his use of nature in general in his sermons. Eusebius was willing to use the natural world in his sermons to the extent that it assisted him to stake out the boundaries of the religious identity of the church for his audiences who, in the late Roman world of religious pluralism, were not always content to reside within the ecclesiasticalboundaries as he understood them. The Worldof Eusebiusof Emesa Born and raised in Edessa in an upper class Christian family, Eusebius received an education in the Bible and in Greek in this city.7 Later he became a student of Eusebius of Caesarea and at some point prior to
7 The three primary sources for the life of Eusebuis are Socrates HE 2.9, Sozomen HE 3.6, and Jerome De viris inlustribus91. Socrates and Sozomen both acknowledged as their source an account of Eusebius's life by George of Laodicea, whom they identify as a friend of Eusebius, and Socrates explicitly called the work an encomium(HE 1.24). Buytaert has provided the most comprehensive orientation to the sources for the life of Eusebius [Buytaert, L'Hritage litteraired'Eusebed'Smese,61-96]. See also Ter Haar Romeny, "'Quis sit 6 ;69poS'Revisited," in Origen'sHexapla and Fragments,ed. Alison Salvesen, Texteund Studienzum AntikenJudentum58 (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 37073, and idem, A Syrianin GreekDress, TraditioExegeticaGraeca6 (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 7-12. David Woods argues that the orator Eusebius Pitticas, whose torture and execution under Gallus Caesar Ammianus Marcellinus describes at Res Gestae14.7,9, is none other than Eusebius of Emesa [Woods, "Ammianus Marcellinus and Bishop Eusebius of Emesa," Journal of TheologicalStudiesn.s. 54 (2003) 585-591].
34
ROBERT E. WINN
becoming bishop of Emesa he traveled to Alexandria to study philosophy. From the deposition of bishop Eustathius of Antioch, perhaps in 328, through 341, when he was present at the Dedication Synod, Eusebiuswas closely connected with the ecclesiasticalestablishmentat Antioch.8Although appointed to the see of Emesa in the context of the Dedication Synod in 341, his biographersseem to suggest that even after this appointment he was frequentlyin Antioch. It is significantthatJerome reportedthat he was buried in the city. His education both in rhetoric and philosophy opened opportunitiesfor him to deliver sermons and orations not only in his own see Emesa but also in Antioch, Jerusalem and Beyruit. His education also earned for him the respect of the influential Eusebius of Nicomedia, who, during Athanasius'ssecond exile, pressured him to accept appointment to the see of Alexandria, and the emperor Constantiuswho included him in his entourage on a campaign against the Persians. Given his educationalbackground,it is no surpriseto find in his sermons a common philosophical understandingof nature couched in a Christian world view. David Wallace-Hadrill has observed that many educated Christiansin antiquity believed that nature was "an ordered system which they felt revealed something beyond itself."9Eusebius was no exception, and both of these premises, that the natural world is an ordered system and that this system communicates theological truth to those who understand how to observe it, are present in his sermons.
8 The exact date of the depositionof Eustathiushas exercisedthe ingenuityof several scholars.Henry Chadwick,"The Fall of Eustathiusof Antioch,"Journalof Theological Studies49 (1948), 27-35, argued that it happenedin 326 and not the traditionaldate of 331. Timothy D. Barnes, "Emperorand Bishops,AD 324-344: Some Problems," AJAH3 (1978), 56, insistedthat the date must be 327 and not 326. R. P. C. Hanson, "The Fate of Eustathiusof Antioch,"Zeitschriftfiir 95 (1984), 171-179, Kirchengeschichte suggestedthat the depositionoccurredin 328-329, but he revertedto the traditional date of 330-331 in Hanson, TheSearch Doctrine of God(Edinburgh:T & T for theChristian Clark, 1988), 209. Most recently,Richard Burgess,"The Date of the Deposition of Eustathiusof Antioch,"Journalof Theological Studies,n.s. 51 (2000), 150-160, has maintained that Eustathiusfell in late 328. 9 D. S. Wallace-Hadrill,The GreekPatristicView Nature of (New York: Manchester UniversityPress, 1968), 102. It is not my purposehere to distinguishwith precisionthe philosophicalinfluenceson his view of the naturalworld, in part becausewe have no way of knowingto what extent Eusebiuswould have been fully versedin the different philosophicaltraditions.Sufficeto say that he betrayssome awarenessof both Aristotelian and Platonictraditions.See againWallace-Hadrill, Antioch Christian (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1982), 96-116.
THE NATURAL WORLD IN THE SERMONS OF EUSEBIUS OF EMESA
35
The natural world, for Eusebius, was a hierarchy extending from inanimate matter, such as stones, through animate and psychic and rational corporeal beings; beyond the natural world this hierarchy extended to the incorporeal angels, archangels and ultimately to God. He also accepted the idea of participation such that each level of the hierarchy is united with the inferior rank through participation in a common characteristic. In the natural world, what makes a particularlevel superior to an inferior level is greater complexity. Thus, while rocks, plants, and animals all possess being (esse),plants are superior to rocks in their possession of growth with plants also uniquely and animals,which possess growth (crescere) (crescere) he this as a hierunderstood sensation Furthermore, (sensibilitas).'l possess of and nature ((pont, natura, f&) archy power (86vaCts, virtus,qwurL4Ipn pinL/iftitL) such that each level of this hierarchy possesses a particular power that its own nature defines. In turn, a particularpower reveals what a nature can or cannot do and is a gauge that distinguishesnature from nature." He discussed this phenomenon at all levels of this hierarchy. In some sermons, Eusebius introduced the idea of ascent as an integral element of this cosmic hierarchy. Thus, in a series of sermons on incorporeality, discussedin what follows, he used the language of ascent to lead his audience from the lower levels of the hierarchy through the upper levels and ultimately to God. The nature and power of particular levels in this ascent are signposts indicating one's level. Similarly, in another sermon he emphasized the connection between the differingpowers present in the various levels of the natural world and the ascent through these different levels. 10 De
II, 12. B II, 121. incorporali That ovaClt is the word behind virtusand poiat behind naturais proved by the two lengthy fragments of one of the sermons extant in Latin, De arbitrioet passionedomini [B I, 33-36, 38-41], that Theodoret preserved in his Eranistes[Theodoret, Eranistes,ed. Gerard H. Ettlinger (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975), 249-253]. In the sermon of Eusebius that exists in both Latin and Armenian, titled Defilio in Latin and De PassioneChristiin Armenian, the translators consistently correspond in their use of virtusor quLtpnLPffiS, and they use these words for 816vait;. One finds the same correspondence between naturaand pintatfi*I in these two sermons as well. The lexicographical work of Bruno Reynders on the Armenian, Syriac, Latin, and Greek versions of Irenaeus confirms that the Latin and Armenian translators of Irenaeus regularly used q_uinymiFi, and virtus for &6vatls and p'nlfnfi&I and naturafor qp6otS.[Reynders, Lexiquecomparedu textegrec et syriaquede l"AdversusHaereses"de saint Iriene,CSCO 141et des versionslatine,amnnnienne de la demonstration et desfiagments 142, Subsidia 5-6 (Louvain, 1954); and idem, Vocabulaire de saint Iriene(Editions de Chevetagne, 1958)].
36
ROBERT E. WINN
There is a certain power in bodies: one in fire, another in water, and still another in our flesh.... But transcending the power of bodies, let us come to the power of the soul which is free of the power of the body and honored with a greater dignity ... Approach, therefore,ascendingin this way step by step from bodies to the power of the soul and observe that the soul, which is present to the body, excels the body with great dignity and although it seems to inhabit the body it does not inhabit but governs.'2 While he did not mention nature here, the distinction between kinds of bodies and then between bodies and soul with respect to power assumes a different nature as well. He made this explicit when he invited his audience to take the next step in the ascent. "Passing by the admirable soul, ascend to the nature of the angels and you will find dignity. For just as the body is seen as nothing to the dignity of the soul, thus again the soul is less than the nature of the angels. It is less, I mean, in power, dignity, and nature."'3 Eventually he moved beyond the angels to the Holy Spirit and then to the Father and Son. Again he discussed how this divine nature and power is superior to all other natures preceding it just as he did at each of the other levels.'4 The manifestation of power reveals a particular nature, and, as suggested in his discussion of the differences between rocks, plants, and animals, Eusebius held that a particular nature defined what actions are expected of it. Rocks by their nature do not possess the power of perception (sensibilitas), and because boundaries between natures are fixed as one moves up or down the hierarchy, rocks could never naturally possess sensibilitas. Similarly, in this system, it would be naturally impossible for human nature to exhibit the power of a superior nature such as that of an angel or God. Not only is the natural world a carefully structured system but this system is, for those who understand how to observe it, one that communicates points of theology beyond itself. Thus when talking about the sacrifice of Isaac in a sermon on the validity of the Christian doctrine of the res-
12
De imagine12-13. B I, 135. Est virtusquaedamin corporibus: in igne quaedam,alia in autema virtutecorporum, veniamusad virtutem aquis, alteraautemin came nostra... transcendentes animae,quae a virtutibusquidemcorporisliberataest, maioreautemdignitatehonorata.... Accedito ita gradatimascendensa corporibus ad virtutemanimaeet intuere,quia anima, quae adest corpori, magnadignitatepraecellitcorpuset, cum videturcohabitare,non cohabitatsed gubemat. natu13 De imagine15. B I, 137. Transiensautemanimamadmiratam,ascendead angelorum ram et inveniesdignitatem.Sicut enim corpusut ad dignitatemanimaenihil visum est, ita iterum naturaminoratur. anima ab angelorum Minoratur,inquam,virtute,dignitate,natura. 14 De imagine16, 22, 24, 27. B I, 138, 142, 144, 145.
THE NATURALWORLD IN THE SERMONSOF EUSEBIUSOF EMESA
37
urrection, Eusebius focused on the opportune appearance of the sheep caught in a tree by its horns. He explained, "The sheep was appearing suspended, and suspended by its horns and in a tree. Nature was interpreting what was concealed. If anyone hangs a sheep by the horns in a tree, he will see what follows and what will happen."15Nature reveals what is concealed because nature dictates how a sheep appears when hung in a tree by its horns. A sheep hung in this position will by necessity spread its limbs in such a way that those with correct vision will immediately
recognize the cross in the way the sheep is hanging. His interpretationof the sheep and the tree is indicative of how Eusebius used the natural world in his sermons. His goal was to train his audiences to observe the natural world rightly so that they understand the theological points revealed in it. Just as the ordered system of nature revealed in the physiology of a sheep's body a point of Christian theology, so in other sermons Eusebiusassistedhis audience to observe two other points revealed in nature: that incorporeality is superior to corporeality and therefore God is incorporeal and that Jesus is the creator directly involved with his creation. The Superiority of Incorporeality Eusebius delivered a series of sermons and an independent sermon all of which addressed passages of scripturethat seemed to suggest that God was corporeal or that he occupied a physical place.'6His task was to prove 15 De resurrectione ovissuspensa, et a comibus, et suspensa I, 26. B II, 24. Nuncautemapparet ovema cornibus Si quisenimsuspenderit in arbore. Naturaauteminterpretabatur quoderatoccultum. id quodsequitur videbit: in arbore, quoderatfiuturm.Eusebius'scommentaryon Genesis 22 is extant in Greek, and in this text he followsthe LXX by referringto the animal as a ram (Kpt6S).His interpretationfocuses on the fact that the ram is full grown like Christ and not a lamb (algv6o)like Isaac [Ter Haar Romeny, A Syrianin Greek Dress, 323-331]. Presumablyin the Greek originalof this sermon Eusebiuswould have used Kpto6. It is unclearwhy the Latin translatorused ovisrather than ariesto render this
word. Although it often refers to a female sheep, ovis can simply mean an adult sheep generically or even a ram [OxfordLatin Dictionary,ed. P. G. W. Glare, Fasc. V (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 1278]. Since the point of the commentary and of the sermon is not to emphasize the sex of the animal as much as its miraculous appearance and manifestation of the cross, the translator must have concluded that ovis would suffice for this purpose. 16 The series De I-V addresses Exodus 19-20 and the issue of whether God incorporali had a body to descend to mount Sinai and a mouth to blow the trumpets that are
38
ROBERT
E. WINN
to his auditors that they should not understandsuch passages literally and to drive home a theological principle that should govern any reading of these passages: "God is not a body, nor does he have any characteristics of body, as color for example, nor is he in a body as soul is thought to be, nor is he with a body, as mind is thought to be, but he is free from the nature and disposition of body."17 What concerned Eusebius was that there were some in his audience who were perfectly willing to give "eyes and ears to God, and a tongue and a mind and bones and entrails and sinews and veins."'8They would get bored or disinterestedwhen he introduced the idea of incorporeality, and were incapableof conceivingof existencewithout a body: "they deceive themselves and do not admit that there is something which the hand cannot touch, that there is something that can not be seen with the eyes, that there is something which is not perceptible with the senses."'9Conceiving of God as accessible to the senses or believing that he occupied place was such a concern to Eusebius because it was very close to what he found objectionable in pagan religiosity. This is particularlyclear in his fourth sermon in the series on incorporealitywhere he distinguishedthe faith of the church from the traditionalpolytheisticcults. He began the sermon by reminding his audience how Christians should respond to pagan beliefs: We completelymockthosewho thinkthat God or the gods are enclosedin a cattlepen likea herd;certainlywe censurethosewho wishthatdivinepowers are enclosedin statuesevidentlyby the powerof malignantmen.And we of femininity mock thosewho have placedon the statuesthe characteristics or masculinityor of animalsand of serpents.20
in thepassage. Deincorporali etinvisibili Deoaddresses Isaiah63,wherevestments mentioned and Genesis2, whereGodis saidto walkin the garden. of God are mentioned, 17 De incorporali estDeus,nequecorporis IV, 3. B II, 137. Nequeenimcorpus aliquid,aliquis sicutputatursensus;sed utputacolor;nequein corpore qualisputaturesseanima;nequecircacorpus liberest et a naturacorporis et habitu. 18 De incorporali et invisibili Deo24. B II, 94. Si dixeriscorpus; dabisoculos,dabisaurescirca Deumet linguam et sensum, et ossaet viscera, et nervoset venas. 19De incorporali et invisibili Deo 38. B II, 101. reputantes et fraudentes apudse, magisautem est aliquidquodnonpotestoculis nonadmittentes: est ergoaliquid,quodnonpotestmanustenere; videri,est aliquidquodnonestsensibilitas. 20 De incorporali eos,quiputantesseDeum IV, 2. B II, 136-137.Nos autemlateirridemus in valde et aut deostanquam reclusum mandra; eos,qui voquemdam reprehendimus gregem quippe luntin simulacris ex vi scilicethominum irridemus enim virtutes divinashaberireclusas, malignorum: autemmasculorum, fuerintin simulacris quidam quidem eos,cumhabitusappositi quidam feminarum, et quadrupedum et serpentium.
THE NATURAL WORLD IN THE SERMONS OF EUSEBIUS OF EMESA
39
As he proceeded through the sermon, he warned his audience not to get sidetracked into worshiping the sun, moon, and stars; one must ascend beyond these bodies and worship the one who made them. He concluded his sermon by remindinghis audience of the amorouspursuitsof two Greek gods,Jupiter and Apollo, which provide furtherproof that imagining deities with bodies is an activity of those who are outsiders (quiforis sunt)."The pagans," Eusebius remarkedat the beginning of the fifth sermon on incorporeality,"are alwaysaudacious,alwaysfabricatingand transforming... and The discourseof the church, "our conversation" creatingfrom their hearts."21 (nostersermo),however, should avoid narrativesabout such corporeal deities and rely on the words of scripture that verify the one incorporeal God.22 The goal of these sermons on incorporeality,therefore, was to ensure that his audience understood how to interpret the Bible correctly. If some in his audience understood the Bible to prove that God has a body and is located in a place, which to Eusebius sounded as if they were understanding the Bible as a validation of pagan beliefs, then the authoritative source for authenticatinga distinction between pagans and Christianshad been compromised.Ultimately it was an issue of ecclesiasticalidentity. The fact that he delivered a series of five sermons to build his case for an incorporeal God is indicative of the extent to which this concerned him. Convinced that the best way to persuade his audience would be to meet them on their own ground, the sensual world that they acknowledged as reality, Eusebius devoted the first sermon in the series to a discussion of nature that would prepare his audience to accept that incorporealityis in general superior to corporeality and more specifically that God is incorporeal. Thus, from the beginning, he indicated the deficiencies in corporeality by suggesting that sense perception can not discern what really exists. "Someone, raised in the midst of bodies, will perhaps suspect that the one who is neither held nor seen, neither circumscribednor touched is nothing. But let him be taught that the nature of the matter is exactly the opposite, that those things which are seen and which coincide with touch, and are embraced by thoughts,never really exist."23The nature
21 De incorporali V, 2. B II, 158-59. Gentilesenim, qui omniaausi sunt, omnia transfigurant et fingunt... ex cordefingentes. 22 De IV, 33-41. B II, 152-157; De incorporali V, 3. B II, 159. incorporali 23 De incorporali nihil esseeum, innutritus, I, 3. B II, 104. Et quis, corporibus forte suspicabitur qui non teneturnec videtur,nec arctaturnec tangitur.Sed conversusedoceaturnaturamnegotii,quia verenumquamsunt. quae videnturet tactibusincurrunt,et cogitatibusamplectuntur,
40
ROBERT E. WINN
of all bodies, Eusebius explained, is to be constantly in flux through perpetual diminution or growth. A body "never exists in the same state," and because of this bodies are by nature imperfect.24 This definition of bodies adumbrated the rest of the first discourse in which he discussed in greater detail the elements-earth, air, fire, and water-and then composite bodies made of these elements. In both groups, elements and composites, he was attempting to demonstrate that there is no constancy or permanency, and in addition, he indicated where the power (virtus)is located in particular natures. In the nature of elemental Earth bodies, he argued, the power is not located in dense matter (crassus). is popularly thought to be denser than water and therefore is thought to be stronger, but observation indicates that the opposite is true. Earth dissolves in water while water permeates throughout earth. The same is true about water and air. Air penetrates through water, but water does not have the same power over air and is actually transportedby air to different areas. These differingrelationshipsbetween earth, water, and air suggested to Eusebius an important principle. "With respect to incorporeality and the lighter body, they posit for the more subtle things a greater power."25 This distinction between denseness and subtlety became his main point as he proceeded to the discussion of fire. Eusebius believed that fire is superior to the other elements and thus he devoted more attention to this element. Fire is seen by thosewho observeit, but it is understoodby thosewho can see its naturebecauseit hurriesto its own, evidentlymore lofty, region. Thereforefire is the most subtle.Althoughit is one of the bodies,nevertheless it is closestto incorporealthings.Observehow manyadvantagesit possessesover otherbodies.26 He then expanded on three of these advantagesof fire that make its nature superior to the other elements. First, no dense object can impede or harm the nature of fire. Placing a stone in the midst of fire does not extinguish the fire; rather, the fire passes around the stone. Second, not only do
24
Ibid.Et numquam eundem accipitstatum. istaeostendunt? Hoc unummaxime I, 4. B II, 105. Quidenimimprovectiones incorporali et ad leviuscorpus, maiorem virtutem subtilioribus. imponunt quiaad incorporalitatem 26 De autemab his I, 5. B II, 105. Et videtur ignisa videntibus; incorporali agnoscitur quidem ad superiora scilicet.Isteigtursubquipossunteiusnaturam videre, quiaad suamfestinatregionem, 25 De
tilissimusignis, cum sit unus e corporibus Intuereenim quantashabeat proximusest incorporalibus.
ceteracorpora. adversum proprietates
THE NATURAL WORLD IN THE SERMONS OF EUSEBIUS OF EMESA
41
denser objects not harm fire, but fire itself is able to transform and permeate these same dense objects. So if bronzeis placedin the midstof fire, or iron, or even gold, the color of all of them is changedand it is transformed into the color and authoritative presentationof fire and each of themis fire, or that whichis calledfire, becauseof its heat,brilliance,and all the otherproperties.Sincefire does not subsideundergold but it heats gold, the eminenceof the elementis clear. Sincefire is not dissolvedby rocksbut dissolvesrocks,its poweris apparent. Sincefireis not containedby airbutrathercutsthroughit andrushesupwards, its authorityis apparent.And since it surgesupwards,it is strongerboth in position,and in powerand in heat.27 Although someone might argue that water is stronger than fire because water can extinguish fire, Eusebius contended that one should understand this as a case where fire does not allow itself to exist in the same place as water.Just as shadows do not consume fire, so water does not extinguish fire. In either case, fire disperses. Water, furthermore,can not transform fire into a cold element, but fire is able to cause water to boil away.28Fire is superior, therefore, because while it is not consumed by water it consumes water. Third, the superiorpower of subtle elements means that cutting fire, water, or air with a blade does not leave parts; the blade passes through and they return to their normal state.29Although density is thought to be a stronger property, Eusebius concluded that it is not density but subtlety that is the strongerproperty and that the more subtle the element the more power the element possesses by nature. This classificationof elements based on their density or subtlety is integral to his larger argument on incorporealityand isolating a substancewith
27 De
immissum aut fueritin igne,autferrum, incorporali I, 6. B II, 106. Ita et si aeramentum et colorem et immutantur ad colores transferuntur aurum, omnium, ignis magistrum, quodque ipsum eorumignis,authocquoddicituret caloreetfilgoreet omnibus ignis.Quiaautemignis proprietatibus Et quia gnisnondissolvitur a est eminentia. ad aurumnoncadit,aurumautemcalefacit, manifesta Et ab et est virtus. non detinetur scindit autem autem dissolvit aperta ignis aere, quia petras, petris, sursumcurrit,apertumimperiumest. Et quia urgetsursumfieri, et positioneest et virtuteet calore in this text. Magisterium would fortior.Buytaert provides no alternate readings for magistrum
reflectsa copyist'serror.Following makemore sense, and it is conceivablethat magistrum I have thereforetranslatedthe word this suggestionof the editorsof VigiliaeChristianae,
individual as "office" of fireratherthanan authoritative the authoritative as indicating
magistrumwould require. 28 De I, 7. B II, 106-107. incorporali 29 De incorporali 8-9. B II, 107-108. I,
42
ROBERT E. WINN
constancy. Fire was important to Eusebius because fire is able to permeate or transformthe other three elements while retaining its integrity. Fire is therefore closest to incorporeality.Just as those who know how to see will recognize the cross in a sheep hanging in a tree because of how a sheep is naturallydisposed, so here those who correctlyobserve the nature of the four elements ought to recognize the superiority of incorporeality in the natural and subtle power of fire. Thus, by shifting his audience's perception of power from the density of rocks and earth to the subtlety of fire or air, Eusebius was preparing them to acknowledge the legitimacy and superiorityof incorporealpower. He advanced this argument by next turning to composite bodies. Although he initially mentioned only combinations of the four elements and their appropriatecharacteristics-heat, humidity, denseness and subtlety-Eusebius was actually interested in more complicated composites, such as plants and animals. There are two points that Eusebius argued in this section of the sermon. The first he dispatched immediately. By pointing out that composite bodies are constantly in motion, either growing or diminishingor moving from place to place or producing offspringof some kind, and that this motion follows from their nature, Eusebiusverified that just as in the case of elements, so in the case of composite bodies there is no natural stability or constancy in them.30 The second point was one on which he spent considerablymore time. He attempted to demonstrate that all of the natural motions of composite bodies and the very perseverance and existence of composite bodies is dependent on "incorporealpowers" (incorporales These incorpovirtutes). real powers are the only explanation, for example, of what one observes in a tree. For the trees do not establish for themselves a season to flourish, nor the magnitude of their foliage, nor the season of their fruit, nor the composition of what is brought forth, nor those inner parts for their preservationnor those external parts for their protection. For what happens within trees is not in the control of trees.31
30 De
I, 10. B II, 108. incorporali
31 De incorporali I, 11. B II, 108. Nequeenimarboressibimetipsaestatuunttempus,utfloreant,
non magnitudinem eorumquaefigurantur;non ea foliorum, non tempusfrtgum, non compositionem intus sunt ad non sunt ad tutelam. enim in arborumest potestate Non custodiendum, quae quaeforas de his quaesunt in arboribus.
THE NATURALWORLD IN THE SERMONSOF EUSEBIUSOF EMESA
43
All of these things, which are natural to the tree, are not in the tree's own control and are therefore under the influence of the incorporeal powers. No tree would ever bear fruit, Eusebius explained, unless the incorporeal powers were forming it.32 When he shifts to animals, Eusebius introduced natural laws. Thus also among animals laws are established so that a horse comes from a horse and the appropriate kind comes from each kind; similar things from similar things. And sexual desire is measured among animals, for copulation among animals does not happen all the time. There is a set and known season. The males are moved and the females endure; time passes and then sexual desire dissipates among irrational animals. Where there is such variety, should we not agree that the animals are ignorant of what happens?Somehow they know and they are directed and led, both to where it is fitting to mate and to gather to eat. Although they are ignorant of what will happen, nevertheless they are persuaded by the laws.33 In concert with these laws, animals receive everything that is necessary for themselves in their environment from their own nature. The laws, however, are what ensures that the offspring are born at the right time for their growth. Thus, it was significant for Eusebius that the offspring of animals are born in the summer rather than in the winter. That irrational animals would have laws governing their natural activities answers the question of where such animals acquire their "wisdom." Without any training or education, for example, a deer knows to stand upon being born and knows how to feed from its mother.34 In this sermon, therefore, Eusebius laid the groundwork for establishing not only the existence of incorporeality but also its superiority. His discussion of the elements and then plants and animals were both oriented towards the common goal of preparing his audience to accept the premise underlying this series: "By his incorporeal power, [God] is present to all,
32 De incorporali I, 12. B II, 109. 33 De I, 13. B II, 109-110. Ita et in animalibuslegespraeceptaesunt, ut ab equis incorporali aniequi, et ab unoquoque generegenusproprium,similia a similibus.Et mensurataest concupiscentia malibus.Non enimin omni temporeanimalibusest communicatio; sed tempusstatumest et agnoscitur. Et masculituncmoventur etfoeminaetuncpatiuntur;et transittempus,et emortuaest in irrationabilibus Et ubi tanta varietasest, nonneconfessibileest ignorariab irrationabilibus concupiscentia. quaefiunt? Tamenagnoscuntquomodoreguntur et adducuntur, et ubi oportetseminari,et ubi conveniatcommendari. Et ignorantesquodjuturumest, nihilominustamenlegibussuadentur. 34 De incorporali I, 16. B II, 111.
44
ROBERT E. WINN
but being present everywhere he remains separate from all."35Once his audience understood the propertiesof fire as the only element that is able to permeate all other elements without losing its integrity,then they should see in fire the superiorityof incorporeality.Similarly,Eusebiusdistinguished what happens to a creature naturally or what a creature naturally does and the incorporeal powers or laws that are present with the corporeal body, influencing it but not identical with it. When his audience knows how to look at a tree or a deer, then they should recognize that what is incorporeal is superior and that it governs what is corporeal. Jesus:Powerof Godand Powerof Nature In two other sermons, De quinque panibus,a sermon on Matthew 14.1324, and De passione,the third sermon in a series he delivered on the life death and resurrection of Christ, Eusebius also assisted his auditors to observe nature rightly so that they would see incorporeal power at work in it. Unlike the sermons in the De incorporali series, however, in these two sermons Eusebius was teaching them to recognize not simply that incorporeal power was operative in and governing nature but that this incorporeal power was Jesus. He also made clear that he was arguingagainstheretics,the Marcionites, and throughouthis sermonshe frequentlyaddressedthe ideas of the church of Marcion. Thus, some sermons defend the validity of the Old Testament and its importance for the life of the church, others attack the false asceticism of the Marcionites and verify the true asceticism of the church, and some address the relationship between the Father and the Son, between the God of creation and Jesus. It is this latter point that is of particular concern to Eusebiusin De quinque panibusand De passione.While the church of Marcion might teach that the creator, the God of the Old Testament, was an inferior deity who committed the colossal blunder of creating the sensual world and was a God other than the God of Jesus and the New Testament, Eusebius wanted his audience to understand clearly that this was not the position of the true church. The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament, the Father of Jesus, and it is Jesus, "God with God," who originally created and who controls creation and
35 De incorporali adestomnibus,ubiquepraesenset ab I, 2. B II, 103. Virtuteenim incorporali omnibusseparatus.
THE NATURAL WORLD IN THE SERMONS OF EUSEBIUS OF EMESA
45
its natural processes through his divine power. Thus in his introduction to De quinque panibus,Eusebius explained to his audience, "The Father creates through the Son, not through an instrument."36He creates through his Son, Jesus, who is "God with God living and full of life" and who is "perfect and complete in his own nature"just as the Father is whole and perfect.37When his auditorshave properlyunderstoodthis miracle, they would never agree with the heretics that Jesus "hates creation or that he is the son of another God."38
As he moved to his exegesis of the text in Matthew and the feeding of the five thousand, Eusebius reminded his audience that the purpose of his sermon is to help them to see. First he wanted them to see the environment of the miracle and the participantsin the event: "Go mentally to those places; return in thought to those times and observe 'the desert place' and the 'hour now being evening' and the many people and the few loaves."39Once he had his audience in the desert place, he wanted them to witness the miracle as he dramatically described the events as they unfolded. More importantly,he wanted them to understandthat what they saw in this miracle they witnessed all the time. In the feeding of the five thousand, the invisible creator is made visible because the creator, the one who always invisibly brings food from the earth, is now visibly producing food from creation. Through that deed, he was revealed through whom the earth, receiving any seed, always multiplies. For what is accomplished invisibly was brought to light and it declared the one who is always working invisibly. For it is not just on this occasion that Jesus made many things from five loaves of bread. For he was in the world, not in a weak or meaningless fashion, but he was alwaysworkingto feed all creation,althoughhe himselftook nothing. Therefore because he was unknown, he came and fed, and he came eating and feeding, so that through these actions, which are seen, he would appear who was not seen.40
36
De quinquepanibus5. B I, 199. Facit autemDeus per Filium, nonper operamentum. 37 Ibid. Deus apudDeum vivenset plenusvita;Ibid. 7. B I, 201. Filius perfectuset plenussua naturaest. 38 De quinquepanibus9. B I, 202. quia abominatur aut quia alteriusdei estfilius. creaturam, 39 De quinquepanibus 10. B I, 204. Vadeergomentead illa loca; recurresensu ad illa temlocum'et 'horamiam vesperam'et populummultumet panespaucos. pora et intuere'desertum 40 De per quernsemperet quinquepanibus 12. B I, 205. Per istum autemopus ostendebatur annunterra,quidseminisaccipiens,multiplicat.Quodeniminvisibiliterfcitur, ad visionemadductum, ciavit quis est qui semperinvisibiliteroperatur.Nec enim tune solummodo Iesus, a quinquepanibus,
46
ROBERT E. WINN
A little later in the sermon, Eusebiusmade even more explicit the involvement of Jesus in creation. Not only is he responsible for bringing forth food from the earth, but he also orders the seasons in such a way that the correct crops appear at the correct time. As wisdom,Jesus makes, governs, and feeds all creation because he knows the correct season for each kind of crop. "Since air is humid in the winter, dry fruit is saved for the winter. But since summer is dry, the fruit is made humid. For wisdom tempers everything, so that when it is humid on the outside what is provided for food is dry within, but when the heat waves of the summer are without, then what is released from the fruit is humid. For wisdom is the one who feeds and governs."41
By placing the feeding of the five thousand into this broader context of the role thatJesus plays in all the natural processes of the world, Eusebius was suggestingthat there is nothing particularlymiraculousabout the event at all. It simply made visible the one who is always providing food for creation invisibly through the seasonal production of crops. That diminishing the miraculous aspects of this event was part of his strategy is clear from how he concluded his treatmentof this story. He emphasizedthat the same tireless power (infatigabilis virtus)that forms people and animals in wombs and that feeds all creatures on land, in the sea and in the air, also is at work in all the processes that comprise the natural world.42Is it so miraculous, Eusebius wondered, that Jesus turned water into wine? You are amazed when he made wine from water or changed water to wine, and you do well. Indeed, when you hear that he converts water into wine at a marriage, then you see. But every day in vineyards not only does he make wine from water but also oil from trees. For he himself is the one who uses these kinds of plants and touches the water and causes the power to be transferred-in one case to wine, and in another to oil and in still another to a
fecit multa. In mundoenim non otiosuserat aut vacans,sed operabatur pascenssemperomnes,ipse autemnon sumens.Quia ergoignorabatur, venitpascens,manducanset pascens,ut per ea, quaevidenis qui non videbatur.Using the language of visibility and invisibility (invisibilis tur, appareret per visibilem),Irenaeus had already interpreted this passage in opposition to Valentinian Haereses3.11.5, ed. F. Sagnard, gnosticism as an affirmation of Jesus as creator [Adversus SourcesChretiennes 34 (Paris, 1952), 188]. 41 De quinque panibus 16. B I, 208. Quia enim hiemeaer est umidus,aridifructus servantur ad hiemem,quia autemaestasest arida,umjficantur etfructus. Sapientiaenimtemperatomnia,ut cum a foris est umor,ea quaepascuntintus sint arida, cum autema foris aestateardoreshabentur,ea ex pomis, sint umida.Sapiensenim est, qui pascit et regit. quae immittuntur 42 De quinquepanibus 16. B I, 208.
THE NATURAL WORLD IN THE SERMONS OF EUSEBIUS OF EMESA
47
differentflavorand fruitand to everytree.Since,however,you werenot seeing him, who was doing many things,he made some thingsvisibleso that you can see him at workeven when he is not seen.43 The ordered structureof the natural world that he emphasized in De incorporaliin order to verify the superiorityof incorporealityis also put to use virhere to undermine Marcionism. Eusebius now identified the incorporales tutescompletely with the virtusof Jesus who reveals in his acts of manufacturing bread and transformingwater what he has always done in the natural world since creation. Eusebius understood other miracles in this way as well. In De passione, when chronicling the life of Jesus, he passed over every other miracle except for the healing of the man born blind from John 9. By placing all of his emphasis on this miracle, Eusebiuswas clearly indicating to his auditors what he wanted them to understandabout the divine power of Jesus. If in De quinque panibus,Eusebius interpretedJesus's use of bread and water to reveal the one who was always active in natural processes, then this miracle, where Jesus used earth, reveals the one who initially created from the earth. "He made mud, who in the beginning made man completely from the earth, and he fashioned a new part for what was lacking so that we have a taste of the previous creation."44Such an interpretationof this miracle, and the emphasis he gave it in this sermon must be understood in the context of his opposition to heresy: it is not the demiurge or an
43 De quinque fecit autipsamaquamimmupanibus18. B I, 209. Mirariscumex aquavinum tavitad vinum,et benefacds.Sedtuncvidescumaudisquiain nuptiisaquamad vinumconvertit. enim Cumautemcotidiein vitibusnonsolumvinum facit ex aqua,sedet oleumex arboribus,--ipse
est et qui abutituristiusmodiplantis et tinguitaquam et facit virtutemtransferi, illud quidemad
arborem,-sed vinum,aliudautemad oleumet aliudad alterum gustumet alterapomaet ad omnem eumetiamcum non videbas visibilia,ut videasoperantem eum,quifaciebat multa, fect quaedam quia Here again, the teachingof Eusebiuscoincideswith Irenaeus'stheologywho nonvidetur. also cited this miraclewith the languageof visibilityand invisibilityto affirmthe goodHaereses ness of creation and to identifyJesus as the creator [Adversus 3.11.5]. Origen followedthe same interpretationin his commentaryon John and Athanasius,perhaps writingaroundthe same time Eusebiuswas preaching,also understoodthe miraclein this fashion [De incarnatione 18]. 44 De passione 5. HA 71 (1957), 359-360. uumktr I. Iu4L, np fI 'ul'p?.h'I& umqrt uJ,wnLfnw q S 'Al0 % Ig, L ualiui inp wit LUhripw6jyli 4ul Jiupifr / nZInj tqr w'usw4u quwnauli umskqnJuu dtui: Presumably, Eusebius is again drawing on Irenaeus who also interpreted this passage from John's gospel as an affirmation of Jesus's position as creator [AdversusHaereses5.15.2]. pju#iL
48
ROBERT E. WINN
alien deity who creates but Jesus who is the Son of the Father, the God of the New Testament, and is in fact, simply stated, "God with God." His belief that nature possessed a didactic quality for those who knew how to perceive it allowed Eusebius to affirmthat naturalprocesses always reveal theological truths. Thus, he suggested in these sermons that correctly understandingthe properties of elements and the nature of plants and animals revealed the superiorityand immanence of incorporealpower. In De quinquepanibus,he explicitly identifiedJesus as the source of this incorporeal power and the creator and governor of both corporealityand incorporeality. from Naturefor theFatherand the Son Analogies We are now in a better position to answer the question I posited at the beginning of this article: why did Eusebius reject analogies from the natural world for the relationshipbetween the Father and the Son? Since he was fond of directing his audiences' attention to the natural world and training them to understandhow its structureaffirmed Christiantheology, one would expect to find that he would have fully embraced these analogies as well. Here was another opportunity to draw on the revelation of nature and allow it to guide the church in its effort to maintain its religious identity. This discontinuitybetween his positive approach to nature and his opposition to employing nature in this instance is only apparent. In fact, three probable reasons for his decision to reject the natural analogies, discussed in what follows, originate from the same rationale for his affirmativeuse of nature. Eusebius'smost elaborate rejection of these analogies comes in his theological introductionto his series of sermons on the life, death and resurrection of Christ. This passage, understood in its context, suggests the first of three reasons why he opposed the analogies and also a connection between his rejection of them and his use positive use of nature to establish the incorporealityof God. He covered two topics in this theological introduction:persuading his audience to conceive of God as incorporeal and discussingthe relationshipbetween the Father and the Son. The transition between the two topics is as follows: And do not acceptan analogyfromcorporealthingsthat is unequalto that specificessence,not from a font that gushes.You are able to demonstrate whenceit comes or else, havingcome forth,at what it arrives,becausethe firstemanationis priorand the otherrushesafterwith diligence.But are you
THE NATURAL WORLD IN THE SERMONS OF EUSEBIUS OF EMESA
49
able to demonstratewhencethe font comes?WhenceGod is, this is impossibleto find. God createdthe gushingfont, but no one [makes]God, who is withoutemanationfromanyone.Do not takethe sun as an analogybecause the visiblesun is not sufficientto bringforwardas an analogyor a similarity to the invisiblelight. And althoughsomeonemight take it, he will find that it is possibleto takesomethingas a modelthat is not constantlysimilar to the comparison.45 He then proceeded to recount his beliefs about the nature of the Son as "God with God" and the only begotten whose generation cannot be explained but must simply be accepted by the church. The fact that Eusebius believed some in his audiences were convinced that God was corporeal certainly influenced his concern over such analogies. While he could meet his audience on the terrain of the corporeal world to demonstrate that this world itself pointed to a superior existence that was not corporeal, he clearly believed that such a strategy when discussing the divine economy itself would be self-defeating.The naturalworld could usefully demonstrate that God must be incorporeal, but the natural world could prove dangerous when actually discussingthe inner life of the Godhead. One had to ascend beyond all created bodies to reach God, and using these analogies would suggest that one had to bring God down to the level of corporeality. Solar imagery, the sun and its light, was a special problem for Eusebius, and this suggestsa second reason why he rejectedsolar analogies.Eusebius's world was one that had a tradition of worshiping a solar deity, and this was especially true of his own see Emesa.46He recognized, however, that denying the appropriatenessof solar imagery to explain the divine nature or the generation of the Son was complicated because the church had a
45
De fide, habita Hierosolymis,14. HA 71 (1957), 109-110. b L J la JdurpIiuipwuWg
wurnlin u.qliwjulfaifi'a;Iru4a/uff. bj kpt nwuiir 4uIsup gnygusuiL, ptI,"UnuflJfi.jWuiftW.
tiiJ
IL L
i'J!
hnJf"hfWff,
AJsijwuqvpt- niP p/uL-
,,ia, ..uS.L . l4iSrSjnt Lpf3tiL ,i't-1 CUii biusau: t tJLULutuwb q
gfufnyqfib
qJluwuuffib Linfi' uIy,Pe fist-
Ip,
S-, ,Clh-mpf h/ t- suMulsai:uwqjihy ufJSk. /iu4 bf* nLuinfie UumnuuAw I.uprugnLy.. lL LI
W: bL#F LtnLUtyer,,'^ pf-lp"r 4 IhXL tJqn tL wniIffnL InL i b fi qjiuiwugk WtIpSIw4 PE ipptLZISlAUinuLftih pbkpkb 'i 1,4,1'f,ta Iaunjy: I. nt,/ Cwunwwn,4J/al 'qnq r LjwL,pfU,wit f u, ufwup eu^n8,, 46 Henri Seyrig discusses the presence of the solar cult in a number of cities in Syria but his premier example is Emesa. Seyrig, "Le culte du soleil en Syrie a l'ipoque romaine," Syria 48 (1971): 337-366. On the pantheon of Emesa and the place of the solar cult in it see Carlos Chad, Les Dynastesd'lAmese (Beruit, 1972), 131-151. puif,mlp,fSti U
q u./j .Iul,.t.
nLuo
uuipwpur-
. u..t ,S,Lfw, uSeLL
rAJuurnLubmi^wpi,J*#i+*l4i.jnliW4
p,f~i
. 1rs..0.1/ t.kphp ,quhwkpJ/pb
50
ROBERT E. WINN
tradition of using the biblical "sun of righteousness" as a Christological title and he himself would use it frequently.47 The fact that he would often follow up this title with a reminder that there was really no comparison between the corporeal sun and the "sun of righteousness," however, is an indication that, despite its biblical precedent, he had doubts even about this title. In the series on incorporeality discussed above, Eusebius used all the rhetorical techniques available to him to attempt to undermine solar religion including an elaborate ethopoeiaof the sun who admonished his audience to abandon the solar cult. Even a portion of it suggests the extent to which Eusebius viewed solar religion as a threat to the church and a competitor for his audiences' piety: I am not God, but He whose property I am, I am his product. You see me; he is invisible. Visible is contrary to invisible by nature. For although brilliant as I am, I am brilliant because I am seen. He, however, through his invisibility transcends everything through his brilliant rays. When honoring me do not disgrace me. I am not ungratefulto the creator;the blessings that I have received are sufficient for me. Do not add what I do not receive. I am a creature not the creator; a product and not the maker. I am made and not he who makes. Thus I am in heaven and seen with eyes, but he is invisible. I am set in a place, but he is free from every place.... Through him both I and everythingis made. Do not convert me to blasphemy;do not seek to blaspheme through me. I am a letter to the glory of the one who made me; for heaven is a great book and I and my neighbors are a record of devotion to God.48 In an environment where he feared that his audience might be participating in the solar cult, it is not surprising that he would warn against
47 Passageswhere he uses the title: De Filio 31. B I, 65; Defide 6. B I, 83; De ima7. B I, 180; gine7, 23, 32. B I, 132, 143, 149; De maryribus30. B I, 173; De virginibus De quinque panibus4. B I, 198; De calice25. B I, 232; De apostolis etfideI, 24. B I, 307; De hominisassumptione nonvenipacemmittere in terII, 9. B I, 377. De eo quodait Dominus: ram4. B II, 177; De mandato Dominiquodait quoddicovobisin aure,supratectapraedicate 4. B II, 197. 48 De incorporali IV, 27-28. B II, 148-149. Non sumegoDeus,sed ille cuiussumet ego Me ille invisibilis est. Visibile ad invisibilia contraria estnatura; nametsisumclarus vides, opificium. sicutsum,sedclarusquiavideor, ille auteminvisibilitate transcendit omnia Nonmehonofiugoribus. ad Conditorem, mihibenficiaquaeaccepi.Noli addere Nonsumingratus rans,dehonestes. suffciunt Creatura et nonopifex; factussum,et nonis quifecit. sum,nonCreator; quaenonsuscipio. opficium, Istincsumcaelo,et indeoculisvideor; ille invisibilis. sum,ille liberab omni Egoin lococonfinnatus est loco.[28] ... perillumet egoet omnia ad blasphemiam, factasunt.Nolitemeconvertere perme nolite.Litterasumadgloriam eiusquimefecit:caelum enimliberestmagnus; blasphemare egoautem cumaffinibus meissumuslitterae religiositatis.
THE NATURALWORLD IN THE SERMONSOF EUSEBIUSOF EMESA
51
using the analogy of the sun to explain the relationshipbetween the Father and the Son. Third, beyond the possibility that natural analogies could confuse the religiousidentityof the church by hinting at traditionalpolytheism,Eusebius viewed the introductionof natural analogies for God as a potentiallyecclesiasticalproblem. In one of the sermons dedicated to the theological issues debated during the mid fourth century, he commented: He was generatedimpassibly,not as us but as he; not as plants,which are amongus, not as fonts,not as the sun. For none of these things,which are here, can interpretthat generation.For human comparisonscause all the of those uproar.When we take somethingdissimilarfor the interpretation and fightsensue.But if thingsthat can not be interpreted,then controversies we were silentaboutthosethingsthat are beyondvoice and said only possible things, then the conflict will cease.49
Eusebius found the theological arguments of the mid fourth century disturbing in general because of their divisiveness.Thus, in a sermon delivered at Antioch, he castigatedall sides of the theologicaldebate and declared outright that it was Satan who had instigated the schism within the Antiochene church.50The problem, he suggested, is that the church had strayed from the words of the Bible when discussingtheology. Thus we find him lamenting as follows: "Would that we would only read! Would that we were content with the scripturesalone. Then there would be no controversy."51 Or from a different sermon: "Why is there controversy?Because we are not content with the scriptures.Do not write but read, and not And yet again: "It is sufficient your own words but those of the evangelist."52 to speak what is stated and to be silent about what is hidden. Brothers, let us be immersed in those things which are written in the scriptures."53
49 Adversus non ut nos sed ut ille; non Sabellium19. B I, 116-117. Genuitsane impassibiliter, ut plantae, quae apud nos sunt, non utfontes, non ut sol. Jthil enim horum,quae hic sunt, interpretariillam generationem faciunt. Cum accipossunt.Omnemenim turbelamhumanaecomparationes eorumquae interpretari non possunt, ideo lites, ideopugnae pimus non similia, ad interpretationem nascuntur.Si autemtacuerimus ea, quae supravocemsunt et dixerimus possibilia,cessabitbellum. 50 De apostolisetfide I, 35-36. B I, 318-319. 51 De Utinamautemsolumscripturiscontenti fide 27. B I, 95. Utinamautemsolum legeremus! essemus!Et lis nullafieret. 52 De Filio 16. B I, 55. Cur lis? Quia scripturis contentinon sumus.... Noli scriberesed lege, non tua sed evangelistarum. 53 AdversusSabellium28. B I, 123-24. Sfficit... loqui quippedicibilia, tacereautem quae occultasunt. Tinguamur, fratres, in his, quae in scripturisscriptasunt.
52
ROBERT E. WINN
The sun and its light or the spring and its streams are not analogies drawn from the Bible and are therefore, for Eusebius, immediately suspect. The dangers of using such analogies to educate his audiences far outweighed any theological benefits. Comparing the Father and the Son to the sun and its light only required further explanationson how they apply and what they suggest about the divine relationship, and, from his perspective, the last thing the church needs is more writing and discussionon things that are not explained in scripture and which scripture itself suggests are ineffable and inaccessible to human intellect.54Thus, Eusebius concluded that analogies from nature, such as the sun and its light, were divisive and must be eliminated from ecclesiasticaldiscourse. Conclusion If there was an overarching agenda to Eusebius of Emesa's preaching, it was not so much to drive home a particularpoint of theology as it was to address any and every obstacle preventing his audiences from maintaining the faith of the apostles, as he understood it, in the world of late Roman religiouspluralism.Unanimity and peace were essential;there was no room for debate over the theological tenets that defined the church.55 Consequently, Eusebius performed a very careful balancing act when discussingthe naturalworld in his sermons.To protect his audience against accepting the deification of the natural world or corporeal conceptions of divinity, or to persuade them to reject these positions associated with traditional polytheism, Eusebius drew a clear line between God and the natural world, between a superior incorporealityand an inferior corporeality. At the same time, worried about the influence of the Marcionites on his audience, he could not denigrate the natural world and in fact insisted that Jesus is the God of creation and through his divine power is inti-
Like others in fourth century, Eusebius would frequently draw on Isaiah 53.8 to argue that there limitations to what humans could articulate about God. The precise relationship between the Father and the Son was one of these limitations. See the following sermons: De Filio 12. B I, 53 [equals De passioneChristi18. HA 70 (1956), 395]; Defide 26. B I, 94; AdversusSabellium19. B I, 116; De imagine9. B I, 133; De calice 8. B I, 220; De apostolisetfide I, 9. B I, 296; De apostolisetfide II, 25. B I, 341; De cruce passionis5. HA 72 (1958), 19-20. 55 The concept of the apostolic faith was important to Eusebius. It is especially present in sermons such as Sermoin sanctosapostolos[HA 70 (1956), 291-300], De apostoliset fide I and II [B I, 290-321 and 322-343], and De Petro [B I, 238-255]. 54
THE NATURALWORLD IN THE SERMONSOF EUSEBIUSOF EMESA
53
mately involved in the processes of the natural world. Knowing how to see the natural world and what to see in it would enable his audience to remain within the ecclesiasticalboundaries of the apostolic faith. Eusebius also had to teach his audience, however, that there were limitationsto the theology that nature could reveal to them, and what mitigated theological conflict and confirmed the church's identity dictated these limitations. He was worried not only about external threats but also about the erosion of the church's unity due to the theological debate within the church of the mid-fourth century. The value of the natural world for clarifying the apostolic faith for Eusebius, therefore, was relative rather than absolute. Although in agreement with many bishops of the fourth century that nature did "reveal something beyond itself,"he saw the need to put more restrictionson what nature could reveal than others in the fourth century.56But Eusebius did not stand alone in articulatinga limited use of nature in his sermons. He anticipated Gregory of Nazianzus's own discussion of the value of natural analogies in the fifth of his theological orations. Like Eusebius, Gregory rejected the spring and its streams and the sun and its light because they were simply inadequate as a means to express the divine economy. More significantly,he considered such analogies as potentially dangerous:"someone might imagine composition in the nature without composition as there is in the sun or the things in the sun."57Eusebius would have appreciated Gregory's conclusion that one must discard images that are far from the truth and instead rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to discuss the inner relationshipsof the Godhead.58For both, the revelation of the Holy Spirit, the rightly interpretedscriptures,has clear precedence over any illumination that might come through the natural world. Department of Theology, Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha,NE 68178 USA
56
Besides Eusebius of Caesarea, noted above, see for example Greogry of Nyssa, ContraEunomium1.36, who discussed, with caveats, the sun as a suitable analogy for the divine economy extensively. See also Wallace-Hadrill, GreekPatristicViewof Nature, 127128. 57 Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 31.32: [i^ o6v0eoi i; etS vofixal xq aavov0eTo)up1oe)o, ojimep iliovu cati &v ev iXtiq. Grigoirede Nazianze:Discours27-31, ed. Paul Gallay, SC 250 (Paris: Les tditions du Cerf, 1978), 338. 58 Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 31.33.
MALALAS, "CONSTANTIUS", AND A CHURCH-INSCRIPTION FROM ANTIOCH BY
DAVID WOODS John Malalas (Chron.13.17) does not preserve the dedicatory inscription from the Great Church of Antioch dedicated in 341, despite his claim to this effect, and there is no need to emend his transmitted text in sacri order to force it to fit this interpretation.Instead, it was the praepositus cubiculiGorgoniuswho had these verses inscribed,probablyon some gift which he made to the martriumof bishop Babylas, or the church that was transformed into such subsequently,sometime during Gallus Caesar's brief reign 351-54. Malalas has misunderstoodhis literary source for this inscription.
ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this note is to propose a new date and context for the inscription whichJohn Malalas claims Constantius II (337-61) had inscribed on the Great Church at Antioch. To set this claim in context, Malalas seems to have composed the first edition of his chronicle at Antioch c. 532, and his inclusion of this alleged inscription in his work is symptomatic of his deep interest in the history of Antioch itself.' His account of the reign of Constantius II is somewhat confused and no reliance can be placed on the order of events as such, although this is characteristic of his work as a whole. In this case, he describes how Constantius appointed his relative Julian as Caesar before proceeding to Antioch to complete the Great Church and have this inscription inscribed upon it. The problem with this is that Constantius actually appointed Julian as his Caesar in November 355, while reliable sources agree that the Great Church had been completed and dedicated back in 341.2 It is best, therefore, to treat Malalas' account of Constantius' completion of the Great Church in isolation, as
See B. Croke, "Malalas, the Man and His Work", in E. Jeffreys, B. Croke, and R. Scott, Studiesin John Malalas (Byzantina Australiensia 6: Sydney, 1990), pp. 1-25. 2 On the elevation of Julian see Amm. Marc. 15.8.17; Cons. Constant.s.a. 355; Soc. HE 2.34.5. For the dedication of the church by Constantius II, see Athan. De Synodis 25.1; Jer. Chron.235g (Helm); Soc. HE 2.8.5; Theoph. Chron.AM5833. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christianae59, 54-62
CONSTANTIUS
55
an event which he misplaced within his larger account of this reign, for whatever reason. The introduction to the inscription, and the inscription itself, run as follow: v geyaXlv eKKcXatiav Kat yevo6EVO Ev 'AvltoXe{l'r ?C,eyaXtn Ap alve{lXipOxre raira: Extypa6VaS Xptorzp KovornavTtoS;eppamoov oKliov eTb4?ev, Oppaviat;sayNot raveiKcSXa,tavqpavovx,a, KtovoxavTiou avaxoS ino6spiaooovxo; p?eTrati;:
v Epyoviqp)ave.3 OaXrangoXo6 ropyovto; 6 Ki6on'q
It has long been claimed that line 1 of the inscriptionis corrupt and that should be emended to read Constantine the name Constantius(KovxavxtoS;) its meaning cannot otherwise be recon the that (KcovoaavTivoS), grounds onciled with line 3.4 As emended, therefore, line 1 refers to the work of ConstantineI (306-37) who, as we know from various other sources, began the construction of the Great Church in 325, while line 3 seems to refer to efforts of his son Constantius II during whose reign the church was finally dedicated on 6 January 341.5 This emendation seems to have won almost universal acceptance, to the extent that some modern commentators do not even warn their readersthat they are relying upon an emended text.6 However, while it is true that Malalas' text preserves much apparent nonsense that often seems to have its roots in some confusion between the names of Constantius I, Constantine I, and Constantius II, this need not be true in this case.7Consideredin isolation, the transmittedtext makes
3 Mal. Chron.13.17. Ed. Iohannes Thurn, IoannisMalalae Chronographia (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 35: Berlin, 2000), p. 250. 4 See G. Downey, A Historyof Antiochin Syriafrom Seleucusto theArab Conquest (Princeton, 1961), pp. 358-59, esp. n. 182. Other commentators who accept the proposed emendation include F.W. Deichmann, "Das Oktogon von Antiocheia: Heroon-Martyrion, Palastkirche oder Kathedrale?", ByzantinischeZeitschifi 65 (1972), pp. 40-56, at 51-2. 5 For the beginning of the construction of this church by Constantine I, see Mal. Chron.13.3;Jer. Chron.231' (Helm); Theoph. Chron.AM5819. On the date, see D. Woods, "Eusebius on Some Constantinian Officials", Irish TheologicalQuartery67 (2002), pp. 195223, at 203. 6 See e.g. N. Henck, "Constantius o6 tktoianT;?", DumbartonOaksPapers55 (2001), pp. 279-304, at 296. 7 See e.g. his claim that Salamis in Cyprus was renamed Constantia after Constantius I who rebuilt the city following an earthquake (Mal. Chron.12.48). Modem commentators are divided as to whether this is a misplaced reference to an earthquake which
56
DAVID WOODS
perfect sense if we interpret the Constantius of line 1 in reference to ConstantiusII, Flavius Iulius Constantiusto call him by his full name, and the Constantiusof line 3 in referenceto his first cousin whom he appointed as his Caesar in March 351, Flavius Claudius Constantius. The first point in favour of this interpretationis that coins and inscriptions always refer to the Caesar by the name Constantius, while literary sources prefer to identify him simply as Gallus, since they apparentlyconsidered that this was the most convenient way to distinguishhim from his cousin and superior.8It would be entirely consistent with official practice, therefore,shouldthe inscriptionquoted by Malalasuse the name Constantius to describe the man whom the commentators,both ancient and modern, prefer to describe as Gallus. The second point in favour of this interpretationis that it best explains the identity of the imperial comesnamed in line 4, Gorgonius. Writing c. 390, Ammianus Marcellinusreveals that a certain Gorgonius had been appointed to the care of the thalamusof Gallus Caesar and had enjoyed great influence under him. It is normally assumed that he means by this that Gorgonius had served Gallus as his praepositus It remains poscubiculi.9 of that two different senior reached sible, course, Gorgonii positions at
apparently struck Salamis under Constantine I in 333 (Theoph. Chron.AM5824) or to that which struck it under Constantius II in 344 (Theoph. Chron.AM5834). See R.W. Burgess, Studiesin Eusebianand Post-EusebianChronography (Historia Einzelschriften 135: Stuttgart, 1999), pp. 215, 269. 8 It is assumed that his full name was Flavius Claudius Constantius Gallus, although no source calls him this in full. In general, see A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale, and
I: AD 260-395 [PLREI] (Cambridge, J. Morris,TheProsopography of theLaterRomanEmpire 1971), Constantius 4, pp. 224-25. His coins normally bear the obverse legend either D N CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES or D N FL CL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES. See J.P.C. Kent, RomanImperialCoinageVIII: The Family of ConstantineI A.D. 337-364 (London, 1981), passim. 9 Amm. Marc. 15.2.10: Perductusest eisdemdiebuset Gorgonius,cui erat thalamiCaesariani curacommissa,cumqueeumausorum fuisse participem,concitoremque interdum,ex confesso pateret,. . . Although Ammianus does not use the exact title praeposituscubiculi,it is clear that he describes this office. Hence J.C. Rolfe, AmmianusMarcellinusI (Loeb Classical Library 300: Cambridge, Mass. 1935), p. 117, translates: "At that same time Gorgonius also, who had been appointed the Caesar's head chamberlain, was brought to trial; and although it was clear from his own confession that he had been a party in his bold deeds, and sometimes their instigator,...". Julian, Gallus' brother, received a separate cubiculialso following his elevation as Caesar in 355. See D. Woods, "Ammianus praepositus and Eutherius", Acta Classica41 (1998), pp. 105-17.
CONSTANTIUS
57
Gallus' court, but this is relatively unlikely given both the short duration of his reign 351-54 and the fact that there is no evidence for the continued career of either Gorgonius after this date.'? Since neither Ammianus nor any other source mentions this Gorgonius again subsequently, it is clear that his career peaked under Gallus Caesar, and that it was precisely during the latter's brief rule as Caesar that he might have expected to enjoy the sort of prominence afforded to the Gorgonius named by the inscription under discussion here. Certainly, wherever exactly this inscription had originally been erected, it was a great honour for the Gorgonius named therein to have been allowed to associate his name with those of the two emperors ultimately responsiblefor the constructionof the church upon or in which it was situated. So Ammianus and the inscription most likely refer to the one Gorgonius, a senior official under Gallus Caesar sacricubiculi. 351-54, probably his praepositus the and formal manner in which the Constantiusof Finally, impersonal line 3 is described as performingthe commands of his 'lord' (avaicxo;),the same person named in line 1 presumably, seems more appropriate used of the relationship between Gallus Caesar and Constantius II than that between Constantius II and Constantine I. In the latter case, one might have expected Gorgoniusto attempt to stressthe position of the Constantius of line 3 as a legitimate son of Constantine I, perhaps by describing him as performing the commands of his 'father'. In this manner, if we consider the transmittedtext of the inscriptionin isolation, it becomes clear that it was erected sometime during the rule of Gallus Caesar at Antioch, between his first arrival there in May 351 and his final departureabout August 354." This obviously contradictsMalalas' own claim that ConstantiusII inscribedit on the Great Church of Antioch since the latter never visited Antioch during Gallus' brief rule as Caesar. In fact, he did not visit it even once between late 350 and late 360, so preoccupied was he with events in the West.12The contradictionworsens, of course, if one assumes that the inscription must have been erected at the final dedication of the relevant building-rather than added to a sub-
10PLRE
I, pp. 498-99, distinguishesbetween the Gorgonius of the inscription (Gorgonius 2) and the Gorgonius named by Ammianus (Gorgonius 3), but offers no explanation for this. " See T.D. Barnes, Athanasiusand Constantius:Theologyand Politics in the Constantinian Empire(Cambridge, Mass. 1993), p. 226. 12 Barnes (n. 11), pp. 220-24.
58
DAVID WOODS
sequent extension or alteration-because, as indicated above, there is no doubt that the Great Church was actually dedicated in 341. So how do we explain this contradiction?One possibilityis that Malalas used a written source for this inscriptionand, that if this source was not itself already mistaken, that he read a meaning into this text which it could not actually bear. This is a distinct possibility because Malalas does not claim to have himself read this inscriptionin situ.Indeed, a study of his wider practice and methods suggests that he cannot be believed even when he does report that an inscription continued to exist in his own day, and that he simply borrows the greater number of his quotations of inscriptionsfrom older literary sources.13Accordingly, it is arguable that he, or his literary source, has made the same mistake as many modern commentators and assumed that the Constantius of the inscription could only have been identifiable as Constantius II. Then, since Constantius II seems to have built only one church in Antioch, the so-called Great Church, he naturally assumed that this was where the inscriptionmust have been located. This leaves the question concerning its real or original location to be answered still. It is important at this point that we clarify the precise significanceof line 4 in particular.An earlier commentator has translated it to read 'the comesGorgonius carried out the work of cubicularius','4 and the team that produced the recent translationof the whole of Malalas has translatedit similarly,'the comesGorgonios carried out the function of cubicBut what does this actuallymean? The oversightof imperialbuildularius'.'5 sacricubiculior his subing projects did not normally fall to the praepositus ordinate cubicularii.Normally, the emperor worked through the regular civilian hierarchy, and instructionswere issued down through the praetorian prefect to the local governor.16 True, serving officialsmight sometimes
13
G. Downey, "References to Inscriptions in the Chronicle of Malalas", TAPhA66 (1935), pp. 55-72. 14 Downey (n. 4), p. 359, translates: "For Christ Constantine made this lovely dwelling, like in all respects to the vaults of heaven, bright-shining, with Constantius obeying the commands of the ruler; the comesGorgonius carried out the work of cubicularius". 15 E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys and R. Scott, The Chronicleof John Malalas: A Translation (Byzantina Australiensia 4: Melbourne, 1986), p. 177, translate: "For Christ Constantine wrought these beautiful/dwellings in all ways like the vaults of heaven,/brightly gleaming, with Constantius obeying the/commands of the ruler; the comesGorgonios/carried out the function of cubicularius". 16 E.g. Constantine issued instructions to the vicariusOrientisDracillianus and the governor of Palestine concerning the construction of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at
CONSTANTIUS
59
exercise patronage in their own right also, drawing upon their private means to do so, but they would not then claim to be acting in performance of their official duties as the above translation of the inscription would seem to require in the case of Gorgonius.'7I suggest, therefore, that the term actXatrn0ok;o has been severely misunderstood in this instance. Strictly speaking, it refers to one who attends upon a 0ioXatog,but the latter term has a number of differentmeanings.18It most commonly refers in Latin, so that a to an inner room, particularlya bedroom, cubiculum and this is the norwas a bedroom attendant, or cubicularius, 0ahXarnTicXo; mal term used by the classicizingGreek historiansof late antiquity to refer to the imperial cubicularii of this period.'9 The frequent equation between has led some to assume that, in this instance and cubicularius OaXaciutcotko at least, the former must have been understood to refer to servantsin general, and not just to bedroom attendants.Hence another translationof this line reads 'Gorgonios der Komes vollfiihrte des Dieners Werk'.20Yet 0agoixoS;need not refer to the bedroom alone, but can also be used of the hold of a ship or, most importantly here, a shrine or chapel.2' It is refers to one who arguable, therefore, that in this context OakaCn7t60o; attends upon a shrine rather than to a cubicularius or a servant in some wider sense. Hence the translationof line 4 should be corrected to read 'the comesGorgonius carried out the work of a servant of the shrine'. but Gorgonius emphasizes not his importance as an imperial cubicularius,
Jerusalem (Eus. VC 3.31.2); a governor of Syria by the name of Plutarch apparently supervised the beginning of the construction of the Great Church at Antioch (Mal. Chron.13.3). 17 E.g. the cubicularia dedicated to St. Christopher Euphemia constructed a martynium near Chalcedon in 450. See D. Feissel, "Notes d'epigraphie chretienne VII", BCH 108 (1984), pp. 545-79, at 566-71. 18 See H.G. Liddell and R. Lexicon:With a RevisedSupplement Scott, A Greek-English (Oxford, 1996), p. 781. 19 See e.g. Eunap. fig. 65.1 (Blockley) = Suda E 3776 and frg. 65.8 = Exc. de Sent.
62; Soz. HE 3.1.4, 4.13.5, 7.22.2. 20 Deichmann (n. 4), pp. 51-52, translates: "Christuserbaute Konstantinos das liebenswurdigeHaus/Den HimmlischenGewolbenahnlich,glanzend,/Konstantioswar des Herrn Geboten dienstbar/Gorgoniosder Komes vollfuhrtedes Dieners Werk." used of a shrine, see Aelian, De NaturaAnimalium 21 For OaXkaLo; 11.10 (cf. Pliny, HistoriaNaturalis8.185) on the temple of Apis at Memphisin Egypt;also Lucian,De SyriaDea 31 on the temple of Atargatisat Hierapolisin Syria. On the layout of the latter temple, see now J.L. Lightfoot,Lucian:On theSyrianGoddess (Oxford,2003), pp. 427-31.
60
DAVID WOODS
his piety as a humble devotee of the shrine at which he performed this work, whatever exactly the nature of this work was. This interpretationis reinforced by the fact that Gorgonius describes himself only as a comes.The title of comescould be used either as part of the title of a particularoffice or to denote rank rather than office.22The fact that Gorgonius does not qualify his description of himself as a comes reveals that he is describing his rank rather than his tenure of any particular office, and this in turn suggests that he is acting in a private rather than an official capacity.23His position should be compared to that of a certain Bardio, a senior eunuch in the service of ConstantiusII c. 345, if sacricubiculieven, who also bore the title of comes.24 not praepositus Whether or not Gorgonius was acting in his official capacity when he performed the work which he did, and this must seem doubtful now, it is important that he credits Gallus Caesar with the completion of the larger task or building at the command of ConstantiusII. Since there is no evidence for the involvement of Gallus Caesar in the construction of any church at Antioch other than that which he had constructedfor the relics of bishop Babylas in the temple of Apollo at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, the obvious suggestionis that Gorgoniushad this inscriptionerected within this martyrium.25 Certainly, there is nothing in the inscription itself to connect it to the Great Church in Antioch ratherthan the matyriumat Daphne. Furthermore,the fact that the inscription should begin by attributingthe construction of the relevant church to Constantius II is explicable in two differentways. First, since Gallus was only Caesar, the junior colleague of ConstantiusII, he would have automaticallyattributedthe leading role in any significant project to his senior colleague, regardless of Constantius' actual involvement. Second, it may well have been Constantius II himself for Babylas who originally conceived of the idea to build a martyrium at Daphne and then have taken a close interest in it during most of the
22 Constantine I had created the ranks of count of the first, second or third grade. See Eus. VC 4.1.2. 23 In general, see L. Di Segni, "The Involvement of Local, Municipal and Provincial Authorities in Urban Building in Late Antique Palestine and Arabia", in J. Humphreys (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East III: Some RecentArchaeologicalResearch(JRA Supplement 14: Ann Arbor, 1995), pp. 312-32, at 313. 24 PLRE I, pp. 147-48, citing Athan. Hist. Ar. 22 (for his tite as comes)and Ep. ad Jov. adfin. (for his identity as a senior eunuch). 25 Soz. HE 5.19.12-13.
CONSTANTIUS
61
constructionphase. We do not know when the final transfer of the relics to the martyrium actually took place, but even if it was in 354, one may doubt whether such a project could have been initiated and brought to completion all within the brief reign of Gallus there. Since Antioch had been the principal residence of Constantius II for the period 337-50,26 during which time he had apparentlyinitiated several other major projects under Gallus also,27it is more likely that the dedication of the martyrium of the of another Constantius' yet part larger completion represented than to the rather a new of Gallus' own beautify plan city project entirely initiative. It is appropriateat this point to anticipate one more obvious objection to the interpretationofferedabove, that the inscriptionpreservedby Malalas does not mention Babylas. One could argue that, while it is true that one might have preferredto read some reference to Babylas in the inscription had the church been deliberatelybuilt to house his remains from the start, it is important to point out that there is no good-contemporary-evidence that this was in fact the case. The church may originallyhave been built simply to provide for the growing number of Christians at Daphne, or, more probably, to stake a Christian claim to part of a very attractive site, at which point the inscription was erected, and the relics of Babylas only translated there several months or years subsequently at a separate stage in the development of the site.28The dedication of the church and the translation there of the relics may have occurred at separate points during Gallus' brief reign, only for subsequent commentators to confuse the two and assume that they must have constituted one and the same event. However, it is most unlikely that the inscription under discussion
26 Barnes (n. 11), pp. 219-20.
27 Jul. Or. 1.40d-41a. See Henck (n. 6), pp. 293-97. 28 The sources are unclear as to whether the martrum of Babylas was situated within a larger pagan temple-complex or merely adjacent to such. However, the comparison should be made to Constantius II's decision to donate part of the precinct of the imperial cult-the Caesarion-at Alexandria to Christians for the construction of a church there also. See Epiph. Haer. 69.2.3; Athan. Apol. ad Constant.14-17. In general, see G. Fowden, "Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Empire A.D. 320-435", JThS 29 (1978), pp. 53-78. The fact that there were other burials associated with the relics of Babylas by 362 when Julian had them removed from the site, proves not so much that the martyriumhad been built in a traditional Christian cemetery, as that the custom of depositioad sanctoshad attracted burials to the new martyriumduring the intervening period of about ten years.
62
DAVID WOODS
here really constituted the main dedicatory inscription of any building, despite what Malalas might seem to imply, since it does not contain the main elements which one would normally expect to find in such a dedication. It does not name the building itself, contains no dating formula, does not preserve the formal titles of the relevant emperors or officials, and, most importantlyin this case, does not name the bishop during whose office this project was finally completed, Flacillus(c. 330-41). It clearly constitutes a subordinate dedication commemorating the gift of something within the church rather than the church itself. As such, it may have adorned anything from a length of mosaic upon a floor or wall to a large piece of silver altarware. In conclusion,John Malalas does not preserve the dedicatory inscription from the Great Church of Antioch dedicated in 341, and there is no need to emend his transmittedtext in order to force it to fit this intersacri cubiculiGorgonius who had pretation. Instead, it was the praepositus these verses inscribed, probably on some gift which he made to the martyrumof bishop Babylas, or the church that was transformed into such subsequently,sometime during Gallus Caesar's brief reign 351-54. Dept. of Ancient Classics, University College Cork, Cork,Ireland
NITOR OMNIBUS UNUS? BEOBACHTUNGEN ZUR FARBGESTALTUNG IM ,MARTINELLUS' VON
M. VIELBERG Colour words are used frequently by pagan novelists as well as epic and lyric poets of the first and second century A.D. Yet they are almost avoided in biblical and early Christianliterature.So we ask how colour words were used by later Christian authors usurping pagan literature more freely. In order to find an answer we concentrate on the so-called ,,Martinellus",a corpus of hagiographical texts, mainly on the life of St Martin, written in prose and verse by Sulpicius Severus, Paulinus Petricordensisand Venantius Fortunatus.In spite of the close intertextualrelationshipbetween their works some differences become apparent. Severus is still using colour words sparingly, whilst his successorsget more and more accustomed to their use; especially for the symbolic display of wealth, power and social prestige and where the praetexts are missing like in the prologues and epilogues of the hagiographical epics. ABSTRACT:
Die Regierungszeit des Commodus scheint wie fur andere Gattungen antiker Kunst auch fur die romische Wandmalerei einen tiefen Einschnitt bedeutet zu haben.' Die Vielfalt der Farben verschwindet,2 und das verwendete Farbspektrum verschiebt sich zu dunkleren, blasseren Farben.3
Mielsch, 2001, 101; 105. Die dreibandigeAusgabe der Sources Chretiennesvon JacquesFontaine(1967-1969)enthaltnur Vita und Briefe.Daher ist flir die Martinsvita und die Dialoge des SulpiciusSeverusdie CSEL-Ausgabevon Karl Halm (Wien 1866, ND Hildesheim1983) zugrundegelegtworden;auBerdemdie freilichverbesserungswurdige Ausgabe von M. Petschenig (1988), Paulinusv. Pbigueux,De vita S. Martini episcopi
libri VI in: Poetae christianiminores CSEL 16/1, 1-190 sowie die an F. LEo (1881) orientiertezweisprachigeEdition von S. Quesnel (1996), Venance Fortunat,Viede Saint TomeIV, Texte etabli e traduit par S.Q., Paris. Mehrfach zitierte Martin CEuvres wird im Literaturverzeichnis Sekundarliteratur vollstandigangefuhrtund sonst in der und Seitenzahlangegeben. Regel nur mit Verfassernamen,Erscheinungsjahr 2 Mielsch, 2001, 105. 3 Mielsch, 2001, 110; 128. ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 63-84
64
M. VIELBERG
Konnte es - ut picturapoesis- in der kaiserzeitlichenLiteratur eine vergleichbare Entwicklunggegeben haben? Schon in den (neutestamentlichen) Anfangen christlicher Literatur wird Farbe auffallig sparsam verwendet,4 und in der Zeit des Ubergangs von der Antonine zu den Severern vollzieht sich ein vergleichbar starkerBruch, wenn wir die Unterschiede der Farbgestaltungim heidnischen und christlichenRoman als MaBstab nehmen.5 In der Spatantike gewinnt die romische Wandmalerei ihren alten Farbenreichtumscheinbar zuriick,6und dieser Eindruck wird durch spatantike Kodexillustrationen,wie sie im Vergilius Vaticanus7vorliegen, und durch Mosaikdekorationenaus Ravenna8 bestatigt. Konnte also auch die romische bzw. lateinischeLiteraturder Spatantikeund des Fruhmittelalters zu einer intensiverenund damit ihrer fruheren verwandten Farbgestaltung zuriickgefundenhaben? Dieser Frage soil im folgenden an hagiographischen Erzahltextenaus Prosa und Dichtung nachgegangenwerden, welche im sogenannten ,Martinellus'vereinigt sind.9 4 A. Hermann, Artikel ,Farbe' in: RAC 7, 1969, 358-447, 413 ,,Das NT verfahrt mit der Verwendung von F. im Gegensatz zum AT auffallig sparsam, was weniger auf bewuBter Abwendung von der farbigen Welt als vielmehr auf dem Bedurfnis beruht, die Beurteilung der Dinge von der Unterwelt und dem Weltende her zu gewinnen." 5 Vielberg, 2002, 108-121. 6 In der reifkonstantinischen Zeit begegnen in der Farbskala nur gebrochene, uberund braunliche Tone, Mielsch, 2001, 129; im spaten viertenJahrhundert rotliche wiegend beginnt sich das Bild zu ander, ebenda 137. 7 Die farbigen Kodexillustrationen des um 400 entstandenen Vergilius Vaticanus sind teilweise reproduziert bei Wright, 1993, 5-74. Zur detaillierten Kolorierung Geyer, 1989, 90. 8 Allerdings zahlen zu den groBen kunstlerischenNeuerungen des sechstenJahrhunderts auch die Farbreduktion und die Vorherrschaft des Goldgrundes in der Farbgebung in Ravenna, Brenk, 1977, 95. 9 Zum Kembestand des im neunten Jahrhundert im Skriptorium des Martinsklosters in Tours entstandenen und die gesamte frankische jiberlieferung charakterisierenden Buchtypus ,Martinellus', der als mehr oder weniger abgeschlossenes hagiographisches Dossier dadurch ausgezeichnet ist, daB zusammen mit Sulpicius Severus weitere Schriften zu Ehren des heiligen Martin, wie die metrischen Tituli des Martinsklosters, das Trinitatssymbolum, welches heute aus theologischen Griinden Hilarius von Poitiers zugeschrieben wird, aber auch die Martinswerke von Venantius Fortunatus, Paulinus von Perigueux, Gregor von Tours oder Alkuin in einem Band enthalt und damit wesentlich umfangreicher ist als der moglicherweise von Gregor von Tours zusammengestellte ,Urmartinellus', der neben Sulpicius Severus nur die Sylloge epigraphica, das Trinitatssymbolum und einige Kapitel aus Gregor von Tours umfaBt, welche aber nicht unter dem Namen Gregors, sondern teilweise unter dem Namen von Gregors Quellen uberliefert werden, vgl. im Hinblick auf die Bearbeitungsstufen Quesnel, 1996, XXIV-
NITOROMNIBUS UNUS?
65
Wie der Anachoret Antonius, als sein Ruf bis an den Kaiserthron in Konstantinopel gedrungen ist, in der Auseinandersetzungmit den politischen GroBen seiner Zeit dargestelltwird,10so muB sich der Monchsbischof Martin von Tours im Umgang mit Machthaber im spatantikenWestreich wie den Kaiser Maximus" oder Valentinian I.12 bewahren. In mancher Hinsicht und auch im Hinblick auf die FarbgestaltungaufschluBreichist das Symposion,das Maximuswohl 385/38613vor der VerurteilungPriszillians zu Ehren Martins in Trier veranstaltete (Sulp. Sev. VM 20,3-7 - Paul. Petr. Mart. 3,65-134 - Ven. Fort. Mart. 2,58-114). Der Gast erwidert die ihm erwiesene Ehre nicht, sonder briiskiertseinen Gastgeber, indem er gegen das Gebot der Hoflichkeit verstoBt und die Trinkschale, nachdem er als erster getrunken hat, nicht dem Kaiser zuriickgibt, sondern dem Presbyter an seiner Seite uberreicht (Sulp. Sev. VM 20,6 sed Martinusubi suo tradidit,nullumscilicetexistimans digniorem, ebibit,pateram quipost se presbytero ~ Paul. Petr. Mart. 3,121-123 cumrexprotentacaptaret biberet poculadexprior ille suo,fideimetitushonorem,/presbytero Venant. Fort. Mart.2,104tra,/tradidit 5 principe imam/presbitero tribuit,sciensquoddignioresset.). postposito partemlibaminis Wahrend Sulpicius Severus die illustren Teilnehmer der Tafelrunde zum Teil sogar namentlichaufzahlt,die gewiBprunkvolleAusstattungdes Palastes und des Speisezimmers aber mit keiner Silbe erwahnt und insbesondere auch keine Farbwortergebraucht, nennt Paulinus, der Eigennamen auch aus metrischen Griinden zu vermeiden sucht,14 die vornehme Gesellschaft nur summarisch (Paul. Petr. Mart. 3,71-72 addunturlectiproceresquosregia beschreibtjedoch ausfihrlich den vicinisplendor conectithonoris), iuxta/culmina und die Tafelluxus prachtigeAusstattungdes Palastes.15Dabei ausgesuchten hebt er nicht nur mehrmals den iiberwaltigendenGlanz hervor, sondern zuletztM. Hellmann,Die XXXIV und zur Entstehungs-und Uberlieferungsgeschichte in der Karolingerzeit der Textstruktur einer Sammeledition Auszeichnung biographischen am Beispieldes ,,WeissenburgerMartinellus"in: D. Walz (Hrsg.),Lateinische Biographie vonderAntikebis in die Gegenwart, vitam,FestgabefuirW. Berschin,2002, 243Scriptunrs 262, 243. 10Ath. VA81, 85, 86. 1 in der Darstelung Vgl. PLREI Maximus39; RE XIV 2546-55. Zu Widerspriichen des Maximusvgl. Quesnel, 1996, 147, Anm. 39; 2, Anm. 11; 15. 12 Vgl. PLRE I FlaviusValentinianus7; RE VIIA 2158-2204. Vgl. Sulp. Sev. dial. 2,5,5-10; Paul. Petr. Mart.4,292-344; Ven. Fort. Mart.3,209-246. 13 Quesnel, 1996, 147, Anm. 39. Zum Symposionin Trier Roberts, 1995, 91-111 und zum Martinseposdes VenantiusFortunatusallgemeinders., 2001, 257-285. 14 Vermeulen, 1966, 64-67. 15
Vgl. Roberts, 1995, bes. 98-100.
66
M. VIELBERG
wahlt auch personifizierte Farbworter, um seinem Leser die Pracht des hofischen Ambiente vor Augen zu fuhren. Es begegnen Attribute und Symbole kaiserlicher Macht wie aula (3,86) oder velorummobile claustrum (3,96),doch tiberwiegenFarbworterzur Bezeichnungvon kostbarenStoffen,16
Edelmetallenl7und Schmucksteinen.'8Im Kontext des Symposions wird den TrinkgefiaBenbesondere Beachtung geschenkt und so der Blick des Lesers auf das anschlieBendeTun Martins gelenkt: die Becher sind aus Kristall (3,99 crystallacapacia)und mit Gemmen, Bernstein und Gold verziert (3,102-104). Der auBere Glanz scheint Autor und Leser zu uberwaltigen (Paul. Petr. Mart. 3, 72 culminavicini splendorconectithonoris)und wird
doch iiberstrahltvom Glanz des Herzens (Paul. Petr. Mart. 83 cordissplendor), der von dem Presbyter ausgeht, welchem Martin von Tours die Trinkschale als erstem uberreicht hat. Er wird mit Moses verglichen, als er die Gesetzestafelnvom Sinai brachte (3,79-84): ad dextramregissanctovenerabilis ore conseditsenior,qualispia iurareportans descendit sacromontisde verticeMoyses, mutativultusnimiofulgorecoruscans, cumfaciemcordissplendor oris depromeret novampossentvelaminalucem. nec cohibere
Der Gegensatz vom auBeren Glanz hofischer Selbstdarstellungund innerem Glanz, der auf der christlichen Lebensweise des Presbyters beruht, durchzieht nicht nur die Darstellung des Festbanketts,sondern dient auch der abschlieBenden,durch antithetisch-parallelgesetzten Personifikationen epigrammatischzugespitztenBegriindungder Handlung des Monchsbischofs (3, 123-124): meritum cordis,nonpurpuraregis vicit.praelataecessitdiadema fidei.
Der Sinn des Geschehens und seine Deutung liegen auf der Hand. Vergangliche Macht und iiberquellender Reichtum rangieren in der bischoflichen Hierarchie der Werte unter dem bleibenden Verdienst des
16
ostrum ... serica fuco. 3,78; 94; purpura 91; molliapuniceo ostromollitum infila metallum; 97 cunctanitentvariocultusursum 3,94 miscetur atquedeortectametallis;103 electrimolisfulcumdiscriminat aurum;111 sum,editapgmentis,solamarmore, inclusasauroglacies. 18 3,102 pocula 105 haecradiantgemmis,haecextant funduntur bibuntur, gemmisgenmisque vasculaszgnzs. 17
UNUS? NITOROMNIBUS
67
Glaubens, und das ist es, was die symbolische Handlung den anwesenden Gasten und der Autor dem Leser seines hagiographischenEpos vor allem verdeutlicht.19Dabei werden glanzende Farben aber nicht wie in anderen kaiserzeitlichen und spatantiken Texten mit heidnischem Denken in Verbindung gebracht20und dadurch als etwas Fremdes dargestellt,sondem Kaiser wie Maximus und Valentinian II. bleiben, obschon das spatantike Hofzeremoniell auf die Reformen Diokletians zuriickgeht21und so weltliche und christlicheOrdnungmiteinanderkonkurrieren,22 mit der Prachtentim ihrer Hofe durchaus christlichen Kontext. faltung Der Konflikt dieser Ordnungen wird auch von Venantius Fortunatus gestaltet,allerdingsmit groBererKlarheitund einer praziserenBegrifflichkeit. Die iterierte epische Formel principepostposito(Ven. Fort. Mart. 2,71; 104) verdeutlichtdie Zurucksetzungdes Maximus,und die Ursache des Rangstreits wird in dem Aufeinanderprallenvon ordocaesareus (2,94) und ordopresbiterali23 (2,109) abstrakt ausgedriickt.Der gedanklichen Klarheit entspricht der ibersichtliche Aufbau der Episode.24Auf die Vorstellung der Gaste 19
Quesnel, 1996, 34, Anm. 19 deutet die Geste als symbolischen Ausdruck der Ablehnung einer Tischgemeinschaft des durch Verbrechen befleckten Usurpators nach 1. Kor. 10,20 non potestiscalicemDomini bibereet calicemdaemoniorum. Diese Absicht mag natiirlich mitschwingen, da der Bischof von Tours ebenso hartnackig die communiomit seinen gallischen Mitbischofen verweigert, und diese Geste in der christlichen Literatur ofter begegnet, vgl. R 1,19,3 und dazu Vielberg, 2000, 37. 20 Materialpreisungen und Luxusschilderungen gibt es in der romischen Philosophie und Kunsttheorie nur als Kritik. Gleichwohl ist Glanz eines der wichtigsten Merkmale statianischer ,Aesthetik', vgl. Cancik, 1965, 79, und das setzt sich in der spatantiken und byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte fort und spiegelt sich besonders in den ravennatischen Mosaiken. 21 Alfoldi, 1980, 6-24, der freilich darauf hinweist, daB es sich hier nicht um eine plotzliche Neuerung handelt (3). Zu Prachtgewand, edelsteingeschmuckten Schuhen und Diadem bes. 8, 16, 263ff. usw. 22 Sprachlich wird die Opposition der Ordnungen in die paulinische Metapher (Rom 8,5f; 9) von ,Geist' und ,Fleisch' gefaflt: Paul. Petr. Mart. 1,125; 208; 2,46; 206; 3,149; 151; 202; 4,18; 308; 438; 602; 642; 645; 663; 5,77-80. 23 Das Lemma fehlt in Georges, Forcellini und OLD. Vgl. ThLLX, 2 fasc. VIII 1192 Leo M. epist. 14,4 ne presbyteralis, -e a presbyter i.q. ad presbyterum pertinens,sacerdotalis: aut levitico aut - i honore aut episcopali excellentia quisquam idoneus aestimetur, qui eqs. (167,2 p. 1203B). 24 Die Episode lait sich folgendermaBen gliedern: 1. Gastgeber und Gaste (2,58-71) 2. Hofische Prachtentfaltung (2,72-93) 3. Bruch der h6fischen Etikette durch den Monchsbischof (2, 94-105) 4. Reaktionen bei den Anwesenden, im Palast und in der Stadt (2, 106-113) 5. Kurz- und langfristige Konsequenzen fur das Verhaltnis von Martin und Maximus (2,114-121).
68
M. VIELBERG
(3,69-71), die sich wie die gallischen Bischofe (3,62) in Unterwurfigkeit gegeniiber Maximus wechselseitig iibertreffen(3,72), folgt eine breit angelegte Schilderung des aus aller Welt zusammentragenenTafelluxus (2,72deliciasfremitundiqueconcitusorbis,/divitias pariterproducens 73): Augustiobsequiis durch acht der Dabei wird die redundante Fiille Luxusgegenstande que... Reihen dichtgedrangter Personifikationen nach Art des Paulinus von sieben Volker (2,74), die vier Himmelsrichtungen Petricordiaausgedriickt:25 (2,75), sechs Winde (2,76), auf zwei Verse verteilt und durch redundant zusatzlich betont elf Fliisse (2,78-9), die drei LebensbereicheErde, Wasser und Himmel (2,79), welche auch in den Mosaiken spatantikerDomanen Weltordnung symbolisieren,26mit Mosaiken, Juwelen, Halbedelsteinen, Ziselierarbeitenund Weihrauch finf im hofischen Ambiente unverzichtbare Luxusartikel(2,80) sowie dazugehorig, doch schon auf den symbolischen Akt des Antrinkensvorausdeutend,acht Weine, von denen nur der Falerner als kampanischesMarkenproduktherausgehobenwird,27wahrend die iibrigen metonymisch nach ihrem Herkunftslandernbzw. -regionen Gaza, Kreta, Samos, Zypern, Kolophon und Seraptisbezeichnet werden.28 Die Reihen erinnern an die Verstechnikdes Vorgangers, neu ist die farbliche Kombinatorik,die hier entsteht (2,82-92): vina lapillis, certantia Lucidaperspicuis vix discernendis cristallina poculapotis. Indecalixniveusvariatper vinacolores, hincmentitabibuntpaterafucanteFalerna. Hic abacumpicto bombinica fore decorant, Artelaborataet vel qualiapensatArachne,
25
Paul. Petr. Mart.4,169 (6), 417 (6), 5,260 (5). Vgl. die gereihtenPersonifikationen Roberts,1995, 101 unterHinweisauf L.A. Schneider(1983),DieDomneals Weltbild derspdtantiken Wiesbaden,bes. 124-138 und 158-74. Dort Bildersprache, Wirkungsstrukturen heiBltes auf S. 158 ,,Die Einteilung,Wasser/Land'bzw. ,Wasser/Land/Luft'bezieht sich ebenfallsauf die Natur als Ganzessowie auf ihre Ausbeutung- Jagd als Bestandteil des Domanenwesensetwa in der gleichenWeise klassifiziert..." 26
27
Marquardt, 1980, 2,459.
28Roberts,1995, 101. Marquardt,1980, 457 zu Gaza;456 zu Zypern;455 zu Kreta; uber agyptischemWein 457. Zu den Weinsortenvgl. auch Roberts, 1998, 103. Seraptis konnteeine Verschreibungvon Sarepta sein, da bei Sid. Apol. carm. 17,16 in einer ahnvon Weinen (Falerner,Gaza, Chios) die tberlieferung zwilichen Zusammenstellung des schen sarepteno (C F) schwankt.Die auch an den Herkunftslandern (T) und seraptano Weins erkennbare,Internationalitit'des hofischenAmbienteist nach Schneider,1983, 162; 174 schon fir die gallischenDomanen des viertenJahrhundertscharakteristisch, die zum vorherrschendenModell hofischerReprasentationwurden.
JVTOR OMNIBUSUNUS?
69
Sericapurpureis sternuntur velleravelis, Inlita blattatons aurumque ostro intermicat Totaque gemmis. permixtisradiantvelamina Indepan paiter rutilantaetateministri, in cunctisvariushabitus,nitoromnibusunus.
Die statische Aufzahlung von Luxusgegenstandenlost sich vor dem geistigen Auge des Lesers auf in ein dynamischesWechselspielvon Formen und Farben. Die verbliimte Rede erschwert die inhaltliche Paraphrase: wie schimmernde Weine mit durchsichtigen Gemmen wetteifer und kristallene Becher mit den kaum von ihnen zu unterscheidendenGetranken,wie ein schneeweiBerPokal mit den Weinsorten seine Farben wechselt und aus falscher Schale vorgetauschterFalerner getrunken wird; wie mit Blumen bemalte Seidentucherden Prunktischschmiicken,seidene Vliese mit Purpurstoffen drapiert und schwarzer Purpur mit Schleifen durchwebt werden, und Gold durch Purpur schimmert; wie Vorhange iiberallmit Gemmen besetzt strahlenund Diener gleichen Alters in gleicher Weise goldig schimmern, wie, trotz verschiedener Kleidung, aber vor allem derselbe Glanz ausgeht. Sulpicius Severus hatte auf die Beschreibungdes Palastes und seines Interieurs verzichtet, Paulinus von Petricordia die festliche Szenerie beschrieben und in seiner Ekphrasis unbekummert Farbtupfer gesetzt. VenantiusFortunatuswahlt einen drittenWeg und uberlaBtes der Phantasie des Lesers,aus eher punktuellFarbe,Licht und Glanz evozierendenW6rtern ein farbiges Gesamtbild zu entwerfen. Erst am Ende verdichtet er die verstreuten Farbeinsprengselzu dem kaiserlichen Statussymbol roten (beziehungsweise schwarzen)Purpursund weist damit sowohl auf die Schamrote der Hoflinge (2, 113 erubuitque) als auch auf die zu erwartende Zornesrote des Kaisers Maximus voraus. DaB sich textliche Beziehungen im ,Martinellus'nicht immer geradlinig entwickeln,verdeutlichtauch eine Episode aus dem Hofleben, die sich wahrend desselben Besuchs in Trier ereignet. Die Kaiserin salbt dem Bischof nach biblischem Vorbild29die FiiBe und bewirtet ihn anschlieBend bei Tisch (Sulp. Sev. dial. 2,6,2-6; Paul. Petr. Mart.4,372-397; Ven. Fort. Mart. 3,247-268).3?Ihre darin zum Ausdruck kommende Bescheidenheit kommentiert Sulpicius Severus mit der Bemerkung non illa opes regni,non imperii dignitatem,non diadema,non purpuracogitabat(2,6,4) und bietet, indem er den
29 Luk.
7, 36-50. Vgl. Fontaine, 1975, 120; Quesnel, 1996, 147 Anm. 40 unter Hinweis auf Ioh. 12,2;3. 30
70
M. VIELBERG
kaiserlichen Purpur erwahnt, einen Ankniipfungspunkt zur farblichen Ausgestaltungder Szene. Paulinusvon Petricordiafolgt ihm darin und lobt die Kaiserin in einem durch ofelix eingeleitetenMakarismosnicht nur deswegen, weil sie, dem auch von Radegunde31bevorzugtenLeitbild der regina ancillaentsprechend,lieber dem Bischof von Tours dienen als auf der ganzen Welt beruhmt sein wollte, sondern auch mit Edelsteinen besetzte Diademe und mit Gold durchwirkte Purpurgewander ihr Wesen nicht veranderten (nontibi sidereisradiantiatempora animumrutilisque gemmis/mutavere aurum ostro Diese Farbeffekte rigentia pretiosius 4,388-90). flis/serica contextoque hinterlassenim Martinseposdes Venantius Fortunatuskeine Spuren, wohl aber konnen wir in der Abfolge der Partizipien anteponens (Sulp. Sev. dial. Petr. und Mart. (Paul. 4,385) (Ven. Fort. Mart. 2,6,6), anteferens praeponens 3,264), mit denen der Kaiserinjeweils unterstelltwird, sie habe der himmlischen den Vorzug vor der irdischen Ordnung gegeben, ein Echo der jeweiligen Vorganger vernehmen. LiterarischeFernbeziehungenentwickeln sich auch aus dem vorletzten einer Reihe von vier Apophthegmata,welche Weisheitund Witz des Bischofs von Tours verdeutlichen.Der Anblick einer Wiese inspiriertden Monchsbischof zu einer Parabel tiber das Wesen weiblicher Sexualitat.32Ein von Rindern abgeweidetes Stuck der Wiese symbolisieredie Ehe, ein anderes Flurstiick, dessen Erde Schweine aufgewiihlt hatten, den Ehebruch. Der unberuhrte Teil der Wiese, der von bunten Blumen bedeckt sei, aber sei ein Sinnbild der Jungfraulichkeit(2,10,4): Ceterum ostendit: illaportio,quaenullamsensitiniuriam, gloriamvirginitatis herbisfecunda et ultraomnemspeciemdistincta luxuriat, foeni in eafiuctusexuberat floribusquasigemmis micantibus orata radiat.
Paulinus von Petricordia und Venantius Fortunatus folgen ihrer Vorlage darin, daB sie den Begriff imago(Sulp. Sev. dial. 2,10,4 = Paul. Mart.4,589 Ven.Fort. Mart. 3,385) aufgreifen, auf diese Weise unterstreichen,daB es sich bei den drei Landschaftsformenum Bildsymbole handelt, und die drei mit ihnen abgegrenztenFormen weiblichen SexualverhaltensgleichermaBen in ein hierarchischesVerhiltnis zueinandersetzen. Doch unterschei-
31 George, 1992, 30-31. Manner werden im vierten Apophthegma (Sulp. Sev. dial. 2, 11) angesprochen. Es handelt von einem verheirateten Monch, der sein Keuschheitsgelubde bricht, und Martins Kommentar dazu. 32
NITOROMNIBUS UNUS?
71
den sich die Martinsepen darin, wie es im einzelnen geschieht. Venantius kennt (4,2-4), begniigt sich in seiner knapFortunatus,der den locusamoenus pen Wiedergabe der Parabel im Hinblick auf ihre sprachlicheKolorierung mit den Farbwortem viola,ostrumund gemmaund wird nur bei der Herausarbeitung der Dreizahl ausfuhrlicher, indem er das Zahlwort durch Trikola, die mit Anaphern, Parallelismen und Homooteleuta rhetorisch auffalliggestaltet sind, im Versbau sichtbar macht und es erst nach dieser Vorbereitung des Lesers mit einem Polyptoton doppelt benennt (3,380-2): Parspastus,parsfossus erat,parsfloreusagger, Sed sue confossus, bovepastus,flore comatus, conparat ergotribussanctustria nominarebus.
Im Gegensatz dazu beanspruchtdie Wiedergabe der Parabel bei Paulinus von Petricordiadurch einen umfangreichenExkurs zur Blumenwiese,welcher sich am Ende zu einem locus amoenus ausweitet, in dem mit Auge, Ohr und Nase synasthetischverschiedene Sinne des Lesers angesprochen werden,33nicht nur einen weit groBerenRaum. Es ist auch nicht die Zahl, sonder die Farbe, mit der die Lebensformen sowohl unterschieden als auch zugleich bewertet werden. Paulinus von Petricordia grenzt die Teilbereiche nicht nur deutlich voneinander ab, indem er alia pars bzw. alia elliptisch an den Anfang des betreffendenAbschnitts und Verses setzt (4,541 at parteex alia; 545 ast aliam;554 partemaliam),sondern markiertund hierarchisiertsie auch, indem er ihnen jeweils wachsende Raume und den Raumen ihre natiirlicheFarbe zuweist.Die Wiese, auf der Schweine gewiihlt haben, ist schwarz (4,544 nigrantiadorsa),die Rinderweide grun (4,553 viriund die unberiihrteFlur ein bunter Teppich von roten, weidantiagermina), Ben und gelben Blumen (4,558-565): Insuperinnumeri perplana iacentia flores Distinctainsertispingebantaequora gemmis. Hos roseoinficienstingebat fico, purpura ast alii niveoinsignescandorenitebant, interquoscroceisdistinguens graminasignis aureaflavorumrutilabat gratiaflorum. Curvant gemmantia germinaguttae purpureae herbasumentissucinaroris. Flectebantque
33 Algemein P. HaB (1998), Der locusamoenus in derantikenLiteratur: Zu Theorieund einesliterarischen Geschichte Motivs,Bamberg(Diss. Erlangen).
72
M. VIELBERG
Es scheint,als ob Paulinusmit asthetischenWertungenverkniipfteOrdnungskategorien aus der unbelebten Natur auf das menschliche Sexualleben ubertragen habe, um seine Rezipienten durch Lenkung ihres asthetischen Empfindens zu einer konformen ethischen Bewertung der verschiedenen Lebensformen zu veranlassen und dadurch ihre christliche Identitat zu bestarken.Diese Absichtdes Hagiographenkonnte auch darin zum Ausdruck kommen, daB er den Monchsbischofbei der Auflosung der Parabel, ohne daB eine der Vorlagen einen Anhaltspunktdafiir b6te, zur exakten Beschreibungdes Keuschheitsidealsin doppelter Weise auf die Farbsymbolik (4, 591) wird begleitet zuruckgreifenlaBt: die Metapher des flos pudoris34 von der Vorstellung der Schamrote (4,586-87 vel virginibus,quae corpora Christo/sancta voventroseigemmisorata pudoris).35 Wie Athanasiusin ausgewahltenAbschnittender Antoniusvitadargestellt hatte, welche Kampfe der Wiistenheilige gegen Damonen zu bestehen hatte,36so schildert Sulpicius Severus in einem geschlossenenAbschnitt der Die MartinsvitavergleichbareAuseinandersetzungendes M6nchsbischofs.37 in einleitenden wie mit vielfildariiber, Schilderungbeginnt Bemerkungen tiger Weise der Monchsbischofvon diabolischenMachten versuchtwurde,38 und verengt sich dann auf zwei exemplarischeEntlarvungsgeschichten,die nur von einem millienaristischenExkurs zu den falschen Propheten Elias und Johannes39unterbrochenwerden. In der ersten Entlarvungsgeschichte wird dem Monch Anatolius, der ein Prophet zu sein und eine privilegierte Beziehung zum Gottlichenzu haben behauptet,von MartinsSchiiler Clarus seine Maske entrissen.40In der zweiten wird der Teufel selbst entlarvt, der in Christusgestaltin der Zelle des Monchsbischofserschienen war.41Die 34 Zu
zugrundeliegenden Metaphern wie ,Bliite derJugend' (II. 13,484) vgl. Maurach, G. (1995), LateinischeDichtersprache, Darmstadt, 126. 35 Reverentia.Untersuchungen zur Psychologie Vgl dazu E. Vaubel (1969), Pudor, Verecundia, von Schamund Ehrfurchtbei den Romembis Augustin,Diss. Miinster. Zur Entwicklung der Sexualmoral in der Spatantike das die Diskussion bestimmende Werk von P. Brown imfi3ihenChristentum, derEngel.SexuelleEntsagung, AskeseundKorperlichkeit (1994). Die Keuschheit Miinchen. 36 Athan. VA 5-6; 8-10; 12-13; 51-54. 37 Sulp. Sev. VM 22-24.
38 Sulp. Sev. VM 22,1 frequenter autemdiabolus,dummillenocendi artibussanctum virum se eiformisdiversissimis Dazu gehorenJuppiter,Merkur, conabatur visibilem inludere, ingerebat. Venus und Minerva. 39 VM 24,1-3. VM 23,1-11. 41 VM 24,4-8. 40
NITOROMNIBUS UNUS?
73
Entlarvung erfolgt jeweils in mehreren Schritten, da der falsche Prophet ebenso wie der vorgebliche Christus auf der Richtigkeit ihrer Identitat beharren. Beide versuchen ihre vorgetauschte Identitat durch auBere Kennzeichen und insbesondere farbige Kleidungsstiickeunter Beweis zu werden allerdings in beiden Berichten als stellen, ihre signabzw. indicia42 unzureichende Beweismittel eingestuft. Der zweite Berichtvon der falschenParusieist von besondererBedeutung. Der Teufel erscheint in der Aufmachung der spatantiken Kaiser.43Der Kaiserornatwar wie das Hofzeremoniellunter den Severer aus dem Orient ubernommen worden.44Das edelsteinbesetzteDiadem, das Valentinian I und Maximus tragen,45war Zeichen der Kaiserwiirdegeworden (Sulp. Sev. VM 24,4): autemvidetur,quantaMartinumsub isdemdiebusdiabolusartetempNonpraetereundem taverit.quodamenimdie praemissa preceet circumiectus ipse lucepurpurea,quofacilius vesteetiamregiaindutus,diademate ex gemmisauroclaritateadsumpti fugoris inluderet, calceisauroinlitis,serenoore, laetafacie, ut nihil minusquamdiabolus que redimitus, orantiin cellulaadstitit6 putaretur,
Mit koniglicherTracht, edelstein- und goldgeschmucktemDiadem und goldenen Schuhwerk sind im Ursprungstext alle fur das Imperatorenkleid wesentlichen Merkmale versammelt, und diese Merkmale kehren auch bei den Nachfolgernwieder, wenn auch in anderer Reihenfolge und auf unterschiedlich viele Verse verteilt. Paulinus von Petricordia begniigt sich mit drei Versen (3,374-76):
42 VM23,5 signum; 24,8 indubiaindicia;24,7 crucisst/gmata. 43 Quesnel, 1996, 137, Anm. 47 zu S. 41: <<Sulpice Severe revetaitce faux Christus du costumed'apparatdes empereursdu Bas Empire>. imperator 44 Quesnel, 1996, ebenda. Vgl dazu auch R. Delbrueck (1932), Der spatantike Kaiserornat,in: Die Antike 8, 1932, 1-32, 7ff. 45 Fontaine, 1969, Bd. III, 1026, Anm. 2; Quesnel, 1996, ebenda unter Hinweisauf Amm. 15,8 und Corip.Just. 2,100-125. 46 ,,Doch dabei darf ich nicht davon schweigen,wie Martinusum diese Zeit von des Teufels List versuchtwurde. Eines Tages stand er in seiner Zelle, wahrend Martin betete. PurpurnesLicht warf er vorausund war auch selbstganz davon eingehullt.Mit zu konnen.Er trug ein Konigskleid erborgtemLichthoffteer, Martinleichterverfuihren Sein Seine Schuhe waren golddurchwirkt. Diadem. und ein gemmenverziertes goldenes Mund lachelte, und sein Antlitzwar freundlich- so mochte man in ihm alles andere als den Teufel vermuten."(Ubers. nach: Friihes Monchtum im Abendland, 2. Bd. Eingeleitet,iibersetztund erklirt von K. S. Frank,Zurich, 1975, 48-49).
74
M. VIELBERG
et quamvisostroradiansgemmisque coruscans subdideris rutilumplantismendacibus aurum insimulans verum falso diademate regem.47 Venantius Fortunatus bringt es auf acht (2,285-292): constititanteoculosdeformis formarebellis, sub lucemicans,radiatilisumbra, sulphurea luminementitotenebrosus et atravorago, filgidus exuviis,regalivestesatelles, tectusbratteolis, vacuodiademate pulcher, ordinegemmarum numerosa lucecoruscus, falsa vestepotens,cui calceusinlitusauro, laetioret tumidoiactansse pompatriumpho.48 Mit Purpurkleid, edelstein- und goldgeschmucktem Diadem und goldenen
Schuhen sind die Ursprungselementeund damit auch die von Merowingerund Frankenkonigenbevorzugten Herrschaftsfarbenvorhanden.49Aber die Elemente werden verdoppelt (vestis 2,288; 291), die Herrschafts- und Farbattribute erweitert (2,292 tumido... pompa triumpho,2,289 tectusbratteolis),
wodurch in der Phantasie des Lesers der fur ravennatischeMosaike des sechstenJahrhundertscharakteristische,Goldgrund'entsteht,50und schlieBlich mit dem dynamischen Wechselspiel von Hell und Dunkel, Licht und
47 Die Ubers. setzt mit der Anrede Vers 372 ein:
,,Nicht durchdringst du mit garstiger Dunkelheit den reinen Sinn/ noch verschlieBen von Nebeln geworfene Schatten die wahre Sonne,/ und obschon du, von Purpur strahlend und von Edelsteinen schimmernd,/ den triigerischen FuBsohlen rotliches Gold unterlegt hast,/ mit falschem Diadem vorspiegelnd den wahren K6nig/..." 48 ,,Es trat vor seine Augen der in seiner Gestalt ungestalte Rebell,/ in schwefelgelbem Lichte blitzend, eine strahlende Erscheinung,/ von triigerischem Lichte dunkel, schwarzer Abgrund,/ von Beutestucken glanzender, koniglich gewandeter Gesell,/ von Goldblattchen bedeckt, mit eitlem Diadem geschmiickt,/ mit gereihten Edelsteinen in gebrochenem Licht funkelnd,/ machtvoll in falschem Kleid, den Schuh mit Gold uberzogen,/ iiberschwanglich stolz und sich des Pomps ruhmend in uberheblichem Triumph./" 49 Hermann, 1969, 420 ,,Dominante Herrscher - F. bleibt der Purpur; so heiBt es von Chlodwig, daB er sogleich nach Empfang der Emennungsurkunde den Purpurrock codecillosde cosolatoaccepit,et in basianzog (Greg.Tur. 2,38.. .): Igiturab Anastasioimperatore
lica beatiMartinitunicablatteaindutuset clamide, vertice diademam. inponens 50 Brenk, 1977, 95 und 96; zur Vorherrschaft des Goldgrundes in der Farbgebung im fruhen sechsten Jahrhundert.
NITOROMMBUSUNUS?
75
Schatten51sprachlicheWirkungenerzielt werden, welche die verwirrenden ,Lichteffekte'auf den ravennatschen Mosaiken nachahmen mochten. Die Gegensatzevon Hell - Dunkel, Tag - Nacht scheinen am Ende wiederauf52 und dienen damit wie die Gegensatzfarbenalbusbzw. candidusund niger53 in der Clarusepisodeals kompositorischeKlammer (2,254-256 und 274): et tunicamostentatiactantior albam communis vacue tumidus umbrabatur honore, falso qua arte. candidusexuviis,sed nigridaemonis <. . .> alba nigelli. tegmina falsiloquivanescunt
Es scheint, als habe Fortunatus die von seinen Vorgangern gebotenen Moglichkeitennicht nur fur kompositorischeZwecke genutzt, sonder auch in der Absicht,um mit sprachlichenMittelnin der Phantasieder Rezepienten raffinierteLicht- und Farbeffektezu erzeugen, wie sie fur die zeitgenossische Mosaikkunstund (Buch)malereikennzeichnend waren.54 In einem Punkt freilich, der hier entscheidend ist, bleibt Fortunatusseinen Vorlagen nicht nur treu, sondern ubertrifftsie noch durch Prazision seiner Quellenzitate: dabei namlich, welche neutestamentlichenMaBstabe zur Bewertung des falschen Christus und seiner Statussymbole angelegt werden. Schon in der Entlarvungsgeschichtedes Severus hatte der Teufel auf seiner falschen Identitat insistiert (Sulp. Sev. VM 24,5-6): diu multumsilentiumambotenuecumqueMartinusprimoaspectueiusfuissethebetatus, runt.tur priordiabolus:,agnosce'inquit,,Martine,quemcernis:Christusegosum:destibi volui.'ad haeccumMartinustaceretnec censurusad terramprius me manifestare iterareaususest diabolus audaciam. ,Martine,quid referret, professionis quidquam responsi dubitascredere, cumvideas?Christusegosum.'55
51 Ven. Fort. Mart. sub luce;2,290 numerosa 2,287 atra;2, 288 fididus; 2,286 sulphurea umbra. luce;2,286 radiatilis 52 Ven. Fort. Mart.2,354. 53 Radke, G. (1936), Die Bedeutungder weil3enund der schwarzenFarbe im Kult und Brauchder Griechenund Romer,Jena. 54 Brenk, 1977, 118 (VerfasserH. Brandenburg):,,Es sind vor allem die raumliche Gestaltungder Bilder, die organischeLicht- und Schattenfiihrung,die den Gestalten im Vergilius korperlichesVolumengeben..." Zu sorgffiltigabgestufterFarbnuancierung Vaticanusund der Wiedergabevon Glanzlichternz.B. auf den Gewander vgl. Geyer, 1989, 90 sowie Wright, 1993, 37, 40, 84. 55,,Beim ersten Anblickwar Martinusuberrascht.GeraumeZeit hindurchschwiegen beide. Dann begann der Teufel: ,,Martinus,erkenneden, den du siehst;ich bin
76
M. VIELBERG
Der Angesprocheneist anfangswie betaubtund durchschautsein Gegenuber erst, als er sich an das SchriftwortAct. 1,10-11 erinnert: ecceduoviriadstiterunt iuxtaillos <...> qui et dixerunt: Vri Galilaei,quidstatisaspicientesin caelum? Hic Jesus, qui adsumptus est a vobisin caelum,sic venietquemadmodumvidistiseumeuntemin caelum.
Der Monchsbischofwendet das Wort aus der Apostelgeschichtein doppelter Weise auf seine Situationan: negativ,indem er herausstellt,nonse... lesus Dominuspurpuratum nec diademate renidentem venturum essepraedixit(VM 24,7) und positiv,indem er nur die Kreuzeszeichen(crucisstigmata) als Erkennungsmerkmal gelten laBt (VM 24,7 ego Christumnisi in eo habituformaquequa venissenon credam).Darauf 16st sich passusest, nisi crucisstigmatapraeferentem der Teufel wie in unzahligen Monchsgeschichtendes viertenJahrhunderts in Luft auf (utfumusevanuit) und zuriickbleibt nur ein unertraglicherGestank ut indubiaindiciarelinqueret diabolum (VM 24,8 et cellulamtantofoetoreconplevit, sefuisse).56 An der Entlarvunghalten beide Epiker fest, allerdingsmit bezeichnenden Unterschieden.Durch die literarischeForm der Apostrophedes Teufels und der sich anschlieBendenInvektive geht Paulinus von Petricordia in fiunfVersen (3,403-407) iiber den Akt der Entlarvung hinweg, ohne die Bibel als Erkenntnisinstrumentzu erwahnen. Venantius Fortunatus dagegen zerdehnt das auf zwei Satze beschrankteWort des Monchsbischofsin einer flammenden Scheltredevon 27 Versen, die das SchriftwortAct. 1,10 mit der in hexametrischerDichtung erreichbaren und bis zu wortlichen Anklangen gehenden Genauigkeitwiedergibt (Ven. Fort. Mart. 2,327-328):
Christus. Da ich wieder zur Erde herabsteigen will, wollte ich mich dir zuerst offenbaren". Da Martinus auf diese Worte hin schwieg und nichts antwortete, ging der Teufel daran, seine kuhne Behauptung zu wiederholen: ,,Martinus, was zogerst du? Glaube, da du es ja siehst! Ich bin Christus!" (Obers. nach: Friihes Monchtum im Abendland, 2. Bd. Eingeleitet, ubersetzt und erklart von K.S. Frank, Zurich, 1975, 48-49). 56 Dolger, undderSchwarze(Liturgiewissenschaftliche FJ. (1918), Die SonnederGerechtgkeit Forschungen 2), Munster i.W., ND mit Nachtragen Miinster i.W. 1971 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschung); Habermehl, 1992, 130ff. COLPE,C. (1976), Artikel ,Geister' (Damonen), RAC 9, 1976, 546-78; 585-98; 615-25; B. Studer, Zu einer Univ. di Teufelserscheinung in der Vita Martini des Sulpicius Severus, in: Oekumene, Catania, 1964, 351-404.
NITOROMIBUS UNUS?
77
cumGalileistumspectantibus angelusadstans rediturum sic ait altithronum qualiteriret.57
Der Epilog des dritten Buchs, der bei den Vorgangern Sulpicius Severus und Paulinus Petricordensiskeine in sich geschlossene Vorlage aufweist, besteht aus einem Panegyricus auf Martin. Das Lob des Monchsbischofs beruht auf drei Visionen, welche sich an zwei Apostrophen der Augen Martins (Ven. Fort. Mart. 3,510-519, 3,455-456; 509) und videreals Verb des geistigen Schauens (3,476) anschlieBen.Im ersten VisionsberichtheiBt es, Martin habe nicht nur Thecla, Agnes und Maria, sonder auch den himmlischen Brautigam mit eigenen Augen gesehen, wobei das emphatisch-anaphorischevidistiam Zeilenanfang (3,460-61) Autopsie ausdriickt. In der zweiten Vision erscheinen die Apostelfursten Petrus und Paulus und consules gerade auch in ihren himmlischenFunktionenals principes (Ven. Fort.Mart.3,476-508).In der drittensind es die Tore Sions, deren Schonheit wieder mit klingenden, teilweise seltenen griechischenWortern beschrieben wird (Ven. Fort. Mart. 3,510-519) und die sich in den Himmel offnen (Ven. Fort. Mart. 3,5,17-18).58Das Buch schlieBt mit einer Bitte an den dort befindlichenMonchsbischof,dem Sunder zu verzeihen (3,5,25), wobei auch Martin als senator(Ven. Fort. Mart. 3,522) apostrophiertwird, welcher unter den adligen Patriziern und Konsuln dem himmlischen Konig am nachsten weilt (Ven. Fort. Mart. 3,521-522).59
57
H. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, Tiibingen 1972 (2. verb. Auflage) (Handbuch
zum NT 7), 27 zu Act. 1,10; E. Haenchen,Die Apostelgeschichte, Gottingen 1956, 119ff. zu Act. 1,10; G. Schiller, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, Berlin 1983 (Theologischer Handkommentar zum NT V), 73 zu Act. 1,10. Die vorstehenden Kommentare sind zu unserer Frage wenig ergiebig im Vergleich zu J. Jervel, Die Apostegeschichte, fibers. und erkl. v.JJ., Gottingen 1998 (Kritisch-exegetischerKommentar fiber das Neue Testament, 3. Band, 17. Auflage), S. 117 zu VV 10-11: ,,Er kommt aber genau in derselben Weise zuriick, in der er entriickt wurde, so wie sie es selbst gesehen haben, LK 21,27, vgl.
Dan 7,13; Mk 13,26; 14,52; ApK 1,7." 58 Quesnel, 1996, 76 bemerkt, die Offnung in den Himmel als Aufenthaltsort der Gerechten ersetze die millennaristische Prophetie, welche den zweiten Martinsdialog beende (dial. 2,14,1-5). Martin kfindigt dort das Kommen Neros und des Antichrists an, das dem Ende der Zeiten vorausgeht. 59 Ammerbauer, 1966, 105 gibt eine unverstandliche Paraphrase von patriciismixtus generosisconsulibusque: ,,unter den Patriarchen, die hier Fortunat Konsul nennt." Das angehangte -que ist danach funktionslos, obschon es patricii, doch wohl die Patrizier (als Ehrentitel und Rang), und consulesparataktisch verkniipft.
78
M. VIELBERG
Die Vision von Sion, das Sulpicius Severus in Visionen Martins nie erwahnt, und die des himmlischen Brautigamsbesitzen im Unterschied zu der von Thecla, Agnes und Maria, aber auch von Petrus und Paulus keine und gerade hier erlaubtsich VenantiusFortunatus Vorlage im ,Martinellus',60 eine ungewohnlich intensive Kolorierung. Die Himmelspforten sind mit Goldplattchenbelegt und funkeln von farbigen Edelsteinen (3,512-14): varioredimitas luminevalvas, gemmarum artezmaragdis, sculptasbratteolis, inscriptas albis. chrysolitis rutilas,niveasstellantibus
Biblische Wurzeln hat auch die Vision des himmlischen Brautigams.Die aus dem Hohen Lied bekannte Brautmystik61kehrt in der christlichen Literaturbesonders seit Origenes wieder, der als Vater der individualistischen Brautmystik gilt.62Die Braut Christi ist nach ihm nicht nur die gesamte Kirche, sondern auch die einzelne animaecclesiastica.63 Vergleichbare Vorstellungenbegegnen auch bei den lateinischenKirchenvater Tertullian, Hieronymus und Ambrosius.64In dem Epithalamium auf Sigibert und Brunhild,das ihn im ganzen Frankenreichbekanntmachte,65hatte Venantius Fortunatusdie Braut nicht nur mit Veilchen und Rosen aus der Hand von Venus bedacht,66sondern auch in ihrer Schonheit mit Gold und Kristall, Perlen und Edelsteinenverglichen,67und in dem Gedicht de virginitateden Schmuck der Jungfrau, die den Platz neben dem himmlischen Brautigam im Thalamus einnehmen wird, eingehend beschrieben(carm.8,4,263-279).68 Mit dem aus sakularerund geistlicherPoesie gelaufigenVokabular,das auf eine prunkvolleAusgestaltungdurch Lichtund Farbeffektezielt, wird auch der himmlische Brautigam dargestellt(Ven. Fort. Mart. 3,460-474):
60
dicatis:Agnes,Theclaet Sulp. Sev. dial.2,13,5-6 dicam,inquit,vobis,sedvosnulliquaeso Mariamecum autemnobisvultumadquehabitum necveroillo tantum singularum. fierunt:referebat se ab eis confessus est visitari: videria se saePetrum etiamet PaulumApostolos die,sedfrequenter pius nonnegavit. 61 Paul. 2 Cor. 11,2; Ephes.5,23; Cant.4,7; Ps. 45(44), 14 und dazu Ammerbauer, 1966, 103, Anm. 3; E. Otto (2000),Artikel,HohesLied'5, in RGG4 3,1840;J. Schmid (1954),Artikel,Brautschaft, heilige',in RAC 2, 528-564; 558ff. 62 Orig. in Cant.hom.1,10,41,12f. Baehr. 63 Schmid, 1954, 558. 64 Tert. resur.63; anim. 41,4; Hieron. epist. 22,25 (ed. Labourt t. 1, p. 136). 65 66 67
68
George, 1992, 4. Ven. Fort. carm.6,1,60-61. Vgl. auch den Anfang 6,1,2 picturatogramine. Ven. Fort. cann. 6,1,108; 110. Ammerbauer, 1966, 102.
NITOROMNIBUS UNUS?
79
vidistitemplum dominidiademate fultum, vidistithalamum sponsisuperomniapulchri, decorum. compositum gemmisauroqueostroque qualisiaspiseratpedibuslaterique topazus? qui digitisanuliviridifilgore venusti? qualesarmillaedextraeardescente hyacintho? quantozona die lapidumradiabathonore? cycladisaut qualiscataclyziseforarasis? berillis? quaepalla ex humerismixtochrysoprase quodvemoniledecenscollorutilabatin illo? vittacapillis, forsaneratniveisamethistina sculptilisinpressiset auribusalba sigillis, luminisac variosspargens diademavirores? quaejrons, ora, oculi,facies,gena,pes, manus,ulna. underepercussis florebant graminagemmis?69 Mit der Schilderung des mit Gemmen, Gold und Purpur geschmuckten Brautgemachs tritt der Brautigam ins Blickfeld. Der Blick des Betrachters wandert von den FuiBen (3,463) aufwarts bis zum mit weiBem Haar bedeckten Kopf (3,470), und wohin er auch fallt, werden Schmuck- und Kleidungsstucke sichtbar: Ringe, Armreifen, Giirtel, Rundrock, Mantel, Halsband und Kopfbinde, und diese Schmuck- und Kleidungsstiicke sind besetzt mit Edelsteinen, die nicht in allen Farben,70 sondern hauptsachlich in Griin- und Blauschattierungen funkeln, welche an das Presbyterium von San Vitale in Ravenna erinnern:71grinerJaspis (3,463), uberwiegend griner
69
,,Du hast den Tempel des Hern gesehen, durch ein Diadem erhoht,/ Du hast des Brautigams Gemach gesehen, der schoner ist als alle,/ aus Gemmen gefertigt, von Gold geschmiickt und Purpur,/ Wie war der Jaspis an den Fuiien, der Topas an der Seite?/ Welche Ringe an den Fingern, lieblich von hellem Glanz?/ Welche Reife am rechten Arm aus leuchtendem Hyazinth?/ Welch' ein Strahlen ging aus von edelsteinbesetzten Gfirtel?/ Wie beschaffen der von geglatteten Einschliissen durchbrochene Rundrock?/ Welcher Mantel fiel von den Schultem, mit Beryll und Chrysopras besetzt?/ Wie rotete sich wohlgestaltet ein Halsband an jenem Nacken?/ Vielleicht umgab die schneeweiBen Haare eine amethystfarbene Binde,/ und an den Ohren weiBe Perlen, in die ein Siegel eingegraben war, und eine Krone, die in des Lichtes Farben funkelte?/ Wie glanzten Stirn, Mund, Augen, Antlitz, Wangen, FuB, Hand, Arm,/ wovon Rasenflachen bliihten, wenn Edelsteine wiederschienen?" 70 Vgl. Ven. Fort. Mart. 3,516 omnicolora. 71 Vgl. zum Presbyterium in San Vitale (Baubeginn 527 unter Bischof Ecclesius, Einweihung 548 unter Massimian) G. Bustacchini (1984), Ravenna,seine Mosaiken,seine
80
M. VIELBERG
(bzw. blauer) Topas (3,463), lauchgriiner Chrysopras (3,468), meergriiner Beryll (3,468) und blauer Amethyst (3,470).72Wie die weiBe Haarfarbedes himmlischen Brautigams die Idealitat des im richtigen Alter befindlichen puer senexsymbolisiert,73 so tritt an die Stelle der vom Bilderverbot bedroh-
ten menschlich-realistischen Darstellung eine durch Attribute hofischer vermittelteindirekteDarstellungdes himmlischenBrautigams Prachtentfaltung als Soter.74Wo Venantius Fortunatusnicht an seine Vorgaben gebunden ist, wird seine Darstellung sowohl des himmlischen Brautigams als auch des Himmels selbst sowie der dort befindlichen Apostelfursten bis auf Martin75von Symbolen spatantikerStatusdarstellungbestimmt,wie sie nicht nur fur ravennatischeMosaike des funften und sechstenJahrhundertscharakteristischwaren,76sonder fur die hierarchischgegliederte fruhmittelalterliche ,Feudalgesellschaft'insgesamt und das nach Romanitasstrebende frankischeStammesk6nigtum.77 Es ergibt sich, daB der anfangsannahemd ,farblose'Martinsstoffim Zuge der im ,Martinellus'dokumentiertenRezeption quantitativ und qualitativ Denkmaler,seine Umgebung,Ravenna S. 36 und 37, Abb. 38 und 39, aber auch zu einer vergleichbaren Abstimmung von Griin- und Blautonen die Apsismosaiken in S. Apollinare in Classe (549 von Bischof Massimian eingeweiht). Brenk, 1977, 92 ,,Die Grenzen der Wirkung der stadtbyzantinischen Architektur werden an keinem Beispiel so deutlich wie an S. Vitale in Ravenna, der zwischen 537/38 und 547 errichteten Memorialkirche fur den Martyrer Vitalis, deren Bauherr der Bankier Julius Argentarius war." 72 Vgl. auch Apk. 4,2-3. 73 Vgl. Quesnel, 1996, 70 Anm. 68 mit dem Hinweis aufJoh. Apk. 1,14 caputautem eius (sponsi)et capilli erantcandiditamquamlana alba et tamquamnix. Zum Topos des puer senexCurtius, 1965, 108-112 bes. 11, Anm. 2 und Gnilka, 1972, passim. 74 Das mag auch durch die Farbsymbolik ausgedriickt sein: ,,Griin stellt Wachstum, Jugend, Hoffnung, ewiges Leben dar.", A. Hermann, Artikel ,Farbe', RAC, 7, 1969, 358-447, 408. 75 Vent. Fort. Mart. 3,522 proximuset regi resides,Martine,senator. 76
Bustacchini, 1984, passim. Schneider, 1983, 159 ,,Die Domane in ihrer spatantiken Erscheinungsform kann gewissermaBen als Leitmotiv der tendenziell feudalen Gesellschaftsordnung des 4. Jhs. im gesamten romischen Reich angesehen werden, besonders stark ausgepagt in dessen westlicher Halfte. Mit dem Begriff Feudalismus wird dabei die Tendenz zu einer relativ statischen und hierarischen Gesellschaftsordnung gekennzeichnet, in der die Landpacht eine bedeutende Rolle spielt und in der fur den Pachter Zwangsbindung an die Scholle und Korporationszwang herrschen." Vgl. zu den kulturellen Aspirationen der Merowinger George, 1992, 16 ,,For the Franks, Romanitaswas a quality which they strove resolutely to acquire, and an important part of Romanitas was the Roman literary tradition". Zur Ambivalenz im Gebrauch christlicher und hofischer Termini im friihen Christentum und besonders der fruhchristlichen Dichtung vgl. Ammerbauer, 1966, 63. 77
NITOROMNIBUS UNUS?
81
an Farbigkeitgewinnt. Sulpicius Severus hatte AnstoBe zur Farbgestaltung gegeben. Paulinus Petricordensisund Venantius Fortunatus griffen diese AnstoBe auf und gestalteten ihre Vorlage farbenprachtigeraus. Venantius Fortunatus neigte dabei gerade in Epilogen, die durch Vorlagen weniger stark gebunden waren, zur Kolorierung. Welche Absichten der Verfasser der Martinsschriftenund deren spatere Bearbeiter damit verfolgten, ist im einzelnen schwerzu ergriinden.Wenn SulpiciusSeverusiiber Martinberichtete, daB der Monchsbischof den im Imperatorenkleiderschienenen angeblichen Christusmit dem SchriftwortAct. 1,10-11 als Teufel entlarvte,dann konnte die Zustimmung, die in der Aufnahme des Berichts erkennbarsein mag, darauf schlie3en lassen, daB die hofischen Attribute Purpur, Gold und Gemmen und d.h. die damit gegebenen Farben als etwas der damonischen Welt der Heiden Zugehoriges und damit Fremdes betrachtetwurden. Aber dieser hypothetischeSchluB gilt nur fir Sulpicius Severus selbst. Seine Nachfolgerdurftendie Entlarvungdes Teufels als kanonischesElement der Erzahltraditionrezipiert haben und nutzten Farbgestaltung,nachdem auch terminologisch miteinander verschmolzen Romanitasund Christianitas waren, umgekehrtzur VerdeutlichungchristlicherIdentitat.Dieser AkkulturationsprozeBgipfeltbei Venantius Fortunatusin einer durch romischeStatussymbole geordneten Vision des Himmels.78 Wenn wir nach den Griindenftir diese Entwicklungin der Farbgestaltung suchen,konnenwir als UrsacheallgemeinerArt das im frankischenKonigtum angeben, dem der HofdichterVenantius ausgepragteStreben nach Romanitas Fortunatus seine fruheren Erfolge verdankte und immer noch verpflichtet war, wenn er auch in Zukunft Erfolg haben wollte.79Eine biographisch weiter zuriickreichendeund damit tiefer liegende autorspezifischeUrsache dirfen wir jedoch darin vermuten, daB Venantius Fortunatusin den pragenden Jahren seiner Ausbildung in Ravenna die prachtvolle Gestaltung christlicherMotive vor allem durch die kostbaren Farbmosaikender stadtischen Kirchen kennen- und schatzengelert hatte, und das nicht nur im allgemeinen, sondern besonders im Hinblick auf den Monchsbischof von Tours. Der Schilderungim vierten Buch des Martinseposzufolge hatte der Bischof von Tours seinen spateren Hagiographen nicht nur vor dem Erblinden bewahrt, sonder die Rettung ereignete sich auch zu der Zeit, als der ,Augenmensch', der deswegen spater die Pilgerreise nach Tours
Dazu ausfiihrlich Ammerbauer, 1966, 96-101. 79 George, 1992, 16 ff. Vgl. auch ROBERTS1995, 108. 78
82
M. VIELBERG
unternahm und sie am Ende seines Martinseposin umgekehrterRichtung beschrieb, in der ravennatischenKirche des Paulus und Johannes dem in einem farbigen Wandbild dargestelltenMonchsbischof gegeniibertrat.80In dem als Auftrag an sein Gedichtbuch in ovidischer Manier der Tristien kaschiertenItinerar8lschildert der Dichter dies Erlebnis (4,686-691): expeteMartiniloculum,quoiuresacelli iam desperatum lumenminireddiditauctor. muneraqui tribuit,saltim,rogo,verbarepende. est ubi basilicaeculmenPauli atquelohannis, hic pariesretinetsanctisub imagine formam: anplectenda ipsodulcipicturacolore.
Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat PhilosophischeFakultat Fiirstengraben,D-07743 Jena
80 auf ravennatischenMosaikenunter Quesnel, 1996, XXIV zur Martinsdarstellung Hinweis auf G. Bovini,Die Mosaiken vonRavenna, Miinchen 1958. 81 Vgl. zu den ReiseberichtenGeorge, 1992, 24 mit weitererLiteratur.
UNUS? NITOROMNIBUS
83
Literaturverzeichnis I. Texte, Ubersetzungen, Kommentare - Athanasius GJ.M. Bartelink(1974), Vitadi Antonio,Mailand. - Paulinus Petricordensis- M. Petschenig (1888), Paulinusv. Pigueux, De vita S. Martiniepiscopilibri VI, in: Poetae christiani minores CSEL 16, 17-159. Sulpicius Severus - J. Fontaine (1967), Vie de SaintMartin,3 Bde, Paris, Bd. 1 1967, Bd. 2 1968, Bd. 3 1969. rec. et comm. Sulpicius Severus - C. Halm (1866), SulpiciiSeverilibriquisupersunt, critico instr. C.H., Wien (NachdruckHildesheim 1983) (= CSEL 1). - Venantius FortunatusFortunat.Vie de SaintMartin, Quesnel, S. (1996), Venance Texte etabli et traduit par S.Q, Paris. - Venantius Fortunatus- VitaS. Martini,ed. F. Leo, Auct. ant. t. 4/1, 1881, 293370. - Venantius Fortunatus- Fortunat (1994), Poemes,livresI-IV, ed. Marc Reydellet, C.U.F., Paris II. Sekundarliteratur - A. Alfoldi im romischen Darmstadt. Kaiserreiche, (1980), Die monarchische Reprasentation - H. Ammerbauer, Wien Fortunatus, (1966), Studienzur VitaSanctiMartinides Venantius (Diss.). - B. Brenk Frankfurt(PropylaenKunstgeschichte (1977), Spanike undfrhesChristentum, Supplementband 1). - P. Brown derEngel.SexuelleEntsagung, AskeseundKorperlichkeit (1994), Die Keuschheit im friihenChristentum, Miinchen. - G. Bustacchini (1984), Ravenna,seineMosaiken,seineDenkmaler,seine Umgebung, Ravenna. - H. Cancik zur rischenKunstdesP. PapiniusStatius,Hildesheim. (1965), Untersuchungen - C. Artikel RAC 9, 1976 546-78; 585-98; 615,Geister' (Ddmonen), Colpe (1976), 25. - H. Conzelmann (1972), Die Apostelgeschichte, Tiibingen (2. verb. Auflage)(Handbuch zum NT 7). - E.R. Curtius undlateinisches Literatur Bern, (5. Auflage). Mittelalter, (1965), Europdische - R. Delbrueck in: Die Antike 8,1-21. Kaiseromat, (1932), Der spdtantike undderSchwarze FJ. Dolger (1918),Die SonnederGerechtigkeit (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Forschungen2), Miinster i.W., ND mit Nachtragen Miinster i.W. 1971 (LiturgiewissenschaftlicheQuellen und Forschung). A LatinPoetin Merovingian Fortunatus, Gaul,Oxford. -J.W. George (1992), Venantius - A. Der Miniaturenzyklus zur Aenais Buchillustration, Geyer (1989), Die Genesenarrativer im VergiliusVaticanus, Frankfurt. - Chr. Gnilka dernaturlichen als Ideal (1972), Aetasspiritalis,Die Uberwindung Altersstufen friihchristlichen Lebens,Bonn. - P. Habermehl undderAgypteroderBilderdes Bosenimfiihen afrika(1992), Perpetua nischenChristentum, et Felicitatis, Berlin (= TU Ein Versuch zurPassioSanctorum Perpetuae 140).
84
M. VIELBERG
P. HaB (1998), Der locusamoenusin der antikenLiteratur: Zu Theorieund Geschichte einesliterarischen Motivs,Bamberg (Diss. Erlangen). E. Haenchen (1956), Die Apostelgeschichte, Gottingen. M. Hellmann(2002),DieAuszeichnung in einerbiographischen Sammeledition derTextstuktur der Karolingerzeit am Beispieldes ,,Weissenburger Martinellus"in: D. WALZ(Hrsg.), Lateinische Biographie von der Antike bis in die Gegenwart, Scripturusvitam, Festgabe fur W. Berschin, 243-262. A. Hermann (1969), Artikel ,Farbe',in: RAC 7, 358-447. iibers. und erkl. v. JJ., Gottingen (KritischJ. Jervel (1998), Die Apostelgeschichte, exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament, 3. Band, 17. Auflage). F. Kolb (2001), Herrscherideologie derSpdtantike, Berlin. derRomer,Darmstadt 2Bde, (unverand.ND J. Marquardt (1990), Das Privatleben d. 2. Aufl. Leipzig 1886). Darmstadt. G. Maurach (1995), Lateinische Dichtersprache, Darmstadt. H. Mielsch (2001), RomischeWandmalerei, E. Otto (2000), Artikel ,HohesLied'in RGG4 3, 1840. Farbeim KultundBrauch derweiJenundderschwarzen G. Radke (1936), Die Bedeutung undRomer,Jena. der Griechen M. Roberts (1995), Martin meets Maximus: The Meaning of a Late Roman 41,1,91-111. Banquet, Revuedes EtudesAugustiniennes, M. Roberts (2001), The Last Epic of Antiquity:Generic Continuityand Innovation in the Vita Sancti Martini of Venantius Fortunatus, Transactions of theAmerican Association,131, 257-285. Philological des Lukas,Berlin (Theologischer HandG. Schiller (1983), Die Apostelgeschichte kommentar zum NT V). heilige'in RAC 2, 528-564. J. Schmid (1954), Artikel ,Brautschaft, der spdtantiken L.A. Schneider (1983), Die Domdneals Weltbild:Wirkungsstrukturen Wiesbaden. Bildersprache, B. Studer (1964), Zu einer Teufelserscheinungin der Vita Martini des Sulpicius Univ. di Catania, 351-404. Severus, in: Oekumene, vonScham E. Vaubel (1969), Pudor,Verecundia, Reverentia. zurPsychologie Untersuchungen undEhrfurcht bei denRomer bis Augustin,Diss. Miinster. vandepoetische techniek vanPaulinusvanPerigueux bestuE. Vermeulen (1966), Aspecten deerdin zijn ,De vita S. MartiniI-IIf'), Leuven 1966 (Diss.) Studienzur litein denpseudoklementinischen M. Vielberg (2000,), Klemens Rekognitionen, Formdes spatantiken rarischen Romans,Berlin (TU 145). M. Vielberg (2002), Farbausdriickeim heidnischen und christlichenRoman: die Metamorphosen des Apuleius und die pseudoklementinischenRekognitionen im Vergleich, Latomus,61, 108-121. Ein Meisterwerk D.H. Wright (1993), Der VergiliusVaticanus, Kunst,Graz. spdtantiker
REVIEWS
and the J.A. Cerrato, HippolytusbetweenEast and West. The Commentaries Provenance of theCorpus.Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York 2002. X, 291 pp., ISBN 0-19-924696-3. Wer im ersten Drittel des 3. Jhs. der SchriftstellerHippolyt (H.) war, wo er lebte und was er alles schrieb, wuBte schon 100 Jahre spater niemand mehr mit GewiBheit. Daran hat sich bis heute nichts geandert. Die Unlosbarkeit der "H.frage" reizt spekulative Geister offenbar stets aufs Neue. In seiner Dissertation begibt sich auch Cerrato (C.) auf die Suche nach einer Antwort. Er schlieBtsich italienischenForschernan, welche die die Schrift De universound die Werke der sog. refutatio,die "Chronik", "H.statue"einem stadtromischenAutor und die von C. kurz als "exegetisch" deklariertenWerke einem im Osten wirkenden Bischof H. zuweisen. (Im AusschluBverfahrenwagt C. am Ende den Tip Laodicaea oder Ephesus als Bischofssitz).Ob zwischen beiden WerkgruppenUnahnlichkeiten oder Divergenzen bestehen, die zwingend die Aufteilung auf zwei Autoren erfordern,behandelt C. jedoch nicht. C. glaubt vielmehr, die Herkunftder in der UberlieferungH. zugeschriebenen"exegetischen"Schriften aus der ostlichen Reichshalftemit Argumenten sichem zu konnen (insoferntauscht der Titel "H. between East and West"), die textimmanent vornehmlich anhand des "Danielkommentars", des "Hoheliedkommentars" und der Schrift De werden. Diese die antichristo der Einsichten, gewonnen Forschung bisher iiberraschenderweiseentgangen sind, werden in der zweiten Halfte der Arbeit prasentiert(S. 127/250). In der ersten (S. 3/127) geht C. den Zeugnissen uber Personen namens H. aus Kirchenschriftstellern,Hagiographie und Archaologie (zB. der sog. nicht beibringen. "H.statue")nach. Neue Fakten kann er erwartungsgemtaB Aber dafir interpretierter sie mit dem gerade beschriebenenErgebnis des zweiten Teils im Hinterkopf.C.s Ansatz besteht darin, keine Verbindungen der verschiedenenH.e herzustellen,sondern durch die Isolation der einzelnen Nachrichtenzu zeigen, daB vorschnelleund unzulassigeIdentifizierungen in alter und neuer Zeit zu Verunklarungengefuhrt haben. Bei den friihesten Zeugen Eusebius, Hieronymus und Theodoret ist fur C. das Wissen ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
igiliae Christianae59, 85-92
86
REVIEWS
um einen "6stlichen"BischofH., den Verfasserder "exegetischen"Schriften, vorhanden, mag ihnen auch dessen Bischofssitzunbekannt geblieben sein (nahererAufarbeitungbediirfte die Beobachtung, daB Eusebius gerade bei seinen drei Erwahnungeneines H. einen entsprechendenidentifizierenden Querverweis,wie er ihn in seiner Kirchengeschichtedes ofteren vorgenommen hat, unterlaBt).Die Separierung der Nachrichten geht so weit, daB C. sogar den H. der Depositiomaryrumdes "Chronographenvon 354" vom H. der Damasusepigramme unterscheidet und wie Hanssens mit einem Novatianer H. zu rechnen bereit ist; freilich ersparter sich eine Erklarung daftir, daB beide an der Via Tiburtina in Rom beigesetzt sind und beide am 13.8. ihren Feiertag haben. Ebenso setzt sich C. nicht damit auseinander, daB es plausible Argumente gibt, den H. aus Porto/Ostia und den romischen Martyrerzu identifizieren(vgl. etwa R. Aubert, H.: DHGE 24 [1993] 626; V. Saxer, H. 6: ebd. 634f). Ohne ein gewisses MaB an Hypothesen kommt man gewiB in keinem Fall aus. C. gibt aber gerne dem den Vorrang, was ihm sympathischerscheint, ohne Argumente fur andere Moglichkeiten auch nur zu erwahnen. Das hangt wohl auch damit zusammen, daB er bevorzugt englischsprachige Literatur hinzuzieht und sich deshalb nicht nur in diesem Fall mit anderen Uberlegungen nicht zu beschaftigen braucht (an anderer Stelle [S. 254f] erwahnt C. zB. die Argumente Richards gegen Nautin zur vermeintlich divergierenden und DanCom.mit keinem Wort). Mit den Chronologie zwischen "Chronik" Feinheiten der hagiographischen Tradition halt sich C. jedenfalls nicht weiter auf; wer mehr wissen will, wird in einschlagiger alterer Literatur grindlicher informiert. Dafur hat C. neue Ideen, auf welchem Wege der alteste Zeuge Eusebius seine Informationenuber den ostlichenBischofH. erhaltenhat. Zwangslaufig findet C. ein passendesBindeglied,das zu dem von C. favorisiertenKleinasien als Heimat H.s fuhrt: Bischof Alexander von Jerusalem sei es gewesen, der Schriften H.s aus Kappadokien in die BibliothekJerusalems mitgebracht habe, wo sie Eusebiuseinsehenkonnte.Der zweiten,vom selbenH. sprechenden Stelle bei Eusebius (h.e. 6,22) lagen u.a. biographischeInformationen aus der verlorenen Apologie des Pamphilus fur Origenes zugrunde. Das ist gefallig kombiniert, aber verlaBlicheInformationensehen anders aus. Da fur C. auch Hieronymus Zeuge der 6stlichen Herkunftder "exegetischen"Schriftenist, muB eine Erklarungfur seinenzweimaligen"Ausrutscher", von "H. martyr"zu sprechen (in ep. 36,16 ad Damasum[GCS H. 1,2,54f] und MtCom.praef. [CCL 77,5,94]), gefunden werden. C. greift im ersten Fall zu der unbeweisbaren Hypothese, daB Hieronymus die Angabe in seiner Vorlage gefunden habe. Aber warum unterlauftHieronymus spater
REVIEWS
87
in MtCom.das Versehen ein zweites Mal? C. meint: Die Erinnerung an seine romische Zeit hat Hieronymus die Feder gefiihrt. C. macht sich jedoch iiber die Folgen dieser Annahme keine Gedanken und verrat weder, ob er nun mit einem Werk des "6stlichen"H. zu Mt. rechnet oder nicht, noch, ob das seiner Meinung nach bedeutet, daB in Rom im 4. Jh. Texte unter "H." vorhanden waren, gleich ob sie nun etwas mit den anderen "exegetischen"Schriften H.s zu tun haben oder nicht (im Fall des in ep. 36,16 zitierten Textes sieht C. eher keine Paraphrasevon BenIsJac. vorliegen [S. 51]). Allerdingsbrauchtder Leser sich mit solchen und anderen Vermutungen nicht weiter aufzuhalten,denn C. hatte ohnehin angekiindigt,daB die neuen Einsichten aus der interen Evidenz der "exegetischen"Werke H.s stammen wiirden (S. 7). Dieser methodischeAnsatz ist einsichtig,da die H.texte selbst etwas fiber die Herkunft ihres Verfassersverraten miissen, wenn die externe Bezeugung keine Klarheit gibt. Welche Dinge, die einen kleinasiatischen Bischof unausweichlicherscheinen lassen, hat nun die Forschung bisher ubersehen? C. meint: 1. habe der Verf., bes. in DanCom.und eine Vorliebe fur Paulus,und die Benutzungder in Kleinasien BenlsJacCom., entstandenenPaulusaktenin DanCom.weise auf denselben Entstehungsraum fur DanCom.hin, da sie als ganze im 2./3. Jh. nicht im Westen zirkuliert hatten. 2. sei die Auslegung des Hohenliedes (CantCom.24f), die antitypisch die AuferstehungszeugenMaria und Martha auf Eva bezieht, dem Verhaltnis des friihen Montanismus zu den Frauen affin. 3. sei die quartodecimanischeTraditionKleinasiensin den H.fragmentenaus dem Chronicon paschaleund der Homilie In sanctumPaschazu entdecken, und 4. hitten die Vorstellungender "exegetischen"Schriftenebeneschatologisch-chiliastischen falls in kleinasiatischerTheologie ihre nachsten Verwandten. Welche Folgerungen aus der Vorliebe fur Paulus C. ziehen will, bleibt wenig prazise, und was die Indizien fur die Herkunft des DanCom.betrifft, bewegt sich C. mit seiner These auf schwankendemBoden. Um sie durchhalten zu konnen, muB das Zeugnis der Bekanntheit der Acta Pauli im Westen durch Tertullian eliminiert werden. Deshalb macht sich C. mit MacDonald dafiir stark, daB Tertullian nur die Acta Pauli et Theclaeund nicht die gesamten Acta Pauli gekannt habe. Einen Beweis dafiir gibt es aber nicht. Die FeststellungW. Schneemelchers,Ntl. Apokryphen2 (61999) 195, ist nach wie vor nicht zu beanstanden, daB "sich aus dem Text [sc. Tert., bapt. 17,4] nicht ersehen laBt, ob Tertullian die ganzen API kannte [was Schneemelcherfur wahrscheinlicherhalt] oder nur die AThe". Uberhaupt ist ungewiB, ob H. die Erzahlungvon Paulus und dem L6wen uiberhaupt dem Text der ActaPauli(so Schneemelcher)oder nicht der (miindlichen)
88
REVIEWS
Tradition entnommen hat (so MacDonald). C. erkenntdie Schwache seines Argumentes und schiebt deshalb den Gedanken nach, daB Tertullian die Acta Pauli ablehne, wahrend H. ihre Authentizitatpositiv beurteile. Doch aus der Ablehnung der ActaPauliwegen Pseudepigraphiedurch Tertullian muB nicht die Verwerfung einzelner Inhalte durch denselben Autor folgen, wie umgekehrt aus der positiven Beurteilungder Episode von Paulus und dem L6wen durch den DanCom.nicht die Akzeptanz eines Textes folgen muB, sollte dessen Pseudepigraphieeinmal bekannt sein. Der DanCom. gibt dazu nichts her. Und der Entstehungsraumder Acta Pauli gibt noch keinen AufschluBiiber den Ort ihrer Lektire durch den H. des DanCom. Lieb und teuer ist C. das nachste Argument, das er deshalb ausfuhrlich entwickelt.Es vermitteltden Eindruckvon der Qualitatseiner Uberlegungen 24f (dort wird Cant.3,1ff ["des insgesamt am besten. C. meint, in CantCom. nachts suchte ich den, den meine Seele lieb gewonnen hat..."] auf die Suche von Martha und Maria nach dem auferstandenenChristusbezogen und als Restitution Evas beschrieben)werde eine Theologie der im Text als "Apostolin"bezeichneten Eva entwickeltund anders als in der refutatio eine positive Einstellungzu einem herausgehobenenStatus der Frauen in der Gemeinde,ja sogar zum "apostoliccharacterof the ministryof women" (S. 207) bekundet.Beidesweise auf den friihenMontanismus:Wie Epiphanius, haer.49,2, berichte, habe der phrygische Montanismus Eva hochgeschatzt und Frauen ordiniert. H. sei zwar kein Montanist, aber seine positiven Gedanken iber Eva und die Frauen habe er anders als patriarchalisch gesinnte Theologen wie Tertullian und Clemens von Alexandrien nur in einem frauenfreundlichenUmfeld entwickelnkonnen. Das sei damals eben das Land der Montanisten gewesen. H. und Montanismus verbande "a basic sense of direction" (S. 200). Diese Konstruktionist freilich nicht mehr als ein LuftschloB.Schon die nicht nur hier, sondern im ganzen Buch gemachte Voraussetzung, der Autor eines Textes miisse seine Ansichten als Sprachrohreiner "community" (zB. S. 28; 150) entwickelt haben bzw. ein antiker Text stehe stellvertretend fur eine Gruppe oder einen Raum, ist eine zwar beliebte, aber durch nichts zu belegende Annahme. Sie veranschlagt die Individualitat des Verfassers nicht sonderlich hoch und rechnet nicht damit, daB sich dessen Verbindungen zum Lebensumfeld nicht spiegelbildlich in dessen Schriftenniedergeschlagenhaben miissen;Autorenwie Justin oder Origenes oder Bischofe wie Theophilus oder Irenaus denken und schreiben nicht einfach das, was die Gemeinde denkt, in der sie sich gerade aufhalten. Schaut man sich C.s Interpretationvon CantCom. 24f naher an, lassen schon die Aussagen, Eva sei "symbolicof womankind"(S. 190; 209) oder Martha
REVIEWS
89
und Maria seien "agents of female salvation"(S. 193) erstaunen. Denn sie iiberforder den Denkhorizont des Textes und treffen so auch nicht zu. Den Frauen, denen der Text angeblich so wohlwollend gegeniibersteht, muBte eigentlich die Freude an seiner Darstellung Evas griindlich vergehen, da diese durch die erlosende Auferstehungnur in ihre angestammte Rolle als Dienerin ihres Fuhrers, des Mannes, zuriickversetztwird und Christus sogar das Auferstehungszeugnisder Frauen noch selbst bestatigen muB (CantCom. 25,8f; C. fuhrt die Stelle S. 195 zwar an, ohne die Folgen fiir sein Konstruktjedoch in den Blick zu nehmen). Fataler ist, daB C. den leider haufig begangenen Fehler macht, aus theologischen Kategorien die historische Wirklichkeit zu konstruieren. Die soteriologisch-typologische Aussage, Eva sei - wegen des "Aposteldienstes"von Maria und Martha an den Aposteln - die Auszeichnung"Apostel"(namlich,was C. nicht sagt, Apostel ihres Mannes Adam) zuteil geworden, kann man nicht auf die Lebenswirklichkeitubertragenbzw. von dort her lesen und fur einen angesehenen kirchlichen Status von Frauen im Horizont des Verfassers des CantCom. anfiihren.Doch damit nicht genug, C. geht noch ein Stuck weiter: Auch wenn er zugibt, daB der Text eigentlich nichts dazu sagt, sieht er dennoch tendenzielldie Frauenordinationin CantCom. durchschimmer, wie sie der friihe Montanismus praktiziert habe (S. 208). Ungliicklicherweise kann sich C. fur amtliche Frauentatigkeitim friihen Montanismus aber nicht auf friihe Quellen, etwa antimontanistische Autoren, stutzen (die solches wohl genuBlich vermerkt hatten), sondern muB das Zeugnis des Epiphaniusim 4. Jh. und die Epigraphie anfihren. DaB die epigraphische Evidenz des friihen Montanismus kaum gesichert ist, vermeldet C. zwar pflichtgemaBam Rande (S. 206), vergiBt es aber sofort wieder und erhebt die zweifelhaftenInschriftenzu sicheren historischenBelegen (S. 207). DaB er nebenbei von weiblichen Propheten auf weibliche AmtstragerschlieBt, paBt ins Bild. Um den Druck der Suggestion zu erhohen, bastelt C. an weiteren Hypothesen und laBt der Spekulationfreien Lauf. So soil die Bevorzugung von Martha als Auferstehungszeuginaus der Kenntnis einer in der Epistula Apostolorum begegnendenTraditionentstammen(S. 198) - in der Zusammenfassungwird darausdann die Benutzungder EpApost. gemacht, die naturlich nur im Osten moglich war (S. 257) -, und zugleich eine Konkurrenzbildung zur BevorzugungMaria Magdalenasals Auferstehungszeugin in der "Gnosis" sein. SelbstgewiBverkundet C., daB nicht nur zum Montanismus, sondern auch zu "gnostischen"Texten, namlich 1 und2ApcJac(NHC V,3 und V,4), die fur C. aus der "SyrianJewish Christianity"(und damit natiirlich aus der Nahe zu Kleinasien)stammen,Verbindungenbestanden.Ein gemeinsamer
90
REVIEWS
Grundstockmit lApcjac liege in den Hauptpersonen Martha und Maria und in den Konzepten "self-offering[warum "self"?], ascent, and divine union" vor (S. 195). Hat C. eigentlich gesehen, daB nicht einmal sicher ist, ob in lApcJac 40,26 uberhaupt "Martha" zu erganzen ist (vgl. I. Schletterer/U.-K. Plisch: Nag Hammadi Deutsch 2 = GCS NF 12 [2003] 417 Anm. 36) und lApcJacanscheinend von den uberholten Brandopfern des AT-Kultes spricht? Ebenso phantasievollwie fliichtig geht es zu, wenn C. annimmt, H. habe CantCom.24f zur Frage der Nacktheit Adams und Evas bzw. Christi als direktenGegenentwurfzu 2ApcJackonzipiertund diese Schriftsogar gekannt (S. 196). Uber Details setzt sich C. freilich grofziigig hinweg: So wird beiseite gelassen,daB es in 2ApcJac56,6/14 um die "Entkleidung"desJakobus, nicht um die Christigeht. Ferner ist zu beriicksichtigen,daB die Metapher innerhalb der 2ApcJacunterschiedlichbenutzt werden und mit denen des CantCom. nicht parallellaufen: "Bekleidung"ist in 2ApcJacan der nicht einfach zu deutenden Stelle vermutlich eine Metapher fur Erkenntnisgewinn und "Entkleidung"zunachst eine Metapher fur den Aufstieg, dann aber sofort anschlieBendeine Metapher fur den Abstieg (so zumindest F.-W. Funk, Die zweite Apokalypse des Jakobus = TU 119 [1976] 149/51). In CantCom.25 geht es hingegen um die Wiedergewinnungdes Paradieseszustandes der ersten Menschen: Anfanglich trugen sie, obwohl nackt, ein "Tugendgewand",das sie durch Christus, der seinerseits nicht nackt im Grabe lag, anstelle der verganglichenFeigenblatterwiedererhaltenhaben. Nackheit/Entkleidung/Feigenblatterstellen in CantCom.also den Zustand der sundigen Menschen dar, Entkleidungin 2ApcJacist dagegen das Aboder Anlegen des Korpers. Man empfindet Erleichterung,daB C. nicht gleich die Fulle der fruhchristlichenTexte mit Gewandmetaphorikbeigebracht und auf dieser Linie iiber die Herkunft des Autors von CantCom. weiter nachgedacht hat. Die Uberlegungenzum Quartodecimanismus und Chiliasmusder "exegetischen" Schriften sind von ahnlicher Giite und konnen aus Platzgriinden nicht im Detail vorgefiihrtwerden. Fur eine VerwurzelungH.s werden die aus dem Chronicon "Pascha-Fragmente" paschaleim quartodecimanischenUmfeld Melitons angesiedelt und davon ausgegangen (S. 214/8), daB die Homilie In sanctumPaschaCPG 1925 [4611] - ihre quartodecimanischeFarbung ist ubrigens gar nicht klar beweisbar ein Text des Verfassers von antichr., also des echten H., sei. Es geniigt darauf hinzuweisen, daB C. vernachlassigt, daB der Editor der Homilie, Visona, den er laut Literaturverzeichnis kennt, als Verfassernur einen unbekanntenAutor hat ausmachen konnen.
REVIEWS
91
Als Ergebnis der Untersuchung des Chiliasmus der Schriften H.s fordert C. zutage, daB die Apokalypse in Kleinasien beliebt war und dort auch chiliastisch gedacht wurde und daB eine groBe Nahe zu Irenaus und Tertullian besteht (daB es trotzdem Unterschiede gibt, erfahrt man aus anderer Literatur- zB. S. Heid, Chiliasmusund Antichristmythos[1993] besser). Aber was soil man daraus fur die Herkunft Hs. folgern? Da die neuen Einsichten C.s assoziativ gewonnen, mit UngewiBheiten belastetoder problematischsind, verleiht die Kumulationder vermeintlichen Indizienihnen nicht etwa die Weihe emsthafterArgumente,sonder steigert den Grad der UngewiBheitweiter. Uber eine HerkunftH.s aus dem Osten zu diskutieren,wird niemand ernsthaftausschlieBenwollen und war schon in der alteren Forschung ein Thema. Doch wie will man sich GewiBheit verschaffen, daB sich H. wie Irenaus und viele andere, im iibrigen nicht nur christliche,Autoren des 2./3. Jhs. auch im Westen und in Rom aufgehalten und sich dort literarischbetatigt hat? Fastjeder Abschnittdes vom auBerenErscheinungsbildserios daherkommenden Buches weckt beim Leser den Wunsch nach vertiefterArgumentation und Einbeziehung alternativerUberlegungen. Aus einer Mangelliste einige Kostproben: - Der Adressat von antichr.namens Theophilus soil nach C. Bischof und der bekannte Theophilus von Antiochien sein. Die Beweise sind jedoch untauglich. Weder kann man aus der 1. Person Plural die Rolle und den Status von Verfasser und Adressat in der kirchlichen Hierarchie ableiten noch dafur die Bezeichnung a6&Xeop6anfuhren (S. 153); diese gibt nur her, daB der Adressat Christ ist. Wurde man der assoziativen Logik C.s folgen, konnte man ebensogut eine Briicke zur "Chronik" schlagen, welche die Anrede ahnlich gestaltet und gleichfalls die aKipt3eia beschwort. Auch die dem Adressaten im Text zugeschriebene Lehrfunktion muB nicht auf einen Bischof hinweisen, da das zu belehrende Gegenuber nicht die Gemeinde sein muB. - C.s Ubersetzung von antichr.1 ("..., ei'Xoyovrlod'yTaTiv, a&(p6voxapuodaevoS; ; a6ov vTOVi0v ypa(pv Ka5aaraai oot Kica'6p0aX6vv &xa ir t ayiaSmiqy; rnTO?va iva Pli grvov xao Stv <;itov a&lcoal;yicxa0Ta6eevo;xatxa eixppav%iS,&aa 'UvX&8 ei Soatcoat xbv Oeov iKa aixa Txatp&yLaxa ?vtOTopioaa; Kiaxa cavxa 8Duv19S")"[I shall from the divine themselves as from a sacred founbe] drawing unstintingly writings tain, setting them before you so that you may investigate them by sight, in order that you not only take pleasure in hearing them by the reports of the ears..." (S. 149) setzt den Akzent einseitig; sie muB lauten: "... habe ich es fur angemessen gehalten, dir das, was zu erforschen ist [sc. den Untersuchungsgegenstand; die Fragen], vor Augen zu stellen, indem ich neidlos aus den gottlichen Schriften wie aus einer heiligen Quelle schopfe, damit du nicht nur Freude hast dadurch, daB es in die Horfahigkeit der [vielleicht auch: Botschaft fur die] Ohren gelegt wurde [weniger wahrscheinlich die aktive Ubersetzung: ... daB du es in die Horfahigkeit
92
REVIEWS der Ohren legst], sonder du, wenn du die Dinge selbst nach Kraften erkundest hast, in allem Gott preisen kannst". - Nicht verarbeitet wurde (S. 128; 134), daB nach Erkenntnis von M. Richard: GCS NF 7 (2000) XXX, der sich wohl auf H.s DanCom.beziehende Apolinaristext nicht mehr Apolinaris zugewiesen werden kann, sondern als anonym uberlieferter Auszug anzusehen ist. - DaB CantCom. 25,4 eucharistische Implikationen habe (so C. S. 190f), ist anzweifelbar. - Von einem Nutzen der Propheten in "lectionary reading und public exposition" (S. 130) steht in antichr.2 (GCS H. 1,2,5,13/21) nichts. - Uberraschend ist, daB entgegen C.s Intention der Titel der "H.statue" eigTlv ty]yao0pitlxuov (Frgm. zu 1 Kg 28f) im Rahmen der "core documents" genannt wird (S. 145), vor allem deswegen, weil das Fragment GCS H. 1,2,123 von Achelis als unecht eingestuft wurde. Ebenso wird seltsamerweise der vermutliche Titel eiS To0); wVd]Xox);der Statue zu den Hinweisen bei Hieronymus und Theodoret auf ein Werk/Werke H.s zu den Psalmen hinzugefiigt. - Einerseits soil der H. bei Eusebius, h.e. 6,46,5, kein Schriftsteller sein, sondern vielleicht auf H. von Porto weisen (S. 42), andererseits soil die Stelle der friiheste Hinweis auf einen ostlichen Autor (S. 69) sein. - DaB die Gegner von antichr."Gnostics" oder eine "Elite" sind, laBt sich weder mit dem in antichr.1 benutzten Zitat ITim. 6,20f beweisen noch mit dem Hinweis auf den AusschluB von den gottlichen Mysterien in antichr.3 sichem, letztere sind im ubrigen kaum sakramental gemeint (S. 155 A 25). Eine christliche Arkandisziplin (S. 156) hat es auBerdem in dieser Zeit so nicht gegeben. - Die Ausftihrungen zum christlichen Schriftkommentar im 2. Jh. (S. 14/25) sind undifferenziert. Der Verf. meint unscharfer "exegetische Schriftstellerei".DaB Iren., adv.haer.1,8,5, einen Kommentar des Ptolemaus bezeuge (S. 18 Anm. 9), kann man so nicht sagen, da nur Exegesen referiert werden. Ob das Werk des Papias von Hierapolis (der Ort ist ubrigens nicht in der romischen Provinz Asia lokalisiert, wie C. suggeriert, sondern in Phrygien) ein "Kommentar" war, ist noch weniger klar. Die von C. genannte Verzogerung in der Rezeption der Gattung Kommentar im Westen laBt sich damit erklaren, daB der Westen in der friihen Zeit anscheinend keine theologische (Hoch)Schule kannte. Das heiBt aber nicht, daB die Gattung Kommentar nur auf die griechische Literatur und den Osten beschrankt geblieben ist; im Paganen ware Cicero zu nennen. - CPG Suppl. (1998), die GCS-Edition der Hexaemeronhomilien des Basilius(1997), die 3. Auflage des englischen Lexikons von Bauer/Aland durch F.W. Danker (2000; elektronische Ressource 2002), die 5. Auflage der Traditio-Apostolica-Edition von B. Botte (1989) sind laut Literaturverzeichnisunbekannt;S. 206 Anm. 17 muB heiBen LXVII (nicht haer.8,19; 10,25 (nicht 8,12; 10,21), S. 133 (4. Abschnitt) De antichristo LXII).
Universitat zu Koln KlosterstraBe 79e D-50931 Koln
[email protected]
CLEMENS SCHOLTEN
REVIEWS
93
Astenus.Psalmenhomilien, eingeleitet,iibersetztund kommentiertvon Wolfram Erster Halbband dergriechischen Literatur56), Stuttgart: (Bibliothek Kinzig. Anton Hiersemann, 2002, xiii + 279 pp., ISBN 3-7772-0201-0, e 98 (Geb.); Asterius.Psalmenhomilien, eingeleitet, iibersetztund kommentiertvon Wolfram Zweiter Halbband dergriechischen Literatur57), Stuttgart: (Bibliothek Kinzig. Anton Hiersemann, 2002, 329 pp., ISBN 3-7772-0202-9, E 98 (Geb.) Der unter anderem aufgrund zahlreicher Publikationen zu Werk und Person des ,,Asterius"bekannte Autor, W. Kinzig, hat mit seiner Ubersetzung der Psalmenhomilieneinen wertvollenAuszug aus seiner bisherigen Arbeit vorgelegt. Das Werk ist als ausfuhrlicheInterpretationvon groBer Bedeutungfur verschiedeneInteressenan Asterius,da es einen sehr raschen und doch kompetenten Zugang zu seinen Homilien erlaubt. Die beiden Bande enthalten eine Einleitungzu Asteriusund seinem Werk, die Ubersetzung der Homilien und Katenenfragmente,ein Quellen- und Literaturverzeichnis,sowie vier Register.An jede Homilie schlieBtsich ein umfangreicher und fur sich bereits lesenswerterund lehrreicher Anmerkungsapparatan, in dem Fragen zum Text und seinen Realia sehr pragnant diskutiertwerden. In diesen Anmerkungenist weit mehr Literaturverarbeitetund zitiert, als in der Bibliographiezusammengestelltist. Fur letztere ist in Bezug auf Asteriusaber Vollstandigkeitangestrebt(531). Die Ubersetzungist in klarer, nicht antiquierter Sprache gehalten,' die den Sinn des Textes iibertragt, ohne zu versuchen,die griechischeSyntax zu imitieren.Genauso lobenswert ist der Verzicht auf jede kolometrische Prasentation von rhetorischen Passagen, die von mit der Gattung nicht vertrautenLeser leicht als Zitate ,,poetischer"Texte missverstandenwerden konnten.2
1
Vgl. 489 Anm. 51 ,,die Ubersetzung darf hier nicht glatten" als willkommenes Prinzip. Selten ist zu vorsichtig iibersetzt: vgl. 89 Horn. 1.5 mit Anm. 29 ,,Wir aber, die wir jetzt auf geheimnisvolle Weise (uotxIKc; ioOiovTe; a&' avexo) von ihm essen, schaffen die Ursiinde aus der Welt." Vielleicht waren die eucharistischen Implikationen des von Asterius nur einmal beniitzten xuautcKGbesser durch Ubersetzungen wie ,,sakramental, symbolisch" zum Ausdruck gebracht. SchlieBlich sagt Asterius iiber den Hohen Donnerstag: ,,Der fiinfte Tag ist die (Cbergabe seiner lebensspendenden Geheimnisse am fiinften Tag. Und der, der die Lebewesen am funften (Tag) schuf, ist der, der die lebensspendenden Geheimnisse des Brotes und des Blutes (ratcoootxa Jvatipa to) ct o ai4uaxo;) am finften Tag feierte" Hom. 21.12. &pxou Kai 2 Vgl. die Belegsammlung 145 Anm. 6 zu Hom. 4.1. Die Kritik an Auf der Maur
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 93-102
94
REVIEWS
Die Psalmenhomiliendes Asteriussind fur verschiedeneFacher zwischen Philologie und Theologie aus unterschiedlichenGriinden wichtig. Der folgende Durchgang durch Kinzigs Ubersetzungder Homilien stellt Anfragen zusamund Beobachtungenvor allem aus dem Blick der Liturgiewissenschaft men. Fur diese ist spatestensseit der Studie von Hans Jorg Auf der Maur, mit der sich Kinzig en detail und mit groBem Respekt auseinandersetzt,3 Asterius ein Kronzeuge fur Entwicklungenund Datierungen der Liturgie zwischenJudentum und Christentumzu Beginn des viertenJahrhunderts. Die Publikationder Ubersetzung ist daher auch ein willkommenerAnlass, erneut auf die hohe Bedeutung des Textes hinzuweisen. KinzigsmonographischeForschungenzu Asteriusscheinendem liturgiewissenschaftlichenInteressean den Homilien auf den ersten Blickjeden Grund entzogen zu haben. Er hat namlich iiberzeugend nachgewiesen, dass das floruitjenes ,,Asterius",der die Homilien verfasste, an der Wende zum 5. Jahrhunder anzusetzen ist.4 Altere Studien orientierten sich an einer fast um ein Jahrhundertfruheren Datierung dieser Texte. Kinzigs Einordnung der Homilien erfordert daher die Revision all jener Hypothesen, die in den Psalmenhomilienspater gut bekannte Phanomene zum ersten Mal im fruhen viertenJahrhundertbelegt sahen. Wenn Kinzigs Forschungendamit aus einem groBen Innovator einen seiner Zeit entsprechendenRedner gemacht haben, sind zunachstviele interessanteFragen zur fruherenEntwicklung der christlichen Liturgie ohne Asterius neu zu bearbeiten. Asterius selbst predigt aber in seinem Kontext nun plausibler und verstandlicher als zuvor und ist ebenfallsneu zu bewerten,wobei die groBe Zuruckhaltung Kinzigs gegenuber raschen Einordnungen von Homilien in liturgische Zusammenhange,besonders den liturgischenZusammenhangvon Ostern, sehr willkommen ist.5 Einige Anfragen ergeben sich aus der Lektire des Textes. ist zutreffend.Letztererhat allerdingsim allgemeinendie ,,hymnischen"Stucke bei der ,,Improperien"-Passage Asteriussehrvorsichtigbeurteilt,vgl. seine Charakterisierung in hymnischemStil";HansjorgAuf der Maur. Die (Hom. 28.5-7) als ,,Predigt-Passus desAsterios als Qellefiir die Geschichte derOsterfeier Osterhomilien (TThSt 19), Trier: Sophistes Paulinus-Verlag1967, 125f. 3 An manchenStellenist KinzigsRezeptionder Ergebnissevon Auf der Maur (1967) zu hinterfragen.Kinzig weist zuweilenauf letzterenhin, ohne den Lesernmitzuteilen, dass dessen Thesen im Licht seiner eigenen Datierungnicht mehr haltbarsind. S. u. und z. B. 180 Anm. 1 zu Hom. 6. 4 395-410 n. 2-5. Chr., Zusammenfassung: 5 Z. B. 110 Anm. 1, 378 Anm. 8 u. 6. Interessanteaber unsichereVorschlagesind als solche gekennzeichnet:250 Anm. 29. Liturgie, die Asterius erwahnt oder nicht
REVIEWS
95
Eine Anspielung auf Liturgien konnte bei aller Vorsicht zu Hom. 2.10 (Anm. 35) erganzt werden: ,.... hatten jene [die Frauen] aus Unkenntnis
das Grab berauchert, das nichts enthielt...". Kinzig verbindet die Stelle mit Hom. 6.10, 11.2 und 30.8,6 die ,,Weihrauch"in verschiedener Verwendung erwahnen. Wenn die angezeigte Verbindung zum Totenkult auch auf jeden Fall bestehen bleibt, so hat doch das ,,Berauchem" des leeren Grabes keine biblische, wohl aber eine liturgische Grundlage - vielleicht schon ab dem spaten viertenJahrhundert.7Die ,,das Grab berauchernden" Frauen sind in der Liturgiedurch die Klerikervertreten,die den Altarraum (in Jerusalem: die Anastasis)inzensieren. Eine bildliche Darstellung (des 5. Jh.?), in der die Liturgie und allegorische Deutung ineinander geschoben sind, findet sich auf einer Pyxis aus Elfenbein des Metropolitan Museum of Art: ,,Pyx Depicting Women at the Tomb of Christ" - das ,,Grab Christi"ist dort der Altarraummit zu den Seiten weggezogenenVorhangen.8 Die Bemerkung des Asterius zeigt, wie er Liturgie allegorisierendinterpretiert - eine Methode, die zu Beginn des 5. Jh. noch nicht breit belegt ist, aber z. B. von Theodor von Mopsuestia gepflegt wurde.9 die Kinzig iiberwundenhat. Die erwahnt,fihrt in alterenArbeitenzu Zirkelschliissen, Homilien erwahnenz. B. Quadragesimaund Pentekoste(Auf der Maur 1967, 24-28; Kinzig 380 Anm. 22) nicht, kennenaber vielleichteinen Oktavtagvon Ostem, der aufgrundder Nicht-Erwahnungersterernoch nicht als liturgischeInnovationim fruhen4. werdendarf.DassseineAusfihrungen Jh. (unddaherim 5. Jh. als Archaismus!) interpretiert einen Oktavtagvon Pentekosteandeuten,ist fur das 5. Jh. nicht erstaunlich;vgl. die derZeitI. Herrenfeste in Wocheund Belege bei HansjorgAuf der Maur, Feiernim Rhythmus Jahr(GDK 5.1), Regensburg:Pustet, 1983, 82; bes. Apost. Konst. 5.20.14 Metzger282. 6 Horn. 30.8 darf in den folgendenUberlegungennicht mit 2.10 verbundenwerden, weil es sich hier um die Grablegung,dort aber die Entdeckungdes leeren Grabeshandelt- zwei im historisierenden Systemder Hohen WochegetrennteliturgischeSituationen. 7 Vgl. die Liturgievor dem Morgengrauendes Sonntags bei Egeria 24.10. Juan Mateos,,,La vigilecathedralechez Egerie",in OCP27 (1961)281-312 (iiberdie Wurzeln der spateren Liturgie in der von Egeria beschriebenenJerusalemerLiturgie);ders., in RClAfr19 (1964)263-288. Hom. 6.18 kommt ,,L'Officedominicalde la Resurrection", ,,Maria"(ohneErwahnungvon Weihrauch),,Morgens"(Ps 5.4a) ,,alsTypos der Kirche" zum Grab. 8 New York, Gabe von J. PierpontMorgan an das Museum, 1917; Nr. 17.190.57. Ich danke Harald Buchingerfur den Hinweis auf diese Darstellung. 9 Raymond [M.] Tonneau und Robert Devreesse,Leshomiliescatichetiques de Theodore de Mopsueste (StT 145), Citta del Vaticano:BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana, 1949, 504508 fol. 127r-128rHom. 15.26-28. Theodor kann auch zu Horn. 29.4 (Asterius)als Beleg fur die Auffassungdes Taufpatenals ,,Biirgen"genanntwerden:(Theodors)Horn. 12.15 Tonneau u. Devreesse344ff. fol. 87rf. Vgl. dort das Bild von der Biirgerschaft in der himmlischenStadt, das Asterius(Hom. 26.8f.) ebenfallsmit Theodor teilt.
96
REVIEWS
Kinzig ubernimmtvorsichtigvon Auf der Maur, dass Hom. 6 ,,im ersten Teil der Ostervigil, der ,Trauerphase',unmittelbar vor der Taufe gehalten" wurde.'0 Soil hier impliziert sein, dass noch zu Beginn des funften Jahrhundertsdie Gemeinde des Asterius eine dem (rekonstruierten)quartodezimanischenPascha des 2. Jh. folgende Liturgiefeierte?Auf der Maur hatte seine Annahme vor allem auf die Fruhdatierungdes Asterius, die Kinzig korrigierthat, gestiitzt. Damit muss jetzt gefragt werden, welche Form der OsterfeierAsteriusiiberhauptkannte. Auf der Maur interpretierte seinen Voraussetzungen gemaB auch Hom. 11.1-4 als Hinweis auf den Festinhalt der quartodezimanischenPaschavigil.Die Passage enthalt allerdings nichts, was zur Annahme einer Vigil zwingt, oder die Anspielungauf die historisierendeHohe Woche ausschlieBt.1Ein weiteres Argument von Auf der Maur ist ebenfalls nicht mehr gultig, dass namlich eine Anspielung auf die Taufe notwendigerweisedie Paschavigilvoraussetze.12 Auf der Maur selbst hatte bereits vor einer zu weit gehenden liturgischenInterpretation von ocppayi;gewarnt.13Uber die Initiation konnte im 5. Jh. (weniger zu Beginn des 4.) in einem sehr breiten osterlichen Kontext gesprochen werden, ohne dass dies hervorzuheben ware. Die Situation der 6sterlichen Initiation bei Asterius kann aus folgenden Beobachtungen weiter erhellt werden. Wenn er (folglicherwachsene)Neugetaufte in manchen Homilien Zahl anwesend gewesen sein. (Dass ansprach,mtissen dieselben in gr6oBerer es sich um einen leeren literarischenTopos handelt,ware eigens zu beweisen.) Die Aufforderungenvon Asterius, Kinder so bald wie moglich - noch vor dem 8. Tag (der Beschneidung im Judentum) - zu taufen, zeigen jedoch zusammen mit einer apotropaischen Deutung der Taufe,14 dass weder 10 180 Anm. 1 zu Hom. 6. 1 Den Begriff ,,gestern" in Horn. 15.1 deutete er als Hinweis auf die Trauerphase der Paschavigil; Auf der Maur 1967, 16. Kinzig 290 Anm. 2. Hom. 11.1 ist ,,Uber denselben Psalm, am zweiten glanzenden Tag..." und beginnt mit Kai viv, ,,Freuen soil sich geradejetzt die erbende Kirche... denn ihr Brautigam Christus, der gelitten hat, ist auferstanden." Der ausgefalteten Osterfeier schlieBt sich eine liturgisch begangene Freudenphase mehrerer Tage an. ,,Jetzt" bezeichnet nicht das Ende der Paschavigil. 12 Vgl. dazu Paul F. Bradshaw, ,,Diem Baptismo Sollemniorem': Initiation and Easter in Christian Antiquity", in E. Carr, S. Parenti, A.-A. Thiermeyer und E. Velkovska (Hgg.), EYAOrHMA.Studiesin Honor of RobertTaft, S.J. (StAns 110 = StLi 17), Roma: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1993, 41-51, den Kinzig 231 Anm. 31 zitiert. 13 Auf der Maur 1967, 17f. Anm. 35. Vgl. die vorsichtige Interpretation von Kinzig zu Hom. 6.5 Anm. 33, 187 Anm. 86, 233 Anm. 48. 14 Hom. 12.4 und 249 Anm. 22-29. Auch Beschneidung und Pesach sind bei Asterius nicht verbunden, Anm. 23.
REVIEWS
97
Erwachseneninitiationnoch die Initation zu Oster die Regel gewesen sein konnten. Die Kindertaufe wird im Gegensatz zu der der Erwachsenen (Hor. 14) auch nicht paschal begriindet. Initiation und Ostem sind daher sogar in ihren Bedeutungenunabhangig.Wo sie sich in der Liturgiebegegnen, konnen ihre Interpretamentead hoc verschranktwerden. Diese ersten Beobachtungen zeigen, dass die Osterhomilien in den von Kinzig erarbeiteten historischenKontext besser passen als in eine um mehrere Generationen friihere Situation. Kinzig bestatigt, dass Asterius weder Hebraisch konnte, noch vermuten lasst, dass er Kontakte zu Juden hatte.'5 Antijiidische Polemik konnte er (ohnehin selten innerhalb des erhaltenen Werkes) als literarischenTopos benutzt haben. Juden und Judentum spielen als theologische Gegner keine wichtige Rolle. Vielleicht wollte er seine Gemeinde (wie Chrysostomus)en passant gegen eine Attraktivitatdes Judentums disponieren (Hom. 20.7). Das ist fur die Forschungsgeschichtezu Asterius von groBter Bedeutung. Wegen seiner (Nicht-) Vertrautheit mit dem, was andernorts als jiidische Traditionen angezeigt ist, kann bei Asterius weder fur seine Kenntnis des Judentums noch gar fiir die Vermutung, er sei ,,Judenchrist" gewesen, argumentiertwerden.16 15
Einfiihrung 8, Anm. 36 und bes. 71f. Horn. 18.15 Anm. 50, vgl. 391f. Anm. 17 zu den judischen Gegnern des Asterius. Wie andere Autoren seiner Zeit hat auch Asterius die eine oder andere (Volks-) Etymologie biblischer Namen oder Worte aus der Literatur gekannt (oder verwechselt 269f Anm. 37). Auch die Deutungen der Spuren des Tetragramms im Griechischen (Hom. 6.16) zeigen, dass er von dessen Vorlage keine Ahnung hat. Wo er vom AT abweicht, darf man sein Desinteresse an demselben und nicht jiidische Traditionen rekonstruieren, vgl. 380 Anm. 22 zu Horn. 21.6. Hier wandelt Asterius Ex 12.15 dahingehend ab, dass die Fortschaffung des Sauerteigs am 8. Tag nach Pesach stattfindet. Da auf diesen Text weitere Allegoresen gegriindet sind, kann es sich nicht um einen Irrtum handeln. Asterius fehlt jedes Interesse an einem eigenstandigen Sinn des AT. Seine typologischen Beobachungen zu den Festen zeigen, dass vom NT ausgegangen wird, Hom. 21.3-14 Anm. 11. Auch Num 29.35 hat er zur Vorbereitung von Hom. 21.11 nicht nachgeschlagen, wenn er davon ausgeht, dass am 8. Tag des Laubhiittenfests keine Opfer dargebracht werden. Schon V. 36 (auch IXX) beschreibt die Opfer fur diesen Tag. Die Chronologien von Sundenfall und Passion beeinflussen einander ohne Ruckgriff auf rabbinische Exegese, 384 Anm. 64. 16 Auf der Maur stellt nicht den Anspruch, den rabbinischen Charakter der Exegese von Asterius aufzuweisen. Die angefuhrten Beispiele (1967, 11 bes. Anm. 85) legen keine Beziehung zu rabbinischen Texten nahe (vgl. Kinzig 232 Anm. 32) und konnten auf viele christliche Exegeten angewendet werden. Das aus sich selbst undatierbare Dayyenu der Pesachhaggada ist z. B. erst im 10. Jh. als babylonischer Zusatz zur palastinischen Haggada erwahnt. Nichts spricht dafur, dass es vor dem Mittelalter verfasst wurde. Auf der Maur wurde heute wohl nicht mehr (wie noch 96ff.) von der Synagogenliturgie als
98
REVIEWS
In diesem Kontext ist der Hinweis von Kinzig auf die Analyse des Sanctus bei Asterius durch Auf der Maur als ,,entsprechend der veranderten Zuschreibung zu modifizieren"'7 zu undeutlich. Wenn Kinzigs Kontextualisierung der Homilien ernst genommen wird, sind wichtige Synthesen von Auf der Maur obsolet. Da fur das friihe 4. Jh. keine Belege fur eine christliche Osterliturgie existieren, konnte Auf der Maur mit gewissem Recht weitreichende Theorien auf die Homilien von Asterius grunden. Im frtihen 5. Jh. ist Asterius mit zeitgenossischen oder alteren BeschreibungenverschiedenerLiturgienzu vergleichen.Dabei mogen immer noch zeitgenossischejiidische Einfliisse (oder christlicheEinflusse auf judische Liturgien?) rekonstruierbarsein. Dass das Sanctus gerade aus der Keduscha im Jotser (oder auch der Amida) eines von den Christen gehaltenen ,jiidischen" (rabbinischen?)Morgengebetsam Ostersonntagentstand, ist unwahrscheinlich.Woraus lasst sich schlieBen, dass die Christen (z. B. von Antiochia oder Jerusalem)im 5. Jh. den Ostermorgenmit einem rabbinischen Schacharit begingen? Auch wenn Asteriusauf christlicheLiturgienanspielen soil, ergeben sich Probleme. In beiden Belegstellen zum Sanctus (Hom. 15.16 und 29.10)'8 sindJes 6.3 und Ez 3.12 in unterschiedlicherReihenfolge gegeben: welche Hom. 15.16 zitiert nur den Beginn des Verses Reihenfolge ist ,,liturgisch"?19 Vorbild der Psalmenverwendung des Asterius fur das friihe 4. Jh. ausgehen, vgl. Gunter Stemberger, ,,Psalmen in Liturgie und Predigt der rabbinischen Zeit", in E. Zenger (HBS 18), Freiburg [a.o.]: Herder, 1998, (Hg.), Der Psalter in Judentumund Christentum 199-213. Die Auslegung von nur wenigen Versen ist auch kein notwendigerweise rabbinischer Zug der Homiletik des Asterius. Um Gattungsmerkmale rabbinischer Predigt auf Asterius anwenden zu konnen, muissten deutlichere Parallelen vorliegen. Dennoch ware erneut zu fragen, ob Kinzigs Erklarung des Phanomens (der Auslegung von wenigen Versen eines Psalms) damit, dass die meisten Homilien unvollstandig iiberliefert sind, in alien Fallen zutrifft. 17 S. u. und 487 Anm. 32 zu Horn. 29.10, vgl. auch 295 Anm. 74 zu Horn. 15.16; im Riickgriff auf Auf der Maur 1967, 90ff. Die bei Auf der Maur skizzierte Herkunft des Sanctus aus der jiidischen Morgenliturgie, sowie die Annahme, dass Hom. 15.16 ein eucharistisches und 29.10 ein nicht-eucharistisches Sanctus spiegelt, haben keinen Hintergrund in der Liturgie. 18 Das bei M. Richard angefiihrte Fragment 19 (265f.) zu Ps 19.2 ist bei Kinzig nicht iibersetzt, weil es der direkten Uberlieferung in Hom. 29 entspricht. 19 Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita zitiert Ez 3.12 ebenfalls vorJes 6.3, De Coelesti Hierarchia 7.4 Heil u. Ritter 31 PG 3 212B. Meir Bar-Ilan, ,,Major Trends in the Formation and Crystallization of the Qedusha[Hebr.]", in Daat (fasc.) 25 (1990) 5-20 (Ich verdanke den Hinweis auf diesen Aufsatz einem Referat von Ruth Langer, New York 2004.) bes. 10, vermutet dazu, dass hier eine Form der Keduscha vor ihrer Normierung in der anderen
REVIEWS
99
von Jes 6.3 (gegen die rabbinische Liturgie und Apost. Konst. 7.35.3, wo der gesamte Vers belegt ist), so dass nicht sichtbarist, ob Asteriushier den liturgischen oder den biblischen Text assoziiert. Hom. 29.10, wo die Reihenfolge umgekehrt ist, zitiert er Jes 6.3 in der Form, wie er auch in Apost. Konst. 8.12.27 (wo Ez 3.12 nicht zitiert ist) aufscheint- und nicht dem der judischen Liturgie naher stehenden Gebet im 7. Kapitel.20Das Zitat in 29.10 kann dem Einflussder Liturgievon Antiochia zugeschrieben werden.21In Hom. 15.18 folgt dariiber hinaus eine langere Auslegung von Mt 21.15f. Auf der Maur meinte dazu, dass hier die ,,Homilie" fortgesetzt wird, ohne auf eine Liturgie anzuspielen.22Leichter als zu Beginn des 4. Jh. (Auf der Maur) kann dieser Text im 5. Jh. als Anspielung auf eine Liturgie, wo dem Sanctus das Hosanna folgt, gedeutet werden. Wenn das Zitat von Ez 3.12 als Hinweis auf eine (jiidische) Liturgie verstanden wird, mussen die an beiden Stellen verschiedenen, ebenfalls zitierten Texte (aus Lk 2, Ps 8 und 24) genauso als Zeugnisse der Liturgie ernst genommen werden. Sie stammen aber nicht aus dem Kontext der spater belegten Keduscha des jiidischen Gebetbuchs oder des Sanctus. SchlieBlichwerden Formen der Keduscha zwar zur Zeit des Asterius im rabbinischenJudentum erwahnt, es ist aber nicht klar, wo und in welchen Formen sie verbreitetwaren.23Ohne den Vers Ez 3.12 zu zitieren, verlegt Reihenfolge angedeutet ist. Noch weniger als die Belege bei Asterius ist dieser Text jedoch ein Zitat einer Liturgie. Der ohne Varianten iberlieferte Text von Jes 6.3 entspricht auch der Septuaginta und enthalt keine der in den Liturgien iiblichen Abwandlungen. 20 Metzger 193. W. Kinzig, In Searchof Asterius.Studieson the Authorship of the Homilies on the Psalms (FKDG 47), Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, 165. 21 Kinzig 487 Anm. 32. 22 Auf der Maur 1967, 93f. 23 Ezra Fleischer, ,,The Qedushaof the Amida(and other Qedushot): Historical, Liturgical and Ideological Aspects [Hebr.]", in Tarb. 67 (1997/1998) 301-350 vermutet, dass die Keduscha in ihrem Kern (in Form der beiden elementaren Bibelzitate) Teil der 3. Benediktion der (so nicht belegten) Amida war und sich von da aus gegen den Willen der Rabbinen aus der Frommigkeit des Volkes heraus zu den erhaltenen Formen entfaltet hat. Im Hintergrund steht Fleischers Rekonstruktion der Erstellung der Amida durch die Gelehrten von Yavne bald nach 70 n. Chr. Er geht allerdings dabei von der problematischen These aus, dass am Beginn der Komposition der Amida im 1. Jh. ein einziger, fest vorgeschriebener Text entstand. Die spateren Formen seien daher Abwandlungen jenes Textes (und nicht Produkte der Konvergenz von einer ursprunglich noch groBeren Vielfalt). Die Beobachtungen und Schlussfolgerungen von Bar-Ilan (1990) bleiben daher weiter giiltig. Er betont die Pluralitat der Formen (der zitierten Bibeltexte oder Pseudo-Verse und der sie verbindenden Textelemente) und Anlasse, zu denen eine
100
REVIEWS
auBerdem schon Offb 4.8 die Vision aus dem Tempel (Jes 6) in den Himmel. Wer immer die Frage stellt, was in der Entourage Gottes zu dessen Lob gesprochen wurde, kommt bei der Kombination der beiden Berufungsvisionenzwangslaufigund ausschlieBlichauf Ez 3.12 undJes 6.3. Sonst finden sich dort (auBerJes 6.7) nur Visionen, Larm und die Rede Gottes selbst. Hom 15.16-18 und 29.10 stehen daher zwischen Liturgie und Exegese. Dass ein Prediger im 5. Jh. Elemente der Berufungsvisionen der groBen Propheten kombiniert,ist kein Beweis, dass er die rabbinische Liturgiekennt. Die christlicheLiturgiegibt ihm Themata vor und beeinflusst die Textgestalt seiner Zitate. Er interpretiert sie, zitiert sie aber nicht wortlich. Dass das ,,Hiipfen"von Juden24jiidische Liturgie- sei es als literarischer Topos oder als beobachteter Ritus - karikiert,kann nicht aus dem Text erschlossenwerden.Jom Kippur wird kaum gemeint sein, weil in den parallel konstruiertenAlternativen ausschweifendesVerhalten angedeutet ist. Es ist unwahrscheinlich,dass Umziige zum Torahfest gemeint sind. Die Voraussetzung fur das viel spater belegte Fest Simchat Tora ist der einjahrige, babylonischeLesezyklus,der erst in islamischerZeit in die palastinische Liturgie einzudringen begann.25Zum Vorschlag von Kinzig ist die Keduscha rezitiert werden konnte. Die karaische Verwendung von nach Belieben des Beters variierbaren Formen der Keduscha spiegelt noch einen Zustand vor der Fixierung des heutigen, rabbinischen Standards (16)! Auf der Maur deutete die Tatsache, dass bei Asterius weitere Texte zitiert wurden, als jiidische/judenchristliche Praxis (1967, 90f.), da auch in der rabbinischen Keduscha weitere (allerdings wiederum andere) Texte zitiert werden. Die Uberlegung folgt aber seiner grundsatzlichen Annahme, dass schon die Kombination von Jes 6.3 und Ez 3.12 auf den Einfluss ,,der" jiidischen Liturgie hinweist. Wenn jedoch die Passagen in den Homilien des Asterius uberhaupt Ruckschliisse auf liturgische Vollziige erlauben, dann eher auf ihre Pluriformitat und Offenheit als auf ihre Herkunft. Letztere bleibt unbestimmt, so dass Beeinflussungen in jeder Richtung moglich sind. Auf der Maurs Annahme ist umzuformulieren:Die Offenheit des Repertoires und nicht den einzelnen Vers zur Rezitation teilt das Sanctus des Asterius (u. a.) strukturell mit der jiidischen Keduscha. Vergleiche sind uberdies mit groBer Vorsicht zu ziehen, weil die Liturgie und Lehre der Juden, die Asterius gekannt haben kann, vom rabbinischen Judentum sehr verschieden gewesen sein konnen, vgl. Seth Schwartz, ,,Rabbinization in the Sixth Century", in P. Schafer (Hg.), The Talmud Yerushalmiand Graeco-Roman Culture(TSAJ 93), Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 55-69. 24 214 Anm. 15 zu Hom. 9.3 im Gegensatz zum BoSoXoyeivder Apostel. 25 Ezra Fleischer, [,,Simchat Tora des palastinischen Ritus", Hebr.], in Sinai 59 (1965/1966) 209-227, zeigt zwar, dass sich aus der friihmittelalterlichen synagogalen Dichtung ergibt, dass der Abschluss des palastinischen dreieinhalbjahrigenTorahlesezyklus ebenfalls festlich dargestellt wurde. Dessen Thema ist aber gemaB dem Ende des Dtn der Tod des Mose und zunachst nicht die Freude uiber die Tora.
REVIEWS
101
Studie von Elbogen ungenau zitiert.26Elbogen wird auch zu den Festpsalmen gegen seinen eigenen Text ausgewertet.Die Frage ,,Stehen die folgenden Ausfiihrungen iiber die jiidischen Wallfahrtsfeste mit der Beobachtung Elbogens in Zusammenhang, daB Ps 12 (11) seit alters her der Psalm des achten Tages des Laubhiittenfestesist?"27kann im Hinblick auf die Ausfiihrungen von Stemberger28und aus Elbogens eigenen Bemerkungenmit "nein,, beantwortetwerden: ,,Sein Psalm [sc. des Laubhiittenfestes]ist nach Sof. XIX, 2 [sc. Ausg. Higgers 18.11] und tatsachlich in Seph. [sc. im sephardischenRitus] (wahrscheinlichwegen der Uberschrift)Ps. 12; Rom. [sc. der romische Ritus] hat wahrscheinlich aus ahnlicher auBlerlicher Anlehnung Ps. 6; in Sof. [sc. im Traktat Sofrim29]wird femer Ps. 111 zur Wahl gestellt, den wir auch in Pal. finden." Elbogen diskutiert hier die Situation des zweiten Jahrtausends,ohne einen Anlass fur die Vermutung zu geben, dass gerade Ps. 12 vor Asterius mit dem Laubhiittenfestverbunden war. In Hom. 11 finden sich einige Stiicke mit rhetorischemStilwechsel, die Kinzig ebenfalls nicht als ,,Hymnen" oder Zitate der Liturgie des Asterius bezeichnet. Er bestatigtAuf der Maur30darin, dass Asteriuskeine Vorform des Exsultetzitiert. Ein Zitat in extenso eines fur die angebliche Paschavigil bestimmten ,,Hymnus" auf die Osteracht gerade am ,,zweiten glanzenden Tag" ware ebenfalls schwer zu erklaren.31Die Tadelrede, die Struktur
26
in seinergeschichtichen Enlwicklng.Hildesheim: Vgl. Ismar Elbogen, DerjidischeGottesdienst Olms, 41962 (= Nachdr. v. 31931), 200, in der von Kinzig zitierten Beschreibung der Umziige zu Simchat Tora: ,,Zu welcher Zeit diese Umziige... begonnen haben, konnen wir nicht mehr genau bestimmen, gegenEnde des Mittelaltersbegegnen wir ihnen in allen Landern..." [Hervorhebung von mir]. Vgl. 140, wo Elbogen den Brauch, am 8. Tag des Laubhiittenfests das erste Kapitel der Tora zu lesen, auf ,,gaonaische Zeit" zuriickfiihrt. In seinen Anmerkungen erganzt Elbogen (548): ,,Die Umziige am Torafest erwahnt keine mittelalterliche Quelle." 27 379 Anm. 18 zu Elbogen 139. 28 Stemberger 1998. 29 Der Traktat Sofrim existierte zur Zeit des Asterius noch nicht, vgl. die Beobachtungen von Debra Reed Blank, ,,It's Time to Take Another Look at ,Our Little Sister' Sofrim: A Bibliographical Essay", in JQR 90 (1999)1-26. Wenn auf rabbinisches Material verwiesen werden soil, ware z. B. tBer 6.25 (yBer 9.5 14d, SDev 36, bMen 43b) zu nennen, wo die Achtzahl auf die Beschneidung, oder tAr 2.7 (bAr 13b) auf die kommenden Tage des Messias ausgelegt wird. Vgl. dazu die interessante Anmerkung 11 (247f.). 30 Auf der Maur 1967, 122. 31 Die jiidischen Vorbilder (v. a. Passagen der Mischna, der Haggada und der Erweiterung im pal. Targum zu Ex 12.42), die Auf der Maur (u. a., vgl. Kinzig zu
102
REVIEWS
und Themata verarbeitet, welche zum Teil auch in die Improperia der romischen Liturgie eingegangen sind (Hom. 28.5ff.), ist ebenfalls ein Teil der Homilie - wenn er auch in seinem Pathos hervortritt- und kein sonst in der Liturgie rezitierter Text. Die Einordnung dieser Passagen durch Kinzig ist fur ihre weitere Bearbeitunggrundlegend. Die Indices des Werkes, vor allem das Sachregister,hatten etwas ausfiuhrlichersein konnen, weil Kinzig in den Anmerkungenim Sachregister nicht aufscheinendeAspekte anzeigt, nach denen Leser die Tradition des Asterius befragen konnten. Hier waren auch weitere Angaben zu Vorstellungen, die bei Asterius nichtauftreten, wiinschenswert,sofern sie in den beiden Banden als solche angedeutet sind.32Der Index eignet sich trotzdem gut zu ersten Sondierungen zum Denken des Asterius. Er verzeichnet z. B. keinen Eintrag ,,Eschatologie". Darin entspricht Asterius der antiken christlichenund jiidischen Paschatheologie.33 Wer sich nur fur Texte interessiert,die ein liturgisches,,Ur-Phanomen" zum ersten Mal bezeugen, mag uiberdie Psalmenhomilienenttauscht sein. Eine Fulle von interessantenThemen - auch nach vielen Vorschlagen von Kinzig - wartet aber noch auf Detailuntersuchungenzu den Homilien und ihrem Kontext. Wenn jetzt in neuen Studien zu den Homilien von Asterius die Zitathaufigkeitder Textausgabe von M. Richard in die Hohe schnellt, wird man Kinzigs Ubersetzung als ,,gleichsam mitzitiert"denken diirfen, weil sie nicht zuletzt einen hervorragenden Zugang zum griechischen Original bietet. Institut fiir Liturgiewissenschaft
LEONHARD CLEMENS
Schottenring 21, A-1010 Wien
recht skeptisch gegeniiber dieser Auffassung, 230 Anm. 17) als Vorlaufer oder Vorbilder des Osterachtlobs des Asterius sieht, konnen letzterem nicht bekannt gewesen sein. 32 350 Anm. 39 erwahnt, dass Asterius ,,nur in Ansatzen" eine ,,Naturrechtslehre" kennt. Der Begriff fehlt daher im Index. Das Sachregister ersetzt auch nicht die Konkordanz zu Asterius in den verarbeiteten Lemmata, vgl. ,,Paradies" 358 Hom. 20.12. 33 Vgl. das in Studia Patristica(zur Patristic Conference, Oxford 2003) erscheinende Referat von G. A. M. Rouwhorst.
REVIEWS
103
sur Adolfvon Hanack. Marcion.L'vangiledu Dieu etranger.Une monographie Traduitpar Bernard Lauret et suivi l'histoire de lafondationde l'Eglisecatholique. de contributions de Bernard Lauret, Guy Monnot et Emile Poulat. Avec un essayde Michel Tardieu, MarciondepuisHamack,Paris, Les Editions du Cerf 2003, 587 SS. Im Jahre 1921 erschien die grosse Monographie Haracks zu Marcion, an der er, mit vielen Unterbrechungen,funfzigJahre lang gearbeitet hatte. Nach der Erschutterungdurch den ersten Weltkrieg machte diese Studie zu einem Christen,der an der Welt verzweifelteund sich an den liebevollen Vater Jesu Christi klammern wollte, nicht nur auf Historikereinen tiefen Eindruck.Der Historikerund Theologe Harack hatte ein Werk geschaffen, das wie eine Bombe einschlug. ImJahre 1924 erschien eine erweiterteund verbessertezweite Auflage, die 1985 von der WissenschaftlichenBuchgesellschaft in Darmstadt nachgedruckt wurde. Die angefuhrte Studie bietet zunachst eine franzosischeUbersetzung der dritten Auflage, wobei von den vielen Beilagen nur die erste in die Ubersetzung einbezogen worden ist. Da es den Verfasser in erster Linie um die GedankenweltMarcions geht, ist dieses zu billigen. Wer an den Einzelheiten interessiert ist kann den leicht verstandlichendeutschen Originaltextheranziehen. Fur die Marcionforschung sind diese Beilagen unerlasslich. In zweiter Linie wollen die Verfasser den geistesgeschichtlichenOrt der Harnackschen Studie erhellen. Bernard Lauret befasst sich mit vorangehenden Marciondeutungenbei Schelling, F.C. Baur und A. Ritschl, sowie mit dem Werdegang,der Rezeptionund der Haltbarkeitder Marciondeutung Haracks, namentlichseinerAnsichtenzum Alten TestamentundJudentum. Emile Poulat zeichnet die Rezeption der Studie Haracks in der franzosischen Wissenschaft nach. Nach dem ersten Weltkrieg war diese, u.a. wegen der Beteiligung Harnacks an dem Aufruf der 93 deutschen Wissenschaftler, in dem die Kriegspolitik der Regierung unterstiitzt wurde, anfangsrecht problematisch.Ein kurzerBeitragvon Guy Monnot beschaftigt sich mit den Marcioniten innerhalb der moslemischenHeresiographie.Die Studie schliesst mit einer ausfuhrlichenAbhandlung von Michel Tardieu zur Marcionforschungseit Harack, die ihren Weg zwischen der altkirchlichen Verleumdung Marcions als eines unaufrichtigen Ketzers und der MarciondarstellungHarnacks als eines origenellen religiosen Denkers, der zwischen Paulus und Augustin der wichtigste Christ war und mit Luther auf einer Ebene steht, zu finden versucht. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 103-104
104
REVIEWS
Marcion bleibt im Zusammenhang der Entwicklung der christlichen Theologie nicht nur im Hinblick auf den Kanon ein kaum zu iiberschatzenderFaktor.Diese Studie leistet einen glanzenden Dienst fur jeden, der sich mit der Geschichte der Marcionforschungund mit Marcion selbst beschaftigenwill. Sie enthalt Theologiegeschichteim doppelten Sinne: ein Fragment der altkirchlichen Vergangenheit und seine Erforschung im zwanzigstenJahrhundert. Ridderspoorlaan8 NL 2343 TZ Oegstgeest
E.P.
MEIJERING
John D. Turner & Anne McGuire (ed.), TheNag HammadiLibraryafter Commemoration of the 1995 Societyof BiblicalLiterature Fifty Years.Proceedings (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 44), Leiden, New York, Cologne, Brill, 1997, pp. XVIII + 531. ISBN 90 04 10824 6. Ce volume celebre le cinquantenairede la decouvertedes papyrusde Nag Hammadi avec un riche ensemble de contributions,presentees a la commemoration organisee par la Society of Biblical Literature a Haverford College (17 novembre 1995), puis a Philadelphie (18-22 novembre 1995). Tout en celebrantl'une des decouvertesmajeuresdu XX" siecle en matiere de texteslitteraires,ce volume temoigneausside l'engagementconstant,depuis 1972, de la SBL dans les etudes sur le gnosticismeet la bibliothequecopte. Son originaliteconsistedans la mise en evidence de nouvellesperspectives dans la recherche sur la bibliothequede Nag Hammadi. L'attentionest en effet focalisee,de diversesmanieresau fil des articles,mais avec un consensus de fond, non tant sur les textes tels qu'ils nous sont parvenus dans la version copte que nous connaissons,mais sur les etapes de leur redaction,leurs modes de transmission et les eventuelles reecritures qu'ils ont pu subir, depuisl'originalgrec. Cette perceptiondu texte comme d'un documentouvert, sujeta changement,fluide en quelquesorte,impliqueegalementune reflexion sur la part jouee par ses lecteurs quant a l'influencequ'ils ont pu jouer sur le texte lui-meme. Si bon nombre d'entre eux appartenaientsans doute a des milieux de foi gnostique, oiu le document ecrit constituait un element fort de cohesion,d'autres,en revanche,adheraientprobablementa des formes diverses de la religiosite en Egypte a la fin de 1'Antiquite.Les premiers comme les deuxiemes ont pu intervenir, a differentsniveaux, sur la riche ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
FtgiliaeChristianae59, 104-109
REVIEWS
105
histoire qui se dessine a l'arriere-plandes textes retrouvesa Nag Hammadi. Trois traitesde Nag Hammadi,exemplairesa plusieursegards-l'Apocryphon de Jean, l'AvangileselonPhilippeet l'Avangileselon Thomas-, constituent le noyau du volume, encadres par deux parties de caractereplus general. Le choix de ces traites n'est sans doute pas le fruit d'un hasard: ce qui les unit est le fait qu'ils suscitent tous des problemes de coherence litteraire (cf. l'Introductionau volume), ce qui entraine une reflexion, de la part des chercheurs en ce domaine, tant sur la composition que sur la circulation de Jean, sont connus dans de ces textes qui, a l'exception de l'Apocryphon une seule et unique version. Le volume s'articuleainsi. La premierepartie, < Past, Present,and Future Research on the Nag Hammadi Codices > (pp. 3-101), se compose de six articles, dont le premier, du aJ.M. Robinson,
, pp. 3-33, retrace les evenements qui ont suivi la decouverte des papyrus, evenements dans lesquels il a joue un role de premier plan, contribuanta mettre ces documents a la dispositiondu monde scientifique. Deux periodes sont distinguees : de 1945 a 1970 (rupture du monopole concernant les textes), de 1970 a 1995 (publicationdes codices facsimile et realisationdes grands projets d'edition, americain, franco-canadienet allemand, des textesde la bibliotheque).La contributionde S. Emmel, <, pp. 34-43, met l'accent sur la problematiquede la transmissiontextuelle,s'echelonnant sur plusieurs siecles, dans l'etude des textes de Nag Hammadi, qu'il definit comme une 'collection' plut6t que comme une 'bibliotheque' de (p. 16). Le schema quadripartitepropose par F. Wisse pour l'Apocyphon Jean dans ce meme volume, pp. 147-151 (dans un ordre chronologique inverse: phase monastiquecopte, phase de traduction,phase de composition et phase de pre-composition)est ici propose pour l'ensemblede la collection, tout en etant commente et nuance (la 'phase monastique', par exemple, demeure une question ouverte). Parmi les directions de travail proposees par S. Emmel pour les annees a venir, celle d'une lecture avertie des documents de Nag Hammadi dans le contexte de la litteratureet de la culture coptes qui lui furent contemporaines,ce qui represente<<primarilya Coptological enterprise>, nous parait de toute premiereimportance.B.A. Pearson presente ensuite une etude sur < The Coptic Gnostic Library Edition of Nag Hammadi Codex VII >, pp. 44-61, codex significatif,car sa parution, en 1995, a complete cette importante serie en seize volumes editee par EJ. Brill. En tant qu'editeur en chef du codex VII, Pearson aborde dans
106
REVIEWS
cet article des problemes de codicologie et de langue qui se sont presentes au cours du travail, avant de passer brievementen revue les cinq traitis du codex. La quatrieme etude est une presentation par H.-M. Schenke de , pp. 72-88, relance le debat sur l'une des questions les plus epineuses du gnosticisme, a travers l'eclairage des documents de la bibliotheque copte. Une palette de textes dont les origines ont suscite un debat qui est loin d'etre clos, est ici consideree : Eugnoste (NH III, 4 et BG d'Adam(NH V, 5), la Paraphrase de Shem(NH VII, 1) et 8502), l'Apocalypse la Protennoia Trimorphe (NH XIII, 1). Aux yeux de Yamauchi, aucun d'entre eux ne permet de demontrer< the existence of a full-fledgedGnosticism with a redeemer myth prior to Christianity>. G.P. Luttikhuizentermine cette premierepartie par < The Thought Patternsof Gnostic Mythologizers and Their Use of Biblical Traditions >, pp. 89-101 : il y aborde le probleme de l'utilisationdu patrimoine traditionnelde la Bible par les auteurs gnostiques et de sa reinterpretationa des niveaux qui ne sont pas toujours ceux de la polemique. La deuxieme partie du volume s'intitule< TheApocryphon ofJohn >. Cinq etudes cement de pres l'histoire complexe de ce texte, et les questions redactionnellesqu'il souleve, compte tenu des quatre versions existantes. K.L. King ouvre la section par <Approachingthe Variantsof the Apocryphon of John >, pp. 105-137. Le trajet de composition et de transmissionde ce texte est considere a la lumiere de categories propres aux productions litteraires de l'Antiquite, categories qui ne coincident plus avec les notres. Mettant en garde contre un amalgame inapproprie,King souligne le role preponderantde la dimension < orale > dans l'histoiredu texte et la necessite d'en tenir compte dans l'enquete sur les documents de Nag Hammadi. F. Wisse, < After the Synopsis : Prospects and Problems in Establishinga CriticalText of the Apocryphon ofjohn and Defining its HistoricalLocation >, sur le pp. 138-153, s'explique projet, deja avance, d'une traductioncritique en langue moderne, basee sur la synopse des versions coptes de l'Apocryphon de Jean, parue en 1995 (F. Wisse - M. Waldstein, NHMS 33). Une telle traductionaurait l'avantaged'aller au-dela des documents coptes pour s'approcher du texte grec commun qu'ils ont utilise. M. Waldstein examine
REVIEWS
107
dans < The Primal Triad in the Apocryphon of John >, pp. 154-187, l'entrelacs des thematiques, a la fois platoniciennes et juives, qui ont conflue dans la constitutionde la triade Pere-Mere-Fils.Quant a S. La Porta dans <<Sophia-Meter : Reconstructing a Gnostic Myth >, pp. 188-207, il s'attelle a une nouvelle interpretationd'une des clefs de voute de la speculation gnostique et considere le role joue par le patrimoine traditionneljuif autour de la figure de la Sagesse pour la formation de la notion de Sophia chez les gnostiques. M.A. Williams fournit une <, pp. 208-220, la seule presente dans l'ouvrage. La troisieme partie du volume, The Gospelof Philip,a donne lieu a trois etudes. M.L. Turner, <, pp. 280-291, propose une analyse tres fine de ce texte dans la perspective d'une theologie sacramentaireet met en evidence l'apport essentiel de II, 5 pour une histoire de la theologie baptismale des premiers siecles. La quatrieme partie du volume, composee de six articles, porte sur The Gospelof Thomas.P.-H. Poirierdans <, pp. 308-325, S.R. Johnson, apres avoir reconstitue l'histoire redactionnelle de ce logion,considere que les auteurs de Jean et de Luc lui ont fait subir une alteration dans le but de contrer les positions theologiques de la communaute thomasienne. P.H. Sellew, >,pp. 327-346, souhaite que la recherche se focalise sur le texte lui-meme plutot que d'etudier le texte au miroir de la litterature qui lui etait contemporaine. J.-M. Sevrin, ff L'interpretationde l'Evangile selon Thomas, entre tradition et redaction >, pp. 347-360, soutient qu'il est possible de considerer cet
108
REVIEWS
evangile comme une relectureinterpretativeet esoteriqued'evangilesrecus, tels que sont les synoptiques. I. Dunderberg, <<John and Thomas in Conflict ? >, pp. 361-380, a l'encontre de Johnson, emet des reserves sur l'oppositionet le contraste entre une communautejohannique et une communauteis'inspirantde Thomas. La position n'est d'ailleurspas la meme d'un logiona l'autre.A.D. De Conick, , pp. 381-398, reprend l'analyse fournie dans son livre Seekto SeeHim : Ascentand VisionMysticismin the Gospelof Thomas,publie a Leiden (Brill)en 1996, et note la polemique entre Jean et des milieux juifs portes sur l'experience mystique. Avec la cinquieme et derniere partie du volume, Issuesof SocialLocation, andRewriting une reflexion de caractere general est soumise au Composition, lecteur. C. Markschies,dans < Valentinian Gnosticism : Towards the Anatomy of a School >, pp. 401-438, trace un portrait convaincant du valentinisme comme ecole philosophique,tout en observantune evolution depuis le temps de Valentin et ses proches disciplesa celui de ses derniersrepresentants, davantage eloignes d'un ideal de professionnalismephilosophique. L. Painchaudand T. Yanz, , pp. 439-460, etudient la presence de ce motif dans quelques traites de Nag Hammadi, notant qu'il s'agit d'un motif interpole, lie aux revisionset aux reecrituresde ces traites dans le contexte d'une controverseentre differentscercles doctrinaux.A.L. Molinari, < The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles >, pp. 461-483, passe en revue l'histoire de la recherche (et tout particulierementles opinions de Krause, Schenke, Parrot et Patterson)de ce texte, quelque peu delaisse par les specialistes. II en propose une interpretationbasee sur la confluence de deux sources de provenance diverse-l'histoire du marchand a la perle et l'apparition au moment de la Resurrection-retravaillees et augmenteespar l'interventiond'un auteur/redacteur,dans une perspective didactique et exhortatoire. Enfin, A. Pasquier, < Interpretation of the Prologue to John's Gospel in some Gnostic and Patristic Writings : A Common Tradition >, pp. 484-495, met en regard la lecture d'Origene du Prologuede Jean et celle elaboree en milieu valentinien, transmise par Irenee (AdvHaer I, 8, 5). II en ressort qu'Origene a pu subir l'influence de valentiniennes et qu'il est un temoin precieux pour clarifier speculations certains aspects de la christologiegnostique. La sixieme partie du volume est constituee par un abondant repertoire bibliographique(Bibliography, pp. 499-531). La lecture de ce volume mon-
REVIEWS
109
tre a quel point la recherche sur les textes de Nag Hammadi, et plus largement celle sur les documentsdu gnosticisme,peut encore evoluer. L'ancrage des textes de Nag Hammadi dans le paysage philosophiqueet religieux de la fin de 1'Antiquiteainsi que leurs rapports avec la culture litteraire de langue copte de la meme epoque, ouvrent aux chercheurs de tres amples perspectives de travail. 127 Bd. Respail 75006 Paris
SCOPELLO MADELEINE
BOOKS RECEIVED and Tradition: onNoahandtheFlood Amirav, Hagit, Rhetoric John Ch?ysostom (TraditioExegetica Graeca 12), Leuven:Peeters 2003, XII + 269 pp., ISBN 90-429-1283-9, e 65 (clothboundwith jacket). in Psalmos51-100, Pars 1: Augustinus:SanctiAugustiniOpera,Enarrationes Enarrationes in Psalmos51-60, edidit Hildegund Muller (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum XCIV/1), Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften2004, 423 S., ISBN 3-7001-3229-8, e 79 (broschiert).-Jiingster und eminenter Frucht im Rahmen des eindrucksvollenUnternehmens der Neuausgabe von Augustins En. in Ps. Behr,John, TheNiceneFaith.PartOne:TrueGodfromTrueGod/ TheNicene Faith.PartTwo:Oneof theHoly Trinity(The Formationof ChristianTheology, Vol. 2), Crestwood, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press 2004, xvii + 259 pp. / xi + pp. 261-507, ISBN 0-88141-266-X (pb). Lines.ThePartition Boyarin,Daniel, Border Philadelphia: ofJudaeo-Christianity, of University PennsylvaniaPress 2004, xvii + 374 pp., ISBN 0-8122-3764-1, $ 38.50 / C 25.50 (clothbound with jacket).-'Boyarin demonstratesthat it was early Christian writers who first imagined religion as a realm of practice and belief that could be separatedfrom the broader cultural network of language, genealogy, or geography, and that they did so precisely to give Christiansan identity. In the end, he suggests, the Rabbis refused the option offered by the Christianempire of convertingJudaism into such a religion. Christianity,a religion, and Judaism, something that was not a religion, stood on opposite sides of a border line drawn more or less successfully across their respective populations'. Athen'.Die Auseinandersetzung Breitenbach,Alfred,Das 'wahrhaft goldene griechischerKirchenviter mitderMetropole heidnisch-antiker Kultur(Theophaneia.Beitrage zur Religions- und Kirchengeschichtedes Altertums, Band 37), BerlinWien: Philo Verlagsgesellschaft2003, xii + 352 S., ISBN 3-8257-0355-X, e 59,80 / SFr 96 (Geb.). Breytenbach, Cilliers & Jens Schroter, unter Mitwirkungvon David S. du Toit (Hgg.), Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung. Eckhard Plumacher zu seinem 65. Geburtstag fir (AncientJudaism and Festschrit Early Christianity/ Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antikenJudentums und ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online- www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 110-113
BOOKS RECEIVED
1l1
des UrchristentumsLVII), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2004, XII + 385 S., ISBN 90-04-13892-7, C 139 /US$ 188 (hardback). Text--Kommentar-Geschichte Budde, Achim, Die agyptische Basilios-Anaphora. Band Miinster: AschendorffVerlag Forum, (JerusalemerTheologisches 7), ISBN ? 679 59 3-402-07506-7, 2004, S., (kart.). di OrigenefraStoriae Agiografia. Castagno, Adele Monaci (ed.), La Biografia e la Tradizione Attidel VI Convegno di Studidel Gruppo Italianodi Ricercasu Origene Villa Pazzini di Adimantius Verucchio: Editore Alessandrina (Biblioteca 1), ISBN C 30 334 88-89198-17-6, 2004, (pb). pp., Christian Coudert,Allison P. andJeffrey S. Shoulson (eds.),HebraicaVeritas? andtheStudyofJudaismin EarlyModern Hebraists Europe, University Philadelphia: of PennsylvaniaPress 2004, x + 316 pp., ISBN 0-8122-3761-7, $ 49.95 / ? 32.50 (clothboundwith jacket). of Deming, Will, Paul on Marriageand Celibacy.The HellenisticBackground 1 Corinthians 7, second revisededition,Grand Rapids,Michigan/ Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans 2004, xxii + 271 pp., ISBN 0-8028-3989-4, US$ 28.00 / ? 19.99 (pb). Ernest,James D., TheBiblein AthanasisofAlexandria (The Bible in Ancient Brill Academic Publishers vol. Boston-Leiden: 2004, xiv + Christianity, 2), 482 pp., USS 125 / C 125, ISBN 0-391-04176-2 (hardback). Facundus d'Hermiane, Defensedes Trois Chapitres(a Justinien).TomeIII (LivresVIII-X). Texte critique (CCL) par J.-M. Clement et R. Vander Plaetse. Introduction, traduction et notes par Anne Fraisse-Betoulieres (Sources Chretiennes484), Paris:Les lditions du Cerf 2004, 332 p., ISBN 2-204-07368-7, C 28 (broche). Themes,and Rhetorical Isacson, Mikael: To Each TheirOwnLetter.Structure, New Testament Antioch in the Letters Biblica, of Ignatiusof (Coniectanea Strategies Series 42), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International 2004, 238 pp., ISBN 91-22-02070-5, SEK 271 (pb). Communicative Kotzei,Annemare, Augustine's Confessions. PurposeandAudience Leiden-Boston: Brill 2004, Christianae to LXXI), (Supplements Vigiliae X + 279 pp., ISBN 90-04-13926-5, C 91 / US$ 114 (hardback). Mechlinsky, Lutz, Der modus proferendi in Augustinssermones ad populum (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, Neue Folge, 1. Reihe: Monographien, 23. Band), Paderborn-Munchen-Wien-Zurich: Ferdinand Schoningh 2004, 291 S., ISBN 3-506-71784-7, C 38 (pb).Bonn (PromotorOtto Zwierlein; DissertationFriedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat Korreferat Wilhelm Geerlings). Detaillierte Analyse der sermones12, 266, 240 & 181.
112
BOOKS RECEIVED
The Relationship betweenGraceand Free Will Ogliari, D., Gratiaet certamen. in the Discussionof Augustinewith the so-called Semipelagians(Bibliotheca EphemeridumTheologicarum LovaniensiumCLXIX), Leuven: University Press / Uitgeverij Peeters 2003, LVII + 468 pp., ISBN 90-429-1351-7, e 75 (pb). Pedersen, Nils Arne, Demonstrative Proofin Defenceof God.A Studyof Titus Bostra's Contra Manichaeos-The Work'sSources,Aims and Relationto its of Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 56), LeidenTheology Contemporary (Nag Boston: Brill 2004, XV + 575 pp., ISBN 90-04-13883-8, ? 159 / US$ 198 Manichaeos, (hardback).-A really impressivestudy of Titus of Bostra'sContra the first text from the early Greek Church setting out a comprehensive theodicy. A volume of importance to Patristic and Manichaean scholars alike, with many pertinent remarks on (Coptic, Greek, Syriac etc.) linguistics as well, and several thought-provokingdiscussions of still crucial theological themes. PeterDamian,Letters121-150. Translated by Owen J. Blum & Irven M. Resnick(The Fathersof the Church,MediaevalContinuation6), Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press 2004, xxvi + 195 pp., ISBN 0-8132-1372-X (clothboundwith jacket). et symboliques, Prieur,Jean-Marc (ed.), La Croix.Representations theologiques Geneve: EditionsLaboret Fides 2004, 141 p., ISBN 2-8309-1110-5, e 22 / FS 35 (pb).-Actes d'un journe d'etude, organisee a Strasbourgpar le Centre d'Analyse et de Documentation Patristiques, et contenant e.a.: J.-M. Prieur, Le scandale de la croix dans la litteraturechretienne des IIe et IIIe siecles (37-48);J.-D. Dubois, La croix de lumiere chez les manicheens (49-65); M. Wallraff,La croix dans la propagande imperiale du IVe siecle (67-80); M. Canevet, La croix cosmique chez Gregoire de Nysse (81-88). Tradition: Rhodes, James N., The Epistleof Barnabasand the Deuteronomic and theLegacyof the Golden-Calf Incident(Wissenschaftliche Polemics,Paraenesis, Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe 188), Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck 2004, XII + 261 pp., ISBN 3-16-148377-4, e 54 (pb).-'Rhodes reassessesthe theology of the Epistleof Barnabas,seeking to reopen the question of the author's view of Israel. He claims that recent scholarshiphas focussed too narrowlyon Barnabas'streatment of the golden-calf incident, overlooking the author's equally strong interest in the death of Jesus and the destructionof Jerusalem'. Setzer, Claudia, Resurrection of theBodyin EarlyJudaismandEarlyChristianity: andSef-Definition, Boston-Leiden:BrillAcademicPublishers Community, Doctrine, 2004, xii + 191 pp., ISBN 0-391-04175-4 (hardback).
BOOKS RECEIVED
113
Diodorsvon Tarsus Thome, Felix: HistoriacontraMythos.Die Schrftauslegung vonMopsuestiaim Widerstreit und Theodors zu KaiserJulians und Sallustius'allegorischem (Hereditas, Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte Mythnverstdndnis Bonn: Borengasser 2004, XXXV + 252 S., ISBN 3-923946-67-8, 24), E 32 / sFr 56,50 (Geb.).-'Die antiallegorischausgerichtete Exegese der Antiochenerkann geradezu als Reaktion auf die heidnischeMythendeutung begriffen werden'. vonJoh Uhrig, Christian, 'Und das Wortist Fleischgeworden:ZurRezeption in dergriechischen derFleischwerdung Patristik vomizani-schen 1,14a undzur Theologie (Miinsterische Beitrage zur Theologie 63), Miinster: Aschendorff Verlag 2004, 598 S., ISBN 3-402-03968-0, E 72 (kart.). 'Unter Beachtung einer prazisen Begrifflichkeitvon Fleischwerdung,bei der z.B. nicht Inkaration mit Menschwerdung gleichgesetzt wird, ergibt sich, dass Joh 1,14a erstmalig von Irenaus aufgegliffen wird. Neben ihm erlangt die Rede von der Fleischwerdungdes Logos in Alexandrien, und von hier v.a. bei Klemens und Origenes, einen bedeutenden Stellenwert. Die Art der Nutzung ist dabei jeweils sehr unterschiedlichund insgesamt eher von der eigenen theologischen Konzeption des Autors motiviert als von der ursprunglichen Aussageabsicht des Johannesevangeliums'. Grundliche Besprechung der Justin, Melito, Irenaus, Aussagenvon u.a. Ignatius,2 Clemns,Ep. Apostolorum, Klemens, Hippolyt, TractatusTripartitus, Origenes, Dionysius & Petrus von Alexandrien, Methodius von Olympos, Eusebius. Welburn, Andrew, Mani, theAngeland the Columnof Glory.An Anthology of ManichaeanTexts,Edinburgh:Floris Books 1998, 296 pp., ISBN 0-86315274-0, C 25 (clothboundwith jacket).-An anthology intended for a wider audience, and perhaps for that reason easily overlooked, but collected and presented by an eminent specialist. J. VANOORT [email protected]
Academic
Publishers
EI iB W R ................... . i ....::... '.:: :' '.i'.:: ':. : :':. i
*......... .
;. . .............. ...
: A.::.:.
.i......
AT NO E
;
:.:::.::
:::...
......
.......... .
.
.
.
............... }
L
'' :'. .
;
.............................................................
GE
I
L
. ..............
.
BrillAcademic Publishers is pleased to announcethatyou or your institution- as a subscriber to the printedversion of this journal- can access the electronicversion at no extracost. How to gain access to Brill's online journals
_-SigB --r: ....i..
Individuals Go to www.brill.nl and click on the "online journals
.....: ..........
_
& banner" (left hand side). Please log on to activate rBIlsnnlijneo.Um individual.Fill out the individualactivationform:you .S............ .S i To . ... will need your CU-prefixed Customer Number. This ^^^ tSll numbercanbe foundon the addresslabel, which is sent .. V. with your issue(s), on the (renewal) invoice (listed as 0e^hWh> '.. 1-c .e uef.e witq.h.,D r pta!s I ntlh . . smmendsset stes--.turl(s)WCu "ship-to"),or you may ask your subscriptionagent to seeaIMs h-naite1fl .yoUr S,ee at)h. 1vclt""'a a ?esson supply you with your Brill customer number.Please note thatthis is your personalregistrationandyou will S. need to give a usemame and a password.After filling' out the activationform you will see your personaland .... uniqueCID number,usemame and passwordon your screen. Please save this informationin a secureplace; you will needthis when you wantto changeyourregistrationdetails.Now you can activateyoursubscription(s) by clicking "enable access". On your screen you will see (a list of) the joural(s) you have access to. OmJo.ml
0
.T
-f'-
,l
_
dt
DeeF
Jpllr%.M,t; r
inkPl....rs.
..tl
.
.
p
.rrf.
...
.nfta
t.
Z
b
:nstitutions
............... ............. :
.
.
. .
. . . . ...
.
...
.
................
-J
,5- , ~~. I_-=P
S.:. ~-~:'Jiibanner"
..........:....... _>: :t-:2.:..-7.=.7... '"":'"'_; ";-:~'"
*~fi:::.:out
o to www.brill.nl and click on the "online journals (left hand side). Before you can access the online
you need to registerwith Ingentafirstat register. ~l ]!j'ournal I ;Please click 'continu under InstitutionalRe:gistrationand iform-.You will need: 'fill out the the :re2isa i
Academic
u' f':. "'^:' ;:""
Western
.::': . ^::R; '. ......"':'-:'::'i; ;'
i
B
R
Publishers
I
L
L
---.---.-
Esotericism
EDITEDBY WOUTER J. HANEGRAAFF, IN COLLABORATION WITHANTOINEFAIVRE, ROELOFVANDEN BROEK AND JEAN-PIERREBRACH
This is the first comprehensive reference work to cover the entire domain of "Gnosis and Western Esotericism" from the period of Late Antiquity to the present. Containing around 400 articles by over 180 internationalspecialists, it provides critical overviews discussing the natureand historical development of all its importantcurrentsand manifestations, from Gnosticism and Hermetism to Astrology, Alchemy and Magic, from the Hermetic Traditionof the Renaissance to Rosicrucianism and Christian Theosophy, and from Freemasonry and Illuminism to 19th-centuryOccultism and the contemporaryNew Age movement. Furthermoreit contains articles about the life and work of all the major personalities in the history of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, discussing their ideas, significance, and historical influence. Readership: All those interested in the history of religion, intellectual history, art and culture in Western society from Antiquity to the present, as well as classicists, medievalists, histori::: : ... ... . . ..... ....::: ans, and.theo:
Academic
'1^ BR N? ..,.???: ???: ??? ? ?;?:.?:.::.;:,:.i::;. ??. ?C-?????????????r.:;..: . .... ?;?:;?:; :?::... .....:'?i' ..??????:
. ...
..~: ......
..
..........
. ........ . .. ......................':.
as ............
Publishers
I LL AT
.
and issues relating to early Christianity.
La decretale Ad Gallos Episcopos: son texte et son auteur Textecritique, traductionfranqaise et commentaire
YVES-MARIEDUVAL
New edition(andfrenchtranslation)of the oldestcurrentlyknownDecretale.The commentmakesvisible the originalityof the argumentswhichleadto the decisionsrelativeto the blessedvirginsandthe mainclerk. Therefore,the realisationof this answerto thebishopsof Gaulcouldbe fromJerome, who was thepersonalassistantof the popeDamasebetween382 and384. Yves-MarieDuval was successivelyProfessorof the Universitiesof Tours,Poitiers andParisX wherehe taughtlate LatinliteratureandPatristics. * In print2005 * Hardback(x, 182 pp. in French) * ISBN90 04 141707 * ListpriceEUR75.- / US$ 99.* VigiliaeChristianae,Supplements,73
Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City
JAN WILLEMDRIJVERS
Thisstudydealswithaspectsandeventsof theepiscopacyof Cyrilof Jerusalem (350betweenthecityandits bishopand,in particular, 387).Itsoverallthemeis therelationship as theChristian Cyril'seffortsto promoteJerusalem cityparexcellence. Jan Willem Drijvers,Ph.D.(1989), is Lecturerin AncientHistory,Universityof Groningen. * In print2004 * Hardback(xvi, 216 pp.) * ListpriceEUR92.- / US$ 132.? ISBN 90 04 139869 *VigiliaeChristianae,Supplements,72
INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS (1) Contributionsshouldbe submittedin duplicateand be accompaniedby a disk.Both WordPerfect and Microsoft Word are accepted word-processingprograms. ASCII-formatted disks are also accepted. Contributions submitted should not have been published elsewhere. (2) Manuscriptsshould be printed with a wide margin and double space between the lines. Please use one side of the paper only. The first page should have ample space at the top around the title. (3) Titles should be as short as possible. (4) Italics should be used sparingly (but see below nrs. 6 and 7). (5) Latin quotations should be underlined to be printed in italics. Syriac, Hebrew and Coptic quotations should be transcribed. (6) References should be given in footnotes with continuous numbering. Tites of books and of journals (not of papers in journals) should be in italics to be printed in italics. For example: H.A. Wolfson, ThePhilosophy of the ChurchFathers1 (Cambridge, Mass. 41964) 106-111. L.W. Barnard, "The Antecedents of Arius," VigiliaeChristianae 24 (1970) 172-188. Gregory of Nyssa, De hom.opif.24 (PG 44,212D) - Greg.Nyss. Hom. opif. 24 (PG 44,212D). Tertullian, Adv.Marc.4,28,1 - Tert. Adv.Marc.4,28,1. (7) Correction. Authors are requested to check their manuscripts,and especially their quotations, most carefully, and to type out all Greek, as later corrections in the proof stage are expensive and time-consuming. Corrections by which the original text is altered will be charged. (8) Offprints.Contributorswill receive 15 offprintsfree of charge for articles and 3 free offprints for reviews.
? Copyright BrillNJV,Leiden,TheNetherlands 2005 by Koninkl#ke All rightsreserved. storedin a retrieval No part of thispublicationmay be reproduced, system, translated, or transmitted in anyform or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, withoutpriorwrittenpermission recording of thepublisher. to photocopy Authorization itemsfor internal personaluse is grantedby Brillprovidedthatthe appropriate Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, fees arepaid directlyto Copyright Suite910, Danvers,MA 01923, USA. Fees aresubjectto change.
ISSN 0042-6032 (print version) ISSN 1570-0720 (online version)
This journal is printed on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS G.D. DUNN,Rhetoric and Tertullian'sDe virginibus velandis ............ R.E. WINN,The Natural World in the Sermons of Eusebius of Emesa .......... .............................................. ............
1 31
D. WOODS,Malalas, "Constantius", and a Church-Inscription
from Antioch
.......................
.............................................
54
M. VIELBERG, Nitor omnibusunus? Beobachtungen zur Farbgestaltung
im 'Martinellus' .............................................................................. Reviews .............................................................................................. Books received
....................................................................................
63 85 110
Vigiliae
Christia A
of
Review
Christian Life
Early and VOL.
Language LIX
NO.
2
2005
www.brill.nl
BRILL LEIDEN-BOSTON
VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE a review of Early Christian Life and Language EDITORS-IN-CHIEF:
J. DEN BOEFT, Amsterdam,
J. VAN OORT, Utrecht/Nijmegen,
W.L. PETERSEN,
State College, Pennsylvania, D.T. RUNIA,Melbourne, C. SCHOLTEN, Koln, J.C.M. VAN WINDEN,Leiden ASSOCIATE EDITORS:
SCOPE:
MANUSCRIPTS:
PUBLISHER: PUBLISHED: SUBSCRIPTIONS:
OFFICES:
BACK VOLUMES:
BACK ISSUES:
A. Le Boulluec (Paris) - A. Davids (Nijmegen) - R.M. Grant (Chicago) Marguerite Harl (Paris) - J.-P. Mahe (Paris) -Elaine Pagels (Princeton) G. Rouwhorst (Utrecht) - R. Staats (Kiel) This quarterly journal contains articles and short notices of an historical and cultural, linguistic or philological nature on Early Christian literatureposterior to the New Testament in the widest sense of the word, as well as on Christian epigraphy and archaeology. Church and dogmatic history will only be dealt with if they bear directly on social history; Byzantine and Mediaeval literature only in so far as it exhibits continuity with the Early Christian period. The journal will also contain reviews of importantstudies, published elsewhere. Each volume appears in 4 quarterly issues. All manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be sent to the Secretary of the Editorial Board, Professor J. den Boeft, Commanderijpoort4-6, 2311 WB Leiden, The Netherlands. Books for review should be sent to Professor J. van Oort, Department of Ecclesiastical History, P.O. Box 80105, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. Brill Academic Publishers Four times a year: February, May, August and November The subscription price of Volume 59 (2005) is EUR 214.- (US$ 268.-) for institutions, and EUR 105.- (US$ 131.-) for individuals, inclusive of postage and handling charges. All prices are exclusive of VAT in EU-countries (VAT not applicable outside the EU). Subscription orders are accepted for complete volumes only. Orders take effect with the first issue of any year. Orders may also be entered on an automatic continuing basis. Cancellations will only be accepted if they are received before October 1st of the year preceding the year in which the cancellation is to take effect. Claims for missing issues will be met, free of charge, if made within three months of dispatch for European customers and five months for customers outside Europe. Once the issue is published the actual dates of dispatch can be found on our website: www.brill.nl. Subscription orders may be made via any bookseller or subscription agency, or direct to the publisher. The Netherlands U.S.A. Brill Academic Publishers Brill Academic Publishers Inc. 112 Water Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 9000 2300 PA Leiden Boston, MA 02109 Tel: +31 71 535 35 66 Tel: 1-800-962-4406 (toll free) Fax: +31 71 531 75 32 Fax: (617) 263 2324 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Back volumes of the last two years are available from Brill: please contact our customer services department. For back volumes of the preceding years please contact: Swets & Zeitlinger. P.O. Box 830, 2160 SZ, Lisse, The Netherlands. Back issues of the current and last two years are available from Brill. VISIT THE BRILL WEBSITE: WWW.BRILL.NL
BRILL LEIDEN - BOSTON
BASILIDES'S GOSPEL AND EXEGETICA (TREATISES)' BY
JAMES A. KELHOFFER survivingwitnesses to Basilidesof Alexandria (fl. 120-140 C.E.) reflect considerable variety and confusion concerning his writing(s).Attempts by scholars to present Basilides as an exegete of Christianscripture,and even as the author of a gospel, are based on precious little evidence, which scholars have at times misinterpreted.This article argues that only a limited interest in gospel materialson the part of Basilidescan be demonstratedfrom the survivMoreover, if Basilidesdid indeed write a (Treatises). ing portions of his Exegetica a narrative or it was not sayings gospel concerned primarilywith the gospel, life or the teachings ofJesus. Finally, prior to Origen in the mid-thirdcentury did not connote an 'exegetical'commenC.E. the designation (or title) Exegetica for Basilides's work ('EnTyrtica, Strom. of Alexandria's title Clement tary. 4.81.1) instead supports the inference that this writing comprised "explanations" of Basilides'stheological system.
ABSTRACT: The
Relatively little is known for sure concerning the life of Basilides of Alexandria (fl. 120-140 C.E.). He was probably active in Alexandria during the 130s C.E.2 The paucity of evidence and contradictory nature of the I This article is a revisionand expansionof a paper presentedat the 2002 North AmericanPatristicsSocietyAnnualMeeting.The author'sthanksare due to WilliamL. Petersenand MatyasHavrda. 2 B. A. Gnosticismin Alexandria,"in: TheFutureof Early Pearson,"Pre-Valentinian Christianity: Essaysin Honorof HelmutKoester(ed. B. A. Pearson et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1991),455-66;here, 461, notes evidencefor Basilides'sactivityin Alexandriain 132 c.E.: 7.106) he was active in Alexandriadur"Accordingto Clementof Alexandria(Stromateis Hadrian the of the (117-138) and AntoninusPius (138-161).... reigns emperors ing Eusebius,in his Chronicle (accordingto Jerome'sLatin version),lists as one of the items for the sixteenthyear of Hadrian'sreign (132)the followingnotation:'Basilidesthe heresiarch was living in Alexandria. From him derive the Gnostics."' Apparently following Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome, De viris illustribus21, writes: "Basilides died at Alexandria
in the reign of Hadrian,and from him the Gnosticsects arose.In this tempestuoustime also, Cochebas leader of the Jewish faction put Christians to death with various tortures" (ET: A. Roberts andJ. Donaldson, eds., JVceneand Post-NiceneFathersof the ChristianChurch [New York: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890-1900], 2/3.368). Jerome's
? KoninklijkeBrillNV, Leiden,2005
Also available online - www.brill.nl
59, 115-134 Vigliae Christianae
116
JAMES A. KELHOFFER
patristic witnesses to Basilides have not, however, stopped scholars from describing with some confidence the early Christian gospel, and especially the gospel commentary, that Basilides allegedly wrote. In the Synopsis QuattuorEvangeliorum,for example, Kurt Aland cites the Gospel accordingto Basilides as the source of a distinctive witness to Matt 7:6ab.3 Von Campenhausen exemplifies this position concerning Basilides's alleged gospel: "In all probability it was at first, as Agrippa Castor says . . ., referred to by them simply as 'the Gospel'. The designation icar& Baot,eirliv e{aTyyetov... may not originally have been attached to it."4 Walter Bauer, Werner Foerster, Gerhard May, Everett Procter and Andrew F. Gregory concur that Basilides did in fact write a gospel.5 In addition to the claim that Basilides wrote a gospel, a number of other scholars characterize Basilides as a Christian teacher who wrote a gospel commentary. For instance, in an important study Winrich A. Lohr argues concerning Basilides and Basilides's son and disciple Isidore: Basilides... Biichern;...
kommentierte eine selbst erstellte Evangelienrezension in 24 So kann man in diirren Worten das Wesentliche an biographi-
allusion to the "tempestuous time" of the SecondJewish Revolt led by Bar Kokhba suggests that Basilides was active 132-135 C.E. Cf. the observation of W. A. Lohr, Basilides des zweitenJahrhunderts undseineSchule:Eine Studiezur Theologie-undKirchengeschichte (WUNT Mohr that "aus den 83; Tubingen: Siebeck, 1996), 20, ubrigen Quellen erhebt sich kein Widerspruch gegen die Datierung des Clemens" (cf. 326). 3 Aland, ed., SynopsisQuattuorEvangeliorum (15th rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996), 93, referring to the ultimate source of Epiphanius, Panarion24.5.2 as "Evang. sec. Basilidem" ("the Gospel according to Basilides"). Aland's Synopsis(481-2) does not, however, note the parallel (discussed below) to Mark 15:21 11Matt 27:32 attributed to Basilides in Irenaeus, Adv. haer.1.24.4 and Epiphanius, Panarion24.3.1-5. 4 Von Campenhausen, The Formationof the ChristianBible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972 [1968]), 139 n. 161; cf. 139 n. 158. 5 Bauer, Orthodoxy andHeresyin EarliestChristianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971 [21964]), 66, 170, 190; cf. 203; May, Creatioex nihilo:TheDoctrineof 'Creationout of Nothing'in Early ChristianThought(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994 [1978]), 65: "And certainly he [Basilides], who had written a gospel himself, was greatly interested in the gospels that in were available" (German original: 66). Additionally, Procter, ChristianControversy Alexandria:Clement'sPolemic against the Basilideansand Valentinians(American University Studies VII/172; Frankfurt am Main/New York: Lang, 1995), 1, follows Foerster, "Basilides," in: idem, Gnosis:A Selectionof GnosticTexts (ed. R. McL. Wilson; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972-74 [1969-71]), 1.59-83; here, 74: "From notes in the Church Fathers we learn above all that Basilides was a copious writer.... [A] gospel originated with him" (German original: 1.99). So also Gregory, The Receptionof Lukeand Acts in the Periodbefore Irenaeus:Lookingfor Luke in the SecondCentury(WUNT 2.169; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 77-80 (albeit with some caution); cf. Lohr, Basilides,271.
BASILIDES'S GOSPEL AND EXEGETCA (TREATISES)
117
schen Informationeniiber Basilidesund Isidor zusammenfassen.Basilidesund Isidor werden damit christlicheLehrer in die erste Hgilftedes 2. Jahrhunderts eingeordnet....6 Others, including Theodor Zahn, Hans Windisch, Robert M. Grant, Bentley Layton, Everett Procter, M. J. Edwards, and Christoph Markschies, likewise characterize Basilides as an exegete of gospel materials, and sometimes of other Christian scripture as well.7 This article offers a critical assessment of these two claims about Basilides's gospel and gospel commentary. It will be argued that if a writing of Basilides did receive the designation "gospel" (eiayy?Xtov), it was not a narrative or sayings gospel concerned primarily with the life and teachings of Jesus. This inquiry is of obvious (potential) interest to the use of the term etayyeXtov as a literary designation in the first half of the second century.8 The article also considers the relationship of Basilides's Exegetica
6 Basilidesund seine Schule,325-6. Lohr also writes, "Wir vermuteten, daB die des Basilidesseinem Kommentarals der Text beigegebenwar, auf Evangelienrezension den sich der Kommentarbezog. Dieser Kommentar... behandelteeher anhand einer Perikopeein theologischesThema"(329; cf. 12, 34, 215). Kanons(Erlangen:Deichert, 1889), 1.763-74; 7 Zahn, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Windisch,"Das Evangeliumdes Basilides,"yNW7 (1906):236-46; Grant,Second-Century A Collection of ChristianLiterature6; London:SPCK, Christianity: ofFragments (Translations 18: "He the first [Basilides]composed 1946), commentaryon the gospels,with the exception of that of his contemporaryPapias."Similarly,Layton,"The Significanceof Basilides in AncientChristianThought,"Representations (Berkeley,CA) 28 (1989):135-51;here, 136: "Basilidesmust have set a stunningprecedentin educatedChristiancirclesas the first Christianphilosopherand one of the earliestNew Testamentexpositors..." (cf. 144-5). in Alexandria, in: So also Procter,Christian Controversy 1; Edwards,reviewof Lohr,Basilides JTS 48 (1997): 238-41; here, 241: "Aftera perusal of this study we see clearlywhat [Basilides]was: a Christianexegete who was ready to employ eclectic methodsfor the better understandingof the Scriptures."Likewise,Markschies,Gnosis:An Introduction (London/NewYork:T & T Clark,2003 [2001]),79: "Itemergesfromthe fragmentsthat in all probabilityBasilidespublishedunder the title 'Expositions'his own versionof the Gospelof Lukewith a relativelyfree commentaryin 24 volumes."Cf.J. C. Ayer,A Source Bookfor AncientChurch Period(New History, fromtheApostolic Ageto theCloseof theConciliar York:Scribner's,1913),82: "Of his [Basilides']Gospel,Commentaryon that Gospelin and his odes only fragmentsremainof the second,preserved twenty-fourbooks(Exegetica), by Clementof Alexandriaand in the Acta Archelai." 8 In the 'NT' writingsand in many of the otherearliestChristianwritings,e'acyyeXtov designatesoral proclamation(good news),ratherthan a writingor a (new)genre or lit(London: erary designation.On this point see, e.g., H. Koester,AncientChristian Gospels How Soon a Book?"JBL SCM/Philadelphia:TPI), 1-34;R. H. Gundry,"EYAFFEAION: 115 (1996):321-5;W. L. Petersen,"The Genesisof the Gospels,"in:NewTestament Textual
118
JAMES A. KELHOFFER
(Treatises)to other early Christian literature. This study argues that the characterization of Basilides as an exegete of Christian scripture is based on precious little evidence and, at times, a misinterpretation of certain witnesses to Basilides and his writing(s). A (mostly) diachronic survey of the main witnesses to Basilides's life and writings will precede an analysis of claims that scholars have made about Basilides's gospel and gospel commentary. Witnessesto Basilides'sGospeland Exegetica (Treatises) 1. Irenaeus,Adversus haereses 1.24.4 Irenaeus attributes the following Basilides:
description of the crucifixion to
He [Christ] appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles (apparuisse eum... virtutesperfecisse). Thus, he himself did not suffer. Rather, a certain to carry Simon of Cyrene was compelled (Simonemquendam angariatum) Cyrenaeum his cross for him. It was he [Simon] who was ignorantly and erroneously crucified (et hunc... crucjfixum), being transfigured by him [Jesus], so that (ut) he to be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of be thought [Simon] might Simon and stood by, laughing at them.9
With regard to accounting forJesus' laughter, R. M. Grant notes the likely OT foundation of Basilides's (re-)interpretation of Jesus' passion in light of Psalm 2.10
andExegesis Criticism (FSJoel Delobel;BETL 161;ed. A. Denaux;Leuven:Peeters,2002), 33-65; A. Y. Reed, "EakyyFetov:Orality, Textuality, and the Christian Truth in Irenaeus' AdversusHaereses,"VC 56 (2002): 11-46; J. A. Kelhoffer, "'How Soon a Book' Revisited: EYAFTEAIONas a Reference to 'Gospel' Materials in the First Half of the Second Century," ZNW 95/1-2 (2004): 1-34. 9 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.24.4. ET (modified): B. Layton, The GnosticScriptures: A New andIntroductions Translation withAnnotations (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 423; Lat.:
A. Rousseauand L. Doutreleau,Contreles hiresies(SC 264; Paris:Cerf, 1979), 326-8. eum... perfecisse(1.24.4, 1. 11) as a refLayton's translation incorrectly construes apparuisse erence to "intellect" (nous),rather than to "Christ" (Christus,mentioned in 1.24.4, 1. 8). '0 "Gnostic Origins and the Basilidians of Irenaeus," VC 13 (1959): 121-5; here, 1234: "Why was he [Jesus] laughing? The answer seems to be provided by the words of a Psalm which we know was interpreted messianically by early Christians. Psalm 2 begins with a picture of the 'archons' (LXX) conspiring 'against the Lord and his Anointed,' and it goes on to say that 'he who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord has them in derision' (verse 4). Here is, or may well be, the source of the notion that the Savior derided his enemies." Cf. Lohr, Basilides,265 n. 38.
BASILIDES'S GOSPEL AND EXEGETICA(TREATISES)
119
Irenaeus'sdepiction of Basilides'sDocetic christologyappears, moreover, to be based upon an interpretationof material preserved in Mark 15:2111 and the Matthean parallel passage (Matt 27:32).12Mark has the (historic) which Matthew changed to the present active indicative (ayyape6ovooiv), aorist (iyyadpeoaav). At the very least, the perfect passive participlereflected stems from Irenaeus's by Irenaeus (angariatus) (undisputed)use of either or both of these gospels, or perhaps a harmonizedversion of this gospel material.'3 With regard to assessing the historical Basilides'sinterest in gospel materials,however, the testimony of Irenaeus is of questionablevalue.14 2. The TitleandLengthof Basilides'sTreatises or Exegetica Concerning Basilides'sown work(s),there is good evidence for the existence and contents of certain parts of his Treatises or Exegetica. Two extended portions and one short passage from this work survive. One of the two
1 Mark 15:21-24:"[21] They compelled(&ayappE'ouotv) a passer-by,who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene (tva Itilova Kvupnvatov),the father of Alexander and Rufus. [22] Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). [23] And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it. [24] And they crucified him, and divided his clothes among them, casting lots to decide what each should take." 12 Matt 27:32-35: "[32] As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon (avOpowovKupvlvaiov 6v6,OaxtLiouva); they compelled (lry&peuoav) this man to carry his cross. [33] And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), [34] they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. [35] And when they had crucified him, they divided his clothes among themselves by casting lots." Different from Mark 15:21 1|Matt 27:32, Luke 23:26 has krt;iqlt rather than dyyapevco (Kaciix; adti'yayovavTo6v,hetXa36ge?vot iluova tva ' aypov 7crraKav acni TOVoxaupobv(qapetv itol0ev TOD'IroovI). ov apXti p6xevv Kuptiov 13 G. N. Stanton, "The Fourfold Gospel," NTS 43 (1997): 317-46, esp. 319-22, notes scholars' widespread acknowledgement of this point concerning Irenaeus. On the existence of harmonized gospel citations as early as SecondClement,see, e.g., Koester, Ancient ChristianGospels(London: SCM/Philadelphia: TPI, 1990), 17-18, 349-60; cf. Kelhoffer, Miracleand Mission: TheAuthentication of Missionariesand TheirMessagein the LongerEndingof Mark (WUNT 2.112; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 169-70. 14 With Lohr, Basilides, 255-73, who argues that Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.24.3-7, which includes the testimony aboutJesus and Simon of Cyrene at the crucifixion (1.24.4), derives from source material that can plausibly be dated to the mid-second century. Despite its early date, L6hr (272-3) doubts that Adv. haer.1.24.3-7 offers a reliable witness to the historical Basilides; so also F. Legge, Philosophumena, Or the Refutationof All Heresies(2 Vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1921), 2.79 n. 2; D. Wanke, Das KreuzChristibei Irendusvon Lyon (BZNW 99; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2000), 75-6.
120
JAMESA. KELHOFFER
The other two paslonger sections is in Clement of Alexandria'sStromateis.'5 sages appear in Hegemonius's Acta Archelai(c. 330/348 C.E.), an antiManichaean writing that survivesin Latin.16 This writing of Basilides, whatever its original contents and foci, must have been a sizeable work, since Clement claims to quote from its twentythird book (BaotXeiSTi18e
v Tx Ei1KcoGT)xtpit
T&V 'E4inyrltxucv,Strom. V
4.81.1). Eusebius of Caesarea creditsAgrippa Castor with having written a response to Basilides in the second century (Hist. eccl. 4.7.6-8). Eusebius quotes Agrippa Castor to the effect that Basilides'swork comprised a total of twenty-fourbooks, and, as is argued below, at least the claim concerning the length of this work is credible.'7Arguably the surest indication that Basilides'swork was extensive is the ActaArchelai'scitation of Basilides'sown referenceto its thirteenthbook. The author of the ActaArchelai (Hegemonius) claims to be familiarwith Basilides'swriting and cites Basilides'sreference to the thirteenth book of Basilides's "Treatises" eius, 67.5a; (Lat.: tractatuum nobistractatuum, 67.5b).'8 Moreover, the ActaArchelaiattributesto Basilideshimselfboth the title for and its organization into individual books. It may this work ("Treatises")'9 15 Greek text: C. Mond6sert and A. van den Hoek, Clementd'Alexandrie, IV Les Stromates (SC 463; Paris: Cerf, 2001), 188-92. An ET of the relevant passages is conveniently available in: Layton, GnosticScriptures, 442-3. 16 Lat.: C. H. Beeson, ed., Hegemonius, ActaArchelai(GCS 16; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906); ET: M. Vermes and S. N. C. Lieu, Acta Archelai(Manichaean Studies 4; Turnhout: Brepols, 2001). This writing purports to relate a disputation between Bishop Archelaus and Mani. Beeson, Hegemonius, ActaArchelai,ix-xix, argues that the surviving Latin edition of the ActaArchelai(c. 392/400 C.E.)is a translation of a Greek work by Hegemonius of Chalcedon, about whom nothing more is known, except that he wrote after the Council of Nicea (325 C.E.).Cf. E. Spat, "The 'Teachers' of Mani in the ActaArchelaiand Simon Magus," VC 58/1 (2004): 1-23; here, 1; Lohr, Basilides,219-21; Foerster, "Basilides," 74; Quasten, Patrology,3.357-8, 4.209; Ayer, SourceBook, 82-4. 17 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.7.7: "In expounding his [Basilides's] mysteries he [Agrippa he that Castor] says [Basilides] compiled twenty-four books on the gospel." See the analysis of this testimony below. 18 ActaArchelai67.5b: "As we are writing the thirteenth book of our treatises (nobistracthe word of salvation (salutaris sermo)will provide for us the necessary and fruitful tatuum) content." 19 The original Greek term used by Basilides for his work is open to question. Zahn, Geschichtedes Neutestamentlichen Kanons, 1/2.764, suggests b6ltuia ("homily"); cf. L6hr, "pursuits, studBasilides,226. Two other possibilities are I.etra?etpioelt (or teTaXetpTcjeS(? ies, treatments") and raC9ain;e ("inquiries, searchings"). Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 4.81.1) offers the title 'Eyrlyqtlcic,which is also possible in light of this article's argument need not denote an 'exegetical' biblical commentary. that 'E4rlyrtiKad
BASILIDES'SGOSPELAND EXEGETICA (TREATISES)
121
thus be helpful for future scholarshipto refer to Basilides'swork by this title or at least to include it along with Exegetica(Gk.: 'E ywmntrKa, (Treatises), attested by Clement, Strom.4.81.1). It will be argued that the extant fragdo not support the claim that this work was ments of the Exegetica (Treatises) a gospel commentary. What can be ascertained about this work's content and genre will be evaluatedin the following analysesof these fragmentsand, furtherbelow, of the most likely denotation of Clement's title for this work ('Et,rltiKda). 3. Clement's Witnessto Basilides'sExegetica the passage best known Of the survivingportions of Basilides'sExegetica, to scholars,from Clement's Stromateis, addresseshuman suffering.20According to Clement, Basilides maintained that no person's tribulations are ordained by God. They are rather God's punishment for a person's sinfulness, either in this life or a previous one (Strom.4.81.2-3). In this portion of his work, Basilidesseeks above all to defend the goodness of Providence (z6 npovooi)v).21As test-casesfor this position, Basilidesdiscussesthe sufferingof Christianmartyrs,of a newborn baby, and ofJesus during the course of his life as a whole (but not specificallythe crucifixion). With the possible exception of Stromateis 4.81.2,22there is no indication
20
Clem., Strom.4.81.2-83.1. Layton, GnosticScriptures,418, notes that, different from Irenaeus and Hippolytus, "St. Clement is not entirely hostile to Basilides, and in general his conciliatory attitude toward thinkers he disagrees with adds to his trustworthiness as a reporter." Layton thus infers that, as compared with the other patristic evidence, Clement's witness is "[m]ost trustworthy of all the reports about Basilides." Note, e.g., that in Strom. 3.1-2 Clement is careful to attribute a citation of Matt 19:11-12 to Basilides's followers (oi ... &anbBaathi8oo)) rather than to Basilides himself. Similarly, according to Clem., Strom.1.146.1, followers of Basilides (oi... a&n BaotLteioz) hold a festival on the (supposed) day ofJesus' baptism and spend the night reading (cpo?tavuicepe{uove?r[ev] avayvaoeot). 21 Basilides, Exegetica,apudClem., Strom.4.82.2c: "For I will say anything (wivx') rather in than call Providence evil." Cf. Lohr, Basilides, 131-2; Procter, ChristianControversy Alexandria,88-93. 22 Basilides, Exegetica,apud Clem., Strom.4.82.2a ("Indeed, someone who intends to commit adultery is an adulterer even without succeeding in the act, and someone who intends to commit murder is a murderer even without being able to commit the act.") has obvious similarities to Matt 5:27-28 and 5:21-22 (cf. Lohr, Basilides,128 n. 16: "vermutlich biblisch inspirierten (vgl. z. B. Mt 5,21.27) Beispiele...."). Nonetheless, the majority of Basilides's excerpted discussion on human suffering is not 'exegetical' of 'gospel' or other 'biblical' materials (cf. Lohr, Basilides,131).
122
JAMES A. KELHOFFER
that Basilidesis attemptingto 'exegete' a written gospel.23The same is true for three other parts of the Stromateis that allude briefly to Basilides'sview of suffering.24Thus, concerning the portions of Basilides's work that Clement cites and paraphrases,Clement's title ('EtyrxtiKa, Strom.4.81.1) does not supportthe inference that Basilideswrote a commentaryon gospel or other biblical materials. This point will be taken up in greater detail below. 4. TheActa Archelai on Basilides'sTreatises The other portions of Basilides's surviving work appear in the earlyfourth century anti-ManichaeanActaArchelaiet Manetis67.5-11. The Acta Archelaireveals two things about Basilides'swork: an interest in the Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man (cf. Luke 16:19-31), and a discussion rooted in dualism of light and darkness,good and evil. Concerning the interpretationof the parable, Basilideswrites:"By means of the parable of the rich man and the poor man,25it [the word of salvation]26demonstratesthe source of the nature that comes upon things with-
23 Although Lohr recognizes this point in the case of Clement, Strom.4.81.2-3, he and other scholars persist in identifying Basilides as an exegete of Christian scripture. See Christianity,18; Ayer, L6hr, Basilides, 12-13, 34, 215, 325-6, 329; Grant, Second-Century SourceBook,82; Windisch, "Evangelium des Basilides." 24 Clem., Strom.4.86.1; 4.88.3; 4.88.5. Cf. Y. Tissot, "A propos des fragmentsde Basilide sur le martyre," RHPR 76 (1996): 35-50. 25 Lat.: perparabolamdivitisetpauperis.In Luke 16:19a, tq ... isno-oato;= quidam... dives and (VL Vg). In Luke 16:20a, mtoXb0 6e rt; = quidammendicus(Vg). According to
W. Matzkowund K. Aland, eds., Itala:Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Uberlieferung Berlin:W. de Gruyter,21976),3.188, the Vetus Latinaand the (Vol. 3: Lucas-Evangelium; Vulgate consistently translate kotcxntoq(Luke 16:19a) as dives (so also Basilides apud (Luke 16:20a), a majority of the secHegemonius's Acta Archelai).In the case of rcMw6o ond-century Old Latin mss (aurb cf f2 q) and the Vulgate differ with Hegemonius's translation of Basilides and attest mendicus.Certain Old Latin mss, however, have pauper(a d i l; also Basilides apudHegemonius), and one VL version has pauperculus (r'). Thus, the key terms used by Basilides for identifying this parable (divesand pauper)are attested, respectively, by all (xXosoloS, Luke 16:19a) and some (mxrwC;,Luke 16:20a) of the Old Latin mss. Such similarities in wording suggest the likelihood that Basilides did in fact refer to the Lukan Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man (Luke 16:19-31). 26 If correct, Basilides would offer an early witness to this Lukan material (= Luke?) in the first half of the second century. Moreover, Basilides alludes to "the word of salvation" (salutarissermo),mentioned in Acta Archelai67.5b. Cf. Gregory, The Receptionof Luke andActs, 78.
BASILIDES'S GOSPEL AND EXEGETICA(TREATISES)
123
out a root or a place" (ActaArchelai67.5c). In Luke 16:19-31, the Parableof the Rich Man and the Poor Man (Lazarus)representsspecial Lukan material (L), which, moreover, reflects this evangelist'sparticularinterest in the poor.27It thus seems at least plausible that Basilidescame into contact with this special Lukan material from Luke's source(s),some writing dependent upon Luke, or, more probably, the gospel of Luke itself.28In his own work, Basilidesapparentlyoffered an allegoricalinterpretationof this parable that the author of the ActaArchelaichose to cut off abruptly (67.6). ActaArchelai 67.5c thus offers evidence for connecting at least part of Basilides'sExegetica with written gospel material.29 (or Treatises) The extended section from Basilides'swork quoted in ActaArchelai67.711 concerns a different topic from that in 67.6, namely a dualistic discussion of light and darkness,good and evil.30ActaArchelai67.7-11 reflects the view that "perfectgood" is not to be found "in this world" (67.10), where only a portion of the Light is visible to humans.31Yet this passage reveals no effort to exegete a 'biblical' text (not even Genesis 1!), much less any gospel material. As noted above, ActaArchelai67.7-11 offers a more extended citation from Basilides'swork of a markedlydifferent sort of material. According to Acta 27 See, e.g., Luke 6:20b, 21, 24-26, 12:13-21, 14:12-24, 16:1-9, 18:22, 19:8, 21:2; on the Gospelof Luke 1:1-9:50 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: F. Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary 223-5. 2002 Fortress, [1989]), 28 Basilides's knowledge of Lukan gospel material might contribute to an explanation for why (the non-Gnostic) Marcion, who canonized an edited version of Luke, came to be criticized along with others such as Basilides, who were deemed to be 'Gnostics.' See Justin, Dial. 35.6; Clement, Strom.7.106.4-107.1, 7.108.1; Muratorian Canon; Hegesippus apudEusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.22.4-6. 29 The present author agrees with Lohr's arguments in favor of the authenticity of this citation of Basilides's work (Basilides,248-9), but disagrees with Lhr's inference that this material is representative of a sort of gospel commentary by Basilides: "Das alles paBt gut zu Basilides und seinem Evangelienkommentar" (Basilides,248; cf. 227-9). 30 In Acta Archelai67.7, Basilides mentions the view of some "barbarians," who "have said that all things have two beginnings (initiaomniumduo),to which they have associated good and evil (bonaet mala), stating that these beginnings themselves are without beginning and unbegotten (sineinitioesseet ingenita).In other words, there was in the beginning ac tenebras), which existed of themselves, which Light and Darkness (in principiislucemfuilsse were not said to be begotten." 31 ActaArchelai67.11. The author of the ActaArchelaisummarizes the importance of this dualistic cosmogony to Basilides's system as follows: "So if anyone is able to demolish the which he propounds, then I say he unbegotten dualism (subvertere...ingenitamdualitatem), would at the same time cut down the entire forest of his words" (68.2).
124
JAMES A. KELHOFFER
Archelai67.6, this material appears in Basilides's work after an interval of some "five hundred lines." It is not clear whether the five hundred lines omitted in Acta Archelai 67 were devoted to the Lukan parable (cf. Luke 16:19-31) or to some other matter.
5. Origenon theGospelaccording to Basilides A question of significance equal to the extent to which Basilides's work may have been 'exegetical' is the question whether Basilides or his followers would have acknowledged the term eaTyylXtov as a description for a gospel that he allegedly wrote. Origen offers the earliest testimony to a gospel written by Basilides: The church has four gospels. Heretics have very many. One of them is entitled Accordingto theEgyptians,another Accordingto the TwelveApostles.Basilides, too, dared to write a gospel and give it his own name (T160XglOe KcaiBaXtGnIiTS;
ypavat Kara BaoateirTlve'ayy:lXtov)."Many have tried" to write, but only four gospels have been approved.32 Neither Origen nor any of the subsequent patristic witnesses to the existence of Basilides's gospel reveal anything about the content of this alleged writing, however.33 6. Hippolytus,Refutatio VII.20-27, X.14 Hippolytus of Rome claims to represent Basilides's uses of the term euayyXktoveight times in six passages:
32 Origen, Homilieson Luke 1.2, alluding to Luke 1:1: 1okxo'i 7cexeipTloav.Greek and Latin texts: M. Rauer, ed., OrigenesWerke(GCS 9: Die Homilienzu Lukasin der Ubersetzung des Hieronymusund die Griechischen Reste der Homilien und des Lukas-Kommentars, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 21959), 9.4-5; ET: J. T. Lienhard, Origen,Homilieson Luke;Fragmentson Luke (FC 94; Washington: Catholic University of America, 1996), 5-6; cf. Windisch, "Evangelium des Basilides," 236. 33 H.-C. Puech (revised by B. Blatz), "The Gospel of Basilides," in: New Testament Apocrypha(ed. W. Schneemelcher; trans. ed. R. McL. Wilson; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 21991 [61990]), 1.397-9; here, 397, notes later references to Basilides's gospel in Jerome's Latin translation of Origen's homily, as well as Jerome, Comm.in Mt. Prologue (on the EvangeliumBasilidis);Ambrose, ExpositioeuangeliiLucaei.2; the Venerable Bede, In Lucaeeuangelium ExpositioI, Prologue; and Philip of Side's partially Church Cf. 31: "Gegen den historischen Wert der Notiz History. Basilides, Lohr, preserved
sprichtvor allem ihre Singularitat.WederJustin, noch Irenaeus,noch AgrippaCastor, noch Clemens oder Hippolyt nennen wie Origenes ausdrucklich ein Evangelium des Basilides."
BASILIDES'S GOSPEL AND EXEGETICA(TREATISES)
125
* Ref. VII.25.5: When then, he says, it was necessary for the children (r6icva) of God to be revealed to us... the gospel came into the world (X0Fe TO ei)ayynEov ei? TOVKoOlov).... * Ref VII.26.1: Therefore the gospel came [first] from the Sonhood (X09ev o'v TO eUiayy:Xtov <xcpcrov> ant6oTf; ui6'OzTo;),he says to the Ruler, through his Son who sits beside him.... * Ref. VII.26.4: It was still necessary for the gospel to come (Fet XotAOV... eX0eiv TO?Et'ay:X1tov) also to the Hebdomad, in order that the Ruler of the Hebdomad might be taught in like manner and evangelized ('va ... ?t8aXoFi ai t e?ayye?Xtoaei?Tat). * Ref VII.26.5: And the Son of the Ruler of the Hebdomad was enlightened, and he proclaimed the gospel (Cpqotoq ... Kait e6UiyryeXioaTo bT eiaTylXtov) to the ruler of the Hebdomad.... * Ref VII.27.7 (three occurrences): In order that we may omit nothing from their [doctrines], I will set forth what they say also about [the?] 'gospel'(nrept eilayyeXiou). Gospel is according to them the knowledge of hyper-cosmic things (eaTyyEXt6v EoTt... iqlT6v {rneplcoaoitov yvooat;), as has been made plain, which the Great Ruler did not understand. When then there was manifested to him what are the Holy Spirit (that is, the Boundary), and the Sonhood (i1 i6tnq) and the God-who-is-Not (6 ecoq... 6 oKic dSv)(who is the cause of all these), he rejoiced at the things that had been said and exulted, and this according to them is the gospel (robT' eont ica' a&xoiS; ro ebayyEXtov).34 * Ref. X.14.9: And [Basilides] says that on Jesus who was born of Mary the power of [the] Gospelcame (KE?opnK:cvatxTv etatyyeXioi 68ivagtL), which descended and illumined the Son of the Ogdoad and the Son of the Hebdomad for the illumination and separation and purification of the Sonhood left behind that he might benefit and receive benefits from the souls. citations in Hippolytus, Refutatio VII.25-27, X. 14 reflect understandof E?ayyFXtov as a revelation (Ref. VII.25.5, 26.1, 26.4), as oral proclaings These
34 Hippolytus's description continues in Ref VII.27.8, where he notes similarities between Basilides's (supposed) conception of Jesus and the reports of the 'NT' gospels: "ButJesus according to them was born, as we have before said. And after he came into being by the birth before explained, all those things likewise came to pass with regard to the Savior, as it is written in the gospels (ox;Fv Toi; eaxzyyeaiot; y'ypaTalt)." At this point, however, Hippolytus offers a comparison of Basilides with the 'NT' gospels and not Basilides's own interest in written gospels. Cf. the Greek text edited by M. Marcovich, Hippolytus,ReiutatioOmniumHaeresium(PTS 25; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1986), 301, which begins a new paragraph at Ref: VII.27.8, to illustrate this shift in the discussion from VII.27.7 to VII.27.8. Greek: Marcovich, Hippolytus;English translations of the Refutatioare from Legge, Philosophumena, and as necessary are modified to conform more accurately to the Greek.
126
JAMES A. KELHOFFER
mation (Ref.VII.26.5), as the knowledge (yv&otg)of things revealed (Ref. VII.27.7), and as the manifestationof divine power (Ref X.14.9). Thus, differentfrom the attributionof Origen (Homilieson Luke1.2) and others, Hippolytus reflects no knowledge of a work by Basilides identified by the literary designation e/awyyiXtov.Nor does Hippolytus suggest that the various gospel citations attributed to Basilides were considered e)a'yyeXtov.35 This is somewhat surprising, since Hippolytus's (secondary) testimony36 presents a "Basilides"-or perhaps in fact later 'Basilidians'-who made extensive use of numerous 'NT' writings, including the gospels.
7. Epiphanius: Irenaeus andEncountering the (Later)Followers Reworking of Basilides In his Panarion(c. 374-377 C.E.),Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310/320-402/3 C.E.)
seems to know some form of the traditionpreservedby Irenaeus:37 He [Basilides] claims that notJesus, but Simon of Cyrene, has suffered. When
the Lord was taken (lcpa&Xo)fromJerusalem, as the sequence of the Gospel has it (og;ieXeti a&Kcokou0ia ToU ezayyoeXtio), they compelled a certain Simon of Cyrene38 to bear the cross....
While he [Simon] was being crucified,
35 Interestingly, according to Hippolytus, Basilides's use of the 'NT' gospels is, for the most part, limited to their opening chapters. See Ref. VII.21.3 (possibly alluding to Mark 4:30-32 par.); VII.22.3-4 (citing John 1:9 after Gen 1:3); VII.26.9 (citing Luke 1:35); VII.27.5 (citingJohn 2:4b, and then mentioning the Magi of Matt 2:1-6 [oi [atyot .. toov aoxrepateEeaervoi]). At no point is the term eUayyelov used in connection with any of these gospel citations or allusions, however. Cf. Hippol., Ref. VII.22.13 (possibly alluding to Eph 1:21); VII.23.5 (apparently alluding to 1 Cor 3:10); VII.25.2 (citing a combination of Rom 5:13, 14a); VII.25.3 (citing Exod 6:2-3; Eph 3:5a); VII.25.5 (citing parts of Rom 8:22, 19; Eph 1:21); VII.26.2 (citing Prov 1:7/9:10/Ps 110:10); VII.26.3 (citing 1 Cor 2:7, 13); VII.26.4 (citing a combination of Pss 31:5-6, 51:11); VII.26.7 (citing Eph 3:5a, 3a; 2 Cor 12:4). 36 Following Lohr, Basilides,313-23, that Hippolytus does not offer a reliable witness to the historical Basilides. 37 With Lohr, Basilides,273: "Der Basilidesbericht bei Irenaus, haer. 1,24,3-7 ist direkt oder indirekt die Quelle weiterer haresiologischer Referate bei Pseudotertullian, Epiphanius v. Salamis sowie Filastrius von Brescia." 38 Gk.: nyyapeuoav xtva Etlxova Kupivaiov. Notable in Epiphanius's paraphrase of this gospel material is the mixture of distinctively Matthean (Aryyapeooav,apparently from Matt 27:32; cf. Mark 15:21: ayyapei6ouotv)and Markan (tva Sigova KupqlvaZov,apparKuprtvaiov ov6oxcttil'o)va) materiently from Mark 15:21; pace Matt 27:32: &vOpeomov als. Greek text: K. Holl, Epiphanius(Vol. 1; GCS 25; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915). English translations include: F. Williams, The Panarionof Epiphaniusof Salamis (NHS 35; Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36; Leiden: Brill, 1987-94); and P. R. Amidon, The
BASILIDES'SGOSPELAND EXEGETICA (TREATISES)
127
' (cKEivov 5 omapoou!Vvo) ) Jesus stood opposite him unseen, laughing at those who were crucifyingSimon. But he himself flew off on high once he had delivered Simon to crucifixion,and returned to heaven without suffering.39 Concerning the reliability of this testimony, however, it is doubtful that Epiphanius's version of Irenaeus's (questionable) testimony offers a reliable source for the historical Basilides.40 Epiphanius had visited Egypt around 335 c.E. and had come into contact there with Basilidians, who apparently tried both to convert and to seduce him (Panarion26.17.4-9). At one point Epiphanius quotes Basilides as follows: But the vagabond [Basilides]says (aU& qnplav6 a&y'pp;),"We are the ones who are the human beings (oi &v0pcoiot),and all the others are pigs and dogs (te; Kai cDve;). Therefore he/it [Basilides?Jesus? a 'gospel'?] said (6ta roixo eltev), 'Do not cast pearls before the swine or give what is holy to the dogs (lil coreTOaytov TOi;giuoiv gr8enk PaiXTretoibggpapryapt; gcpoa0ev Tiv Xooipov, [= Matt 7:6ba])."' (Panarion 24.5.2) The citation presents, in reverse order (!), the two imperatives of Matt 7:6ab, without the possessive pronoun t)bLv.41 Epiphanius's citation includes none of the remainder of the saying as preserved in Matt 7:6cd.42 Although this xO aOyiov saying is not attested in the other 'NT' gospels, Didache9.5 (il iS&cre Toig Kcuai)contains part of it, possibly from some form of Matt 7:6a. Moreover, a version of the saying in Gospelof Thomas93 reflects redactional expansion that interrupts the flow of the version of the saying as preserved in Matthew.43 Thus, if a written source lies behind this testimony of Epiphanius, it is most probably either Matthew or some writing based upon Matthew. Of course, this conclusion concerning Panarion 24.5.2 implies nothing concerning Basilides's own use of 'gospel' materials.
Panarionof St. Epiphanius,Bishopof Salamis:SelectedPassages(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). 39 Epiphanius, Panarion24.3.2, 4; cf. 24.4.1, 24.8.6-8, 24.9.3-24.10.4. 40 With L6hr, Basilides,37, 275-80; see above on Irenaeus, Adv. haer.1.24.4. 41 Matt 7:6ab: er To oit a o r6 Ia Tgr uoiv ttiL Mrre ro &ytov lpyaprapirs vpiv pa Christianit,21. e}xgpooev XOv Xoipov. Cf. Grant, Second-Century 42 Matt 7:6cd: !inoxe icaOttasnaaouootv copaxpevTe; atXoi; ev roit0i ooav avztiv iai
Vir|oxtv6geag. 43 Gos. Thom.93: "[Jesus said,] 'Do not give what is holy to dogs, lest they throw them on the dung heap. Do not throw the pearls [to] swine, lest they... it [...]."' ET by T. O. Lambdin in: J. M. Robinson, gen. ed., NHL, 136.
128
JAMES A. KELHOFFER
Analysis:Did BasilidesWritea Gospel? As mentioned in the introduction to this article, von Campenhausen, although cautious concerning what can be known about the content of Basilides'sgospel, is persuaded that such a writing circulatedwith the title e?ayyeXtov.44Von Campenhausen bases this inference upon the following testimony of Agrippa Castor, as preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea: "In expounding his [Basilides's]mysteries he [Castor] says that he [Basilides] exooaxpa... compiled twenty-four books on the gospel (ei5... T. eX0tayyetov eccl. e'ilcoat acovraatl PtiXia)" (Hist. 4.7.7; cf. 4.7.4-6). Accordingly, von
Campenhausen'sinference rests upon the reliabilityof this testimony. The question whether Hist. eccl. 4.7.7 claims that Basilides compiled gospel materials (presumably,from sundry gospels), or materials aboutthe gospel (that is, commentaries),hangs on the interpretationof the verb ovvxdaooo.Elsewhere in his ChurchHistory,Eusebius uses this verb in a citation of the (notoriously problematic) testimony of Papias of Hierapolis, that "Matthew compiled the sayings (x&akoyia Gvvr64axo) in the Hebrew/Aramaic language, and each one interpretedthem as he was able" (Hist. eccl.3.39.16). The meaning of ovvxTaoooin Hist. eccl.3.39.16 is quite straightforward:Matthew is said to have 'compiled' or 'organized'a collection of Hebrew/Aramaic sayings ofJesus. If this definitionof ruvTdaaoc45 is applied to Hist. eccl. 4.7.7, it would follow that Eusebius (perhaps also Agrippa Castor) regards Basilides's work as comprising primarily gospel materialsand not commentaries"on the Gospel." The fragmentsof Basilides'ssurvivingwork, however, cannot be used to support the accuracy of the testimony of Agrippa Castor (or at least Eusebius'spresentationof it). Moreover, it would be mistakento infer that, in the absence of polemic against Basilides, Eusebius's testimony can be taken at face value.46It thus follows that von Campenhausen'sbasing an inference upon this uncorroborated testimony (Hist. eccl. 4.7.7), that Basilides'sgospel was known as To Eocayy,Xtov, is tenuous.47 44 Von
139 n. 161: "In all probabilityit was at first, as Campenhausen,Formation, AgrippaCastor says..., referredto by them simply as 'the Gospel'. The designation Kara Baotkeiriv evayyeltov
... may not originally have been attached to it."
Cf. W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Ardt and F. W. Gingrich,A Greek-English Lexiconof theNew Testament and OtherEarlyChristian Literature (Chicago:Universityof Chicago,32000),974. 46 Pace Lohr,Basilides,11-12. 47 With L6hr,Basilides, 33; cf. 33-4 on the workof Psalmsthat Origenelsewhere(Com. on Job 21:12) attributesto Basilides.Lohr furthernotes concerningOrigen, Comm.in 45
BASILIDES'S GOSPEL AND EXEGE7TCA(TREATISES)
129
and Character of Basilides'sTreatises (Exegetica) Analysis:The Content 1. Did BasilidesWritea Gospel(orBiblical)Commentary? As noted above, Zahn, Windisch, Grant, Layton, Lohr, Procter and Edwards maintain that Basilides of Alexandria wrote a gospel (or biblical) commentary.48It remains to consider whether the evidence could support this characterizationof Basilides'swriting. Indeed, it does not. Two of the three survivingportions of Basilides'swork are not involved primarilywith biblical interpretationor 'exegesis'of any kind. One is a treatise on Providence (Clem., Strom.4.81-83), and the other reflects a dualistic understandingof good and evil (ActaArchelai67.7-11). However much interest Basilides may have had in the Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man (cf. Luke 16:19-31) is not clear from the short allusion in ActaArchelai 67.5c. It thus follows that the survivingportions of Basilides's Treatises(or do not commend a primary characterizationof Basilides'swork as Exegetica) an 'exegesis' of gospels or other Christianliteratureor, for that matter, any kind of a biblical commentary.Nor does the evidence support L6hr's characterizationof Basilides'soeuvre as a work that took scriptureas the starting point for the exploration of various theological topics.49 Although
someone like Irenaeus in the second century could be described as an exegete without having produced an entire work that constitutesa patristic biblical commentary,the survivingevidence does not support an analogous attributionin the case of Basilides. as a Literary or Title 2. ESHFHTIKA Designation In light of the conclusion that Basilides did not write a gospel (or biblical) commentary, the question may thus be raised:Why is it that Basilides came to be credited with having written such a work? The origins of this influential position in scholarship are perhaps indebted to Clement of Alexandria'suse of Exegetica as the title for Basilides'swork (Gk.: 'EtyriyltTcd,
Matth. Ser. 38 (on Matt 24:7): "Unser Fragment gibt uns also keinen AufschluB iiber eine
positive Lehre des Basilidesund seiner Anhanger..." (211). H.-C. Puech ("Gospelof Basilides," 399; cf. 398) is likewise cautious concerning what can be known about this work: "In short, it must be said that all conjectures concerning the Gospel of Basilides remain uncertain." 48 See above, nn. 6-7. 49 Lohr, Basilides, 12-13; cf. 34, 215, 325-6, 329.
130
JAMES A. KELHOFFER
Strom.4.81.1). Unlike the title that the ActaArchelaiattributes to Basilides himself ("Treatises," attested in ActaArchelai67.5a: tractatuum eius;67.b: nobis the title attested by Clement may have suggestedto some scholtractatuum), ars that Basilideswas an 'exegete' of scripture. Yet even if one was to suppose that Exegeticaserved as a title for Basilides's (fl. 120-140 C.E.) work, in Greek the term 'EtyrlmzrKau almost never connotes a commentary on an esteemed body of literatureprior to Origen in the mid-third century C.E. On the contrary, the adjective CermyTxiuKo pertains to a "narrative"or, more aptly for the survivingfragments of Basilides'swriting, an "explanation."50The physician Galen (d. 199/200 C.E.), for example, uses the adjectivein this way when referringto his own and others' medical works as iy4rltKrua iVbotvicatxa("explanatory treatises").51
The only possible example I have found to the contraryis the following description of a work by the Hellenistic Jewish author Aristobulus of Alexandria (2nd c. B.C.E.) by Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. 7.32.16): xroiMWouoxovo6jou("booksthat explain [or: 'exegete'] ptipXos; '4yrlntcKC the Law of Moses").52Notably, Eusebius (d. c. 340 C.E.) is later than to describeAristobulus's Basilides(and Origen), but may well use enyxntKdc work as explanatory of the Jewish Law in relation to Aristotelianphilosophy (cf. Euseb., Praep.evang.8.9) rather than as a commentaryon the Law. Moreover, prior to the time of Basilides 'ETrnyrXctK (less frequently, the the for is attested as for title works, example, by the singular, 'ElytmziKuv)
50
LSJ, s.v.
irmtllc6oq. See also, e.g., Acusilaus (Hist.; 5th c.
B.C.E.)
Test. 5.2;
Antigonus(Paradox.;3rd c. B.C.E.),Hist. mir.60b.l.11; ChrysippusSoleus (Phil.; 3rd c. B.C.E.)Frag. logicaet physica174.9, 1018.2; Frag. moralia613.5, 614.4; Diogenes Babylonius (Phil.; 2nd c. B.C.E.),Frag. 64.3; Arius Didymus (Doxogr.; 1st c. B.C.E.),Liber
dephilosoph. sectis77.1.16, 80.1.3; AristonicusAlex. (Gramm.;1st c. B.C.E.-lstc. C.E.),De sig. Od. 16.18.3. 51 Gal., De sanitatetuenda6.107.8 (Sta -Cov tmnyutiKroV in the context of inogvrloaTv,Xrov, defending the views of'Hippocrates' from the criticisms of Theon of Smyrna [fl. 130 C.E.]) ; cf. 6.106.4; Gal., De dficultate respirationis7.764.11-12 (yrTucmiKa re ypa
Galeni,Operaomnia(Hildesheim:Olms, 2001 [1821]). 52 Greek:M. Blackand A.-M. Dennis, eds., Apocalpsis Henochi Graece; Fragmenta pseudeGraeca (PVTG 3; Leiden:Brill, 1970),217-28;here, 227. pigraphorum quaesupersunt
BASILIDES'S GOSPEL AND EXEGE7TICA (TREATISES
131
historian Autocleides (fl. early-3rd c. B.C.E.) on Alexander the Great.53 Unfortunately, like Basilides's work, Autocleides's and so many other do not survive. For the present study it suffices to note that what Exegetica does not support can be ascertainedabout Autocleides's(and other) Exegetica as a commentaryon an esteemed the characterizationof Basilides'sExegetica body of Christianliterature.Rather, the "explanations"of Autocleides and others commend the otherwise straightforwardinference that Basilides's work offered "explanations"(erlxyruca)of his own theology. In fact, Clement himself does not claim on the basis of the title 'EYTimt a&that Basilides'swork was 'exegetical.'Clement uses 'EyqiyrlKain reference to three different works in his Stromateis: In addition to that by an Clement discusses Cassian Basilides, Exegeticaby Julius (fl. late-2nd c.) and the Explanations of theProphetParchorby Basilides'sson Isidore. Neither of these other two references to the term 'Etnmynxra in the Stromateis warrants characterizing Basilides's work as 'exegetical.' Clement mentions Cassian'swork in connection with Clement's argumentthat "the philosophy of the Hebrews will be demonstrated beyond all contradiction to be the most ancient of all wisdom. This has been discussed with accuracy by Tatian in his book To the Greeks,and by Cassian in the first book of his Tov 'E yqitllcicv)."54 Exegetica Although Cassian's (lost)writing (av Tronpircpcq would obviously have reflected interest in the Mosaic Law, Clement presents this work not exclusively (or primarily)as a biblical commentary but 53 The loci classicicited in LSJ (s.v. e^qyrxzcKa) are incomplete and not entirely correct. The title of Autocleides's work is attested in Plutarch, Jwcias 23.9.3 (txg 'AXToickXi&el 8tiypaoev ev xoiS;EiqrlmTyroi).The Greek text is available, e.g., in: B. Perrin, Plutarch's Lives (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1916), 3.292. Plutarch may have derived this information from Philochorus of Athens (Hist.; 4th-3rd c. B.C.E.), Frag. 3b.328.F.135b. Other references to works with the title Exegetica(or Exegeticon)include: Aeschylus (Trag.; 6th-5th c. B.C.E.), Frag.42.A.480a.2, on a work by Timosthenes. On an Exegeticaby Anticledes, see Demon of Athens (Hist.; 4th-3th c. B.C.E.), Frag. 22.6 (Xo 'AvxtKcXeiirl ev rxoi 'Eilxyrticoi; i)Trnooctaivet);Crates of Athens (Hist.; 1st c. B.C.E.), Frag. 3.5; Harpocration of Alexandria (Gramm.; 1st or 2nd c. c.E.?), Lex. 233.5, 258.2 [cf. Lex. 200.11, 224.1]. Additional Exegeticareceive mention in: Clidemus of Athens (Hist.; 5th c. B.C.E.), Frag. 20.4 (X; KXeilqgos; ev rpfiE7Ctpaqpogvqp 'ETyqTrlmxti);Phaenias Eresius (Phil.; 4th c. B.C.E.), Frag.22b.4; Aristophanes Byzantius (Gramm.; 3rd-2nd c. B.C.E.), Frag. 76.4; Erotianus (Gramm. et Med.; 1st c. C.E.), VocumHippocr.85.6, 85.10, 115.5, 116.12; Frag. 40.2; Athenaeus (Soph.; 2nd-3rd c. C.E.), Deipn. 9.78.8, 11.34.18, 11.46.4 (o; 'AvtiKceiXr; qqproivev ut 'E1mzyntucypapqowv oz.o; ...). 54 Clem., Strom.1.21.101; ET (modified): ANF 2.324. Little is known about Clement's apparent contemporary in Alexandria, Julius Cassian, whose Encratism Clement criticizes elsewhere (Strom.3.14.99).
132
JAMES A. KELHOFFER
as a discussion of scripturein relation to Hellenistic philosophic literature. Likewise, Clement's three citations from Isidore's Explanations of theProphet Parchordo not characterizeIsidore'swork as 'exegetical.'55 On the contrary, the inference that Basilides'swriting offered "explanations" ('ETrlYlitKa) of, or "treatises"(ActaArchelai67.5a: tractatuum eius)on, his system accords with what the surviving fragments reveal about this work, as well as with the customary use of eyhlttcKaduntil Origen in the mid-third century c.E. However tempting it may be to interpretBasilides's so-called 'EyrltKucTi in proto-Orthodox terms,56or to highlight his purthe notion that Basilides wrote an extensive gospel (or ported innovation, biblical) commentary is unfounded and most probably inaccurate. This conclusion does not, however, dispute (or confirm)the importance of Jesus in Basilides's thought. By analogy, the apostle Paul places much weight on Jesus' significance, but hardly anyone would attribute to Paul written gospel materials. Conclusion: Basilidesand 'Gospel' in theFirstHalf of theSecondCentury This article views as highly unlikely the possibilitythat Basilideswrote a gospel concerned primarilywith the life and teachings of Jesus. It has also been argued that there is no credibleevidence that Basilidesrecognized (any of) his own work(s)with the name eDiayyetov(cf. Hippol., Ref. VII.25.5, 26.1, 26.4-5, 27.7; X.14.9; Epiphanius,Panarion24.5.2). These conclusions do not necessarily set aside another possibility, however, namely that
55 Clem., Strom.6.6.53: "And Isidore, at once son and disciple to Basilides, in the first book of the Expositionsof the ProphetParchor(ev Tr- rcptr TCOiv TO npoTpi0rolnapocop writes also in these words: 'The Attics say that certain things were inti'EElyrqTiKc)v), mated to Socrates, in consequence of a demon attending on him. And Aristotle says that all men are provided with demons, that attend on them during the time they are in the body-having taken this piece of prophetic instruction and transferred it to his own books, without acknowledging whence he had abstracted this statement.' And again, in the second book of his work, he thus writes: 'And let no one think that what we say is peculiar to the elect was said before by any philosophers. For it is not a discovery of theirs. For having appropriated it from our prophets, they attributed it to him who is wise according to them.' Again, in the same: 'For to me it appears that those who profess to philosophize, do so that they may learn what is the winged oak, and the variegated robe on it, all of which Pherecydes has employed as theological allegories, having taken them from the prophecy of Chum."' 56 E.g., Eusebius of Caesarea, Praep.Evang.6.10.50.7, referring to Origen's Commentary on Genesis(Ei5;TlV Frveotv r1yTrlTcoiqKO Oauua1oto 'Optyevrlq...t. ei-TlqE).
BASILIDES'SGOSPELAND EXEGETICA (TREATSES)
133
Basilideswrote a gospel whose content differed significantlyfrom those of, for example, the 'NT' gospels and the Gospelof Thomas. First, it must be pointed out that in the second century an evangelium scriptumneed not be a narrative gospel (like, for example, the 'NT' gospels or the Gospelof Peter).A possible indication that a work bearing the designation e6ayycXtovcould also be a theological work is the 'Gnostic' Gospelof Truth found at Nag Hammadi, and sometimes attributed to Valentinus (c. 105165 C.E.).57 Irenaeus, moreover, notes the acceptance of a (the?) Gospelof Truthamong the Valentinians, as well as differences in content between whatever gospel he knows by this name and the "gospels of the apostles" (Adv.haer.3.11.9). At least for Irenaeusin the late-second century, there was no problem with using the term E6ayyFXtov even for a 'heretical'gospel that differed significantlyfrom the content of the 'NT' gospels.58As a consequence, this study'sconclusionsabout what kind of a gospel Basilidesdidnot write should be qualified. But if one understandsgospel as a narrative type of text (like the 'NT' gospels), then the evidence to support the contentions of K. Aland, W. Bauer, W. Foerster, G. May, E. Procter, H. von Campenhausen and A. Gregory that Basilideswrote a gospel is meager. There is no use of the in connection with a writing by Basilidesprior to term "gospel"(etayy_.Xtov) Origen. Moreover, Hippolytus (especiallyRef. VII.27.7) consistentlyattributes to Basilides understandingsof e ayy,Xtovas oral proclamation or revelation rather than as a writing. Although it is possible that Basilideswrote a gospel like the Gospelof Truth,again, there is no evidence of it. Epiphanius's citation of "Basilides,"reproducedby K. Aland in his Synopsis and regarded as evidence for the existence of a "gospel of Basilides,"must therefore be viewed with skepticism:The citation and the explanation of the text is, in essence, no different than what any number of patristic witnesses-from 57 This is only a possibility,however.On the uncertaintiesconcerningthe authorship of the Gospelof Truthand its originaltitle (if it had one in antiquity),see Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus? Gnosismit einemKommentar zur valentinianischen zu den Untersuchungen Valentins Fragmenten (WUNT 65; Tubingen:Mohr Siebeck, 1992),esp. 339-47. 58Thus, Koester,AncientChristian 22, does not persuadewhen he assumesa Gospels, connectionbetweenthe designationelayyeXtovand the contentof a gospel:"Thisbook [the Gospel of Truth]may have been composedby the famousGnosticteacherValentinus, and must be dated in the middle of the 2d century.It is not a writingthat belongs to the gospel literature;but it is a homily or meditation.It uses the term 'gospel'in its of Truthby H. W. Attridgeand G. W. MacRaeis availincipit...." An ET of the Gospel able in: J. M. Robinson,gen. ed., NHL, 40-51. Cf. H.-J. Klauck,Apocryphal An Gospels: Introduction (Edinburgh:T & T Clark,2003 [2002]), 106, 123.
134
JAMES A. KELHOFFER
Irenaeus to John Chrysostom-offer, namely a passage quoted from the "common"text of the author'stime and place, and then interpretedaccording to that author's understanding. Scholars do not presume that these Fatherswere quoting their own gospel-a "Gospel of Irenaeus,"for example. Why here? Thus, this article'ssuggestionthatf Basilidesever did write a gospel, a possible literaryanalogy could be the Gospelof Truth.Indeed, the latter work bears some resemblance to the 'narrative'or 'explanation'that Basilidesoffers for his system in his Treatises (Exegetica). Although this article has dismissedthe notions that Basilideswrote either a gospel commentaryor a gospel like Mark,John or Thomas,these conclusions do not discount Basilides'sprominence as a Christianleader in earlysecond century Alexandria. If anything, this study serves to highlight the distinctiveness of Basilides among the many voices and writings that flourishedin early Christianity. Department of Theological Studies, Saint Louis University, St. Louis,MO USA
HISTORIOGRAPIPH CHRETIENNE ET ROMANESQUE:' LE DE MORTIBUS PERSECUTORUM DE LACTANCE (250-325 AP. J.C.) PAR
BLANDINE COLOT ABSTRACT: The
DMP written by Lactantius and published after the 'Edict of Milan' (313), is an unclassifiablebook. It was regarded as the first Christian historiographyin latin but recent study has defended that the first was really the H.E. by Eusebius which was translated in latin at the end of the IVth century. We have analysed the romantic character of Lactantius' narration through emotional, existential features and its narrative movement. We have compared the prologues of the two books and managed to show that the DMP is surely a Christian history, authentic in many aspects, but discredited in favour of the historiographyby Eusebiuswhich, even if it contains featuresof fiction too, is closer to the historicpresuppositionsof today's readers.
Le genre du roman se rencontre a peine dans la litterature latine, puisqu'il se limite au Sayriconde Petrone et aux Metamorphoses d'Apulee, mais la question du romanesque peut se poser d'un point de vue heuristique, afin de caracteriser un type d'ecriture, et donc de lecture, qui se situe aux marges d'une production litteraire a une epoque donnee. Comme l'explique J.-M.
Schaeffer,2
<<...
le terme de romanesque
n'a pas une fonction
direc-
tement generique : il dsigne un certain type d'evenements, de personnages, de sentiments, etc., bref des proprietes qui s'attachent a ce qui est represente. > Le point de vue du romanesque nous parait un moyen d'apde Lactance, qui est un ouvrage inclasprehender le De mortibuspersecutorum sable, tout a la fois pamphlet par le ton et l'intention polemiques, et recit Cet articlea eu pourdepartun travailpr6sent6au printemps2000 au sein du groupe de recherche <Styles? anime a la Sorbonnepar J. Dangel; il a aussi b6enfici6de la reflexionmen6e lors du Colloquesur organis6les 21 et 22 septembre a l'Universit6de Paris-IVSorbonnepar M. Murat,G. DeclercqetJ. Dangel,et dont les Actesparaitronten 2004. Je tiens a remercierM. Murat et G. Forestiera qui j'ai soumisla lecturede cet article,comme aussiA. Levalloiset D. Iogna-Prat. 2 Voir J.-M. Schaeffer,"Le romanesqueet la fiction",a paraitredans ( Le Romanes2000 (voir note pr6ecdente). ques, Actesdu Colloque,21-22 septembre ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005
Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
59, 135-151 VigiliaeChristianae
136
BLANDINE
COLOT
historique, marque par la tradition litteraire greco-latine en meme temps qu'influence par la litterature judeo-hellenistique.3 Deux traits caracteristiques du romanesque degages par les specialistes seront retenus ici: le facteur emotionnel,qui fait interfirer impression de lecture et experience de vie, et l'elan narratif, dont le <<mouvement vectorise >>4 tient en haleine le lecteur. En fait, une double question sous-tend l'analyse: il s'agit de reflechir sur la categorisation ou non du DMP comme texte d'historiographie chretienne et, de maniere correlee, sur la possibilite de rapporter a son caractere romanesque le fait qu'il represente un ipiphenomene dans cette litterature. Pour mesurer la singularite de cet ouvrage, qui n'est pas seul a offrir une interpretation chretienne de l'Histoire, mais dont celle-ci est restee marginale et longtemps negligie comme telle, il conviendra donc de le confronter aussi avec la maniere de l'ecrivain grec Eusebe de Cesaree, autre contemporain proche de Constantin, et auteur d'une Histoireecclesiastique.5 *
*
*
Le DMP fut ecrit juste apres l'arret des dernieres persecutions anti-chretiennes decide par Constantin et Licinius, et en relation directe avec cet evenement.6 Lactance, en effet, le regarde et le celebre comme la preuve du < de Dieu et de l'Eglise et le commencement d'un nouveau temps,7 inauguri par le regne de l'empereur converti. La mise en relation 3 Notamment dans son inuentio,par l'emploi de tel ou tel topos.Voir a ce propos
F. Paschoud,"Reflexionsur le problemede la fictionen historiographie", L'historiographie de l'Eglisedespremiers sikcles,B. Pouderon,Y.-M. Duval (ed.), Paris, 2001, p. 23-35 dont ou figure une bonnepart(p. 29-35)est consacreeau chapitre33 du De mortibus persecutorum le recit de la mort de Galere, veritable toposlitteraire inspire d'un episode du second livre des Maccabees. 4 Selon l'expression de M. Murat (voir note 1). 5 Cette oeuvre connut plusieurs etapes de publication: la premiere date de 312. 6 La se place apres la fin des persecupersecutorum periode de redaction du De mortibus tions et avant les premieres hostilites entre Constantin et Licinius (Constantin remportant finalement la victoire et restant seul empereur en 324), autrement dit entre la fin de l'annee 313 et l'et ou l'automne 316. Voir sur les problemes de sa datation l'edition du De mortibuspersecutorum par J. Moreau, Sourceschritiennes39, 1954 (epuise), p. 34-37 et T.D. Barnes, <
HISTORIOGRAPHIE CHRETIENNE ET ROMANESQUE
137
avec 1'HEd'Eusebe s'impose: ces deux ouvrages, de meme epoque et tres differentsa la fois, sont les deux sources historiquesprincipalespour notre connaissance de la periode constantinienne, - du moins a partir de la decouverte et l'edition par Baluze, en 1679, du manuscrit du DMP, car auparavant,et tout le temps ofudura la controversesur l'authenticitede ce texte,8 seul le texte d'Eusebe etait exploite. Mais la maniere d'ecrire l'histoire propre a Eusebe a donne naissance au genrede l'histoireecclesiastique, perpetue apres lui par les auteurs chretiens et toujours en actualite pour l'Eglise ou l'historiende l'Eglise. Sa maniere d'ecrire l'histoire chretienne a constituede ce fait une sorte de terminus postquemdans l'historiographiechretienne en general. Tandis que l'ouvrage de Lactance est, lui, reste sans avenir. Or, c'est sans doute en fonction de ce critere sous-jacentque l'idee d'A. Momigliano9 selon laquelle l'ouvrage de Lactance represente le premier texte latin d'historiographiechretienne a ete rejete, il y a quelque temps, par H. Inglebert.10Pour ce derier, toute la nouveaute revient exclusivement a l'oeuvre eusebienne et a sa conception du monarchismetheologique et politique, nouveaute qui fut ensuite reprise a la fin du IVe siecle, et a la fin du IVe siecle seulement, par ses traducteurs latins. Ainsi, a la suite
4 (*= prologue), Ecce. .. profligatanuperecclesiarursusexurgit... Remarquer ici l'emploi de ecce que renforce ensuite l'anaphore de nunc: Nunc post atrae tempestatisuiolentosturbines suorum<precibus>deusiacenteset afflictos placidusaer et optatalux refulsit,nuncplacatusseruorum caelestiauxilio subleuauit,nunc maerentium lacrimasextinctaimpiorumconspiratione detersit.(Aules violents tourbillons de cette sombre a l'air tourmente, jourd'hui, apres repris son calme, et la lumiere, si d6sir6e, tout son eclat. Dieu, apais6 par les prieres de ses serviteurs, a relev6 par son celeste secours ceux qui gisaient abattus. Aujourd'hui, il a 6touffe la conspiration des impies et s6ch6 les larmes de ceux qui pleuraient.) Sur la construction historiographique du <> assure par Constantin converti, alors que son extension fut en r6alit6 lente et progressive, voir R.L. Fox, Pains et chretiens.La religionet la vie religieusedans l'empireromainde la mortde Commode au conciledeNAcee,trad. fr., Toulouse, 1997, p. 25 et P. Brown, L'autoriteet le sacri, trad. fr. Paris, 1998, chapitre 1. 8 En gros, jusqu'a R. Pichon, Lactance,Paris, 1901, p. 337-445. 9 A. Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.", The ConflictbetweenPaganismand Christianityin the FourthCentury,Oxford, 1963, p. 79-99, ancienneet modeme,trad. frse., Paris, 1983, p. 145-168. repris dans Problemesd'historiographie 10 H. Inglebert, Les Romainschritiens et romanface a l'histoirede Rome.Histoire,christianisme itis en Occidentdans 1'Antiquite tardive(III-Ve siicles), Paris, 1996. Le chapitre VI de la Premiere Partie de ce livre est consacr6e Lactance (p. 117-144). Nous n'etudierons ici un texte a part dans l'oeuvre meme de Lactance, et n'aborpersecutorum, que le De mortibus derons que le probleme pos6 par l'historiographie dans ce texte.
138
BLANDINE COLOT
d'Origene, Eusebe ne reconnaissait d'existence a l'empire romain qu'ordonnee a l'avenement du christianisme,celui-ci n'etant rien d'autre que le cadre de realisationde l'universalitechretienne, prevu par Dieu. Dans son introduction," H. Inglebert veut preciser que le theme de sa recherche n'est pas l'historiographie,entendue comme telle que la traitent en particulier<<'Allemagne ou l'Italie, et meme (.. .) les Anglo-Saxons>, et considereeen ce cas comme , mais qu'elle consiste en l'tude des >chez les auteurs. C'est en ce sens large que nous entendons nous-meme le terme d'historiographie, car differentesconceptions de l'histoirepeuvent etre effectivement degagees de la lecture des auteurs, et cela aussi bien selon une approche theorique, ou simplementthematique,ou encore, indirectement,au sein de telle ou telle problematique. Or, il nous semble que cet elargissementdu point de vue devrait egalement s'entendrea propos des auteurs antiques, ce qui ne parait pourtant pas entrer dans le regard porte par H. Inglebert sur Lactance. Car il s'agira bien ici de la conception chretienne de l'histoire chez Lactance, meme si cet auteur n'a effectivementguere thematise son propos12et qu'il n'a pas non plus suscite le debat, alors que les conceptions historiquesd'Eusebe de Cesaree, elles, "sont au centre des debats... <de la>... grande epoque de la reflexion latine chretienne sur l'histoire romaine".13On est fonde a se demander, en effet, si la forme de pensee de Lactance ne porteraitpas en elle-meme les termes d'un debat et s'il est aussi sur que le dit H. Inglebertque <poser ce dernier (i.e.Lactance)comme une ruptureest une illusion d'historiographe,non une conclusiond'historien>>.4 La prise en considerationde l'ecriture de l'histoire chez Lactance et la comparaison de cet auteur avec Eusebe conduisent donc a faire jouer les contrastes, a faire abstraction du statut que l'on reconnait a priori a ces textes pour tenter de mieux apercevoir leur maniere de nousdecrire et de nousrepresenter l'histoire des premiers siecles du christianisme. Car l'on peut supposer que notre propre representation depend egalement, en quelque maniere, du statut que nous leur reconnaissons,conformementa la longue tradition du christianisme.Et il est meme probable que ces textes sont apprehendeset que nous sommes insensiblementamenes a les prendre 1 Les Romainschretiens...., p. 6-7, et note 15, p. 6. 12
Le constat serait different pour les Institutionsdivines,et leur Epitomi,encore que la matiere en question y est dispersee. 13 Les Romainschritiens .., p. 13. 14 Ibid., note 281. 130, p.
HISTORIOGRAPHIE CHRETIENNE ET ROMANESQUE
139
ou non en considerationen fonction aussi de leur mise en oeuvre, voire du metadiscoursde leurs auteurs: c'est pourquoi notre etude s'appuieraessentiellement sur l'analyse du prologue du DMP rapportee ensuite a celle du prologue de I'H.E. Le fait est que le genre de l'histoire ecclesiastiqueinitie par Eusebe fut enterine comme tel par la traditionlitterairejusqu'a servirensuite et des lors de point de reference pour l'ecriture de l'histoire chretienne. C'est-a-dire qu'il fut adopte d'abord par les successeursd'Eusebe, dont pas un n'a semble considererqu'il fallait faire un nouveau recit de la periode couverte par Eusebe, contribuant ainsi, pour reprendre les termes de R. Markus,'5a ou , mais plutot <>18- et apologetique.19Et ce double constat vaut pour Eusebe aussi bien que pour Lactance.20Profondement differents l'un de 15 R.A. Markus, "Church history and early church historians", Studiesin ChurchHistory,
11, Cambridge,1977, p. 1-17, p. 8. Rappelonsque les successeursdirectsd'Eusebesont, dans la premieremoitie du Ve siecle: Socrate, Sozomene, Theodoret,auteurschacun d'une Histoireecclisiastique qui formaitla suite de celle d'Eusebe.L'utilisationde la traduction latine par Rufin de celle d'Eusebe assure son autre forme de successionen Occident. 16 Voir J.-M. Carrie, A. Rousselle, L'empireromainen mutation,Paris, 1999, p. 503 et de l'rudition.Unehistoirede la noteen bas depage,Paris, p. 506; A. Grafton, Les originestragiques
1998, p. 127. 17 Voir ici note 40. VoirJ.-M. Carrie,A. Rousselle,op.cit.,p. 505; A. Grafton,op.cit., p. 131-132;J. Moreau,De mort.,Introduction,p. 44-51 et p. 73. 18 F. Paschoud,art.cit.,p. 27 et a proposde Lactance,p. 34. particulierement, 19Ibid.,p. 25. 20 Voir A. Grafton,op.cit.,p. 127.
140
BLANDINE COLOT
l'autre par leur dimension, par leur methode, par leur posterit6, 1'HE et le DMP temoignent en effet tous deux d'une meme vision chretienne de l'Histoire dans la mesure oiu la victoire de l'empereur Constantin21 est consideree par ces deux auteurs comme la victoire du christianisme, en marche depuis le temps de Jesus. ILy a la, il faut le souligner, une distance radicale avec Augustin qui pensera le rapport entre temps et histoire a partir de leur disjonction.22 I1 convient donc de lire le texte lactancien en se montrant attentifau caractere specifique de cette representation historique dans laquelle on ne reconnait pas 1'Histoire des premiers temps de l'Eglise, - mais qui n'en a pourtant pas moins existi. C'est en la considerant pour elle-meme et en elle-meme que l'on pourra finalement comprendre pourquoi elle n'a pas pu constituer une forme d'historiographie chretienne recevable et perenne. *
*
*
Dans le prologue et 1'epilogue de son texte,23 Lactance, pour sa part, se presente lui-meme en historien,24 contemporain et meme temoin d'une large
21 I1 s'agitde la c6elbrevictoirede Constantin(encorealli&e Licinius)sur Maxence au Pont Milvius,en 312, que les deux auteursont c6elbreechacun a sa maniere.Voir sur ce pointJ.-M. Mayeuret alii,Histoire duchristianisme. d'unechritiente Naissance (250-430), Paris, 1995, p. 193-197. 22 Voir C. Ligota, dans "La foi historienneet connaissancede l'histoire chez s. R.E.A., 1997, 43, p. 111-171. Augustin", 23 Plus precisimenta la fin de son prologue(textequelquepeu altere),et au debut de son 6pilogue. exitu<scripto Ainsi,De mort.,I, 8-9: De quo placuit,utomnes quiproculremoti tes>tificari ac maiestatem uirtutem suamin exdis fueruntuelquipturi sunt,scirent, quatenus nominis suihostibus deussummus Ab reta<mennon>est,si a principio, ostenderit. ex quo delendisque estecclesia <eius>et quibus iudicisseueritas constituta, quifuerintpersecutores poenisin eoscaelestis - scientienimloquor - ita ut Et De Mort.,LII, 1 : Quaeomniasecundumfidem uindicarit, exponam. litteris neautmemoria tantarum rerum autsi quishistoriam interiret scribere credidi, gestasuntmandanda ueritatem uelpeccataillorum aduersus deumueliudicium illos deiaduersus uoluisset, (non)corrumperet reticendo (Sij'ai cru devoirconsignerpar 6crit,fidelement,tous ces 6evnementscommeils se sont passis - puisqueje m'adressea un homme qui les connaitbien - c'est pour que le souvenirde faits si importantsne perissepas, ou que tous ceux qui voudrontecrire l'histoiren'altire pas la verit6en passantsous silenceles crimesde ces hommes contre Dieu ou la sentenceque Dieu prononcacontre eux - traductionJ. Moreau). 24 Voir A.S. thehistorian. An Analysisof theMortibus Christensen,Lactantius persecutorum, Copenhagen,1980, p. 18-19.
HISTORIOGRAPHIE CHRITIENNE ET ROMANESQUE
141
part des evenements de son recit;25 et il pense que son recit, a son tour,
pourra serviraux historiensulterieurs,de la meme facon qu'il se sert d'ecrits deja constituespour relater les temps passes :26 C'est de la fin de ces hommes (i.e. les empereurspersecuteurs)que j'ai voulu porter temoignage par ecrit, pour que tous ceux qui viendront apres nous sachent comment le Dieu supreme, en detruisantet exterminant les ennemis de son nom, a fait eclater sa puissance et sa majeste. I1 n'est pas hors de propos, toutefois, de partir du commencement, oiu l'Eglise a ete fondee: quels furent ses persecuteurs, et par quels chatiments la severite du Juge celeste exerqa contre eux sa vindicte,je vais l'exposer.27
Telles sont les dernieres lignes du prologue. Pour disposer sa matiere, Lactance commence alors un bref recit28 des debuts du christianisme, une
sorte de resume chronologiqueainsi ordonne: la mention initiale de ? la fin du regne de Tibere permet de situer d'emblee ce debut, oiu ?Notre SeigneurJesus-Christfut crucifie par les Juifs, le 23 mars, sous le consulat des deux Geminus>; sont mentionnes ensuite, apres la resurrection du Christ , le rassemblementdes disciples,l'explicationdes Ecrituresdans la perspective de leur mission, la fixation de la doctrine, du dogme, de la discipline du Nouveau Testament; puis les d'evangelisationassuree par les disciples ; enfin, le regne de l'empereur Neron, le <premier de tous ceux qui persecuterent les serviteursde Dieu, fit crucifierPierre et decapiter Paul >. Nous allons porter une attention particuliere a cette forme d'introduction a l'histoiredes persecuteurset de leur mort, comme a certains des termes du prologue propres a mieux souligner l'ecart qui separe Lactance et Eusebe. Pour le moment, notons qu'en reliant d'emblee l'histoire de l'ecrasementdes ennemis du Dieu chretien, qu'il va detailleret developper, a celle qui conduit au retablissementtriomphant de l'Eglise, qu'il celebre, dans son recit. Celle-ci apporte l'auteur introduit une forme de previsibiliti l'elan qui doit emporter le lecteur, elle lance ce <mouvement vectorise?29 qui est une des caracteristiquesdu romanesque. Et c'est ici un mouvement
25 Le DMP presente de ce fait une disproportion entre la place reservee aux premiers persecuteurs et celle qui est assignee aux Tetrarques. 26 De TiberiiCaesaris,ut scriptumlegimus,... Mort., II, 1: Extremistemporibus 27 De Mort., I, 8-9 cite note 23. La traduction de J. Moreau a ete remaniee ici, notamment pour faire ressortir le tres programmatique exponam,place juste a la fin du prologue. 28 De Mort., chapitre II. 29 Voir note 4.
142
BLANDINE COLOT
triomphant,heureux,jubilatoire puisque le metadiscourshistoriographique que l'on vient de lire figure aprescette exclamation de triomphe: Voici tous nos adversairesecras6s,la paix rendue A l'univers,l'Eglise, naguere abattue, debout a nouveau: la mis6ricordedu Seigneur releve, plus glorieux que jamais, le temple30de Dieu qu'avaient ruin6 les impies. C'est que Dieu a suscit6 des princes31qui ont aboli l'empire criminel et sanglant des tyrans, qui ont pourvu au salut du genre humain, en dissipantpour ainsi dire le nuage de cette sinistre 6poque et en accordant a tous les coeurs la joie et la douceur d'une paix sereine. (...) Ceux qui avaient outrage Dieu sont a terre; ceux qui avaient jet6e bas le saint temple ont ete precipitis d'une chute plus terrible; ceux qui s'etaientfait les bourreauxdes justes32ont rendu leur ame malfaisante, frapp6spar le ciel des fleaux et des tourmentsqu'ils avaient m6rit6s.33 Qu'il y ait une dimension polemique dans ces lignes, que le theme de vengeance divine reprenne le topos greco-latin et judeo-hellenistique de la n'est plus a redire.34 En revanche, que la punition divine des 0eoa%&Xot introduite dans le recit suppose un terme qui previsibilite (d'un bonheur) le de l'auteur et de son lecteur, comme cela ressort rejoint (bonheur) present notamment des epidictiques ecce et nunc, est important pour notre propos. Car, d'une part, le recit qui s'annonce beneficie d'un effet d'anticipation qui rendra la conclusion de ce recit plus heureuse encore du fait qu'elle est prevue, mais differee, et donc attendue comme une promesse. Le DMP retrouve ainsi une constante du roman antique qui, apres les peripeties et les catastrophes, est de toujours <. Mais surtout, cette anticipation meme assure une jonction entre les aboutissants de l'histoire-recit et l'Histoire providentielle de Dieu qui fonde un aspect tout a fait constitutif du DMP: la mise en relation des deux poles cree cette <
30 31
32
L'"'glise",le "temple"d6signentici la communaut6des croyants. I1s'agitde Constantinet Licinius. C'est ainsi que Lactancedesignetr6s souventles chretiens.
De mort.,I*, 2-3 & 5 (* = prologue): Ecce, adtritisomnibusaduersariis,restituta per orbem tranquillitate, profligatanuperecclesiarursusexurgitet maioregloriatemplumdei, quodab impiisfiierat Excitauitenimdeusprincipesqui trannorumnefariaet cruenta euersum,misericordia dominifabricatur. humanogeneriprouiderunt, ut iam quasidiscussotristissimitemporisnubilomentes imperiaresciderunt, omniumpax iucundaet serenalaetficet.(...) Qui insultauerant deo,iacent,qui templumsanctumeuertiustos caelestibus meritisnocentes erant,ruinamaiorececiderunt, excarnficauerant, qui plagiset cruciatibus animasprofuderunt. 34 0eolaxot = "adversaires des dieux/de Dieu". Voir notamment sur ces questions: De Mort., Introduction, p. 60-64; R. Herzog, et P.L. Schmidt, Nouvellehistoire J. Moreau, de la litterature et renouveau, 284-374, ed. fr., Turnhout, 1993, p. 118 et latine,Restauration note 19. 33
HISTORIOGRAPHIE CHRETIENNE ET ROMANESQUE
143
entre emotion de lecture et experience de vie qui caracterise encore le romanesque. *
*
*
Des lors, on comprend mieux pourquoi le dessein general de l'oeuvre historique de Lactance, tel que son titre permet d'en rendre compte, s'est Comme un exprime a travers ce qui s'apparentea une serie de biographies. article d'A. Momigliano permet de le resumer, la question de la relation entre biographie et histoire est ancienne.35Elle est illustreea sa maniere par Ciceron, qui ecrit dans une lettre a Lucceius que <<souvent les vicissitudes diverses d'un personnage remarquable suscitent l'admiration, l'attente, la joie, l'inquietude, l'esperance, la crainte?.36 Ciceron parait ici < :37son propos met l'accent sur l'emotion que suscite chez le lecteur cette ecritureparticulierede se trouve centree sur un personnage et sa vie. Pour le cas de l'histoire qui Lactance, nianmoins, ce n'est pas tant le processus d'identification du lecteur avec le personnage de sa lecture qui est operant ( Lactance n'evoque pas comme Ciceron le cas d'un homme remarquabledont la qualite motive cette identification);c'est d'abord cette forme de <
35
A. Momigliano, "L'eta del trapasso fra storiografia antica et storiografia medievale (350-550 d.C.)" RivistaStoricaItaliana,81, fasc. 2, 1969, p. 286-303, repris en traduction francaise: "L'epoque de la transition de l'historiographie antique a l'historiographie ancienneet modere, trad. fr., medievale (320-550 apres J-C)", dans Problimesd'historiograhie Paris, 1983, p. 120-144. 36 Adfam., V, 12: At uiri saepeexcellentisancipitesvariiquecasus habentadmirationem, expecta-
tionem, laetitiam, molestiam, spem,timorem. 37 Citation d'un autre article d'A. Momigliano,ofu Ciceron est evoque secondairederKoninkljke ment: "Second Thoughts on Greek Biography",Mededelingen Nederlandse Afd. Letterkunde,N. R., 34, 7, 1971, repris en traduction Akademie van Wetenschappen, ancifrancaise:"Miseau point sur la biographiegrecque",dans Problimes d'historiographie trad. fr., Paris, 1983, p. 104-119. enneet moderne,
144
BLANDINE COLOT
de ces empereurspersecuteursne ressortitpas a priori a l'empathie, - contrairementa ce dont il est question dans la situation evoquee par Ciceron. Non, c'est bien au depart un sentiment de revanche que l'auteur semble vouloir animer chez son lecteur. C'est alors une palette variee d'impressions que la lecture du DMP provoque, et qui vont en une sorte de crescendo. Ainsi, pour ne donner que quelques exemples, dans la premiere partie de l'ouvrage,38qui est encore mesuree, il y a place pour le mepris et le sarcasme, meles d'un certaine cruaute quand il est question des morts de Valerien ou de Dece. L'un, capturepar les Barbares,est massacrepuis traite comme une bete, abandonne nu, sans sepulture,et donne en pature aux oiseaux et animaux de proie. L'autre subit d'abord l'humiliationde servir de marchepied au roi perse Sapor montant sur son cheval, puis finit sa vie reduit en l'esclavageet, apres sa mort, est tout entier depece pour que sa peau, teinte en rouge, serve de trophee dans le temple des dieux. Mais l'emotion se fait plus forte dans la deuxieme partie: on passe a la repulsion, au degofit et a une sorte de delectation morbide devant la description ample et horriblement detaillee du cancer qui pourrit depuis l'abdomen le corps de Galere, Et l'intensitedramatiquedu recit est portee a le dernier des persecuteurs.39 son comble lorsque Galere, comprenant progressivementl'origine de son agonie, s'ecrie qu'il retablirale temple de Dieu et reparera son crime, et decide de publier un Edit de tolerance. Lactance en donne alors le texte, au chapitre suivant.40On a la une belle illustrationde cette coincidence menagee par l'auteur entre l'histoire-recit et l'Histoire-Providencequ'il declare se manifesteren son temps. On pourrait ajouter d'autres exemples qui illustreraientd'autresformes de participationaffective a la lecture. Ces diffirentes emotions correspondent en tout cas au plaisir que le lecteur devait eprouvera voir ainsi rabaissesces etres d'un rang superieur.En effet, comme le souligne A. Momigliano, <
38
>>.41
Celle qui concerne la piriode historique anterieure a la Tetrarchie. Voir la note 3 a propos de cet episode. 40 De mort.,XXXIV. Le texte de 1'Edit de Galere fourni par Lactance est l'original, adapt6 en grec par Eusebe, H.E., VIII, 17, 3-10. L'importance de ce r6efrent extratextuel dans le recit lactancien est consid6ere page suivante. 41 A. Momigliano, "L'epoque de la transition. ..", art. cit. (note 35), p. 129. 39
HISTORIOGRAPHIE CHRITIENNE ET ROMANESQUE
145
Or cette remarquetouche, a notre avis, un point central. Car si la forme du DMP trouve sa traductionromanesquejusque dans ces ressortsque sont l'emotion, le sensationnel, et penche pour cela du c6te de la litterature populaire - d'autres l'ont souligne avant nous - il y a egalement dans ce type de recit une dimension symboliquesur laquelle il convient de s'arreter davantage. Certes, on pourrait soutenir que de tels sentimentsde mepris et de degouftsn'etant pas tres chretiens, il est peu probable que Lactance ait voulu les animer en soi chez son lecteur... Mais il convient d'en chercher l'explicationplus profonde et de reflechirplutot au projet historiographique de Lactance lui-meme. Revenons donc une fois encore au prologue dont nous citons a present, en procedant a rebours comme precedemment, les premieres lignes: Le Seigneur, tres cher Donat, a exauc6 les prieres qu'a chaque heure, chaque jour, tu elevais vers lui, et celles de nos autres freres, a qui leur glorieux temoignage a valu la couronne eterelle, recompense de leur foi.42
Le DMP est donc adresse a un dedicataire: un certain Donat. Evoque a trois autres reprises dans l'ouvrage, il est presente comme un veteran a la foi inebranlable et a la piete exemplaire; et ici, plus precisement, comme un
frere dans la foi de Lactance et de tous les martyrsqui, morts sous les tortures de la persecution, ont gagne leur couronne au Ciel. Le jeu complexe du processus de lecture passe ainsi par cette situation fictive d' interlocution, ou la relation, en ce cas, est bien d'empathie. Le degouft ressenti a la description des morts des persecuteurs devient ainsi la sensationpartagie de deux etres capables de s'imaginer d'autant mieux l'horreur decrite qu'elle est comme le retournement de l'horreur vecue par leurs freres martyrs. Et elle devient plaisir non pas pour le plaisir du sadisme, mais parce qu'elle est participation, a travers ce sentiment de revanche, a la vengeance providentielle de Dieu. Dans une etude sur la narration dans la litterature tardive,43 M. Roberts a montre que l'unite d'elements disperses dans le texte et se rapportant
42
eiusper omnes De mort.,I, 1: Audiuitdominusorationes tuas,Donatecarissime,quasin conspectu sibi horas fratrumnostrorum,qui gloriosaconfessione sempiternam coronamprofidei meitis quaesierunt. (Pour proc6der a une lecture presque complete du prologue, se reporter en outre aux notes 33 et 23). 43 M. Roberts, "The treatment of narrative in late antique litterature", Philologus, 1988, p. 181-195, ou sont etudies les texte d'Ammien Marcellin, Rutilius Namatianus et Paulin de Pella. Je remercie B. Bureau de m'avoir donn6 la r6efrence de cet article.
146
BLANDINE COLOT
pourtant a un seul evenement reside a un niveau d'abstractionqui transcende, en l'occurrence,le niveau litteral de ce texte. De fait, chaque mort de chaque empereur dans le DMP entre dans un symbolisme religieux ou doit se lire l'action transcendante de Dieu qui est une en tant que Providence. A cet egard, la situation d'interlocution que nous venons de qualifierde fictive, parce qu'elle depend d'un artefact litteraire, appartient au contexte extra-textuel dans lequel Lactance ecrit44et dans lequel, pour lui, se revele le sens chretien de 1'Histoire.Or, aux deux instancesque sont l'auteur et son dedicataire, s'adjoint encore tout l'ensemble des sympathisants qui seront amenes a lire l'ouvrage du DMP, comme Lactance en fait l'hypothese dans l'epilogue, et donc tout lecteur desireux d'apprendrele sens chretien de l'Histoire et que Lactance fera en sorte d'emouvoir par son recit. Ainsi le < vecu > de cette communautiesubsumee dans la premiere nos autres freres>>)et que personne du pluriel exprimee dans le possessif(<< representent,par synecdoque, Donat et Lactance, se trouve integre dans le processusde lecture. Il contribuedu meme coup a faire des empereurspersecuteursnon seulement les paiens que l'on exclut (ceux dont on parle a la troisiemepersonne),mais aussi des etres simplement,trivialementhumains, depouilles de cette dimension divine qui entrait dans la mystique imperiale et que les chretiens entendaient, precisement, reservera Dieu. Aussi est-ce l'emotion de la lecture elle-meme qui devient symbolique dans le DMP: c'est une emotion partagee par une communaute de croyants que le lecteur est cense ressentir,et c'est une emotion religieuse, parce la religion chretienne a ceci d'unique pour Lactance qu'etant a la fois religion et philosophie, elle est une pratique philosophiquementdefendable, a l'intention des docti,mais aussi une sagesse directementet immediatementaccessible a tous, c'est-a-direaussi aux indocti,45 par l'evidence du coeur et de ses emotions. C'est une maniere de voir qui s'illustred'ailleursdans la conception lactancienne des affectus.4La facture romanesque du DMP mise en oeuvre par Lactance se revele ainsi une partie integrantede son interpretation chretienne de l'Histoire. Elle possede de ce fait une dimension existentielle profonde, qui est en relation-meme avec l'experience religieuse
44 Voir note 40. 45 A ce sujet, voir dans le prologue des Institutions divinesle programme que Lactance essehis erroribus credidi,ut et doctiad ueramsapientiamdiris'assigne (I, 1,7): "... succurrendum ganturet indoctiad ueramreligionem." 46 Voir M. Perrin, L'homme de Lactance(250-325), Paris, antiqueet chretien.L'anthropologie 1981, p. 343-347.
HISTORIOGRAPHIE CHRETIENNE ET ROMANESQUE
147
chretienne de son auteur, et dont celui-ci a voulu temoigner. Et c'est en cela, a nos yeux, que l'historiographiechretienne de Lactance differe fondamentalementde celle d'Eusebe. Sur ce point, une mise en garde methodologique s'impose. En effet, sur le plan theologique,chacun de ces deux auteursde l'epoque constantinienne presente un ecart avec l'orthodoxie progressivement fixee dans l'Eglise catholique. Lactance, parce qu'il <presente un nombre etonnamment eleve de points communs avec la vieille pensee judeo-chretienneet, partiellement, avec la pensee heretique>>,47et Eusebe parce qu'Augustin a invalide 1'<< eusebianisme> en deplacant vers la cite celeste le point focal de l'Eglise. II n'est pas dans notre propos d'evalueren fonction de ce critere la relation entre les deux auteurs. Car c'est un critere prescriptifqui, rapporte a eux, permettrait, certes, de <<doser>>leur plus ou moins grande compatibilite, gage de leur avenir, avec cette orthodoxie. Pour notre part, c'est dans leur relation propre, entre eux deux, interne a leur contemporaneite,que nous placons l'analyseet recherchonsle point dirimant.Et a l'issue d'une analyse la dimenou nous pensons avoir fait valoir, en la qualifiant de romanesque, sion personnelle, a la fois affectiveet existentielle,de l'historiographiechretienne du DMP, il nous semble pouvoir affirmer que c'est dans cette dimension-meme que se joue une diff6rencede fond avec Eusebe qui, de son c6t, met en oeuvre une ecriturequi se veut rudite.Pour le montrer, un certain nombre de points de comparaisonentre le prologue de Lactance et celui d'Eusebe peuvent etre releves. D'abord, le texte d'Eusebe ne debute par aucune adressea un dedicataire qui introduirait un rapport d'interlocution dans quoi le recit serait pris. L'auteur livre de maniere impersonnelle l'histoire qu'il a mise en oeuvre, comme soumis a cette instance superieurequ'elle est devenue,48et mu par un autre imperatifque sa propre experience de chretien, par l'espoir, dit-il, >.49 Cela ne signifie pas qu'il ne parle pas a la premiere personne, au contraire. Mais il le fait dans un cadre strict: d'abord pour 47 Voir R. Herzog, op. cit. note 31, ? 570, p. 433. Mais je me permets a ce propos de renvoyer a mon article: "Pietas, argument et expression d'un nouveau lien socioreligieux dans le christianisme romain de Lactance", Studia Patristica,XXXIV, 2001,
p. 23-32. 48 Voir P. Veyne, Comment onecritI'histoire. Essaid'epistemologie, Paris,1971,partic.p. 4146 de 1'editionde poche (Seuil,coil. Points-Histoire):o L'Histoireest une idee-limite>. 49 H.E., I, 1,5: AXxirco 6'&otKaicdpeXtloradM&Toiq (qPXoTiLaW; T Iepi t6 Xp?rxpo,ra0eqS ioxopias exovuav avacpavilaoat.
148
BLANDINE COLOT
presenter son projet, dont il precisera ensuite qu'il regarde sa realisation <; puis pour demander l'indulgencedes gens bienveillants,le secoursde Dieu et la force du Seigneurpour la lourde tache qu'il s'assigne; enfin, pour preciser sa methode dans l'exploitation de ses sources.50Pour ce faire, il est alors question des qui l'ont precede sur la <<meme route >, en laissant derriere eux non de <>mais les <>de < recits partiels (i?eptcKa;&tl1iT'ft) des temps qu'ils ont parcourus >. Puis il compare ces recits a des <>et qui lui <>.
Par suite, ajoute-t-il, tout ce que j'estimerai profitable au but indique, je le choisirai parmi les choses qu'ils rapportent ca et la; comme en des prairies spirituelles,je cueillerai les passages utiles des 6crivains anciens; et j'essaierai d'en faire un corps dans un recit historique.51
Nous ne croyons pas necessaire d'insister sur l'aspect particulierement image du style d'Eusebe dans ce passage, et par lequel l'ecrivainfait entendre, nous semble-t-il, la part de creativite et d'invention qui est la sienne pour repondreau but poursuiviet parvenira la realisationqu'il projette.En revanche, il faut remarquer,dans la derniere proposition citee, l'expression d'i(piYncao; i7Toptk-C;.Car l'emploi de l'adjectif ioropctrl;, au lieu du seul nom iaropia, introduit plus qu'une simple caracterisation, il traduit l'idee d'une categorisation: l'auteur souligne que son recit se definit comme historique, il etablit qu'il est de genre historique. Eusebe affirme d'autre part qu'il est le premier a realiser un projet qu'aucun n'a entrepris parmi les ecrivains ecclesiastiques (Trcv ?CKKXolo taoTIKcV Ouyypacpov)>>:52 le mot
sur lequel est forme l'adjectifest plus importantencore. Car rapd'EKKckiota portee a l'ecrivain, cette categorie correspond a ce qui est dit des l'ouverture du prologue,53 oiu figure, en unissant d'emblee les deux parametres qui convergeront ensuite sur sa personne (recit historique et ecrivain ecclesiastique),
50
Cf. aussi ? 3 et 4: il en mentionnera l'origine, les presentera dossier apres dossier. H.E., I, 1, 3 (traduction G. Bardy, Sourceschretiennes, 31). 52 H.E., I, I, 5. 53 Dont nous ne citons ici que le debut et la fin tant la phrase est ample: il est dit encore que les heresies et les persecutions, les difficult6s de la communaute juive apres la mort du Christ seront aussi rapportees. 51
HISTORIOGRAPHIE CHRETIENNE ET ROMANESQUE
149
le syntagmed'ercoaxoacii iaoxopia,<>,dont Eusebe est egalement le createur: Les successions des saints ap6tres, ainsi que les temps ecoules depuis notre Sauveurjusqu'a nous, toutes les grandes choses que l'on dit avoir ete accomtous les personnages de cette histoire qui plies le long de l'histoireecclisiastique; ont excellement presid6e la conduite des plus illustresdioceses;ceux qui, dans chaque g6enration,ont ete par la parole ou par les ecrits les ambassadeursde la parole divine (.. .) voila ce que j'ai entreprisde livrer a l'criture. Je ne commencerai pas autrement que par le debut de l'economie de notre Sauveur et SeigneurJesus, le Christ de Dieu.54 Ainsi, Eusebe s'apprete a faire le recit de l'Histoire chretienne en prenant le relais d'une succession temporelle ordonnee depuis le Christ et selon la parole divine. Comme les documents qu'il emploiera dans son oeuvre en confirmeront et renforceront la nature (listes d'eveques, actes de martyrs archives par telle eglise, comptes rendus de synodes.. .), son point de vue est donc institutionnel, c'est-a-dire fonction de l'institution de l'Eglise dont il rappelle par quels organes elle s'est formee: succession des ap6tres, succession des eveques, notamment. Eusebe fait donc en sorte de donner a son historiographie la caution de l'autorite de l'Eglise; mais il contribue luimeme a elargir le cadre de cette autorit6: ecrivain ecclesiastique, mais hors clerge, il se pourvoit d'une forme de statut pour transporter sur le plan general d'un recit historique universel la conception chretienne et ecclesiale de l'ontologie de l'Histoire.55 Revenons a present au texte de Lactance. On a vu que l'auteur menageait une sorte de resume des debuts du christianisme, non dans son prologue, comme Eusebe, mais au debut du recitdu DMP.56 Dans ce prologue, Lactance dit seulement qu'il va rapporter l'histoire des persecuteurs depuis le <, en laissant donc au recit des ievnements qui suit le soin de marquer ce commencement. La difference est fondamentale: les debuts du christianisme se pr6sentent pour Lactance comme le depart, determine dans le temps a une date precise (le jour de la crucifixion du Christ, <>), d'une aventurehistorique nouvelle, chretienne, qui est la sienne et qui est 54 H.E., I, 1, 1. Mais rappelons que celle-ci etait encore ancree dans le devenir de la cite terrestre, ou le regne de Constantin comptait pour lui comme un accomplissement. C'est la theologie augustinienne qui renouvellera definitivement, a la fin du IVe siecle, la question de cette ontologie chretienne de 1'Histoire. Cf. notamment ci-dessus, note 21. 56 Voir ci-dessus p. 5-6. 55
150
BLANDINE COLOT
aussi celle de Rome. Ses premisses ont ete marques par les differentes des persecuteurs, et son declenchement veritable, par la victoire du tianisme avec Constantin, qu'il peut tout entiere raconter maintenant. lui, Rome se transforme au fil de sa propre histoire et la victoire du tianisme marque la realisation probante de son nouveaudevenir. *
*
morts chrisChez chris-
*
II ne nous semble pas fortuit que l'entreprise de Lactance ait ete engagee, comme celle d'Eusebe et selon une mentalite qu'ils partageaient tous deux, a 1'epoque qui etait la leur. En effet, le probleme de l'institution de l'Eglise, au moment oiu se jouait la question de sa reconnaissance officielle par le pouvoir imperial, avait une importance cruciale. Elle concernait non seulement l'inscription de l'Eglise dans les institutions de Rome encore paienne - et c'est a Lactance, pensons-nous, que revient d'avoir problematise et pens6 cette possibilite-la, a partir de Ciceron, dans son oeuvre maitresse des Diuinae Institutiones57 -, mais aussi son institution en tant que telle - et c'est Eusebe, sur cette question, que nous rencontrons. Sur ce point, nous nous contenterons de citer A. Faivre: 'Aucune institutionne peut se reclamerde la traditiond'une Eglise apostolique une qui n'a jamais existe'. Les chretiens du IIe siicle qui souvent s'opposaient dans des conflits d'interpretation auraient ete bien surpris par une telle affirmation.Pour eux, qu'ils soient de tendances gnostiques,marcionites,montanistes ou de la grande Eglise, la Verite etait aux origines... Leur principal probleme 6tait de savoir, lorsqu'on s'eloignait de ces origines, ou trouver et surtout comment prouver cette verite. C'est dans ce contexte que se met en place un systemenormatifchretien, oi s'articulent,plus ou moins logiquement, les notions d'Ecritures,de Tradition, de succession, d'apostolicit6,de regle de verite, de charisme de verite. L'historiendes premiers siecles doit redonner a I1 se doit de ne pas aplanir les ces notions toutes leurs dimensions temporelles. differences qu'il percoit entre les discours d'un Clement de Rome (vers 96), d'une Irenee (vers 180-200) et d'un Cyprien au milieu du IIIe si6cle.58 Dans notre analyse du DMP de Lactance compare a 1'HE d'Eusebe, nous n'avons pas fait autre chose, que d'en etudier la facture litteraire dans sa dimension temporelle au debut du IVe siecle, en essayant de comprendre en quel sens l'historiographie de Lactance pouvait etre qualifiee de romanesque et, partant de la, pourquoi elle s'est revelee depourvue d'avenir au regard Voir notre these a paraitre(Ed. Beauchesne):PietaschezLactance. a l'ordre et retour dansI'Egliseancienne, A. Faivre,Ordonner d'innover lafratemiti.Pouvoir Paris, 1992, p. 271. C'est nous qui soulignons. 57 58
HISTORIOGRAPHIE CHRETIENNE ET ROMANESQUE
151
de l'histoire ecclesiastique.Le genre de l'histoire ecclesiastique,en effet, a constitue une perspective propre au sein de l'histoire litteraire chretienne qui a offert et offre a la lecture de ces textes une garantie. Le DMP ne dispose pas de cette garantie;il n'en est pas moins representatifde l'entreprise historiographiquechretienne. Son caractere romanesque accentue la vision personnelle de l'auteur mais discredite la part fictionnelle de son ecriture, alors que chez Eusebe, la mise a distance erudite et la reference a l'information autorisee de l'Eglise, sont propres a masquer la dimension fictionnelle et apologetique de son recit. A. Cameron, en etudiant la litteraturechretienne des premiers siecles, aussi bien a partir des ecrits apocrypheset parmi eux des romans,59a montre que sa grande souplesse, en ses debuts, fut une marque de sa vitalite: nous pouvons penser que Lactance est un bon temoin de cette vitalit6.Mais on comprend aussi pourquoi son >de l'histoire chretienne a pu etre delaisse par les ecrivains ecclesiastiques: trop personnel, trop emotionnel, mais aussi trop date. En effet, le texte lactancien traduit a sa maniere un vecu historiqueoptimisteoiul'empire romain et le christianisme,apres l'horreur des persecutions et depuis la victoire d'un empereur chretien, pouvaient en quelque sorte fusionner l'un et l'autre dans l'Histoire. Que cette vision des choses fft trop datee doit donc s'entendre doublement: d'abord parce que l'inscriptiondes evenements chretiens dans les dates de l'histoire romaine y etait trop marquee, mais aussi et surtout parce qu'elle ressortissait a une theologie depassee si on la regardedepuis celle qui s'imposeretrospectivement, c'est-a-dire depuis celle d'Augustin. Pourtant, comme l'ecrit J. Moreau, meme <<si cet ouvrage n'etait qu'un reflet de l'opinion d'un Chretien de la cour constantinienneentre les deux guerres contre Licinius, il serait deja une source capitale?.60 En effet, et quand bien meme ? une histoire litterairede l'historiographiecatholique <serait> encore a naitre ?, on peut clairement affirmer en reprenant les termes d'E. Poulat, que la <maniere d'ecrire l'histoire religieuse est un excellent revelateur de l'etat des mentalites et de l'evolution des croyances?>.61 Universite d'Angers 11, Bd Lavoisier F. 49045 Angers Cedex 1 and theRhetoricof Empire,Berkeley, L. Angeles, Oxford, 59 Voir A. Cameron, Christianity 1991, part. chap. 3 (< Stories People want >). 60 De mort.,Introduction, p. 45. 61 E. Poulat, "Penser l'histoire de l'Eglise", R.H.E., vol. 95/3, p. 681-692, p. 690.
DIVINE INFINTY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA BY
ALBERT-KEES GELJON The notion of divine infinityis important in Gregoryof Nyssa's thethatGregorywasthe firstto ology;it is even arguedby Ekkehard Muhlenberg ascribeinfinityto God. In this articlekey textson divineinfinityin Gregory, takenfromContra De VitaMoysis,and In Canticum are disEunomiun, Canticorum, cussed. It appearsthat Miihlenberg'sinterpretationhas to be nuanced. Furthermore, dealingwithdivineinfinityGregorywas ableto linkhis thought with thatof Philoof Alexandria.In the secondpartof this article,we discuss the questionof God'sinfinityin Philo.Henri Guyotdefendsthe thesisthat Philo was the first to put forwardthe notion of divine infinity.Although Guyot'sthesiscan be criticised-PhilonevercallsGodinfinite-therearestarting-pointsfor thisviewin Philo.
ABSTRACT:
In classical theology one of the attributes ascribed to God is infinity, for instance by Thomas Aquinas (SummaTheologiae 1 7 1) or Bonaventura(De trinitatis This is a a.l mysterio concl.l).' q.4 startlingcontrastwith the Greek philosophical tradition of Plato and Aristotle, in which infinity-seen as undeterminedand imperfect-is never predicatedof the highest being. The first who extensively deals with divine infinity is the Cappadocian theologian Gregory of Nyssa, and it is claimed by EkkehardMuhlenberg that indeed Gregory was the 'inventor' of divine infinity. His thesis, however, can be nuanced. In this article we investigate the notion of infinity in Gregory and evaluate Miihlenberg's interpretation. We examine also the question of divine infinity in the Jewish exegete Philo of Alexandria, who exerted profound influence on the early Christian writers, including Gregory.2 It is evident that Gregory was acquainted with Philo's writings.3 The question of
1
See A. Antweiler, Unendlich. Eine Untersuchung Wesenheit Gottesauf zur metaphysischen Grund derMathematik, Philosophie, Theologie (Freiburgi. Br. 1934) 133-153. 2 See D.T. Literature Runia, Philoin EarlyChristian 1993)243-261. (Assen-Minneapolis 3 See A.C. Philonic in Geljon, exegesis Gregory ofNyssa'sDe Vita Moysis(Providence2002) 73-174. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Christianae Vigiliae 59, 152-177
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
153
divine infinityin Philo is a matter of dispute among modern scholars.Some discern a notion of divine infinity or at least an initial impulse to it in the Jewish exegete, others deny it vehemently. We begin with Gregory and discuss passages dealing with infinity taken from three important writings. In discussingthese passages we will go into the interpretationof Miihlenberg and the criticismoffered by W. Ullmann and Th. Bohm.4 1. DIVINE INFINITYIN THE WRITINGSOF GREGORY OF NYSSA
1.1 ContraEunomium Between 381 and 383 Gregorywrote his vast work ContraEunomium (CE) as a refutation of Eunomius' Apologiaapologiae.Eunomius' apology was directed against Gregory's brother Basil, but after his death Gregory took over his role in defending the Nicene faith. Eunomius, bishop of Cyzicus in about 360, was leader of the neo-Arians. The main point of difference between this movement and the Cappadocians concerns God's essence. Eunomiusassumesa differencein essence between God the Father and God the Son. In his view God's essence (ojoia) can fully be defined by the notion of 'unbegotten' (ay/vvrlxoS, cf. Eunomius Apologia7), but this term cannot be applied to the Son, who has a nature differentfrom the Father (cf. CE 1.475).5By his energy the Father begets the Son, who is less than the Father. Gregory quotes Eunomius' own words in CE 1.155: 'The account of his teachings consists of the highest and most real being (ooaia), followed by a second being, superior to all other beings, while being after the first. Finally, there is a third being, ranked with neither of the others, but subordinate to the first as a cause, to the second as to an activity (?vepyeua).'6
Gregory, by contrast, defends the Nicene faith that God the Son has the same essence as God the Father. Eunomius' view that the Son is not similar to the Father implies that the divinity of the Son is denied, and so the 4 sources,and meaning Regrettably, I was not able to see J.E. Hennessy, The background, divine of infinityin St. Gregoryof Nyssa (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Forham 1963), and B.C. Barmann, A Christiandebateof thefourthcentury:a critiqueof classicalmetaphysics (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University 1966). Their interpretations are reported by R.S. Brightman, 'Apophatic theology and divine infinity in St. Gregory of Nyssa', The GreekOrthodoxTheological Review18 (1973) 97-114. 5 References are made to the edition of W. Jaeger (Leiden) 1960. 6 Translation A. Meredith, Gregoryof Nyssa, The early Church fathers (London 1999) 29-30.
154
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
Son turns out to be a creature (cf. CE 2.15). In contrast to his opponent Gregory argues that God's very essence can not be describedor defined by any human conception and is incomprehensiblefor man (CE 2.12).7 The firstpassagein which Gregorymentions God's infinityis CE 1.167-171, where he discusses Eunomius' statement that only God the Father is the highest and most proper being (1.151, 161, 163). Gregory himself denies that the Highest Being has superiorityof power or of goodness, stating that the Only Begotten and the Holy Spirit are also perfect in goodness (167). 'Every good thing, in so far it has no element of the opposite in itself, has limitless good. The reason for this is that, in general, things may only be limited by their opposites-a truth verified in particularexamples. Power is limited by the weaknessthat encompassesit, life by death, light by darkness and, in general, every good thing is restrictedby its opposite (168). If, therefore, he (i.e. Eunomius)assumes that the nature of the Only Begotten and the Spirit can become worse, it is reasonable that he should predicate of them a reduced idea of goodness. If, however, the divine and changeless nature is incapable of deterioration-a fact our opponents grant-then clearly it will be unlimitedin goodness. For limitlessnessmeans the same as infinity (r 6e ao6ptoovT(Tadtipp Ta6TOvoaTtv).It is the height of stupidity to suppose that there can be any more or less where it is a question of 'limitlessness'or 'infinity'.For how could the notion of infinity be preserved,if one were to postulate 'more' or 'less' in it?' (169).8 In this passage Gregory uses infinity to refute Eunomius' view that the Son is inferior to the Father, arguing that there does not exist more or less in the divine trinity,because the divine is infinite. The limitlessnessis based on God's goodness. Gregory postulates that things can only be limited by its opposite (light, for example, by darkness),and therefore good can only be limited by bad. Because God, who is absolute good, is incapable of deteriorationhe is without any limit.9In his argumentationGregory makes use 7 For God'sincomprehensibility in Gregory,see W. Volker,Fortschritt undVollendung bei PhilonvonAlexandrien (Leipzig 1938) 36-38, Brightmanart. cit. (n. 4), D. Carabine,The
God.Negative unknown in thePlatonic tradition: PlatotoEringena, LouvainTheological theology
and PastoralMonographs19 (Leuven-GrandRapids 1995)236-258, Th. Bohm, Theoria vonNyssa, Unendlichkeit zu De vita Moysis von Gregor Implikationen Aufstieg.Philosophische Supplementsto VigiliaeChristianae35 (Leiden1996)248-255. 8 TranslationMeredith op.cit.(n. 6) 32. 9 For God as absolutegood, see D.L. Balas,Merovuoca in God's OeoV.Man'spartiipation to SaintGregory according of Nyssa,StudiaAnselmiana55 (Rome 1966)65-71. perfections
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
155
of a common notion that is also acknowledgedby his opponents, viz. the divine cannot become worse. Using this 6goXoyoo6?evovas a basis, he draws a conclusion-God is unlimited in goodness-to which Eunomius does not subscribe. An important contribution to the discussion about divine infinity was made by EkkehardMuhlenberg,who has published a monograph on divine infinityin Gregory.10This German scholar claims that Gregorywas the first thinker to attributeinfinity to God and to conceive of infinity as expressing God's essence. In Muhlenberg'sview no Greek philosopher or theologian before Gregory mentions infinity as an attribute of God, because infinity was connected with imperfectionand the materialworld. Moreover,infinity, according to Greek logic, implies unknowability,because only things that have boundaries are comprehensible. The mind cannot grasp limitless things." Infinity of the highest principle entails that it is also unknown. In Muhlenberg'sown plain words: 'Die negative Theologie, die Platon begrindet hat, hat ein Gottespradikatniemals aufgenommen:das Unendliche. Bei Gregor von Nyssa findet sich dieses Gottespradikatzum ersten Male in der Geschichte des philosophischenund christlichenDenkens. Wenn wir das so ungeschiitztbehaupten, dann meinen wir damit, daB Gregor von Nyssa als erster Denker die Unendlichkeit Gottes gegen die platonisch-aristotelische Philosophie beweist und in die Theologiegeschichte einfiihrt.'2 'Gott ist unendlich! Das ist eine Aussage, die die negative Theologie der alteren Vater nie gemacht hat."3 In his study MuhlenberganalysesCE 1.167-171 extensively,seeing in the text an argument for God's infinity based on his unchangeability.He formulates a summary of Gregory's argumentation,based on a metaphysical and a logical premise:'4 I. Logical premise: the limit of goodness, power, or wisdom can only be determined by their opposites. II. Metaphysicalpremise: the divine nature is unchangeable.
10 E. Gottesbei GregorvonNyssa. Gregors Kritikam Gottesbegriff Muhlenberg, Die Unendlichkeit zur Kirchenund derklassischen Metaphysik,Forschungen Dogmengeschichte 16 (1966). l Muhlenberg op. cit. (n. 10) 19, 26-28, 47, 50. 12 Id. 26. 13 Id. 92. 14 Id. 119-122.
156
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
Gregory'sline of argumentationis as follows: a. because God is unchangeable,there is no opposite to his being present in himself; b. because God is beyond opposites, he is absolutelygood; c. because God cannot be limited, he is unlimited in goodness; d. unlimitlessis the same as infinity. Another passage from CE interpretedby Miihlenberg is 1.236-237.15Here Gregory also employs the notion of divine infinitybased on God's goodness to disprove Eunomius, examining his adversary'swords: 'each of the three Beings is simple and totally one' (231). The Cappadocian argues that the description of the supreme Being as simple is inconsistentwith the rest of his system, because the simplicityof the divine trinity does not admit more or less, as Eunomius assumes (232). How can anyone perceive any differencesof less and more in God? If he does so, he posits abundance or diminutionin the matter of goodness, strength,wisdom, or of anything else that can be attributedto God. Hence, he does not escape the idea of composition (233). Nothing which possesses wisdom or power or any other good not as an externalgift but as rooted in its nature-can sufferdiminution in it (234). The good can be lessened only by the presence of evil. Where nature is incapable of becoming worse, no limit of goodness can be consideredin itself escapes any limit. conceived. The unlimited(o6&6aopioov) How can one think that one infinity is more or less than another infinity? (236). Therefore, if Eunomius acknowledges that the supreme Being is simple and homogenous, let him admit that it is connected with simplicity and infinity.16 But if he divides the Beings from each otherthe Only Begotten from the Father, and the Spirit from the Only Begotten-and speaksof more and less in them, he makes the divine nature composite (237).17 Miihlenbergregardsthis line of thought as the argumentbased on God's simplicity,making the following analysis of Gregory'sline of thought:18
15 This passage is also discussed by L. Sweeney, Divine infinityin Greekand Medieval thought(New York 1992) 482-487. 16 Here Gregory makes also use of a common notion, cf. CE 1.169. 17 Making the summaries I consult the English translation by W. Moore - H.A. Wilson, Selectwritingsand lettersof Gregory,bishopof JNyssa,The Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers 11.5 (1892, repr. 1988). 18 Miihlenberg op. cit. (n. 10) 122-126.
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
157
I. Logical premise:the limit of something is determinedby the presence of its opposite. II. Metaphysicalpremise: God's essence is simple. a. if God is simple in himself, he is good by himself and not by participation in goodness; b. because God is not composed of heterogeneous parts-he is simple-it is impossible that evil is present as his opposite; c. God's goodness cannot be limited; d. therefore God is unlimited good, i.e. he is infinite. Miihlenberg's interpretationhas been critizised by W. Ullmann and Th. Bohm. Ullmann explains that the two premises are on a different level, while it is not made clear how these two are linked. Furthermore,the connection with the polemic with Eunomius is unclear, since the trinity is not mentioned in the syllogisms.'9Bohm, following Ullmann's criticism, adds that in the analysed passages Gregory does not aim to make a syllogismin order to prove divine infinity, but to confute Eunomius, showing that there exists no more or less in the divine nature.20Ullmann sets also out the theological meaning of divine infinity in Gregory:it expresses how God transcends being and knowing of a creature. Ullmann argues that infinity has to be understood in the Aristotelian sense of potential infinity. Aristotle explains that adding terms in a series is potential unlimited (Physica206al 418). Against Ullmann Bohm states that potential infinity concerns that which is in a process of becoming, but Gregory'saim is to prove that there exist no more or less in the divine nature. Potential infinity is only possible if God is subject to becoming. In addition, Bohm rightly remarksthat the notion of potential infinity does not help us to understand and interpret infinity in Gregory.2' In other passages Gregory brings the divine infinity to the fore in relationship with eternity. In CE 1.359-369 he discusses the eternity (a&t6trS;) of the Son, who does not have a beginning.22The Cappadocian starts by 19 W. Ullmann, 'Der logische und der theologische Sinn des Unendlichkeitsbegriffs in der Gotteslehre Gregors von Nyssa', Bydragen48 (1987) 158-161. 20 Bohm op. cit. (n. 7) 123-131. 21 Id. 131-134, 157-163. 22 For God's eternity in Gregory, see D.L. Balas, 'Eternity and time in Gregory of Nyssa's ContraEunomium'in H. Dorrie, M. Altenburger, U. Schramm, GregorvonNyssa und die Philosophie.Zweites Internationales Kolloquium uber Gregor von Nyssa (Leiden 1976)
158
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
distinguishingbetween the world before creation (i.e. the divine nature)and the creation. The latter is perceived in the extension of ages (r6 TCvaiwcovv 8tiaoxTlla)but the world above creation, separatedfrom any conception of extension, escapes all sequence of time, neither commencing at a beginning, nor ending at a limit. It is pre-existent to the ages (1.362-3). In ? 364 Gregory writes: 'Having traversedthe ages and all that has been produced therein, our thought catches a glimpse of the divine nature, as of some immense ocean,23but when the imagination stretchesonward to grasp it, it gives no sign in its own case of any beginning;so that one who after inquiring with curiosityinto the 'priority'of the ages tries to mount to the source of all things will never be able to make a single calculation on which he may stand; that which he seeks will always be moving on before, and no basis will be offered him for the curiosity of thought'.24The divine and blessed cannot be measured by anything; it is not in time but time flows from it. Created things, by contrast,are confinedwithin the fitting measures as within a boundary (1.365-6). The creative power has assigned to all created things their limits, and they remain within the bounds of creation. But the creative power itself has nothing circumscribingit, and escapes every strivingto reach the limit of the infinite (1.367).25 In this text infinity is placed in a context differentfrom the two previous passages:it is not employed to refute more and less in the divine, but it is related to the eternity of the divine life. The divine can be called infinite because it possessesno time-extension,having no beginning or end. Gregory refers to God as transcendingthe ages (ai&wvg;CE 1.362, cf. 2.528), which denote the temporality of all creation.26Creation is characterized by
128-155, and P. Plass, 'Transcendent time and eternity in Gregory of Nyssa', Vigiliae 34 (1980) 180-192. Christianae 23 The comparison with an ocean occurs also in Gregory of Nazianzus Oratio38.7, where Gregory states that the divine is limitless and difficult to grasp, and only this is comprehensible, namely that it is infinite. The date of this speech is unclear, Christmas 379 or 380? Miihlenberg argues for the latter, and concludes that with regard to the notion of divine infinity Gregory of Nazianzus is dependent on Gregory of Nyssa (Miihlenberg op. cit. (n. 10) 115-118). Gregory of Nazianzus refers also to God as limitless in Oratio23.8, 23.11, 28.7. 24 Translation Moore & Wilson op. cit. (n. 17) 69. 25 Cf. CE 2.70 Uncreated nature is unlimited and only bounded by infinity; created nature is limited, and measured by time and space. The beatitude that is above the creature admits neither end nor beginning. See Sweeney op. cit. (n. 15) 487-493. 26 Cf. In Ecclesiasten homiliae440.3-7 (reference to Eccl. 3:11 icaiye OrivTO aitva &EoIcev
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
159
8tiaoTixa,which indicates the extension both in time and in space.27God Created things are perhas no 8tiaoTla, and is referredto as &8aToxaxoS.28 ceived in the ages, whereas God, having made the ages as a kind of receptacle for the creatures,is above them. He is called npoautvtoS(cf. CE 1.361, 384-385, 669, 690, 2.528, 544, 579, 3.7.6) and cannot be measuredby time or by the ages (cf. CE 3.7.23). In ? 364 the unending quest for God is propounded: the human mind tries to grasp the divine nature, but what it seeks, moves always forward and is never reached. Gregory, basing the unending quest on God's infinity, elaborates this notion extensively in his Canticorum. later works De VitaMoysisand In Canticum Regarding infinity as God's essence, Miihlenberg refers also to CE 1.574, which he translatesas follows: Weil er (scil. Gott) nichts hat, was er vor sich sieht, und bei keiner Grenze aufhort zu sein, sondern iiberall auch immer ist, iiberschreiteter den Begriff des Endes und den Gedanken des Anfangs durch die Unendlichkeitdes Lebens und besitzt das Ewige, das bei jeder Pradizierungmitgehort werden muB.29 Commenting on this passage, Miihlenberg writes: 'Gregor faBt hier in praziser Formulierung zusammen, daB die Unendlichkeit des gottlichen Lebens sein eigener Begriff fur das gottliche Wesen ist.'30 Gregory does not, however, speak here about God's essence; he only states that God is eternal, having neither beginning nor end. From this passage we can only conclude that Gregory regards God's eternity as the infinity of his life. All in
ev capSia avr&ov)6 6e ai6ov ataorllaxtKcovT v6o'lia cov i&aav 6t' cauxozoorgaivel Tiv iv avixt yevovliv. See Balas art. cit. (n. 22) 152. 27 Cf. Eccl. 412.14 'Creation is nothing but 8taoTriAa'.For the notion of tia&orla in de Grigoire etpensie.Essai sur la philosophiereligieuse H.U. von see Balthasar, Presence Gregory, de Nysse(Paris 1942) 1-10, and B. Otis, 'Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocian conception of time', StudiaPatristica14 (1976) 327-357, esp. 343-353. 28 Cf. CE 3.7.33 'The divine nature is &8at6aaTog, and being &ataocxatxoit has no limit; and what is limitless is infinite and is so called'. 29 CE 1.574 o icK`Xov i{ITp6 to eM i i t t FpaS e90' auuTivKaaxa^4fip, aa&& avrxoo'i o68 navTax6Oev ici(ro; aeli civicao thoix; opov iai apXig evvotav iT a&cepipta tiS; o; atalpaivcov aoll IppoaolyoptioauvuyaKooo6evov iexet ial tx a&i8ov. Moore and Wilson op. cit. (n. 17) translate as follows: 'This is He, Who has nothing previous to Himself to behold, no end in which He shall cease. Whichever way we look, He is equally existing there for ever; He transcends the limit of any end, the idea of any beginning, by the infinitude of His life; whatever be His title, eternity must be implied with it'. (88). 30 Miihlenberg op. cit. (n. 10) 113. K1iatvtiv
160
ALBERT-KEES
GELJON
all, it seems that the reading of Gregory's text does not warrant the conclusion that Gregory conceives of infinity as God's essence. At the end of the first book Gregory explains the terms 'unbegotten' and 'eternal'. Eternity of God's life means that he does not admit a time when he was not, or when he will be. Gregory compares the infinite nature (il &optoTxoS (pitS) with a circle. In the same way as a circle does not have a starting-point or is interrupted by any end, the eternal life has neither a beginning nor an end. (1.667-668). In order to confirm God's eternity, Gregory quotes from various scriptural verses that are concerned with God's eternal and royal rule.31 These verses indicate that God is earlier than any beginning and exceeds any end. The infinity, continuity, and eternity of God's life is expressed by the terms 'unbegotten' (ay&vvrTroS) and 'endless' (a&eXe{ixrlo;; 1.669).32 Here the same notions are brought forward as in 1.359-369: infinity, related to eternity, implies not having a beginning or an end. According to Miihlenberg, Gregory introduces infinity, which contains unbegottenness, as the unifying notion of God ('einheitlicher Gottesbegriff'). Miihlenberg refers to CE 2.446-468 as a proof for his interpretation.33 This text, in which Gregory discusses a passage from Basil's ContraEunomiumand Eunomius' attack on it, can be summarized as follows: 446 Citation from Basil's ContraEunomium (I.7): 'We call the God of the universe indestructibleand unbegotten, using these names according to differentpoints of view. For when we look to the ages that are past, finding that the life of God transcendsevery beginning, we call him unbegotten. But when we turn our thought to the ages that come, we call him indestructiblewho is infinite, limitless, and without end. As that which has no end of life is indestructible,so that which has no beginning is called unbegotten.' 447 Gregory turns to Eunomius' point of accusation. 448 Eunomius says that in Basil's view God is not indestructible by his nature.
31 Ex. 15:18 Kx)pto;pkatXEi?Dov rOVaii&va icai ?X' aicova icai ?'t; Ps. 28:10 KiputoS aijvva; Ps. 73:12 6 Oe6xpaotXebis;g ov xcpOaiivoq; cf. CE 2.461, 3.6.64. paotZEixbei5 TOxV 32 Infinity related to God's eternity also in CE 2.52, 2.459, 2.469, 2.512-513, 3.6.8 (reference to Is. 44:6), 3.6.67-71, 3.7.31-33. 33 Miihlenberg op. cit. (n. 10) 114-115.
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459
460 461 462
161
Gregory states that indestructibilitybelongs to God according to his nature. Eunomius understands Basil as bestowing (nopico) indestructibilityon God. In the passage quoted Basil ascribes (,cpoaayopevo)indestructibilityto God. Does Eunomius mean that ascribingis the same as bestowing? He who possesses something which another does not have bestows;he who designatesby names what another has ascribes. Basil'sstatementascribesindestructibilityto God, Eunomiuscharges him with bestowing indestructibility. In fact Eunomius accuses himself, because he bestows indestructibilityon God. Quotation of Eunomius. Basil says that what is beyond the ages in the divine essence is called by certain names. Eunomius says that Basil divides the ages into two parts. Basil only signifiesGod's eternity. Human life is measured by past and future; this is applied to God. Neither the past excludes the idea of infinity, nor the future tells of a limit in the infinite life. Scripturealso signifies God's infinity by the same thought. Citation of Ex. 15:18, Ps. 73:12 (cf. CE 1.669), Ps. 54:20. Eunomius does not pay attention to Scripture,but says that Basil speaks of two lives: one without beginning and one without end, and so makes a separationin the idea of God.
Miihlenberg's interpretation of this passage can be questioned, because God's infinity as a unifying conception of God cannot be discerned so clearly as Miihlenberg thinks. He states that in Gregory the notion of unbegottenness is surpassed by infinity, which is, regarded as eternity, a positive notion, while unbegottenness is negative. Gregory, however, goes mainly into Eunomius' reproach that Basil divides the ages into two parts-past and future-and so makes a separation in the idea of God. Gregory replies that past and future of human life, even though it is incorrect to do so, are applied to God, because human intellect can measure the eternal by a past and a future only (457-462). He does not postulate infinity as a unifying conception of God. It is also worth noting that in the passage quoted from Basil's ContraEunomiumBasil refers to God as limitless and infinite (a6ptoxo. .. ai?tpoS). Wishing to maintain his main thesis, Miihlenberg emphasizes the difference between the two authors: Basil does not see God's essence expressed in infinity, as Gregory does.
162
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
1.2 De vitaMoysis At the end of his life, after 390, Gregorywrote his treatiseDe VitaMoysis (VM),in which he shows how Moses' life is an example to be imitated for the virtuouslife.34Living according to virtue consists in the unending quest for God. The seeking is unending because God is without any limit. At two places Gregory discussesand argues for God's infinity.35In the Introduction he explains that perfection of all things that are measured by sense-perception is marked off by definite limits. Every quantitative measure is surrounded by its proper boundaries. Perfection of the number ten, for instance, consists in having both a beginning and an end. By contrast,perfection in virtue does not have any limit; this is taught by the divine apostle Paul, who was always running on the path of virtue, and never stopped stretchinghimself to things that lie before him (Phil. 3:13). Next, Gregory argues that no good has a boundary in its own nature, but is bounded by the presence of its opposite, as life is bounded by death, and light by darkness.36Because the divine nature is the Good and does not admit of any opposite, God is infinite and without a limit (I.5-7).37 In this praefatio Gregory refers to Phil. 3:13, in which Paul says that he is always stretchinghimself to things before him. In Gregory'sinterpretation this verse indicates that the human desire to see God never ends, because of God's infinity. Human beings can grasp or see limited things only, not what does not have limits. The unending quest for God is the core of Gregory'smysticism,and Paul's saying in Phil 3:13 plays a key role in VM (VMII.225, 242).38The French scholarJean Danielou considersthis proces of strechtingoneself or e7tKTaot;as most characteristicof Gregory'smystical theology.39Later on in the treatise, Gregory uses the same line of argumentation based on God's goodness in the context of an exegesis of Ex. 33, J. Danielou, 'La chronologie des oeuvres de Gregoire de Nysse', StudiaPatristica7 (1966) 159-169, esp. 168-169. 35 The passages are discussed by Bohm op. cit. (n. 7) 137-149. 36 Gregory gives the same examples in CE 1.168. 37 References are made to the edition of J. Danielou, Sources Chretiennes 1 (Paris 19683). 38 See for Gregory's mysticism, A. Louth, Theoriginsof the Christianmysticaltradition.From Plato to Denys (Oxford 1981) 80-97, B.E. Daley, "'Bright darkness" and Christian transformation: Gregory of Nyssa on the dynamics of mystical union', StudiaPhilonicaAnnual8 (1996) 83-98. 39 See his monograph Platonismeet thiologiemystique.Doctrinespirituellede saint Grigoirede Nysse (Paris 1944, 19542). 34
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
163
where it is written that Moses asks God to manifest himself (II. 236-239).40 God answers, however, that Moses cannot see his face, for no man can see God's face and live (Ex. 33:20). This text, Gregory explains, shows that the divine nature is infinite by its own nature, not surrounded by a limit. Gregory'sargumentationcan be summarizedas follows: 1. What has a limit ends somewhere, and is surroundedby something that is differentin nature. 2. What surroundsis much larger than what is surrounded. Gregory illustratesthis by some examples:fish are surroundedby water, and birds by air; the water is the limit for that which swims, and the air for that which flies. 3. The divine nature is beautiful/good, and what is outside the beautiful/good is evil in nature. On the basis of these assumptionsGregory makes a reductio ad absurdum in order to prove God's infinity:if the beautiful/good (i.e. God) has a limit, it must be surrounded by something different in nature (i.e. evil), and is ruled by it. This is absurd. Therefore, Gregory concludes that the comprehension of the infinite nature cannot be thought (o6iKapa TepiXViiS;t; r-qS aopiaoov i p06ex voltoaroexai). Starting from God's infinity, he concludes that the ascent of the soul to God is unending (II.238).41The soul longs for God but its desire is never satiated because the object of its desire is without end. The ascent to God is illustratedby the figure of Moses, who never stops ascending but always finds a step higher than the one he had attained (11.227).Moses' desire to see God is recordedin Ex. 33. His longing is, however, never fulfilled, as Gregory explains: 'this truly is the vision of God: never to be satisfiedin the desire to see him. But one must always, by looking at what he can see, rekindlehis desire to see more. Thus, no limit would interruptgrowth in the ascent to God, since no limit to the Good can be found nor is the increasing of desire for the Good brought to an end because it is satisfied'(II.239).42
40 Discussed by Sweeney op. cit. (n. 15) 499-501. 41 See E. Ferguson, 'God's infinity and man's mutability: perpetual progress according to Gregory of Nyssa', The GreekOrthodoxTheological Review18 (1973) 59-78. 42 Translation AJ. Malherbe - E. Ferguson, Gregory of Nyssa TheLife of Moses,The classics of Westsern Spirituality (New York 1978) 116.
164
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
1.3 In Canticum Canticorum In the same period in which Gregory wrote VM, he also composed his homilies on the Song of Songs (In Canticum Canticorum which have (Cant.)),43 the same theme as VM,namely the unending ascent of the soul to God. In VMMoses functions as example of the soul which ascends to God, while in Cant.the bride is the example. Like in VM,Phil. 3:13, indicatingthe unending ascent, is an importantverse.44 In the fifth homily Gregoryarguesfor God's infinityusing the same argumentation as in VM and in CE: God's goodness does not admit of any evil.45Gregory states that the blessed and eternal nature is not surrounded by a boundary. Nothing can be conceived round it, neither, for example, time, nor place, nor colour. Every good that it is conceived to have extends to the limitless and the infinite. For where evil has no place, the good is without limit. Both good and evil do exist in the changeablenature, because of free will, which can choose between good and evil. The consequent evil becomes the limit of the good. By contrast, the simple, pure, uniform, immutable and unchangeablenature, remaining always the same, possesses the good without limit because it does not admit of any communion with evil (157.14-158.12). By participation in transcendent nature, the human soul always grows, never ending its ascent. The word in the Song leads the soul up to the heights by the ascents of perfection, saying 'Arise, come' (Cant.157-159; Cant. 2:13). The same notion of the unending growth of the soul in the good combined with God's (i.e. the good's) infinity occurs in the sixth homily.46 Gregory begins this homily by setting out a hierarchyof being.47He makes a distinctionbetween the sensibleand materialnature on the one hand, and the intelligible and immaterial on the other. The former is wholly surrounded by limits, whereas the latter is limitless and infinite. Every material nature is limited in magnitude, form, appearance, and shape. No one 43 For the date of Cant., see F. Diinzl, 'Gregor von Nyssa's Homilien zum Canticum 44 (1990) 371-381, and Id. auf dem Hintergrund seiner Vita Moysis', VigiliaeChristianae Braut und Brdutigam.Die Auslegungdes Canticumdurch Gregorvon Nyssa (Tiibingen 1993) 30-33. 44 See 39.13-20, 119.16, 174.14-16, 245.15-17, 326.19, 352.8-10, 366.15. References are made to the edition of H. Langerbeck (Leiden 1986). 45 See Diinzl op. cit. (n. 43) 105-106. 46 See Diinzl op. cit. (n. 43) 111-114. 47 Cf. CE 1.270-272, 359-366, 3.666-68. For the hierarchy of being in Gregory, see Balas op. cit. (n. 9) 23-52.
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
165
can grasp matter outside these dimensions. By contrast, the intelligibleand immaterialnature is not subjectto any boundary.The intelligiblenature, in its turn, is subdivided into uncreated (God) and created nature (soul). Uncreated nature is always what it is, remainingthe same. The created and immaterialnature (soul)participatesin transcendentBeing. By its growth in good things, it changes for the better, so that no limit can be discerned,nor is its growth for the better circumscribedby any boundary. Its present state in the good is the beginning of a more advanced stage; this is confirmedby the words of the apostle: by stretchingout to things that lie before him, he forgets what has already been attained (Cant. 173-174; Phil. 3:13). Commenting on Cant. 3:1 ('By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loved'), he explains that 'night' means the contemplation of invisible things, referring to Moses, who was in the darknesswhere God was (Ex. 20:21) and God made the darknesshis secret place round him (Cant.181.48; Ps. 17:12). Gregory interpretsthe darknessas the incomprehensibilityof God's essence.48The bride, surroundedby the divine night, searches him who is hidden in the darkness(Cant.181.13-14). The saying of the bride: 'I called him, but he did not hear me' means that the beloved is unnameable. How, Gregory asks, can he who is above every name (Phil. 2:9) be discovered by a name?49The soul understandsthat there is no limit to his splendour, glory, and holiness (Cant.182.1-4; Ps. 144:3-5).50 1.4 Summary and evaluation From the foregoing discussionof key texts of Gregory,we can draw some general conclusions and make an evaluation. Regarding Gregory's terminology we observe that, where he deals with the subject of infinity, he mostly uses both &aeipoSand &dopito;.a&tepoSmeans 'without limit' (e:pas = limit), and aopiatoco means 'without limit or determination' (opos = limit or determination).He himself remarksthat both terms mean the same (CE 1.169). A few times he employs adepiypacwxo(= without circumscription),and combines it with ad6piotoo(Cant.370.5, CE 1.300). In the first book of CE, Gregory uses the notion of divine infinity in the polemic with Eunomius, who assumes a differencein essence between God the Father and God the Son, postulating that the Son is less than the Same interpretation in VM II. 163-165. Reference to Phil. 2:9 regarding the unnameability of God also in CE 1.683, 2.587, 3.9.41. 50 Cf. for the use of Ps. 144:3-5, CE 3.1.103-104. 48 49
166
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
Father. By attributinginfinity to God, Gregory shows that there exists neither a hierarchy of beings (ooaiat) nor a more and a less in the divine nature. The great point of difference is that Eunomius regards God the Father as one ovoia and God the Son as another ooauia.Divine attributes, like simple, are only applied to God the Father. Because the Son forms a oAoia differentfrom the Father, he can be inferior. Gregory sees the divine trinity, consisting of three persons, as one ouoia, which is as a whole simple and infinite. Therefore, although both theologians have the same assumptions-the divine is simple, the divine is immutable-they draw differentconclusions. Gregory bases his argumentationon the following three assumptions: 1. God is absolute goodness. 2. Things can only be limited by their opposites. 3. Goodness cannot be limited by its opposite, i.e. evil. On the basis of these assumptions,Gregory concludes that God is infinite in goodness, and that his nature is infinite. The transitionfrom the infinity of God's goodness to the infinity of his nature is not made clear. In his discussion Gregory hardly refers to biblical verses to prove God's infinity, but sometimes he refers to Ps. 144:3-5 'there is no limit in his splendour' (CE 3.1.103-104, Cant.182.1-4). The absent of biblical verses is not unexpected, because infinity is not predicated of God in the Bible.51To confirm God's eternity Gregory quotes Ex. 15:18, Ps. 28:10, Ps. 73:12 (CE 1.669, 2.461, 3.6.64). The argumentfor God's infinity in VMand Cant.is along the same lines as in CE: God, being the absolute good, does not admit of any opposite, and since he can only be limited by his opposite, he does not have any limit. In VM Gregory uses the same examples as in CE: life is limited by death, and light by darkness(CE. 1.168, VM 1.5). There is, however, a difference between CE on the one hand, and Cant.and VM on the other. In the former work, Gregory uses God's infinity for polemical purposes in order to refute Eunomius' doctrine. The context of God's infinity in VM and Cant. is spiritual,formed by an exposition of the unending quest of the soul for God. Gregoryargues that the soul's quest for God is unending because God himself does not have any limits. What does not have boundariescannot be 51 According to Antweiler op. cit. (n. 1) 123, the Bible testifies to God's 'Uberlegenheit', which we call infinity. 'Diese Unendlichkeit als ausschlieBliche "Eigenschaft" Gottes ist im alten wie im Neuen Bund ausgesprochen'.
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
167
grasped or seen. For Gregory the unending desire for God is expressed by Paul in Phil. 3:13, which plays a key role in both VM and Cant. In Gregory's thought on divine infinity, we can discern four aspects, which cohere with each other: 1. God is infinite in his goodness, because his goodness does not admit of its opposite (i.e. evil). This aspect comes mostly up in CE 1.167-171 and 236-237. Without further explanation Gregory goes from the infinity of God's goodness to the infinity of his nature. 2. God is beyond time. Having neither beginning nor end, God is continuous and eternal. Gregory compares the infinite nature with a circle, which has no beginning or end. God does not have, like creatures,temporal intervals-past, present, future-which involve extension. But God is a&aStoxaxo;, which means that he does not have extension. Creation be can measured by time, but God cannot be measured. This aspect is brought forwardin the texts discussingthe eternity of God's life. 3. God is beyond space. He has no spatial extension so that it is impossible to go through him; he is &aeStirixo;.Gregory has the same in mind as Aristotle,who mentions as a feature of infinity that it is impossible to pass through it from side to side (Physica204a). Gregory sees a great gap between the creator and the created nature. Creation is characterizedby having 8t&iaoTa, i.e. extension (both temporal and spatial),whereas God is above extension. 4. On the basis of God's infinity, Gregory argues that God is incomprehensible, because only things that have a limit can be intellectually grasped. This can be called the epistemologicalaspect of divine infinity. A consequence is that the quest for the knowledgeof God is also unending. It is prominent in VM, where Gregory relates it to Moses' life, explained as the unending quest for God. The human striving to know and see God is a dynamic process that never ends; it is always moving forward. God's infinity is a negative attribute of God, part of an apophatic theology. In his mystical treatises Gregory links these two forms of infinity-God's infinityand the soul's unending quest for God with each other. Muhlenberg's interpretationcan be questioned at some points. He distinguishestwo argumentsfor divine infinity, one based on God's unchangeability (CE 1.167-171), and one based on God's simplicity (CE 1.236-237). Gregory, however, uses in both passages the same line of argumentation, which is based on the assumption that God, who is absolutely good, is
168
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
incapable of evil. This argumentationrecursin VMand Cant.What is more, as Bohm rightlyremarks,it is not Gregory'saim to prove divine infinity,but to disproveEunomius'view that there is a more or less in the divine nature. It seems that Miihlenberg interpretsGregory in such a way that infinity expresses God's essence, when he, for instance, writes: 'Es (sc. das Unendliche) ist dasjenige,was nicht zu Ende gedacht werden kann. Diesen 'Begriff macht er zum Wesenpradikatftir Gott.'52InterpretingCE 2.446469 he argues that infinityis 'ein einheitlicherGottesbegriff',which exceeds Eunomius'unbegotten.53But his interpretationstandsin sharp contrastwith Gregory'stheology regardingthe definition of God's essence. In CE 2.529 he clearly states that he does not define any negative attribute as God's essence. In his view God's essence is totally unknown to the human mind and cannot be expressed by any term. The only thing the human intellect can know about God is that he exists. All attributes applied to God are human inventions and do not designate how God really is. The notion of infinity is certainly important for Gregory, but must be seen as part of his apophatic theology, in which God is approached in a negative way: he is incomprehensible,invisible,unseen, unnameable,and Gregory also employs the terms infinite and limitless to indicate the divine Being. He does not, however, argue that infinity expressesGod's essence or is a unifying idea of God. In CE 3.1.105 Gregory puts infinity on a par with other negative attributes. Infinity expresses and emphases strongly God's transcendence: being endless, he is beyond time and space. Creatures,being finite, are not able to encompass and to comprehend the infinite nature of God. 2. THE QUESTIONOF DIVINEINFINITYIN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
1. The thesis of Henri Guyot Having dealt with divine infinity in Gregory, we now turn to Philo. As we already pointed out, divine infinity in Philo is a matter of dispute and we begin with the interpretationof Henri Guyot. This French scholarwrote a thesis about divine infinity in Greek philosophy from Philo until Plotinus, published in 1906.54 In this study he defends the view, contrary to Miihlenberg'sconviction, that Philo was the first to put forwardthe notion
52
53 54
Miihlenberg op. cit. (n. 10) 202. Id. 115. H. Guyot, L'infinitedivinedepuisPhilonleJufjusque' a Plotin,These (Paris 1906).
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
169
of God's infinity. He argues that the Jewish exegete develops the idea of divine infinity and indeterminationon the basis of God's unnameabilityand incomprehensibilityin Jewish thought.55The Greek philosophersPlato and Aristotle consider the first principle to be determinable,because perfection is linked with determination,not with indetermination.56 The Jew Philo was the first to regard the highest principle as infinite. But Guyot himself concedes that Philo does not use the word 'infinite'for God.57Philo does, howand Guyot argues ever, clearlyexpressthat God is without qualities(¬oS), that being without qualities implies being without limit and determination. Because Philo conceives only of qualities that are limited, this entails that God is without limit.58Further, because God is incomprehensible and unnameable, he cannot be determined. God's perfection is also beyond every determination and limit; this can be seen, Guyot argues, in De Cherubim 86, where Philo writes that God's nature is most perfect: 'rather, he himself is the summit, end, and limit of happiness'.59On the basis of Philo's statement that God is most perfect, Guyot concludes that for Philo God is infinite. The divine infinity is referredto as 'perfectioninfinie'.60 If God is infinite, Guyot reasons further, it is necessary that intermediaries exist in order to establish the relation between God and the created world. Philo calls them powers, and they represent God's activities in the world. Since a direct connection between the imperfect world and God, who is infinitelyperfect, is impossible, the powers join God and the world with each other.61The power of the infinite God has no other limit than that which is called matter, which is also infinite and without qualities. Guyot concludes: 'Un Infini nouveau et negatif tendait ainsi a se former au regard et en consequence de l'Infini positif et divin.'62 It seems that Guyot's study on Philo's key role in the developmentof the notion of God's infinity remained largely unnoticed by Philonic scholars. Two years after Guyot Emile Brehier published his important study on the philosophicaland religiousideas of Philo. He does not discuss the notion of
Guyot op.cit.(n. 54) 35-42. Id. 1, 20, 31-32. 57 Id. 55 'Sans doute le nom ne s'y rencontrepas (..) Mais la chose s'y trouve.' 55 56
58 59 60 61
Id. 50. Id. 50-55.
Id. 51. Id. 64-65.
62 Id. 81.
170
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
divine infinity, but he does refer very briefly to Guyot's interpretationof &aItog;.The view that this word implies being without limitation and limit has to be rejected. With a reference to Drummond, Brehier argues that noiov in Philo has the Stoic meaning of what is characteristicof the body. By predicating&aoto;of God, Philo wishes to show that God does not have anything comparablewith the human body.63 In his voluminous work on Philo, the great American scholar Wolfson pays no attention to the notion of God's infinity. Although he devotes a chapter to the divine properties, he does not refer to the limitlessnessof God.64 He argues that the attributes predicated of God by Philo, like 'do not tell us anything about caKaxaXrLtxo,&aparxo,a&?epiypapoS, a&yevTxoS, the essence of God, for this, accordingto him, must remain unknown.'65In Wolfson'sview all these propertiescan be reduced to one property,namely that of action. He identifies God's propertieswith his powers. With regard to the divine names, Wolfson concludes that they 'are nothing but designations of these propertiesor powers of God.'66 It is clear that Guyot's view is strongly opposed to that of Miihlenberg, who sees Gregory of Nyssa as the thinkerwho introducedthe idea of divine infinity. In his study, Muhlenberg criticizes Guyot's interpretation,mainly 86, the text about God's perfection. Muhlenberg discussing De Cherubim that this is within text the limits of Platonic thought, because Philo argues wishes to say that God is the measure of all things. Muhlenberg concludes that it is impossible to argue on the basis of God's perfection that he is infinite.67Furthermore,the fact that God is not subjectto the boundariesof time does not entail that he is limitless. 'Philo dringt nicht weiter zum Gedanken einer zeitlichen Unendlichkeit Gottes vor.'68 Guyot's interpretationof Philo is in fact not very convincing. It does not seem possible to conclude, as Guyot does, that, because God is presented as a7loto;, he is without determinationand limit. Wolfson has shown that by 7otl6orl;Philo means an accident which is present in a corporealobject.69
63 E. Brehier, Les idees et religieuses de Philond'Alexandrie philosophiques (Paris 1908) 72. H.A. Wolfson, Philo:foundationsof religious and Islam, 2 philosophyin Judaism, Christianity vols. (Cambridge MA 1947) 2.126-138. 64
65 66 67
Id. 2.133. Id. 2.135. Miihlenberg op. cit. (n. 10) 60-61.
68
Id. 62.
69
Wolfson op. cit. (n. 64) 2.102-107.
DIVINE INFINITYIN GREGORYOF NYSSAAND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA 171
When Philo says of God that he is a&oto;,he refers to God's incorporeal1.36, comity and to the fact that God is not like a man. In LegumAllegoriae 'he into' breathed Philo declares that it is a folly to on menting (Gen. 2:7), think that God makes use of organs such as mouth or nostrils;for God is without qualitiesaltogether,not only without the form of a man. In another 3.36) he asks the mind why it has wrong opinions, passage (Legumallegoriae such as that God, being without quality, has a quality, like the graven images, or that the imperishable is perishable, like the molten images. Philo's use of the term &acoto;does not warrant the conclusion that being without qualities means being without determination and limit. Further, 86 is justified:the Miihlenberg'scriticismof Guyot's reading of De Cherubim assumptionthat God is most perfect does not imply that he is infinite. 2.2 Philonic texts relating to divine infinity Although Guyot's argumentation is not convincing, there are in Philo starting-pointsfor the notion of divine infinity. We now discuss some passages in which an impulse to divine infinity comes up. We begin with the treatise De opficiomundi,in which Philo offers an exegesis of the creationaccount in Genesis. In Philo's interpretationMoses makes a sharp contrast between God, the invisible maker of the world, and the created, visible world, which is subject to becoming. In what follows Philo writes: 'So to what is invisible and intelligiblehe assigned eternity (a&tt6rg;)as being akin and related to it, whereas on what is sense-perceptiblehe ascribed the appropriate name becoming' (12).70Whitaker translates &aSto6tqas 'the infinite and undefinable', but this translationis quite mistaken.7'In Philo &aibtomeans 'everlasting',and does not connote any form of timelessness or infinite existence.72 Following Plato (Timaeus29e) Philo postulates that the world has been made because of the goodness of God, the Father and Maker of all (21). Being good, God wishes to give his benefits to creation. Philo writes that God determines to confer unrestrictedand rich benefits upon that nature which apart from divine gift could not obtain any good. 'But he does not
70
Translation D.T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria.On the creationof the Cosmosaccordingto Moses. Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden 2001) 49. 71 F.H. Colson - G.H. Whitaker, Philo in ten volumes(and two supplementay volumes),with an English translation, Loeb Classical Library, 12 vols. (London 1929-62) 1.11. 72 See Runia op. cit. (n. 70) 112.
172
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
confer his blessings (Xapteq;)in proportion to the seize of his powers of beneficence-for these are indeed without limit and infinitely great yap axrai ye Kcal (a7cepiypapot cdaeXaeiTot)- but rather in proportionto the of those who them.73The fact is that what comes into receive capacities existence is unable to accommodate those benefits to the extent that God is able to confer them, since God's powers are overwhelming, whereas the recipient is too weak to sustain the size of them and would collapse, were it not that he measured them accordingly, dispensing with fine tuning to each thing its allotted portion.' (23).74
In this last paragraphthe notion of adaptation and measurementof the divine blessingscomes to the fore.75It means that God's blessings (Xaptl?e;) are too great to be received by man without measurementand restriction. Therefore God adapts and measures out his gifts to the capacity of human beings. If he did not, they would be break down. This principle has both an ontological aspect, which can be seen here, and an epistemological aspect, which occurs clearly in De specialibuslegibus1.32-50. The notion is lucidly expressed in 1.43, where God says: 'I graciouslybestow what is in accordance
with the recipient'
(%apilo,gat 6'
y x ra oiKceixa Ti:
XiWogevcp).It should be mentioned that Philo calls God's blessings aiepiypa(po;, which means uncircumscribed/withoutcircumscription,i.e. being without limit. In De praemiiset poenis85 Philo refers to aicov with both aciepiypacpos and o6ptoxog.Runia considers the referring to God's as limitless an indication that Philo is prepared to ascribe infinity blessings to God.76 In one text Philo refers also to God as uncircumscribed.In De Sacrficiis Abeliset Caini59 he interpretsthree measures of meal (Gen. 18:6) as God and his two highest powers, sovereigntyand goodness. They are not measured-for God is uncircumscribed,and his powers are also uncircumscribed-but they are the measures of all things. Goodness is the measure of all good things, sovereigntyof its subjects,and God himself of all corporeal and incorporealthings.
73 Cf. Quis rerumdivinarum heres31, where God's benefits are also called &c?piypa(pot: aoioai Xapte; ical adtepiypa(potic( opov il te:em')olVOcK Xouoaat. Here is ad7epiypacpoS explained as having no beginning or end. 74 Translation Runia op. cit. (n. 70) 51. 75 See Runia, Philo of Alexandriaand the Timaeus of Plato, Philosophia Antiqua 44 (Leiden 1986) 137-138, and id. op. cit. (n. 70) 146-147. 76 Runia op. cit. (n. 70) 146.
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
173
We remarked already that the principle of measurement has an epistemological application:God adapts the manifestationof himself and his powers to the capacity of the receivers, who do not acquire full knowledge of God. Philo drawsthe consequence that God is incomprehensible,as appears clearly from Spec.1.32-50.77He begins with the statement that the father and ruler of all is hard to fathom and hard to comprehend(cf. Plato Timaeus 28c). Nevertheless, the quest for God should not be abandoned. In the search for God Philo distinguishestwo main questions:whether the divine exists, and what it is in its essence. The first question can be solved easily, but the second is difficultand perhaps impossible.Both questions should be examined (32). We can gain knowledge of God's existence on the basis of the creation, in the same way as we can gain knowledge of the sculptoron the basis of the sculpture (33-35). God's essence is difficultto catch and to grasp, but the search for it should be undertaken.For nothing is better than the search for the true God, even if the discovery of him is beyond human capacity (36). We do not have a clear vision of God as he really is, but we should not relinquish the quest, because the search even without finding God is valuable in itself (40). Philo illustratesthe search for God with the story in Ex. 33, where Moses asks God to manifest himself (41; Ex. 33:13). In Philo's exegesis God answers:'I praise your desire, but the request cannot fitly be granted to any that are brought into creation. I freely bestow what is in accordancewith the recipient;for not all that I can give with ease is within man's power to take, and therefore to him that is worthy of my grace I extend all the boons which he is capable of receiving.But the apprehension of me is something more than human nature, yea even the whole heaven and universe will be able to contain.' (43-44).78Thereupon Moses asks God to see his glory, explaining God's glory as God's powers (45; Ex. 33:18). God replies that his powers are incomprehensiblein their essence, but they do present an impression of their activities. They supply quality and shape to things that are without quality and shape (47). God urges 77 For God's incomprehensibility in Philo, see Wolfson op. cit. (n. 64) 2.94-164, S. Lilla, 'La theologia negativa dal pensiero classico a quello patristico bizantino', Helicon22-27 (1982-87) 211-279, esp. 229-279, L.A. Montes-Peral, Akataleptostheos:der unfassbareGott, Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 16 (Leiden 1987) 148-161, and Carabine op. cit. (n. 7) 191-222. For Spec. 1.32-50, see Runia 'The beginnings of the end: Philo of Alexandria and Hellenistic theology', in D. Frede - A. Laks and aftermath. Philosophia (Ed.) Traditionsof theology.Studiesin Hellenistictheology,its background Antiqua 84 (Leiden 2002) 281-316, esp. 299-302. 78 Translation Colson op. cit. (n. 71) 7.123, 125.
174
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
Moses not to hope to apprehend him or his powers in their essence (49). Philo ends his exegesis of Ex. 33 by remarkingthat Moses, having heard God's answer, did not stop his longing for God, but kept the desire for the invisible aflame (50). In this text Philo describesthe longing for knowledgeof God's essence as unending because God's essence is beyond human understanding.Although the goal of the quest is unreachable,the seeking in itself is a joy. Philo presents God as being too great to be received in full by human beings, and therefore God gives what the receiver is able to get, adapting his power to the capacity of human beings. If God manifestedhimself, man would collapse from an overdose of God's Being.79This greatnessof being is the cause for the incomprehensibilityof God in his essence for the human mind, which can only know that God exists, not what he is. It is clear that God's transcendenceis stronglyemphasized:He transcendshuman knowledgeand human description. God's transcendence is expressed, among other things, by the words 'enclosing, not enclosed' (cepitecov,o nIepteX6Ix vog). These words indicate that God nowhere occupies a spatial place, but Philo explains that God is a place. In Legumallegoriae 1.44 Philo expounds that the whole world would not be a place fit for God, because God, being his own place, is filled by himself and is sufficientfor himself. He fills and encloses all other things, but he himself is enclosed by nothing else, since he is one and he himself is the whole. W.R. Schoedel argues that Philo's emphasis on God's transcendence, more than in the Greek tradition, provides a context in which the connection of infinitywith the divine can arise.80In De somniis1.62-64 Philo comments Gen. 28:11 'He (= Jacob) met a place' and explains that place has a threefoldmeaning: (1) a space filled by materialform, (2) the space of the divine word, (3) God himself is a place, since he encloses all things, but he is enclosed by nothing, and because he is a place of refuge for all. That which is enclosed differsfrom what encloses it, and the divine, enclosed by nothing, is necessarilyits own place. Caini,in which we Finally, we discuss some passages from De Posteritate
79 For the notion of the overdose of Being, see Runia art. cit. (n. 77) 304. 80 See W.R. Schoedel, 'Enclosing, not enclosed: the early Christian doctrine of God', in: W.R. Schoedel - R.L. Wilken (Eds.) Early Christianliteratureand the classicalintellectual tradition(Paris 1979) 75-86, esp. 75-76. He refers to Aristotle, who in his discussion of infinity, reports the view that the unlimited encloses (ceptlXEtv)and governs all (Physica 203b12, cf. Anaximenes fr. B2).
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
175
find the same notions as in the works already discussed. In ? 14-16 Philo explains Ex. 20:21, where Moses is said to enter the darknesswhere God is. Moses enters into the impenetrable and unformed thoughts on the Existent, because the cause is neither in darkness nor in any place at all, but beyond place and time. He has placed all created things under his control, and is enclosed by nothing, but transcends all (14). When the Godloving soul searches for the essence of the Existent, it makes a search of that which is beyond form and beyond sight. From this quest a very great good originates, namely to comprehend that God is incomprehensibleand to see that he is invisible (15). By his request to God to manifest himself (Ex. 33:13) Moses shows very clearly that no created being can know God's essence (16). The principle of measurement is brought up in ? 143-145. Philo expounds that God does not utter his words according to the greatness of his own perfection, but to the capacity of those who will profit. If God wished to display his own richness, even the entire land and the entire sea, turned into dry land, would not contain it. Therefore God stops bestowing his first blessings, but the receivers are sated. He stores them up for the future and gives others. For what has come into being is never without God's blessings-otherwise it would have perished-but it is not able to bear their full and abundant torrent. In ? 174, Philo, explainingGen. 4:25, sets out that Seth differsfrom Abel. Abel leaves the mortal life and goes to a better nature, whereas Seth, being seed from human virtue, will never relinquish the race of man, but will obtain enlargementin it. He will obtain it in the righteousNoah, the tenth descendant from Adam; in the faithful Abraham, another tenth, and in Moses, the seventh descendant from Abraham (172-173). In ? 174 Philo writes: 'Look at the advance for the better made by the soul that has an insatiable desire for beautiful things, and the uncircumscribedwealth of God, which has given as starting-pointsto others the goals reached by those before them. For the limit of the knowledge attained by Seth became the starting-pointof righteousNoah; Abraham begins his education in the perfection of Noah; and Moses' training begins at the highest point of Abraham'swisdom.' (174). In these passages we recognize notions already know from the previous texts: God transcendshuman knowledge:his essence is unknown.Therefore, the longing for God is unending but the quest should not be abandoned. Because of the overwhelming power of God's Being, God measures his blessings in proportion to the receivers.
176
ALBERT-KEES GELJON
3. CONCLUSION
Gregory of Nyssa gives the notion of divine infinity an important place in his doctrine of God. It is part of his apophatic theology, in which God's transcendence is strongly emphasized. Gregory employs divine infinity, mainly in CE, to disprove Eunomius'view that there is more or less in the divine trinity. The more important function is that it forms a base for the unending quest of the soul for the incomprehensible God. Muhlenbergs interpretation-infinity expresses God's essence-has to be rejected, because according to Gregory God's essence cannot be expressed by any denomination.Gregoryis the first thinkerwho argues elaboratelyfor divine infinity, but the notion appear also in other Cappadocian fathers. Furthermore,he was able to link his thought with that of Philo. Althought Guyot's argumentationis not convincing, we can discern starting-pointsfor the notion of divine infinity in Philo's writings. Philo describes God's blessings and his gifts as everlasting and without circumscription.Being without circumscriptionimplies being infinite, and in of aicov.In one Praem.85 Philo predicates both &6ptoTosand acLepiypa(poS an impulse Philo even refers to as We here text God adiepiypawpo;. recognize to the notion of divine infinity. We saw that Gregory also refers to God as an&epiypatxo;,combining it with &aptaxo;.God's blessings and his powers are too great for human beings to receive fully and without measurement. For this reason God, bestowing his gifts on men, adapts them to the capacity of those who receive them. We call this the principle of measurement: God measures out his powers, otherwise human beings would collapse under the overdose of God's being. By this Philo indicates the great gap between God and man, emphasizing God's transcendence. Some scholars do indeed refer to God as infinite in Philo, but it should be noted that this is an extrapolation.Philo himself never calls God infinite.81 The principle of measurement has an epistemologicalapplication:God does not manifesthimself totally because of the weaknessof humankind.He adapts his manifestationto the capacity of the receivers,who are not able
81
See Volker op. cit. (n. 7) 283-284: 'Nur die Tatsache von Gottes Existenz (das ot) sei dem Geschopf faBbar. Das entspricht dem abstrakt gefaBten philonischen Gottesbegriff, der zwischen dem Endlichen und Unendlichen eine tiefe Kluft aufreiBt.', and E. Zeller, Die Philosophieder Griechenin ihrergeschichtlichen Entwicklung,III.2 (Leipzig 19034) 400: 'es (= Philo's System) ruht bestimmter auf demselben dualistischen Gegensatz Gottes und der Welt, des Unendlichen und des Endlichen'. Zeller derives God's infinity from his perfection.
DIVINE INFINITY IN GREGORY OF NYSSA AND PHILO OF ALEXANDRA
177
to know God's essence. The quest for knowledge of God is thus unending, but should not be given up, because it is valuable in itself. We saw that in Gregory the unending seeking for God is based on the infinity of the divine nature. In VM he frequently emphasizes that the desire of the soul to see God is insatiable (11.230,232, 235, 239). Philo, too, calls the desire of the soul for beautiful things insatiable (Post. 174). Both Philo and Gregory explain the story of Moses from Ex. 33 as the unending seeking of the soul for God. In VM11.239 Gregory urges that one should always rekindle the desire to see God. This can be regarded as an echo of Philo's remark that Moses keeps the desire to see God aflame (Spec.1.50). Gregorypresents the ascent of the soul to see God as a climbing from step to step. The step one has reached functions as a starting-pointfor further advance (VM 1.227, cf. Cant.173-174). This recalls Philo's passage in Post. 174, where he describes the state of knowledge attained by Seth as a starting-pointfor Abraham's perfection. Both Philo and Gregory interpret the darknessin which Moses enters (Ex. 20:21) as the incomprehensibilityof God within the context of negative theology: God is invisible,unnameable, and incomprehensible(VM 163-165, Cant.181; Post 14).82 One aspect of infinity is being beyond space and time. Philo explains that God does not occupy spatial place, but encloses all things (Somn.1.6264, Post. 14). Being beyond space goes together with being beyond time, and Philo explains that God is not in any place, but beyond place and time (Post.14). We can end with the observation that in Philo several aspects of divine infinity can be found, with which Gregory was able to link up. Given Gregory'sthorough reading of Philo's writings,it is highly probable that he was indeed inspired by Philo. But Gregory will always be the first thinker in the Judaeo-Christiantradition to argue extensively for God's infinity as part of his apophatic theology. Gazellestraat 138 3523 SZ Utrecht
See I. Gobry, 'La tienbre (yvo6po): l'hritage alexandrin de Saint Gr6goire de philosophique19 (1991) 79-82, A. Meredith, 'Licht und Nysse', Diotima:Revuede recherche Finsternis bei Origenes und Gregor von Nyssa', in: T. Kobusch - B. Mojsisch (Eds.) Platon in der abendliindischen Geistesgeschichte (Darmstadt 1997) 48-59, and Geljon op. cit. 128-134. (n. 3) 82
BEMERKUNGEN ZUM TEXT DER CONFESSIONEN AUGUSTINS VON
CHRISTIAN GNILKA 1 Der Tod einesJugendfreundeserschutterteAugustinuszutiefst.Uber das Krankenlagerdes Freundes berichtet er (conf. 4,4,8: p. 59,9/24 Skutella): cumenimlaboraret illefebribus,iacuitdiu sinesensuin sudorelaetaliet, cumdesperaretur, est nesciens menoncurante etpraesumente id retinere baptizatus potiusanimameiusquoda meacceperat, nonquodin nescientis autem aliter erat.namrecreatus est fiebat.longe corpore et salvusfactus,statimque, ut primocumeo loquipotui- potuiautemmox,ut illepotuit, et nimispendebamus ex invicem- temtaviapudillum inridere, quandonon discedebam et illo inrisuro mecum menteatquesensuabsentissimus. tamquam quemacceperat baptismum, tamen iam se at ita me ille exhorruit ut inimicumadmonuitque [sed accepisse didicerat.] mirabiliet repentina libertate, ut, si amicusessevellem,taliasibi diceredesinerem. egoautem stupefactus atqueturbatus... eqs.
Der in Klammern geruckte Satz mindert die Kraft des Gegensatzes:at ille... eqs., auf dem aller Nachdruck liegt, indem er ihm eine andere Antithese, ebenfalls adversativ eingeleitet, vorschaltet: sed tamen... eqs.' Wahrend mit der Feststellung:at ille me exhorruit... eqs. die Haltung des Freundes in Gegensatz tritt zu Augustins Versuchen, die Taufe lacherlich zu machen: temtavi ... eqs., schafftder eingeschobeneSatz: apudilluminridere sed tameniam se accepissedidicerat2eine untergeordnete Antithese zum unmittelbar voraufgehenden Relativsatz: quem (sc. baptismum)acceperatmenteatque
sensuabsentissimus. Damit wird, wie gesagt, vom Wesentlichen abgelenkt. Aber nicht nur das. Nicht nur der Gedankengang wird geschadigt, auch
1 Sed tamenhier etwa im Sinne eines korrektiven quamquam;vgl. Hugo Saur, Die
Adversativpartikeln bei lateinischen Prosaikern, Diss. Tubingen 1913, 71f. Ich zihle 31 Belege fur sed tamen in den Confessionen, 11 fur verumtamen:niemals folgt diesen Partikelverbindungen ein zweiter Adversativsatz, eingeleitet durch at. 2 Accepisse wirkt terminologisch, ahnlich dem bloBen accepitoder percepitin christlichen Inschriften (ILCV 1531. 1532. 1539. 1540. 1541). ? Koninkijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
59, 178-186 VgiliaeChristianae
BEMERKUNGEN ZUM TEXT DER CONFESSIONEN AUGUSTINS
179
Aussage und Sinn des ganzen Berichts sind betroffen. Das Wunderbare des Ereignissesliegt ja darin, daB der Sinneswandeldes Freundesplotzlich erfolgte und ohne jeden auBeren EinfluB. Er wurde im Zustande der BewuBtlosigkeitgetauft, weshalb Augustinus annahm, in der Seele des Kranken werde sich die Geringschatzungder Taufe behaupten, die er dem Freunde beigebracht hatte - quoda me acceperat: im Gegensatz zum Empfang der Taufe -, nicht "das,was am Leibe des BewuBtlosengeschah".Doch der Kranke, kaum daB er wieder zu sich gekommen, entsetzte sich ob der Spottereien Augustins. Der Autor scharft das zeitliche Moment: er sei nicht von der Seite des Kranken gewichen, habe das Wort sofort an den Freund gerichtet, sobald dieser seinerseitsdie Sprache wiedererlangthatte. Damit ist ausgeschlossen, daB etwa andere vor Augustinus an den Wiedererwachten herantraten, und deswegen nennt Augustinus seine freimutige Widerrede "wunderbar und plotzlich".3 Das Interpolament nimmt dem Vorgang das Wunderbare, beeintrachtigt es zumindest empfindlich.Denn wenn der Erwachteschon von dritterSeite ware dariiber belehrt worden, daB er die Taufe empfangen habe, dann hatte er auch Zeit gehabt, sich eines Besseren zu besinnen, hatte solche Mitteilung den AnlaB zu einer Sinnesanderunggeben konnen. Der Einschub soil ein scheinbar fehlendes Gedankenelementerganzen, soil den Bericht plausibler machen. In Wahrheit entkemt er ihn. 2 Wer der Athetese zustimmt, hat eine Entscheidung grundsatzlicherArt getroffen. Denn was hier passiert,kann auch anderswopassieren. Es durfte die Abwehr solcher Konsequenz sein, vielleicht auch nur die halbbewuBte, gefiihlshafte Scheu vor ihr, die Editoren und Erklareriiber solche Textstorung hinwegsehenlaBt. Die Moglichkeitder Interpolationtrat uberhaupt kaum in den Gesichtskreisder Kritik. Augustinusbeklagt conf. 1,11,18 den Aufschub seiner Taufe (p. 14,18/25 Skutella):
3 Mirabili et repentinalibertate:O'Donnell (vol. II p. 221) nimmt hier eine pejorative Nuance an: "(libertas)here closer to 'impertinence' than 'freedom' or 'liberty"'. Ganz falsch. Besser, aber zu allgemein die Erklarung im italienischen Kommentar (Luigi F. Pizzolato, Sant' Agostino, Confessioni, vol. II, Fondazione Lorenzo Valla 1993, p. 168 zu conf. 4,4,8, Zeile 32), der auf die cappqaia in der antiken Freundschaftstheorie verweist. Libertasmeint hier die Unabhangigkeit des Urteils im konkreten Fall, die den ubermachtigen EinfluB des Freundes auBer Kraft setzte.
180
CHRISTIAN GNILKA
rogote, deusmeus,vellemscire,si tu etiamvelles,quoconsiliodilatussum,ne tuncbaptizarer,utrumbonomeomihiquasilaxatasint lorapeccandi[an nonlaxatasint].undeergo etiamnuncde aliis atquealiis sonatundique in auribusnostris:'sineillum,faciat;nondum enimbaptizatus est'.quantoergomeliuset citiussanarer ... eqs.
Die Textherstellung des Editors Verheijen, der auch O'Donnell folgt, lautet:...
utrumbonomeo mihi quasi laxata sint lorapeccandi.an non laxata sunt?
... eqs. (CCL 27,10, Z. 24f.). Das Ziel, kein Wort des uberliefertenTexts aufzugeben, wird hier erreicht um den Preis einer ausgemachten Einfaltigkeit.Valentino De Marchi (De nonnullis Augustini confessionum locis: Rendiconti dell' Istituto Lombardo, Classe di Lettere, Scienze morali e storiche 96, 1962, 310/16, hier 310f.) wollte die Worte laxatasint(v.l. sunt) tilgen und findet jetzt Beifall bei Hermann Trankle, Textkritische Bemerkungenzu Augustins Confessiones:Hermes 127, 1999, 208/36, hier 214 mit Anmerkung29. Aber solche Erganzungfremder Hand lieBe kaum ein Motiv erkennen.Es durfte syntaktischeInterpolationanzunehmen sein:4 [an non laxata sint]: utrumstatt num als Einfuhrung einer einfachen indirekten
Frage provozierte die Erganzung zur Doppelfrage. Uber solches utrumvgl. Hofmann-Szantyrp. 466 (unter d) mit einem Beispiel aus Augustinus;es begegnet schon bei Lactanz inst. 1,20,8 (CSEL 19,78, Z. 10); 6,25,11 (ibid. 579, Z. 10), bei Augustinusist es gang und gabe (z.B. conf. 1,22: p. 22,7; 5,5,9: p. 82,27; 6,4,6: p. 104,14f.; civ. 1,26: p. 41,18; 42,5). Die Tatsache, daB an einer Stelle eingegriffen wurde, an ungezahlten anderen nicht, widersprichtsolcher Erklarungkeineswegs, da interpolatorischeArbeit selten konsequenterfolgt. 3 Das sechste Kapitel des zehnten Confessionenbuchsenthilt einen locus conclamatus. Es geht um die naturliche Gotteserkenntnis.Ich gebe den Text in etwas weiterem Umfang (conf. 10,6,9f.: p. 216,8/217,4 Skutella): mundimolemde deomeo,et respondit mihi:nonegosum,sedipsemefecit.(10) interrogavi nonneomnibus,quibusintegersensusest, apparethaecspecies?cur non omnibuseadem animalia nonenimpraeposita loquitur? pusillaet magnavidenteam,sedinterrogare nequeunt. estin eis nuntiantibus sensibusiudexratio.homines autempossuntinterrogare, ut 'invisibilia' dei 'er ea, quaefactasunt,'intellecta sed amore subduntur eis et (Rom. 1,20), conspiciant' subditiiudicarenonpossunt.necrespondent ista interrogantibus nisi iudicantibus necvocem suammutant,id est speciem ut suam,si aliustantumvideat,aliusautemvidensinterroget, aliterilli appareat, aliterhuic,sedeodemmodoutrique illi muta huic est, apparens loquitur: 4
Zu diesemTyp s. PrudentianaI, RegisterIII Interpolationswesen, S. 754 s.v.
BEMERKUNGEN ZUM TEXT DER CONFESSIONEN AUGUSTINS
181
immoveroomnibus sedilli intellegunt, intuscumveriloquitur, quieiusvocemacceptamforis tateconferunt. veritasenimdicit mihi:nonest deustuusterraet caelumnequeomnecorpus. [hocdicit eorumnatura.vident:molesest,minorinpartequamin toto.]iamtu melior tuipraebens ei vitam,quodnullum es, tibidico anima,quoniamtu vegetasmolemcorporis deusautemtuusetiamtibivitaevitaest. praestatcorpori. corpus
Leon Herrmannsah in den Worten vident(er schrieb videntan)... in totoeine mittelalterlicheGlosse (Remarquesphilologiques:AugustinusMagister,Paris 1954, 137/39, hier 138) und kam damit der Wahrheit immerhin recht nahe. MittelalterlichenUrsprungs kann solche Textstorung freilich nicht sein; das wird durch die einhellige Bezeugung des Einschubs in den Handschriften,besonders durch das Zeugnis des Sessorianus(saec. VI) ausgeschlossen. Aber diese Schwache hatte das faktische Ergebnis der HerrmannschenKritik ebensowenig diskreditierendurfen wie eine willkiirliche Transposition, die er in diesem Passus vornahm. O'Donnell scheint
der Annahme einer 'Glosse' nicht vollig abhold (s. unten), aber in der jiingsten Behandlung des Textproblems durch Trankle a.O. 226f. wird Herrmanns Vorschlag keines Wortes gewiirdigt, obwohl die allgemeinen, gegen Stemmatologie und Uberlieferungsglaubigkeitgerichteten Grundsatze, die Trankle einleitend entwickelt, solcher Losung gerade nicht im Wege stiinden. Die Kritik konzentriertsich im vorliegenden Fall zu stark auf das eine Element vident(S mit zwei der Parisini O und G, v.l. videns, videnti, vide en, vide, evidens). In Wahrheit ist schon das voraufgehende
Satzchen anstoBig.Die Stimme der sichtbarenDinge ist ihre Schonheit, so schon 10,6,9 (p. 215, 23f.): interrogatio mea intentiomea et responsioeorumspecies
eorum.In dem ganzen ausgeschriebenenText bildet speciesdas vernehmbare Organ der sichtbaren Welt: nonne omnibus... apparet haec species?cur non omnibuseadem loquitur(10,6,10 in.). Daher wirkt natura ... dicit platt. Und weiter: Die Schonheit spricht nicht zu den vernunftlosen Tieren, aber auch nicht zu jedem Menschen, weil ihre Stimme nur Antwort sein kann, also
eine Frage des Betrachtersvoraussetzt,oder aber - der Autor bringt eine an (immovero)- sie spricht zwar zu allen Menschen, aber nicht alle correctio verstehen sie, sondern nur diejenigen, "die ihre Stimme, die sie auBen vernehmen, innen mit der Wahrheit vergleichen; denn die Wahrheit sagt ihnen..." usw. Wie kann es danach, nach dieser zweifach formulierten Einschrankung,fortgehen: hoc dicit eorumnatura... eqs.? Damit wird dem voraufgehenden Rasonnement die Spitze abgebrochen. Und nun erst Zu den beiden Lesarten hat schon O'Donnell das N6tige vident/videnti! gesagt (vol. III p. 17 f.). VidentlaBt ratseln, wer das Subjekt sein soil, und durch die Fassung: hoc dicit... videntiwird der Unterschied zwischen den
182
CHRISTIAN GNILKA
Tieren, die sehen konnen, aber nicht fragen, bzw. zwischen dem Menschen, der nur sieht, und dem anderen, der sieht und fragt, eingeebnet. Verheijen (CCL 27, p. XLIII) will die an die Seele gerichteteFrage vorziehen und mit viden?einsetzen lassen. Diese aus Plautus bekannte Form wird zwar nicht bei den Augusteern zum letzten Mal gebraucht (Verg. Aen. 6,779; Tib. 2,1,25), wie Trankle (a.O. 227) meint, sondern taucht auch noch bei den Dichtern der silbernen Latinitat gelegentlich auf (Val. Flacc. 3,499; Sil. 12,713; Stat. Theb. 10,813; vgl. Neue-Wagener 3, 298f.), bildet aber doch im Augustinustext eine ausgesprochene Kunstelei und wird daher von Trankle mit Recht abgelehnt. Selbst entscheidet er sich mit den Maurinern fur die Variante vide,en, molesest... eqs. Aber solche abrupte Apostrophe an die Seele, die mit einem Verbum anhebt, das zuvor im eigentlichen Sinne und auf pragnanteArt vom sinnenhaftenSchauen gebrauchtwar (vgl. bes.: si alius tantumvideat,alius autemvidensinterrogat), stellt auch nur eine was man was dar. Und soil sehen? Was ist so emphatischzur es, Notgeburt Kenntnisnahme empfohlen wird? Moles est, minorin partequamin toto!Im Ausdruckwirkt einerseits nach: interrogavi mundimolem(10,6,9 fin.), wird andrerseitsdem Folgenden vorgegriffen:tu vegetasmolemcorporis tui, ohne daB in der Wortwahl ein klaresVerhaltnis der Begriffe(moles[sc. mundi]- moles erkennbarwurde. Inhaltlich ist der Satz ein Torso, der ganz und corporis) gar nicht zu der sorgfaltigen,Schritt fur Schritt sich entwickelnden,keine Stufe iiberspringendenGedankenarbeitdes AutorspaBt. Gemeint wird wohl sein, daB Gott nicht mit der Welt identisch sein konne, weil dann die unlosbare Frage aufgeworfenwiirde, wie sich das Ganze der "Masse"(der Welt) und seine Teile zum Wesen Gottes verhalten. Erortertwird das Problem zu Beginn des ersten Buchs. Es ergibt sich dort (conf. 1,3,3) aus dem Prophetenwort:caelumet terramegoimpleo(Jerem. 23,24): capiuntergonete caelumet terra?... sedquaeimplesomnia,te totoimplesomnia.an quia nonpossuntte totumcapereomnia,partemtui capiuntet eandempartemsimul omnia capiunt?ergoest aliquapars tua maior,aliquaminor?an ubiquetotuses et res nullate totumcapit?
O'Donnell (vol. III p. 172) bemerktim Hinblick auf beide Stellen: "If the line (i.e. molesest, minorin partequamin toto)is a gloss, the scholiast had a sharp memory for the exactly apposite passage in conf.(sc. 1,3,3)". Die Annahme, der plumpe, bruchstuckhafteSatz in 10,6,10 sei der bewegten, aporetisch sich entfaltenden Gedankenbewegungdes ersten Buchs genau passend, erscheintrecht kuhn. Aber eine Beziehung konnte trotzdem bestehen. Unleugbar jedoch ist die Beziehung zu einer anderen Stelle, die ich
BEMERKUNGEN ZUM TEXT DER CONFESSIONEN AUGUSTINS
183
weder bei O'Donnell noch bei Aime Solignac (Sant' Agostino, Confessioni, vol. IV: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla 1996, p. 190 zu conf. 10,6,10, Zeile 59) noch bei Trankle genannt finde (conf. 3,7,12: p. 45,29/46,4): deumessespiritum,noncui membra nonnoveram essentper longumet latumneccui esse molesesset,quiamoles in parte minor est quam in toto suo, et si irfinitasit, minorest in aliquapartecertospatiodefinita et nonest totaubiquesicut quamperirfinitum sicut deus. spiritus, Augustinus also schrieb: molesin parte minorest quamin totosuo, der PseudoAugustinus ubernahm das fast wortlich: moles est minor in parte quam
in toto (der Vergleich ergibt, daB Skutellasund O'Donnells Zeichensetzung innerhalb des Zusatzes:Komma nach est, falsch ist). Es liegt simple Ubertragungsinterpolationvor.5 Der Redaktor wollte einen Gedanken nachtragen, den er an anderer Stelle des Werks gelesen hatte, und schob daher zwischen die Rede der Wahrheit an den Autor (veritas... dicitmihi)und die Rede des Autors an die Seele (tibi dico, anima)eine Rede der Natur (hoc dicit... natura),war jedoch nur zu roher Formung des Gedankens fahig, weshalb auch die Frage, welche Form von videreer wahlte, nicht mit Sicherheit beantwortet werden kann. Jedenfalls muB der ganze Einschub ausgeschieden werden. Wie befreit laufen dann Satz und Gedanke fort. Omnecorpusist mit Bedacht gesagt. Denn daraus ergibt sich die Hinwendung an die angeredeteSeele: sie ist besser (alsjedwedes corpus), weil sie die Masse ihres corpusbelebt und damit etwas leistet, was kein corpuseinem anderen corpuszu leisten vermag. Corpusist das Leitwort, dessen Abfolge durch das Gehaspel des unechten Zusatzes unterbrochen wird. Und ebenso schlagt "Leben" die Bricke zum nachsten Satz: praebensei vitam... deus autem tuus etiam tibi vitae vita est. Ganz ahnlich in der dichten Abfolge von corpusund
vitaist eine friihere Stelle in demselben Werk (conf. 3,6,10: p. 44,16/20): - ideomeliorvita ... corpora, quaetamennones. sednecanimaes, quaevitaestcorporum tu sed vita es vita vivenste ipsaet animarum, vitarum, corporum certiorque quamcorpora nonmutaris,vitaanimaemeae.
4 Hat man sich von der zwangshaftenVorstellunggelost, die Emendation des Confessionentextsdiirfe nur auf dem Wege der Variantenwahl oder
5
Vgl. Prudentiana I 308. 394f. 486f. 565 und Reg. III s.v.
184
CHRISTIAN GNILKA
paliographisch plausiblerEingriffeerfolgen, so wird, wie bemerkt,der Blick frei fur Schaden anderer Art. Dem eingangs besprochenen Beispiel sei ein weiteres aus dem vierten Buch zur Seite gestellt (conf. 4,10,15: p. 65,6/13 Skutella): quae(sc. pulchraextrate, i.e. extradeum)tamennullaessent,nisi essentabs te. quaeoriet crescunt, etperfecta seneset oriendo utperficiantur, unturet occidunt quasiesseincipiunt et tendunt cuntet intereunt et omniaintereunt]. [et nonomniasenescunt ergocumoriuntur ut nonsint.sic estmoduseorum. ut sint,eomagisfestinant, crescunt, esse,quomagisceleriter ac tantumdedistieis, quiapartessunt rerum,quaenonsunt omnessimul,sed decedendo cuiuspartessunt. succedendo aguntomnesuniversum,
Der besserwisserischeZusatz hebt die Argumentation aus den Angeln. nicht mehr Denn wenn auch in dem folgerndenSatz (ergo)das Wort senescere und der von Wachsen so baut er doch auf Altern, vorkommt, Erfahrung Zunahme und Abnahme als dem Gesetz des Universums auf. Die Beobachtung, schnelles Wachsen zum Sein bedeute rasches Eilen zum Nichtsein, setzt den dem Wachsen korrespondierendenBegriff des Alterns oder Vergehens voraus. Nur wenn das Wachsen zur Vollendung fihrt und auf die Hohe der Vollendung das Altern folgt, kann man feststellen,rasche Zunahme ziehe raschen Untergang nach sich. Wo Willkur herrscht, nicht Gesetz oder MaB (modus),ist solcher Satz sinnlos. Sallust, den Augustinus hier im Kopf hat (Jug. 2,3), meint dasselbe:postremo etfortunaebonocorporis DaB es sich ortaocciduntet auctasenescunt. rumut initiumsicfinis est, omniaque auch fur Augustinusdabei um ein Weltgesetz handelt, macht die Parallele im 143. Brief (an Marcellinus)vollends klar: tuneitaquespiritalecorpusreget (sc. anima)omnimodopro arbitrio,nuncverononomnimodosedsicutlegesuniversitatis sinunt,per quas constitutum est, ut corporaorta decidantet auctasenescant. in diesem Zusammenhangebenfallsvon einem Naturgesetz Cyprian spricht bzw. von einem Gesetz Gottes, und es ist durchausmoglich, daB Augustinus sich dieser Formulierung(Cypr. Demetr. 4) erinnerte, also das Sallustische in der AusfiihrungCypriansibernahm6:haecsententia mundodataest,haecDei et magnaminuanet auctasenescant et infirmenturfortia lex est ut omniaortaoccidant tur et cum infirmataet deminutafuerintfiniantur.Wenn Augustinus diese Gesetzlichkeit in den Confessionen hatte korrigieren oder differenzieren wollen, so hatte das nicht durch eine bruchstiickartige Bemerkung geschehen durfen, deren Sinn nach verschiedener Richtung hin offen ist. Denn was bedeutet es, daB "nichtalles altert und doch alles zugrundegeht"? Gibt es in solchen Fallen weder Wachsen noch Altern? Oder gibt es ein Wachsen bis zum Hohepunkt und dann ein jahes Ende? Wie gesagt: die konnten nicht durch eine achtlos hingeworfeneBemerkung legesuniversitatis
BEMERKUNGEN ZUM TEXT DER CONFESSIONEN AUGUSTINS
185
des Autors relativiert werden. Nur eine fremde Hand war dazu fahig. Vermutlich dachte der Interpolatoran den friihen Tod desJugendfreundes, der den AnlaB dieser Gedankenreihebildet, und zog daher die Allgemeinder pulchrain Zweifel, hatte doch giiltigkeit der Aussage uiberdas senescere eben jener Freund die senectusbei weitem nicht erreicht. Aber solche Skrupelnsind fehl am Platze, da die Uberlegungen des Autors sich inzwischen auf einer anderen Ebene bewegen. Der Ausfall der Worte: et intereunt im Sessorianus und in zwei weiteren Handschriften et non omniasenescunt zu senescunt), (H und V) erklartsich durch Augensprung(von senescunt ergibt also keine Stiitze der Athetese. Wir mtissen auch hier mit einem InterpolamentantikerHerkunftrechnen. DaB man aber schon fruh an dem fraglichen Satzchen AnstoB nahm, wird durch den glattenden Ersatz des Anschlusses:et nonomnia... eqs. durch: etenimomnia... eqs. nahegelegt, den die AusgabeJ. Amerbachs (Basel 1506) und die der Theologi Lovanienses (Antwerpen 1576) bieten. Aber so wird aus dem Einschub ein iiberfliissiger Schnorkel,mit dem begreiflicherweiseweder Knoll (1896) noch Skutelladen Augustinustextverunzieren wollte und den andere (Labriolle, Verheijen, O'Donnell, Simonetti, auch Knoll 1898) nicht einmal im Apparat bzw. im Kommentar fuhren. 5 Augustinus pries den Rhetor Victorinus glucklich, weil er sich unter KaiserJulian vom Unterricht zuriickgezogenund so Gelegenheit gefunden habe, ganz Gott zu leben (conf. 8,5,10: p. 161,17/24 Skutella): vellemeumtenebat cui reiegosuspirabam ligatusnonferroalieno,sedmeaferreavoluntate. me. quippeex voluntate inimicuset indemihicatenam facta peruersa feceratet constrinxerat et dumconsuetudini nonresistitur, est libido,et dumserviturlibidini,facta est consuetudo, tenebat me facta estnecessitas. appellavi] quibusquasiansulissibimetinnexis[undecatenam obstrictum duraservitus.
Der Reiz des Stiicks liegt darin, daB der Autor das Bild der Kette iibergehen laBt in die Figur der Catene, also die Metapher durch die Wiederholungsfigurstutzt und entfaltet, diese dann wieder zuriickfiihrtin die Bildlichkeit,von der er ausging. Der Zusatz stort ungemein, er verdirbt die Wirkung. Die WahlderMetapher catena istja durchdie Wendungen ligatus DerEinschubsoll erkldrt. non ferro alieno, sed mea ferrea voluntate vollkommen weistaberauf die Metapherzuri'ck(unde... wohlcatena = Eltu)orO erkldren, nichtbraucht. Hervorgerufenwurde das Emblem appellavi),diesolcheErklirung durch den voraufgehenden Ausdruck quibusquasiansulissibimetinnexis.Er
186
CHRISTIAN GNILKA
wurde wohl als kuhn empfunden, obwohl er doch nur wiedergibt,was man in der Schule lemte, vgl. Rut.Lup. 1,13 (rhetor.lat. min. p. 8,21ff. Halm): catenam multiinterse circuliconiuncti sic huiusschematis vinciunt, quemadmodum (i.e. sententiae inter se continent. Die Ichconexae Tfj; 7tgr.i5cin;)utilitatem complures Form bezeugt die Absichtlichkeitder Texterweiterungund ermoglichtes, sie als das zu entlarven, was sie ist: Interpolation,nicht Glosse, roh ohne syntaktischeBindung in den Satz gestellt.Die Parenthesezeichender modernen Ausgabenbesser den Text hier ebensowenigwie etwa im Falle des glossenhaften Hexameters Prud. c. Symm. 2, [177]; vgl. PrudentianaI 68 f. sowie zur Parenthese iiberhauptebd. 3628.11641.643. Westf. Wilhelms-Universitat
Domplatz 20-22 D-48143 Munster
CHRISTIAN GNILKA
STRUCTURE ALL.GORIQUE DE ROMULEA 1: LA COMPARAISON ORPIHEE-FELICIANUS CHRF.7DRACONTIUS PAR
ANNICK STOEHR-MONJOU all his poems, the Carthaginian Dracontius presents Orpheus Felicianus(Romulea1) and alleonly once, in a preface dedicated to his magister animals charmed as constructed: (w. 1-11), FelicianusgathOrpheus gorically ers Vandals and Romans (w. 12-16). Each element of Orpheus's evocation prepares the allegorical- political, religious and cultural- reading of the second part: first, Orpheus charming wild and domestic beasts announces Felicianuswho civilized the barbarianVandals and brought a new Golden Age in Carthage. Secondly, Felicianus, as an Orpheus between Christ and David, brings evangelical Peace to heretical Arian Vandals and Catholic Romans. Finally, Felicianus taught Romanculture. Therefore, Dracontius, under Claudian's and Prudentius'sinfluences,presentsan original Orpheus, neither simply pagan, nor really christian.
ABSTRACT: In
Dans l'Antiquite latine, la fortune du mythe d'Orphee est considerable, tant dans la litterature que dans les arts figures. A la fin du 5eme siecle, le poete carthaginois Dracontius traite a son tour cette legende, une seule fois dans toute son ceuvre, dans un texte liminaire a valeur programmatique,1 la preface (Romul. 1)2 a Hylas composee de vingt et un tetrametres trochaiques catalectiques. Dediee a Felicianus, le magisterde Dracontius, elle comporte trois parties: l'action d'Orphee charmant les animaux (v. 1-11) est comparee a celle de Felicianus aupres des Vandales et des Romains (v. 12-16). Puis
1
Cf. G. Genette, Seuils,2002 (1987), p. 164 sq. et 413. Pour cette fonction program..., matique dans des prefaces po6tiques antiques, voir F. Felgentreu (Claudianspraefationes 1999) et deux articles de V. Zarini (
59, 187-203 VigiliaeChristianae
188
ANNICK STOEHR-MONJOU
Dracontius conclut en demandant a son maitre la reconnaissancelitteraire (v. 17-21): uatemrenarrant utpriorumlitterae Orpheum dulcecarmenuoce,neruo,pectine, cantitasse interomos,propteramnesadquemontesalgidos, grexsecutuscumcruentabestia (quembenignus audiensmelosstupebat concinente pollice: tuncferas reliquitira, tuncpauoriumenta,tunc lentatigris,ceruusaudax,mitisursusadfuit. Non lupumtimebatagna,nonleonemcaprea, nonlepusiampraedasaeuotuncmolossoiugiter. Artifexnaturarerumquisnegatconcordiam, hos chelysmuseatotosOrpheusque miscuit): sanctepater,o magister, talitercanendus es, reddisurbilitteras, quifugatasAfricanae barbaris quiRomulidas iungisauditorio, cuiusordines semperobstupescimus, profecto quoscapitdulcedouestri,doctor,orismaxima. ut secundes, Nostrauotateprecamur optime, antecunctanonrecusans illudipsependere nontuasquiritelaudes,mentesedquaconcinam: nos licetnihilualemus,mostamengerendus est. oro,cingelaurotempora. Ergodeprecantis,
5
10
15
20
Le mythe d'Orphee apparait donc a travers une structure allegorique3 essentielle, nettement soulignee par le balancement ut... taliterqui lie les deux parties:4de meme qu'Orphee (utv. 1) sut charmer animaux sauvages et domestiques (v. 1-11), de meme Felicianus (taliterv. 12) sait regrouper autour de lui Vandales et Romains (v. 12-16).5Que signifie cette comparaison fondamentale entre Orphee et Felicianus?6 3 On retrouvedans son autrepreface,Romul.3, ces trois caracteristiques (didicace a
Felicianus,compositiontripartiteet structureallegorique).Pourd'autresprefacesusantde cette pratiquesymboliquefriquentea l'epoquetardive,cf. J.-L. Charlet,Claudien, CUF II, 1, 2000, p. 29 et V. Zarini,, 2000, p. 38. 4 En outre le mot taliter est mis en valeurpar sa place apresla cisure. 5 Cf. Orpheum ut... v. 1; o magister, talitercanendus es v. 12. La traduction uatemrenarrant de la CUF (
LA COMPARAISON ORPHEE-FELICIANUS CHEZ DRACONTIUS
189
Nous verrons que toute l'evocation d'Orphee et des animaux par lui charmes (v. 1-11), construitepour preparera la lecture allegoriquedes vers 12 a 16 et annoncer Felicianus par Orphee, renferme une signification politico-religieuseaudacieuse: Felicianus, Orphee christianise,a ramene la paix entre Romains chretiens et Vandales ariens. 1. L'vocationd'Orphee aux animaux preparecellede Felicianus(v. 1-11) Art d'Orphie Dracontius presente brievement l'art d'Orphee (v. 2 et 5) et les lieux ouf il chante (v. 3) afin de concentrer son evocation sur les animaux charmes par le chantre (v. 4, 6-11). Il s'affirmed'emblee comme un heritier de la tradition litterairesur Orphee,7 Orpheumuatemrenarrantut priorumlitterae/cantitasse...
(v. 1-2),
et se place notamment dans la lignee d'un poeme de Claudien8a qui il emprunte l'utilisation du mythe d'Orphee comme pretexte plaisant a un eloge,9 qui plus est au sein d'une constructionallgorique'0 situee dans une >(p. 40). L'utilisation de la rh6torique n'empeche pas Dracontius de construire cet eloge afin de donner, par la lecture allegorique, une signification politico-religieuse originale. Cet article a pour objet non la realiti de ce que fit Felicianus mais comment Dracontius cherche a le presenter et ce que cela signifie. 7 Cf. Verg. georg.4, 450-527; Ov. met. 10, 155-739 et 11, 1-92; Sen. Herc.fur. 566-591; Herc. Oet. 1031-1130; Claud. praef. rapt.2. 8 II s'agit de la pr6face au livre 2 du Rapt de Proserpine, cf. J.-L. Charlet, Claudien,CUF 1, 1991, p. 28-32, p. 127-133; F. Felgentreu, 1999, p. 169-179, notamment pour la structure allegorique. Sidoine Apollinaire (carm. 13, 1-20) et, apres notre poete, Venance Fortunat (cam. 7, 1 1-12) l'imitent aussi comme le signaleJ.-L. Charlet (cf. Claudien,CUF 1, 1991, p. 29) qui omet Dracontius. On peut ajouter chez Sidoine le poeme 6, preface du pan6gyrique a Avitus, oi le poete se prisente aussi, quoiqu'avec modestie, en nouvel Orph6e. 9 Claudien commence par evoquer avec beaucoup d'originalite le deuil de la Nature face au silence du chantre (v. 1-8) a qui l'arriv6e d'Hercule, qui renverse les etables de Diomede, redonne le gofit de chanter (v. 9-16). Fleuves, vents, montagnes, arbres, animaux sont alors charm6s (v. 17-28) par le chant d'Orphee en l'honneur d'Hercule (v. 2949). Le quatrain final (v. 49-52) apporte la signification allegorique de l'evocation d'Orphee: un certain Florentinus est pour Claudien (Sed tu 7Trynthiusalter v. 49) ce qu'Hercule fut pour Orphee puiqu'il a reveille les Muses du poete... Ainsi la ou Dracontius respecte scrupuleusement la legende du chantre, Claudien, tout en conservant
190
ANNICK STOEHR-MONJOU
preface heterometrique."l Dracontius respecte de plus un des aspects fondamentaux de la legende, celui du poete par excellence (uatemv. 1) qui charme par son chant la nature entiere, depuis les vegetaux, les mineraux jusqu'aux animaux. Mais si le monde animal est explicitement decrit comme un auditoire, il se contente d'evoquer par allusion le reste de la nature (v. 3). I1 y a certes chez Dracontius une recherche poetique, la volonte de rivaliser avec les grands poetes qui ont traitei le mythe d'Orphee: son evocation des cinq premiers vers peut apparaitre comme l'enonc6 minimaliste, sans originalite, de l'action du poete, mais elle est en fait riche de toutes les imitations et allusions textuelles que le public lettre de l'epoque peut apprecier. En outre, ces subtils jeux litteraires d'imitatio-aemulatio, fondamentaux dans la poetique de Dracontius,'2 ne sont pas vains car chaque element est choisi afin de construire la comparaison entre Orphee et Felicianus. Ainsi, pour ne prendre qu'un exemple, Dracontius ne mentionne que les reactions du monde animal et semble omettre celles du reste de la nature. En realite, il fait habilement allusion au toposdes arbres et des fleuves qui suivent Orphee,13 mais le detourne en presentant ornes, fleuves et monts comme de simples elements du decor: les donnees traditionnelles qui lui sont utiles, invente un episode de la vie d'Orph6e. Toutefois, car des textes antiques attestent qu'Orphee chanta Hercule, cf. J.-L. Charlet, Claudien,CUF 1, 1991, p. 130 note 5. 10 Elle est annoncee d'emblee chez Dracontius par le ut au debut du poeme, repris par taliter,alors que chez Claudien, Sidoine ou Venance Fortunat, il n'y a que le deuxiime terme de la comparaison (cf. Claud. praef.rapt. 2, 49-50: Sed tu Tirynthiusalter,/Florentine, mihi:tu meaplectramoues;Sidon. carm.13, 15-16 at tu Tiynthiusalter/sedprinceps; canr. 6, 36 materiaest maior,si mihiMusa minor.Ven. Fort. carm.7, 1, 11 Sic ... Gogo).On voit par la l'importance que Dracontius accorde a cette structure allegorique. 1 Cette difference metrique entre une preface et le poeme ainsi introduit a pour fonction de signaler clairement a l'auditeur le passage de l'un A l'autre. Voir V. Zarini, >, 2000. Toutefois Dracontius se distingue par le choix du tetrametre trochaique catalectique au detriment du distique 6elgiaque devenu traditionnel dans une preface, pr6cisement depuis Claudien (cf. V. Zarini, ibid., p. 37-40). Or le choix de ce vers lyrique rare (cf. H. Mailfait, De Dracontiipoetaelingua, 1902, p. 142) est fondamental. I1 est unique dans une preface latine (cf. O. Schissel, 1929, col. 1075-1076). Voir p. 198-199, notes 69-72. 12 Cet article n'abordera pas les questions riches de sens de la r6criture du mythe chez notre poete, dans cette piece et les d'Orphee, en particulier de l'imitatio-aemulatio autres poemes profanes. Tous ces points seront developpes dans ma these qui porte sur la poetique de Dracontius. 13 Cf. Verg. ecl. 3, 46; Hor. carm. 1, 12, 7-12; Ov. met. 10, 143-144; 11, 1-2; Stat. silu. 5, 1, 24; Sil. 11, 464-468; Claud. praef.rapt.2, 21-24...
LA COMPARAISON ORPHEE-FELICIANUS CHEZ DRACONTIUS
191
inter omos, propteramnesadquemontesalgidos(v. 3).
Contrairementa la traditionpoetique, il choisit done un paysage statique et sans perspective, ce qui le rapproche de la representationd'Orphee aux animaux dans les mosaiques.'4En outre, en concentrantl'action d'Orphee sur les animaux, - et non sur la nature dans son ensemble - Dracontiusrenforce la notion de public (auditorio v. 14) et ainsi l'assimilationdu public, animal, d'Orphee avec celui, humain, de Felicianus (v. 14-16). Dans cette meme perspective,le bestiaireconstituel'element central (v. 411) du mythe d'Orphee chez Dracontius car il facilite le parallele entre animaux et humains:entierementcompose de quadrupedes,il se demarque de la convention picturale d'Orphee dans la mesure ofu les volatiles en sont entierement absents.'5 Bestiaire
A premiere vue, ce bestiairen'est guere original dans la mesure ou il est fortementinspire par la traditionlitteraire,'6Dracontiusempruntantnotamment a Claudien certains animaux.'7Mais dans sa composition il s'avere raffine. II repose sur un theme general'8et sa variation avec neuf animaux 14
On ne trouve a l'epoque imperiale selon Paul-Louis Rinuy (cf. ?L'imagerie d'Orphee.. ., 1986, p. 310) que des representations d'Orphiecharnantles animaux,peutetre pour satisfaire le gout du public pour les scenes de chasse. En Afrique du Nord neuf pavements de mosaiques sur les douze certains d'Orphee - le representent avec des animaux selon Ilona Julia Jesnick, The Imageof Orpheusin RomanMosaic..., 1997, p. 124 sqq. Pour les types de paysage, cf. H. Stem, >, 1983, p. 35. 15 Quadrupedes et volatiles, - qu'il s'agisse d'animaux exotiques ou fabuleux - dominent en effet dans les representations d'Orphee aux animaux. Cf. H. Stern, 1955,
192
ANNICKSTOEHR-MONJOU
et differents (v. 7-9): l'opposition entre des animaux domestiques (iumenta) des animaux sauvages(eras),'9qui annonce celle entre Romains autochtones et envahisseursvandales, se complete d'une opposition entre animaux doux et feroces, qui prefigure celle entre Africains et barbares vandales civilises par Rome. Ainsi agnaet capreaincarnentune certaine fragilitetandis que les seuls mots de bestia(v. 4), de tigresse,20d'ours (v. 7), de loup,2'de lion (v. 8) et de molosse (v. 9) contiennent a l'evidence une idee de ferocite. Toutefois certainesferae,loin d'etre feroces, sont presenteescomme des victimes (ceruus, caprea,lepus)et un animal domestique est cruel (saeuomolossov. 9),22ce qui nuance subtilement l'allegorie politique opposant Vandales et Romains. Dracontius evite ainsi de donner une vision trop manicheenne qui pourrait s'avererperilleuse dans une Carthage dominee par les Vandales. .23 Dans le detail des animaux cites, le bestiaire est construit sur l'antithese afin de soulignerencore l'oppositionentre les feroces et les doux mais aussi le renversementde l'ordre naturel induit par l'action d'Orphee-Felicianus. Ainsi les trois premiers animaux (v. 7) possedent une qualite strictement inverse a leur attribut traditionnel: sous 1'effet des chants d'Orphee, la tigresse,dont la rapidite est proverbiale,24est rendue lenta,le cerf, traditionnellement craintif et fuyard25devient audax et la ferocite de l'ours est Puis Dracontius evoque trois couples <ennemis>reunis apprivoisee(mitis).26 19 Cf. ThLL. 2, col. 1935, 1. 20-22, 53-62. Une remarque d'Isidore de Seville (diff 1, 248: omnis bestiafera, non omnisfera bestia)m'incite a traduire feras au v. 6 par plutot que par (betes feroces> pour mieux rendre l'opposition animal sauvage/domestique et la nuance entre animal sauvage et animal f6roce, ce qui inflechit legerement l'allegorie politique. 20 Le choix du genre f6minin tigresse <est regi par le niveau litt6raire du discours>> et >,cf.J. Dangel, , 1998, p. 381-383. 24 On la retrouve chez Dracontius en laud. 1, 311 sq. Cf. la note de Colette Camus, (Dracontius,CUF 1, 1985, p. 286). 25 Cf. ThLL3, col. 954 1. 40-47 pour les 6pithetes fr6quemment associ6es a cet animal. 26 Cf. ThLL8, col. 1154, 1. 82sq. La valeur resultative de mitisavec la perte de la f6rocite est ici essentielle. Je traduirais donc par l'ours >plut6t que <pacifique>> comme dans la CUF.
LA COMPARAISON ORPHEE-FELICIANUS CHEZ DRACONTIUS
193
le lion pacifiquementpar Orphee (v. 8-9): non seulement le lupuset l'agna,27 et la caprea,28le lievre et le molosse29 suggerent avec insistance que l'anta-
gonisme entre Vandales et Romains est naturel et irreductible mais ils annoncent les barbareset les Romulides reunis (v. 14) par un Felicianusbravant, pacifiquement,les lois naturelles (v. 10).30Dracontius choisit comme Claudien de centrer 1'evocationsur les effets de l'action d'Orphee, mais il les limite aux animaux vivant en paix afin de soulignerle theme de la concorde31avec le retour de l'age d'or apporte par Orphee-Felicianus. En outre si l'on compare strictement theme par theme, l'evocation des animaux charmes vivant un nouvel age d'or occupe quatre vers (v. 25-28) sur 52 chez Claudien, et huit sur 21 chez Dracontius, l'evocation du chant d'Orphee en occupant au contraire 24 vers chez Claudien pour deux chez Dracontius. Claudien, qui se pr6senteen nouvel Orphee, construitdonc une allegorie poetique32tandis que l'allegorie politiqueest essentielle chez Dracontius. Ainsi Dracontius a l'aube de sa carriere ne se presente pas comme un nouvel Orphee mais choisit de donner une significationpolitique a sa preface a traverscette comparaison,plus originale qu'on ne pourrait le croire de prime abord. Le mythe d'Orphee s'avere donc etre le pretexte plaisant a une allegorie politique, celle de la paix revenue a Carthage grace a Orphee-Felicianus.Mais ne s'agit-il que de cela? Car tout le bestiaire suggere que Felicianus,en reunissantdans son auditoire Vandales et Romains (v. 14), a renversepacifiquementl'ordre naturel,accomplissantainsi un veritable prodige, voire un miracle. 27 Cf. ThLL 1, col. 1365, 46-64 sur cette association frequente en po6sie, notamment dans une comparaison. 28 Ils apparaissent chez Homere qui est ensuite imit6, ainsi II. 3, 23 en Verg. Aen. 10, 723-725; II. 15, 271-276 repris par Silius (10, 20 sqq.). 29 Le lievre est la proie privilegi6e des chiens, cf. Verg. georg.3, 410; Ov. met. 1, 533534; Nemes. cyn. 51-53. Chez Dracontius, le lepusest toujours une victime: Romul. 1, 9; laud. 2, 283; sat. 270. 30 Ce theme des adynata,g6enralement effrayants, est frequent dans la po6sie classique jusqu'au Moyen Age. Cf. E. Dutoit, Le themede l'adynaton..., 1936 et E. R. Curtius, La litterature europeenne..., (1956) 1991, p. 170-176. 31 Cf. Claud. uarialuduntcumtigridedammaeet Drac. Romul. 1, praef:rapt. 2, 27 concordes 10 quis negatconcordiam. 32 I1 n'h6site ainsi pas a citer, certes au style indirect, le chant meme d'Orph6e, suggerant habilement qu'il le peut puisqu'il est un nouvel Orphee... Chez Claudien, la signification de la preface fait problme (cf.J.-L. Charlet, Claudien,CUF 1, 1991, p. XXIIXXVIII) dans la mesure oi l'on ignore qui est Florentinus.
194
ANNICK STOEHR-MONJOU
2. QuelOrphie? civilisateur magister Orphee Toute l'evocation des vers 2-11 prepare la comparaison avec le magister es.33Le rapprochementde Felicianusavec Orphee Felicianus:talitercanendus fait la est en facilite par polysemie de magister qui s'appliquedoublement a en tant que fondateur de l'orphisme34et dompteur d'aniOrphee, magister maux.35Dracontius suggere alors avec humour que Felicianusest un maitre a penser, mais aussi un dompteurde jeunes gens plus ou moins sauvages... v. 14), les Romains Les Vandales sont ensuite symbolisespar lesferae(barbaris lecture du mythe qui n'est pas neuve.36Mais Dracontius ne par les iumenta, le fait pas sans finesse. Tout d'abord il etablit des jeux d'echo precis rendant l'action des deux hommes similaire par leur douceur (dulcecarmenv. 2, dulcedouestri... oris v. 16)37et par la fascination exercee sur chaque public: totosmiscuit(v. 11) mis est repris par iungis(v. 14), stupebat (v. 5) s'elargiten semperobstupescimus anides la Afin de preparer comparaison en valeur apres la cesure (v. 15). maux avec Vandales et Romains, Dracontius choisit en outre des adjectifs (benignus,38cruentus,39mitis,40 audax41)qui, en humanisant ces betes car ils
1973, p. 145) pour qui la figure la de distance etablie cause a n'est par le v. 1, je considere qu'il pas allegoris6e d'Orphee y a bien signification allegorique a cause du balancement ut... taliteret parce que la description d'Orphee aux animaux ne prend son veritable sens qu'apres l'(vocation de Felicianus, des Vandales et des (descendants de Romulus>?. 34 Cf. R. Sorel, Orphieet l'orphisme, 1995. 35 Cf. Mart. epigr.10, 1; 17, 3; 18, 1; 1, 48, 1; 1, 104, 10; 2, 75, 1; 11, 69, 1; epigr.22, pour un piqueur. On trouve deja un jeu de mots sur magisterchez Sidoine Apollinaire a propos du questeur Victor (carm. 1, 28 aetemumnobis ille magistererit), cf. Andri Loyen, SidoineApollinaire,CUF 1, 1963, note 3 p. 171. 36 Cf. Fronto p. 58 Naber, cite par Fr. Vollmer, MGH, 1905, p. 132 etJ. Bouquet, CUF 3, 1995, note 1 p. 243. 37 La traduction du v. 2, , (cf. J. Bouquet, CUF 3, 1995, p. 134) par rapport au v. 16 (<exquise suavite de ta parole?) presente l'inconvenient de ne pas rendre la repetition de dulce.Je propose donc <exquise douceur.. .>. 38 Cf. ThLL 2, col. 1901-1904. Cet adjectif ne s'emploie pas pour des animaux. 39 Si cette epithete est frequente au sens propre de <macule de sang, sanglant>, le sens figure de est moins courant (cf. ThLL4, col. 1240, 1. 52-53 et 1. 67). C'est l'opposition a benignusainsi que l'usus auctorisqui justifient ce choix: Dracontius emploie tres souvent cruentus,selon l'usage poetique tardif, mais seules quatre occurrences sur trente-trois concernent des animaux, dont deux fois pour le lion avec la meme cons33 Contrairement a E. Clerici (,
LA COMPARAISON ORPHEE-FELICIANUS CHEZ DRACONTIUS
195
43 de qualifientle plus souvent des etres humains,42suggerentles effets moraux I'action d'Orphe'. L'emploi de mots a double-sens caract&rised'ailleurs Romul.1 et permet une autre lecture allegoriquequi compl'te la premiere.
Orphie-Christ L'accumulation de differents edements pourrait en effet sugge'rerune christianisationdu motif d'Orph~e aux animaux avec un chantre qui oscille Tout d'abord, la presentation d'Orphee quem entre le Christ et DavidA14 benignus grexsecutus(v. 4) 6voque l'image tres connue du Christ bon pasteur45 (v. 12) est souvent applique quand ii parle a ses disauquel le terme magister Le bestiaire agna48), qui symciples.46 oppose le troupeaudu Christ (iumenta,47 bolise les Africains romains, aux here'tiqueset perse&uteursde l'Eglise (bestia,49 lupUs5O) que sont les Vandales ariens. Cependant la Bonne Parole truction ore cuento (Romul.5, 309, sat. 137) et une pour le bec d'un oiseau, laud. 1, 456. Romul. 1, 4 apparait donc nettement A part. 'I Cf. ThLL 8, col. 1151-1159. L'adjectif s'applique surtout aux hommes, usage que Dracontius suit puisque RomuL1, 7 est la seule occurrence de mitis appliqu6e A un animal. 41 Cf. ThLL 2 col. 1245, 1. 18-1246, 1. 65. L'emploi pour des hommes est nettement plus fr6quent. Dracontius est plut6t dans la lign6e de poktes qui l'emploient pour des bkes: Hor. carm.3, 18, 13; Tib. 1, 10, 35; Prop. 2, 19, 29; Sen. Phaedr.35; Sil. 4, 123; Claud. 4 cons. 384. 42 Je propose donc de traduire le vers 4 en respectant le singulier collectif et cette valeur des i6pithikespar osuivi du troupeau bienveillant et du fauve cruel?, au lieu de otroupeaux pacifiqueso et ofauves cruels?. 41 Claudien au contraire montre les animaux en action, jouant ou se caressant (praef. rapt.2, 25-28). 44 Cette h6sitation reflte la r6alit6 de 1'6poque, cf. H. Stern,
196
ANNICK STOEHR-MONJOU
peut transformer ces etres sauvages, pecheurs (ira v. 651), en disciples mitis v. 755). (cermus,52 caprea53) possedant des vertus evangeliques (benignus,54
Enfin le theme de la concorde, present chez Claudien, s'enrichit de la prophetie messianique d'Isaie, lupuset agnuspascentursimul et leo et bos comedent paleas56qui inspira la poesie et l'iconographie chretiennes, et l'Orphee de
Dracontius reflete remarquablement ces deux tendances. Tout d'abord Dracontius se rappelle probablementPrudence qui evoque a deux reprises l'avenement du Christ en fondant dans le creuset biblique, tel ce verset cette technique d'Isaie, les souvenirsclassiquesde l'age d'or.57Mais il inverse
(cf. ThLL 7, 2, col. 1852-1856, 71). On peut songer a la parole de Jesus, ite ecceegomitto uos sicutagnosinterlupos(Vulg. Luc 7, 46). 51 La colere de l'homme est condamnee, cf. Vulg. Eph. 4, 31-32; Col. 3, 8. Elle est un des peches capitaux (cf. P. F. Beatrice, <>; B. Domagalski, <>, 1990. 53 Apparemment anodin, ce terme ne designe pas la chevre domestiquie (capra,cf. ThLL3, col. 306-308) comme le suggere la traduction de la CUF mais la chevre sauvage, le chevreuil ou sa femelle la chevrette (cf. ThLL 3, col. 355-356), avec les difficultes habituelles que l'on rencontre avec les termes zoologiques pour savoir a quel animal pensent exactement les Anciens. II peut se traduire par , dans une perspective epique, ou par pour souligner un souvenir du Cantiquedes Cantiques.Chez Jerome, 1'alliance de ceruuset caprearepond en effet a la volonte claire de distinguer deux animaux, biche et gazelle. Cf. Vulg. Cant. 2, 7 et 3, 5 per capreasceruosque 2, 9 camporum; similisest dilectusmeuscapreaehinuloqueceruorum; 17; 8, 14. 54 II designe une vertu divine (cf. Vulg. Psalm. 68, 17; Sap. 1, 6; 7, 23; Drac. laud. 1, 564; 2, 783; sat. 101) a laquelle le chretien doit aspirer (cf. Vulg. 2 Mac. 12-31; 1 Cor. 13, 4 charitaspatiensest, benignaest). 55 Cf. ThLL8, col. 1153, 73-1154, 20 dans l'Ecriture et chez les auteurs chretiens. En particulier, la douceur est louee dans le Sermon sur la Montagne, cf. Vulg. Math. 5, 4: beatimites... De meme Dracontius pour quinze occurrences l'emploie cinq fois pour des divinites paiennes (Romul.5, 139; Orest.81, 89; Romul.10, 53-, Orest.965), a cinq reprises pour un maitre ou un ennemi clement (Romul.5, 8, 19; 9, 192; Orest.376; 417), a quatre reprises pour Dieu ou un ange (laud. 2, 704; 3, 179; 608; 727) et une seule fois pour un animal, ce qui correspond bien a l'humanisation de l'ursus(Romul.1, 7). 56 Cf. Vulg. Is. 65, 25. Les Peres de L'Eglise commentent abondamment ce passage. Cf. V. Buchheit, <Tierfriede bei Hieronymus...>>, 1990, p. 21-35. Cet article m'a eti indiqui par M. Pascal Boulhol que je remercie pour ses inestimables remarques bibliographiques. 57 Cf. Prud. cath. 3, 156-165, commentaire de J.-L. Charlet, La creationpoetiquedans le Cathemerinon ..., 1982, p. 166-167 et pour cath. 11, p. 104-110.
LA COMPARAISON ORPHEE-FELICIANUS CHEZ DRACONTIUS
197
l'element profane explicite.58De puisqu'ildissimulel'allusionbiblique derriere de plus l'art chretien, contraint reprendre le vocabulaire pictural paien, certes purifie, choisitjustement Orphee pour representerle Christ.59Or ces vers de Dracontiusse situentd'autantmieux dans cette lignee que l'OrpheeChrist orne des peintures de catacombes ou des reliefs de sarcophagespour rappeler aux fideles soit le Salut - il n'est alors accompagne que de moutons -, soit la Paix dont il est porteur: des animaux f6roces figurent alors precisement a c6te des brebis, comme en Romul. 1.60
Orphie-David Toutefois certains details - le statut de berger porteur d'une alliance de paix (v. 4),61l'instrumentde musique (v. 11), l'ours (v. 7) et le lion (v. 8)62 font songer a David, qui justement a aussi souvent ete rapproche d'Orphee,63tant dans la poesie64que dans l'iconographie chretiennes.65 58
Dracontius ne met pas en ceuvre une typologie chretienne: il ne reconnait pas ut priorumlitteraev. 1) et n'en fait pas Orph6e comme un personnage historique (renarrant la pr6figuration du Christ mais un modele pour Felicianus (sur la lecture allgorique de la Bible, cf. H. de Lubac, Exegesemedievale..., 1959-1964; G. Dorival et M. Dulaey, <<Sens de l'Ecriture?, 1992). De ce point de vue, il est moins proche des prefaces de Prudence que de celles de Claudien empreintes d'un allegorisme traditionnel. Toutefois, il devoie ce dernier par des 61ements bibliques. 59 D'abord combattu par les Peres de l'Eglise, Orph6e est ensuite rapproch6 du Christ a la suite d'une interpretation juive qui en fit l'6leve de Moise et le pourfendeur du polyth6isme, (cf. J. B. Friedman, Orpheeau MoyenAge, 1999 (1970), p. 15-44 etJ.-M. Roessli in J. B. Friedman, p. 290 sq), rapprochement favoris6 en outre par les traits principaux de sa legende (pacifique, psychopompe et victime d'une mort tragique), ibid., notamment p. 45-50. 60 Cf. H. Stem, , 1974, not. p. 399), Dracontius decrit au contraire Orphee avec des allusions au psalmiste. 65 Pour le rapprochement d'Orph6e-David par un melange entre leurs attributs, cf. 1966 (1925), p. 11-20; A. Dupont-Sommer, R. Eisler, Orphisch-dionysische Mysterengedanken
198
ANNICK STOEHR-MONJOU
C'est notamment le cas dans une hymne de Prudence66 qui presente de troublantes similitudes avec Romul. 1: d'une part, Dracontius procede a des (concinente pollicev. 5),67l'exemprunts precis: ainsi le verbe recherche concinere aussi dulce carmen D'autre cath. 9 est pression (v. 2).68 composee en part tetrametres trochaiques catalectiques: le choix de ce metre rare,69 sur lequel l'influence des poetes chretiens s'est particulierement exercee,70 confere une tonalite solennelle et sacree7' a ces vers ou le poete compare Felicianus a un Orphee .Dracontius n'aurait-il d'ailleurs pas ete tente d'ecrire cette preface comme un hymne en l'honneur de son maitre, ce que la
<, 1974, p. 5-12. Pour l'Orphee-David de la mosaique de la synagogue de Doura-Europos, cf. H. Ster, <(Orphee dans 1'artpaleochretien>, 1974, p. 15 etJ.-M. Roessli inJ. B. Friedman, Orpheeau MoyenAge, 1999 (1970), p. 297-305. Pour les psautiers medievaux, cf. J. B. Friedman, 1999 (1970), p. 182-188 et figures 19, 21, 22) et P. Prigent, , 1984, p. 212-213. 66 Cf. Prud. cath. 9, 5a propos de David: infulatusconcinebat uoce,cordaet _ympano. 67 On le lit deux fois en cath. 9, pour David (v. 5 a propos de David: infulatusconcinebat saeculisv. 25) et deux uoce,corda et tympano.) et pour le Christ quemuatesuetustisconcinebant fois en Romul.1 pour les chants d'Orphee (v. 5) et ceux de Dracontius lui-meme (v. 19). On peut remarquer que concinebat au v. 5 est suivi par trois ablatifs de moyen precisant la maniere de chanter, le premier etant uoce.Or en Romul.1, 2, on lit aussi dans un mouvement debutant par uoceapres la dierese comment Orphee chante dulcecarmenuoce,neruo, pectine. 68 Cf. Prud. cath. 9, 2: le poete demande sa lyre afin de chanter (ut canamv. 1) sur le a canamet melodumfont echo, de maniire recherchee, cantiChrist dulcecarmenet melodum; tasse(Romul.1, 2) et melos(v. 5). 69 On retrouve le tetrametre trochaique catalectique chez Sienque (Med. 740-751, Phaedr.1201-1212, Oed. 223-232), dans le Perigilium Veneris(cf.Jean Soubiran, Essai sur la des Romains... 1988, p. 4-5), chez d'autres poetes mineurs des 2me, versification dramatique 3emeet 4emesiecles, (cf. L. Havet, Coursilbnentairede mitrique..., 1894, p. 159 ?309) puis dans deux hymnes de Prudence qui est lui-meme inspire parl'hymne trois d'Hilaire de Poitiers (cf. J.-L. Charlet, L'influenced'Ausone..., 1980, p. 98-99), chez Dracontius en Romul. 1 puis chez Venance Fortunat (camn.2, 2). Voir notes 70-71. 70 Cf. d'Ausone..., 1980, p. 98-99. Prudence a rendu une cerJ.-L. Charlet, L'influence taine popularitea ce metre, ce dont Romul.1 peutetre unecho, avantl'hymne a la Sainte Croix de Venance Fortunat (carm.2, 2). 71 Hilaire de Poitiers chante <, (cf.J.-L. Charlet, L'influence d'Ausone,1980, p. 99), avant Prudence (en cath. 9 - imitee par Dracontius a propos de David, voir infra)quievoque la victoire du Christ sur la mort, cf. J.-L. Charlet, La creationpoitiquedansle Cathemerinon...,1982, p. 124. L'hymne 1 du Peristephanon celebre deux saints martyrs. Venance Fortunat imite cath. 9 avec des strophes de trois tetrametres trochaiques catalectiques (cf. L. Havet, ibid., ?309) dans son hymne enl'honneur de la Sainte Croix (carm.2, 2), <, ?sans doute [son] oeuvre la plus populaire>>,cf. M. Reydellet, VenanceFortunat,CUF 1, 1994, note 7 p. 50.
LA COMPARAISON ORPHIE-FELICIANUS CHEZ DRACONTIUS
199
presence de vingt et untetrametrestrochaiquescatalectiquessuggererait?72 Dracontiusjoue ainsi avec cette double traditiond'Orphee pour inflechir le mythe dans un sens original:la dedicace a Felicianuscompare a Orphee rappelle que l'essentiel demeure la lecture politico-religieusede l'allegorie: les barbares Vandales sont des heretiques ennemis de la foi defendue par Felicianus porteur d'une paix divine. Chez Dracontius, cette foi, representee par la Rome chretienne, inclut aussila culture profane: Romulidas,un mot poetique rarissime,73 resonne dans ce
72
En effet trois (ou quatre si l'on compte l'hymne trois de Hilaire de Poitiers, cf. d'Ausone,1980, p. 99) hymnes sont composees en strophes de trois J.-L. Charlet, L'influence et vers, precisement des tetrametres trochaiques catalectiques: 1'hymne 9 du Cathemerinon de Prudence, et apres Dracontius la celebre hymne pour la l'hymne 1 du Peristephanon Sainte Croix de Venance Fortunat. C'est M. Jean-Louis Charlet, que je remercie pour toutes ses precieuses remarques, - notamment sur Prudence - qui m'a suggere cette composition en strophes de trois tetrametres trochaiques catalectiques comme cath. 9. Elle offre un decoupage bien different de celui, tripartite, propose en introduction p. 187-188. Presentation du cadre (v. 1-3); bestiaire d'ordre general (v. 4-6); bestiaire avec les couples d'animaux (v. 7-9); la concorde apportee par Orphee justifie que le maitre soit chante (v. 10-12); effets de la parole pacificatrice de Felicianus (v. 13-15); v. 16-18: suppliques au maitre (v. 16-18); veeux du poete (v. 19-21). Cette lecture, totalement nouvelle, n'est pas denuee d'interet: tout d'abord l'existence du seul ms JVpourrait l'expliquer. De plus la strophe 4 (v. 10-12), qui s'acheve par talitercanenduses ainsi mis en valeur, est la strophe centrale du point de vue de la structure en 7 strophes (3 + 1 + 3) et de la signification puisqu'elle insiste sur le parallele entre Orphee-Felicianus comme porteurs de concorde. Mais cette composition strophique, qui est seduisante et fonctionne assez bien pour les vers 1-12, contraint a des acrobaties pour le v. 6 - que le probleme du ms N (cf. apparat critique) peut expliquer sans que le probleme soit resolu -, le v. 16 et surtout les v. 18-19. I1 faudrait envisager une construction assez lache ou le dernier vers des strophes 5 et 6 (v. 15, 18) annoncerait le suivant par un jeu d'enjambement. L'unite de sens de chaque strophe n'est enfin pas toujours aussi nette en Romul. 1 que chez Prudence. Cependant la tonalite hymnique de Romul.1 n'est pas a negliger: Dracontius, par le choix du tetrametre, employe selon un multiple de trois qui fait allusion aux strophes de trois tetrametres des deux hymnes de Prudence deja cit6es, etablirait un lien complice avec son auditoire lettre et chretien. Par ailleurs la preface de Claudien que Dracontius imite aussi est compos6e de strophes, des quatrains, cf. J.-L. Charlet, Claudien,CUF 1, 1991, p. 28-29. Dracontius, plus que jamais, se situe bien entre deux influences, celles de Claudien et de Prudence. 73 Cf. Romul. 1, 24. Pour vingt-cinq occurrences, quinze sont poetiques, cinq sont de grammairiens (Serv. Aen. 8, 638; Prisc. gramm.2, 64, 11 = ed. Keil vol. 2, p. 64, 1.11 pour Verg. Aen. 8. 638; Gramm. suppl. ed. Keil-Hagen 8, p. 99, 1. 13; 132, 13 - ou il cite Priscien gramm.2, 64, 11- et 132, 16), quatre figurent sur des inscriptions ou textes officiels (Act. lud. saec. Sept.Sev. 61 - RhM 81, 1932, p. 388 sq -; Arch. epigr. Mitt. Ost. 8, 221, 51; Inscr. graec.Rom. Cagnat 1, 809 relevee dans l'ile de Philis en Egypte et 1, 1299 a
200
ANNICK STOEHR-MONJOU
et le projet litde romanite.74N'annoncerait-ilpas aussi le titre75de Romulea teraire d'un poete a l'aube de sa carriere? Conclusion Ainsi Dracontius construit Romul. 1 sur la comparaison fondamentale entre deux magistri, Orphee et Felicianus,qui charmentchacun un auditoire des animaux ennemis pour l'un, des Vandales et des Romains inattendu, de l'evocation d'Orphee aux animaux, depuis l'autre. element Chaque pour les simples allusionsa l'art du chanteurjusqu'au bestiairetres travaille,prepare a la lecture allegorique de la deuxieme partie, ce qui revele une certaine virtuosite poetique et un gouft du raffinement. Dracontius porte l'accent sur l'Orphee civilisateurplutot que sur le chantre exceptionnel, se distinguantdes prefaces allegoriquesde Claudien ou de Sidoine Apollinaire dans lesquelles ils se presentent comme de nouveaux Orphees. II offre une preface qui ne se limite pas a la simple oppositionpolitique entre Vandales Heraclea en Thrace - ces deux dernieres etant en lettres grecques - ); je tiens a remercier M. Johann Ramminger du ThLLa Munich d'avoir bien voulu me transmettre toutes ces informations sur Romulid-. 74 Or, sans prendre tous les exemples, retenons qu'il a une coloration archaique dont les poetes jouent et qu'il connote le plus souvent le desir de se rattacher au glorieux passe de Rome: cf. Lucr. 4, 683; Verg. Aen 8, 638; Rut. Nam. 1, 67-68; Opt. Porf. 15, 9-10; Proba praef. 1 = Anth. 719 d, olim 735. Prudence, qui l'emploie deux fois, est plus ambigu: il denonce les paiens qui mettent en peril le salut de l'ame des descendants de Romulus (c. Symm. 1, 5-6), mais evoque par ailleurs la naissance du Christ engendre par Dieu comme roi du ciel, de la terre et des enfers, non regempopuli Parthorumaut Romulidarum (apoth.225). I1 n'est enfin probablement pas fortuit de rencontrer aussi ce mot rare chez les Africains Dracontius (Romul.1, 14), Fulgence (aet. mund.p. 132, 13) et Luxorius (Anth. 289, 8). 75 Ce titre, traditionnel depuis Fr. Vollmer (cf. J. Bouquet et E. Wolff, CUF 3, 1995, p. 16-24) est cependant controverse. Ainsi E. Wolff, apres l'avoir totalement refuse (cf. sur les epylliade Dracontius,1987, p. XVI), reconnait plus recemment a Dracontius Recherches le desir d'affirmer sa romanit6 et considere a juste titre comme complementaires les interpretations designant la poesie profane et/ou romaine de Dracontius a travers ce mot. II a ainsi accepte le titre pour ,(cf. <, 1998, p. 383-384). On pourrait peut-etre aller plus loin compte tenu de l'appellation du florilge mais aussi parce que Dracontius parseme d'allusions romaines ses poemes. Ainsi dans son autre preface, il presente Felicianus comme celui en lequel il puise Romuleam... linguam(Romul.3,17), ce qui n'est pas anodin. En Romul. 7, 21-23 le toposde la descendance est traitie travers un seul exemplum, precisement celui de Mars et Vesta et Romul. 6, 71 evoque les vers fescennins.
LA COMPARAISON ORPHEE-FELICIANUS CHEZ DRACONTIUS
201
et Romains domptes par Felicianus car la figure d'Orphee est plus complexe qu'il n'y parait. Dracontius renouvelle donc le mythe en realisant, sous le double patronage de Claudien et de Prudence, une synthese originale entre les traditions profane et sacree. La lecture allegorique de la deuxieme partie peut ainsi s'operer a trois niveaux etroitement imbriques: politique, religieux et culturel. D'une part l'enseignement de Felicianus, magister civilisateur des Vandales, instaure un nouvel age d'or a Carthage. D'autre part la presence d'elements evoquant l'Orphee chretien, Orphee-Christ ou Orphee-David, suggere une interpretation nettement plus incisive qui presente les Vandales comme de cruels heretiques domptes par un Felicianus evangelique apportant la Paix. Enfin son maitre dispense un enseignement tout romain.Dracontius annonce ainsi a l'oree de sa carriere sa foi chretienne et son attachement a la culture romaine. Il reflete aussi son epoque et le syncretisme qui la caracterise en nous offrant un Orphee qui n'est plus simplement paien sans etre pour autant chretien. Universite de Provence, Centre Paul-Albert Fevrier (UMR 6125) BIBLIOGRAPHIE SELECTIVE Mosaique, Balty Jeannine, >, MelangesStern,Paris, Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, A.D.P.F., 1983, p. 33-37, pl. 21-24. Beatrice P. F., ?Pech>>, DECA2, ss. dir. de A. di Berardino, Paris, Cerf, 1990 (Genova 1983), p. 1963-1964. Poemesprofanes Bouquet Jean, Wolff Etienne, Dracontius,(Euvres3, Tragidied'Oreste; 1-5, introduction de Jean Bouquet et Etienne Wolff, texte de Romulea1 etabli, traduitet comment6 parJean Bouquet, CUF, Paris, Les Belles-Lettres,1995, 278 p. en partie doubles. bei Hieronymus und seinen Vorgangernm,JbAC 33, Buchheit Vinzenz, <<Tierfriede 1990, p. 21-35. de Dieu, texte etabli, (Euvres1, Louanges Camus Colette, Moussy Claude, Dracontius, traduit et comment6 par C. Camus pour le livre 1, par C. Moussy pour le livre 2, CUF, Paris, Les Belles-Lettres,1985, 358 p. en partie doubles. d'Ausonesur la poisie de Prudence,Publications de Charlet Jean-Louis, L'influence l'Universit6de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, 1980, 291 p. dePrudence, dansle Cathemerinon Paris,Les Belles Lettres, 1982, , La criation poetique 232 p. texte 6tabli, traduit et commente par , Claudien,(Euvres1: Le raptde Proserpine, J.-L. Charlet, CUF, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1991, 195 p. en partie doubles. , Claudien,(EuvresII, 1, Poemespolitiques,texte 6tabli, traduit et commente par J.-L. Charlet, CUF, Paris, Les Belles-Lettres,2000, 222 p. en partie doubles.
202
ANNICK STOEHR-MONJOU
Clerici E., ,RIL 107, 1973, p. 108-150. et le MoyenAge latin,trad. de l'all., par Curtius Ernst Robert, La littirature europeenne Jean Brejoux, preface de Alain Michel, collection Agora n? 14, Presses Pocket, (PUF 1956), 1991, 960 p. DangelJacqueline, <>, Dorival Gilles, Dulaey Martine, <<Sensde l'Ecriture>>,Dictionnairede la Bible. Paris, Letouzey et Ane, 1992, p. 424-453. Supplement, Dupont-Sommer Andre, >, deiLincei,1975, n. 214, Roma, Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Accademia nazionale p. 3-14 et 3 planches. dansla poesieantique,Coll. et. anciennes, Paris, Les Dutoit Ernest,Le themede l'adynaton Belles Lettres, 1936, 177 p. der in derchristlichen Eisler Robert, Orphisch-dionysische Antike,Vortrdge Mysteriengedanken BibliothekWarburg2, Hildesheim, Olms, 1966 (Leipzig-Berlin,Teubner, 1925), 424 p. und Wirkungen einer Beschreibungen Bedingungen, praefationes, Felgentreu Fritz, Claudians Kleinform, Stuttgart-Leipzig,Teubner, 1999, 263 p. poetischen FontaineJacques, <>,ibid., [MelangesJ.Waszink,Leiden, 1974], p. 393-413. au MoyenAge,trad. et postface de Jean-Michel Roessli, FriedmanJohn Block, Orphee coll. Vestigia 25, Fribourg-Paris,td. univ. FribourgSuisse-Editionsdu Cerf, 1999 [1970 id. angl.], 366 p. Genette Gerard, Seuils,points Seuil, Paris, 2002 (1987). dergriechischen undromischen Lexikon 3.1, Ausiihrliches Mythologie, Gruppe O., <,DACL2, 2, p. 3301-3307. Poimes,tomel, texte etabli et traduit par A. Loyen, Loyen Andre, SidoineApollinaire, CUF, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2003 (1961), 200 pages en partie doubles. Lesquatresensde l'tcriture,4 volumes, Paris, 1959-1964. Lubac H. de, Exegesemedievale: Mailfait Hubert, De Dracontii poetaelingua,Paris, 1902. deDieu,introductionau volume, (Euvres tome1, Louanges Moussy Claude, Dracontius, texte du livre 2 etabli, traduit et commente par C. Moussy, CUF, Paris, Les Belles-Lettres,1985, 358 p. en partie doubles.
LA COMPARAISON ORPHEE-FELICIANUS CHEZ DRACONTIUS
203
Monceaux Paul, ?, Dictionnaire desAntiquitis et romaines 4, 1, ed. par grecques Ch. Daremberg et Edm. Saglio, Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, Graz/Austria, 1963 (1907), p. 241-256. Munzer F., ?Orpheus>,Pauly-Wissowa, 18 (1), Stuttgart,A. DruckenmullerVerlag, 1959 (1939), 1200-1318. Schissel Otmar, <,RHPhR, 1984 (3), p. 205219 et 1 planche. Poemeslivres1-4, CUF 1, texte etabli et traduit par Fortunat, Reydellet Marc, Venance Marc Reydellet, Paris, les Belles Lettres, 1994, 207 p. en partie doubles. d'Orphee dans l'Antiquit>>,RA.MA.G.E. 4, 1986, Rinuy Paul-Louis, <,Gallia13, 1955, p. 39-77. - , , CArch.,t. 23, 1974, Paris, Klincksieck, p. 1-16. de laudibus Vollmer Friedrich,Dracontius, Dei, M.G.H., A.A., 14, Berlin, 1905. these ANRT, Lille 3, 1987. sur les epylliade Dracontius, Wolff Etienne, Recherches , <, Le texteprefaciel,Actesdu colloquede Nancy,septembre 1999, Nancy, Pr. Univ. de Nancy, 2000, p. 35-47. Vient de paraitre l'ouvrage suivant que je n'ai pu malheureusement consulter: dans I'Antiquite Vieillefon Laurence, La figured'Orphee tardive,Paris, De Boccard, 2004, x-269 p., 18 fig., xvi pl. photo.
REVIEWS
Reinhard Nordsieck,Das Thomas-Evangelium. Einleitung. ZurFragedeshistorischen aller114 Logien.Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Jesus.Kommentierung Verlag 2004, 402 pages, ISBN 3-7887-18676, e 19.90. According to the author of this book, the 114 logia of the Gospel of Thomas are not gnostic and do not depend upon the synoptic gospels or the Gospel of John. An analysis of the history of the redaction, tradition and form of these Sayings shows that 'Thomas' originates from an independent tradition which must be located in the region of early Judaic Christianity.It contains in a number of cases traditionswhich most probably go back to the historicalJesus or are in his spirit. In order to demonstrate this, Nordsieck argues again and again that although a logion might indeed be interpretedas gnostic, it becomes more understandablewhen it is seen in the perspective of primitive Christianity. Nordsieck offers a fair and very complete survey of the secondary literature, but his knowledge of the primary sources is less obvious. He holds that Encratismis very close to Gnosticism, but he seems not to have read the third book of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandriaon the Encratites of Alexandria.Nor is he familiarwith the work of Erik Petersonand Franco Bolgiani, who proved definitively that Encratism is very different from Gnosticism.In fact, the only differencebetween Encratismand Catholicism is that the first rejectedmarriagewhereasthe second condoned it. Moreover, Nordsieck did not see that the expression: 'to make the two one' (logion and is 22) goes back to the speech of Aristophanes in Plato's Symposion, basic for the theology and anthropologyof the Gospel of Thomas. So there is much to appreciate and still something to desire in this book. One might ask whether it is necessary to quote all scholars who were wrong, now that a majority of critics, including Nordsieck, has come to the conclusion that the Gospel of Thomas transmits an independent tradition of the Words which Jesus once spoke. It is an establishedfact that 'Thomas' sometimes omits the word 'hypokrites'where the synoptics have it. In logion 39 Jesus is quoted as having said that the Pharisees and the Scribes have received the keys of knowledge. Matthew, however, passes ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 204-205
REVIEWS
205
down: 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites!'(23:13). Did Jesus call his opponents 'hypocrites' or not? Christopher Tuckett has made a casual remark regarding this question which is relevant to our problem. He wrote: 'The use of the noun hypokrites in the gospel tradition has always been regarded as unlikely to go back to Jesus because there is no obvious Aramaic equivalent to the word with the meaning required' ('Q, Jesus and Aramaic: Some methodological reflections',Proceedings of theIrish BiblicalAssociation 26 (2003) 29). From this it follows that 'Thomas', at least in logion 39, is not dependent on the ecclesiasticalGospels. It is not necessary to quote all scholars who did not know what Tuckett knows and therefore discovered most profound Gnostic mysteriesin logion 39 or elsewhere in the Gospel of Thomas. Noordhoudringelaan32 NL-3722 BR Bilthoven
GILLESQUISPEL
The Rise of EarlyAnti-Christian J.W. Hargis, Againstthe Christians: Polemic, New York etc.: Peter Lang 2001, 172 pp., ISBN 0-8204-5741-8,e 29.60 (pb). This is an unaltered reprint of a book that first appeared in 1999. It offers a lucid survey of the anti-Christianarguments and rhetoric of the three greatest ancient polemicists against Christianity, Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian. As the author himself says, "[t]his book examines the extant pagan anti-Christianpolemic literaturewith a view toward discoveringthe strategies by which the polemicists attempted to marginalize a religious opponent steadily increasing in numbers, sophisticationand power" (3-4). The introductorychapter 1 sketcheselementsof anti-Christianpolemicbefore Celsus, esp. the accusations of incest, cannibalism etc. Chs. 2 and 3 deal with Celsus and demonstratethat his work marks a transitionin substance of the accusations. "Whereas earlier attacks had focused upon the crimes of immoralitythat Christianswere alleged to have committed, Celsus' work marked the beginning of an era of philosophical attacks combined with reasoned refutation of the Christian scriptures"(19). At pp. 21-24 Hargis adduces several reasons for dating Celsus' TrueDoctrinenot to the years about 178 but about 200 CE, a suggestion which certainly has its merits, even though he himself slightly undermines it by saying some pages later that Celsus' characterizationof Christians as radically isolated and antisocial "is mildly anachronistic,perhaps several decades too late to be fully ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 205-207
206
REVIEWS
accurate" (24). Hargis shows how Celsus used comparisons or parallels between Christianteaching and Greek mythologicaland philosophicalideas to undermine effectively the new faith by denying its uniqueness. In this way Celsus argued that Christianity'sclaims to exclusivitywere illegitimate. Celsus' attacks on the doctrines of the incarnation and the resurrection and on Christian epistemology are well set out and analyzed by Hargis. His chapter on Porphyrypresents a clear sketch of the major differences between Celsus' and Porphyry'spolemics (e.g., the latter's much greater knowledge of the Bible and his more positive assessment of Jesus) and of the backgroundof these differences,but on the whole this chapter is less than satisfactory.Nowhere the reader is informedabout the major problems such as the question of how in the study of Porphyry's ContraChristianos, to identify fragments of this now lost work in later authors. For instance, more than half of the fragmentsin Harnack'sedition of Porphyry'sAgainst but consist of passagesfrom Macarius of Magnesia'sMonogenes, theChristians this is a highly debatable position, since the unnamed polemicist in the Monogenes may well have been someone else (see on this matter now the fine new edition of Macarius by Richard Goulet, reviewed by me in VC 58 [2004] 332-341). If so, this anonymous certainly deserved a chapter of his own in this book, but the person is not even mentioned. Even if Hargis' book is meant to be of an introductorynature, major issues such as these should not have been swept under the table. The final two chapters (5 and 6) deal with Julian. Here Hargis highlights, among other things, that, while Julian did use some of the arguments of his predecessors,he yet significantlyshiftedtheir focus and expanded them to serve a purpose not envisioned by either Celsus or Porphyry:The main thrust of Julian's polemic was an apology for traditional Hellenistic culture, he passionatelywanted to restore the ancient Greek religion, and thereforehe wanted "an open confrontationbetween pagans and Christians over the cultural and intellectual property of the Roman Empire" (93). Hargis also lucidly presents the differencesin the general use of Judaism as a weapon in anti-Christian polemic between Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian. Julian pointed out that the fundamental problem in both Jewish and Christiantheology was that the deity of these two religions was at the same time universal and particular.But how could a national or regional god ever claim to be the creator of the universe and the souvereign of all peoples? Only a deity like the one in Plato's Timaeuscould. In a final chapter Hargis summarizes the results of his investigation and draws some threads together.
REVIEWS
207
Despite the points of criticism mentioned above I find this a very good and informative book. It is clearly written and well argued, and I wish it into many hands. Faculty of Theology, Utrecht University
P. W. VANDER HORST
Gregorio di Nissa, Controil Fato. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento a cura di Michele Bandini (BibliotecaPatristica41), Bologna:Edizioni Dehoniane 2003, 201 pp., ISBN 88-10-42050-0, e 19,00 (pb). In Gregory of Nyssa's writings freedom of the will is an important subject. Gregory strongly believes that man's struggle for Christianperfection occurs through a synergy of divine grace and human freedom. Hence he is opposed to contemporarieswho defended that man is but the toy of blind deterministicforces such as astralelements.In his Contra FatumGregory a this astral determinism. After brief at length against prologue he argues first presents the case for determinism and then proceeds with a lenghty refutation of it and a defence of human freedom. The treatise presents itself in the guise of a letter directed to a high official and also contains a basic dialogic structure which gradually disappears. The Greek text of this work can be found in the edition byJ. McDonough (GNO III/II, pp. 31-63); an incomplete English translation is offered by A. Meredith in of Nyssa (Early Church Fathers), London-New York 1999, pp. 59Gregory 73. The writing has been especially discussed within studies on the patristic concept of free will and on late antique reflections (both pagan and Christian) on the issue of determinism (e.g. D. Amand, Fatalismeet liberte dans l'antiquite grecque,Louvain 1945, pp. 405-439). A full study of Contra Fatumin its own right still remains a desideratum, but the book here under review is a useful step in that direction. Michele Bandini presents the Greek text of ContraFatumwith an Italian translationon the facing page (59-119). A substantialintroduction (11-57) provides information on Gregory's biography;the place of ContraFatumin Greek and Latin literature;its structure,date and sources;the textual transmission. The text is followed by a thorough commentary (119-171). Future scholarsworking on the ContraFatumwill do well to consult Bandini'swork. Besides the fact that it is the first of its kind on the ContraFatum,it marks a step forward in two ways: because of its study of Gregory's sources and because of its text-critical contribution. To begin with the latter aspect: ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 207-209
208
REVIEWS
Bandini did not content himself with simply including McDonough's text but instead checked it over against a selection of manuscript witnesses. On this basis he proposes in a significant number of cases another reading than the one retained in the GNO-edition. The following is a list of these variant readings as Bandini himself gives it (on p. 55): GNO 32,7: (po?xaao6?voo ;(pokaTTo6?gvoS GNO 32,14: TietSil &- Eicel 6 GNO 32,16: a&x 6ita xtvo;-da&X Twvo; GNO 34,4: dravxa r& cotatca--amxa natvxa iai
xa& otabta
GNO 40,14: omits the Ev GNO 40,19: ? evi--6 v ?vi GNO 41,19: i,iv -Roipp&v igiv GNO 42,9: tirKpad-TcogKpa
GNO 43,19: o6e?Vi-'Ev ov6evi GNO 45,1: 7ap' bi)Jv---ap' bi&liv GNO 47,13-14: [fi] TOv& e T K. T. e.avetXoi>evov-i TO6v6in To6v6 TO K. T. E. avetoiugevovW
GNO 47,19: Tx iwp6evTpVT--tInIopo6evxt GNO 48,13: 8t6pXovat--a &eepXovxat GNO 48,19: e?iapg?vqv e?iLapgVn-TE?iFgapilp?Vq; ?eiLapgevT)v 49,29: yyo6vov-;- cy6voi;
GNO GNO GNO GNO GNO GNO GNO GNO GNO GNO GNO GNO
--v gtia p6vo) POInc 51,17: gta XpovouPbont 53,12: [Tepoi--xepoi o0 53,13: Txv avTkov-o{i Txv iavXov 53,17: c(bveiTai-()v?eiTt ztI 54,6: TiS---iva 54,9: i Kcai6--i 6 54,11: iuneptogXovT';--Vc?piox6GavTe;? 55,18: 0Xaaooa---OaaTTa 59,11: ovToS;-- vCo ? 59,23: XEyo &E-yco i31Tq i xoooSTov 60,15:-x-GNO 60,15: To 6o(pak,Xgvcp--okov T4 oa(paXv(aev GNO 61,10: napeKCivqoev--tva napelKivT)o
GNO 62,7: o6eiS;-- Xkn6vTovo65ei; t cnaa GNO 62,19: daiorlq-Sa& In his excellent introduction and notes to the text, Bandini makes a significant contribution in his discussion of the sources on which Gregory was drawing in his ContraFatum. In this context he mentions passages from Basil of Caesarea's Sixth Homily on the Hexaemeronand ContraEunomium,Bardesanes' Book of the Laws of the Countries(probably via Eusebius' Praeparatioevangelica on Genesisand the writings of Philo VI), passages from Origen's Commentary of Alexandria (esp. his On Providence).He disagrees with D. Amand who
REVIEWS
209
argued for Gregory's use of a source that would ultimately go back to Cameades. On the other hand he argues in defense of Gregory's use of the treatise ContraFatumwritten by Diodore of Tarsus very few years before Gregory wrote his. Especially the latter is an important point not noted by earlier commentators nor by McDonough in his explanatory notes to his edition. For all of these reasons Bandini'swork is a highly commendable piece of scholarship. Faculty of Theology,
JOHANLEEMANS
St. Michielsstraat6, B-3000 Leuven
againstPaganism(Jewish and Christian Aryeh Kofsky, Eusebiusof Caesarea Leiden-Boston-Koln: Brill 2000, xiii + 337 Vol. Series, III), Perspectives e 118/US$ 148 ISBN 90-04-11642-7, (clothboundwith book jacket). pp., The Praeparatio Evangelica,completed during Evangelicaand Demonstratio the first quarter of the fourth century by Eusebius of Caesarea, stand togetheras one of the greatestachievementsof the early Christianapologetic enterprise.Yet, these monumental works, as well as Eusebius'other apoloand ContraHieroclem) have getic undertakings(for instance, the Theophania received strikingly little modern attention. Until A. Kofsky's Eusebiusof Caesarea againstPaganism(a revision of his Hebrew University dissertation), no full-scale treatment of Eusebius' apologetic method existed. The impord'Eusebe de Cisaree[Dakar, tant contributionsofJ. Sirinelli (Lesvueshistoriques Ulrich von Caesarea und die (Euseb Juden[Berlin, 1999]), though 1961]) andJ. and Demonstratio, dedicatinga considerablenumber of pages to the Praeparatio were concerned with the specific issues that their respectivetitles indicated. At the outset, then, Kofsky is to be thanked for filling an unfortunate lacuna in the scholarshipon Eusebius and the early apologetic tradition. Eusebius' apologetic efforts are best examined, for Kofsky, as part of the polemical exchange between Christiansand pagans, on the one hand, and Christians and Jews, on the other. His emphasis falls on the former. Hence, following a brief overview of apologetics and the historical background to Eusebius' works, Kofsky offers a helpful survey of the fragmentary remains (as collected by Harnack) of Porphyry'sscathing critique In spite of the frequent criticisms of the faith in his Againstthe Christians. against the legitimacy of many of Harnack's fragments, Kofsky accepts ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 209-212
210
REVIEWS
them all as faithful, if not exact, representations of Porphyry's work. Porphyry's anti-Christianpolemic, for Kofsky, stands as the background for properlyappreciatingthe thrust of Eusebius'apologetic arguments.The salient question thus becomes: to what extent, and in what manner, did Eusebiusmeet the attacksof his hostileopponent(s)?Kofskyturnsto Eusebius' non-apologeticworks for an initial sketch of the polemical issues that could be addressed in works such as the Chronicle, Ecclesiastical History,Life of In and Praise Constantine. examines the early Constantine, Next, Kofsky of texts of the lost and the Prophetic Eclogues, AgainstHierocles, Against apologetic Aside from brief mention in a note (50 n. 74), Kofsky infelicitously Porphyry. ignores the issue of the AgainstHierocles'authenticity. Following his survey of these other works, treatment of the Praeparatio and Demonstratio receive the bulk of Kofsky's attention. He sees the two as comprising a single apologetic undertaking addressed to recent converts and interestedpagans. His discussioncontainsthree parts. The firstidentifies the major polemical issues of Eusebius' double-work.The most significant of these lies in Eusebius' portrayal of Christian prehistory, what others have named an Altersbeweis. Eusebius identifies the ancient Hebrew patriarchs with the Christians,while at the same time creating a fissurebetween those Hebrews and their laterJewish descendantswho had fallen from the high standardsof their forebears (100-114).' If pagan polemicists had criticized the Christiansfor abandoning their ancestral (Greek)ways for a new and innovative religious option, Eusebius' rendering of Hebrew history would have squarelyfaced this challenge, while even turning the tables on his opponents by arguing for the chronologicallateness and culturaldependency of the Greeks. The second and third major polemical issues that Kofsky identifiesare those of prophecy and miracles.The former contained both a critique of pagan oracles and "proofs"of the fulfillmentof biblical prophecies; the latter centered upon pagan assertions that Christ's miracles were mere magic or trickery. The second section of Kofsky'streatmentof the Praeparatio and Demonstratio addressesminor apologetic-polemicalargumentsin the two works such as the late date of Christ'sappearance,the low literarystyle of Scripture,and
1 DespiteperiodicallycitingUlrich,Kofskyunfortunatelyrefusesto addresshis extensive critiqueof those discussions(suchas Kofsky'searlierarticle,"Eusebiusof Caesarea and the Christian-Jewish Iudaeos Polemic,"in 0. Limorand G. Stroumsa,Contra [Tiibingen, 1996], 59-83)that focuson the distinction,ratherthan the connection,betweenHebrews and Jews in Eusebius'writings.Ulrich'schallengeremainsunmet.
REVIEWS
211
Daniel's prophecy. A third section of Kofsky's treatment of the doublework evaluates Eusebius' rhetorical tactics (e.g., favoring a pagan position to refuteanother,while later rejectingit), and returnsto the role of Porphyry in Eusebius' apologetic enterprise. Rather than a straightforwardrebuttal to Porphyry's arguments, Kofsky admits (rightly) that Eusebius did not and he does not directly "specificallytarget Porphyry'sAgainstthe Christians, confrontPorphyry'sarguments"(273);instead,the quotationsfrom Porphyry's other works are used to highlightPorphyry'sown contradictionsor to refute the statements of other pagans. Kofsky closes the book with the first extended discussion in English of Here Kofsky isolates the themes of Eusebius' attitude Eusebius' Theophany. to Plato, his conception of the Roman Empire, apologetic use of the resurrection, and his argument from prophecy. In each area, Kofsky detects change in Eusebius'later formulationscomparedwith those of the Praeparatio his evaluation of Plato becomes harsher; the relation of and Demonstratio: Church and Empire solidifies;his conception of the resurrectionis transformed from a theological to an apologetic use; and the salience ofJesus' fulfilled prophecies is increased. While this reviewer might disagree over attitude towardsPlato ought details (for instance, analysis of the Theophany's to be tempered by recognition of Eusebius' attack against Plato in earlier works, e.g., PE 2.6.21-2.7.8), Kofsky's general aims and approach in this section are admirable. Kofsky's treatment of Eusebius' apologetic method covers much important ground. The identification of particular themes that may have been of importance in Christian-paganpolemics is a useful enterprise in more fully understanding the complexities and richness of the cultural, philosophical and religious world of late antiquity.Yet, at the end of the book, one is left wondering to what extent Eusebius had a single coherent idea and Demonstratio after all. Kofsky's of what he was doing in the Praeparatio from diverse pasissues the selective of involves culling polemical approach in This the of results overlooking some important sages in the double-work. passages (indeed, entire books), on the one hand, and the neglect of the context in which those polemical issues were situated, on the other. For instance,Eusebius'historical,euhemerizingnarrativeof Phoenician,Egyptian and Greek history (in PE 1-2, echoed in Theoph.2.1-18) receives scarce mention. Likewise, Eusebius' mocking criticismsof Greek allegoricalpractices in PE 3-4 hardly receive the attention they deserve (see only the brief comments on 153-154). In fact, the apologist's attack of Greek allegory is closely connected to his euhemerizing history. Allegory by Greeks such as
212
REVIEWS
Porphyry or Plutarch (a figure woefully underrepresentedin Kofsky's discussion)attempted to salvage myths that were otherwise deservingof rejection for their violent, impious and irrational characters.Eusebius' defense of his euhemerist, historicizinginterpretationof the myths simultaneously stood as a defense of the Christian rejection of those myths. If allegorical approaches were left untouched, the Greeks would always be left with a way around Eusebius' moral objections to their myths. This example highlightsnot only a missed opportunityin Kofsky'swork, but also a hint at how one might go about looking for a unified argument What might at firstbe deemed a smattering in the Praeparatio and Demonstratio. of sourceson Phoenician,Egyptianand Greekmyths, or on Greekallegorical interpretations,begins to emerge as a more unified and coherent argument upon closer reading.Repeated assertionsthat Eusebius'treatmentof various polemicalissuesis given at randomand "piecemeal"(225)give the impression that his magisterial apologetic project was nothing more than the marshallingof indiscriminateretortsagainst a diverse array of pagan arguments patched together in a hackneyed fashion. Yet, Eusebius repeatedlyevinced a concern for the order and arrangement of the parts of his work so as to offer a coherent, even monolithic, apology (see most notably: PE 1.6.5; 4.1.2-5; 15 praef.). The unity of Eusebius'overall argument is sacrificedby the attempt to isolate particular polemical motifs. Even within the limits of Kofsky's investigation his attempt to be comprehensive is inadequate: aside from the issues of euhemerism and allegory, the themes of Fate, demonology, ancient cosmogonies, the discord of Greek philosophers, national chronologies, and Greek cultural dependency deserve more substantial treatment. Kofsky is to be commended for tackling Eusebius' apologetic method a topic long since overdue in Eusebian scholarship.The range and general aims are commendable;yet Eusebius, the master apologist who possessed a remarkableabilityto marshala single unified argumentthrough an amazingly complex and disparate collection of sources, deserves more. Department of Classics, Baylor University,
One Bear Place, Box 97352, Waco,TX 76798-0002
AARON
P. JOHNSON
REVIEWS
213
Eric Rebillard, Religionet sepulture.L'Eglise,les vivantset les mortsdans tardive(Civilisationset Societes 115), Paris:Editions de l'Ecole des l'Antiquiti hautes etudes en sciences sociales, 2003, 243 p., ISBN 2-7132-1792-X, e 22 (pb). Starting in the mid-1990s, Eric Rebillard began to publish a series of revisionaryarticles in which he investigatedkey aspects of early Christian funerary practice. In the book under review, Rebillard recapitulates his earlier work, systematizesit, and further develops it. His aim is to provide us with a more or less comprehensivehistory of early Christianburial cusdevantla mort.Using toms, and thus to supplementP. Aries' famous L'homme the written sources as his main source of information,Rebillard concludes that the early Church did not play a very conspicious role in the structuring of early Christian funerary rites in general, and in the organization and administrationof early Christiancemeteriesin particular.In Rebillard's view, Christianburial in Late Antiquity was essentiallya family affair;systematic Church involvement does not predate the Middle Ages. Seeing continuitywhere other scholarssee change, Rebillard'sconclusionsare thus at odds with what is generally believed to have been the Church's role in funerary matters during the late antique period. In a short introductorychapter, Rebillard recapitulateshis earlier work and area,or, more precisely, on on the meaning of the terms coemeterium whether these terms can be understood to refer to Christian communal cemeteries. This is an excellent little chapter in which Rebillard shows what he is best at: a detailed analysis of the literary sources, with special emphasis on what we can infer from them. He concludes, convincingly, that there is no evidence to argue that mentioned terms in themselveshelp to document the existence of separate (let alone of Church-run) early Christian cemeteries. In Chapter 2 Rebillard turns to the question of whether groups with separate identities always and inevitably constructed separate, communal cemeteries. This chapter is particularlycommendable because of its inclusion of evidence bearing on the adherents of mystery cults and on Jews. This is a crucially-importantcontext that is almost always overlooked in studies dealing with the genesis of early Christian burial customs. Using archaeologicalevidence, Rebillardseeks to show that nuclear families rather than religious communities were normally responsiblefor the proper burial of their kin. He also argues that normally there was no religious separatism in the cemeteries of the ancient world. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 213-217
214
REVIEWS
A closer investigation of this chapter reveals, however, that the desire to document mentioned thesis has led Rebillard to interpret the archaeological evidence in ways that are not convincing. With regard to the Jews, the archaeological evidence clearly demonstrates that once a community was large enough numericallyspeaking,Jews did construct separate cemeteries-cemeteries that are so large as to make the identification of the nuclear-familyelement impossible. The rabbinic sources cited by Rebillard do not prove, as he believes, that Jews did not generally care about "confessional separatism of corpses." They rather document the opposite: for example, the sources do not forbid explicitly the burying together of Jews and non-Jews simply because it was self-evident from the beginning that this was not normal procedure. Last but not least, even early Christian sources show that Jews disposed of separateJewish cemeteries that were identifiableas such by outsiders (e.g. Ambrose, Exh. Virg.1.7). Equally skewed is Rebillard'sinterpretationof early Christian archaeological remains:whereas in his discussionof Jewish materials,his emphasis was on a surveyof Diasporamaterials,and smallercemeteries,now Rebillard's focus is on catacombs and on Rome, or, more precisely, on Pergola'scase study of the Domitilla catacombs. That Domitilla provides evidence in support of Rebillard's nuclear-family theory and non-separate character of early Christian and pagan burial is well known. Yet, precisely because Rebillard argues against the wide-held belief of Church involvement, he should have investigatedin detail the evidence that is most relevant here, namely the Area I of the Callixtus-catacomb.After all, not the Domitilla catacomb but the Area I of Callixtushas alwaysbeen referredto by archaeologists in material support of the hypothesis of Church involvement. In addition, this is also the area that has been linked to Hippolytus'spassage discussed by Rebillard in Chapter I. Along similar lines, it seems hard to believe, as Rebillard tries to argue, that the larger catacombs of Rome were all the result of private initiative: they are simply too extended for that. Rather than saying that we should perhaps investigate this (p. 48), reflection on this issue is exactly what one would expect from a book that deals with the history of early Christian burial customs in a comprehensive manner. In Chapter 3, Rebillardfocuseson collegia,puttingto an end Mommsen's fneraticia, stressingthat even within collegia famtheory of separate collegia ilies continued to play a central role, and arguing convincingly that the early Church should not be viewed as a collegium. In addition, Rebillard points out that Christianscould acquire membership in collegia, and that
REVIEWS
215
the Christianizationof the Empire did not automaticallyresultin the demise of the traditionalcollegia. This leads Rebillard to suggest that collegia may have been responsible for the construction of the catacombs. All of this also serves to support Rebillard's hypothesis that when it came to burial, religious boundaries were much less defined than is commonly supposed, just as membership in one religious group did not inevitably result in the constructionof cemeteriesdesigned for one's co-religionistsexclusively.Even though these are all good points-Rebillard's presentation of the evidence being straightforward,well-structured,and carefullyargued it is not clear to the present reviewer why the above would exclude or prevent involvement of the Church in burial matters. Rebillard maintains that had this been the case, it would have been necessaryfor the Church to justify itself (p. 70). Chapter 4 is a carefully-researchedchapter that seeks to argue that the discovery of "the body" in Late Antiquity, and the concomitant efforts to control it, are reflected indirectly in sources that deal with burial, in particular in those focusing on tomb violation, and in discussions of how to dispose of a corpse. Here, Rebillard stresses continuity:for example, fines imposed on those who break into tombs were not necessarily to be paid to the Church but rather, as had always been customary, to the State. This, in turn, could be used as an argument in support of the hypothesis that the Church did not possess its own cemeteries (p. 89). Perhaps most interestingin this chapter is Rebillard'sanalysis of Christianity'sjustification for inhumation (as opposed to cremation). Rebillard argues consistentlythat this happened out of general respect for the body rather than with an eye to a specific belief in the resurrectionof the dead. Even though Rebillard'sinterpretationof the relevantearly Christiansources is sound, he never answers the question of why pagan interlocutors that appear in these sources thought there existed a connection between inhumation and resurrectionin the firstplace. Were these pagan contemporaries mere inventions by Christian authors wishing to make a point? If so, why would such authors think it necessary to make it? Or did their pagan contemporariesperhaps really believe that such a connection made sense, as Rebillard himself seems to suggest in another context (see p. 120)? Clearly, Rebillard's conclusion (p. 101) that religious considerationsplayed no role in the shift from cremation to inhumation requiresfurtheranalysis to make it really convincing. On the basis of a thorough analysis of patristicsources Rebillard argues, in Chapter 5, that the duty to bury one's co-religionistsis not of central
216
REVIEWS
concern in early Christianity,and that, therefore, it cannot, and should not, be consideredas an importantearly Christianidentitymarker.Rebillard also points out that even though there is some evidence in support of the idea that the Church was responsiblefor the burial of poor, this evidence can hardly be called plentiful. He explains that the practice of burying the poor was first administeredby the Rome state, before it became, in due course, the prerogativeof the bishop. Particularworthwhile in the context of these considerationsis Rebillard's analysis of the transmissionand textual history of Hippolyte'sApostolicTradition (pp. 130-34). In Chapter 6, Rebillardinvestigatesearly Christianfuneraryrituals,only to conclude that throughout the fourth and fifth centuries there were no standard rituals or liturgy that the Church sought to impose on its believers. In Chapter 7 Rebillard stresses once again the Church's limited role, this time vis-a-vis the individual commemoration of the early Christian dead. He argues that commemoration was essentially a family affair-a private sphere that the Church did not invade unless strictly necessary. Thus, this is yet another area in which cultural continuity outweighs religious change, and in which Church involvement was limited. In his two-page conclusion Rebillard observes, among other things, that he does not claim to have resolved all problems. The aim of his book is rather to draw attention to the fact that there exists preciously little literary evidence in support of the idea of third-centurycemeteries controlled exclusively by the Church and specifically destined for the burial of the Christian dead. All things considered, it is clear that Rebillard has surveyed an impressive array of material, both as regards the primary and the secondary sources. This is obviously a book that no one interestedin early Christian funerary rites can dispense with. Whether Rebillard's central thesis convinces, is another matter. Leaving aside the fact that few modern scholars actually defend the thesis Rebillard criticizes, his insistence on the essential non-involvementof ecclesiasticalauthoritiesis too exclusivistto be persuasive. First of all, the fact that our fragmentaryliterary sources do not document Church involvement,does not automaticallypreclude the Church from having played or tried to play a role in these matters. Secondly, one scenario (burial as family affair) does not automatically and/or wholly exclude other scenarios (Church involvement). And lastly, Rebillard fails to offer an alternativethat could serve to explain the existence of the early Christian cemetery par excellence, namely the catacombs. How was it possible for the larger of such cemeteries, including the ones in Rome, Naples,
217
REVIEWS
and on Sicily, to take such an enormous size? Were they all dug by groups of collegia-typeassociationsas Rebillard suggestsin passing?Do such clubs really suffice to explain the enormous size of some of these catacombs? Were they capable of planning and financing these gigantic sites? In more general terms, one may also wonder, whether it is possible to write a comprehensivehistory of early Christian burial customs a la Aries without a systematic investigation of archaeological, art historical and, in particular,of epigraphic remains. Why should the literary sources, incomplete as they are, always be our point of departureand serve as the guiding principle that structuresour reconstructionsof the past? Similarly,why not include an investigationof early Christianiconography,since this might have resulted in a different view regarding the relationship between burial and early Christian identity formation?In light of Rebillard'stheses, it would also have been worthwhileif his book had included a thorough discussion of inscriptions,including the one erected by the archdeaconSeverus in the Gaius and Eusebius region in Callixtus (ICVRIV, 10183)-to cite but one telling example. To conclude. None of the above remarks are meant to downplay the importance of this book. It is certainly true that Rebillard has looked at the literary sources in a way that no archaeologist working with these sources ever has. It is also clear that Rebillard's insistence on analyzing the literary sources in a comprehensivemanner, will certainlyhelp archaeologists who refer to these sources from jumping to conclusions all too hastily. It is fair to say, therefore, that even though Rebillard'smain thesis might not convince everyone, he has certainly succeeded in writing a book that will occupy a central place in discussionsof early Christianburial rites for years to come. Faculty of Theology, Utrecht University
LEONARD
V. RUTGERS
Adolf Martin Ritter, VomGlauben derChristen in Denken undseinerBewdhrung und Handeln.Gesammelte zur Ki?rchengeschichte Aufsdtze (ISBN 3-934285-51-1), Mandelbachtal/Cambridge2003 Im Vorwort zu diesem inhaltsreichenSammelbanderklartder Verfasser, er habe wahrend seiner gesamten akademischen activitas zu beherzigen versucht,was sein MeisterH. von Campenhausenseinen Schiiler einscharfte: "Wir sind keine Patristiker,sondern Kirchenhistorikermit patristischem ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 217-219
218
REVIEWS
Schwerpunkt."Das zeigt sich tatsachlichan dem Inhalt auch dieses Buches. Seine vier Teile reprasentieren'Zeitiibergreifendes', 'Mittelalter'Patristisches', liches' und 'Neuzeitliches'. Innerhalbder patristischenStudien wird dem Problem der Hellenisierung des Christentumsund der Gedankenweltdes Dionysius Pseudo-Areopagites grosse Aufmerksamkeitgewidmet. Letzerer erscheint auch in dem Abschnit 'Mittelalterliches'innerhalb der Rezeptionsgeschichte.Gerade dieser Autor ist ein Beispiel der vielbesprochenenFrage nach der Rechtmassigkeitder Aneignung des griechischen Geistes durch die Christen. Der neuzeitliche Abschnitt beschaftigt sich mit den herausragenden Gelehrten Adolf von Harnack und Hans von Campenhausen, mit der Geschichte der Theologischen Fakultatder UniversitatHeidelberg wahrend der Nazizeit, mit der Kirchengeschichte der Umgebung Heidelbergs, sowie mit der deutschen Kirchengeschichtein der Nachkriegszeitim Schatten der Verbrechen des Naziregimes, die in deutschem Namen begangen wurden und denen zu wenige Deutsche sich widersetzthatten. In den letzteren Aufsatzen kommt das existentielleEngagement Ritters voll zum Ausdruck.Wie sich auch aus seinen anderen dogmengeschichtichen Studien ergibt, liegt ihm insbesondere das VerhaltniszumJudentum am Herzen. Das Engagementbeeinflusst allerdings in keiner Weise die historischen Analysen. Ritter schliesst nirgendwo 'messerscharf,dass nicht sein kann was nicht sein darf.' Das zeigt sich bei den patristischenAufsatzen nicht nur in seiner Beurteilung der Hellenisierungder christlichenTheologie, sondem auch in seiner Darstellung des Konstantin und in seiner Behandlung der Stellung der Christen zur Sklaverei. Das Handeln der Christen ist ihm genauso wichtig wie ihr Denken, aber moralische Urteile werden historischerUmsicht untergeordnet und erst nach sorgfaltigerAnalyse vorsichtig ausgesprochen. Uber viele Jahre war der bekannte Heidelberger Kirchenhistorikerein Gesprachspartner,auf den jeder gerne mit grosser Aufmerksamkeithorte und der selbst seine Ansichten erst zu erkennen gab, nachdem er zugehort hatte. Was auch in diesen Aufsitzen auffallt ist, wie sorgfaltigneben den Quellen die Sekundarliteraturverarbeitetworden ist. Ritters Literaturberichte legten immer ein Zeugnis davon ab. Wer an der Heidelberger Universitat Professorwar, der hatte einen Job, der weit weniger Zeit zum eigenen Studium liess als man sich es wahrscheinlichwiinschen wirde. Der Verfasser hat diese ihm noch vergonnte kostbare Zeit zu nutzen gewusst. Die dem Band hinzugefuigteBibliographieseit demJahre 1994 zeigt dieses in beeindruckenderWeise. Die gesammelten Aufsatze laden zur Lektire der tibrigen Veroffentlichungendes Verfassrs ein. Man kann dem inzwi-
REVIEWS
219
schen gut Siebzigjahrigen neben einem otium cum dignitatenur weitere Schaffenskraftwinschen, von der viele lernen konnen und wollen. Ridderspoorlaan 8
E.P. MEIJERING
NL 2343 TZ Oegstgeest
Nubiens(Sprachen und Siegfried G. Richter, Studienzur Christianiserung Kulturen der Christlichen Orients, Bd. 11), Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag 2002, 216 p., ISBN 3-89500-311-5, E 42. Nubia, the Middle Nile region south of Egypt, entered the orbit of the Christianworld at a relativelylate date. Situated for the most part outside of the frontiersof the Roman Empire, its conversion to Christianityis usually dated to the sixth century, specificallyto the era of Justinian and his immediate successors, with Narses' closure of the great temple of Isis in Philae in 535-537 seen as a pivotal moment. Then Christian kings held sway in the present-daynorthernSudan for almostthousandyears afterwards. After a period of waning interest, Christian Nubia is back again at the center of scholarly attention. The year 2002 saw the publication of D.A. Welsby's The MedievalKingdoms of Nubia, a comprehensive history of the in medieval based times, region mainly upon archaeological evidence. Almost simultaneously, Richter's Studien,the book under review here, appeared. Originally a Miinster "Habilitationsschrift",it focuses on the beginnings of Christianityin Nubia, assigninga central place to the written evidence. Thus it could be said to replace a far older Miinster dissertation, Die Anfangedes Christentums in Nubien,by J. Kraus (1930). The major part of Richter'sbook (pp. 29-98) consistsof a German translation and a painstaking,almost word-by-word,discussion of an "outside" source, the relevant chapters of the Syriac Church History of John of Ephesus, written in Constantinoplefrom a Monophysiteperspective.These chapters (6-9 and 49-53) contain, among a lot of other information, the famous story about the two competing imperial missions sent by Justinian and Theodora. Richter's cautious analysisis of great value because he convincinglydemonstratesthe significanceofJohn's near-contemporaryaccount, while at the same time pointing out its limits as set by genre conventions and author's bias, for example. Both internal criticism and comparison with external evidence clearly show that John's account, when judiciously used, is a firstrate sourcefor the historyof sixth-centuryByzantinemissionary ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 219-223
220
REVIEWS
activity in Nubia and its backgroundin contemporaryByzantine (church) politics, including the conflict over the Council of Chalcedon. Whether it is also the best source for the Christianizationof Nubia remains to be seen. In the second half of the Studien,the emphasis shifts to other sources, most of them local. These are used, first of all, as a point of comparison, supplementingand sometimes indeed confirmingthe informationprovided by John of Ephesus. To this end, the author discusses a wide variety of sources, ranging from inscriptionsand papyri to archaeologicaland architecturalinformationabout early Nubian church building and the Christian re-use of pagan temples. Thus, chapter 4 considers the so-called Documenta as well as other witnesses attesting to the missionaryactivities monophysitica of Bishops Theodore and Longinus described by John. In chapter 5, literary and epigraphicsources for the conversion of Philae, a site that holds a key-positionin the events under study, are discussed. The short chapter 6 deals with earlier, mainly fifth-centurywitnessesto Christianityin Nubia, and in chapters 7 and 8 evidence for temple conversion and the establishment of the early Nubian church, both institutionally (dioceses) and physically (church buildings)is presented. In these later chapters, too, the discussionof the various sources is usually careful and erudite. The author's treatment here, however, may be more easily open to criticism,perhaps on account of the diversityand dispersion of the material and its inherent difficultiesof interpretation.Thus, I find his extensiveargument(pp. 128-135)for what he calls a "Kultadaption", an intentional replacement of the cult of Isis of Philae with the cult of the Virgin Mary, far from convincing. The main support for his thesis comes from a single passage in an eighth-century Coptic dedicatory inscription from a Philae church (SBKopt I, 302). The Virgin's epithet in 1. 7 of the inscriptionwould, according to Richter, echo similar titles of Isis of Philae. In fact, the epithet in question is one of the most popular in the entire Christian world ("Notre Dame") and hardly distinctive enough to connect it with specificallylocal and far earlier cult forms of Isis. The thesis of a schemed cultic reshuffle on Philae is not only insufficientlysupported by the inscription (the analogy with Menouthis, p. 135, is misleading since the evidence is far more conclusive there), but it also reflects a nineteenthcentury mechanical view of Christianizationthat I find not very attractive. Technically, too, Richter's treatment of the inscriptioncannot claim to be final. The foggy reproductionon p. 130, where most ends of lines are lacking, is hardly helpful; the one given by W. Brunsch in 1993, cited on p. 128, is an outright fake (the editor has been tamperingwith the photo).
REVIEWS
221
Another point of criticismconcerns the many church plans that are strewn over the later chapters of the book. These are potentially valuable material for a synthetic picture of Christian beginnings in Nubia. Since hardly any interpretationalframeworkis provided, however, their usefulnessfor a reader who is not an expert in Byzantine church architectureis virtually nil. Nonetheless, here again, the author brought together a wealth of material and references that will certainly serve future discussion. This being said, I think Richter's book calls for a few remarks of a general nature. Its Mtinster predecessor, Kraus' Anfdnge,was published in a series entitled "Missionswissenschaftliche Studien". Surprisingly, Richter's book might have been given the same title. Directly from the outset (p. 11: "Einleitung: 1.1 Die Problemstellung"),"Christianisierung" and "Missionierung" are identifiedwithoutfurtherado and that identification remains unquestionedthroughout the book. Self-evidentseventy years ago, this one-track traditionalview of Christianizationis hardly a viable option anymore.At first glance, it might seem to be justifiedby the heavy emphasis on John of Ephesus, a source clearly dominated by ecclesiasticalconcerns. Still, even the traditional heroic missionary exposing the Creed to hostile barbarianscan perhaps be better understood when viewed as an actor in complex processes of cultural and political transformation.In my opinion, Richter's book would have profited from a more conceptual approach to Christianizationand, on the individual level, conversion. Recent models for such an approach are not lacking and I cite only one here, NJ. Higham's well-informed book about practically contemporaneous conversion processes in another peripheral region, England (The ConvertKings: Powerand ReligiousAffiliation in Anglo-Saxon England,1997). Post-Meroitic Nubia, in the period between about 300 and 700, went through a long process of profound political and cultural restructuring which was not merely ethnic and militaryin nature, but affected all aspects of its economic, social and religious life. New and more complex polities were created; a new cultural orientation northward implied, among other things, the adoption of new cultic forms and administrativestructures,a greaterspreadof literacyand a revisedrelationshipwith the ChristianEmpire. In this context, conversion to Christianityis only one aspect of a much more comprehensiveprocess of "acculturation",affecting the entire life of a region on the fringe of the Empire. Considered from a less exclusively missionary point of view, precisely the local, "inside" sources have much more to offer than mere names of bishops and dates of temple conversions. This may be illustratedby two examples. First, the three Coptic letters
222
REVIEWS
addressedto Tantani, a Nouba chieftain apparentlyresidentin Qasr Ibrim, that are usuallydated to the second half of the fifth century,severaldecades before the reign ofJustinian. Tantani may have been a Christian,but that is in my opinion not the most interestingaspect of these letters (summarily discussedby Richter,pp. 146-147).All are in Coptic, a languageforemost associated with Egyptian monasticism. One is apparently even translated from the original Greek into Coptic (FHN III, 320), while another one is written by a monk based at Philae (FHN III, 322). The latter is not concerned with religious matters, however, but mainly with commercial transactions involving luxury commodities (purple dye and pepper). In a nutshell, this letter reveals some of the things that may have really mattered in the Christianizationof Nubia: the prestige of a modern and successful Christian lifestyle, the technological advantages of a literary culture that allows communication by letters and, above all, commercial interests. Adopting Christianityfor the members of the Nubian elite meant gaining access to a culturethat was intellectuallyand technologicallymore advanced and enhanced their economic and, eventually,political chances within their own group. The dedicatory inscription of Dendur (FHN III, 330; extensively discussed by Richter, pp. 164-172) conveys a very similar impression.It postdates, although probably not by very long, as Richter convincinglyargues, the official acceptation of Christianity by the leading political circles of northern Nubia. The text is again in Coptic and its style and contents reflect Christian Egyptian epigraphic habits. The individualsmentioned in the inscription are Church dignitaries and representativesof the Nubian administration,including a "king".Among the individualsfrom the latter group, who all must have been Nubians, two bear traditional Egyptian names (Shai and Papnoute), two "catholic" or biblical names (Joseph, Epiphanius, as do the clerics, Theodore and Abraham), while two bear Nubian names (Eirpanome, the king, and Sirma). The non-clerical titles that appear show a similar mixture. Only one is Nubian (samata),while the others are counterfeitedafter Byzantine ones. That of "exarch"might even seem to link Talmis (Kalabsha)with Justinian's Ravenna! Whereas the underlying social structuresmust have remained Nubian, the functions within the royal administrationwere apparentlyrestyledto conform at least nominally to Byzantine models. Thus, even samatais replaced in later documents with the Greek domestikos only to become Nubian samet-again in late medieval times (Studien,p. 170). Finally, the use of Coptic again suggests the input of Egyptian monasticism,as do the Tantani letters and the
REVIEWS
223
so-called "Histories of the monks of Upper Egypt" (or VitaAaronis),an important source for the Christianizationof the region, grossly neglected by Richter (pp. 121-123). As these few examples show, the "inside"sources are invaluablein identifying the authoritativemodels (which means much more than "influences") that informed Nubian Christianity in its early years. They reveal the Christiani7ationof Nubia and the conversionof its elites as part of a process of acculturationand thereby automaticallycall into question the traditional missionary model as articulated by "outside" sources such as John of Ephesus' Church History. Richter's adherence to this traditionalmodel can be respected. Nevertheless, adopting a more sophisticatedapproach to the very processes that he is studying would have enabled him to do fuller justice to his sources and create a more convincing picture of what Christianizationmay have actually meant for the Nubians themselves. In spite of these criticalremarks,however, there can be no doubt that Richter's Studienprovide a learned and thorough discussion of a number of important sources for the establishmentof Christianityin Nubia, from which the scholarly debate will certainly benefit. Universiteit Leiden,
Faculty of Arts, Department of Middle Eastern Studies Witte Singel 25, 2300 RA Ieien
JACQUESVANDERVLIET
[email protected]
Paul le Perse,logiciendu VIesiecle,Paris: Javier Teixidor, Aristoteen syriaque. CNRS Editions 2003, 152 pp., ISBN 2-271-06161-X, e 24 (pb). In this book the author presents a collection of several older publications which underline the importance of the Syriac tradition for the reception of Aristotle'sphilosophy in the Arabic world. Syriac Christiansstudied the and Porphyry'sIsagogein order to clarifythe relation treatisesof the Organon of Christian belief to science. The flourishing of Syriac philosophy was stimulated by the general desire of people in the Roman province of Osrhoene to speak carefullyand correctly about the divinity of Christ and about the Persons of the Trinity, abiding by the guidelines of the Council of Ephesus in 431 which condemned Nestorius. The special attention paid to Aristotle's logical writings during a long period seems to have been furthered by the idea that logic were a kind ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae59, 223-224
224
REVIEWS
of 'neutral' science, where there was no need to deal with controversial topics such as the immortalityof the soul or the beginning in time of the cosmos. Foremost among these Christianscholarswas Paul the Persian from the region of Nisibis, who went to the court of King Chosroes in SeleuciaCtesiphon in 529 AD. He dedicated a treatise on logic to this king. The book of Teixidor contains many interesting details about scholars writing in Syriac. However, because it is composed of rather heterogeneous (p. 5) promises,among parts, it lacks unity and coherence. The 'Avetissement' other things, a translationof Paul the Persian'sversion of Porphyry'sIsagoge and Aristotle's Categories and On interpretation. But the book itself (pp. 79select from Paul's text, with a commentary by 121) gives only passages Teixidor. On the Syriac translationsof the Categories, see now the splendid new edition by R. Bod&is,Aristote[Categories], texte etabli et traduit (Paris:Les Belles Lettres, 2001) pp. clxvii-clxx. [email protected]
A.P. Bos
BOOKS RECEIVED LeotheGreat'sTheology Armitage,J. Mark,A TwofoldSolidarity. of Redemption Christian Studies (Early 9), Strathfield,NSW, Australia:St. Paul'sPublications 2005, xiii + 228 pp., ISBN 0-9752138-2-2, AUS$ 38.50 (pb).-A wideranging survey of Leo the Great's theology of redemption in ten chapters: Promise, Fulfilment,Restoration, Passion, Resurrection,Ascension, Image, Fasting,Almsgiving,Romanitas.In the discussionof Leo and the Manichaeans Fontium Manichaeorum, (155.160-162.170),one reallymissesreferencesto Corpus SeriesLatina,Vol. I: SanctiLeonisMagniRomaniPontficis,Sermones et Epistulae (Turhout, Brepols 2000). Cassianus,Collationes XXIIII, edidit Michael Petschenig. Editio altera supplementis aucta curante Gottfried Kreuz (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum LatinorumXIII), Wien: Verlag der OsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften 2004, [VIII +] 744 S., ISBN 3-7001-3286-7, E 109,50 (broschiert). / De incarnatione contraNestorium, edidit Cassianus,De institutiscoenobiorum Michael Petschenig. Editio altera supplementis aucta curante Gottfried Kreuz (CorpusScriptorumEcclesiasticorumLatinorumXIII), Wien: Verlag der OsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften2004, [VIII +] CXVI + 464 S., ISBN 3-7001-3287-5, E 99 (broschiert). Chilton, Bruce & Craig Evans (eds.), The Missionsof James, Peter,and Paul. Tensionsin Early Christianity (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 115), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2005, XV + 534 pp., ISBN 90-04-14161-8, C 133 / $ 190 (hardback).-Collection of essays on James in relation to Peter and Paul. tra chiesae impero Corti, Giuseppe, Luciferodi Cagliari.Una vocenel conflitto alla metadel IV secolo(Studia PatristicaMediolanensia 24), Milano: Vita e Pensiero 2004, XVI + 302 pp., ISBN 88-343-1989-3, E 25 (pb). Didymus der Blinde, De spiritusancto/ UberdenHeiligenGeist.Ubersetzt und eingeleitetvon HermannJosef Sieben (FontesChristiani78), Turhout: Brepols Publishers 2004, 301 S., ISBN 2-503-52140-4, E 32,62 (pb).Neuer Band in der bewahrten Reihe, mit ausfiihrlicher Einleitung und vorzuglicherUbersetzung(die erste in deutscherSprache);LateinischerText nach L. Doutreleau (SC 386). Wisdom. fromAncientChristian Ferguson,Everett,Inheriting Readings for Today ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christianae59, 225-234
226
BOOKS RECEIVED
Writers,Peabody, Massachusetts:Hendrickson Publishers 2004, 319 pp., ISBN 1-56563-354-7, $ 16,95 (pb).-A rich and finely ordered collection of excerpts from writings on early Christian life and thought. Books5-7. Translationand Commentary FlaviusJosephus, JudeanAntiquities by Christopher[T.] Begg (FlaviusJosephus, Translationand Commentary, edited by Steve Mason, Vol. 4), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2005, XIX + 373 p., ISBN 9-04-11785-7, e 115 / $ 155 (bound).-Impressive tomusas part of a remarkableenterprise. 'This volume provides a new English translation of and commentary on Josephus' JudeanAntiquities5-7 in which he retells the history of Israel from the entry into the land down to the death of King David. The commentary devotes special attention to the ways in which Josephus deals with the data of his biblical sources (...). It likewise looks to the question of the biblical text-formsused by Josephus and calls attention to Jewish and Greco-Roman parallels to his presentation'.With Bibliographyand detailed Indices. Hieronymus: S. HieronymiPresbyteriOpera,Pars I, Opera exegetica 8, cvra et stvdio in EpistvlasPavli apostoliad Titvmet ad Philemonem Commentarii Frederica Bucchi (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina LXXVII C), Turnhout:BrepolsPublishers2003, CXVIII + 126 pp., ISBN 2-503-00777-9, e 110 (cloth). Liber Qvestionvmin Evangeliis qvem edidit J. Rittmueller (Corpus Christianorum,Series Latina CVIII F), Turnhout:Brepols Publishers2003, 832 pp., ISBN 2-503-51265-8, e 340 (cloth).-New and impressivevolume in the distinguishedseries, being part V of the subseriesScriptores Celtigenae, BiblicaHiberniaeelecti. curaconsiliiab AcademiaRegiaHiberniaeet Associatione in Euangeliis(LQE) 'Composed in about the year 725, the LiberQuestionum is a comprehensivereference commentary on Matthew intended for ecclesiastics in the writing, teaching, and preaching professions.Its anonymous Irish redactor gathered together all the relevant patristic and native material available, adding to and adapting much of a still largely unpublished commentaryon Matthew by the Hibero-Latin writer Frigulus(fl. ca. 700)'. du Sinai (Sinaiticus Livred'heures graecus864). Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et index par Soeur Maxime (Leila) Ajjoub, avec la collaboration de Joseph Paramelle s.j. (Sources Chretiennes 486), Paris: Les Editions du Cerf 2004, 491 p., ISBN 2-204-07547-7, ? 45 (broche).-Le codexSinaiticus graecus864 (IXesiecle) de la bibliotheiquedu monastereSainteCatherine, au Sinai, est un des plus anciens horologia connu a ce jour. Grace a ce manuscit et a son contenu, il est possible d'arriver a une meilleure connaissance des horologia actuels. Son etude permet de savoir
BOOKS RECEIVED
227
comment priaient les moines retires dans la solitude du desert. Leur priere etait-elle influencee par d'autres traditions liturgiquesorientales?Ce Livre d'Heures a-t-il, a son tour, laisse des traces dans celui qui est actuellement en usage dans le monde grec? A ces questions et a plusieurs d'autres touchant notamment l'hymnographie liturgique grecque, la presente edition apporte une reponse. Christianity. SpiritandMatterin theEarlyChurch Lopez, David A., Separatist & The London: Baltimore Fathers, John Hopkins University Press 2004, 190 pp., ISBN 0-8018-7939-6, $ 39.95 (hardcoverwith jacket).-A bird's eye overview of the development of early Christianityin 153 (small)pages, and leading to the 'new conclusion' and 'fresh interpretation'that there was 'a coherent and consistent anti-Roman sentiment in early Christianity'. Band T 9, Texte 1395-1683 (1534-1535), bearMelanchthons Brieiwechsel, beitet von ChristineMundhenk unter Mitwirkungvon Roxane Wartenberg & Richard Wetzel, Stuttgart-BadCanstatt:frommann-holzboog2005, 588 S., ISBN 3-7728-2264-9, E 274 (Geb.).-Neuer und eindrucksvollerBand der kritischen und kommentierten Gesamtausgabe von Melanchthons Briefwechsel,mit sehr sorgfaltigenQuellennachweisenpatristischerAutoren wie Ambrosius, Athanasius, Augustin, Ausonius, Basilius, Cassiodor, Chrysostomus, Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregor von Nazianz, Hieronymus, JohannesDamascenus,Origenes,SokratesScholasticus.Nicht zuletztbezuglich der Priesterehe werden patristische Texte diskutiert;S. 470 gibt er eine Anspielungauf das 2. OkumenischeKonzil von Nicaa, nicht wie im Register behauptet Nicaa 325. e la Tradizione / Origene Tradition Octava:OrigenandtheAlexandrian Origeniana the 8th International of Alessandrina. Pisa, 27-31 Congress, Origen Papers P. & in with Berardino L. Perrone collaboration edited by August 2001, Lovaniensium D. Marchini (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum CLXIV), Vol. I-II, XXV + 1406 pp., Leuven: Peeters 2003, ISBN 90-4291201-4, E 180 (pb).-The impressiveresultof the eighth Congresson Origen, edited by its convenor Luigi Perrone and his collaboratorsin an exemplary way, and made available by Peeters for an affordableprice: Volume I: Prefazione(VII-XII);Abbreviazioni/ Abbreviations(XXIII-XXV);Forum: / Alexandrian cultureagainst di Origene di Alessandria sullosfondodell'opera Le culture La riflessione reliMaria Carmela the works thebackground Betro, of of Origen: giosa nell'Egitto tardo e il ruolo dei templi nella sua formazionee diffusione (3-12);ChristianJacob, Bibliotheque,livre,texte:Formesde l'eruditionalexandrine (13-22);Guy G. Stroumsa,Alexandriaand the MythofMulticulturalism (23-29);Alberto Camplani, Momenti di interazione religiosa ad Alessandria
228
BOOKS RECEIVED
e la nascita dell'elite egiziana cristiana (31-42); David T. Runia, Origen and Hellenism (43-47); Gilles Dorival, La Bible d'Origene (49-53); Robert Louis Wilken, Creating a Context: and Scholarship on di Origene: Contestistorici,culturalied ecclesiali Origen (55-59); I. L'Alessandria / Origen'sAlexandria: Ronald E. cultural and ecclesiastical historical, questions: Alexandrian on Genesis Annewies van Commentary Heine, Origen's (63-73); den Hoek, Papyrus Berolinensis 20915 in the Context of Other Early Christian from Writings Egypte (75-92); AttilaJakab, Alexandrie et sa communaute chretienne l'epoque d'Origene (93-104); Annick Martin, Aux origines de l'Alexandrie chretienne: Topographie, liturgie, institutions (105-120);John A. McGuckin, Origen as LiteraryCritic in the AlexandrianTradition (121135); Simon C. Mimouni, A la recherche de la communaute chretienne d'Alexandrieaux Ier-IIesiecles (137-163);Adele Monaci Castagno, Origene e Ambrogio: L'indipendenza dell'intellettualee le pretese del patronato (165-193);Alan G. Paddle, The Logosas the Food of Life in the Alexandrian Tradition (195-200);BernardPouderon, Athenagore et la tradition alexane Origene drine (201-219); II. FiloneAlessandrino and Origen: /Philo of Alexandria Francesca Calabi, La luce che abbaglia: Una metafora sulla inconoscibilita di Dio in Filone di Alessandria(223-232); Angela Maria Mazzanti, II divdialogofra l'uomo e Dio in Filone di Alessandria:A propositodi Qyisrerum in inarum heressit 3-33 (233-244);Joseph S. O'Leary,Logosand Koinonia Philo's De Confusione Linguarum(245-273); Hans Georg Thimmel, Philon und Origenes (275-286); Karen Jo Torjesen, The AlexandrianTradition of the e (Scuola Alessandrincw primadi Inspired Interpreter(287-299); III. Gnosticismo / Gnosticism andthe Origene beforeOrigen: Jean-Daniel Dubois, Le TraiteTripartite (Nag Hammadi I, 5) est-il anterieur a Orig&ne?(303316); Judith L. Kovacs, Echoes of Valentinian Exegesis in Clement of Alexandria and Origen: The Interpretation of ICor 3, 1-3 (317-329); ChristophMarkschies,ValentinianischeGnosis in Alexandrienund Agypten (331-346);John Woodrow McCree, Valentinuson Exodus33, 20: Valentinian Traditions in the Gospelof Truthand in Origen's Commentary onJohn (347Anne La Dieu dans le valendenominations doctrine des de 353); Pasquier, tinisme:Comparaisonavec Origine (355-365);Riemer Roukema, Les anges attendantles ames des defunts:Une comparaisonentre Origine et quelques e Origene / Clement Alessandrino gnostiques (367-374);IV. Clemente of Alexandria andOrigen: Michel Fedou, La reifrence a Homere chez Clement d'Alexandrie et Origene (377-383); Hildegard Konig, Fur sich und andere sorgen: Beobachtungen zum Seelsorgebegriffbei Clemens von Alexandrien (385395); Alain Le Boulluec, Les reflexionsde Clement sur la priire et le traitie
BOOKS RECEIVED
229
d'Origene (397-407);Claudia Lucca, Tratti profeticidei martiriin Clemente Alessandrinoed in Origene (409-417);Eric Osbor, Clement and Platonism filosofico/ Origenand philosophical thought: (419-427); V. Origenee il pensiero StamenkaEmilovaAntonova,The Many Faces of Truth:OrigenianPlatonism or Platonic Origenism? (431-436); Robert M. Berchman, Self-Knowledge and Subjectivity in Origen (437-450); Thomas Bohm, Unbegreiflichkeit Gottes bei Origenes und Unsagbarkeit des Einen bei Plotin-Ein (451-463);Gerald Bostock,Origen and the Pythagoreanism Strukturvergleich of Alexandria (465-478); Volker Henning Drecoll, Der Begriff Hypostasis bei Origenes: Bemerkungen zum Johannes-Kommentar II, 10 (479-487); Michihiko Kuyama, Evil and Diversity in Origen's De Principiis(489-501); di Origene contro la metensomatosi Mario Maritano,Argomenti <> divina e libero arbitrionel Commento Prescienza (503-535);Claudio Micaelli, ai Romani: Osservazionisu alcune implicazionifilosofiche origenianoallaLettera An R6bert Aristotelian Somos, Science-MethodologicalPrinciple (537-545); in Origen's Commentaryon John (547-552);Marco Zambon, IIAPANOMQ2 ZHN:La critica di Porfirio ad Origene (Eus., HE. VI, 19, 1-9) (553-563); ed esegetici/Origen:Aspectsof doctrine, VI. Origene: Aspettidottrinali,ermeneutici Harald Buchinger, Zur Entfaltungdes origeneischen hermeneutics andexegesis: Paschaverstandnisses: Caesareensischer Kontext und alexandrinischer Hintergrund (567-578); Antonio Cacciari, Origene e il libro del Siracide (579-592); FrancescaCocchini, Dalla regula fidei riflessioniorigeniane sullo Spirito Santo (593-603); Enrico dal Covolo, Sacerdozio dei fedeli, gerarchia della santita e gerarchiaministerialein alcune omelie di Origene (605611); Elizabeth A. Dively Lauro, The AnthropologicalContext of Origen's Two Higher Senses of ScripturalMeaning (613-624); Yves-Marie Duval, surSophonie Vers le Commentaire d'Origene:L'annonce de la disparitionfinale du mal et le retour dans la Jerusalem celeste (625-639); Samuel Fernandez Eyzaguirre,El caracter cristologico de la bienaventuranzafinal: Un nuevo acercamientoa la escatologiade Origenes (641-648);Anders-ChristianLund Jacobsen, Origen on the Human Body (649-656); Leonardo Lugaresi, Metafore dello spettacolo in Origene (657-678); Carla Noce, Ii tema della nudita dell'anima (679-686); Maria Cristina Pennacchio, La parabola del banchetto nuziale (Mt 22, 1-14) nell'esegesiorigeniana (687-698);Francesco Pieri, Verso una nuova edizione del Commento origeniano ad Efesini:Saggi testuali ed osservazionimetodologiche (699-706); Henryk Pietras, I Principi II, 11 di Origene e il millenarismo(707-714); Teresa Piscitelli Carpino, La croce nell'esegesiorigeniana(715-726);William G. Rusch, Some Comments to Luke(727-731); Giulia Sfameni on Origen's Homilieson theGospelaccording
230
BOOKS RECEIVED
Gasparro,Origene e la magia: Teoria e prassi (733-756); Basil Studer, Der Begriff der Geschichte im Schrifttumdes Origenes von Alexandrien (757777); Martin Wallraff, Il rapporto tra Antico e Nuovo Testamento nella teoria esegeticadi Origene (779-787);Claudio Zamagni,Le texte des Epitres de Jean d'apres Origene (789-811);Volume II: VII. La (ScuolaAlessandrina>w /The *eAlexandrian Schoob> afterOrigen:Cristian Badilita, Origene, dopoOrigene Constantin et Antoine, les modeles chretiens des trois in the Alexandrian Tradition from Clement to Athanasius (901-910); Emanuela Prinzivalli,Le metamorfosi della scuola alessandrinada Eracla a Didimo (911-937); Norman Russell, Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria on the Divine Image: A Consistent Episcopal Policy towards the Origenism of the Desert? (939-946); Stefano Tampellini, Influssi alessandrinisul Commentario al Leviticodi Esichio di Gerusalemme:Confronti con Origene e con Cirillo di Alessandria(947-954);Joseph W. Trigg, Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: Continuities and Discontinuities in their Approach to the Gospelof John e Origenismo Alessandrina (955-965); VIII. Tradizione nell'EgittotardoanticoAscesie monachesimo/ Thetraditions and in (late)ancientEgyptAlexandria of Origen and asceticism monasticism: Dominique Bertrand, Origene et le discernement des esprits(969-975);Pamela Bright,The Church as oThe House of Truth> in the Letters of Antony of Egypt (977-986); Dmitrij F. Bumazhnov, Zur Interpretationder Vitades seligen Aphu von Pemdje (987-993); Augustine M.C. Casiday, Deification in Origen, Evagrius and Cassian (995-1001); Michael Ghattas, Die Seelenlehre des Origenes in den sogenannten 50 geistlichen Homilien des <Makarius des Agypters> (1003-1008); Mihaly di Origene (1009Kranitz, Tracce del monachesimoprimitivonell'anakhoreo Monika 1015); Pesthy, Logismoiorig6niens-logismoievagriens (1017-1022); Mark Sheridan, The Influence of Origen on Coptic Exegesis in the Sixth Alessandrina Century:The Case of Rufus of Shotep (1023-1033);IX. Tradizione e Origenismo in ambiente Greco: i Cappadoci-iBizantini/7Thetraditions ofAlexandria and Origenin ancientGreece: the Cappadocians-the Pablo Byzantines: Argarate,
BOOKS RECEIVED
231
Maximus Confessor'sCriticismof Origenism:The Role of Movement within Ontology (1037-1041); Vladimir A. Baranov, Origen and the Iconoclastic Controversy(1043-1052);Adam G. Cooper, Christ as Teacher of Theology: Praying the Our Father with Origen and Maximus (1053-1059); Tina Dolidze, Einige Aspekte der allegorischenSprache in den Auslegungenvon (1061-1070);Mario Girardi, Origenes und Gregor von Nyssa zum Hohenlied Origene nel giudizio di Basilio di Cesarea (1071-1088);EricJunod, Origene et la tradition alexandrinevus par Photius dans sa Biblioteque(1089-1102); Jean-Paul Lieggi, Influssi origeniani sulla teoria dell'ineffabilitadi Dio in Gregoriodi Nazianzo (1103-1114);PeterW. Martens,InterpretingAttentively: The Ascetic Character of Biblical Exegesis according to Origen and Basil of Caesarea (1115-1121); Rosa Maria Parrinello, Da Origene a Simeone il Nuovo Teologo: La dottrina dei sensi spirituali (1123-1130); Domenico Eunomiumdi Gregorio di Nissa Pazzini, L'epinoiaorigeniana nell'Adversus e Origenismo in Palestina,Siriae Oriente Alessandrina (1131-1136); X. Tradizione and in /The traditions Alexandria Origen Cristiano Palestine, of SyriaandtheChristian Orient:Levan Gigineishvili, The Doctrine of Logos and Intellect in the Philosophyof Ioane Petritsi:Evagrian-Origenistinfluences:The statusquaestionis(1139-1148);Jean-Noel Guinot, L'Ecole exegetique d'Antioche et ses Sabbaitica relations avec Origiene(1149-1166); Andrew Louth, The Collectio and Sixth-CenturyOrigenism(1167-1175);GianfrancescoLusini,Tradizione origenianain Etiopia (1177-1184);Alexej Muravjev,Macarian or Evagrian: The Problem of Origenist Legacy in Eastern Syriac Mystical Literature (1185-1191); Istvan Perczel, God as Monad and Henad: Dionysius the Areopagite and the Peri Archon(1193-1209); XI. Eredita Origenianae /The ChristianHeritageof Cristianonella tradidizone occidentale Alessandrinismo Tamas Adamik, Saint Jerome, ApologiecontreRufinI, OrigenandAlexandria: 18: Origene et le mensonge (1213-1217); Katharina Comoth, Ravenna im Kontext des christlichen Alexandrinismus(1219-1227); Rodney J. Lokaj, Tracce origeniane in Petrarca (1229-1250); Olga Nesterova, Reception et revision de la tradition origenienne d'interpretationbiblique chez les Pires latins des IVe-Vesiecles (1251-1258); Marco Rizzi, Lotto, Origen & St. Barbara:Another Look at the Revival of Origen in the Renaissance (12591268 + ill. 1269-1275); Tomas P. Scheck, Justification by Faith Alone in on Romansand Its Reception during the Reformation Origen's Commentary Era (1277-1288); Detailed Indicesby Paolo Bernardino & Diego Marchini. SelectedSermons,Volume 2. Petrus Chrysologus: St. Peter Chrysologus, Translated by William B. Palardy (The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation, Volume 109), Washington DC: The Catholic University of
232
BOOKS RECEIVED
America Press 2004, xvi + 310 pp., ISBN 0-8132-0109-8, $ 39.95 (clothbound with jacket). Porter, Stanley E. (ed.), ThePaulineCanon(Pauline Studies 1), LeidenBoston: Brill 2004, XIII + 254 pp., ISBN 90-04-13891-9, E 65 / $ 88 (bound).-First volume of a new series PaulineStudies,in which Mark Harding's study 'Disputed and Undisputed Letters of Paul' (129-168) is of particularinterest to students of Patristics.Subsequent volumes scheduled to appearare on: Paul and His Opponents;Paul the Theologian;Paul'sWorld; Paul:Jew, Greek and Roman. Scholars interested in making contributions are invited to contact the editor of the series via [email protected]. Recherches sur Renczes, Philipp Gabriel, Agir de Dieu et libertede I'homme. de saint Maxime le Paris: Les Editions du Confesseur, l'anthropologie theologique Cerf 2003, 432 p., ISBN 2-204-07158-7, E 45 (brochi). Runia, David T., Gregory E. Sterling & Hindy Najman (eds.), Laws andPhilo withtheSealsof Nature:Law andNaturein Hellenistic Stamped Philosophy = The Studia Philonica Annual Brown Alexandria 2003 15, of Judaic Studies (= 337), Providence:Brown University 2003, X + 199 pp., ISBN 1-93067515-1, ISSN 1052-4533, $ 39.95 (cloth).-David K. O'Connor, Introduction in Plato's Cratylus (1-4);David Sedley, The JNomothetes (5-16);Paul A. Vander The of Natural Law Waerdt, Original Theory (17-34); Phillip Mitsis, The Stoics and Aquinas on Virtue and Natural Law (35-53); Hindy Najman, A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox?(54-63); Gregory E. Sterling, Universalizingthe Particular:Natural Law in Second Temple Jewish Ethics (64-80); Brad Inwood, Natural Law in Seneca (8199); Tessa Rajak, The Ancient Synagogue (100-108); Bibliographysection (109-137);Supplement:ProvisionalBibliography2001-2003 (138-148);Book reviews (148-180); News and Notes (181-188). Runia, David T. Runia, Gregory E. Sterling (eds.), The StudiaPhilonica Annual16 (2004) (= BrownJudaicStudies339), Providence:Brown University 2004, viii + 333 pp., ISBN 1-930675-18-6,ISSN 1052-4533,$ 48.95 (cloth).in Philo of Cristina Termini, Taxonomy of Biblical Laws and philotechnia Alexandria:a ComparisonwithJosephusand Cicero (1-29);SabrinaInowlocki, The Reception of Philo's Legatioad Gaiumin Eusebius of Caesarea'sWorks (30-49);James R. Royse, Jeremiah Markland'sContributionto the Textual Criticismof Philo (50-60);Daniel R. Schwartz,Did the Jews PracticeInfant and Exposure and Infanticidein Antiquity?(61-95); SpecialSection:Etymology L. MichaelWhite, Introduction(96-100);David T. Runia, Etymology Allegory: as an Allegorical Technique in Philo of Alexandria (101-121); Annewies van den Hoek, Etymologizingin a Christian Context: the Techniques of
BOOKS RECEIVED
233
Clement and Origen (122-168); Philip S. Alexander. The Etymology of Proper Names as an Exegetical Device in Rabbinic Literature (169-187); ReviewArticles:Daniel Boyarin, By Way of Apology: Dawson, Edwards, Origen (188-217); Elliot R. Wolfson, Text, Context, and Pretext: Review Liebes'sArs Poeticain SeferYetsira(218-228); Instrumenta: David Essayof Yehuda T. Runia, Quaestiones in Exodum2.62-68. Supplementto ThePhiloIndex(229234); Bibliography Section (235-280); Book reviews (281-317); News and Notes (318-322). Sandt, Huub van de (ed.), Matthewand the Didache.Two Documents from the SameJewish-Christian Milieu?,Assen / Minneapolis:Royal Van Gorcum / FortressPress 2005, VI + 310 pp., ISBN 90-232-4077-4 / 0-8006-37224, e 49.50 (bound).-Fine collection of essays mainly written by the world's leading specialistsin the field, being the well-edited proceedings of a conference organized by the Tilburg Faculty of Theology in April 2003, and made available by Van Gorcum for a really affordableprice: Introduction (1-9); I. Milieu:1. Bas ter Haar Romeny, Hypotheses on the Development of Judaism and Christianityin Syria in the Period after 70 C.E. (13-33); Clayton N. Jefford, The Milieu of Matthew, the Didache, and Ignatius of Antioch: Agreements and Differences (35-47); II. The Two Documents: Their Provenance and Origin:Wim Weren, The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community (51-62);Aaron Milavec, When, Why, and for Whom Was the Didache Created? Insights into the Social and Historical Setting of the Didache Communities(63-84);III. TwoDocuments fom theSameJewishChristianMilieu?:Kari Syreeni, The Sermon on the Mount and the Two Ways Teaching of the Didache (87-103);John S. Kloppenborg, The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1:3b-2:1 (105-129); Peter J. Tomson, The Halakhic Evidence of Didache 8 and Matthew 6 and the Didache Community'sRelationshipto Judaism (131-141);GerardRouwhorst,Didache 9-10: A Litmus Text for the Research on Early ChristianLiturgyEucharist (143-156); Andre Tuilier, Les charismatiquesitinerantsdans la Didache et dans l'Evangile de Matthieu (157-169 + English Abstract:Christian itinerant charismaticsin the Didache and in Matthew, 171-172); Huub van de Sandt, Two Windows on a DevelopingJewish-ChristianReproof Practice: Matt 18:15-17 and Did. 15:3 (173-192);Joseph Verheyden, Eschatologyin the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew (193-215);Jonathan Draper, Do the Didache and Matthew Reflect an 'Irrevocable Parting of the Ways' with Judaism? (217-241); Cumulative Bibliography (243-263); Indices (265-310). Williams, D.H. (ed.), The Free Churchand the Early Church:Bridgingthe
234
BOOKS RECEIVED
Historical andTheological Divide,Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge,U.K.: Eerdmans 2002, xiii + 183 pp., ISBN 0-8028-4986-5, $ 24.00 / ? 17.99 (pb).-A number of thought-provokingstudies that still merit particular notice: F.W. Norris, The Canon of Scripture in the Church (3-25); DJ. Bingham, Evangelicals, Irenaeus, and the Bible (27-46); G.W. Schlabach, The Correction of the Augustinians (47-74); D.H. Williams, Scripture, Tradition,and the Church (101-126);E. Ferguson,The 'Congregationalism' of the Early Church (129-140). Untertan GottesunddesKaisers,PaderbornZilling, HenrikeMaria, Tertullian. Munchen-Wien-Zurich:Ferdinand Schoningh 2004, 242 S., ISBN 3-50671333-7, E 34,80 (pb).-Einfuhrende Darstelung des 'erstenTheologen des Westens'(EricOsbor), d.h. die uberarbeiteteFassungeiner Dissertationsschrift iJ. 2003 angenommen vom Institut fur Geschichte und Kunstgeschichte der Fakultat 1 der Technischen Universitat zu Berlin: Teil I: Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus:BiographischeSpurensuche;II: Tertullians Apologeticum; III: Tertullians Theologie; IV: Arnobius von Sicca und Tertullian. J. van OORT [email protected]
Academic
Publishers
B R I LL ?* ...;;..?? . ..' .::*: . ? ?i^ ?.?:/..??7',.,,. '?!.? ..::.....:... . !*.:':* *;'*~'.." :.,?..: i:.~.:.!i'":.: .i .. :::^.:?./?. ":"
..~"'"~:' .... '
.
'.....::. : :. *~~~~~z::: :'*'. *:*:..:: . .::: .-..:.' .::': .'I:.::':':'...::'::~.:~ I :"::
''"..:":"" AT NO EXTRA'.-CHARGE. '":'::""XT . . . .
"
.
"'""':'
BrillAcademic Publishers is pleased to announcethat you or your institution- as a subscriber to the printedversion of thisjournal- can access the electronicversion at no extracost. How to gain access to Brill's online journals
:l..
-.
.......
Individuals
Go to www.brill.nland click on the "online journals _ ._. banner" (left hand side). Please log on to activate Briirsonie jous individual.Fill out the individualactivationform:you petb "nerisa will need your CU-prefixed Customer Number. This e^0e.S ato h."Ve numbercan be foundon the addresslabel,which is sent to tl o U cum.. Nmer _ with your issue(s), on the (renewal) invoice (listed as .t,Ih-Your .-reg0a.0nuWn -_ t.srBls tv Nnc.p upb hl.,ne nY "ship-to"),or you may ask your subscriptionagent tod ouru-etwS- Imals supply you with your Brill customer number.Please =nbes note thatthis is your personalregistrationandyou will ' need to give a usemame and a password.After filling ^'".l out the activationform you will see your personaland . ..... uniqueCID number,usemame and passwordon your screen. Please save this informationin a secureplace; you will needthis when you wantto changeyourregistrationdetails.Now you canactivateyoursubscription(s) by clicking "enable access". On your screen you will see (a list of) the joural(s) you have access to. "
L y. i i ,; '~: ..',Inst........... ': ' '"4*~~~ '"l.. -8
-lwee
Institutions
;"
'1 ~.........
^^^^^ ____^^^ , ?S *>. <<w
-
^
Go to www.brill.nland click on the "online journals .1banner"(left hand side), Before you can access the online ! garjoumal Ingenta first at regster you need to reister wi. ic..S:-co secaWJk under~B~e~I 'continue' Instutional R.ist | t P_le IPIsG ase w. c.ickck on.s ~C r8-'ggtr i a oaad
* Asian Studies:publishedmonthly,first issue February15 * African Studies:published monthly,first issue August 1 * Biblical Studies & Religious Studies:published monthly, startingMay * Biology & Life Sciences:publishedquarterly,starting2005 * Classical Studies:publishedmonthly, startingMarch * InternationalLaw (MartinusNijhoff Publishers):published monthly,first issue May 1 * MaterialsSciences & Chemical Engineering:published quarterly,starting2005 * Mathematics& ComputerSciences: published quarterly, starting2005 * Middle East & Islamic Studies:published monthly, first issue February20 * Physics & Engineering:published quarterly,starting2005 The electronicnewsletterscontaininformationon: - recentlypublishedor forthcomingtitles, books andjournals - generalnews aboutyour areaof interest,conferences,authorsand catalogues -special offers - and much more Go to our website www.brill.nland click on the button"E-Newsletters" for a full overview and subor go to http://www.brill.nl/newsletters.asp scribe to the e-letter(s)of your choice.
Go to our website www.brill http://www.brill.nl/newsletters.asp
New Books from Mohr Siebeck John G. Cook
Attilio Mastrocinque
The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism
From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism
According to the available evidence not many pagans knew the Greek Bible (Septuagint) before the advent of Christianity. The pagans who reacted to biblical texts include Celsus (II C.E.), Porphyry (III C.E.), and Julian the Apostate (IVC.E.). John Granger Cook analyzes these pagans voice and elaborates on its importance, since it shows how Septuagint texts appeared in the eyes of Greco-Roman intellectuals. 2004. xv, 399 pages (Studiesand Texts in Antiquity and Christianity23).ISBN3-16-148474-6paper$82.00
Attilio Mastrocinque examines the intriguing link between magic and Gnosticism. There were two main reasons why Christian thinkers identified Gnosticism with magic: the fact that the roots of Gnosticism lay in the Hellenistic Judaism influenced by the Chaldeans and the Magi, and the need felt by orthodox Christians to distinguish themselves from Christian Gnostics by proving that the latter were magicians. 2005. xv, 244 pages(Studiesand Texts in Antiquity and Christianity24).ISBN3-16-148555-6paper$76.00
Christian Schulze Silke Floryszczak
Die RegulaPastoralisGregors des Groflen Studien zu Text, kirchenpolitischer Bedeutung und Rezeption in der Karolingerzeit Silke Floryszczak untersucht die Regula PastoralisGregors des Grofen, ein bis in die friihe Neuzeit fur die Pastorale grundlegendes Buch. Sie bettet die Analyse der Pastoralregel in ihren historischen Horizont ein. 2005.x, 444 pages (Studiesand Texts in Antiquityand Christianity26).ISBN3-16-148590-4paper$89.00
Katharina Greschat
Die MoraliainJob Gregors des Grofen Ein christologisch-ekklesiologischer Kommentar Wie hat Papst Gregor der GrofIe (590-604) das Buch Hiob fur seine Zeit fruchtbar zu machen versucht? Katharina Greschat untersucht auf dem theologischen und kulturellen Hintergrund des ausgehenden 6. Jahrhunderts die Auslegung Gregors, die kirchliche Amtstrager zur Nachahmung Christi in dieser Welt anleiten will.
Medizin und Christentum in Spatantike und friihem Mittelalter Christliche Arzte und ihr Wirken Christian Schulze zeigt, welche historisch lange zuriickreichenden Faktoren beim graeco-orientalischen Wissenstransfer besonders im Bereich der Medizin zu beriicksichtigen sind. Er tragt die epigraphischen und papyrologischen Spuren vieler Christenarzte bis ins friihe Mittelalter zusammen und bespricht die zahlreichen Reflexe christlicher Medizin in patristischer und medizinischer Literatur. 2005. 280 pages(est.)(Studiesand Texts in Antiquity and Christianity).ISBN3-16-148596-3paper$65.00 (est.)(May)
Pricesvaryaccording toexchange rates.
t
pages(est.)(Studiesand Texts in Antiquityand Christianity).ISBN3-16-148618-8 paper$75.00 (est.)(June) 2005.360
I .^
Mohr Siebeck
,^
~P.O. Box 2040 D-72010 Tiibingen Fax +49 / 7071/ 51104
e-mail:[email protected] www.mohr.de 3Kl
@I.*-xn
06,1
0-ite
E
-. 11
S
rqrqlS
I-
S
__
New Series from Brill Academic Publishers
_
the
Religion
and
Social
Order
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
-_.: _..'... _.. _...
_.... _ _ _
_ _
_ _
_
__
State, Market, and Religions in Chinese Societies EDITED BY FENGGANGYANG AND JOSEPHB. TAMNEY
This collection of original, new studies about Mainland Chinaand Taiwanfocuses on religious changes, and especially the role of the state and marketin affecting religious developmentsin these societies. The topics covered are:the growing interestin the study of religion, the methods used by Christiansto be able to coexist with a communist government,revival techniques being used by Buddhistmonks, the strategiesof Daoist priestsand sect leaders to attract :: llow ,t;:..the...s fic.ce om .ssciu.aingm..... .:
INSTRUCTIONS
TO AUTHORS
(1) Contributionsshould be submittedin duplicateand be accompaniedby a disk.Both WordPerfect and Microsoft Word are accepted word-processing programs. ASCII-formatted disks are also accepted. Contributions submitted should not have been published elsewhere. (2) Manuscriptsshould be printed with a wide margin and double space between the lines. Please use one side of the paper only. The first page should have ample space at the top around the title. (3) Titles should be as short as possible. (4) Italics should be used sparingly (but see below nrs. 6 and 7). (5) Latin quotations should be underlined to be printed in italics. Syriac, Hebrew and Coptic quotations should be transcribed. (6) References should be given in footnotes with continuous numbering. Titles of books and of journals (not of papers in jourals) should be in italics to be printed in italics. For example: H.A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the ChurchFathers1 (Cambridge, Mass. 41964) 106-111. L.W. Barnard, "The Antecedents of Arius," VigiliaeChristianae 24 (1970) 172-188. Gregory of Nyssa, De hom.opif.24 (PG 44,212D) - Greg.Nyss. Hom. opif.24 (PG 44,212D). Tertullian, Adv.Marc.4,28,1 - Tert. Adv.Marc.4,28,1. (7) Correction. Authors are requested to check their manuscripts,and especially their quotations, most carefully, and to type out all Greek, as later corrections in the proof stage are expensive and time-consuming. Corrections by which the original text is altered will be charged. (8) Offprints.Contributorswill receive 15 offprintsfree of charge for articles and 3 free offprints for reviews.
? Copyright Brill NV, Leiden,TheNetherlands 2005 by Koninkl#ke All rightsreserved. storedin a retrieval No part of thispublicationmay be reproduced, translated, system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or othenwise, withoutpriorwrittenpermission recording of thepublisher. to photocopy itemsfor internalpersonaluse is grantedby Brillprovidedthatthe appropriate Authorization Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, fees arepaid directlyto Copyright Suite910, Danvers,MA 01923, USA. Feesare subjectto change.
ISSN 0042-6032 (print version) ISSN 1570-0720 (online version)
This journal is printed on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS Basilides's Gospel and Exegetica(Treatises) ............ J.A. KELHOFFER, B. COLOT,Historiographie chretienne et romanesque: Le De mortibuspersecutorum de Lactance (250-325 ap. J.C.) .................... A.-K. GELJON, Divine Infinity in Gregory of Nyssa and Philo of Alexandria ...................................................................... Ch. GNILKA, Bemerkungen zum Text der Confessionen A ugustins ........................................................................................ A. STOEHR-MONJOU, Structure allegorique de Romulea 1: La comparaison Orphee-Felicianus chez Dracontius ................
187
Review s
204
..............................................................................................
Books received
....................................................................................
115 135 152 178
225
Ch
ristianae A
Early
Review
of
Christian
L(fe
Languagre
and
VOL.
LIX
NO.
3
2005
www.brill.nl
BRILL LEIDEN-BOSTON
VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE a review of Early Christian Life and Language EDITORS-IN-CHIEF:
J. DEN BOEFT, Amsterdam, J. VAN OORT, Utrecht/Nijmegen,
W.L. PETERSEN,
State College, Pennsylvania, D.T. RUNIA,Melbourne, C. SCHOLTEN, Koln, Leiden J.C.M. VANWINDEN, ASSOCIATEEDITORS: A. Le Boulluec (Paris) - A. Davids (Nijmegen) - R.M. Grant (Chicago) Marguerite Harl (Paris) - J.-P. Mah6 (Paris) -Elaine Pagels (Princeton) G. Rouwhorst (Utrecht) - R. Staats (Kiel) This quarterly journal contains articles and short notices of an historical and SCOPE: cultural, linguistic or philological nature on Early Christian literatureposterior to the New Testament in the widest sense of the word, as well as on Christian epigraphy and archaeology. Church and dogmatic history will only be dealt with if they bear directly on social history; Byzantine and Mediaeval literature only in so far as it exhibits continuity with the Early Christian period. The journal will also contain reviews of importantstudies, published elsewhere. Each volume appears in 4 quarterly issues. All manuscripts and editorial correspondence should be sent to the Secretary of MANUSCRIPTS: the Editorial Board, Professor J. den Boeft, Commanderijpoort4-6, 2311 WB Leiden, The Netherlands. Books for review should be sent to Professor J. van Oort, Department of Ecclesiastical History, P.O. Box 80105, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]. Brill Academic Publishers PUBLISHER: Four times a year: February, May, August and November PUBLISHED: The subscription price of Volume 59 (2005) is EUR 214.- (US$ 268.-) for SUBSCRIPTIONS: institutions, and EUR 105.- (US$ 131.-) for individuals, inclusive of postage and handling charges. All prices are exclusive of VAT in EU-countries (VAT not applicable outside the EU). Subscription orders are accepted for complete volumes only. Orders take effect with the first issue of any year. Orders may also be entered on an automatic continuing basis. Cancellations will only be accepted if they are received before October 1st of the year preceding the year in which the cancellation is to take effect. Claims for missing issues will be met, free of charge, if made within three months of dispatch for European customers and five months for customers outside Europe. Once the issue is published the actual dates of dispatch can be found on our website: www.brill.nl. Subscription orders may be made via any bookseller or subscription agency, or direct to the publisher. U.S.A. The Netherlands OFFICES: Brill Academic Publishers Inc. Brill Academic Publishers 112 Water Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 9000 2300 PA Leiden Boston, MA 02109 Tel: 1-800-962-4406 (toll free) Tel: +31 71 535 35 66 Fax: (617) 263 2324 Fax: +31 71 531 75 32 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Back volumes of the last two years are available from Brill: please contact BACK VOLUMES: our customer services department. For back volumes of the preceding years please contact: Swets & Zeitlinger. P.O. Box 830, 2160 SZ, Lisse, The Netherlands. Back issues of the current and last two years are available from Brill. BACK ISSUES: WWW.BRILL.NL VISITTHEBRILLWEBSITE:
BRILL LEIDEN * BOSTON
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY BY
TUOMAS RASIMUS ABSTRACT: This
article discusses the definition of Ophite Gnosticism, its relationship to Sethian Gnosticism, and argues that Eugnostos, Soph.Jes. Chr.,Orig. World,Hyp.Arch.and Ap. John not only have important links with each other but also draw essentiallyon the mythology the heresiologistscalled that of the Ophites. Before the Nag Hammadi findings, Ophite Gnosticismwas often seen as an important and early form of Gnosticism, rooted in Jewish soil, and only secondarilyChristianized.Today, not only are similar claims made of Sethian Gnosticism, but also some of the above-mentioned texts are classified as Sethian. In many recent studies, the Ophite mythology is connected with Sethian Gnosticism, even though the exact relationship between these two forms of Gnosticism has remained unclear. It is argued here that the Sethian Gnostic authors drew on earlier forms of Gnosticism,especiallyon the Ophite mythology, in composing some of the central Sethian texts. Hans-Martin Schenke's theory of Sethian Gnosticism has played an important role in Gnostic studies during the past 30 years. This Sethianism-in which Seth, the son of Adam is considered the savior-is often seen as an important and early, perhaps the earliest, form of Gnosticism, rooted in Jewish soil and only secondarily Christianized. However, in 19th and early 20th century scholarship similar claims were made of the Ophite Gnostics, the purported worshippers of the serpent (from the Greek cpts, serpent). Today the Ophites have almost completely disappeared from the scholarly scene, probably because Schenke's Sethians were adopted in their place as a much better documented (due to the Nag Hammadi findings) early Jewish Gnostic movement. Nevertheless, in most studies dealing with the Sethians, the Ophites continue to be mentioned even if the connection between these two closely related branches of Gnosticism has remained unclear. Evidence, however, suggests that Sethian Gnostic authors drew upon the Ophite mythology in composing some of the central Sethian texts. In addition, no serious study has been devoted to the question whether the Nag Hammadi and related codices contain any ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
59, 235-263 VigiliaeChristianae
236
TUOMAS
RASIMUS
Ophite documents. The aim of this article is (1) to discuss the definition of Ophite Gnosticism, (2) to point out and discuss the many noted links between the Sethiansand Ophites (howeverthese terms in a given case have been defined),and (3) to take a preliminarylook at the Nag Hammadi and related codices in order to find out if there are any texts representingthe Soph.Jes. Ophite mythology. It will be argued in this article, that Eugnostos, half and the second of Orig. Chr., World,Hyp.Arch., Ap.John (approximately II 11,15-30,11 par.) draw mainly upon the Ophite mythology,which seems to be older than Sethian Gnosticism defined by Schenke. On Sources andEarlierStudies OphiteGnosticism: Several church fathersdescribe the teachings of the Ophites. In addition, the pagan philosopher Celsus wrote on the so-called Ophite diagram and its users. His testimony,however, only survivesembedded in Origen's Contra Celsum6.24-38 together with Origen's own account. The earliest descriptions, those of Irenaeus and Celsus, come from around 180 CE. These two witnesses do not use the label "Ophite"or the like, but Celsus simply calls them Christians, Irenaeus for his part "other Gnostics."' However, later descriptions,either dependent on these earlier ones or in any case dealing with clearly the same material, use the designations "Ophite," "Ophians," or "Sethianswhom some call Ophians or Ophites."2It is unlikely that the creatorsand advocatesof this teaching called themselvesOphites or the like. Instead, it is probable that these labels were given to them by their opponents, based for example on a main theme (importance of the serpent) derivable from their mythology.3Whatever the designations,it is the contents of the teaching that matters. In the following I will use-for the sake of convenience-the term, Ophite, when referring to these above-mentioned accounts. The text in Adv. Haer. 1.30.1 simply has "others," but it refers to the beginning of the previous chapter, 1.29.1, which introduces the opinions of the "multitude of Gnostics." The title "Ophite" (or the like) in the manuscripts is a later addition to Irenaeus' text. See A. Rousseau & L. Doutreleau, Irbenede Lyon. Contreles HeresiesLivreI, Tome I, Sources Chretiennes 263, Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1979, 30ff., 157-164, 296-300. 2 Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer. 2.1-4, Ophitae;Epiphanius, Pan. 37, 'O(ptrat;Filastrius, Div. her. 1, Ofitae;Origen, identifying the anonymous Christians of Celsus with "Ophians ('O(ptavoi),"Cels. 6.24; Theodoret, Haer.fab.comp. 1.14, Oi 86 Erqtavoi, ovS 'Oqptavoi; ii 'Otpix0a tV?So6voliatoutvv. 3 See Clement, Stromata 7.108.1-2. See also F. Wisse, "The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists," in VigiliaeChristianae 25 (1971), 205-223.
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
237
Irenaeus'Adversus Haereses1.30 contains a mythical tale. The reader gets the impression that Irenaeus is here summarizing a written source, not unlike Hyp.Arch.,Orig.Worldor the second half of Ap.John. This is, in fact, the most complete description of the Ophite teaching. Let me therefore summarizeits contents at some length here. The first principle is called the First Man. From him came forth his thought (ennoia),apparentlyidentified as the Son of Man, the Second Man.4 Below these was the First Woman, the Holy Spirit, and below her the elements, including water and darkness. Both the First and Second Man united with the First Woman who begot the Third Male, Christ.These four form the heavenly ekklesia. However, due to an overflow of light, the First Woman also gave birth to Sophia, who fell down to the waters below. Having struggled she managed to ascend and free herself from the body she had assumed. The remains of her body fatheredthe demiurge Ialdabaoth,who, endowed with her power, produced six offspring: Iao, Sabaoth, Adonaeus, Eloeus, Oreus, and Astaphaeus. Together with their father they formed the "hebdomad," i.e., the seven planets. The offspring then started a war against their father for the supreme power. Ialdabaoth, for his part, produced a serpent-formed offspring,apparentlyto help him. This serpent, who is the devil, was called Nous, Michael, and Samael. It was not only the source of the spirit, soul, and all mundane things, but also of oblivion, wickedness,emulation, envy, and death (Adv.Haer. 1.30.1-5, 9). Ialdabaoth then claimed to be the only God, with words reminiscentof YHWH's monotheistic claim, "I am father, and God, and above me there is no one" (cf. Isa 46:9).5Sophia, in turn, rebukedhim by calling him a liar and informinghim of the existence of the Man and Son of Man. Apparently in response to this information,Ialdabaoth suggested to his offspring,"Let us make man after our image" (cf. Gen 1:26). Sophia caused the six offspringto think of Man, but their production (Adam) could only writhe on the ground until Sophia caused Ialdabaoth to breathe the divine power into him (cf. Gen 2:7). This act marks the beginning of the strugglefor the possession of the light-power, characterizingthe history of salvation, with Sophia and Ialdabaothbeing the main forces in this struggle.By the virtue
4
On the confusion concerning the identities of ennoiaand Son of Man, see below. 5 On the "vain claim" of the Gnostic demiurge, see N. Dahl, "The Arrogant Archon and the Lewd Sophia: Jewish Traditions in Gnostic Revolt," in TheRediscovery of Gnosiism. Volume2: SethianGnosticism,B. Layton, ed., Studies in the History of Religions (Supplements to Numen), Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1981, 689-712.
238
TUOMAS RASIMUS
of the breathing, Adam gained nousand enthymesis, and thus could depart from his creators and praise the First Man. In order to regain the power, Ialdabaoth produced a woman (Eve). After Sophia had emptied her of power, the other rulers raped her and begat angels by her. Sophia, in turn, used the unwitting serpent (Ialdabaoth'sson) to make Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledgeagainst Ialdabaoth'scommandment.Ialdabaoth, however, cursed them and threw them out of paradise (situatedin heavenly regions)along with the serpent, since it was through it that Adam and Eve were persuaded to eat (cf. Gen 3). The serpent reduced under its control the sub-lunar angels and begat six offspring to form with them a "lower hebdomad," in imitation of the hebdomad of Ialdabaoth. This evil lower hebdomad is the seven mundane demons, who continuously oppress humankind. The double-evaluationof the serpent in Irenaeus' account is clear: even though its advice to eat from the forbiddentree is seen in a positive light, it remains an essentially evil being. Adam and Eve later begat Cain, whom the serpent ruined, then Abel, who was killed by Cain, and finally, by the providence of Sophia, Seth and Norea, from whom the rest of humankindderives (Adv.Haer. 1.30.6-9). Ialdabaothlater sent the flood to destroythe people, but Sophia opposed him again and saved Noah and his family. Ialdabaoththen chose Abraham, Moses, and certain prophetsfrom Israel through whom the planetaryrulers spoke. Sophia also announced things concerning the First Man and Christ through these prophets. Not, however, finding rest, Sophia prayed for help, and Christ was sent to her. Together they descended on the humanJesus, thus producingJesus Christ. When Ialdabaoth caused him to be crucified, Christ and Sophia departed.Jesus was resurrectedby Christ, and then tarried on earth for 18 months instructing some of his disciples. Finally he was taken to heaven, where he receives "holy souls" and leaves others to Ialdabaoth, who sends them back into new bodies. When Jesus has gathered all of the holy souls, i.e., all the light-power,the end of the world takes place (Adv.Haer. 1.30.10-14). Finally, Irenaeus reports that some of these Ophites held that Sophia herself became the serpent, and that the serpentine shape of human intestines reveals our hidden generatrix (Adv. Haer. 1.30.15). For the most part, this tale is based on the first chapters of Genesis, and, as pointed out above, paralleled by certain well known Nag Hammadi texts. The "Syntagma-family"of heresiologicalcataloguesdescribesthe Ophites as well. It is often thought that Hippolytus'now lost heresiologicalwork, the so-called Syntagra,served as the basis for the surviving heresiologies of
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
239
Pseudo-Tertullian,Epiphanius and Filastrius.6A summary of Epiphanius' catalogue then formed the core of severallater ones, e.g., those of Augustine and John Damascene. Without taking a stand on the actual contents of I will simply use the term, Syntagma-family,when I Hippolytus' Syntagma, am referring to these clearly related heresiologies. The earliest of these omneshaereses2.1-4; Ophite accounts is that of Pseudo-Tertullian(Adversus from ca. 220 CE), which tells basically the same story as Irenaeus, only in a more condensed way. However, some differencesin detail, its overall simpler character,and the information concerning the purportedserpent worshiping (the magnified snake was said to bless their eucharist;Haer.2.1) not found in Irenaeus, suggest that it may go back independently to the same source Irenaeus was using, or, in any case, does not completely depend on his account. Pseudo-Tertullianis also the earliestsurvivingwitness using the label Ophite of this teaching.7Epiphanius'version in Panarion37 (from ca. 375 CE) does not essentiallydiffer from Pseudo-Tertullian's,but only adds or changes a few details. One of them is worth mentioning, though: the snake to whereas, according to Pseudo-Tertullian,the Ophites preferred Christ, Epiphanius claims that they identfiedChrist with it. This, however, seems to be based on Epiphanius' misinterpretationof the Ophite use of John 3:14 and Matt 10:16 (Pan.37.7.1-6) as prooftexts for the goodness of the serpent's advice in paradise.8Filastrius'account in Diversarum hereseon liber1 (from ca. 385 CE) is very short and does not really contain any new information. However, it is the only early heresiology suggesting that the 6
See, e.g., R. Lipsius, Zur QellenkrtikdesEpiphanios,Wien: Wilhelm Braumiuller, 1865; A. Hilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, Leipzig: Fues's Verlag, 1884; G. Traditionsin the "Hypomnestikon BiblionIoseppou"(VolumesI andII), Diss. Menzies, Interpretative
Universityof Minnesota,1994, 94. See also F. Wisse,"StalkingThose ElusiveSethians," in Rediscovery, 563-576. This Syntagmais mentioned by Photius (Bibliotheca121), Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6.22) and Jerome (Vir. ill. 61). Photius says it consisted of 32 heresies, from the Dositheans to the Noetians. Cf. Pseudo-Tertullian's catalogue, which consists of about 30 entries (depending on how one wishes to calculate them), from Dositheus to Praxeas. According to the related catalogue of Epiphanius, Praxeas taught similarly to Noetus (Pan. 57). 7 Clement of Alexandria around the same time mentions the Ophites too (Stromata 7.108.1-2). 8 For a more detailed discussion, see my article, "The Serpent in Gnostic and Related Actes Texts," in L'tvangileselon Thomaset les textesde Nag Hammadi:Traditionset convergences. du colloquetenu d Quebecdu 29 au 31 mai 2003, P.-H. Poirier & L. Painchaud, eds., Bibliotheque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section: "ttudes" 8, Quebec-Louvain: Les presses de l'Universite Laval-tditions Peeters [forthcoming].
240
TUOMAS RASIMUS
Ophite teaching is pre-Christianin origin,9although the reason Filastrius placed the Ophites at the head of his catalogue, together with the Cainites and the Sethians (traditionallyconnected with the Ophites in heresiological literature,see below), seems to be the appearanceof the serpent, Cain and Seth in the first chapters of Genesis, thus, at pre-Christiantimes. Theodoret's description in Haereticarum 1.14 (from fabularumcompendium ca. 450 CE) is for the most part based on Irenaeus'Adv.Haer. 1.30, but is much shorter. Theodoret, however, has added a few interesting details. He identifies Irenaeus' anonymous Gnostics as "Sethianswhom some call Ophians or Ophites," and says that these people divinized Seth (like the Sethians of the Syntagma-family;cf. Pseudo-Tertullian,Haer. 2.9 and Epiphanius,Pan. 39.1.3 and 39.3.5). Theodoret is the only heresiologistto did this. He also adds the detail, alreadyknown from suggestthat the Ophites the Sethians of Hippolytus' Refitatio(from ca. 225 CE),10that the servant form of Phil 2:7 meant thatJesus took a serpentineform (Ref.5.19.19-21). Finally, following Epiphanius'fantasticstory he affirmsthe Ophites keep a snake in a basket and let it out to bless their eucharist(Haer.fab. comp.1.14; Pan. 37.5.6-8). An interesting question is whether Theodoret's combining the Ophite and Sethian teachings reflects historical reality or is purely his own invention. This will be consideredbelow. Whereas the abovementioned accounts were all mythical tales telling essentially the same story, the information stemming from Celsus and Origen is of quite a differentnature. Both Celsus (ca. 180 CE) and Origen (ca. 240 CE) describethe so-called Ophite diagram, a drawingrepresenting the structureof the universeaccording to the Ophite speculation,as well as certain views held by its users. However, they did not have access to exactly the same drawing: Celsus had the diagram, Origen's sources included Celsus' literary description of it and another but similar diagram." Also, the very differentnature of the accounts plus some differencesin detail suggest that Irenaeus'Adv.Haer.1.30 was not the source for Origen nor Celsus 9 The Ophites are the first in what appears to be a chronological list of heresies, starting with pre-Christian ones. 10 For the authorship of Refutatio,see M. Markovich, ed., Hippolytus.RefJtatioOmnium Haeresium,Patristische Texte und Studien 25, Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyer, 1986, 8-17. I See B. Witte, Das Ophitendiagramm nachOrigenes'ContraCelsumVI 22-38, Arbeiten zum spatantiken und koptischen Agypten 6, Altenberge: Oros Verlag, 1993, 23ff. See also H. Chadwick, Origen:ContraCelsum,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980, 337 n. 3.
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
241
or vice versa. Still, the descriptionsof Celsus and Origen have so many similaritieswith Irenaeus'account that many scholarshave recognizedthat they represent essentially the same teaching.12A number of studies also have been devoted to the reconstructionof the diagram.'3A summary of the main features of Celsus' and Origen's (somewhat confused) accounts is in place here: The lower part of the diagram consisted of 7 or 10 (concentric) circles'4-the seven planetary spheres (see Gels.6.35) and possibly three more-enclosed by a circle called "Leviathan,the soul of all things."Below the lowest and innermost circle there was an inscription "Behemoth,"and Origen seems to identify Leviathan and Behemoth (connected, e.g., in Job 40-41; 1 Enoch 60:7-8; 4 Ezra 6:49-52) since he says Leviathan'sname was inscribedtwice; at the circumferenceand at the centre of the diagram (Cels. 6.25).'5 These two Leviathans (in LXX Isa 27:1 Leviathan is called 06(it and paiccov)seem to correspond to the two different snake-evaluationsin Irenaeus' description, although different names of the snake are used: the upper Leviathan is said to be the "soul of all things," i.e., the world-soul (Cels.6.25); and, of Ialdabaoth'sserpent-sonit is said that "spirit,soul, and all mundane things"derive from it (Adv.Haer.1.30.5). Also the assertionthat human intestines have a serpentine shape (1.30.15) seems to be related to the world-soul-idea,if the snake'simprint can be found in all human beings. Behemoth, the lower Leviathan, was placed under the lowest circle, presumably in the atmosphere of the sub-lunar world (Cels. 6.25).16 This correspondsquite well to the fact that Ialdabaoth'sserpent-sonwas thrown down from heavens into this world and seized power here (Adv.Haer. 1.30.8). 12 A. 23 (1981), Welburn, "Reconstructing the Ophite diagram," in NovumTestamentum 261-287, here p. 261; R. Lipsius, "Ueber die ophitischen Systeme (Fortsetzung und Theologie7 (1864), 37-57, here p. 49; E. de Faye, Schluss)," in Zeitschriiftirwissenschaftliche Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1913, 333. et Gnosticisme, Gnostiques 13 See, e.g., Witte, Das Ophitendiagramm; Welburn, "Reconstructing"; Hilgenfeld, KetzerAlois Rzach geschichte,277ff.; Th. Hopfner, "Das Diagramm der Ophiten," in Charisteria zum AchtzigstenGeburtstagdargebracht, Reichenberg: Verlag von Gebruder Stiepel GES. M. B. H., 1930, 86-98.; H. Leisegang, Die Gnosis,Kroners Taschenausgabe, Leipzig: Alfred Kroner, 1924, 168ff. 14 Some commentators correct the text here (6.25) and prefer the reading icTa to harmonize this information with 6.35. See Lipsius, "Ophitischen Systeme," n. 1 on p. 38; Hopfner, "Diagramm," 87. 15 Witte (Das Ophitendiagramm, 94, 142), instead, thinks the double appearance of Leviathan's name stresses its role as the world soul. He imagines Behemoth as a hip-
popotamus. 16 Thus Welbur, "Reconstructing," 277.
242
TUOMAS RASIMUS
The diagram was also divided by a thick black line called Gehenna and Tartarus, possibly suggesting that the whole material cosmos was understood as the underworld.The upper portion of the diagramconsistedof circles that are "above the heavens" (Cels.6.38). They included the circles of Father and Son, as well as those of Love and Life. Inside the latter were placed the "providenceof Sophia" (a rhomboid-shapedfigure), as well as the inscription "nature of Sophia"; also the circles of yv&otqand asoveot were placed within the circle of Life (6.38). Possiblythe circle of Love represents the Savior,17and that of Life, containing in itself (the providence of) Sophia, could be an equivalent of the Holy Spirit, the "Mother of the living," giving birth to Sophia and her providence, of Irenaeus' account (Adv.Haer. 1.30.2-3, 9). The pleroma of Irenaeus' Ophites consisted of five beings (Man, Son of Man, Christ, Holy Spirit, and Sophia who descended). Likewise in Origen's account a mightier pentad (levtaiv& &SvaocTepa)
is
evoked (Cels.6.31), referringto the beings above the cosmos. Thus it seems that both of these Ophite accounts posit five main figures in the upper worlds, although using differentdesignationsfor them. Celsus also mentions the seven theriomorphic ruling demons (k7crX ap6Xvxtov&batg6vov). Origen's source had names for them: (1) Michael the Lion-like,18(2) Suriel the bull-like, (3) Raphael the serpent-like,(4) Gabriel the eagle-like,(5) Thautabaoth the bear-like,(6) Erathaoththe dog-like, and (7) Thaphabaoth or Onoel the ass-like(6.30). After this, Origen goes on to describe the passwords that the ascending soul must say before the rulers (a&p6vTe;),heavenly gatekeepers, in order to get past them on the way to the world of light (6.31). The names of these rulers are the same as in Irenaeus' account: Ialdabaoth, lao, Sabaoth, Adonaios, Astaphaios, Ailoaios, and Horaios.19It seems to me that the seven gatekeepersare not to be equated with the aforementionedseven demons, although this is often done.20In Irenaeus' account the seven led by Ialdabaoth (the "holy hebdomad," the seven planetaryrulers)are clearly differentfrom the seven led by Michael (the "lower hebdomad,"the seven mundane demons). In addition, 17 The savior Seth-Jesus is connected with Love in Gos. Eg. Il 53,5-6; 64,1-3; 65,1617 par. See also Welburn, "Reconstructing," 286. 18 Origen's account differs from that of Irenaeus in that Michael is not the serpentformed (but Raphael). However, in both accounts Michael is the leader of the demons. 19 Origen gives the names in Cels. 6.31, where the order of the names is different in comparison with Irenaeus' list; and one of the archons, Adonaios, is missing but mentioned later in 6.32. 20 See, e.g., Witte, Das Ophitendiagramm, 110, 118, 125; J. Fossum, TheName of Godand
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
243
the Hebrew word, Behemoth, placed below the seven planetaryspheresin the is the for "animal," and could therefore be a collective diagram, plural name for the theriomorphicdemons existing in the sub-lunarworld. Also, whereas in both Origen's and Irenaeus' accounts the seven led by Michael are clearly said to be demons, the seven led by Ialdabaoth have some positive features. The seven planetary rulers are twice called "the holy hebdomad" in Irenaeus' account (Adv.Haer. 1.30.9: sanctaehebdomadae), and in Origen's account they are described as not completely evil beings: Ialdabaothis called "the rationalruler of a pure mind," and "a perfect work of son and father";Iao is described as the ruler "of the secret mysteriesof son and father"; and Sabaoth is called "mighty."21Despite these positive traits,Celsus mentions that the ruler of the archonticangels, theJewish God (apparentlyIaldabaoth),was an accursed God, since he cursed the serpent for bringing knowledge to humankind (Cels.6.27-28; also Origen mentions the role of the serpent as the bringerof knowledgeat 6.28; cf. Irenaeus'Adv. Haer. 1.30.7-8). The main points of contact between the accounts of Celsus/Origen and Irenaeus are the following:(1) both give similar lists of the seven rulers led by Ialdabaoth, in whom, despite their overall unpleasant character, some positive features are present; (2) both speak of the seven demons led by Michael; (3) both seem to present the serpent as the world-soul; (4) both deem the serpent's introduction of the knowledge in paradise as positive; (5) both assign an important role/position for Sophia and speak of her providence; (6) both present two males (Father and Son/Man and Son of Man) as the two highest beings; (7) both have a pentad of highest beings; and (8) both make extensive use of Jewish materials.22The correspondence seems clear. Thus, the contents of the accounts of Irenaeus, Celsus/Origen, and the closely related ones of the Syntagma-family, can serve as the the Angel of the Lord, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 36, Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1985, 321-329; Hopfner, "Diagramm," 88; Welburn, "Reconstructing," 263ff. Lipsius ("Ueber die ophitischen Systeme," in Zeitschriftjirwissenschaftliche Theologie6 [1863], 410-457, here p. 448), however, does not equate them. 21 'Ia [a&awO,apXcov 6yoS; a rrpi irnapX0ov voo; eiXitKcptvO;, Epyov T?xCtV iA ica;i nap6o (6.31.20-21); ,vaoxra (Cels. 6.31.13-14); i) 6i Kpncxoptvcov TuaTepiuvuiov Kicat Sapakco (6.31.27). The edition used is M. Borret, Origene.ContreCelse. TomeIII, Sources Chretiennes 147, Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1969. 22 Irenaeus' source is for the most part a re-interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Also, the names of the seven rulers and the seven demons (for the most part), the figures of Sophia, Leviathan, Behemoth, and Gehenna, and the idea of the snake as the bringer of knowledge, are derived from Jewish scriptures.
244
TUOMAS RASIMUS
criteriafor what constitutesthe so-called Ophite teaching. However, Theodoret's "Sethian"additions to Irenaeus' account should be excluded from such criteria. The Naasseni, describedby Hippolytusin his Refutatio (5.2; 5.6-11; 10.9), often have been identified with the Ophites in the scholarship.23Also Theodoret in the 5th century made this identification, even though Hippolytus,who is the only actual witness to the Naassene teaching, seems to have distinguishedbetween the Ophites and the Naasseni.24The designation, Naasseni, is derived from the Hebrew word for snake, nahash,just like the designation, Ophite/Ophian, is derived from the Greek equivalent, 6optS.Irenaeus also calls his Ophites "Gnostics"(Adv.Haer. 1.30.1), just as Hippolytus says of his Naasseni that they called themselves Gnostics (Ref. 5.2; 5.6.4; 5.11.1). That the snake also appears in both systems, taken together with the above-mentioned designations, seems to have been enough for many scholars to treat these two teachings as identical. This identificationis, however, far from certain.25Most of the main features of the Ophite accounts are either lacking from the Naassene teaching or appear in a differentform: Sophia, the seven rulers, and the seven demons are missing; the Man and the Son of Man are said to be one and same figure yet divided in three parts (Ref.5.6.4-6); even though the snake is considered the world-soul (5.9.11ff.), it is not considered the bringer of knowl23 See,
e.g., J. Gruber, Die Ophiten,Wiirzburg: Druck der CJ. Becker'schen Buchdruckerei, 1864; H. Mansel, The GnosticHeresies,London: John Murray, 1980 (repr. of des 1875), 7, 95ff.; Leisegang, Gnosis,113; A. Honig, Die Ophiten.Ein Beitragzur Geschichte Berlin: Maner & Miller, 1889, 28-29. R. Casey ("Naassenes and jildischenGnosticismus, Studies27 [1965, repr. of 1926] London: Dawson & Ophites," in TheJournalof Theological Sons Ltd, pp. 374-387, here p. 386), however, derives Ophites from the Naasseni. 24 Theodoret, Quaest. XLIX (IV Reg. 18:4), "I think the Ophites were called 'Naasseni'." See also Theodoret, Haer.fab. comp.1.13, where he gives "Naasseni" as an alternative name for the Barbeloites, and Haer.fab. comp.1.14, where he in turn identifies the Sethians and the Ophites (=Naasseni on basis of Quaest.)with each other. But cf. Hippolytus, who in Ref. 8.20.3 says that he has not chosen to describe the Cainite, Ophite, and Noachite teachings, while he has already described the Naasseniteaching in Ref. 5.611. In addition, because the Ophites are frequently connected with the Cainites in the heresiological literature, the Ophites which Hippolytus mentions in connection with the Cainites, thus seem to be the same Ophites which the other heresiologists describe. 25 Thus also J. Kaestli, "L'interpretation du serpent de Genese 3 dans quelques textes Actesdu Gnostiques et la question de la gnose 'Ophite'," in Gnosticimeet mondehellinistique. Colloquede Louvain-la-Neuve [11-14 mars1980], J. Ries et al., eds., Publications de l'institut orientaliste de Louvain 27, Louvain-la-Neuve: Universite catholique de Louvain, 1982, 116-130, here pp. 117-118.
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
245
edge (Gen 3), and, whereas in the Ophite mythology the serpent was associated with the devil, the Naasseni consideredthe serpentas completelypositive; and the use ofJewish materialis less evident in the Naassene teaching than in that of the Ophites. In fact, in older scholarship "Ophitism"was used as an umbrella term not only to cover all Gnostic teachings featuring a snake (including the Naasseni),but also generallyto denote early forms of Gnosticism.The term was even used as an equivalentto Gnosticismproper. Ophitism thus defined was often thought to be the earliest form of Gnosticism,26rooted in Jewish soil,27and represented by up to 17 different "sects," e.g., the Cainites, Barbeloites,Naasseni, and various Ophite and Sethian accounts in the heresiological literature.28Some scholars made a useful distinction between this broad definition and the Ophites proper, i.e., those of Irenaeus, Celsus/Origen, and the Syntagma-family,including, nevertheless,the Naasseni in the category of the Ophites proper.29However, simply because a snake appears in a Gnostic or Gnostic-like teaching does not make it Ophite, just as a Gnostic text featuring an important Seth does not necessarilymake it Sethian. Even though the Valentinianshad a concept of Seth as the progenitor of the spiritual race, they are not considered Sethians. What is needed in order to treat a given teaching as Ophite is not only that it featuresthe serpent, or that the teaching was given a certain designation, but that the actual contents of the teaching correspondwell enough to the contents of the accounts of Irenaeus, Celsus/Origen, and the Syntagmafamily, discussed above. Since the Naasseni do not clearly meet this criteria, they should be distinguishedfrom the Ophites. I also do not see grounds for using "Ophitism" as an umbrella term to denote various forms of Gnostic teaching. However, certain links between the Ophites and some
26 R. K. Rudolph, Lipsius, "Gnostizismus" (repr. of 1860), in Gnosisund Gnostizismus, ed., Wege der Forschung 262, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975, 17-119, here p. 92ff.; M. Friedlander, Der vorchristliche jidische Gnostcismus,Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898, 66-69; W. Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis,Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973 (repr. of 1907), 319. Cf. Honig, Die Ophiten,28-29, 77. 27 F. Baur, Die christlicheGnosis,Tiibingen: Verlag von C. F. Osiander, 1835, 194-197;
66-69. 12, 17, 28-29, 77; Friedlander,vorchristliche, Honig, Ophiten, 28 See, e.g., Gruber, Die Ophiten,155ff.; Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, 230-283; R. 14 (1904), undKirche Theologie Liechtenhan,"Ophiten,"in Realenyklopddie fir protestantische 327ff. 404-413, here pp. 405-406; de Faye Gnostiques, 29 See R. Wilson, TheGnostic London:A.R. Mowbray,1958, 117ff.;see also Problem, Gruber,Die Ophiten.
246
TUOMAS RASIMUS
other forms of Gnosticism,especiallySethian, can be shown, and these links will be considered next. Connections with OphitesandBarbeloites Sethiansand TheirSuggested Connections between the Sethians and the Ophites (however defined) were made already in the heresiological literature. In addition to Theodoret's hybrid Sethian-Ophite account, they were always grouped together with the Cainites in the Syntagma-family,even though the position of this group of three "sects"in comparisonto other "sects"varied in differentcatalogues.30Moreover, Epiphaniustells that the Ophites took their cue from the Gnostics describedin Panarion 26. Since the latter were said to use books in the name of Seth (Pan.26.8.1), as did the Sethians (Pan.39.5.1), the related as well. The Naasseni, whom taken to use these books could be Ophites Theodoret and many modern scholars have identified with the Ophites, for Hippolytusassertsthat the were connected with the Sethians in Refiutatio; four "serpent-sects,"including the Naasseni and the Sethians, which he is about to describe, are parts of the same "heresy"(Ref.5.6.4). In the older scholarshipthe various Sethians describedin the heresiological literatureoften were considered to represent Ophitism.31Today many scholars use the double term "Sethian-Ophite"when referringto Irenaeus' Adv.Haer. 1.30, thus following Theodoret's practice.32Petrementthinks that Schenke'sSethians and Irenaeus'Ophites are "twin"traditionsand "closely related."33Logan and Turner see the myth of Irenaeus' Ophites as a main source of Sethian Gnosticism(see below). Turner also suggeststhat Irenaeus' 30
Pseudo-Tertullian: (6) Ophites, (7) Cainites, (8) Sethians; Epiphanius: (37) Ophites, (38) Cainites, (39) Sethians; Filastrius: (1) Ophites, (2) Cainites, (3) Sethians. This Cainite teaching is the same as that found in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.31, which sometimes incorrectly has been taken to be part of the Ophite teaching of Adv. Haer. 1.30. While Cain is portrayed extremely positively in 1.31, he is condemned in 1.30.9. Cf. C. Scholten, 19 (2001), 972-982. "Kainiten," Reallexikon fir Antikeund Christentum 31 See, e.g., Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, 251ff.; Liechtenhan, "Ophiten"; Mansel, Gnostic Heresies,95ff. 32 Ph. Perkins, "On the Origin of the World (CG II,5): A Gnostic Physics," in Vigiliae Christianae34 (1980), 36-46, here p. 45; B. Pearson, Gnosticism,Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity,Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990, 53; J. Turner, SethianGnosticismand the Platonic Tradition,Biblioteque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section: "Etudes" 6, QuebecLouvain: Les Presses de l'Universite Laval-Editions Peeters, 2001, 140. 33 S. Petrement, A SeparateGod, C. Harrison, transl., San Fransisco: HarperSanFransisco, 1990, 421, 485.
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
247
Ophites could be included in the Sethian Gnostic corpus.34Layton, for his part, includes Irenaeus' Ophites into what he designatesas "ClassicGnostic Scripture," which essentially corresponds to Schenke's Sethian corpus.35 Layton adds that the people behind these texts are sometimes in modern scholarshipcalled "Sethians,""Barbelognostics,"or "Ophites."36 If there has been variance and even confusion concerning the usage of the term, Ophite, the term, Sethian, has been used in at least five different senses. Three of these are found in heresiological literature, and modem scholars have proposed yet two differentusages: (1) Theodoret labelled the anonymous Gnostics of Irenaeus'Adv.Haer. 1.30 as "Sethians,whom some call Ophians or Ophites";(2) Hippolytus described a very differentSethian doctrine in Refitatio(5.19-22), with which the Paraphrase of Shem(NH VII,1) may be connected; (3) the Syntagma-familycontains yet a differentSethian teaching (interestinglyTheodoret combined these Sethians by introducing themes from [2] and [3] into his own account [1]); (4) Schenke created the moder theory of Sethian Gnosticism,discussedbelow; and (5) Logan, who basically accepts Schenke's thesis, argues that the ideas concerning the special status of Seth and his seed were a later addition, a "Sethianization,"to that Gnostic tradition. Moreover, the term, "Barbeloite,"has been used incorrectly as an equivalent for "Sethian." Finally, all these Sethians and Barbeloiteshave been connected in one way or another with the Ophites or even treated as identical. A closer examination hopefully will bring some order to the terminological chaos. Having already dealt with Theodoret's account, we can move directly to the Sethians of Refiutatio. According to Hippolytus they had a above was three-principlesystem: light, below darkness, and in between all with these spirit, principles being eternal. The light and spirit radiated in all directions,even towards the darkness.The darknessgot hold of "fragrances" of light and spirit and imprisoned them, because it realized that without them it would be invisible, obscure and feeble. The first coming together of the three principlesproduced heaven and earth in the form of a gigantic womb. The principle of all generation, the wind, also called the serpent, appeared from the waters (Ref.5.19.13-19). It entered the womb and produced a human being; thus the womb recognizes no other form than the serpentineform. Therefore, the Logos needed to enter the womb 34
Turner, SethianGnosticism,61.
New York: Doubleday, 1987, 170-181. 35 B. Layton, The GnosticScriptures, 36
Ibid., xv.
248
TUOMAS RASIMUS
in the form of a serpent,which is the servantform of Phil 2:7 (Ref.5.19.1922). It is noteworthy that Seth does not play any part in this teaching, although Hippolytus refers to the Paraphrase of Sethfor more details. A very different Sethian doctrine is found in the accounts of the I shall here summarize the earliest surviving account, Syntagma-family.37 that of Pseudo-Tertullian(Haer.2.7-9). Two human beings, Cain and Abel, were formed by the angels (Epiphanius:two humans, from whom Cain and Abel descended, Pan. 39.2.1). When Abel was slain, an unidentifiedheavenly Mother caused the birth of Seth, in order to raise a pure seed from him. Nevertheless, due to the copulation of angels and humans there had resulted an impure race, and the Mother sent a deluge to destroy the impure ones and to save the pure race of Seth by the means of the ark. However, the angels managed to put Ham from the impure race into the ark without the Mother knowing it, and thus the impure seed survived. These Sethians also identified Christ with Seth (Epiphaniusadds thatJesus belonged to Seth's lineage, being in fact Seth himself, and was sent from above by the Mother, Pan. 39.3.5; Seth also had a wife called Horaia, Pan. 39.5.2-3). The basis of Theodoret's Sethian-Ophite account, Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.30, has very little in common with these two Sethian doctrines, save perhaps the serpents and the three principles of the Refutatioaccount and the flood-episodeof the Syntagma-familyaccount. These themes, however, are dealt with in a differentmanner in the Ophite teaching.38Theodoret's additions of Christ's serpentine form (Phil 2:7) and Seth's divine character do not change the overall picture. Three very different"Sethian"doctrinesare describedin the heresiologicalliterature. Whereas in the older scholarship the different Sethians often were grouped under same heading ("Ophitism"),today only those of the Syntagma-familyare included in the corpus of Sethian Gnosticism.According 37Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer.2.7-9; Epiphanius,Pan.39; Filastrius,Div. her.3. 38 In Irenaeus' Ophite accountthe snake,who is seen as both good and evil, brought knowledgeto Adam and Eve (cf. Gen. 3) under the influenceof Sophia.In Hippolytus' Sethianaccountthe snakeis not connectedwith Gen 3, and its good and evil aspectsare dividedbetweentwo beings;Accordingto Irenaeus'Ophite account,the FirstMan was Light,belowhim was the Holy Spirit(alsoin pleroma),and belowher the elements,includHowever,these elementsare not depictedas evil nor consciousas the darking darkness. ness in Hippolytus'Sethianaccount;The flood in Irenaeus'Ophite accountis sent by Ialdabaoth,not by the heavenlyMother, as in the Sethian accountsof the Syntagmafamily.
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
249
to Schenke, and many scholars following him, the main criteria for Sethian Gnosticism are (1) the self-understandingof the Gnostics that they are the pneumatic seed of Seth, (2) Seth as the heavenly-earthlysavior of his seed, (3) the heavenly trinity of Father, Mother Barbelo, and Son Autogenes, (4) the four lights of the Son called Harmozel, Oroaiel, Daveithe, and Eleleth, who are also dwelling-places of heavenly Adam, Seth, and his seed, (5) the evil demiurge Ialdabaothwho tries to destroy the seed of Seth, and (6) the division of history into three ages and the appearance of the savior in each age. In addition to these criteria belong certain figures and themes dealing with the pleromatic world (e.g., the division of Barbelo's aeon into the triad of Kalyptos, Protophanes, Autogenes), the "obvious secondary Christianization,"and the practices of the baptism of five seals and a ritual ascent.39The Sethian corpus is thought to consist of at least 16 documents,40the most famous no doubt being Ap.John. Sethian Gnosticism thus defined is considered by many scholars as an early and importantJewish Gnostic movement, and only secondarilyChristianized.41 Some scholars even seem to think of it as the only proper form of Gnosticism.42Despite criticism from a few scholars,43Schenke's theory is generally accepted (on Logan's modification,see below).
39 H.-M. Schenke, "Das sethianische System nach Nag-Hammadi-Handschriften," in StudiaCoptica,Peter Nagel, ed., Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1974, 165-173; H.-M. Schenke, "The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism," in Rediscovery,588-616; Turner, SethianGnosticism,63ff.; Pearson, Gnosticism,126ff. 40 of John (NH 11,1; III,1; IV, ; BG,2), Hypostasisof the Archons(NH 11,4), Apocryphon the of Gospel gyptians(NH 111,2;IV,2), Apocalypseof Adam(NH V,5), ThreeStelesof Seth(NH VII,5), Zostrianus(NH VIII, 1), Melchizedek (NH IX, 1), ThoughtofNorea (NH IX,2), Marsanes Protennoia (NH XIII), Untitledtextof Bruce Codex, (NH X), Allogenes(NH XI,3), Trimorphic and the accounts of Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.29 (Barbeloites), and Epiphanius' Pan. 26, 39 and 40 (Gnostics, Sethians, and Archontics respectively). See Schenke, "Phenomenon"; Turner (SethianGnosticism,61-63) has suggested that Hypsiphrone (NH XI,4) and Irenaeus' whose Ophites (Adv.Haer. 1.30) could be added to this corpus; Layton (GnosticScriptures), to Schenke's Sethian corof "Classic Gnostic" Scripture essentially corresponds corpus pus, adds to it the Thunder(NH VI,2), the teachings of Saturninus, Ophites, and Cainites of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 1.24, 30 and 31 respectively), the "Nicolaitan" account of Epiphanius (Pan. 25), and Porphyry's account of the "Gnostics" (Vit. Plot. 16). 41 Schenke, "Phenomenon," 607; Pearson, Gnosticism,127-133; Turner, SethianGnosticism,257ff. 42 5. Layton, GnosticScriptures, 43 F. Wisse, "Stalking";R. van den Broek, "The Present State of Gnostic Studies," in VigiliaeChristianae37 (1983), 41-71, here p. 54-56; M. Tardieu, "Les Livres mis sous le nom du Seth et les Sethiens de 1'Heresiologie," in Gnosisand Gnosticism,M. Krause, ed.,
250
TUOMAS RASIMUS
The so-called "Barbeloites"of Irenaeus and the "Gnostics" of Epiphanius, also known as "Barbelites,"are included in the Sethian Gnostic corpus togetherwith the Sethiansof the Syntagma-family.Layton points out that the terms "Sethian" and "Barbelognostic"are sometimes used to refer to the same writings.44Prior to Schenke, Doresse thought the Nag Hammadi library to be Sethian since both the figures and names of Seth and Barbelo appeared there frequently.45Moreover, already in 19th century scholarship,the various Sethians and Barbeloiteswere seen as related sub-groups of Ophitism. These connections can partly be explained by Epiphanius' account, according to which the "Gnostics," also known as "Barbelites,"used books in the name of Seth and had a divinity called Barbelo (Pan.26.1.9, 3.7, 8.1, 10.4-10). However, Irenaeus' account in Adv. Haer.1.29, the Barbeloiteaccountpar excellence, does not mention Seth at all; and these two accounts do not really have much in common, apart from the namesBarbelo and David(es).4 Thus it seems that the Gnostics of Epiphanius have only been slightly influenced by Barbeloite ideas. The Barbeloite teaching, described in Irenaeus'Adv. Haer. 1.29, and paralleled especially by Ap. John, but found also in several other texts in Schenke's Sethian corpus (e.g., Gos.Eg.,Trim.Prot.,Melch.,StelesSeth,Zost.,Marsanes, consists of the descriptionof the pleromaticworld. These descripAllogenes), tions have the following basic structure:the true godhead consists of a trinity of the unknown Father, Mother called Barbelo, and Son. The Son has for himselffour luminariescalled Harmozel, Oroaiel, Daveithe, and Eleleth. One of the four luminaries,Eleleth or Armogenes (= Harmozel), is responsible for the appearanceof Sophia, and of the materialworld, either directly as in Gos.Eg.(III 68,5ff./IV 56,22ff.) and Trim.Prot.(39,13ff.) or indirectly through Sophia as, e.g., in Ap.John (II 8,16-20; 9,25ff. par.) and Adv.Haer. 1.29.4.47Since some of these Sethian documents dealing with the Barbeloite
Nag HammadiStudies 8, Leiden:EJ. Brill, 1977, 204-210. Cf. also Ch. Markschies, Gnosis. An Introduction, J. Bowden,transl.,London-NewYork:T&T Clark,2003, 97-100. 44
xv. Layton, GnosticScriptures, Doresse, Les livressecretsdesgnostiquesd'Agypte,Paris: Librairie Plon, 1958, 283. 46 Barbelo in Epiphanius' account seems to be the equivalentof the fallen Sophia(Pan. 26.1.9, 10.9; Barbelo and the Mother from whom the power was stolen are not clearly distinguished) rather than the second pleromatic principle as in Irenaeus' account. Davides in Epiphanius' account is one of the seven wicked rulers (Pan. 26.10.1), while David in Irenaeus' account is one of the four luminaries of Autogenes (Adv.Haer. 1.29.2). 47 Cf. the demiurgic role of the divine Setheus in the Untitled(Sethian)text of Bruce Codex (ch. 8). See also Pearson, Gnosticism,66. 45 J.
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
251
teaching do not mention Seth or his seed at all (Barbeloitesof Adv. Haer. 1.29, Trim.Prot.,Norea),some scholars have suggested that the Barbeloite teaching originallydeveloped independentlyof the Sethian speculationsand that Seth was secondarily introduced into the Barbeloite system.48This hypothesisis strenghtenedby the fact that some of Schenke's Sethian texts, which do deal with Seth and his seed, seem unaware of Barbeloite ideas (Sethians and Archontics of Pan. 39 and 40). The Barbeloiteshave been connected also with the Ophites. Later heresiologists labelled the anonymous "Gnostic" teachings found in Irenaeus' Adv.Haer. 1.29 and 1.30 as those of "Barbeloites"and "(Sethian-)Ophites" respectively.4 Sometimes these two chapters have been taken to be a unit,50and they both have a close connection to the most famous of Sethian treatises,Ap. John. However, whereas chapter 1.29 is extremely similar in content and order to the first half of Ap. John (approximatelyto II 4,2910,28 par.), the following chapter, 1.30, offers a set of much looser parallels. It seems that, if Irenaeus in the case of ch. 1.29 was quoting from a version of Ap.John, he must have used another document in composing ch. 1.30, a document based on traditions similar to those found, e.g., in Hyp. Arch.,Orig.World,and the second half of Ap.John.51 Adv. Haer. 1.29-30 togetherwith Ap.Johnalso have been used as the cornerstone for reconstructions of the history of Gnosticism, especially of Sethian Gnosticism. Both Turner and Logan think that the myths represented by chs. 1.29 and 1.30 of Adv.Haer.originallyexisted apart from each other before they were combined in Ap.John (Logan) and even in Sethian Gnosticism in general (Turner)in the second century CE.52They are also of the opinion that Ap.John then inspiredthe writing of most of the texts in Schenke'sSethian corpus.The major differencebetween their solutionsconcerns the origin and dating of the ideas dealing with the special status of
A. Logan, GnosticTruth and ChristianHeresy,Edinburgh: 48 Turner, SethianGnosticism; T&T Clark, 1996; J.-M. S6vrin, Le dossierbaptismalsithien,Bibliotheque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section: "ttudes" 2, Qu6bec-Louvain: Les Presses de l'Universit6 Laval-tditions Peeters, 1986, e.g., 275ff.; Also A. Klijn (Sethin Jewish, Christianand GnosticLiterature, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 46, Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1977, 115) thinks that Seth was secondarily "introduced into an already existing system." 49 E.g., Theodoret, Haer.fab. comp.1.13-14. For his treatment of Barbeloites, Naasseni, and Ophites as identical, see above. 50 Layton, GnosticScriptures,170. 51 Cf. Wisse, "The Nag Hammadi," 215, 218. 52 Turner, SethianGnosticism,e.g., 257ff.; Logan, GnosticTruth,e.g., 43-45, 55-56.
252
TUOMAS RASIMUS
Seth and his seed. Both agree that originallythe Barbeloitespeculation(Adv. Haer. 1.29) did not know of them. Turner thinks these ideas derived from a of John, group "that crafted the anthropogoniescommon to the Apocryphon the Hypostasis of Adam,and Irenaeus' (Adv.Haer. of theArchons,the Apocalypse 1.30) 'Ophites'."53He calls this non- and even pre-Christian54group "Sethites," since he thinks they saw themselves as the worthy seed of Seth. Logan, however, rightly sees that the Ophites of Irenaeus had no interestin Seth, nor did they know of his special seed. He thinksrather that a "Sethianization"process occurred around 200 CE, after the Barbeloite (Adv.Haer. 1.29) and Ophite (Adv.Haer. 1.30) myths were already fused. Only in this process would the ideas of Seth as a savior, the Gnostics as the pneumatic seed of Seth, the four lights as the dwellingplaces of Adam, Seth, and his seed, and the division of history, have been introduced into Barbeloite and Ophite speculations.These developmentswould have been provoked by the criticism of novelty by the "Great Church," and possibly under the influence of the Valentinian concept of Seth as the progenitorof the pneumatics.55 Turner too notices that the Ophites of Irenaeus (Adv.Haer. 1.30) did not conceive of Seth as a savior nor speak anything of his special seed. However, Turner does not seem to make a clear distinctionbetween these Ophites and his "Sethites,"who according to him revered Seth from the first. On the one hand Turner ascribesthe anthropogonyof Adv.Haer. 1.30 (Ophites) to the "Sethites"and reconstructsthe "Sethite"triad of highest On the and Soph.Jes. Chr.56 beings on the basis of Adv.Haer. 1.30, Eugnostos other hand, he conceives of the Ophites of Adv. Haer. 1.30 (as well as of and Soph.Jes. Chr.)as non-Sethian, and, because Seth was not a Eugnostos savior for them, presumablyas non-"Sethite"too.57It seems, however, that both Turner and Logan distinguish among three originally independent speculationsbehind Schenke'sSethianism:(1) the Barbeloitemyth as in Adv. Haer. 1.29, (2) the Ophite myth of Adv.Haer. 1.30, and (3) the speculation responsiblefor the concepts of Seth as a savior, and the Gnostics as the special seed of Seth (Logan:those responsiblefor the "Sethianization";Turner: "Sethites").This distinction seems helpful. While Turner and many other
53 54
258. Turner,SethianGnosticsm, Ibid.,261, 271.
55
Logan, GnosticTruth,e.g., xx, 45-46, 191, 283.
56
287-290. Turner,SethianGnosticism, Ibid.,203ff.
57
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
253
scholars prefer an early (even pre-Christian)dating for the Seth-speculations, based, for example, on various Seth-traditionsfound in Jewish literature, Logan justifies his dating (ca. 200 CE) on the evidence of growing interest in Seth from the early third century on.58Whatever the case with this dating, with the solutions of Turner and Logan the table has finally turned; whereas in the older scholarshipthe Sethians were seen as part of Ophitism, the Ophites can now be seen as part of Sethianism,providing it with sources. Pursuitof the OphiteMythology in theNag HammadiandRelatedCodices Five documentsin Nag Hammadi and Berlin Codex 8502 have been suggested or shown to have links not only with both Schenke's Sethians and church fathers' Ophites but also with each other: Ap.John, Hyp.Arch.,Orig. Some of these links are obvious. It is World,Soph.Jes. Chr.,and Eugnostos. that Arch. and generally recognized Hyp. Orig.Worldhave an intimate literand ary relationship, probably depend on a common written source.59 Moreover, Soph.Jes. Chr.today generallyis considered to be a re-writingof That Ap.John, Hyp.Arch.and Orig.Worldshare much common Eugnostos.60 material is readily apparent.61Other not so obvious links among several of these five texts also have been detected, and they will be considered after we will have dealt with the "sectarian"links of these documents. Of these five texts, only Ap.Johnand Hyp.Arch.are included in Schenke's Sethian corpus, while the other three have remained more or less unclassified.However, whereas Ap. John is considered a classic example of Sethianism,62Hyp. Arch.does not have significant Sethian characteristics. 58
Logan, GnosticTruth, 16-19, 47. For an early dating for these Seth-traditions, see, e.g., Pearson, Gnosticism,52-83; Turner, SethianGnosticism,266-270. 59 R. Bullard, The Hypostasisof theArchons,Patristische Texte und Studien 10, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1970, 100; B. Barc, L'HypostasedesArchontes, Bibliotheque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section: "Textes" 5, Quebec-Louvain: Les Presses de 1'Universite Laval-Editions Peeters, 1980, 1-48; Schenke, "Phenomenon," 596-597; H.-G. Bethge, "Introduction," in Nag HammadiCodexII, 2-7, vol. 2, B. Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Studies 21, Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1989, 12-19. 60 See D. Parrott, ed., Nag HammadiCodices III, 3-4 and V,I, Nag Hammadi Studies 27, Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1991, 3-5. 61 See, e.g., Barc, L'Hypostase,5-19; Turner, Sethian Gnosticism,167; Logan, Gnostic
Truth,238. 62 See, e.g., Turner, SethianGnosticism, 69; Layton, GnosticScriptures, 12-17, 23ff.; Logan, GnosticTruth,xvii-xxi.
254
TUOMAS RASIMUS
The main reason Schenke accepted it into his Sethian corpus was the appearance of the figure of Eleleth,63one of the four luminaries of the Barbeloite teaching (the only clear Barbeloite feature in Hyp.Arch.).However, since Seth is not considered a savior in this text and the special seed is said to be Norea's, instead of his, Hyp.Arch.cannot be consideredas truly Sethian, but perhaps as only influenced by Barbeloite ideas. Even though Orig.Worldlacks all peculiarlySethian and Barbeloitefeaturesand generally is not considered Sethian, its close connection with Hyp.Arch.has led to its inclusion in the discussion on Sethianism. Schenke and Turner have speculated that the possible common source behind Hyp.Arch.and Orig.World could have been Sethian in character.64Perkinseven thinks Orig.Worldrepis sometimes conceived of as "protoresents Sethian Gnosticism.65Eugnostos Sethian,"because the Third Male in its system can be considered to be an archetypeof Seth (see below), and since the text has been taken to be a possible source of Ap.John.66According to many scholars, the special material in Soph.Jes. Chr.,not based on Eugnostos, has Sethian featuresor at least clear The links with Sethian writingssuch as Ap.John,Hyp.Arch.,and Trim.Prot.67 Sethian features include the "Invisible for the term Spirit" suggested Supreme God (passimin Ap.John;also in the clearly Barbeloitebut perhaps non-Sethian Trim.Prot.38,11), and the desire of Sophia to create without the consort. However, Seth himself does not explicitly appear in Soph.Jes. Chr. Each of these five writings also have been suggested to have links with the Ophites of the church fathers. It is generally accepted that Hyp.Arch., Orig.World,and Ap.Johnhave a close connection to Irenaeus' Ophites (Adv. Haer. 1.30), and that these all representa very similarkind of re-interpreta63
Schenke, "Phenomenon," 596-597.
64
62. Ibid.,596-597;Turner,SethianGnosticism, Ph. Perkins,Gnosticism andtheNew Testament, Minneapolis:FortressPress, 1993, 43.
65 66 67
Parrott, Nag Hammadi,11-12; Turner, SethianGnosticism,210, 216. See C. Barry, "Un example de reecriture a Nag Hammadi: La Sagesse de Jesus
Christ (BG,3; NH III,4),"in Les textesde Nag Hammadi et le problnede leurclassification, L. Painchaud & A. Pasquier, eds., Bibliotheque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section: "Etudes" 3, Quebec-Louvain: Les Presses de l'Universit6 Laval-tditions Peeters, 1995, 151-168, here p. 164-168; J. Turner, "Typologies of the Sethian Gnostic Treatises from Nag Hammadi," in Les Textes, 169-217, here p. 212ff.; J. Hartenstein, Die ZweiteLehre, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur 146, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2000, 42-44; M. Tardieu, Acrits Gnostiques.Codexde Berlin, Paris: Les lditions du Cerf, 1984, 60-64; H.-M. Schenke, "Nag Hammadi Studien III," in ZeitschrnJ
14 (1962),352-361. undGeistesgeschichte fir Religions-
SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADILIBRARY 255 OPHITEGNOSTICISM,
tion of the first chapters of Genesis.68The following themes are found in at least three of these four texts: Ialdabaoth, born of Sophia, creates offspring(the archons)and boasts to be the only god; his claim is rebuked; archons create Adam but are unable to raise him from the ground; Adam receives two divine elements which awaken and assist him; Eve is created/brought to Adam; archons rape Eve; Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge instructedby the revealer, either directly or by the means of the serpent, and this is considered a positive act; Adam and Eve are cast out of paradise; evil beings from heaven instruct humankind in error and idolatry;the figure of Norea is mentioned; evil archon(s)send(s)the flood; and the Old Testament is considered to contain some truth due to Sophia, who also plays an important role in the salvation history (Orig.World113,6 and Irenaeus'Adv.Haer. 1.30.9 even mention her providence).In addition, the names of the seven archons are found in almost identical form in Irenaeus'(and Origen's)Ophite account, Orig.World,and Ap.John.69Finally, all four texts mention Samael; it is an alternate name either for the chiefdemon Michael, or for Ialdabaoth. While the strongly Sethian Ap. John 68 Barc, L'Hypostase,6-19, esp. n. 18 on p. 16; Turner, SethianGnosticism,167; Perkins, "On the Origin," 44-45; Petrement, Separate,437-441. 69 In addition, a very similar list of the names is found in a Gnostic amulet (see C. Studiesin Honorof Theodore Bonner, "An Amulet of the Ophite Gnostics," in Commemorative LeslieShear,Hesperia: Supplement VIII, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1949, 43-46 + plate 8; together with Orig.World100,24-25 it is the only known document designating Ialdabaoth as "Ariel") and in the Berlin Codex 20 915 (see G. Robinson, "Sethianism and the Doctrine of Creation in a Partially Restored Coptic Codex (Papyrus Berolinensis 20 915)," in Le Museon113 [2000], 239-262), describing the teaching of "Sethians": Irenaeus Ialdabaoth Iao Sabaoth Adonaeus Eloeus Oreus Astaphaeus
Origen laldabaoth Iao Sabaoth Adonaios Astaphaios Ailoaios Horaios
Orig.World Iao Sabaoth Adonaios Eloaios Oraios
Gnosticamulet Ia Iao Sabaoth Adonai Eloai Horeos
BC 20 915 [lalda]baoth [S]abaoth Adonaio[s] [Iaoth] [E]loaios Oraios
Astaphaios
Astaphaeos
A[staphaios]
Ap.John Iaoth Eloaios Astaphaios Iao Sabaoth Adoni Sabbataios
With the exception of the Berlin Codex 20 915, this synopsis is based on a similar one in R. van den Broek, Studiesin Gnosticimand AlexandrianChristianiy,Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 39, Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1996, 70; Hyp. Arch.also mentions Ialdabaoth, Sabaoth, and Ialdabaoth's seven offspring (e.g., II 94,34ff.). Cf. also the list in Epiphanius' account of the Gnostics in Pan. 26.10.1-3: Iao, Saklas, Seth, Davides, Eloaeus, Adonaeus, Ialdabaoth/Elilaeus, Sabaoth/Ialdabaoth.
256
TUOMAS RASIMUS
downgradesSophia and the snake, the other three documents depict them as essentialfigures. Ialdabaothand his archons are important charactersin all these four documents. The materialcommon to these texts does not, however, cover the beginning of the Ophite account, Adv.Haer. 1.30.1-3, which contains a description of the pleromaticworld. Whereas Hyp.Arch.and Orig.Worldare for the most part silent about the upper worlds,Ap.John has assumed the so-called Barbeloite doctrine of the pleroma, presented in the preceding chapter (Adv.Haer. 1.29) of Irenaeus' catalogue. Even though Layton suggests that 1.30.1-3 could be a summary of 1.29,70we are in fact here dealing with two completelydifferentdoctrinesof the pleroma. The basic structureof the Barbeloiteone (1.29), consistingof the triad of Father-Mother-Sonand the four illuminatorsof the Son is clearly differentfrom the Ophite one (1.30) consisting of the aforementionedpentad, with an underlyingtriad of three male divinities Man-Son of Man-Savior (see below). The large Barbeloite pleroma includes a great number of hypostatizedfaculties of the godhead reminiscentof Platonic speculations(such as Mind, Word, and Truth). The Ophite pleroma instead consists of a small number of individual figures derived from the Judeo-Christiantradition(Man, Son of Man, Holy Spirit, Christ, Sophia). Turner and Logan have noted that the underlying structure of this Ophite (Adv.Haer. 1.30) doctrine-the triad of three male divinities-is found at the base of the systems of Eugnostos and Soph.Jes. Chr.,71 two texts with the and structure of the world. This mostly dealing genesis pleromatic triad of three males is in fact found nowhere else in Gnostic literature, except perhaps in Origen's account of the Ophites (Father-Son-Love;see above). Obviously there is some variation in the way the rest of the system has been built around this core. Irenaeus' Ophites have superimposedan additional triad of the First Man, Son of Man, and the Holy Spirit on this scheme; Eugnostosand Soph.Jes. Chr.have posited two consortless higher beings (Unbegottenand the Self-Begetter)above the triad of ImmortalManSon of Man-Savior, and have assigned consorts/female aspects called Sophia to these three males (this shows Sophia's importance).In addition, Soph.Jes. Chr.has distortedthe pattern in trying to fit the figure of the risen Jesus into the system. Nevertheless,the basic structureremains the same.
70 71
Layton, GnosticScriptures,170. Turner, SethianGnosticism,209-210; Logan, GnosticTruth,n. 56 on pp. 151, 180.
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
257
(esp. Designationsof the male and female aspects of the triad in Eugnostos in the Codex V version which has been suggested to be the earliest)72bear striking similarities to the figures in Irenaeus' Ophite account, and the source for these speculationsseems to be the same, Genesis 1-5 (which is in accordancewith the overall interest in Genesis of Ophite speculations).The Immortal Man, the first member of the triad, is in the Codex V version of called the "Man of the depth" (6,20), while the Ophite First Man Eugnostos is said to exist in the depth (Adv.Haer. 1.30.1). The Ophite First Man puts his ennoiaforward,and to this act the Son of Man owes his existence. Ennoia as a grammaticallyfeminine word seems a bit strange characterizationfor the masculine Son of Man,73and therefore ennoiaand Son of Man originally could have been two different figures (perhaps the superimposingof the additional triad of First Man-Son of Man-Holy Spirit is responsiblefor the fading of ennoiaby identifying her with the Son of Man). Interestingly V the female aspect of the Immortal Man is called "Ennoiaof in Eugnostos all Sophias," and together they give birth to the Son of Man (6,8). Since the Son of Man, the second member of the triad in Eugnostos (V 9,23) is also called Adam, the interpretativekey to the triadic pattern seems to lie in an interpretationof Gen 5:1-3 and Gen 1:26-27, according to which Adam transmittedthe (human)likeness and image of God to Seth. That the God of the Old Testament could be called "Man" is no surprise;for this idea can be deduced, e.g., from Ezek 1:26ff. and Gen 1:26. Furthermore,the V (9,4-5; cf. Soph.Jes. Chr.III female aspect of the Son of Man in Eugnostos 104,17-18/BG 99,11-12) is called "Mother of the all"; and, similarly in Irenaeus' version, the Holy Spirit is called "Mother of the living."74Both refer to LXX Gen 3:20, according to which Eve was called "Mother of all (V 10,12-13 par.) is called living." Finally, Savior's femaleness in Eugnostos Pistis Sophia; and, in Irenaeus' account, Sophia is the sister of Christ the savior. We can sketch the following table of comparison:
See Parrott, Nag Hammadi,16ff. See Turner, SethianGnosticism,210. 74 Although the Holy Spirit is said to exist below the Son of Man, both exist hierarchically lower than the First Man, but higher than Christ and Sophia. 72
73
258
TUOMAS RASIMUS
female
Adv. Haer. 1.30 male
EugnostosV male
female
Unbegotten Forefather Self-Begetter Self-Father (Ennoia)
First Man, exists in the Depth
Immortal Man, Man of the Depth
Holy Spirit, Mother of the living
Son of Man, Second man
Son of Man, Adam
Sophia, Mother of the all
Sophia
Christ, Third man
Savior
Pistis Sophia
Ennoia of all Sophias
The members of the Ophite pentad have clear equivalents in Eugnostos (the same applies for Soph.Jes. Chr.,which basicallyhas the same system as Both systemsalso have Man and Son of Man as importantdiviniEugnostos). an ties, important Sophia, and a connection to Genesis. The suggested Genesis-interpretationalso makes understandable the "monstrous"75 concept of both the First Man and the Son of Man uniting with the Holy Spirit to beget the Third Man (Adv.Haer. 1.30.1-2). If the First Man is taken to representthe Old Testament God and if Son of Man standsfor Adam and Holy Spiritfor Eve, then Gen 4:25 offersthe solution: after Adam had laid with Eve and she had given birth to Seth, she proclaimed that Godhad granted her a child. The passage can be read in such a way that both Adam and God were involved in the begetting of Seth (the same applies for Cain, cf. Gen 4:1). This Genesis-interpretationalso implies that the Third Man, Savior or Christ, is intended to be Seth. However, nothing of a heavenly Seth is said explicitly in these texts. Likewise, in Irenaeus'account there is no indicationof Seth's special status.Rather, Seth and his offspring are said to have been urged on to wickedness by the demons (Adv.Haer. 1.30.9). If the scheme originallyincluded the idea of a heavenly Seth of some sort, this idea was not employed in the texts which used this scheme. The scheme also implies that the Old Testament God is to be seen in a positive light as the true high God. YHWH is, nevertheless, represented by the more or less negative figure of Ialdabaoth in the lower 75
Bousset, Hauptprobleme, 162; Petrement, Separate,94.
OPHITEGNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADILIBRARY
259
world according to Irenaeus' Ophites. However, the related Eugnostos, Soph. Jes. Chr.,Hyp.Arch.,Orig.Worldand Ap.Johnteach that the lower world has its pattern in the upper ones.76This suggests that YHWH is merely a distorted and lower representationof the true God. A similar idea could be found in Eugnostos which places a positiveArchigenetor in the upper worlds (III 82,18; V has a lacuna here). Other texts where this designation occurs, including Soph.Jes. Chr.,use it only of Ialdabaoth.77 A few words concerning the role of the serpent in these texts are called for here.78Orig.World,Hyp.Arch.and Irenaeus' Ophites teach that a higher power either used the serpent to teach Adam and Eve to eat from the forbidden tree, or was itself the instructor.Whereas in Hyp.Arch.(89,31-90,12) and in Irenaeus' Ophite account (Adv.Haer. 1.30.7-8) the neutral/evil snake was controlled by a feminine power in doing this, Org. World(113,17114,15; 118,24-120,6) explains how the "lordly man," an offspring of Sophia Zoe, was the instructorin paradise. This is reminiscentof the opinion of some of Irenaeus' Ophites that Sophia herselfbecame the snake (Adv. Haer. 1.30.15), but an even closer parallel is found in Theodoret's version (Haer.fab. comp.1.14), according to which Sophia's son was the serpent. However, Ap.Johncondemns the serpent altogether,and instead assignsthe instruction-functionsto the Savior (II 22,9-15 par.). Accordinglythe Sethian texts in general show very little interest in the serpent.79That Eugnostos and Chr. not do mention the at is due to their Soph.Jes. serpent all, probably focus on the pleromatic world.80 Many central Ophite themes appear in these five texts. The Ophite doctrine of the pleroma is visible in Eugnostos and Soph.Jes. Chr.and the Ophite the and teaching concerning genesis history of the lower world in Orig. and the second half of Ap. John. Does anything else sugWorld,Hyp.Arch., gest that these texts belong together?Painchaudhas proposed that Eugnostos and Orig. Worldwere "intended as two complementary parts of a single 76 V 3,31-4,8/III74,14-20;Soph. Eugnostos Jes.Chr.III98,13-20/BG90,4-12;Hyp.Arch. 87,7-11;Orig.World 102,2-7;103,15-32;123,28-31;125,17-20; Ap.JohnII 12,33-13,5.
7
Orig.World(passim);Soph.Jes. Chr.(III 118,20/BG 119,14-15;125,16);Ap.John(II
12,29/III16,16/BG40,1);Trim.Prot(40,23;43,25-32;44,27;49,13).
78 For a complete survey of the Gnostic serpent imagery, see my "Serpent."
The snakedoes not appearat all in 13 of the 16 Sethiantexts of Schenke'scorpus. Ap.Johnhas an unimportantand negativelyvaluedserpentof paradise,whilethe Gnostics of Pan.26 and Hyp.Arch.,whichalso speakof the serpent,have only a few Sethianand/or Barbeloitefeatures. 80In the Ophite mythologythe snakeis not a pleromatic being, unlike,for example, in the Peraticteaching(Ref.5.12-18). 79
260
TUOMAS RASIMUS
design." He argues that both documents share (1) a large amount of sometimes unique vocabulary and common dramatispersonae(e.g., Archigenetor, "ImmortalMan," "Adam of Light," the upper world as "unlimited"),(2) common literarypatterns with similar functions,81and (3) the same rhetorical dispositio, with similarfeaturesin transitionparts:(a) Exordium(Eugnostos III 70,1-71,13/Orig. World97,24-98,11); (b) Narration (Eugnostos III 71,13III 74,12/Orig. World98,11-123,2); (c) Proof (Eugnostos 74,12-89,15/Orig. III 89,15-90,11/ Orig. World World123,2-31); and (d) Peroration (Eugnostos two texts also to a symmetricunit based on seem form 123,32-127,17) (the certain links between the transitionparts).82 Other scholarshave pointed out connectionsbetween Hyp.Arch.and Soph. Jes. Chr.83These two tractates share common terminology and themes (mostlyappearingin the same chronologicalorder), such as the cosmic veil (Kicatacrlraaa)connected with Sophia's creation (Hyp.Arch.94,5ff./Soph.Jes. Chr.III 114,14ff.),and the idea that the number of chaos has to be fulfilled (Hyp.Arch.96,11-15/Soph.Jes. Chr.BG 121,5-13). In addition, the following themes that are explicitin Hyp.Arch.may be implicitin Soph.Jes. Chr.:Adam names the animals (Hyp.Arch.88,19-24/Soph.Jes. Chr.BG 120,7-11); and falls in sleep and oblivion (Hyp.Arch.89,3-7/Soph.Jes. Chr.BG 120,1-3). The two documents also belong to the same literary genre of heavenly revelations. Both texts describe the revelator in a similar manner: In Soph.Jes. Chr.Jesus resemblesa great angel of light (III 91,10-14 par.), while in Hyp. Arch.Eleleth is a great angel and a luminary (93,18-20). Also the inability to properlydescribethe revelatoris in both texts expressedin a similarway (Hyp.Arch.93,13-18/Soph.Jes. Chr.III 91,14ff. par.). Finally, both Eleleth and Jesus are connected with wisdom (Hyp.Arch.93,8-9/the title Sophiaof Jesus Christ).84 III 76,24-77,2;81,21-82,4;82,7I.e., lists of male and female names in Eugnostos World the descriptionsof certainheav101,24-102,2; 106,27-107,1; 107,4-14; 83,2/Orig. ens in Eugnostos III 88,11-89,3/Org. World102,15-22. 81
82
L. Painchaud, "The Literary Contacts between the Writing without Title On the
Originof the World(CG 11,5and XIII,2)and Eugnostosthe Blessed(CG 111,3and V,1)," in Journalof BiblicalLiterature114/1 (1995), 81-101; Cf. A. Pasquier's division of Eugnostos
in Eugnoste, BibliothequeCopte de Nag Hammadi, Section: "Textes" 26, QuebecLouvain: Les Presses de l'Universit6 Laval-tditions Peeters, 2000, 16ff. 83 Barry, "Un example," 164-168; Turner, "Typologies," 212ff.; Hartenstein, Zweite Lehre,42-44. R. Falkenberg ("Reconstructing the Salvation History in the Sophiaof Jesus Christ(NHC 111,4 and BG,3)"; unpublished manuscript) has discussed the many links between Org. Worldand Soph.Jes. Chr. 84 For these links, see esp. Hartenstein, ZweiteLehre,42-44.
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
261
Since Hyp. Arch.and Orig. Worldform one obvious pair, Eugnostos and have it is Chr. and the two natural another, contacts, Soph.Jes. pairs only that all these four texts share many features, some of which are even rare elsewhere. The similaritiesinclude (1) the name Pistis Sophia (Eugnostos V 10,11-15/III 82,3-6; Soph.Jes. Chr.III 106,21-24/BG 102,6-9; Orig.World V 98,13-14; Hyp.Arch.94,5-6); (2) the term "kinglessgeneration"(Eugnostos 5,4-5/11 75,17-19; Soph.Jes. Chr.III 99,18-19/BG 92,6-7; Hyp.Arch.97,45; Orig. World125,2-7); (3) the idea that the one who has knowledge is immortal among mortals (Eugnostos V 2,2-8/III 71,5-13; Soph.Jes. Chr.III Arch. 93,16-24/BG 82,9-18; Hyp. 96,25-27; Orig.World125,11-12); and (4) the idea that the lower world has its pattern in the upper ones (see above). Scholars also have noticed links between Ap. John and both Eugnostos and Soph.Jes. Chr.,especially the similaritybetween the framestoriesof Ap.John and Soph.Jes. Chr.85 It is also worth noting that the section dealing with negative theology in Ap. John (II 2,35-4,18 par.) is missing from Irenaeus' Barbeloiteaccount but found in a similarform in Eugnostos (V 2,8-3,4 par.). These five texts also have been grouped together to some extent in the Nag Hammadi and Berlin codices: NH II has (1) Ap.John, (4) Hyp.Arch.,and (5) and (4) Soph.Jes. Chr.;and Orig.World;NH III has (1) Ap.John,(3) Eugnostos, BG has (2) Ap.John, and (3) Soph.Jes. Chr. Conclusion The five examined Nag Hammadi and BG 8502 texts have strong Ophite connections. However, whereas Eugnostos and Orig.Worlddo not contain any clear Sethian or Barbeloite features, the related Soph.Jes. Chr.,Hyp. Arch., and Ap.John, do. The latter three also are presented as revelationsin dialogue form. I propose that these latter three texts point to the same milieu where a need was felt to justify the teaching by appealingto a heavenly revelator and to combine Ophite materialswith other forms of Gnostic speculation. While Hyp.Arch.and Soph.Jes. Chr.do not seem very interested in Seth, Ap.Johnintroducesinto the combined Barbeloite-Ophiteteaching the idea of a heavenly Seth who has to restore his seed to their proper dwelling
85
Tardieu(crits Gnostiques, 60-65)and Barry("Unexample,"164-168)are of the opinion that Ap. John has influencedSoph.Jes. Chr.here; Hartenstein(ZweiteLehre,44-46, 313ff.)thinksSoph.Jes. Chr.is earlierthanAp.John.For possiblecontactsbetweenAp.John and Eugnostos, see Turner,SethianGnosticism, 216.
262
TUOMAS RASIMUS
places in the lights of the pleroma. Therefore, Ap. John is the only truly Sethian text of these five. Put in another way: Org. Worldand Eugnostosdraw mainly from the Ophite speculations (although they also have been heavily influenced by Greek philosophy),while their literarycounterpartsHyp.Arch.and Soph.Jes. Chr.have introduced Barbeloite and perhaps slight Sethian features into essentially Ophite material. Ap. John finally represents a "full-blown" Sethianism. In this light Theodoret's informationconcerning the introduction of the divinized Seth into an essentiallyOphite material may well represent historicalreality.The various other "serpent-sects"(e.g., the Naasseni and the Sethians of Refutatio) should be distinguishedfrom the Ophites, even though they share some ideas with them. Whereas the Ophites drew heavily on Gen 3, the snake speculation in other forms of Gnosticism has its roots elsewhere, e.g., in John 3:14-15.86However, since the so-called "serpent-midrash"of Testim.Truth(NH IX 45,23-49,10) as well as Epiphanius' account of the "Gnostics,"also known as "Barbelites"(Pan.26), have certain connections to the Ophite mythology and to Hyp.Arch.,they may be based on Ophite sources too.87 The distinctionamong the Ophite, Barbeloite,and "Seth-honoring"speculations behind Schenke's Sethianismseems justified, but I am not suggesting that these three teachings necessarilycame from three socially distinct groups. Rather, we seem to be dealing with three sets of ideas, which could be used togetherin various combinations.(Interestingly,many scholarsfrom the 19th century onward have grouped together the various Sethians, Ophites, and Barbeloitesas representativesof a single Gnostic movement.) Thus, the relationshipbetween the Sethian and Ophite forms of Gnosticism 86 See my "Serpent." 87 The "midrash" of Testim. Truthfollows the text of Genesis 2-3 closely and also resembles the paradise stories of Hyp. Arch. (88,24-32; 89,31-91,11) and Orig. World (118,16-121,13) to a great extent. In fact, this "midrash," praising the snake over against YHWH, has been suggested to represent "Ophite gnosis" (apparently in the old and wide sense of the term) by Pearson (Gnosticism, 50). In addition, Epiphanius' account in Pan. 26 has many parallels with Celsus/Origen's Ophite account: the serpent as the bringer of knowledge (Pan. 26.2.6/Cels. 6.28), a world-surrounding dragon (Pan. 26.10.8/Cels. 6.25 [Leviathan]), the names of the seven archons (Pan. 26.10.1-3/Cels. 6.31-32), the postmortem ascent of souls (Pan. 26.10.7-8/Cels. 6.31), possibly also the transmigration of souls, with the idea of some souls returning into animals (Pan. 26.10.8/Cels. 6.33; cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.30.14 and Ap. John II 26,36-27,11 par.; for a different opinion, see Witte, Das Ophitendiagramm, 125-126). The story of the flood (Pan. 26.1.3-9) has close parallels to Hyp. Arch.92,8-17. See also Pearson, Gnosticism,84-94.
OPHITE GNOSTICISM, SETHIANISM AND THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
263
can be explained in terms of a re-writingof Ophite materialsby "Seth-honoring" persons. From such re-writings emerged texts that scholars today include in Sethian Gnosticism. The dating and origin of the "Seth-honoring" speculations remain unclear, but their fusion with Ophite and Barbeloite teachings may have occurred after 180 CE, because Irenaeus seems unaware of both the framestoryand the special status of Seth and his seed in his version or sources of Ap.John. Obviously, the hypothesis concerning the essentiallyOphite characterof Soph.Jes. Chr.,Orig.World,Hyp.Arch.,and the second half of Ap. Eugnostos, Johnneeds to be tested by a more detailed analysisof these texts and of the Ophite accounts in the heresiologicalliterature.Similarlythe questionsconcerning the precise character of the Ophite mythology and its relationship to other forms of Gnosticism,as well as to Judaism, require furtherstudy.88 Nevertheless,I think that in the light of the new textual evidence and recent scholarship,the Ophites deserve to be heard anew. University of Helsinki & Universite Laval tuomas.rasimus@helsinkifi
88 I have devoted my forthcoming doctoral dissertation to these questions.
HILARY OF POnTIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF THE LXX: A TRANSLATION OF TRACTATUSSUPER PSALMOS 2.2-3 WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY* BY
ADAM KAMESAR Hilary of Poitiers,in his Tractatus superPsalmos,provides a unique view of the origins of the LXX. The essentialpoint of his argumentin favor of the superiorityof the Greek version is that the seventy translatorswere the heirs of a secret oral traditionthat went back to Moses. Hilary describesthat tradition with the words "quaedam ex occultis legis secretiora mysteria", a phrase most likely to be rendered,"certainmore secret mysteriesof the law, from hidden sources".He derives proof of the existence of this oral tradition from Matthew 23:2-3, where Jesus acknowledgesthe legitimacy of the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, who sit on the seat of Moses. Knowledge of the extra-biblicaltraditionallowed the Seventy to produce a translationthat was more accurate than any other, because by reference to it they were able to interpretpossible ambiguitiesin the original. The claim of Hilary takes on special significancewhen compared to the view attributed to Rabbi Yehudah b. Shalom, a Palestinianamoraof the fifth generation, that is, a rough contemporary,about the Jewish oral tradition.In the view of Rabbi Yehudah, God gave an oral tradition to Israel because he foresaw that there would come a time when the Gentiles would appropriate the written biblical inheritance. They would translate the Torah into Greek and claim to be Israel themselves. But God would acknowledge as his children only those who possess his mystery. The "mystery"is defined as the mishnah, which was given in oral form.' In the view of Hilary, on the * In this article, the Roman numeral "LXX" will refer to the text of the Greek translation of the Bible, whereas the word "Seventy" will refer to the seventy translators as persons. ' Tanhuma,ki tissa 34; cf. PesiqtaRabbati5 (ed. Friedmann, p. 14b). For other parallel texts and discussion, see M. Bregman, "Mishnah and LXX as Mystery: An Example of andRenewalJews andJudaism Jewish-Christian Polemic in the Byzantine Period", Continuity ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
V'iliae Christianae 59, 264-285
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
265
other hand, the "mystery"of the oral tradition had already passed over to the Church, for it was the foundation of the LXX, and was therefore,in a certain sense, embedded within it. There have been some detailed treatmentsof Hilary's remarksin the last forty years, especiallyby NJ. Gastaldi, M. Milhau, and G. Veltri.2I myself have discussedthe place of Hilary'scomments within the context of patristic views about the text of the Old Testament.3However, some of the specifics of the passage, and particularlythe sources and parallelsto his views, merit further consideration. Indeed, in his recent critical edition of the text, J. Doignon, the great scholar of Hilary, cites only a few sources in his appaand not the most pertinent ones at that.4Moreover, as far as I ratusfontium, am aware, there is no modem translation of this text into a standard European language.5The passage is not an easy one, so it seemed that a brief discussionand annotated translationof it would be in order. In his article on the text, Milhau acknowledgesHilary's originality,but suggests that his primary sources were Irenaeus and Origen.6 On further analysis, however, it would appear that the parallels that best explain Hilary's main contribution,i.e., the concept of an oral tradition, are to be found in the Pseudo-Clementineliterature.In the Letterof PetertoJames,espeHomilies2.38.1; 3.47.1, we find the cially in ?? 1 and 3, and in the Clementine
in Byzantine-Christian Palestine,ed. L.I. Levine (Jerusalem, 2004), pp. 333-342. As Bregman indicates, p. 333 n. 4, the term mishnahis here to be understood as the oral tradition in its entirety. Cf. W. Bacher, Die Agadader Tannaiten,I2 (Strassburg, 1903), pp. 475-489. 2 Gastaldi, Hilario de Poitiers:Exegetadel Salterio(Paris, 1969), pp. 98-102; Milhau, "Un texte d'Hilaire de Poitiers sur les Septante, leur traduction et les autres 'traducteurs' (In psalm. 2,2-3)", Aug. 21 (1981), pp. 365-372; Veltri, "L'ispirazione della LXX tra leggenda e teologia: Dal racconto di Aristea alla 'veritas hebraica' di Girolamo", Laur. 27 (1986), pp. 3-71 (38-44 on Hilary). I have not been able to consult the article of E. Stanula, "The Value of 'Septuaginta' according to Saint Hilary of Poitiers" (in Polish), VoxPatrum6/7
(1984),pp. 304-316. 3 A. Kamesar, Jerome,GreekScholarship, and theHebrewBible (Oxford, 1993), pp. 31-32. 4
Hilarius Pictaviensis, TractatussuperPsalmos (Turhout,
1997 = CChr.SL 61), pp.
37-39. 5 There is a partial translation of Tract.in Psal. 2 by A. Blaise in his edition of Hilaire de Poitiers, De trinitateet ouvragesexigitiques(Namur, 1964), pp. 143-157, but it does not include the passage in question. Milhau, in a later article, "Le grec, une 'cle pour l'intelligence des psaumes'", REAug36 (1990), pp. 69-70, has translated a few relevant passages. I have published a partial translation in Bregman's article, "Mishnah and LXX", pp. 339-340. The present translation is a completion and revision of that effort. 6 "Un texte". On pp. 369-370, Milhau also speaks of influence of the anti-heretical literature.
266
ADAM KAMESAR
idea that Moses handed down, separate from the Scriptures,an oral tradition to seventy teachers/wise men, who would inherit Moses' seat or "cathedra". The tradition allowed the seventy men and their successors to interpret the Scripturescorrectly and explain any apparent contradictions in the text. The seventy elders were accordinglythe first links in the chain of tradition that began with Moses. This tradition, as scholars have noted, is based on scripturaldata in Exodus 24:1, 9-11 and Numbers 11:16-17, 2425.7 In these passages, it is said that Moses had a group of seventy elders that began with him the ascent up the mountain, where he would receive divine revelations,and that later received part of the propheticspiritto help him administer the affairs of the people. Now, in the Pseudo-Clementine texts, the referenceis clearly to the oral traditionas it was conceived by the Rabbis, and before them, the Pharisees.For, as noted, there is specific reference to the seventy elders inheriting the "cathedra of Moses" (Ep. Petr. 1.2), and we learn from Hom. Clem.11.29.1 that this was entrusted to the Pharisees,or at least to some of them, in accord with the words ofJesus in Mt. 23:2-3.8However, there is no mention of the Greek version of the LXX as regardsthis tradition. Epiphanius,on the other hand, in his OnMeasuresand Weights11, makes the explicit statement that Moses' appointmentof the seventy elders served for the appointment of the seventy-two translators.He as a "type" (xt7noS) makes reference here to the ascent on the mountain, so he is clearly thinking of Ex. 24:1, 9-11 (cf. also 12-13). In Defide 4.5, making the same connection between the elders of Moses and the translators,Epiphaniusrefers to both the mountain and Eldad and Modad, who are mentioned alongside the seventy elders in Num. 11:26-30 (and this makes a total of seventy-two). Accordingly, the tradition as it appears in Epiphanius is based on both 7 The passages from Numbers are noted by B. Rehm (and G. Strecker) in his edition of Die Pseudoklementinen, I, Homilien3(Berlin, 1992), pp. 1, 74. The link to Ex. 24:1, 9 is acknowledged in L. Cirillo, "L'antipaolinismo nelle Pseudoclementine", VerusIsraeLNuove sul giudeocristianesimo, eds. G. Filoramo and C. Gianotto (Brescia, 2001), p. 299. prospettive One should note, however, in particular the description of the seventy elders as icKexcoi in Hom. Clem.2.38.1; the Greek text of Ex. 24:11 has a reference to the E1CiXeKcot(v.1. ?CEKOXC0).
8 That the tradition of the Pharisees goes back to Moses is stated in Recog.Clem.1.54.7. On the rabbinic nature of the characterization of the oral tradition in the Pseudoin den Pseudoklementinen2 Clementines, see G. Strecker, Das Judenchristentum (Berlin, 1981), pp. 163-164, 165-166; A.I. Baumgarten, "Josephus and Hippolytus on the Pharisees", HUCA 55 (1984), pp. 13-14; "Literary Evidence for Jewish Christianity in the Galilee", The Galileein LateAntiquity,ed. L.I. Levine (New York, 1992), pp. 39-50.
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
267
Exodus and Numbers. It is of course possible that the passages from Exodus and Numbers constitutethe originalbasis for the traditionabout the seventy-two/seventy translators as it appears from the Letterof Aristeas onwards, but an explicit connection is not made in the extant JudeoHellenistic sources.9 It is important to distinguishthe idea of an oral tradition handed from Moses to the seventy elders and on down to the Greek translatorsof the Bible, as attestedin Hilary, from the idea that those same elders constituted a kind of precedent or "type" for the appointment of the translators.For the former entails a continuous, unbrokentradition,whereas the latter does not. And in fact, Milhau recognizesthis difference,but then goes on to posit the hypothesis that Hilary and Epiphanius are dependent on a common source, namely, Origen.10It seems much more likely, however, in light of what has been stated so far, that Hilary has combined the conception about the oral tradition attested in the Pseudo-Clementinestogether with an idea similar to that explicitly stated by Epiphanius,but no doubt obvious if not widely circulating,that Moses' seventy elders prefiguredthe later translators. Particularlysignificantis the referenceto the "cathedraof Moses" from Mt. 23:2, to which there is reference in both the Pseudo-Clementines and Hilary. That Hilary may be dependent on an intermediary source is of course possible, and that intermediarysource could have been Origen. But the source may have been more obscure, since if the idea were employed by Origen, one might have expected to find some trace of it in Eusebius, the Cappadocians,Jerome, Rufinus, et al. On the other hand, it may be recognized that there is an Alexandrianor Origenian coloring in the manner in which Hilary portrays the oral tradition. For Hilary contraststhe "spiritual"nature of the traditioninherited by the Seventy with the "literal"characterof the version of Aquila." The idea of the "spirituality"of the LXX is a familiarone, and is attested in a number of important sources from Origen to Augustine.'2But this is normally associated with the prophetic inspirationof the translatorsrather than the 9 See G. Dorival, "La Bible des Septante: 70 ou 72 traducteurs?", Traditionof the Text (FS D. Barthelemy), eds. GJ. Norton and S. Pisano (Freiburg [Schweiz], 1991), pp. 57-58, 60. Dorival would put more emphasis on Num. 11:16-17, 24-25. '0 "Un texte", pp. 367-368. 1 See Gastaldi, Hilario, pp. 99, 101, 102; Veltri, "L'ispirazione", pp. 40-41. 12 See D. Barthelemy, "Origene et le texte de l'Ancien Testament", Epektasis(FS J. Danielou), eds.J. Fontaine and C. Kannengiesser ([Paris], 1972), pp. 258-9; H. Marti, derAugustin-,eit(Munich, 1974), p. 66; cf. p. 69. Ubersetzer
268
ADAM
KAMESAR
"spiritual"nature of the oral traditionthey inherited. Indeed, as Augustine puts it in the Cityof God18.43, the differencesfound in the LXX, as compared with the Hebrew, were effected by the translators,"ut etiam hinc ostenderetur non humanam fuisse in illo opere servitutem, quam verbis debebat interpres,sed divinam potius potestatem, quae mentem replebat et regebat interpretis".By contrast, Hilary speaks of the seventy translatorsas having acquired a "spiritualknowledge... in conformitywith the Mosaic tradition"(Tract.in Psal. 2.2). This statement probably representsa shift in focus, if not a step beyond the portrayalof the oral traditionin the PseudoClementine texts. For in those texts the tradition would appear to be prifontiumof marily of a halakhic character.13Now, Doignon, in the apparatus refers to Origen's Homilieson Numbers6.2, his edition of Hilary's Tractatus, where Origen describes the manner in which God transferredthe "spirit" from Moses to the seventy elders in Num. 11:24-25.14These biblical verses themselvescould be at the root of the idea that the seventy translatorswere prophets, as G. Dorival has noted.15The verses could also explain the concept of the "spirituality"of the LXX version as it was later understood in Origen and other Fathers. However, these ideas need to be distinguished from Hilary's portrayal of a spiritual "chain of tradition"that was passed from Moses to the elders and on down to the translatorsand the Pharisees ofJesus' day, however that portrayalis related to the earlier ideas. Yet there is another text from Origen that may be more relevant to Hilary's theory, namely, Philocalia2.2. This is an extract from the first book onPsalms1-25. Here, Origen acknowledgesthat the scribes of his Commentary and Pharisees,as characterizedbyJesus in Luke 11:52, did have the key to the Scriptures,that is, no doubt, the "spiritual"interpretationof them, but did not make an effort to use it. The parallel to this passage in Mt. 23:13 (cf. Origen, Fr. in Mt. 449 = GCS 41.1, p. 187) comes right after the passage cited by Hilary about the oral traditionin possessionof the scribesand Pharisees(Mt. 23:2-3). It is thereforepossible that Origen had a conception of that traditionthat somehow influenced Hilary. This question remains to be further elucidated.'6Also worthy of further investigationis the relationship between Origen's notion of the Jewish oral tradition and that in the 13 There is reference to both monotheistic belief and "way of life" in Ep. Petr. 1.3, but the emphasis seems to be more on halakhic issues than on "spirituality"in Ep. Petr. 2.5-6; Horn. Clem.2.38.1; 3.47.1. See the comments on qui doctores deinceps manerent below. 14 Doignon, ed., Tractatus,p. 38. 15 "70 ou 72 traducteurs?",p. 58. 16 The on the Psalms is reflected in Hilary, Instr. Psal. 5. passage from the Commentary
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
269
Pseudo-Clementines.'7For the present, it may be noted that the recognition, at least in Hilary, of a "spiritual"oral traditionextending from Moses to the scribes and Pharisees,is of more than passing significance.It is to be contrasted both with the traditionalpatristic interpretationof the scribes and Pharisees as literalists,and with the more conventional portrayalof Jewish for theGospelputs spiritualexegesis. Eusebius, for example, in his Preparation forward a programmaticdistinction between an "elite" group of Jews who practice allegoricalinterpretationof the Scripturesand the Jewish multitude who follow the literal sense. In his depiction of the elite or philosophical group, however, i.e., those who approach the Scriptures with "theoria", Eusebius has in mind AlexandrianJudaism and the sect of the Essenes.'8 Hilary, by contrast, attaches the idea of spiritual understanding of the Scripturesto the Pharisaicchain of tradition. The question of the origins of the version of the Seventy is raised by Hilary at the beginning of his treatment of Psalm 2. He notes that in Acts 13:33, Paul cites the text as "the first Psalm".Why is there this discrepancy in enumeration?Hilary will explain by referringto the history of the Greek translation.
On Origen's views of "secret"Jewish exegetical traditions, see also G.G. Stroumsa, Hidden Wisdom(Leiden, 1996), pp. 121-126. When Stroumsa states on p. 122 that "Moses transmitted this [secret] doctrine to the priests", this is his own supplement and does not emerge from the texts cited by him. On some of the same texts cited by Stroumsa, see M. Harl in her edition of Origene, Philocalie,1-20 (Paris, 1983 = SC 302), pp. 47-51. It is also significant that Origen's reference to the "key" of the Scriptures in the hands of the Pharisees (Philoc.2.2) apparently came just a little before the famous comparison, attributed by Origen to his own "Hebrew" informant, that the Scriptures were like a house of locked rooms that needed to be matched with the right keys (Philoc.2.3). Cf. P. Nautin, Origene(Paris, 1977), p. 263. This could entail a recognition by Origen of a "spirituality"extending through the generations of the Jewish exegetical masters. In the present instance, however, we are concerned with the nature of that tradition as portrayed, to phrase it after the fashion of m. Avot 1.1, from Moses to the elders to the Great Assembly (or seventy translators) to the Pharisees, rather than from the time of Jesus to the time of Origen. One should also note that the second passage from the Commentay on the Psalms preserved in Philoc. 2.3 is also reflected in Hilary, Instr. Psal. 24, quite removed from the first one in ? 5. 17 There is a reference to Mt. 23:13 immediately following one to Mt. 23:2-3 in Horn. Clem.3.18.2-3. In the Pseudo-Clementines, however, the "key" may relate to recognition of "false pericopes", not allegorical or typological meanings. See HJ. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des udenchristentums (Tiibingen, 1949), pp. 145, 152-155, 375-377. 18 Praep. ev. 8.10.18-19; cf. 8.8.56-57, 8.9.38. On these passages, see A. Kamesar, "Church Fathers, Rabbinic Midrash and", Encyclopedia in of Midrash.BiblicalInterpretation Formative Judaism,eds. J. Neusner and AJ. Avery-Peck (Leiden, 2005), pp. 33-34.
270
ADAM KAMESAR
Hilary of Poitiers, Tract.in Psal. 2.2-3 (2.2) Mediis namque legis temporibus, priusquam unigenitus dei filius ante saecula manens deus verbum homo nascitur,poscente rege Ptolomaeo, septuaginta seniores libros veteris testamenti ex hebraeis litteris in graecas transtulerunt.erat autem iam a Moyse antea institutumin synagoga omni septuagintaesse doctores. nam idem Moyses, quamvis verba testamenti in litteras condidisset, tamen separatim quaedam ex occultis legis secretiora mysteria septuagintasenioribus,qui doctores deinceps manerent, intimaverat. cuius doctrinae etiam dominus in evangeliismeminit dicens: SupercathedramMoysi,inquit, sederunt scribaeetpharisaei.omniaergoquaecumque dixerint vobis, et secundum eorum nolite doctrina manhorum facere. facite servate, verofacta ergo sit in posterum, quae ab ipso scriptore legis accepta in hoc seniorum et numero et officio conservata est. hi itaque seniores libros hos transferentes et spiritalem secundum Moysi traditionem occultarum cognitionum scientiam adepti ambigua linguae hebraicae dicta et varia quaedam ex se nuntiantia secundumvirtutesrerum certis et propriisverborumsignificationibus transtuleruntdoctrinaescientiamultimodamillam sermonumintellegentiam temperantes.et ex eo fit ut, qui postea transtulerunt,diversis modis interpretantes magnum gentibus adtulerint errorem, dum occultae illius et a Moyse profectae traditionisignari ea quae ambigue lingua hebraea commemorata sunt, incerti suis ipsis iudiciis ediderunt. ambiguitatis autem linguae hebraicae unum adferemus exemplum, ex quo cetera istius modi esse atque ita ut sunt intellegantur. bresithverbum hebraicum est. id tres significantiasin se habet, id est et in principioet in capiteet infilio. sed translatores septuaginta in principioediderunt, ceteris diverse transferentibus;et secundum hanc ambiguitatem haec ab illis in omni translationeest facta confusio. (2.3) Sed perfecta horum septuagintainterpretumauctoritasmanet, primum quod ante adventum corporalem domini transtuleruntnec adulatio interpretandi adhibita tempori arguetur tanto anteriore interpretationis aetate, dehinc quod ipsi illi principes doctoresquesynagogae et praeter scientiam legis per Moysen quoque doctrina secretioreperfecti non potuerunt improbabiles esse arbitri interpretandi, qui certissimi et gravissimi erant auctores docendi. hi ergo psalmos inter ceteros libros transferentes et in numerum redegerunt et in ordinem conlocaverunt et diapsalmis distinxerunt,qui omnes secundumhebraeos confusi et habebanturet habentur. horum igitur translationeshebraeis tum lingua tantum sua utentibus non erant necessariae.ipsis tamen, omnibus diligenti et religiosa custodia observatis, quibus postea [codd.:posteaquam] dominus legem omnem sacramento
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
271
et corporationis suae et passionis et resurrectionis impleverat, cumque [codd.:cum] his libris, quos regi idem translatores ediderant, conlatis et fideliter consonantibusrepertis,indissolubilisconstitutaest privilegio doctrinae et aetatis auctoritas.'9 In the middle period of the law, before the only begotten son of God (that is, God the Word, who was existing before the ages) was born as man, at the request of King Ptolemy seventy elders translatedthe books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew text into Greek. It had already been established by Moses previouslythat in the entire assembly there should be seventy teachers. For that same Moses, although he had committed to writing the words of the [Old] Testament, nevertheless communicated separately, from hidden sources, certain more secret mysteries of the law to seventy elders, who would continue as teachers after him. The Lord mentions these teachings in the Gospels, when he says, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses. For this reason, do and observe everythingthat they tell you. But do not behave as they do." (Mt. 23:2-3) Therefore [i.e., this proves that] their teachings have remained in later generations,namely, the teachings received from the writer of the law himself, and preservedin this office of seventy elders. Accordingly,the elders, when translatingthese books, had acquiredthe higher knowledgeof these hidden teachingsin conformitywith the Mosaic tradition, and were able to translate words and expressions which in Hebrew are ambiguous and in themselvesindicate differentrealities with an unambiguousand non-metaphoricaluse of words, so as to indicate the [true]propertiesof the things signified.They were able to "control" the polysemous aspect of the [Hebrew] words by their knowledge of the [oral] teaching. And thus it comes about that those who translatedlater, who [also] translatedaccording to diverse methods, have given many a misleading translationto the Gentiles. For being ignorant of that secret tradition which originated from Moses, they rendered with uncertainty,relying only on their own notions, that which had been expressedin a polysemous fashion in Hebrew. We shall cite one example of the ambiguity of the Hebrew language, from which it will be clear that there are other cases of the same sort and (fromwhich) the nature of these cases will be understood. "Bresith"is a Hebrew word. It has three meanings in itself, namely, "in the 19 The text is given according to the edition of Doignon, pp. 37-9, with the exception of the two corrections made by A. Zingerle in his edition (Vienna, 1891 = CSEL 22), p. 40, in the final sentence of ? 3. The corrections are cited in Doignon's apparatus.
272
ADAM KAMESAR
beginning", and "in the head", and "in the son". However, the seventy translatorsrendered it "in the beginning" while the others translate it in different ways. And on the basis of this kind of ambiguity, confusion has been brought about by them throughoutthe translation. (3) But the authorityof the seventy translatorsremains absolute. This is because in the first place, they translatedbefore the bodily advent of the Lord, and an adulatorybias in translation,as applied to the circumstance, cannot be attributedto them, since the time of the translationwas so much earlier.And in the second place, they themselveswere leaders and teachers of the synagogue,and beyond their knowledgeof the law, having been thoroughly trained, via Mosaic tradition [by a tradition that extends back to Moses] in the more secret teaching, they could not have been unfit arbiters of translation,as ones who were most unerringand most respected authorities of instruction.Thus, these men, in the course of translatingthe Psalms among the other books, also numbered them, set them in order, and set divisions within them with diapsalmata; whereas all of the Psalms were and are in a confused state in the Hebrew text. Their translationswere not necessary for the Jews, who were at that time using only their own language. Nevertheless, to them has been ordained an irrevocableauthority by right of teaching and of age, in light of the following circumstance:All details, with reference to which at a later time the Lord fulfilled the entire law through the mysteries of his incarnation, passion, and resurrection,were observed with conscientiousand reverent eye and were compared with the books, which those same translatorshad published for the king, and were found to be in correspondencewith them. Commentary mediis... legis temporibus, priusquam unigenitus dei filius... nascitur Milhau, "Un texte", pp. 365-366, and Veltri, "L'ispirazione", p. 39, have interpretedthis passage in light of the idea introducedbelow in ? 3 and attestedin Irenaeus and elsewherein Hilary, that the Seventy cannot be charged with an adulatory,that is, pro-Christianbias in translation, because they lived before the time of Christ, whereas Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion came later. This is no doubt correct, but there is in these words of Hilary probably also an allusion to two other, by this time well crystallizedideas: the notion that the age of the Mosaic law constitutes a distinctphase in the historyof salvation,and that it occurredjust before the decisive phase of the incarnation.Accordingly,the translationwas prepared
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
273
at the key juncture, and this fact points to a divine/providential intervention. See Eusebius, Praep.ev. 8.1 (cf. 7.8.40), and A. Kofsky, Eusebiusof Caesarea (Leiden, 2000), p. 106. For the broaderbackground, AgainstPaganism see also M. Harl, "L'histoirede l'humanite racont6e par un ecrivain chretien au debut du ive siecle", REG 75 (1962), pp. 525, 529-530. ante saecula manens deus verbum For these concepts and the manner in which they are translatedhere, see just furtheron in this same text, viz., Tract.in Psal. 2.23: "cum... ante temporaunigenitusdei filiusmaneat .."; "unigenitusvero filius dei, ut dei verbum, ita est deus verbum." See also Tract.in Psal. 53.8; Trin. 1.11; Hymn.1.1. septuaginta seniores The number of seventy translators, rather than seventy-two,the number reportedin the LetterofAristeas32, 46-50, is found in several sources, both patristic and rabbinic. See Dorival, "70 ou 72 traducteurs?",esp. p. 48. In the present instance, however, the use of the number is probably connected with the tradition about the origins of the oral teaching as transmittedin the Judeo-Christian sources, viz., Ep. Petr. 1.2; Hom. Clem.2.38.1; 3.47.1. in synagoga omni It is difficultto decide, even with the help of the parallels in Instr.Psal. 8 and below in ? 3, whether this phrase should be translated "in the entire assembly [sc. of Israel]", or "in every synagogue",i.e., whether synagogais employed in an Old Testament or a New Testament sense. It is known that Jerome, in his translation iuxta hebraeos,greatly reduced the use of synagoga i in the Old (the standardrenderingof oavayoyv in Testament See I. in its Old "Ecclesia und Peri, Latin) meaning. synagoga der lateinischen Ubersetzung des Alten Testamentes", BZ 33 (1989), pp. 245-251, esp. 249-251; "Die Mannigfaltigkeitin der Ubersetzung von MIW und 5blp durch Hieronymus",Philologia sacra(FS HJ. Frede and W. Thiele), ed. R. Gryson (Freiburg 1993), II, pp. 416-421, esp. 416, 418-419. This could suggest that, at least in a biblical context, the natural meaning of the term in the fourth century would be the one familiar from the New Testament, i.e., "synagogue".Indeed, in the same pericope from which Hilary draws his proof text for the suggestion that the oral tradition was maintained down to the time of Jesus, viz., Mt. 23:2-3, just a few verses beyond, there is a reference to "synagogues"(Mt. 23:6). In addition, Hilary probably believed, on the basis of Acts 15:21, that the synagogue was a Mosaic institution.Accordingly,when, after citing the proof text, Hilary says
274
ADAM KAMESAR
that the oral teaching was maintained "in hoc seniorum et numero et officio", this may carry the implication that in his eyes there were seventy elders in a synagogue. There is mention of seventy-one elders in the synagogue at Alexandria in t. Suk.4.6, and we read there, in another interesting point of contact with the present passage (and Mt. 23:2), that there were for those seventy-oneelders. In b. Suk.51b, seventy-onecathedrae(MnlIC'tp) a talmudicparallel,it is said that the number of seventy-onecathedraeis in correspondenceto the seventy-one members of the great Sanhedrin. That institutionis of course connected, in rabbinic sources, to Moses' gathering of the seventy elders in Numbers 11. See H.-J. Becker, Auf derKathedra des Mose(Berlin, 1990), pp. 31-34. On the other hand, the immediate event that Hilary has in mind is no doubt Moses' appointment of the seventy elders described in Num. 11:1617, 24-25, and this would favor the translation "assembly"/community. Especially significantis the fact that the phrase "omnis synagoga", representing the Greek naaa (i) ovvayoyJ, is extremely common throughoutthe Old Latin version of the Pentateuch: Ex. 12:3, 16:2, 35:4; Lev. 10:3, 6, 16:33, 24:14; Num. 1:2, 8:20, 14:10, 15:25, 35, 20:25; Dtn. 5:22. Moreover, in patristic Latin, the term "synagoga"was also used in a collective sense, to indicate "theJews" or "theJewish community",as opposed to "ecclesia", and this was no doubt a reason why Jerome shied away from the word in the iuxtahebraeos (see Peri, locc. citt.). In the present context, however, this meaning would not be so much at odds with the traditionalOld Testament one, because, strangely enough, Hilary is here stressing the continuity between Old Testament and later Jewish institutions, perhaps in accord with the general viewpoint represented in a Judeo-Christian source. Accordingly,I have translated"in the entire assembly [of Israel]",reversing the choice I made in Bregman, "Mishnahand LXX", p. 339 with n. 27. In this instance, however, in a manner that is hardly unique, Hilary will have understoodthe old "assembly"as a kind of antecedent to the synagoguesas portrayedin the Gospel of Matthew, and may not have even made a sharp distinctionbetween the former and the latter. intimaverat Since this act is contrasted with that of separatim... putting the "wordsof the Testament"in writing, it no doubt indicates oral communication. This is clearly the sense of Hom. Clem.3.47.1 (&ypapoxS E560q),and the notion is implicit in 2.38.1. The idea that Moses transmitted an oral Torah to the seventy elders of Num. 11:16-17, 24-25, may also be discerned in rabbinic literature.The words of God to Moses in Num.
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
275
11:16, "gather for me ('p lPOOt) seventy men of the elders of Israel", are viewed as a referenceto the foundation of the Sanhedrinin StfreNumbers 92 as cf. m. San. and that institution was the trustee 11:16; (ad 1.6), regarded of the oral tradition (see E. Schiirer et al., TheHistoy of theJewishPeoplein theAge of Jesus Christ,II [Edinburgh, 1979], pp. 330-332). Moreover, the phrase "gather for me seventy men" is often explained in light of " Ecclesiastes 12:11, where we read: "the words of the wise ('nQDn Tl'l) are like goads, and as nails firmly driven [the words of] the masters of the collections (nlmElD Rabbah15.22; Tanhuma 'f3)". See Numbers (B) behaalotekha 25 (in these two passageswe also find that baaleiasufotis thought to indicate the members of the Sanhedrin [cf. also b. San. 12a], from which circumstance we see that the two biblical texts are linked by the root ]OR). And the verse from Ecclesiastesis interpretedas a referenceto the oral tradition; see F. Weber, JiidischeTheologie2 (Leipzig, 1897), p. 90. This is hardly surthe since divrei hakhamim is an equivalent of divreisoferim(cf. prising, phrase with n. and is another way to designate that Schiirer, History,II, p. 325 9), tradition. See esp. NumbersRabbah14.4 (ed. Mirkin, pp. 96-97), where the two phrases are used interchangeablyin a passage of great relevance to Hilary's view of the function of the oral teaching (see just below ad doctrinae scientia...); and y. San. 10.1(28a), where the description of the chain of tradition from m. Avot 1.1 is quoted in explanation of "the words of the wise are like goads". The passage from Origen's Hom.in Num.6.2 cited by Doignon in his edition of Hilary's Tractatus, p. 38, contains no reference to oral tradition, and does not particularlycontributeto our understandingof the words "separatim... intimaverat".The text from Origen may, however, be pertinent to another part of Hilary's theory. See below ad spiritalem... scientiam. legis secretiora mysteria For the parallel between Hilary and the rabbinic statements on the oral tradition as mystery, see Kamesar,Jerome,pp. 31-32, and Bregman, "Mishnah and LXX". Bregman also provides references to earlier scholarship on the rabbinic texts. Cf. also G.A. Wewers, undGeheimhaltung im rabbinischen Geheimnis Judentum(Berlin, 1975), pp. 89-90. For the Pseudo-Clementines,see Schoeps, Theologie, pp. 151-155, 375-377. qui doctores deinceps manerent The idea that the elders who received the oral tradition would become teachers is also present in Horn. Clemn. 2.38.1: np6;t xo Kaiavmoiu; e(potbaet&vTO) Xaoxo.Tro;pouo%oFvoSu; (for (po5t&ietv in the sense of "teach", see G.W.H. Lampe, A PatristicGreek
276
ADAM
KAMESAR
Lexicon[Oxford, 1961], p. 588, s.v. 2.b.ii; this is probably to be preferredto the translation of G. Strecker in W. Schneemelcher, ed., Neutestamentliche II [Tiibingen, 1989], p. 482: "zuriisten").A similar concept Apokryphen5, emerges from Hom.Clem.3.47.1: 'va Tp 8ta6oXi noXtvekeoaat 86vqat. Both n coXtxrezthe etymology of the word e(poat?leiv (6865),as well as the term eaeatindicatethat in the originalcontext, the referenceis primarilyto teaching that is halakhicin nature. doctrina ergo horum mansit in posterum This statement implies a recognition of the legitimacy of the oralJewish tradition,even as it applies to halakhic matters down to and including the age ofJesus, on the part of Hilary or his [Judeo-Christian?]source. scientiam It is only at this point that Hilary indicatesthat spiitalem... the traditionpassed on from Moses to the elders was also "spiritual".It is possiblethat this notion was ultimatelyderived from the text of Num. 11:17, 25, where it is indicated that God took of the spirit that was upon Moses and placed it on the seventy elders. But the concept of a spiritual"chain of tradition"is a furtherdevelopment. See the penultimate two paragraphsin the introductionabove. secundum virtutes rerum In this passage, the term "virtus"does not refer to the significanceof a word or passage, as it often does in Hilary, and perhaps also in Instr.Psal. 8, a passage which contains some of the same ideas as Tract.in Psal. 2.2-3. (On this usage, cf. M. Milhau in his edition of sur le psaume118, I [Paris, 1988 = SC 344], Hilaire de Poitiers, Commentaire p. 26.) Here the term probably refers rather to the "property"of an external entity, or res, what in Stoic theory is the rp&aytaor EKXT;bi)7cOKeipLVOV.
See SVF II.166 and Harl's edition of Origen's Philocalia,pp. 275-279. The passage appears to be well paraphrasedby Gastaldi,Hilario,p. 101. On the implicationsof the phrase in this context see the following note. certis et propriis verborum significationibus In the firstplace, Hilary says the Seventy employed words in a non-ambiguous way, thus moving beyond the "ambigualinguae hebraicae dicta". Secondly, he says they used the words in a "proper",that is, etymological or non-metaphoricalsense. beiAristophanes von For this concept, see C.K. Callanan, Die Sprachbeschreibung A. als Servius Sprachlehrer (Gottingen, Byzanz(Gottingen, 1987), pp. 92-4; Uhl, 1998), pp. 485-9. Thus, when Hilary says the Seventy translated"secundum
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
277
virtutesrerum certis et propriisverborum significationibus",he may be saying something quite remarkable.For his remarkis perhaps to be understood in light of a similar characterizationof the translation of the Seventy in Philo, Life of Moses2.38. In that version, according to Philo's informants, x'oi oaveveXivvat... e?i xTavov KIcptaiupiot; ovo6laot, xra 'EUXlvtcKa = "words TOi^ ; ipa&ygaotv 8jXVoujiEVOto XaXaiK:oi;, Evap{oo9evxae?) dZXa in their proper (etymological,non-metaphorical)meanings correspondedto words in their proper meanings, the Greek to the Chaldean (i.e., Hebrew), with the same sense (= eiq rai)ov), perfectly suited to the meanings of the external realities intended." This means, simply stated, that the Seventy were able to produce a translationthat was both word-for-wordand sensefor-sense, and that that sense fit the actual entities intended. Hilary is not so explicit, but says only that the Seventy employed words in a nonmetaphorical way with perfect (certain) correspondence to the realities intended. However, it seems likely that he is saying something comparable to Philo in a more compressed form, rather than simply that the Seventy translatedaccording to the "proprietates"(sc. of Greek)in a sense-for-sense fashion (so Jerome of Cicero's method in Ep. 57.5.2: "proprietas"is used here in a broad meaning).Indeed, it is difficultto think that with the phrase "propriisverborumsignificationibus"Hilary means anythingother than that the Seventy used non-metaphorical or etymological equivalents of the Hebrew. This is no doubt what Origen means when he describesAquila as b Kcupto'tala Ekpgnve)eitv(qtXoT1iot0{elvo; (Philoc. 14.1; cf. Sel. in Ps. 4:5 [PG 12.1144a]). Of course, the statementmakes sense with regard to Aquila. On the other hand, the belief of Philo that the version of the Seventy was both word-for-wordand sense-for-sensecannot be reconciled with basic translation theory as known to the ancients, nor with the reality of the diffences between the Hebrew and the Greek as they existed in Philo's time and later. Hilary's statement about unambiguousand non-metaphoricaluse of words may representa similar naive exaggeration on the part of a non Hebraist. Origen clearly knew better, and even with perhaps a little Hebrew he had a good feeling for the differencesbetween the Hebrew text and the Greek. It is therefore improbable that Origen was the source for this segment of Hilary's discussion. doctrinae scientia multimodam illam sermonum intellegentiam temperantes The notion that the oral tradition was to be employed to clarify ambiguitiesin the written text is probably implied by the statement that Moses transmittedthe law to the seventy elders "with the solutions"
278
ADAM
KAMESAR
(oiv xati; ERtaoeoatv) in Hom. Clem.2.38.1. For 7riXotnin this sense, see R.M. Grant, The Letterand the Spirit(London, 1957), pp. 127-128. The broader idea is explained at length in the Letterof PetertoJames.We find a Rabbah14.4 (ed. Mirkin, pp. 96-97; the passage is cited parallel in Numbers by Weber, JiidischeTheologie, p. 88, in his discussionof the place of the oral tradition in rabbinic thought). Here, in connection with Eccl. 12:11 (and 12:12), a verse constantlybrought into connection with Num. 11:16 in the rabbinic tradition, as we have seen above (ad separatim... intimaa similar idea is forward. One must attention to the verat), put pay greater "wordsof the scribes"than to the written Torah, because the Torah itself is obscure (inllnD),but the "wordsof the sages" explain the Torah. (On the term DrO, see W. Bacher, Die exegetische derjiidischenTradiTerminologie tionsliteratur [Leizpig, 1899-1905], I, pp. 137-138, II, pp. 144-145.) Related but not as explicit statements are found in NumbersRabbah15.22; Tanhuma (B) behaalotekha 25, comments on Num. 11:16. In short, the elucidative function of oral tradition, in the face of obscurity or ambiguity, is explained in similar ways in the Pseudo-Clementines, rabbinic literature, and Hilary, and in all three at least in some connection with Num. 11:16. This circumstancesupportsthe idea that a common tradition underlies all of these sources. For a more general note on the exegetical function of the oral traditionin a Judeo-Hellenisticsetting, see Philo, Vit.Mos. 1.4. That oral traditionwas employed in an exegetical manner in other school settings in antiquity, such as the Platonic academy, may be assumed. See R. Lamberton, "The &aR6ppTlx; Oeeopiaand the Roles of Secrecy in the eds. H.G. Kippenberg and History of Platonism", Secrecyand Concealment, G.G. Stroumsa (Leiden, 1995), pp. 139-152; cf. more generally G. Reale, Per una nuovainterpretazione di Platone21 (Milan, 2003). But it would be useful to pursue more explicit statementsfrom the ancient sources about the use of oral tradition to surmount ambiguityin an authoritativewritten text. or later qui postea transtulerunt This is a reference to the recentiores, Greek translatorsof the Old Testament, namely, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. diversis modis interpretantes As the editor, Prof. den Boeft, points out to me, it is possible that "diversismodis" should be translatedas simply "in different ways". Nevertheless, I believe that the words are more probably an allusion to the fact that Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion followed different translationtechniques. This circumstancewas well known among
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
279
the Fathers. See Jerome, Praef.in EusebiiChron.(GCS 47, p. 3); Praef.in lob U. 3-5 Weber. Cf. already Origen's remarks on Aquila's (iuxtahebraeos) method cited above ad certis... significationibus, and his and Eusebius' awareness that Symmachus was wont to translate "with greater clarity"(Origen, Se. in Ps. 4:1, 5 [PG 12.1133b-c, 1145b]; Eusebius, Comm. in Ps. 67:7, 8-9 [PG 23.692a, d]; Dem. ev. 9.14.4, 10.1.33). For Hilary, the diversityof method is another point that counts against "the three" (besides their later date). magnum gentibus adtulerint errorem Here Hilary alludes to the idea that the translation of the Seventy, requested by a "gentile" monarch (Ptolemy Philadelphus), was part of a providential design to bring the Gentiles to the true faith. See Kamesar,Jerome,pp. 29-34. The later translators were interferingwith this design. in capite This represents a Latin version of Aquila's ev KEcpak(q).It is attested in a number of Latin authors: Marius Victorinus, Ad Cand.27; Ambrose, Hex. 1.16;Jerome, Qu.hebr.Gen.1:1 (MariusandJerome have "in capitulo"). in filio The literal English translationentails the assumption that "in" is employed in an instrumentalsense, and that accordingly, God created the world through or by means of the son. Cf. John 1:3; Coloss. 1:16. As J. Danielou, has shown, this interpretationof Gen. 1:1 likely goes back to a Judeo-Christiansource, and came to be formulated in a kind of "targumic" form, since the apxil of the Greek text was identifiedwith the son. See dujudeo-christianisme (Toumai, 1958), pp. 219-222; "Hilaire et ses T7hologie sourcesjuives", Hilaireet son temps(Paris, 1969), p. 143; cf. A. Diez Macho, "Targum y Nuevo Testamento", MilangesEugeneTsserant,I (Vatican City, 1964), pp. 173-174. This circumstancewould lend credence to the thesis that this entire section of Hilary, and especially the conception of the oral law, is dependent onJudeo-Christian sources related to those transmittedin the Pseudo-Clementineliterature.(It should be pointed out, however, that the Kerygma Petrou,one of the sources cited by Danielou, is not to be confused with the Kerygmata Petrou,to which Hom.Clem.2.38 and 3.47 have been in Strecker II, Schneemelcher, ed., Neutestamentliche Apokiyphen5, assigned by pp. 481-482.) The suggestion of Milhau, "Un texte", pp. 368-369, that Hilary is here indebted, perhaps indirectly, to Origen's Hexapla,is acceptable in so far as the referenceto the Hebrew word and the version of Aquila
280
ADAM
KAMESAR
are concerned. But it is the rendering "in filio" that would constitute the link to a non-Hexaplaricsource. Indeed, it is preciselythe "targumic"aspect of the rendering that is condemned by Jerome in Qu. hebr.Gen.1:1 on the basis of the Hexapla.Jerome of course agrees that "bresith"would refer to Christ "secundum sensum", in tune with Christian exegetical tradition in general (this would include Origen, Horn.in Gen.1.1). Finally, also noteworthy in this context is the obviously anti-Christian interpretationof bereshit by none other than Rabbi Yehudah b. Shalom in Tanhuma bereshit 3 (B) (reshit= Israel, on the basis ofJeremiah 2:3), to whom we have referredin the first paragraphof this article. secundum hanc ambiguitatem Hilary is probably alluding here to the special ambiguity of the Hebrew language as it appeared in written form, in which there were only consonants. He may owe such knowledge to Eusebius of Emesa or a similar source. See the fragment in V. Hovhannessian's edition of Eusebius, Commentaire de l'Octateuque (Venice, 1980), pp. 217-218 (in Armenian; I rely on the unpublishedFrench translation of J.-P. Mahe). For Jerome's knowledge of the "ambiguity" of Hebrew, see J. Barr, "St. Jerome's Appreciation of Hebrew", BJRL 49 (1966-1967), pp. 295-296. ?3 primum ... dehinc The two argumentsadvancedhere by Hilary are well explained by Milhau, "Un texte", pp. 371-372. domini transtulerunt This chronological quod ante adventum... argument is found in Irenaeus, Haer. 3.21.1, 3, as noted by Milhau, "Un texte", p. 371, and also in the later sources,John Chrysostom,Hom.in Mt. 5.2 (PG 57.57); Theodoret, Comm.in Is. 3 (7:14). adhibita tempori "as applied to the circumstance",that is, the circumstance(s)of the incarnation,passion, and resurrectionof Christ, as listed by Hilary at the end of the paragraph. principes doctoresque synagogae For the problem of the translation of "synagoga",see above ad in synagoga omni. In the chain of tradition, the seventy translators,as the heirs of the oral teaching, would be in parallel to if not to be identifiedwith, the "men of the Great Assembly"of
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
281
m. Avot 1.1. A prominent role is assigned to these "men" in the systemization of the oral tradition in y. Sheq.5.1(48c). They are also given a role in beshthe fixing of the biblical text (cf. the following two notes) in Tanhuma, allah 16. et in numerum redegerunt et in ordinem conlocaverunt Hilary seems to imply that in the days of the Seventy (as well as in his own time, see the note just below on qui omnes...) the Hebrew text of the Psalter did not have numbers,had a "confused"order (probably= different,at least As to numin part, from that of the LXX), and did not contain diapsalmata. ber and order, the two are related but are not the same thing. Indeed, even the current Hebrew text has a different numbering and division of the Psalms, but presents the same order as appears in the LXX. That Hilary believed that the Seventy introduced a numberingsystem is easy enough to explain. For Origen, at least in one important passage, and Eusebius, both state that there were no numbers in the Hebrew, and that the Psalms were a divided from each other in different ways. See G. Mercati, Osservazioni 113. information The del Salterio pro(Vatican City, 1948), pp. 15-17, proemi vided by the Fathers correspondswith the fact that there are no numberings or divisionsin some Hebrew mss., and varying ones in others, and with rabbinic attestation of differing conventions with regard to the numbering and division of the Psalm units. See N.M. Sarna, "Psalms,Book of", EJ 13 (1971), cols. 1306-1307. The statement of Hilary that the Seventy set the Psalms in order, both here and in Instr.Psal. 8, seems to imply, however charitableone wishes to be, that the Psalmswere in a differentsequence in the Hebrew text, not just that they could be divided differently,as is stated by the Greek Fathers. So why does Hilary make a point of saying this? Most likely, he was simply employing the (patristic)sources available to him in a creative manner. In on thePsalms,Origen had addressed the prolog to his (Caesarean)Commentary the question of why the Psalms appear not to be in historicalsequence (cf. MidrashTehillim3.2). He offered two alternativetheories. The first theory is based on the idea that the numbers of the Psalms have a symbolic value, and do not imply a historicalorder. The second entails the suggestionthat the order is haphazard, and Ezra or the ancient wise men (i.e., the Sages) of the Hebrews put the Psalms together simply as they were able to remember them or collect them (text in G.(W.) Rietz, De Origenis prologisin cf. selectae Psalterium Nautin, Origene, pp. [Jena, 1914], pp. 9-10; quaestiones 276-277). Hilary, for his part, in Instr.Psal. 8, says that Ezra collected the
282
ADAM KAMESAR
Psalms into one book, i.e., without order, but that the Seventy set them in order and numbered them based on the symbolic value of the numbers. E. d'Origene dansle Commentaire desPsaumesde SaintHilairede Goffinet, L'utilisation Poitiers(Louvain, 1965), pp. 26-30, and Milhau, "Un texte", p. 371, have noted that Hilary is dependent on Origen (note also Rietz, De Origenis prologis,p. 38). But what is the nature of the dependence? Origen had offered two explanations about the lack of historical sequence, but one involves numbering(which necessarilyentails ordering),and another involves merely ordering, or rather non-ordering (without reference to number). Now, we know that Eusebius objected to the first theory of Origen about the symbolic value of the numbers precisely because of the fact that there were no numbersin the Hebrew (Comm.in Psal. 62:2-3 [PG 23.601a-c]; cf. Rietz, De Origenis prologis, p. 38; Mercati, Osserazioni,p. 89). And we have alreadyseen that Hilary himself believed, on the basis of what he had read elsewhere in Origen or another Greek source, that the Hebrew Psalter was without numbers. Now, if Hilary also knew of Eusebius' objection to the first of Origen's explanationsof the sequence of the Psalms (fromwhatever source), it would explain his presentation of the matter in Instr.Psal. 8 and in the present passage. For in order to meet the objection, he will have combined the twoalternativeexplanationsof Origen into onein a consistentway: First, Ezra collected the Psalms without order, and later, the Seventy numbered them, by necessity therefore also setting them in order. The only difficulty is that in order to stressthe differencebetween Ezra'sdisorderand the numbering/ordering by the Seventy, Hilary ends up with the implication that the Psalms in the Hebrew text would be in a different order than in the LXX, ratherthanjust being divided differentlyin the same order. (That this notion is somehow connected with a real knowledge of pre-masoreticevidence, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, in which there is some variation from the masoretic order of Psalms, especiallyfrom Psalm 90 onwards [cf. P.W. Flint, TheDead Sea PsalmsScrollsand theBookof Psalms(Leiden, 1997), esp. pp. 135-149], seems improbable.) et diap.ialmis distinxerunt Hilary here puts forwardthe general theory that it was the Seventy that inserted the diapsalmata(Hilary uses the Latinized plural diapsalmae). He was aware, probably from Greek commenthat there are occasions where the term diapsalmais found in the taries, LXX but not in the Hebrew. See Tract.in Psal. 2.9, with the comments of M. Milhau, "Differentesversions de titres ou de versets de Psaumes rapportees par Hilaire de Poitiers 'Tractatussuper Psalmos'",RBen102 (1992),
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
283
pp. 25-26. The question remains, however, as to whether his awarenessof this phenomenon led him to formulatethe more general theory, or whether there is another explanation for it. The theory is somewhat problematic in light of widespreadknowledge on the part of earlier Greek Fathersthat the Hebrew text had an equivalent of diapsalma.For Origen's discussion, see Rietz, De Origenis prologis,pp. 11-12; see alsoJerome's treatmentof the question and his translationof Origen in Ep. 28. But perhaps Hilary was readfrom Origen's ing a statement like /ypayav xob t&ava[ltaoi epgrlveUoaweve in transmitted an or confused context. Note the but isolated discussion, manner in which the same phrase is found in fragments attributed to Hippolytus and Eusebius, printed in H. Achelis, ed., Hippolytus, Werke,I (Leipzig, 1897 = GCS 1), pt. 2, p. 130, and PG 23.76a-b; cf. Mercati, Osservazioni, pp. 31 n. 3, 34. qui omnes secundum hebraeos confusi et habebantur et habentur Milhau, "Differentesversions", p. 26, renders, "alors que les Hebreux les considiraient et les considerent comme tous confondus". It is difficult to make sense of this translation in the present context, although Milhau may be thinking of Instr.Psal. 1, where the phrase "secundum quosdam hebraeos"does refer to an opinion of Hebrew informantsknown to Hilary from Origen. Here, however, whether "hebraei" literally refers to books (cf. Augustine, Ep. 71.3; 82.34; Civ. 18.43), or persons, the meaning of "secundum hebraeos" is "in the Hebrew text". Cf. Hilary, Tract.in Psal. 142.1, with the Greek parallel from Theodoret cited by Milhau himself, "Differentesversions",p. 38 n. 89; Jerome, Ep. 106.25, 59, 69. The imperfect "habebantur"and the present "habentur"are to be understood with reference to what Hilary has said about the general "editing"of the Psalms by the Seventy both here and in Instr.Psal. 8. The imperfect refers to the history of the text after Ezra and before the Seventy, as reconstructedby Hilary on the basis of Greek sources, and the present verb to the current state of the text, no doubt as reportedby Greek commentators.That is, the Hebrew Psalms have remained in disarrayfrom the days of Ezra until the present, whereas the Seventy came along and "edited"them for the Greek version. See the previous two notes. A final word may be added on the comments about a lack of order in the Psalms in MidrashTehillim3.2, a passage to which we have already alluded. The referenceis no doubt to the same issue addressedby the Greek Fathers,that the Psalmswere not set out in historicalsequence. But in order to explain Hilary'spresent remark,we simply do not need to translatewith
284
ADAM
KAMESAR
Milhau and go so far as to assume that he concluded from such a source that the Jews thought the Psalms [sc. in the Hebrew] were in a disorder greater than that in the Greek. non erant necessariae Here horum... translationes hebraeis... "hebraei"means persons, as it also does just below in Tract.in Psal. 2.4. The idea is of course contraryto the assumptionof modem scholarship,that the Greek translationof the Bible was produced for the sake of the Alexandrian Jewish community. Hilary follows the LetterofAristeasmore literally,and his assumption is that the Seventy made their translationprimarily for King Ptolemy Philadelphus.Note just below, "regi... ediderant". Cf. Jerome, Praef:in Pent.11.21-25 Weber (I thank Ed Gallagherfor help with this point). observatis The difficulty of the text at this ipsis tamen omnibus... clear becomes from the note in PL 9.264c-d n. d, where the view is point is forward that put Hilary speaking of an agreement between the "preserved"Hebrew text and the LXX, which was noted after the resurrection of Christ. Later scholars, with the help of the two corrections of Zingerle (see above, n. 19), which I have adopted here, have recognized that Hilary is speakingof an agreementbetween the LXX and thefacts of the Christian dispensation.So Gastaldi, Hilario,p. 100, and Milhau, "Un texte", p. 371; "Le grec", p. 70. More specifically, the mattersor events ("omnibus"sc. rebus;see above, ? 2) of Christ'sfulfillmentof the law (see Instr.Psal. 6 with the citation of Luke 24:44) were noted and found to be in accord with the version of the Seventy, and that no doubt as understood in a "spiritual" sense. There is a significanceto the structureof the sentence, and especially the separation of the dative "ipsis"(= the Seventy), from the main clause, "constitutaest... auctoritas".The argument in favor of the Seventy from age and oral tradition, cited at the beginning of the paragraph (primum... dehinc), is based on experience and hindsight:It is only after the time of Christ that we can appreciate (1) the predictive power of the Seventy and therefore the real importance of the "privilegiumaetatis"(not merely anteriorityin time), and (2) the subtletiesof their version, and therefore the "privilegiumdoctrinae".Jerome, by contrast,would employ a similar motif to argue against the authority of the Seventy. They translated before the time of Christ, and understoodonly imperfectlythe meaning of the Old Testament. It was possible to make a better translationafter the passion and resurrection,with the benefit of hindsight (Praef.in Pent.11.3539 Weber).
HILARY OF POITIERS, JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY AND ORIGINS OF LXX
285
Workscitedin shortform M. Bregman, "Mishnah and LXX as Mystery: An Example of Jewish-Christian Polemic in the Byzantine Period", Continuriand Renewal:Jews and Judaismin Byzantine-Christian Palestine,ed. L.I. Levine (Jerusalem, 2004), pp. 333-342 J. Doignon, ed., Hilarius Pictaviensis, TractatussuperPsalmos(Turnhout, 1997 = CChr.SL 61) G. Dorival, "La Bible des Septante: 70 ou 72 traducteurs?",Tradition of theText(FS D. Barthelemy),eds. GJ. Norton and S. Pisano (Freiburg[Schweiz], 1991), pp. 45-62 NJ. Gastaldi, Hilariode Poitiers:Exegetadel Salterio(Paris, 1969) M. Harl, ed., Origene, Philocalie,1-20 (Paris, 1983 = SC 302) A. Kamesar,Jerome,GreekScholarship, andtheHebrewBible(Oxford, 1993) G. Mercati, Osservazioni a proemidel Salterio(Vatican City, 1948) M. Milhau, "Differentesversions de titres ou de versets de Psaumes rapporteespar Hilaire de Poitiers 'Tractatussuper Psalmos'", RBen 102 (1992), pp. 24-43 Idem, "Le grec, une 'cle pour l'intelligence des psaumes"', REAug36 (1990), pp. 67-79 Idem, "Un texte d'Hilaire de Poitiers sur les Septante, leur traductionet les autres 'traducteurs'(Inpsalm.2,2-3)", Aug.21 (1981), pp. 365-372 P. Nautin, Origene (Paris, 1977) selectae(Jena, 1914) G.(W.) Rietz, De Origenis prologisin Psalterium quaestiones W. Schneemelcher,ed., Neutestamentliche II Apokryphen5,(Tubingen, 1989) undGeschichte desJudenchristentums HJ. Schoeps, Theologie (Tiibingen, 1949) E. Schirer et al., TheHistoryof theJewishPeoplein theAgeof esus Christ,II (Edinburgh, 1979) G. Veltri, "L'ispirazionedella LXX tra leggenda e teologia: Dal racconto di Aristea alla 'veritashebraica' di Girolamo",Laur.27 (1986), pp. 3-71 F. Weber, iidischeTheologie2 (Leipzig, 1897) (I wish to thank Ed Gallagher for his careful reading of this article).
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion 3101 Clifton Avenue, Cincinnati,Ohio 45220-2488
JEROME DEDICATES HIS VITAHILARIONIS' BY
PAUL B. HARVEY, JR. three exercises in hagiography, his Paul, Malchus,and as in Hilarion, printed our standardeditions, lack dedications. The manuscript tradition,however, revealsa special (possiblyfirst)edition of the Hilarionexplicitly dedicated to the ascetic Roman woman Asella. The present study reviews the nature of the pertinent manuscriptevidence, identifiesthe discoveryof the dedicationin the early seventeenthcentury, and then discussesthe dedication's loss from scholarly sight (and why it was lost), until its rediscoveryby a graduate student at the University of Illinois in the 1930s. Finally, the literary and social contexts promptingJerome's dedication of this particularvita to Asella are discussed.
ABSTRACT: Jerome's
Jerome concluded his literary history of Christian authors, the de viris illustribus,with notation of himself and his literary opera to 392, including the titles of the three hagiographies he had composed: I, Jerome, the son of Eusebius, from the city, destroyed by the Goths, of Stridon on the border of Pannonia and Dalmatia, down to the present year, that is, the fourteenth year of the reign of Theodosius, have written these things:the Life of Paul the Monk... On the Captive Monk ... the Life of the Blessed Hilarion...
(Vir. ill. 135).2
As P. Nautin has noted,3 this list is not in strict chronological order of composition: Jerome lists his works in a partly chronological, partly generic fashion. The Paul (VP) was composed sometime during or shortly afterJerome's sojourn in the desert of Chalcis (by or before 379); the On the CaptiveMonk
i A version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Patristics Society, at Loyola University of Chicago, in May, 2002. My appreciation to
WilliamKlingshim,F.A.C. Mantello,Dennis Trout, WilliamL. Petersen,and KarenJ. Harvey for critical suggestions. 2 I translate the standard edition of the de viris illustribus:Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo, Gerolamo.Gli UominiIllustri(Florence 1988) 230-32. 3 P. Nautin, "La liste des oeuvres de Saint Jro6me dans le 'De viris illustribus,"' Orpheus n.s. 1 (1980) 52-75. 0 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Christianae 59, 286-297 V'giliae
JEROMEDEDICATESHIS VITAHILARIOJVIS
287
or (as it is commonly known)the Malchus(VM) and the Hilarion(VH) appear to have been composed sometime between Jerome's settlement in Bethlehem in 386 and the date of the composition of the de virisillustribus. Jerome does not indicate in this list anyone to whom he dedicated any of these three Lives. As printed in our standard editions, Jerome's three hagiographicoperabear no dedicationsand, as we read them in our printed editions, Jerome began each of these compositions with brief polemical prefaces. The earliest composition, the Paul, declares that Jerome corrects received truth: the author reports, in dramatic, but disjunctive,narrative, the previously unknown life of a fore-runnerto Anthony of Egypt as presented in the Athanasian Greek life (and two Latin translations).The preface to the Malchusassertsauthorialaims and expectations,stated in classical diction enhanced with metaphors lifted verbatim from unacknowledged Ambrose.4The preface to the Hilarionweaves quotationsand allusionsfrom Cicero, Sallust, and the book of Daniel to constructa polemical garment to armor the author against the diatribesof unspecifiedcritics. Jerome sent (about 379 or shortly thereafter)his Paul west to Paul of Concordia (near Aquileia):"I send to you, an elder Paul, my life of an even older Paul," Jerome declared in his well-known tenth letter (Epist. 10.3). That letter constitutesa species of dedication, but a dedication of what may well have been a first edition of Jerome's VP. For in that letter to Paul of Concordia, where Jerome announces the gift of his Paul, Jerome also requestscertain Latin texts he requiresfor study, including Cyprian'sLetters. In the extant text ofJerome's Paul,Cyprian Epist.56.2 is specificallyquoted (VP 2). Our manuscripttraditionof the Paulmay thereforereflect a second edition.5 Jerome's Malchuslacks any indication of dedication. Nor elsewhere does Jerome suggest to whom that romance of Christian asceticism was dedicated. We might, however, reckon that a pious tale-featuring a remarkably
4 For example, the nautical metaphor with which Jerome begins the VM is drawn from Ambrose de offiiis 1.10.32. 5 There is at least one additional indication of Jerome's revision of his Paul: at VP 6, some manuscripts offerJerome's statement of "I have seen ascetics [living in cisterns]" (et vidisseme monachos); other witnesses report "I have seen and do see" (et vidisseme monachos et videre).The addition of the present infinitive of "see" is suggestive (but inconclusive) evidence of a second edition of the VP-if so, that second edition soon became authoritative: our earliest manuscript witness to the VP, Codex Veronensis latin 38 (36), dated 517 CE (vidi), includes both the explicit reference to Cyprian and the statement vidisse... et videre.
288
PAUL B. HARVEY, JR.
articulateand learned Syrian male and a sometime-marriedbut abandoned female, both of whom renounce conjugal relations,and after travel and travails, live out their lives companionablyin adjacent, but distinct, male and female ascetic establishments-would have been a composition aptly dedicated to the widow Paula,Jerome's patroness, travel companion, and close associate in a separatefemale ascetic foundation in Bethlehem. Jerome's third and longest hagiographiccompositionpresentsthe life and miraculousworks of Hilarion of Gaza, a Palestinianholy man of the generation following Anthony of Egypt, whom, all evidence suggests, Hilarion consciously imitated. Traditions about Hilarion's sometime disciple and patron, that is, the heresiologistEpiphanius,speak of Hilarion.6In addition, Sozomen commented more than once in his ecclesiasticalhistory on the missionaryendeavors of Hilarion, including a precious statement concerning Hilarion's evangelizing the villages of the shephelah, where Sozomen's grandfatherresided.7These witnessestestifyto this holy man of Gaza's existence external to Jerome's literaryimagination. (The same can not be said ofJerome's Paul and Malchus.) Jerome's Hilarionlikewisehas no dedication. Or, rather,we read no dedication in any of our published texts and translations.8But a dedication exists and its discovery,loss, and recoverywarranta brief literaryexcavation of the archaeology of ancient and moder scholarship.
6
Two brief lives of Epiphanius, purportedly composed by his disciple 'John", with a continuation by disciple "Polybius" (PG 41[1857], cols. 24-113; BHG 596-97), offer information about Epiphanius and Hilarion. These two lives have no independent value. They may well have been composed, as has been suggested, by an hagiographer at Constantinople. See, in brief, P. Nautin, DHGE 15 (1963), "Epiphane #10," cols. 617f.; W. Schneemelcher, RAC 5 (1962), cols. 913-14. But wherever and by whomever composed, these lives are simply elaborations of biographical details about Epiphanius gleaned from Sozomen; the author of these lives exhibits no knowledge of Jerome's Hilarion,in Latin original or Greek translation. 7 Sozomen HE 3.14.21-28; 5.10.1-5; 5.15.13-15; 6.32.2, 5-6. See also P. de Labriolle's remarks on Hilarion, Epiphanius, and Sozomen: Viede Paul de Thebeset Vied'Hilarion(Paris 1907) 34-35. 8 The most reliable and accessible text, with lucid Italian translation and brief commentary, is that of A.A.R. Bastiaensen (transl. Claudio Moreschini), in Bastiaensen and Jan W. Smit, Vitedei SantiIV Vitadi Martino,Vitadi Ilarione,In Memoriadi Paola [= Jerome Epist.108] ed. 2 (Milan & Verona 1983) 69-143 (text & transl.), 290-317 (commentary). Bastiaensen offered an "eclectic text" founded on critical use of Vallarsi, de Buck, Hurter, and some of the variants McNeil reported. In almost all respects, Bastiaensen's text is, at present, preferable to Vallarsi-Migne and Hurter.
JEROMEDEDICATESHIS VITAHILARIONIS
289
I. TheDedication In 1924, Arthur Stanley Pease, the eminent Latinist and expositor of Ciceronian religious treatises,9 donated to the Illinois classicist William Abbot Oldfathera set of Heinrich Hurter'smulti-volumeInnsbruckedition of patristic texts, including volume 48, containing Sulpicius Severus' vita S. MartiniandJerome's three hagiographies.'0(Exactlyhow and where Pease had acquired in Europe a set of Hurter's texts during WW I is not clear.") Oldfather is better remembered for his contributionsto competent Greek translationsfor the Loeb Classical Library,'2but he nonetheless accepted Pease's suggestionthat he study the Latin textual traditionofJerome's three hagiographies.The task was worthy, for Hurter seemed to have improved on the unreliable text in Migne's Patrologia Latina,vol. 23, where Migne earlier the editions ofJ. erraticallyreproduced Martianay and D. Vallarsi. had not devoted much attention to the textual tradition Hurter, however, beyond specifying his use of older editions and "certainmanuscriptsavailable in Belgium".'3 In fact, as we shall see, Hurter reused and emended the text Victor De Buck presented, with a wealth of traditional comment, in ActaSanctorum tomusIX. 21-22 October (Brussels1858) 16-59. Pease departed Champaign-Urbanafor a productivecareer in Harvard's Department of Classics and is remembered for his magisterial editions of Cicero's de divinatione and de naturadeorum.Oldfather took up the text of Jerome's holy lives or, rather, distributedlabor among three generations of masters and doctoral students. A critical edition of all three of Jerome's lives was promised, advertised,and financed by severalgrantsfrom national funding authorities(includingthe American Council for Learned Societies). Work on the textual tradition of Jerome's three lives by scholars from Marburg and Switzerland was abandoned when Oldfather secured from 9 Notably, of course, Ciceronisde divinatione (Darmstadt 1963 = Universitof IllinoisStudies in Languageand Literature6 [1920], 8 [1923]); Ciceronisde naturadeorum(Cambridge, MA
1955-58). 10 H. Hurter, SanctorumPatrumOpusculaSelectavol. 48 (Innbruck 1885): Jerome's vita Hilarionisis on pp. 208-58. 1 All traces of Pease and Oldfather's copy of Hurter vol. 48 have disappeared from the University of Illinois collections: personal communication of 18 February 1997, from Bruce W. Swann, Classics librarian at the University of Illinois. 12 Much has been written on Oldfather: see, recently (and with citation of earlier biographical literature), Winton U. Solberg, "William Abbott Oldfather: Making the Classics Relevant to Modem Life," ClassicalWorld97 (2004) 159-77. 13 Hurter 48 (1885) 10 (manuscripts & editions used), 208-58 (text of the Hilarion).
290
PAUL B. HARVEY, JR.
a comD. Hauler, editor of the CorpusScriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, mission to produce the definitivetext ofJerome's vitae.As late as 1983, the CSEL and various European patristicsscholarswere still under the impression that the promised volume was forthcoming. It is not. Oldfather's son-in-law, Kenneth Morgan Abbott, inherited the project and died in Columbus, Ohio, after a scholarlycareer that included accumulatingmore textual minutiae, securingfurthergrants(fromthe ACLS, among other public sources of funding),and supervisinggraduate dissertationson the textual traditionofJerome's hagiographies.'4But no criticaltext appeared.Abbott's wife (Helen Oldfather)retainedin her Columbus home scholarlynotes, collation books, stray theses, and correspondenceand other paraphernaliarelevant to the Jerome project. The family graciously loaned some of these materialsto ProfessorFrankMantello, of the Dept. of Greek & Latin at the Catholic University of America; Mantello has kindly permitted the present author to consult those papers. What we do have in print is a curious volume, Studiesin the TextTradition of St. Jerome'sVitaePatrum(Universityof Illinois 1943), edited by Oldfather and his senior male studentsand containingthe carefully-editedmastersand doctoral theses of several generationsof Oldfather'sstudents'work, printed along with Hurter's synthetic text. Those studies consistently undermine Hurter's text and implicitly demonstrate that it should be condemned to deserved oblivion. Hurter's text of the vitae,nonetheless, is what is printed in Oldfather'svolume. One of the graduate student contributorsto that volume, Sister Mary Donald McNeil,'5 collated more than two dozen MSS. containing the VH. 14
Kenneth Morgan Abbot: 1906-1988; see Charles L. Babcock, in Ward W. Briggs, Jr. (ed.), BiographicalDictionaryof NorthAmericanClassicists(Westport & London 1994) 4. Some of Abbot's work on the text ofJerome was used by Sister Marie Liguori Ewald, in her translation of the VH in RoyJ. Deferrari (ed.), Early ChristianBiographies (Washington, D.C.) 223. 15 Sister Mary Donald Eileen McNeil (1899-1969) received a bachelor's degree in Latin and Greek from Clarke College (Dubuque, Iowa), in 1920; she entered the community of the Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Dubuque) in July, 1921. Her graduate work at the University of Illinois (including her substantive labors on Oldfather'sJerome project) earned her an Illinois M.A. (1928), then a Ph.D. in Classical Philology (1934). In 1930, she had accepted a position as instructor in classics and in 1937 became department chair in classics and chair of the division of languages and literature at Mundelein College in Chicago, where she was a respected teacher, scholar, and faculty mentor until her death in August, 1969. Mira Mosle, BVM, Director of Communications, and Anita Therese Hayes, BVM,
JEROME DEDICATES HIS VITAHILARIONIS
291
She worked thoroughlyand well. Donald McNeil reported that some manuscriptsof what she thought composed a distinct class had a dedication for the Hilarion.'6So they do. This dedication (I can confirm)appearsin the earliestextant manuscripts of that distincttradition.The dedication appearsin the relevantmanuscripts after the incipitand title, before the formal opening of the Hilarion,and at the conclusion ofJerome's preface. Those manuscriptsare: Monacensis06393,f. 134 (9thcentury;Freising,Bavaria)(= Oldfather#56) Bruxellensis lat. 8216/18,j. 40955,f. 213 (819AD; Linz,Austria)(=Oldfather #18)17
In these two manuscripts,after the title and incipit,we read: in sanctis orationibus tuismemento meidecusac dignitas nonna Asella. virginum Be mindfulof me, in yourprayers,asceticAsella,you who are the honorand dignityof virgins. In those same two manuscripts,the concluding statement of the preface is: et memorin orationibus tuissis meivirgosacratissima. permaneas optout in Christo
I praythatyou, mostdedicatedvirgin,remainsteadfastin Christand remember me in your prayers.
Semantics and syntax suggest that both this dedication and the concluding statement are genuinely Jerome. We may compare, for vocabulary and
Archivistof the Congregation,and CarolynFarrell,BVM, Director,GannonCenterfor Women and Leadership,Loyola UniversityChicago,have kindlysuppliedbiographical detailssupplementaryto the notice in Oldfather(1943)560. 16
Donald McNeil, "The Latin manuscript tradition of the vita Sancti Hilarionis,"
in theTextTradition Studies WilliamAbbottOldfatheret al., eds. of St.Jerome'sVitaePatrum, (Urbana 1943) 251-305, see esp. 258-60. Donald McNeil's contribution to this volume (a revised version of her 1934 Illinois Ph.D. thesis) includes textual and manuscript notes by another member of Oldfather's Jerome team, "G.S.": Grundy Steiner (d. 28 March 2004), who earned his Illinois Ph.D. in 1940, then served as Oldfather's research assistant for two years until service in the US Army as a cryptologist. He retired from the Classics Department at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, in 1984 (Chicago Tribune,Chicago Illinois: 6 April 2004: p. 7; 10 April 2004: p. 14). To the best of my knowledge, Steiner contributed no further publications to the Jerome project. 17 These two manuscripts are the oldest extant witnesses in their specific family (Donald McNeil's "A"-see below), but are independent and descend (ultimately) from the same archetype. I thank the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes for supplying clear photocopies of these two manuscripts.
292
PAUL B. HARVEY, JR.
phrasing, first, the use (typical of Jerome) of nonna(whence, "nun")for an ascetic single woman.18We may also observe that the semantics (and tone) of this dedication and conclusion find correspondencein Jerome's several OT commentaries and translationdedications to Paula and her daughter Eustochium,and in the style of languageJerome employed in his letters to ascetic women.19 Sister Donald McNeil identified thirteen manuscript families for the Hilarion.(Dom B. Lambert has identified additional MSS of the VH, although he did not classify those he identified.20)One family, which she designated "A", consists of the two ninth-century manuscripts specified above and three twelfth-century manuscripts, all of southern-German/ Austrianprovenance.21As a group, "A" shares twenty-tworeadingsdistinct from the other VH manuscripts.22Furthermore,in addition to containing the opening dedication and prayer at the end of the preface of the VH, the manuscriptsof "A" contain unique expanded statementsin the body of the preface.23Donald McNeil, one judges, was justified in seeing in "A"
18
Jerome Epist. 22.16: (viduae)castaevocanturet nonnae;Epist. 117.6: te sanctumet nonnum. 19 For example: Jerome's dedication of his Vulgate translation of Judith to Paula and Eustochium: accipiteludith viduam,castitatisexemplum,et triumphalilaudeperpetuiseampraeconis declarate.See also, e.g., Jerome Epist. 45 passim, with frequent complimentary language about "the great crowd of virgins who frequently surround me" (Epist.45.2). 20 B. Lambert, Bibliotheca II (Steenbrugqe 1969) 481-95, #262. Hieronymiana Manuscripta 21 These twelfth-century MSS are Monacensis 13062 & 5514; Bruxellenses 8623/26. All three may descend from an ancestor of one of the two ninth-century manuscripts: Bruxellensis 8216/18. See Donald McNeil in Oldfather (1943) 253. 22 Donald McNeil in Oldfather (1943) 252-305; on "A": 252-61. Oldfather himself, in Oldfather (1943) 261 note 7, thought a further six twelfth-century and later manuscripts might also belong to family "A". 23 In his preface to the VH, Jerome twice alluded to and quoted from Sallust's Catilina: 1. "A": ut qui illius largitusest virtutes,mihiad narrandam eius vitamopemferredigneturutfacta dictisexaequaentur. The remaining manuscripts have (with minor, insignificant variants): ut qui illi virtuteslargitusest, mihi ad narrandaseas sermonem tribuat,utfacta dictisexaequentur. (Cf. Sallust Cat. 3.2). 2. "A": Huius namqueconversatio et abstinentiaac praeclaradonamirabiliumquaeoperatusest, ut ait Crispus,tantaac talia habenturquantumvel ex parvulisverbisextollerecuiuscumque praeclara ingenia.The remaining manuscripts have (with minor, insignificant variants): Eorumenim quifecerevirtus,ut ait Crispus,tantahabeturquantumeamverbispotuereextollere praeclaraingenia. (Cf. Sallust Cat. 8.4). In both instances, the readings of "A" represent a paraphrase of Sallust, while the other tradition appears to reflect Jerome's correction towards a more precise quotation of Sallust.
JEROMEDEDICATESHIS VITAHILARJONIS
293
witnesses to a distinct edition of the VH-perhaps a first edition dispatched by Jerome to Asella herself. Eventually, by the fifteenth century, this "A" tradition disappeared in favor of the tradition represented by the majority of manuscriptsfor the VH. For example, Free Libraryof Philadelphia81 (118), ff. 1 & 12 (dated 1423; Varmia [Ermeland]),exhibits a conflation of readings from the "A" tradition and the other manuscripttraditionsDonald McNeil identified.24 II. TheEditorialTradition What is remarkableis that this prefatory dedication and prayer had been discoveredin the seventeenthcentury and announced to the scholarlycommunity in an authoritativepublication, but then, through a combination of scholarly carelessness, ignorance, and neglect, lost to sight. Heribert Rosweyde (1569-1629), in his monumental VitaePatrum(Antwerp 1615; ed. 2: Lyon 1617), Vol. I, "Vita #3" (p. 75), included the opening dedicationto Asella and the prayer concluding the preface. Furthermore,Rosweyde correctly identifiedAsella in terms ofJerome's Letters("Epist. 15, 99, 114" = in the CSEL standardnumbering:24, 45, 65). Rosweyde had this to say of the opening dedication: ante"Scripturus" veteres editiones et seusalutationem Nonna:Hancallocutionem praemittunt quidammanuscripti. Nonna:this address or greeting before "Scripturus" [the formal beginning of the Hilarion]the old editions and some manuscriptspremise.
Rosweyde was correct in his observation.Where had he seen the dedication and prefatoryprayer? He read it in precisely one of the manuscripts Donald McNeil identifiedas one of the oldest of the "A"group. Rosweyde's own notes to his edition of the VH indicate that he had consulted Bruxellensislat. 8216/18 (= Oldfather # 18), as quoted and noted above. Rosweyde accurately and to the best of his knowledge described fully this etc. (VitaPatrumI p. lxx XXIV:de manuscriptis manuscriptin his Prolegomenon also Oldfather PL 73 col. see [= 80; (1943) 68-9]). Rosweyde's VitaePatrum
24 This manuscript(= Lambert490), bears an explicitdate on folio 157v (vidi).Once in the collectionof the Earl of Ashburnham,it was originallyin the libraryof Johannes Abeczier,bishop of Varmia/Ermland(in easternPrussia).The bishop'sclassicallibrary des Ermlanwas extensiveand dispersed:Peter L. Schmidt, "Eine Cicero-handschrift dischenBischofsJohannesAbeczier,"RhMn.f. 109 (1966) 170-84.
294
PAUL B. HARVEY, JR.
was reprinted in Migne's PL 73 (1849), but where Migne had already printed the texts of hagiographicvitaeearlier in his series (as with all three of Jerome's vitaein PL 23), Migne included solely Rosweyde's annotationes from the third edition of the VitaePatrum(Antwerp 1628). The scholarly community therefore had knowledge of Jerome's dedication and prayer, but that knowledge disappeared within a century of opera Rosweyde's edition. Dominico Vallarsi's great edition of S. Hieronymi omnia (revised edition: Venice 1766-72 = reprinted in Migne PL 23 [1845/65]) reported from Rosweyde the existence of the dedication and prayer, but the "editions (esp. that of Jean Martianay [Paris 1685]) and known to Vallarsilacked that dedication and prayer.Vallarsi manuscripts"25 thereforenoted their existence not in his text, but as marginalia-reprinted in Migne PL 23 col. 29, nt. 2 (this note would be quoted as well in de Buck, 45, nt. "a"). Subsequent editors may have known of Vallarsi's observation, but, at best, simply reportedhis note, while manifestlyconsultingneither Rosweyde nor any pertinent manuscript.Notably, Hurter26declared that he founded his text of the VH in the editions of Surius27 Rosweyde MartianayVallarasi& A perusal of Hurter's text reveals AASS & codicesaliquotMSS. Bruxellenses. that he did no such thing. He simply adopted, with minor additions, the text of the VH Victor de Buck had presented in his great edition of the ActaSanctorum, vol. 57, October 9 (1869) 43-55.28Compare de Buck's statement of his sources: Secundum editiones Surii,Rosweydii, Martianayet Vallarsiiet In brief, Hurter established his text not by codicesaliquotMss. Bruxellenses.
25
These were certain Vatican MSS of the majority tradition: see, in brief, Oldfather
(1943)8.
26 Hurter 48 (1885) 10.
That is, LaurentSurius(ca. 1523-1578),De probatis sanctorum 6 vols. (Koln historiis, 1570-77). 28 In eleveninstancesin the firsttwelve (Vallarsi-Migne numbering)sectionsof the VH whereHurterdiffersfromVallarsi-Migne,Hurter'svariantreadingderivesfrom de Buck or de Buck'snotes. Two examplesare typicaland revealing: VH 6: Vallarsi-Migneread et rursusvariarum De Buck readsthe same, but his portenta. marginalnote (p. 44) reportsRosweyde'svariantetprosusetc.-which is what Hurter printed. VH 8: Vallarsi-Migneread agitator et laterecalcibus, Hurterprinted(festinus) et agitator lateracalcibus.Some MSS readfestinusgladiator, which Rosweydeand Victorinuscorrectedtofestinusagitator-precisely what de Buckexplainedin endnote"dd",p. 46. (De 27
Buck printed agitatoret lateracalcinus.)Here, obviously, Hurter used de Buck's text and
note to offerhis own peculiarreading.
JEROMEDEDICATESHIS VITAHILRIONIS
295
use of codicesaliquotMSS. Bruxellenses, but by selective use of de Buck and Rosweyde's readings and notes as reported by de Buck. I strongly doubt that Hurter consultedRosweyde directly,for had he done so, he would have known of the dedication to Asella. Likewise, had Martianay, Vallarsi, de Buck and Hurter examined a full range of relevantmanuscripts,they would have seen exactly what Rosweyde and Sister Mary Donald McNeil saw and recorded. III. TheDedicatee Asella is known well to studentsofJerome and his circle of acquaintances.29 This prominentmember of the Aventine ascetic female aristocracywas born in 334 and lived on at Rome until at least her seventy-firstyear, for when Palladius, the author of the LausiacHistoryvisited Rome in 405 (Palladius Dialog.8-11 with HL 61.7), he reported that "I also saw in Rome the lovely 'AoaeXav)who has grown old in monastic estabvirgin Asella (riv KcakXlv lishment, a woman of the greatest gentility and adapted to live a communal life" (HL 41.4 ed. Bartelink;the ascetic Roman woman mentioned at HL 37.4 may also be Asella). Asella was not only accustomed to monastic life, she was also a literatewoman who attended to Holy Scriptureand who manifestlyenjoyed the company of male Christianscholarsvisiting the eternal city. Jerome met her during his stay in Rome in the 380s, when he praised her ascetic virtues in a letter (Epist.24) to Marcella, Asella's ascetic "sister"(in devotion and similarinterests,if not by blood: see Jerome Epist. 65 & 127).Jerome's praise of Asella in this letter might readily be understood as a laudatio finebris,save that Asella was a lively matron of fifty years at the time. Asella was also the recipient of the remarkableletter (Epist.45) Jerome wrote, almost on the docks at Ostia, before he, his brother Paulinianus,and a group of ascetic males embarkedfor the east. In that letter, Jerome defended his conduct at Rome and asserted his orthodox credentials to have been a worthy successorto Damasus, bishop of Rome. Asella was obviously someoneJerome thought importantto his repute at Rome and thereforean aristocraticwoman with whom communicationwas
29 A.H.M. of theLaterRomanEmpireI: Jones, J.R. Martindale &J. Morris, Prosopography AD 260-395 (Cambridge 1971) 117; J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome:his life, writings,and controversies undsein Kreis(Stuttgart 1992) (New York 1975) 92, 212, 304; Stefan Rebenich, Hieronymus socialand reli108, 141-9, 151-8, 180; M.R. Salzman, TheMakingof a ChristianAristocracy: gious changein the westernRomanempire(Cambridge, MA 2002) 168.
296
PAUL B. HARVEY, JR.
well-worthmaintainingonce the self-exiledscholar was, in Bethlehem, distant from the urban center of his universe. In 397, for example, Jerome wrote from Bethlehem to Principia, another one (as Marrou aptly styled on the allegoricalmeanthem) ofJerome's "spiritual(Roman) daughters",30 44 In of Psalm that ings (Epist. 65). ostensibly exegetical letter, Asella receives favorable mention and Jerome defends in the letter's preface his reputationfor preferringthe friendshipof aristocraticwomen to men. There are also, I suggest, less obvious reasons for Jerome's dedication of the Hilarionto this particular Roman woman. Epiphanius had visited Rome in 382 to participate(withJerome and his brother)in a synod castigating Antiochene theology. Jerome reported much later that when he, Epiphanius, and other orthodox Christian folk journeyed from eastern Mediterranean locales to Rome to attend that conciliar meeting in 382, Epiphaniuslodged with Paula. The latter was so set aflame with ascetic fervor on meeting Epiphanius and Paulinus of Antioch (Jerome's sometime patron in Syria and mentor), that she contemplated disposing forthwith of all of her material goods, thus to pursue an ascetic life, according to Jerome's reportin Epist.108.6.2 of 404 CE. In this letter we have clear indication of Epiphanius'social and religious'circle when in Rome. Considering the attested close ties between Paula and her aristocratichousehold on the Aventine with the equally-elite,nearby household of Asella and Marcella, we may reasonablyassume that this was the time and place Asella not only made her first acquaintanceof Jerome, but also Epiphanius. We may thus reflect on the literaryand personal significanceofJerome's statement at the end of his preface to his Hilarion:"Epiphaniushas written a brief encomium of Hilarion and that work is widely read, but it is praise of the dead expressedwith banal commonplaces."Here we read a familiar Jerome: consider my sources and how defective they are; observe how I improve on those sources. And in this instance (addressedto Asella), see how much better my compositionis than that of a senior scholarwhom you have met. I shall, assertsJerome in his preface, "narrateat length the virtues of the dead Hilarion";he (Epiphanius)praised Hilarion inadequately.31 30
H.I. Marrou, A Historyof Educationin Antiquity,transl. George Lamb (London 1956) 262; see also Cavallera 1.93-120, Kelly (1975) 91-103, and Rebenich (1972) 157-70 on Jerome's female circle at Rome. 31 QuamquamenimsanctusEpiphaniusSalaminaeCypriepiscopus,qui cum Hilarioneplurimum versatusest, laudemeius breviepistulascripserit,quaevulgolegitur.Tamenaliud est locis communibus laudaredefJnctum; aliud,defuncti propriasnarrarevirtutes.No trace of Epiphanius' laudatory letter has survived.
JEROME DEDICATES HIS VITAHILARIONIS
297
Several months after completing his Hilarion,Jerome sent to Rome another work, his Suetonian chronological catalogue of Christian authors, the de virisillustribus. We learn fromJerome's letter to his friend Desiderius (Epist.47.3), thatJerome had sent two copies of that work to Rome: one to Domnio, the Roman priest who acted as a book agent at Rome forJerome and other Christian authors,32another to Marcella, who could also, if requested, supply copies. Marcella's ascetic sister and neighbor Asella appears to have served a similarfunction forJerome: a reliable, aristocratic point of disseminationin Rome for his writings-and, it would seem, the ultimate source of the manuscripttradition of the VH exhibiting the dedication and final prayer to Asella. In several respects, then, the dedication of the Hilarionmay be read as another index of Jerome's literary politics.33Most importantly, however, Jerome's dedication is now restored to public knowledge and should be included in future editions and translationsof the Hilarion. The PennsylvaniaState University, 108 Weaver Building, Park,PA 16802-5500 U.S.A. University [email protected]
32 Evaristo Ams, La technique du livred'aprisSaintJerome(Paris 1953) 146-7; Rebenich (1992) 197-98. 33 Compare M. Vessey, "Conference and Confession: Literary pragmatics in Augustine's ApologiacontraHieronymum," Journalof Early ChristianStudies1 (1993) 175-213.
GRACE AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST ACCORDING TO ST VINCENT OF LIRINS BY
A.M.C. CASIDAY paper examines Vincent of Lerin's teaching about grace as expressedin his Christology.Vincent, who has regularlybeen assumedto have opposed Augustine'sdoctrine on grace, advancedhis own teaching most clearly in a little known work, the Excerpta. The excerpts in question were significantly taken from Augustine'swritings, among them the Antipelagiantreatisescirculated in Gaul. Exc. shows Vincent to have been a discriminatingstudent of Augustinian theology who embraced predestination as a way of describing grace at work in Jesus Christ. A comparison of Vincent's teaching with Augustine'sand withJohn Cassian's(theircontemporary,who like Vincent has often stood accused of 'Semipelagianism')demonstratesthat the three of them assertedChrist as the exemplar of grace in confrontationwith Pelagianism.On this basis, the paper suggests that further re-evaluation of how Augustine's works were received by his contemporariesin Gaul is seriouslyneeded. ABSTRACT: This
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate St Vincent of Lerins's teaching on divine grace, with special reference to his use of that term in the context of his claims about the person of Jesus Christ found in his little-known work, the Excerpta.A synthetic account of Vincent's Christology will therefore be a necessary background for this evaluation, and along the way fresh light may be shed on that rather neglected subject; but this will be subordinate to the chief objective of this paper, which is to offer a revised account of Vincent's position in the debates about grace. To this end, the paper will directly challenge the convention that Vincent was a staunch opponent of the Augustinian account of grace. Along the way, it will compare Vincent's position to that of his contemporary, John Cassian. The comparison with Cassian will enable us to appreciate in Vincent's account certain elements of Antipelagian polemic that have not previously received scholarly attention-elements which are deeply resonant with Augustine's and Cassian's Christological accounts of grace. Throughout this paper, it will therefore be necessary to make reference to the Christological matrix within which Vincent situates his claims about divine grace. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
59, 298-314 VIgiliaeChristianae
GRACE AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
299
We begin, then, with an overview of Vincent's Christology,with particular attention to his claims about Christ's human nature. Vincent's Christology In the Commonitorium, Vincent provides us with an eloquent summary of his teaching: 'So then in one and the same Christ there are two substances, one divine and the other human; one from God the Father, one from the Virgin Mother; one coeteral with and equal to the Father, the other temporal and less than the Father;one consubstantialwith the Father, the other consubstantialwith the mother; but neverthelessone and the same Christ in both substances.'1In addition to this robust commitment to two equally real modes of reality, Vincent is committed to a deep unity in Christ: 'Therefore there is in Christ Word, soul and flesh, but this whole is one Christ, one Son of God, our one Saviour and Redeemer.'2But to be quite clear, Vincent insists that this unity does not compromise the distinctive attributesthat are proper to the substances. That conjoiningdid not convertone into the otherand so changeit (whichis the distinctiveerrorof the Arians);instead,it joined both into one in such a way that, while the singularityof one and the samepersonin Christalways endures,the propertiesof each naturealsoremainfor eternity,withthe result that neitherdoes God everbeginto be a body,nor does the bodyevercease to be a body.3 In contradistinctionto this orthodox profession,Vincent denounces-sometimes in great detail-psilanthropism, doceticism, and adoptionism. His accuracy in attributing certain views to Photinus, Apollinarius, Nestorius et al. is of no particularsignificancefor our purposes;what does matter is that his denunciationsserve to highlight his own profession of the unity of natures in the person of Christ. Although Vincent characterisesthis lengthy discussion as a 'digression' and moves from it with a vow to return to the topic later,5it is strikingthat he chose Christologyas his exemplar of orthodoxy. This choice was probably not made carelessly, and certainly the promise was not made lightly,
Vincent, Comm.13.9 (CCSL64.164-165). 2 Vinc. Comm.13.12 (CCSL 64.165). 3 Vinc. Comm.13.13 (CCSL 64.165). 4See Vinc. Comm.12.4-12, 14.2-4, 15.7 (CCSL64.162-163, 166, 168). 5 Vinc. Comm.16.9 (CCSL 64.169).
300
A.M.C. CASIDAY
since Vincent did indeed returnto the subjectin his later work. But in terms of the Commonitorium itself, the concern for unity evident in Vincent's exposition of orthodox Christologyis strikinglydistinctivefrom the multiplicity of heresies that he describes.It is tempting to suppose that he intended the contrast to point up the integrity of Christian truth as against fissiparous heresies. In the end, it seems no accident that he dedicated six chapters to expounding upon the right understanding(and several wrong understandings!)of Christ. To move closer to the theme of this investigation,we should note that, according to Vincent, the union is of such 'compactness'6and permanence that divine attributes are attributableto 'man' and human attributes are attributable to 'God'. On this basis, Vincent affirms that the 'blessed Catholic Church... does not deny that man descended from Heaven as God, and believes that God came into existence on earth as man, and sufferedand was crucified.Therefore she also confessesman the Son of God and God the son of the Virgin.'7Quite apart from its clear statement of a paradoxicalbelief, this passage is significantbecause in it we first encounter Vincent's use of the general term 'man' to describe Christ's human substance. That he did not intend by this term to designate a human subject who is independent from Christ is inescapablyclear from his stridentrejection of the 'two sons'-a position that he attributes to the heresy of Nestorius.8 Instead, his usage conformed to a trend that we find in Tertullian,9Augustine,10Cassian," and Leporius,'2whereby homorefers to Christ's humanity (ratherthan to a man who was 'part' of Christ).13This
Vinc. Comm.13.13 (CCSL 64.165): illa coniunctio... in unumpotiusutrumque conpegit. Vinc. Comm.16.3, 7 (CCSL 64.169): 'Beata uero catholica ecclesia [...] et hominem de caelo secundum Deum descendisse non abnegat et Deum secundum hominem credit in terra factum, passum et crucifixum. Propter earn denique et hominem Dei Filium et Deum filium uirginis confitetur'. 8 Cf. Vinc. Comm.12.9 (CCSL 64.163). 9 Cf. Tert. Car. 14 (SC 216.268-272); Adu.Prax. 30 (ed. E. Evans, Tertullian'sTreatise againstPraxeas(London 1948) 128). 10 30 (44.934); Praed.Sanct.15.30 Aug. Ep. 219.3 (CSEL 57.430-431); Corrept.Grat. 6
7
(44.981-982). " See the discussionof Cassian,below. 12 5 (CCSL64.116).It may be notedthat Leporius'emendationcarLepor.Lib.Emend. ried the endorsementof six notableAfricanChristiansand at least one in Gaul, though one may well supposethat it met with generalfavourthere, too. 13 See also Donald Fairbairn,Grace andChristology in theEarlyChurch (Oxford2003) 190.
GRACE AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
301
concord amongst several ancient Latin authors means that it would be precipitous for us to fault Vincent for not using terms that measure up to modem expectationsof clarity,uniformityand orthodoxyfor dogmatic theology. Furthermore,the parallel use of the concrete homoand the abstracthumanitas in his Excerptamakes it plain that Vincent regarded the words as synonymous. We shall consider an example of this parallelism shortly. But before looking to that evidence it will be useful to say a word about the Excerpta. That writinghas been accuratelydescribedby its first editor,Jose Madoz, as the first Augustinian summa. On the basis of a remark found in an anonymous ninth-centurycompilationof Cassiodorus,it can be dated to the insulae Lyrinensis presbyteri papacy of Sixtus III (432-440): Sedet liberVincentii et misitsanctoXistopapeutilisestpro hac re quemde librisbeatiAugustinicomposuit And the contents of the Excerptaare more refined than the because legi.14 in the can be securelydated to 434 Commonitorium-which found arguments owing to its internal reference to the Council of Ephesus'-Madoz dates it as the realisationof Vincent's to 434-440.16 Indeed, Madoz sees the Excerpta stated intention, mentioned above, to treat of Christology at length in a work later than the Commonitorium.'7 Apart from the introduction, the conclusion and a few occasional remarks penned by Vincent himself, the consistsin lengthy extractsfrom an array of Augustine'sworks. The Excerpta De arianorum episcopum, Augustinianworks in evidence are ContraMaximinum De De dono De doctrina consensu preseuerantiae, peccatorum christiana, euangelistarum, 137 and 205 Depraedestinatione meritiset remissione, epistulae sanctorum, Enchiridion, and especiallyDe Trinitate. Vincent freely quotes passages in which Augustine Now in the Excerpta, but where he uses his own voice, Vincent uses the phrase homoassumptus;'8 with approxiuses both concrete and abstract terms (homoand humanitas) 'in he writes that uno For instance, eodemque mately equal frequency. Christo non se diuinitas conuertit in carnem, sed potius carnemadsumpsit humanitatem diuinitas non de came uirginis';or 'secum adsumptam humanam 14 Anon.
desMittelalters2 (Stuttgart 1959) Expos.Diu.Leg16 (ed. P. Lehmann, Erforschung
76; reprinted from Lehmann, Ein mittelalterlichesKompendium der Institutiones 73 (1914-1916)268). diuinarumlitterarum,Philologus Vinc. Comm.29.7 (CCSL 64.190). J. Madoz, ExcerptaVincentiiLirnensissegunel c6dicede Ripoll, n. 151 (Madrid 1940) 27. 17 See Vinc. Comm.16.9 (CCSL 64.169): Haec in excursudictasint, alias, si Deo placuerit, uberiustractandaet explicanda.Cf. Madoz, Excerptavii. 18 E.g. Aug. Cons.Euangel.1.35.53 (CSEL 43.59) = Vinc. Exc. 8 (CCSL 64.221). 15 16
302
A.M.C. CASIDAY
confundit sed uniuit.'19 This shift toward more precise terminology is characteristic of the Excerptaas a whole. For instance, in the Excerptahe uses the term 'homoousion' to describe Christ's relationship to God the Father and the Blessed Virgin,20 and he explains-then immediately rejects-the term 'Christotokos'.21 Another example is encountered in the far more elegant formulation of the principle of communicatioidiomatum,which Vincent had previously employed dextrously enough, but without ever clearly articulating it. By contrast, here we read that in uno eodemqueChristo,propterpersonae
et quaeDei propriasunttribuuntur unitatem, homini,et quaehominispropriatribuuntur Deo.22Along with these refinements we are able to identify several features that are common to both works. Such, for instance, are Vincent's preference for the term substantiaas a synonym for natura;23and his preoccupation with heresies, not least Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and Photianism.24 It will be noted that Vincent offers most of these refinements in the prologue to the work; indeed, they are chiefly found in the summary of the contents that brings the prologue to a close. But not all that is significant in the Excerptais to be found amongst the lapidary glosses that Vincent provides in his table of contents. As mentioned above, Vincent periodically inserts material of his own into the collected Augustiniana. Many of the interpolations are purely functional, serving merely as connective tissue to bring together two disparate passages from Augustine. But a few are longer, and more interesting. One of the longest such passages is the most significant for the purposes of this paper. It is found between Vincent's excerpts from ep 187 and from praed sanct 15: Such a medicine thereforecame from heaven to overcome and remove the lifethreateningtumor. God who is humble descended in mercy to man who was swollen with pride, depositinga unique and extraordinarygrace with that man [sc., Christ's humanity] whom he received with such love on account of his associates.And it is not the case that the very Word of God was conjoined due to the antecedent merits of his will so that he became one Son of God and again one Son of man by the conjoining. To be sure, it is fitting that he be one. And yet, if this could come to be, not through a unique gift from God,
19Vinc. Exc.tituli4, 5 (CCSL64.200-201). 20 Vinc. Exc.titulus3 (CCSL64.200). 21
Vinc. Exc.prol, titulus9 (CCSL64.199, 201). Vinc. Exc.titulus6 (CCSL64.201). 23 Cf. Vinc. Comm. 13.9 and Exc.titulus1 (CCSL 4.164-165, 200). 24 Cf. Vinc. Comm.12.4-12and Exc.prol, 10 (CCSL64.162-163, 199-200,231). 22
GRACE AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
303
but throughthe free will thatis commonto all men, therewouldbe two or threeor more.25 In this remark, it is noteworthy that Vincent depicts salvation as the merciful descent of a humble God in order to cure 'man swollen with pride'.It is further worth noting how keen Vincent is to make a principled distinction between the relationshipof God and 'that man' which obtains in Christ on the one hand, and God's relationshipsto other people on the other. But most interestingof all the featuresof the passage are the following four key suaeuolunpraecipuamque, neque... praecedentibus expressions:gratiamsingularem hominum Dei donum,and non... per commune tatis meitisfecit, per singularem These phrases describe and delimit the relationshipwhich liberumarbitrium. ille homoenjoys with God. At the most basic level, they stipulate that the relationshipbetween deity and humanity in Christ was unique. But they do so by invoking the language of grace and by explicitly precluding the possibility that the 'assumed man' deserved to be assumed 'due to the antecedent merits of his will'. Since the relationship existed as 'a unique gift from God', it cannot be replicated 'through the [exercise of] free will that is common to all men'. As we shall see, Vincent's expressionsbear comparison with the select Christologicalwritings in which Augustine and Cassian comment on grace and the Incarnation. This comparison will enable us to identify Vincent's words as roundly Antipelagian-and this finding will improve our understandingof Vincent's aim in compiling the Excerpta. Parallelsin Augustine Immediatelyfollowing the passage we have quoted, Vincent introducesa 30.15. For reasons sanctorum long excerpt from Augustine'sDe praedestinatione that will emerge shortly, the precise form in which Vincent cited Augustine attracted Madoz's attention. But before considering the exact wording of
25 Vinc. Exc. 8 (CCSL64.224): Ad conuincendum igitur atque auferendum tumorem mortalium talis medicina caelitus uenit, ad elatum hominem per superbiam Deus humilis
descenditper misericordiam,gratiam singularempraecipuamquecommendansin illo homine,quem tantapraeparticipibussuiscaritatesuscepit.Neque enim et ipse ita Verbo Dei coniunctusut ea coniunctioneunus FiliusDei et idem ipse unus filiushominisfieret, praecedentibussuae uoluntatismeritisfecit. Vnum quippe illum esse oportebat.Essent autem et duo et tres et plures,si hoc fieri non possetper singulareDei donum, sed per communehominumliberumarbitrium.
304
A.M.C. CASIDAY
that excerpt let us consider how neatly Vincent's claims are fitted to what In that passage, Augustine made the we find in De praedestinatione sanctorum. bold claim that Christ himself exemplifiesthe grace that God shows in dealing with humans. The essence of Augustine'sclaim is that Christ'shumanity could not possibly have deserved a special relationshipwith God: after all, before God the Word took upon himself human nature, there was no human person who was Christ;indeed, the human only came into being as a result of that relationship.Augustinemakes the point in a rhetoricalquestion that Vincent quotes: 'unde hoc meruit ut a Verbo Patri coaetero in unitate personae adsumptusFilius Dei unigenitusesset?'26Vincent's decision to quote this passage can be taken as his endorsement of the view it puts forward. That inference is strengthenedby Vincent's sweeping affirmation of the catholicity of Augustine'steaching: cuiussanissimum sensumin ipsostatimprimodebemus aduertere.27 Madoz has noted that the work as a whole bears the imprint of Vincent's hand,28 so it is apparent that Vincent made Augustine'sargumentshis own. But, one may ask, to what extent? That was an acute question for Madoz, who in his previousresearchinto Vincent's Commonitorium had concluded that Vincent should be regarded as an opponent of Augustine'steaching on grace.29This conclusion was generally accepted by the reviewers30and bolstered a longstandinginclination to find in that work (especially at Comm.26.8-9) a tacit refutation of Augustine'steaching on grace.31In consequence of this, Madoz found himself, as the editor of a text by Vincent that contains encomiastic praise of Augustine, on the horns of a dilemma. He recognisedthat Vincent put forward Augustine as a veritable seal of the faith.32Nevertheless, to save his 26
15.30 (PL 44.981-982)= Vinc. Exc.8 (CCSL64.224). Augustine,Praed.Sanct.
27 Vinc. Exc. 1 (CCSL64.202). 28 Cf. 55-58.
Madoz, Excerpta
29
See J. Madoz, El conceptode la Tradici6nen S. Vzcentede Lerins(Rome 1933), esp.
59-89. 30 See Jules Lebreton,Saint Vincent de Lerinset Saint Augustin,Recherches de Science 30 and the he 368-269 references 369 n. 3. Religieuse (1940) gives, 31 See the argumentsof H. Noris, e.g., in his Vndiciae Augustinianae (reprintedin PL 47.823-824);I have not been able to consulthis Histoia Pelagiana, though in Vimd.lAug., Noris alludesto a 'fuller'treatmentof Vincentamong othersin the secondbook of that work(PL47.581);and, relativelycloserto our own time, the note ad loc.in T.H. Bindley, The Commonitogy of St Vincent of Leins (London 1914) 105 n. 1 and C.A. Heurtley's II in The and Second Series,vol. 11 (reprint:Peabody Post-Xicene jicene Fathers, Appendix MA 1994) 158, which is purportedlybased on Noris'sHist.Pel. 32 Cf. Madoz,Excerpta 18: 'En efecto,supuestoslos dos fundamentosde la fe, Escritura
GRACE AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
305
earliertheory, he suggestedthat Vincent's endorsementmust be understood as having been qualifiedby his categoricalrejection of Augustine'steaching on grace and predestination.33Madoz also noted that such reservations would be consistent with Vincent's stated preference for 'covering the nakedness of the Fathers.'34He then appealed to the witness of Prosper of Aquitaine in supportof the claim that some of Augustine'serstwhileadmirers in Gaul were advancing sharply critical responses to his teaching of grace.35Finally, Madoz pointed to two cases in the passage we have identified above wherein Vincent's citation from Augustine was re-worded. Whereas Augustine had called Christ 'praeclarissimumlumen praedestinationis et gratiae',Vincent called Christ 'praeclarissimumlumen gratiaesingularis'; est ista. ..' in place of Augustine's'praedeslater, Vincent puts down 'praestita Madoz took Vincent's omission of the term 'pretinataest ista...'-and destination' to validate his argument.36It would seem from Prosper's circumstantialevidence and Vincent's textual emendations that Madoz's conjecture about Vincent is on reasonablysecure footing. But I want to suggest that, rather than allowing an (admittedlytime-honoured) interpretation of Comm.26.8-9 to control our assessment of the we should re-evaluatethe received account of how Vincent related Excerpta, to Augustine's thinking on grace in light of the Excerpta.The initial is quite simply that, as Vincent's justificationfor beginning with the Excerpta selection of texts from Augustine, it is a far more promising place to look for Vincent's views on Augustine than is the Commonitorium (in which or referred is never named, quoted unambiguously to). How do Augustine Madoz's two pieces of evidence-namely, Prosper's testimony, and Vincent's re-wording of Augustine-fare if we jettison the presupposition that Vincent was covertly denouncing Augustine at Comm.26.8-9? Prosper's relationship to Vincent is complex, and it is not possible to even to the Vincentian enter now into a discussion of his Responses Objections, y Tradici6n, prop6nese a San Agustin como modelo que los sigue y recomienda en el exordio de su obra De Trinitate.' 33 Thus, Madoz, Excerpta29: 'Claro esta que cabe la posibilidad de que el autor del Commonitorio esgrimiera en el sus armas contra el Doctor de la predestinaci6n y de la gracia, reservando despuis sus elogios para el Doctor de la Trinidad y de la Encarnaci6n.' 34 See Madoz, Excerpta31 at n. 44, quoting Comm.7.2. 35 Madoz, Excerpta31 at n. 43, quoting Prosper, c. Coll. 21 (PL 51.272); it might be noted that the appeal to Prosper is conventional: see, e.g., the secondary literature cited in n. 31, above. 36 Madoz, Excerpta35-37; comparing Aug. praed sanct 15.30 to Vinc. Exc. 8 (CCSL 64.224).
306
A.M.C. CASIDAY
though an analysis of that text may ultimately be needed.37At present, it may suffice to note that Prosper'sreliabilityas a source for the reception of Augustineby his contemporariesis questionableto say the least. His output in support of Augustine was voluminous and he was remarkablyconsistent in his version of the events. However, a comparison of his longest proAugustinianpolemic (c. Coll.)to the work it seeks to redress (Cassian, Conl. 13) reveals that Prosperregularlyedited the evidence from his opponents to fit his theological schema, and one can therefore argue a fortiorithat So it is far Prosper'sassertionsare not necessarilyhistoricallytrustworthy.38 from obvious that Prosper's claim that some people were of two minds about Augustinecould give us insight into Vincent's thinking.Vincent's own words are a much better place to look for that. The fact that Vincent substitutesthe phrase gratiaesingularis for Augustine'spraedestinationis etgratiaeis striking.But in the context of the Excerpta, it is perhaps less striking than Madoz's argument makes it appear, for two reasons. First, in Exc 8, Vincent uses the adjective singularis (and cognates) fifteen times, nine times in quoting Augustine and six on his own initiative. He takes the phrase 'singularis gratia' from Augustine's Ep 187.40 before using it himself and then substitutingit for the clause that Madoz et gratiae.There is no need to make a dubious flagged up, praedestinationis to it is clear that the word singularis was much on Vincent's appeal statistics; mind as he assembled this piece of his book, and so it is plausible that the substitutionwas made accidentallyand unintentionally,and so innocently. The second instance noted by Madoz is the stronger of the two: being unable to consult the MSS, I cannot offer a compelling counter-explanation for why Vincent should have put down praestitafor praedestinata. It must be noted, however, that Madoz himself has made a crucial omission. A few lines earlier, after interpolating material of his own, Vincent quotes
37 Koch has advanced a case-which is, to my mind, as convincing as Madoz's case for the ascription of the Excerpta-that the Objections were written by Vincent of Lerins; see H. Koch, Vincenz von Lerin und Gennadius. Ein Betrag zur Literaturgeschichte des 31.2 (1907) 37-58. However, in his critical ediSemipelagianismus, Texteund Untersuchungen tion of Vincent's works, Demeulenaere subscribes to the thesis of S. O'Connor that the Objections ought not be attributed to Vincent (CCSL 64.133). I have regrettably been unable to consult O'Connor's thesis-S. O'Connor, St. Vincentof Lerinsand SaintAugustine. Was theCommonitorium of Saint Vincentof Lerinsintendedas a polemictreatiseagainstSaintAugustine and his doctrineon predestination? (Rome 1964). 38 See A. Casiday, Rehabilitating John Cassian: An evaluation of Prosper of Aquitaine's polemic against the 'Semipelagians', ScottishJournalof Theology(under review).
GRACE AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
307
sinergoadsumptus, Augustine'sclaim that 'praedestinatusest Iesus':Singulariter is This inconsistent with est Iesus...'39 gulariterpraedestinatus passage sharply Madoz's claim that Vincent was acting on the principle of carefullyavoiding Augustine's language of predestination. To the contrary, Vincent's explicit inclusion of predestinationin this passage adds furtherAugustinian colouration to his frequent assertionsthat in Christ we encounter a gratiam a singulareDei donum.Indeed, Vincent's ability to singularem praecipuamque, affirm that 'Jesuswas predestined'underminesMadoz's claim that Vincent sharplydistinguishedAugustinethe doctor of predestinationfrom Augustine the doctor of the Incarnation.It may further be noted that the editor of a recent critical edition of the Excerpta,R. Demeulenaere, has emended Vincent's reading at that point to conform to Augustine'stext, presumably because the MSS agree that Vincent had describedJesus as 'predestined' only lines before.40 Having considered two of the four clauses employed by Vincent in his interpolation,it remains for us to see what can be made of his stipulations suae uoluntatismeritis, that the Incarnation transpired neque... praecedentibus hominum liberumarbitrium. and non... per commune Both of these claims are redolent of Augustine's polemic against the Pelagians. Now we know from Augustine that he himself considered the monks of Southern Gaul as allies in the cause against Pelagianism.41This shared opposition to Pelagius is worth further consideration. If Vincent's words can be shown to have Antipelagian significance, then it will be permissible to interpret the Excerptaas Vincent's attempt to promote Augustine's Antipelagian polemic about grace through promoting his Christology. In other words, if the Christology that Vincent relates in the can be taken as affirmingAugustine'steaching on grace against the Excerpta Pelagians, then we will be justified in supposing that Vincent was not as duplicitous in his reception of Augustine's writings as Prosper may have wanted us to believe. In the next section, I will argue from the parallel case that affirming an in Cassian's treatment of Pelagius in his De incamatione 39 Aug. Praedsanct 15.31 (PL 44.981-982) = Vinc. Exc. 8 (CCSL 64.225). See Demeulenaere's apparatus criticus to line 104 (CCSL 64.225): 'praedestinata] is found scripsicumAug. (cf. . 96); praestita] R Ma. (The claim that Jesus was praedestinatus on line 96 of Demeulenaere's edition.) 41 Augustine, at Praedsanct 14.29 (PL 44.981), describes them as fatres nostri,qui nobiscumpro catholica fide perniciemPelagianierrorisimpugnant.It should be noted that his concern that such brethren would promote the Pelagian opinion, that 'God's grace is given according to our merit', was ill founded in Vincent's case at least. 40
308
A.M.C. CASIDAY
Augustiniandoctrine as against the Pelagiansis preciselywhat Vincent was doing when he precluded human merit and free will from his Christology. Parallelsin Cassian In the context of his much-maligned treatise De incaratione,Cassian's opposition to Pelagius and Pelagianismis in evidence.42Some scholarshave seen this as an opportunistic way for Cassian to distance himself from mounting criticismthat he was unduly sympatheticto Pelagian teachings,43 by asserting the doubtful claim that Pelagianism and Nestorianism are at bottom complimentaryheresies.44Cassian thought that the common ground between the two heresies was their belief that Christ was born 'a mere human';45and even though this assertionis too simplisticas an historicalor theological evaluation, it is arguably a keener perception than many of Cassian'scriticsallow.46It was also not a perceptionunique to Cassian:both Augustine and Prosper asserted the connection between Pelagianism and Nestorianism.47It also had impressivestayingpower. Several centurieslater, Photius would reiterate it.48In any event, Cassian contrasts the putative teaching of Nestorius and Pelagius to his own affirmationof homoassumptus Christology. In a move that will be familiar from our consideration of Vincent's Exc 8, Cassian uses this terminology to talk of Christ receiving grace along with divinity: 'We do not say anything other than that divine grace descended with the divinity, for God's divine grace is in a way also a profusion of divinity itself and a gift from the generosity of graces.'49For
42 Cass. Inc. 1.3.3-4.2; 5.2.1-2; 6.14.1-2; 7.21.4; cf. 2.1.1-2 (CSEL 17.240-241, 303304, 341, 379; cf. 247); for a general treatment of Cassian's polemic against Pelagianism, see A. Casiday, Cassian against Pelagianism, StudiaMonastica(forthcoming). 43 E.g., C. Stewart, CassiantheMonk (New York, 1998), 22-23. 44 Cass. Inc. 1.3.3-4.2, 5.2.1-2, 6.14.1-2, 7.21.4; cf. 2.1.1-2 (CSEL 17.240-241, 303304, 341, 379; 246). 45 Cass. Inc 6.14 (CSEL 17.341): solitariumhumanum. 46 See, e.g., A. Grillmeier, Christin ChristianTradition1, trans. J. Bowden (Atlanta and London 1965) 470-471; contraGrillmeier's perspective, see Fairbairn, Graceand Christology 198. For Christology in the Pelagian controversy, see Joanne McW. Dewart, The Christology of the Pelagian Controversy, Studia Patristica 17 (1982) 1221-1244; for Freiheit(Mainz 1972) 125-134. Pelagius' Christology, see G. Greshake, Gnadeals konkrete 47 See Jean Plagnieux, Le grief de complicit6 entre erreurs nestorienne et p6lagienne, Revuedes itudesaugustiniennes 2 (1956) 391-402. 48 Photius, codex54 (ed. Ren6 Henry, Photius.Bibliotheque (Paris 1959-1991), 1.42). 49 Cass. Inc. 2.6.1 (CSEL 17.258).
GRACE AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
309
Cassian (as for Vincent and Augustine),the touchstone of orthodoxy is the affirmationthat, 'since [Christ] was born when the fullness of divinity had completely descended upon the Virgin, he could not be the son of man unless he had first been the Son of God.'50Cassian, Vincent and Augustine were also likemindedin describingthis occurrence as a special act of God's grace. Their concurrenceon these fundamentalpositionsjustifiesour search for deeper agreement between them. Now it is well known that Augustine'sprimaryarena in the Pelagian controversywas the question of how divine grace and human freedom relate. But, for reasons that are not at all clear, scholars tend to assume from the fact that grace was a central theme in Augustine'sAntipelagianpolemic that grace must have been equally central in each and every polemic against the Pelagians. This assumptionis not warranted.For example, Cassian's argument is based on the premise that the primarymistakeof Pelagianismis not about God's grace; instead, it is about the status of the human will.51 Cassian certainly thought that God's grace was an important theological factor, but when he wrote against the Pelagians, he tended to stress the debility of the will more than he stressed the necessity of divine grace. In fact Cassian attacked Pelagianism chiefly for its defective position about human will.52It is significant,then, that a central tenet of his Christological analysis is that the Incarnation occurred when Christ renounced his own will.53Cassian also interprets Phil 2.13 in keeping with his emphasis on Christ's renunciationof his own will, so as to do the will of the Father: in the ascetic, it truly is God who works the willing.54This line of exhortation culminates with Cassian urging his readers to crucify their will and wishes on the cross of Christ!55The gradual re-fashioningof the Christian will is therefore understood by Cassian as the unfolding of the grace that is first poured forth in the mystery of the Incarnation. To that extent, Cassian's own understandingof grace is thoroughly Christological-and thoroughly Antipelagian.Not only did Cassian affirmthat an effulgenceof divine grace 50Cass. Inc.2.6.5 (CSEL 17.260).
For a detailedargumentin favourof this view, see Casiday,Cassianagainst Pelagianism. 52 E.g.,Cass.Inst.12.18(CSEL17.219), withits characteristic scornfor'certainones ourassistance as nothingelsethanthelaw'. whowishto interpret 53 Thus,Cass.Conl.16.6.4(CSEL13.443-444). 54 Cass.Inst. Notealso 12.9-10(CSEL17.212);cf. Conl.3.14-3.15.4(CSEL13.86-88). Cassian's useof Rom.9.16:Conl.4.5 (CSEL13.100). 51
55
Cass. Inst.4.34-35 (CSEL 17.72-73).
310
A.M.C. CASIDAY
was the pre-condition for Christ's very existence, he also brought his Antipelagiananalysis of the human will into the discussionabout Christ so as to make God the Word's renunciationof his will another pre-condition for the Incarnation(and our renunciationof our will a pre-conditionfor our salvation). If we keep this in mind when we return to Vincent's claims that Christ's Incarnation was not owing to praecedentibus suaeuoluntatis meritis,nor was it a glimpse of commune hominum liberum we be able to catch arbitrium, per may an unnoticed level of polemic in the text. Vincent is precluding the possibility that, by the exercise of the sort of free will that all humans possess hominum liberum the humanJesus could have deserved arbitrium), (percommune to be adopted by God and thus united to the divine Word of God. The Antinestorianimplicationsof this claim are patent. But let us recall that, for many of his contemporaries,Nestorianismand Pelagianismwere considered cognate heresies, and let us consider the possibility that Vincent's claim might have Antipelagianimplicationsas well. This seems altogether likely. We have found Vincent to agree with Cassian and with Augustine as regards the importance of Christ as an exemplar of divine grace, and we know that Cassian and Augustineboth consideredthis an importantweapon to use against the Pelagians. It fits nicely with all that we have seen so far to supposethat Vincent's claim has distinctlyAntipelagianovertonesas well. We have noted that, for Cassian and Augustine,the insistencethat Christ was divine purely by grace and with no antecedent merits was intended as a direct challenge to Pelagians; a similar intention could also explain Vincent's unanticipated inclusion of the will and human merit into his Christologicalaccount. The two clauses that we are examining do not permit us to reconstruct Vincent's beliefs about human will with the same degree of specificity with which we can reconstruct Cassian's beliefs (to say nothing whatsoever of Augustine's!).It would therefore be imprudent to impute to Vincent specific beliefs on the strength of the parallel. Nevertheless, it is economic and reasonable to suppose that Vincent was taking aim at Pelagianism as well as at Nestorianismin his interpolation. That this assertion is reasonable can be appreciatedmore clearly by lookand learning from it what he made of ing back to Vincent's Commonitorium Pelagianism. does Vincent mention Pelagius, Only rarely in the Commonitorium Caelestius and Julian, or even Pelagianismas such, but it is unmistakably clear when he does that his view of them is strident. He says that both Pelagius and Caelestius propound an interpretation of the Bible that is
GRACE AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
311
heretical;56 likens the Pelagiansat large to 'certainfrogs, fleas and short-lived flies' crying out in opposition to the Catholic Church;57castigatesJulian for cutting himself off from Communion with the Catholic Church in order to support Pelagius;58and lumps Pelagius and Caelestius together with Nestorius as history'smost recent heretics.59Apart from the coincidence that Vincent lists Nestorius alongside Pelagius and Caelestius as the latest in a series of heretics, the information in hand only establishes that Vincent regarded the Pelagians as heretical innovators and as a group estranged from the Catholic Church. But we are fortunate in that Vincent does once say a bit more about what the innovation of Pelagianismentails. He asks, 'Before that unholy man, Pelagius, did anyone ever presume that there was so much strength in free will that he did not think that God's grace was necessary to assist it in good deeds for every single act?'60That may seem a rather hackneyed claim, but we must not simply dismiss it because we think it sheds no new light on what Pelagius believed. For it is in fact extremely significantto find such a claim from Vincent's pen. To appreciatethe full force of that claim, we need to recall the logic on which Vincent's argument operates. Borrowinga phrase from Paul's warning that Timothy should avoid 'unholy novelties of speech', Vincent asserts that 'if novelty is to be avoided, antiquity is to be retained; if novelty is unholy, antiquity is sacred.'61This is the practical corollary to Vincent's famous formulafor determiningorthodoxy-'what has been believed everywhere, always, by everyone'.62Applied to the matter at hand, Vincent's principle means that Pelagius was heretical for believing that God's grace was unnecessaryto aid human will for every particulargood deed; that no one before Pelagius had believed that; and by implication that the ancient and therefore orthodox view is the converse view that God's grace is necessaryto aid human will for every particulargood deed. Vincent's statement is therefore valuable because, quite apart from the question of how accurate his depiction of Pelagian teaching is, it tells us what he thought was
56 Vinc. Comm.2.2
(CCSL64.149).
57 Vinc. Comm.9.8 (CCSL64.158). 58 Vinc. Comm.28.15 (CCSL 64.189). 59 Vinc. Comm. 33.6 (CCSL64.194). 60 Vinc. Comm.24.8 (CCSL 64.181). 61
Vinc. Comm.21.5; cf. 1 Tim 6.20 (CCSL64.176).
62 Vinc. Comm.2.5 (CCSL 64.149).
312
A.M.C. CASIDAY
wrong and what he thought was right regardingthe human need for God's that Vincent assessesPelagianismas grace. So we find in the Commonitorium a failure in referenceto the concepts of grace and human will-which were both key terms in his Christologicalinterpolationat Exc 8. Returning to that passage, we are now able to appreciatethat Vincent's decision to describe the Incarnationas an act of 'unique and extraordinary grace', which was intended to remove the swollen tumour of pride, invites comparison with contemporary attempts by Cassian and Augustine to anchor their accounts of grace on the bedrock of their accounts of Christ. Furthermore,in the light of Vincent's repudiationof Pelagianismin other writings,the fact that he specificallyprecludes antecedent merits of the will from his explanation of the Incarnationmay be thought to have a polemic edge. Vincent is not simply affirming the logical point that Christ could have no merit before Christ existed. Instead, he is making a claim about how the will, merit and grace are related in Christ that is fundamentally identical to the claims we find in Cassian and Augustine. And his further proviso-that Christ's unity necessarilyentails his uniqueness-is explicitly aimed against the possibilitythat such a union with God could ever result from 'the free will that is common to all humans'. Taken by themselves, these various claims could be dismissed as inconsequential; but the configurationin which they occur must give us pause: Vincent's analysisof the role of grace in Christ'sincarnationis consistentwith (and indeed redolent of) contemporaryAntipelagianpolemics that use Christologyto frame their argumentsabout grace. Conclusion: Vincent's Christology Antipelagian The foregoing comparison of Vincent's referencesto Pelagianismin the to Cassian'sChristologicalcritique of Pelagianismhas shown Commonitorium that Vincent opposed Pelagianismon grounds of principle and that, in the he analysed the threat of Pelagianism by using the same Commonitorium, terms found in his interpolatedcomment about Christ at Exc. 8. The evidence available to us does not make for a definitive argument, and yet all the availablefacts consistentlypoint to Vincent's oppositionto Pelagiusand, perhaps more surprisinglyin view of conventional wisdom, his willingness to appeal to stronglyAugustinianargumentsabout grace and free will. Here it will be recalled that Vincent went so far as to say that Jesus was predestined', and to describe the Incarnationin terms of divine grace whilst stipulating that it did not occur (and moreover could not have occurred)as a
GRACE AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
313
result of antecedent human merit. It appears that for Vincent, no less than for Cassian, 'divine grace descended with the divinity'. This reconstructionof Vincent's Christologicalaccount of grace is quite at odds with Madoz's assertion (and indeed the time-honoured view) that Vincent was Antiaugustinianin matters pertaining to grace. But it should be reiterated that Madoz was wrong to claim that Vincent fastidiously avoided Augustine's language of predestination, and it is striking that Madoz failed to comment on Vincent's frequent use of 'grace' as a key theme for Christologicalorthodoxy. That use of grace as a constituent of normativeChristologicalbelief stronglysuggeststhat Vincent had taken aim at those who misunderstoodthe importance of grace in the case of Christ, or outright rejected grace as an element of Christology.All of his rhetoric in this connection points in the direction of the Pelagians. Now Madoz was surely right to call attention to Vincent's zealous oppobut we ought not focus on sition to Nestorius by means of the Excerpta,63 Vincent's Antinestorianismto the exclusion of other aspects of his polemic. It is obvious from the Excerptathat Vincent was also zealous in his opposition to Arius, Apollinarius and Photinus, all of whom he denounces by name.64(Vincent regularlydenounced Photinus and Apollinariusalong with And even though he does not include Nestorius in the Commonitorium.)65 we can still appreciate in last denunciation of the Excerpta, the Apollinarius the Antiapollinarian overtones of Vincent's last excerpt: Non utiquesicut Dei et camemsolam,hocest sineanimahumana,ut Verbum quidamhaereticiVerbum Vincent clearly set his Christologicaltreatise in oppoessetcamipro anima.66 sition to several heresies, and there is no good reason to limit his opposition to just these three names; after all, Vincent begins the work by denouncing Vincent 'all heresies'.67As we have seen, in describingChrist in his Excerpta uses language about grace that fits neatly with contemporaryAntipelagian rhetoric. So it is reasonableto conclude that his use of grace to describe the Incarnation at Exc. 8 is evidence that Vincent made common cause with Augustine and Cassian against the Pelagian devaluationof grace. If the argument of this paper is accepted, our understandingof Vincent will be broadened so as to recognise that he was creatively receptive to
See Madoz, Excerpta51-63. Vinc. Exc. prol, 10 (CCSL 64.199, 231). 65 See note 23, above. 66 Aug. Ep 187.2 (CSEL 57.83-84) = Vinc. Exc. 10 (CCSL 64.229). 67 Vinc. Exc. prol (CCSL 64.199). 63
64
314
A.M.C. CASIDAY
Augustine's Antipelagian polemic in its entirety. Although we can accept much of Madoz's work as being of great value, his attemptedinterpretation of Vincent as robustly Antiaugustinianin matters pertaining to grace is deeply inconsistentwith the evidence that we have adduced from Vincent's Excerpta.From that evidence, it seem highly likely that in the interpolation at Exc. 8 Vincent was consciously revertingto standardAugustinianterms used against the Pelagians, and incorporating those terms into his own account of Christ. It makes much more sense to suppose that Vincent deliberately framed his explanation of the Incarnationin the language of grace, predestinationand merits, than it does to think that Vincent was willing to accept Augustine as the teacher of the Incarnation whilst wholeheartedly rejectinghim as the teacher of grace. This analysisof Exc. 8 gives us added reason for rejectingthe facile claim that Vincent was part of a covert resistance of Augustine'stheology of grace that was spearheadedby the monastic leadershipof Gaul. It may even give us some renewed interestin looking more closely at what those monks made of the heritage they received from Augustine. Department of Theology, University of Durham Abbey House, Palace Green Durham DH1 2RS, UK (a.m.c.casiday(,durham.ac.uk)
ANONYMA TESTIMONIAADVERSUS IUDAEOS CRITICAL EDITION OF AN ANTIJUDAIC TREATISE BY
MARC DE GROOTE Slander and defamation of the Jews being already present in Ioh. (especially 8:44) and Gal.,'the antijudaicliteratureas such began with the anonymous EpistulaBamabae(CPG1050; prob. early 2nd c.) andJustinus Martyr's ludaeo(CPG 1076; around 150).2It met the need felt Dialoguscum Tryphone by the Christian Church to define its relation to Judaism and to decide whether the devotion to Christ could go together with the monotheism that Israel had taught her. Trying to demonstratethat Christianitywas the true Jewish religion, writersbegan, supportedby Luc.24:25-27 (Menof Emmaus), to interpret the texts of the Old Testament in a different way, to search for prophecies that correspondedto the appearanceof Christ, and to prove thatJudaism was in reality a distortionand an alienation of the trueJewish faith:Judaism must be shown to have been superseded by Christianityin both religious and historicalterms.3Up to a certain degree, the arguments
1 See J.G. Gager, The Originsof anti-Semitism.AttitudesTowardJudaism in Pagan and ChristianAntiquit (New York / Oxford, 1985), 151-153 and 230-243. 2 L.T. Johnson, "The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic," JBL 108 (1989), 419-441; G.G. Stroumsa, "From Anti-Judaism to Antisemitism in Early Christianity," in: O. Limor-G.G. Stroumsa (eds.), ContraIudaeos. Ancientand MedievalPolemicsbetweenChristiansandJews, TSMJ 10 (Tiibingen, 1996), 7. 3 A. Cameron, "Byzantines andJews: some recent work on early Byzantium," BMGS IudaeoXI,5: ia{paTitlitKovyap 20 (1996), 258.-Cf. Justinus Martyr, Dialoguscum Tryphone a 'Icaa, iKai 'AppadL, rob Tb a&Xktv6v,xve?uatio6v, icai 'IoV6a yevog, Kai 'laa, a XtiTmictaTetjiapxupq0evxroq ev aKpopiuoxV 0 Kcale1Xwo0v0rVto, Kal caTpbo bxiOTo eo0, O Tx 9e kaoSev ol 8t& XokX&v 9v&v Kt0B9vToS,Iii; oia Toou OV oaaupcoe0v'roSXptaToI cpooaaX evTSe(ed. M. Marcovich, IustiniMartyrisDialoguscum Ttyphone,PTS 47 (Berlin / New York, 1997), 89). ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
59, 315-336 VigiliaeChristianae
316
MARC DE GROOTE
and themes used evolved from the 2nd c. onwards:being defensive at first, the writings gradually became a demonstration of Christian belief, while some of them contained invectives against the irreducibleobduracyof their opponents;4more and more Jews functioned in this literatureas the cardboard villains who allowed the Christianwriters to assert their own superiority, their role becoming more a rhetorical device than part of a serious religious debate.5 The present article offersthe first edition of an illustrativeexample of this literary genre, namely an anonymous treatise with scripturaltestimonies used against the Jews, which has been preservedin three manuscripts: A AmbrosianusH.257.inf. (gr. 1041) (13th c.; III + 259 fol.);6 inc.fol. 146r icctt ioi5ait6v 6- t ev -pudi&l OI 0eori; brnouov (1.23): jgaprupiatypaqpticat des. fol. ^io pvrrtcat; ypw(pcivgaT1uC& vnty'&i'riv 149' (1. 22): tez'r& icai nenxeXponalx&aaa Tpol1eia ci43oga'O8;xiXkajo&nT) " e,PO8Lg1KOOrij; Kai xpitcLa.
V Vaticanus gr. 2658 (13th-14th c.; 278 fol.);7 inc. fol. 252V (1. 4): Iapnupiat ypa(ptKcaW.icata
azu
Ott
IV tptIDt ti U'lOCO'Tq ; '7
des.fol. 259"(1. 15): gset& ixay' i cnp{-6,r-r,Eral; RaatucX
Kainp_nxhipmal enikapo?i60l%? t
7aaa
Tv
vi"tir;
UCLOV ypw4pcow
o' 06oJoLa8o;
npo(pijceia xa\t XpioCla.
P Vaticanus Pii 11 gr. 47 (12th c.; 153 fol.);8inc. fol. 139" (1. 1): Ica'r& urnotiv Oeicov 6rt ev 'pui& ii OreotiM iob8atov wzaprupiat ypawptucai? ypap(iv. .natlldi); ic"pi.verat; des. fol. 144" (1. 17): viv toi xptTotoi svalljC IvTo;,
tC v PGE icai aiCovteS 0EicsVCVOV Xupi3v
MxaWoavto 0-0t0tV.
Ch. Munier, "Jews and Christians," in: Encycl. of the Early Church I (Cambridge, 1992), 436a-b. - So D. Olster, RomanDefeat, Chnrstian Responseand the LiteraryConstuctionof theJew (Philadelphia, 1994), 182. According to Stroumsa (n. 2), 16-17, this can be explained by the changed self-perception of Christians, who, after the Byzantine Empire had become Christian, no longer perceived themselves primarily in relationship to uetusIsrael. I Ae. Martini-D. Bibliot/zecae Ambrosianae II (Mediolani, Bassi, Cataloguscodictmgraecomrm 4
1906 [Hildesheim,1978]), 1108-1117. 7 S. Lila, "CodicesVaticanigraeci 2648-2661,"StT 338 (1990), 173-210. 8 H. Stevenson,Codices manuscrtpti graeciReginaeSuecorumet Pii PP.11 BibliothecaeVaticanae (Romae, 1888), 164-166.
ADVERSUS IUDAEOS ANOYOTMA TES7IMOVMA
317
The manuscriptsA and V are undoubtedly gemelli;they constitute the basis of this edition. Codex P representsa separate branch in the tradition of this work. Firstly, it offers the testimonies in a totally different order: 1-5 (Ei8saWe), 15 (Kal)-16 (y'), 5 (Kai3)--15 (0oiTaoe), 16 (Kai)-27 (6EirfaOOLat),31 ('Alg;)-83 (avoro), 106 (MlXaiou)- 110 (aitvoS), 83 (Kail)-84 ('EglavovlX), 89 (ical)--91 (capa8aoov), 113 (icai2)-115 (aov), 110 (a8i6)-iLag; (112), 118 (oixt')-119 (Xptoatavoi), 135 ('Hoadov)-138 (Xl7toiatv), 121 (Zaapiou))-124
(Xa6v), 119 ('IaiKcD)-121 (M0v&v),124
141 (icai)-149 (avirai;), 155 (ot)-161 (MaXaXiov))-128 (avroKcpaxcop), (Kupto;), 178 (ilci)-184 (ov)), 166 ('Agai(;)-172 (vi6v), 184 (Kai3)-187 P a In this omits few (?0v&v). way quite passages-27 (Kai2)-31 (ax6ov),84
(o)-89 (poi06v), 91 (iai)-106 (ioytXahov), 115 (6pa;)-117 (je), 128 149 (EetEaoCoev)(Aa6)i)-135 (aitxoi), 138 (Kai2)-141 (icKaxapevovrat), 154 (y;), 161 (6itoi )-166 (Et) and 172 (Aaui6)-178 (cokXXv)-, as a result of which numerous Bible quotations are missing: Ex. 21:28; Deut. 10:17, 22:25.27; Ps. 46:2-3, 49:7.9, 90:9, 95:7-9, 97:1.2, 117:26-27;Is. 2:3-4, 9:5-7, 35:4-6, 40:3-5, 55:3-5, 61:1; Ier. 17:7.9, 38:33-34, 39:18; Matth. 1:23. Conversely,other quotationsoccur in P only: Gen. 31:13 (15); Ps. 21:28-29 (121), 21:32 (ib.), 101:19 (ib.), 101:20-22 (26); Is. 19:21 (186), 25:7 (138); Ier. 2:19-20 (161); Mich. 1:2 (83); Zach. 9:9 (112). Finally, the end of the text differs completely: instead of 11. 187 (ical2)-232 (Xpiaoa) P formulates the following conclusion:9 AEeiKuait iKavco; ont Kali icipto; b v avaxKa^aoEcaltepx6gevo;, co; axtOI ppevaXptourxOKca o{xot 'Iou&Saou naxovxat, aXXaTa e0vrn eKiXerl4atKal xtTvVOtcIKVnavoet Ka06ou Xaxpeiav cKaiTo ovoiLa avrov ?ct1Efat xoiV ?ei; a&DrovItoaTEioVaiv, cKa OcKit K-vioat
v 'IepoaoXVlgot; Ti XaTpeia ?v Ka0apd, o6 &0uosaia voica KiaOapa Re?ptopto0jaeoTat, aX,' ?v Tcavxi xTOR OQ[ugiaiaiai ouv iavTa Tx 0?e. Ta)ava , KaV ipei; 60x ijx0i] epyov npooEveXfaotat ei; oiv 01oi T&v nGx oi 7ipo(prTeu06evTov atmGioVolev, (Luc. 19:40). K:ceicpa4ovxat Kal aiLtaxa, X
cKal e't epx6Oievovaax)ov npoa0hX9ev, cepa; Xap6vcov xntapvoivWatTi oit V Ka'r v ipop TtnV OKICcotv;i5ot) yap' dao avaroMv Fiov gXtcp&a#v Tx e'4ct&r Kail vacraicaOap'a TfS (Mal. 1:11) Kcipuy,la Xptoxov capo-oaias; Xa6 c Kaol aivei xOV axov KcalTo6v6ogaxt b Kttaoel exKrecXArev cpoo(pepeTal ctV icKa ilv XptatooV tictStloiavcKaTxeXi)Toav, iKcptov.cKalgliV Kal&a et&aoXa jiea Tt oi) 6ovov9OvqitoXXa?ecio),XXaxpecias adoeaTnav,&X& icKaiavtoi 'Iouoa^tot,
9
Orthographically corrected version; for the exact reading in P see apparatuscriticus.
318
MARC DE GROOTE
&adi eio6Xo&UTovve; Kai
xoI; uioi; Ktai xrs; OyarepaS; oi; ?a{loatv v pheX{X}'upCv To{ vVv Kai aKlcovxre?; bXoKaCauxOVrxe, Xptatoo ev6 l.onaavTo; &Otiwv. Kiteivov taMuoavTo Although the treatiseis undated, careful reading provides us a clue, as it features some noteworthy parallels with the so-called Liberde cognitione Dei (Theognosia)(CPG 3223, 7799),'0 a work which was formerly attributed to
GregoriusNyss., but has, in reality, been composed in the 9th-10th c. by the same (unknown)author, who also wrote a Dissertatio contraIudaeosand a in Iohannem.1Striking,indeed, are the similaritiesbetween 11. Commentarium 2-5 and PG 130,264B6-9, 11.45-49 and 265A14-B5, and, finally,II. 141-149 and 276A5-15, including the quotation from Hos. that occurs nowhere else. In addition, the surveyof Persiankings on 11.212-221 (in AV only) recollects a similar passage in the Chroniconbreue,finished by Georgius Monachus in 866/867.12 The text, divided into five chapters, discussesthe following themes: (1) the trinity of God has been announced mysticallyin the Holy Scriptures;(2) the word of God and the Holy Spirit;(3) Christ has come as God, not as prophet; (4) the nations, not the Jews, will be called, and they will be named after Christ;(5) when Christcomes, worship according to (Mosaic)Law, offerings,prophecies, unction and circumcisionwill be put to an end, idols will be destroyed. Both Heinz Schreckenberg and
10Fragmentshave been preservedin EuthymiusZigabenus'Panopliadogmatica (PG 130,28-29,257-276 and 312-317). 1 M. Hostens, AnonymiauctorisTheognosiae (saec.IX/X) dissertatio contraIudaeos, CChr.SG 14 (Turnhout/ Leuven, 1986), XXII-XXXIX; id., "A la decouverted'un auteur byzantin inconnu du IX/Xe siecle," in: A. Schoors P. Van Deun (eds.), Philohistr. in honorem Miscellanea CaroliLagaseptuagenarii, OLA 60 (Leuven,1994),423-433; K. Hansmann,Ein neuentdeckter Kommentar undText, zumJohannesevangelium. Untersuchungen FChLDGXVI,4-5 (Paderbor, 1930). 12 Cf. H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche derByzantiner I, HAW 12.5.1 profaneLiteratur MonachiChronicon I (Lipsiae, (Miinchen,1978), 347. Text edited by C. de Boor, Georgii 1904),285,1-7.
ANOJYMA ADVERSUS IUDAEOS TESTIMOJWA
319
Andreas Kilzer have formerlyshown that the argumentsChristiansthought to find in the Old Testament, had eventually become 'traditional'in antijudaic literature;'3as it appears, the present writing forms no exception in this perspective.
undhistorisches undihrliterarisches H. Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte Umfeld(1.-11. Jh.), EHS.T 172 (Frankfurtam Main / Berlin / Bern / New York / Paris / zur byzanWien, 19973), 62-72; A. Kiilzer, Disputationes graecaecontraludaeos.Untersuchungen tinischenantjiidischenDialogliteraturund ihremJudenbild,ByA XVIII (Stuttgart / Leipzig, 1999), 253-266. 13
320
MARC DE GROOTE
Text4 1. Mapxupiat ypa(cpqKal v i1 O0e6OlTn; iro xv eoe6v 146' Kiaov 'Iou8iov? oit TptaSit ypaopqov wotciK; icrljpxTTetat.--Monoax)o uOvE, 'lapawj. Ktplog 6 0eg aooi 8 oiaAC T i tl O6e6Kai Ic6plogTCrVt poc4;icov z. i5oi S vpoV icpso Fg eg ae To5 ef can xT 'rnooaoeoaeveioa yaye rov iyo1)v T&OV TIv iiav alpt06ov, &8& 5 oe6Trrl a Kal o-oaiav Kal xotaiav o al eia TO e8i?ae. MoKavjgn dyvef 6pOppiaca .
ra n aq z& eapie MowvsraS ' EdaXrae rcapeat ?iKE Kaic plog v ve(p2r Kal To KVar3ir& ?
6opoz T6 ivaov, icaEOaovevaev trag Alivag.
10
rKai
aCrt KOp5opKcal
icupioi. . iw; voijaotoevTO OvO/alnKVupov, icai tapjX8OE iKplog a&no rpoarov eileiv OxAtxab acoerv dvdouar Kvpfov, Kal rapX Ope Kvplog aio6 ipoaonov v ap)a& & 6v ei; tiv gitav Oe6xtrTa Kiupiou, Ei i) gxTt xpooc)o)v tav lavtKa E?ir0coe?v T;
ouvTeXoivu covx ; ti6
iTnaktv TO Efppe4e
XpoaKvv7cvravroav avr4 iavves ayyeXot tpoooou ol)TO OeoO eipr?q!ev &a;ov b6
15
Geoi,1L5 aua tvri
8& voqxkov Kali E To avrov ov a4aroS
ev vOpo7rov;bpa;SOt b0e6; Kv0Z iraetat,t1o Ev eiKovi Oeo Ioa rof va K Opov ev eiKhvi 6eov 7Coirao?e. Kal EoKceIpto; ,roiraei ipv epa tO Aeywv' ai'plov ? - Karafipd M KVplo5 ro ~pr#,a ro?ro r775g eli yjg, Kal tfi;' s1es KVpltog aroio ro av oliaidprvpat a4V oa Kaziayviaov aviol oaj aepovKalcavplov, Kalitrtvvdroxao rd ipacda
afow&v
i,gepa n Tpin 20
Kplog riVp rap& Kvpfov icalt T
KaiETWacv
teroIol
rW Eigrilv rlpEpav
v Tpimfv' T,
yap
O po5 Z1ivd evavZrov 7ravTog rOVi 146V 2ycov ic6pio; opov iLeRpa nCOIn ( i Ev tn avplov Kal Kairafriaera. Aavi'S Gvaov TTpOea5Ovaiav
Karapfi7jaerai Kvploogi te
KaiOVK einEv ?0o6Ke oaeik KaTapaioogat, &a XXi Aaov,
alvEaew Ic al darooogrw
viarq
Tags evXadg aov-
KicaiEmrdKeaalf Pe Ev l7Ep,a
va; e61pioKcoKgev pei&p ; iooTaosei; ??6ierqXo) 0^.VIEbag oou0. iSo i Kal ?vtaSOa x ra 6 X6yo () EKiC TO) CveDRaTo; yap TO) ayilo)Av-i<;? vcvKTai 0Vaov keyovro<; T4O 25
; Sic pooGnouv ' eitep aTxonov ;K Oei) Kai d6rogd ro vfWiiaq) Ka ErKa icdcXeai uaf, t eaai `pe ev iLIp,a 0Xjlif9eg0o). acKOet i8c calxTO To0 AavaDi etipfalOatxo E6IK
rpo a
Vpe, E
pO,
K i pOg cO OTI6 TOp V OEdv pov 8enricaoai Kal ac ,
Dei (CPG3223, 7799) apud Euthym.Zigab., 2/5 cf. ps.-Greg.Nyss., Liberde cognitione ed. PG 130,264B6-9 Panoplia dogmatica; 2/3 Deut. 6:4 3 ib. 4 ib. 5/8 Ex. 34:4-6 9 Ex. 34:6 11 Gen. 19:24 12 Deut. 32:43 13/14 Gen. 9:6 14/15 ib. 15/16 Ex. 9:5 16/20 Ex. 19:10-11 20 Ex. 9:5 21 Ex. 9:5; 19:11 21/23 Ps. 49:1415 24/25 ib. 26 Ps. 49:15 27 Ps. 29:9 27/28 Ps. 90:9 The foliosof manuscriptA are indicatedin the rightmargin.Orthographical faults such as ve(paiXn(P 7), Xetponeleq (V 34), eioav bmapicav (P 47), i$oXr (P 81), (V 120), 6XoKaZro6axa (P 168) and eopT&;(P 184) are not CovavTioetl (V 87), idrXivEt 14
accounted for in the apparatuscriticus.
ADVERSUS IUDAEOS ANOVMATESTMONIA
321
Translation 1. Scriptural testimonies against the Jews, demonstrating that the Holy Scripturesmysticallyannounce the divinity as trinity.-Moses: Hear,o Israel: TheLord,your God,is oneLord.Look how he representedthe number of persons, i.e. hypostases, by using Lord,God,and Lordagain, whilst with the phrase is onehe taught the one divinity, essence and authority.And Moses andwentup untomountSinai,as theLordhadcommanded roseupearlyin themorning in a cloudandstoodwithhim him,andtookthetablesof stone.AndtheLorddescended there,andhe talked by thenameof theLord,andtheLordpassedby away from the face of the Lord. How else should we consider the phrase He talked by the nameof theLordand theLordpassedby away from theface of the Lord, if not by saying that these words indicate the persons who constitute the one firefromtheLordand Do divinity?And what about the words TheLordrained tohim,all angels of God,how to interpretGod's own words Everyone obeisance his bloodshallbeshed,for in theimageof GodI mademan? whoshedsblood,in return a set You see that God made (man) in theimageof God.And theLordappointed Lord and hereafter: The this in the the Lord shall do Tomorrow land, time,saying: said untoMoses:Go downuntothepeople,testifyandsanctif themtodayand tomorrow,andlet themwashtheirclothes,andlet thembe readyagainstthethirdday,for the thirddaytheLordwill comedownin thesightof all thepeopleuponmountSinai.He I will do thisor a set time,saying:Tomorrow did not say "AndtheLordappointed I will come down", but he shall do (this) and he will comedown.David: Ofer praiseuntoGodandpayyourvowsuntothemostHigh,andcall uponmein thedayof your trouble.Look, here too we find that the three hypostases have been shown, for, indeed, these words have been adduced by the Holy Spirit, saying OfferuntoGodandpay untothemostHigh, and call uponme, since it would Look be strange for David to have said Call uponmein thedayofyourtrouble. also at the phrases Toyou, Lord,I will cryout;withmyLordI willpleafor mercy
322
MARCDE GROOTE
Kcplie,il E,iS pov' TOV ivTyloov E6ov icraTQpvyvaov KraIavyvv 8e 'co uZiob Txv Icaxepa vo{Ioetg; Kcara x'v ivoapKiov oiKovojfiav, ial Txoxo 6TxIiv 6 30
35
40
45
' Eri TOvmiptov Kai 'Iepeiiaq eiXeyev eV oymLEvoq, og riroIOev dvOponr6get' 'A a Kai Tig yvcacTal aiTo6v; ax;-KaTeapeya vjiag, Ka8O( g KcaM peyev 6OOeg Z6oooa ical rF6oppa. 'Hoatou- kcptE, Tlg EIrtfevae rj aKcoJ i7(Ov; Kal 6 I3paxficv Kvpiov TIVI deaKacia,vpr;cKalO'cKeltev 6 fjpaXiotv oo'. cKa'lTdatv c v aol xpoaevovTra, orl rotw oaovaVKo2ovOrjoovauSeSE!EvoiXEIpoiE6al Kai 6 ein aV Ev aoi 6e6O5 y&p1el 6e6 iv, C, Kal OVK Ear, KaloiVK Oeog qrjlv aov' 'jeI1pev, Oe6 rIOV'IapaaX aorjip. ntoiav Staopop&veXi xOev aoo Oe6dgaricKal aV)TEl ai 7rarp ev Epoi; iKa at9i;- Kal vvv el e6g rpb6 Ey Ev p rarpt Oal u TO' O vl ?EaCXoxe Kal ue Kvplo5guKptog ta 7rvevpa avTov. ?vxcaOa xTv xptiv
iroaTooaovv *?it? yap icplog Kcupto Kal TO 7rvetya lat& Oe6TomTo; pEtvqTat avrov. - T Aoiy 2. riepi coi Oeo X6oyoi)iKalTOi ayioi xve1vjaTxo;.-Aa'i p KVcpiovoi . avrov ovpavol earepeo:rlaav Kral To, vevianTl zov aro6darog roata i &vovacui; ei TV ov tSapEvel ?v Ic6ple, 6 o6yog o r,O avTzcv, cKailaiEva, oipavq. eig yeveav cKa yeveav i dXOei aov. &XX' 'poVotv int xt cipocopKuc i79 cpKa oiov IporyoxTayaTx yel 6 Acau'l 8nltopyrov ivaL xTOnav. nip&Tov gpev ov aiotOV T6 r7l 0eo5 RpopopKucv ?vvofoat 6oyov St&a (povrTIKlcov opyavcov ceteXa&e ?pep6o?evov Kal ei; a&ppaXe6oevov Kcal si; avOcap4iav XopoOvaI&; icaKiCal iva elig TOVaicova; XX'o068 ntveSLae7i 0eo evvofioal ev6oep? itEP ep ep' i{jV aTO0a
50
55
60
EKxiV
avantveoTtKi6v
opyavcov e4co0ovievov,
a&XX
X6yov v)n6oxTaTovIKal cveb5ja 5UVdaeco;?vepyobV,KTiCoVKail &vaKatvirov iKalaiytiov. Kal &uapTzu V tzIv a&vppc(ov yapiEnt ocTrpi{aTO yevou; Aaui' Tnv xo O eoi Txo la,Xovoaav yiveoOat ^6you ?itC16qiav iKal nvveuxgaTo;Txo ay&iou TOV arTov Kai idaaTo TinvTapouoiav tpoayopseov eXeyev drxaCTrel TO,yov O anooXateecait-, Kail e oatorzeaT,e; T0 avToVq--Xoyo?; 7tcpo(popKlcooi ,vevdai aov, Kai rIcnafiaovrTa, iai avacaitvEiei TO7rpoowrovTrjg y5g, Kal TO 7rvevdaaov TOdayaOv O6irfY4aeiie ev yjevOe,ia, Kai 7cvev?a evOEgEycKaivaov ev otg eyaTOig Mov, a aTLrYE1pOV1Kc voV,Kai omrpid6v ie, Kai 'Ip. irvevpa Oetov TO 7rotiIadv ye. rveviLa 8 evOeg Kal rve#/ua ayaObv icalc xrvea 147' Kal KcatnvevHa Kal KTiEtIV Kal ?Dva?evov c:it?tv icod i&caiaoOal at ~,vap?vov NOIEtVicac EoCat l47 rve!,pantotetv I 1) rye,wovucov cyEpovitOv nCo;i~oroi avt6iooxarov Kal dXiatoxaEil Oeob; 28 ib. 30 Ier. 17:7 30/31 Ier. 17:9 31/32 Am. 4:11 32/33 Is. 53:1 33 ib. 34/36 Is. 45:14-15 36/37 ib. 37 Ioh. 14:10.11; cf. Ioh. 14:20 37/38 Is. 48:16 39/40 ib. 41/43 Ps. 32:6 43/44 Ps. 118:89-90 45/49 cf. ps.-Greg.Nyss., o.c.;ed. PG 130,265A14-B5 48 Ps. 118:89 53/54 Ps. 106:20 54/55 Ps. 103:30 55/56 Ps. 142:10 56/57 Ps. 50:12.14 57/58 Iob 33:4 58 Ps. 50:12-Ps. 142:10 58/59 Ps. 50:14 59 cf. Iob 33:4
IUDAEOS ADVERSUS TESTIMONIA ANONFMA
323
and Because you, Lord,are my hope;you havemadethemostHighyour habitation. of the Son according to his You must consider the Father as the habitation incarnate nature. This is what Jeremiah was showing when he said Blessed him?Amos: I is themanthattrustsin theLord,he is human,who can understand SodomandGomorrah. Isaiah: Whohas trusted as Godoverthrew haveoverthrownyou, He did not say ourreport,Lord,and to whomwas the armof theLordrevealed? "Your arm".And again: Theyshall comeafteryouin chains,and theyshallmake Godis inyou, andthereis noneelseexceptyou.Verily untoyoubecause supplication you areour Godandwe didnotknow,o Godof Israel,theSaviour.What differenceis there between, on the one hand, Godis inyou and YouareGod,and, on the other, I am in theFather,andtheFatherin me?And again:AndnowtheLord,the Lord andhis Spirit,has sentme.Here he calls to mind the three hypostasesof the one divinity, as he said TheLord,the Lord andhis Spirit. 2. About the word of God and the Holy Spirit.-David: By thewordof the Lordweretheheavens solidfied,andall theirforces by thebreathof his mouth,and For The ever,o Lord,your wordis settledin heaven.rour truthis untoall generations. David will that means that all has been created Jews, however, argue by a word a command so to First of it is of out uttered, all, speak. way to single suppose that the word uttered in God's presence is expressed by means of vocal organs, spread through the air and dissolved. Secondly, how is it settledforever?It is not pious to suppose that God has a spiritjust as we possess a breath, which is driven out by respiratoryorgans, but that he has both a word belonging to one hypostasis,and a powerful spirit which operates, creates, renews and glorifies, as David testifies;foretellingthat God's word will come to save the human race and that the Holy Spirit will be present, he said: He senthis word,and healedthem-a word uttered is not sent-and Youwill sendforth yourspirit,theywill be created, you will renewtheface of theearth, and Tourgoodspiritwill guideme in a straightway;Renewin me an uprightspirit, mewithyourgoverning spirit.AndJob: TheSpiritof Godhasmademe.How support could an uprightspirit,a goodspirit,a governing spirit,a spiritwhich can operbe create and not heal, ate, hypostatic, especiallywhen God is concerned?
324
65
MARCDE GROOTE
3. Iepi T5i XptaXov irapooaiaS, onxt0ebS 6 Epx6jOevo;, geta1i XTyouoticKa 'IovoaitotEppXeo0at Txv Xptoirv, d&X'ovlt 0e6v, &av0popov 68 o; 'Eva TCOv o oeb 4iOLv,ov AXoylcrfjtaetrairepog rpo6avrov. ovTos6 poqpriTtov.-Bapo'X-? riratlai aivov Kali avZirv'I'aaKcb e4EVpenraav 6b&vEiarniur7g rai E8oKcev ro 'Iapar,l r1op yaa7 0evq)Vwr'aviro perd&ravra E:i riq yi dq5pOt Kai w avOpmj:olSavvavearpdtpr. a.XX'epei 6 'Iou6aio;to0it
pi iapeX06ovxo;etpiat, ?; kv 9eo T( Toi Zitvaip gtovTo;a' iepi y&p 6peitoyKarapdoeto; oXz'il rx e'tpxTait.dacovio?at 6? trap'fil,wv oxt 0o;5 eoa Tfi ypacpfiev xoi;S iteiot irappXiic6KOTa x6; veoxnxa, cKaixra uovra c; napeXvx0O6aoaXrmaietv Ta v orapq)S6EiXevaov70 ycpT,bx Tob06 eTaraprpVov rv Od2,aaaav eig 4pa&v Kwail v Tp zat 'Epe0pa iKaiT 'IopSavn eiiprat, ei Kai :ro8i' -:axra yap xepixtv Ev Ev e teXxov TO TO CO;veoax6, 6Ci; y&ypaxcat.Oiiotov8 KialTO6 itoItv oiVg T yiv IvKai TOVotpavov ical aryEiovg avrov xavev.aua Kca Oee,LEXIvv EoIcreiVCov TO6 Eii r6tv roraciv BafivAcvo~gEKEiKcaOiaapev Kai Ekcavaaue'v iKal yap Tb
75
ETa sokkoXXS TOi; Xp p6vou; Cao6evovCx;i8r yev6OevovetpT!rat.tpo; 68eTo t
%
-
I
xcyeiV dx; ?epi T(ov ?V TT ?vait
I
p,et
9
,4
.
,,,
e0 yE7l Ope? etpriTat TO
jS
,
,,n
Ap5p
Kal wig
nGOiel nrib i aXaata; adv9prolSoiaavevaarpap, 6oiV ipt PepovOV epOiuev b euov xa 6b6v E1aTf'ic evpe Kai VprcaVav Kai Brij;, 7CpoocTiKe TO vojoOeotia; er&a xO ?oVvai aVTO6v TOit;? 'Iopaiix juerdraTaaE7riiiryrjg dpf0, rouxFaCxt 8 igxma#Clg iyouv TOV . 'Hoaao. iSoV6 0e6/ ij&v. v 80 XniV 6bv ypaxbrv v6gov ioio KVc6pto Jied iaXVog epXEalrai 6 f paziov ptera Kupeia;, i8ov 6 uaoi06 avro0v CerT' av:rov ial z EpyovEvavxrovavrov. cjg rOIj4v roiicavei o iroI#viov
avrcio, Kail 7iaXitv iSoioii
rapEOvoS Ev yaarpi Xjrieat
Krair:ie:rai vi6v, ral
6 eol puEO'i4uLv O60e6. ei 6 Ka,2aovatl r ovoouaavi,ro 'E#i#avovfiA, o rt veavtv cai ou Tcap0evov 85 &vxtrtiyt e)56S 6 'Ioouaio; yeypaotxat,SovaTov v caurcovoixCo; ve&vtv voetv To ov cKaa& etipTVI?evo v6Ct niiv iKaiTTiv tap0evov Eadv OE nap0evov pyEvrlarevp#evlv dv6pi auvavaitoeti
90
xt
Kai fiPaa1di vog
XiolSt XtOopoXTi6ooeTat. EpfiOae yap 4TveavI; Kai oVK iv 6 5poi6ov.cKail 1Oefv rv ovov r6v 7aXtv2Eiv toblivov, E4vVye Kai e'TEKev apiv apaev. rig5irovae TowIV'ov,iali zig Ecopacevoirzog; 6p;S xov npopniMlvoaui,KOqiOfi
yLerT'aivrj,
TO iapado4ov. TxoT6OKOV
Kal Oeiraovaiv ei EyevvOrlav auvpiKavarol, oTl raliov Eyevv Oi 4IpV, viioSKai ES660ri7iv, ov dpr1 a Eil i roi d&povavirov, ical Kaiedrai rooJvoioaavtrov Eydaig povfi
rovxa
6r8vovO6atoi a&et0ei
'Iov6aiot,
63/66 Bar. 3:36-38 70/71 Ps. 65:6 72/73 Ps. 103:4 73 Zach. 12:1;cf. Ps. 103:5Ps. 103:2;Zach. 12:1 74 Ps. 136:1 76/77 Bar. 3:38 78 Bar. 3:37 79 Bar. 3:38 80 Bar. 3:37 80/83 Is. 40:9-11 83/84 Is. 7:14;Matth. 1:23 87/89 Deut. 22:23-25.27 89/90 Is. 66:7-8 91/94 Is. 9:5-6
IUDAEOS ADVERSUS TESTIMONIA AJVOVMA
325
3. About Christ'sparousia,namely that God is coming; for the Jews too say that Christ is coming, but not as God but as man, as one of the prophets.Baruch: This is ourGod,and thereshallnoneotherbe accounted of of in comparison andhasgivenit untoJacobhis serhim.He hasfoundoutall theway of knowledge, he showedhimselfuponearth,andconversed Afterwards vant,and to Israelhis beloved. with men.The Jew, however, will raise that these words have been spoken about the past, not the future, as they have been said about God's descent on mount Sinai. We will tell him that it is customaryin the majorityof the scripturalpassages to depict the past as present, and the future as past, as for instance in the phrasesHe turnsthesea intodrylandand Theywillgo through thefloodonfoot. These words have been said about events in the Red Sea and Jordan, although the former has been written as present, the latter as future. Likewisethe passages Whomakeshis angelsspirits,He laysthefoundation outheaven,and By theriversof Babylon,therewe sat down of theearth,He stretches andwept,for what will happen in a distantfuture, is said as if it took already with place. Against the remark that He showedhimselfuponearth,and conversed menhas been said with reference to events on mount Sinai, we will argue that Moses, after having mentioned the ancient legislation and having said heshowed and so forth, added Afterwards He hasfoundoutall thewayof knowledge himsefuponearth,i.e. after he had given to the Israelitestheway of knowledge, namely the written Law. Isaiah: Beholdour God!Behold,theLordcomeswith him. stronghand,andhis armrules;behold,his rewardis withhim,andhis workbefore shall conceive and and again: Behold,thevirgin He shalltendhisflocklikea shepherd, whichis Godwith us. In case beara son, and theyshall call his nameEmmanuel, the Jew falsely throws in that not the term virgin,but "young woman" is used in the Scripture, we can consider "young woman" too synonymous with "virgin",according to these words in their Law: If someone meets a to a man,andheforcesher,andlieswithher,he shallbe stoned.For virgin betrothed woman cried,and therewas nonewho saved her.And again: Beforethe theyoung comingof themiseryof thepangsshefledandgavebirthto a male.Whohas heardsuch a thing,whohas seenit?You see how the prophet wonders at the miraculous i.e. the unbelieving childbirth.Andtheywill wantto, evenf theybecame scorched, is upon son is and the us a child is unto born, government given, Jews, for untous a
326
MARC DE GROOTE
6Oeq i4ouataafi;, a&pXoveipf,vi;, 8av#aaq dyAyeAoq, oaSaGvaovroo, aXvp6g, 95Iramtxp ToD wAXXovTo; ai ovo;- dico yap eipfivr7veb'i 'rv a&pXlv aetoV, eiprvrv Iv Kai vYieuav aroT. ,#ey6air i? dpj av5urov,Kairflg eipijviq avTov ovic ia 147V To 't v ucai ei &vop0 oplov Op6vovAavil mai m riv I aaUeiav avwov E
q attKaioaucavl ivdrrov v v alieiS 6ovai6va avirqgEivKptuarl dvnAf3aapeaOa a rjv xp6vov 6 jAoq Kvp[ov aaf3acbIrotael ravira. cKalnaitv ETotUdaaTre raaa 100o63v Kvpiov, etdeiaq rnoteie rag rpff3ovg o? Oeov i#&v' dapayr a mrawrtoivoaeTa, Kai ea rat ac aIota& inxrp)TcrEarai Kai'raOv opog Kai pfovv6o i1 a Kvplou,Kal 86o ei? 63ob50 .efai ' ai 6qOfiaemat ei5eVOeiav Kailai Tpaxeiat Kai m ipto; Kpiltv iaaxa aadp oi/erat i i arljplov wov i8ov, aoi0t;. Oeov fi.Gv. t al advrTaoSd)aei,aivSg ijetI KaiacaeItipiS.roreavotyfolovait avraxrosiSox 105 dop0ajuioi %Z 2o gox Eapooq, r6oe 6&eitrai Tvvq(pv,KaiiCarapcvov dKoiaovzai. i3oi Kov Kairpavri Kvptog MoytXdAtov. yiAoaaa MtiXa{io EKaopeVemTat eTrai nakitv i Ta ral Kal Trig Kal yjg. rlXk& 4apiaemtra Kaci TorovavTov KcaTampiaem eirov eval vXL2LidaTv 'IovSaI Kaiav, BrlOLeEi ro 'EqppaCf, 6oAyoaTrSq otiKoqS ai aov cKai Eig E oSot 'lapaij, yap Tip etval Ev apXovra EK goIoEr eieaeTaiwTo . ratr Kai 110 avwr' a&r'adpXjfq ilep6v xrkvov o6pavoiv; a aivoS Aaui86-K6pe, Pfi3,0, Ka'i
6 Ka6jievog5 ei T
T ei aovu cal uacSg' EAcE
a aai
ovXEpovfip#, #apdvn0vtiie4yeipov
'v 8vvaaTreav
vo 6 px6Oevoq u Ev ovoalan KaleVAoyXro
i Kat 6 opvog ao, O 0e6q, eqi rTv Krpliov' eb; Ktiplo K:al EaE,pavev 4vi7V, 6cd ai&varTo aivoS. Kal fEi uzSd eToro 6pIae ae 0 aov gtalov 50e 115 dyaiALtdaeag irapa Tovi; eTwrovg aov bpaS; OCev bntb Oeoi Xpt6Oevov, 7ivcibgat &yiq) oaplKovevov, ica0So avxo t; at 'Haatoio(pvrol epit auVoiS OV EiVEKEve%plia#?. rvefUa Kvpiov er' E#pE, otx taxi t o; 6v6ogaxtavzoi 4. "Ott ra 9OvqKickroiirov;atcaia oitli oi 'IoKvaltot, TOuCTot Xptoutavoi.-'IaK(c3KckqrfioovTal oi eiS aixrov 7ctoTerveovTes,
otVK
; av%EOrl 120 KefeifEI apcov e 'Iov6a o6i8 ijyoV#jevog geo EK Trv rnpiv avTov, a) c6oKiTat, KtalavTo6g poaooKdaEOv6iv. ZaXapiov Teprov Ktal evppaivov, aov, AiyeI oiryaep Zwiwv,8i6td i3ovEyr EapXoal raiKlaaara7vda) E v gEawp
vrKplov ev TJiy4pa ecEivrKai o Xd i TO Kvpiog.Kal KaTacpe,lovrat E vro.A Aa6v. avT4i eiq MaXaiou oViceatrip#oi6EriqyaEv #iiv, ?rei KV6plo Eeaovcat KaiOvafavov 7cpooaS4oatEcKTrvZEtp6iv iv6cov.&ci'taxo ava125 ravToKpadTop, 3 vaa Euvea, cal ev TroAv4AIovKa't aeogvakp6v To o6vopcajiov Teraaoi;g p pooTpexatrv al vacia ai d KaOapa, 8diO ravrli -roq Ovuvtiaa ovouaT pvov 94 Deut. 10:17;Ier. 39:18 95/99 Is. 9:6-7 99/103 Is. 40:3-5 103/106 Is. 35:4-6 106/107 Mich. 1:3 1081110 Mich. 5:3 110/111 Ps. 143:5 111/112 Ps. 79:2-3 112/113 Ps. 117:26-27 113/114 Ps. 44:7 114/115 Ps. 44:8 117 Is. 61:1 119/121 Gen. 49:10 121/124 Zach. 2:10-11 124/128 Mal. 1:10-11
ADVERSUS IUDAEOS ANOMNMA TES7MONIA
327
and his nameis calledMessenger his shoulder, counseller, of greatcounsel,Wonderful I will be. Father of the to Final Ruler of Might God, age authority, peace, is greatand bringpeaceuntohis dominion,peaceandhealthuntohim.His sovereignty to set it up and David and his the throne is It upon kingdom, of foreverpeaceful. upon evenfor ever.Thezeal of the to takeholdinjudgment and withjusticefromhenceforth thewayof theLord,makestraight this.And again: Prepare Lordof hostswillperform andhill shall be theroadsof ourGod.Everyravineshallbefilled,andeverymountain shallbemadestraight,andtheroughplaces plain. Theglory madelow,andthecrooked and allflesh shall see thesalvationof our God.And of theLordshall be revealed, heshall andhehimsefwill recompense; judgment again: Behold,the Lord recompenses havecomeandsaveus. Thentheeyesof theblindshall be opened,and theearsof the deafshall hear.Thenshall the lamemanleapas a stag,and the tongueof thestammeringwill beplain. Micah: Behold,theLordcomesforthout of his place,and will comedown,andtreaduponthehighplacesof theearth.And again: rou, Bethlehem of out shall arelittleamongthethousands thehouseof Ephratah, indeed, ofJudah, ofyou, he comeforthuntome to be rulerin Israel,whosegoingsforth havebeenfrom eonof David: Bowyour heavens,o Lord,andcomedown.Fromyour days,fromeverlasting. stirupyourpower,cometo saveus. Blessedbe throneuponthecherubim revealyourself he thatcomesin thenameof theLord;Godis theLord,whohas shineduponus. four God,your God,has throne,o God,is for everand ever.And hereafter: Therefore anointed you with the oil of gladnessaboveyourfellows. You see how God is anointed by God and becomes incarnatethrough the Holy Spirit,just as he himself tells about himself through Isaiah: The Spiritof theLordis uponme, me.4. That the nations and not the Jews will be called, because he has anointed and that those who believe in him, will be named after him: Christians.his thighs,until Jacob: Not shalla rulerfailfromoutofJudah, noroneleadingfrom shouldcomefor whom it is reserved; he is the expectation whenever of nations. o daughter Zechariah:Be happyandrejoice, of Zion,for, lo, I come,andI will dwell in themidstofyou, saystheLord.AndmanynationsshalltakerefugeuntotheLordin thatday,and shall be his people.Malachi: I havenopleasureinyou, says theLord Almighty,neitherwill I acceptan oferingatyourhand.Forfrom therisingof thesun even untothegoingdownof thesamemynameis greatamongthenations,andin every untomy name,anda pureoffering, for my nameis greatamong placeincenseis offered
328
MARCDE GROOTE
AautiO vravaT& Teya To6voJi juov v Toigeveaa, Ayei cPOpiog V oavwoKcpdlp. o e ev IporaaTe Oe) onl IKvpto eipa;d, T(, E'7, dpAaG,d4az ov,j doyatlUaiaeog, riv 130SVaILaofg poofep6o,faarietvg Ceyag aiXtv &raav IKal yijv, e'vEycaTet) eril Kvpiqf,ai rcarpal gOv6v, vyTrcae zpf Iovpiq)6av 6v6oan atrov , dpare t'iv Ovaiaftg ai eianopeveaOe eig dagavoatg avtzo. lrpoaKvvqaare t)o Kvp)tpev OavMaard afia ICKavov, arn a&yixa avTro, ica a6i0ty rrp icpfp OT s aaaE a 0 Kai TO EvavrLov Tov e7rOl7CaevKiptogS, efigS' eyv3plae 1 Kptog on)rplov aztov, Tv 3ivatoa7nv7v 135 WTiO 148r aivov. 'Hoatiou- ep avi e7yev6oprv E6Ovwv dajeicdAve EpE !pi
ereporcalv
KaleVpEOtvtOig ! E
tE
a
'rwOvoIv'
eitra ioV aldtpetl t Eve
e To 'Ieaaai jiov, KalcadXtv Kai oi' piai oVKe zEKaXicavxo T o'vouaoa Ecali 6 bmo?v.o Kai dviatdievog aX' aK 0t i6ov apZeiv OwvCv,aeih, e9vrl aai i a veTv. rpoadaaovra apXovta i EOvrt, E' uapTvplovE veat1E6Scca v6Tv, Kaxi cal 140 ocoVi'aotv, ei ac ao, o eiKaeaovTai ae, ai oi EirC avrai ae, OVK SoveEVovai f ot na'div uiSg &avei KazatcpezVovtai,KaWl KVplo5.wtig? e7ri Tov e- V oyrjaovaIyap yq'. Kr7ia?jeT'ai o'vopaKalv6v, O e6V oyrlOtaeeTai v Oeov Kal Kal 6av aov MGvq 'i;. advTre;oi atl ZT dilvov, 6oovtralt tV O 6 KV'pioS fiaoaieigtrv 3lKatoavvrlv aov, KaliKXic09o?exat iTo ovoia TOKcatv6v, 145 6vopdaei avT6 Kal aic nXlv y&6 S ijyepa r v adr floppa Kairova(p' liAov Kal avaTzoAiv Kif)frliaovratl T o6vo6uartiLov, Xye?t K-Vpto;. 'l ri' Katal arai er' dv a 4#pavE; ovoy6anavToi EaXadcov TO ovoya ato? praavo Er T, ,77, Kal iaoi oikoi, Kai KaraaS 65ovgarTov ropeuevtEvg4raovmat Elni&KrwOaovral ev avTaig.4eETaooesv 'Io8aiouS;- ?ovoetexexo Kiupipii oi1; &6i{axeoV vxO 'ut&v aiot i c Katvov. 'Io, x&v yap Kal 'lopariXTal Moiao0q; Kical xt
150 ovoJia
c6vo8ov Kal caXpl aXkov 7ponprxiv cKakOeioe cKalgeTxa MiV Ki Bap'ivo o Tr Toi 7napo6vxo;.no5ovv TO ovoja 'x Kaivov; i1LeiI; CIeti8 ?o6o,VFeOgev 608 KVcpi(p,eXo(ev TO ovolia xT Kcavovo 0? oOyrGifletat, oD l?%pitXpaS xtvbO; x; sepdaxcov xfg Aj. Xpl TCOV 'Io,oalot, aka te
155 5. "Ott cauvia?XaT R iKai TO6 voktil Xaxpeia Ka' ai otxiat icaiaRpo(pn?liat el'ScoXa i1 Kal To tfi Xpitoro KaTaXuaioaovTai Xpioala Kal Iceplto/i, Ta ' ?c6ti5T,ia.-'Iepe?io.
i*ov!
ir]jepal EpXOVraI, eyetK1piOg,
ToyvoIov 'Iaparl Kai n\i t6OV oiKOov'Io3aalariKriv
Kai auvX?eoo)
Eni
Kativv, ov Krac rflv
8la0r*i7v, ijv 8eGieUnvtOig natpaclv avrziv ev ijpEpa enxlapoiEvov pov tirg
160 XetpO6avTIv i4ayaydv avtrovgEK ygAAiy6rtov,oTnavroi ovi evepetvav ev TJrSaj4rq puov,KcayK rajoie7aa avTc6v,?y&itKiplo' 3IoiV vOlovg p#oveit 128/130 Ps. 46:2-3 130/133 Ps. 95:7-9 133/134 Ps. 97:1 134/135 Ps. 97:2 135/137 Is. 65:1 137/138 Is. 11:10 138/141 Is. 55:4-5 141/149 cf. ps.-Greg.Nyss., o.c.;ed. PG 130,276A5-15 141/143 Is. 65:15-16 143/145 Is. 62:2 145/146 Is. 41:25 157/166 Ier. 38:31-34
ADVERSUS IUDAEOS TESTIMONIA ANOMAMA
329
thenations,says theLordAlmighty.David: Clapyour hands,all you peoples;shout untoGodwithjoyfulcries,for theLordmosthighis dreadfiu; he is a greatKingover all theearth,and again: GiveuntotheLord,oyou kindreds of thepeople,giveuntothe Lordtheglorydueuntohis name,bringofferings andcomeintohis courts.Worship the Lordin his holycourtyard. Again: SinguntotheLorda newsong,for he hasdonemarvellousthings,and hereafter:TheLordhas madeknownhis deliverance; hehas openly shownhis righteousness in thesightof thenations.Isaiah: I havebecome to apparent themthatdid notaskfor me;I havebeenfoundby themthatdid notseekme;I said: Behold,I am herefor a nationthatdid notcall my name.And again: Thereshall be a rootofjesse, andtheonerisingup to rulenations,uponhimthenationsshallhope, and again: Behold,I havemadehima testimony amongthenations,a rulerassigning to thenations.Nationsthatdo notknowyou shallcallforyou,peoplesthathaveno knowledge ofyou, shallrununtoyou, and again: For theLordshallslayyou, butto theonesthatserveme, theyshall be calledby a newnamewhichshall be blessedon theearth,for theyshall blessthe Godof truth,and again: And thenationsshallsee andhe shall be called by a newname, yourglory,andall kingsyour righteousness, whichtheLordshallname,and again: I haveraisedup onefromthenorthand one from the risingof thesun and theywill be summoned by my name,says the Lord. Hosea: In thelast dayshis namewill be illustrious uponthewholeearth;manypeoshall be called with his and his pathstheywill livein them. name, ples upon treading Let us examine the Jews: do you serve God or not? Well then, show your new name. In the time of Moses and the other prophets, after the return from Babylon and until now, you are calledJews and Israelites;where then is the new name? We, on the contrary,because we serve the Lord, have the new name, which will be blessed, not in a particularregion, as is the case for "Jews",but until the boundaries of the earth. 5. That worship according to the Law, offerings, prophecies, unction and circumcision will be stopped, and the idols destroyed through the coming of Christ.-Jeremiah: withthehouse Behold,thedayscome,says theLord,thatI will makea newcovenant Israel and with the house not to the I madewith covenant that of of judah, according theirfathersin theday thatI tookthemby thehandto bringthemout of thelandof andI neglected Egypt,for theydid not adhereto my covenant, them,says theLord;I willputmylawsintotheirmind,andwritethemin theirhearts,andwill betheir God,
330
MARCDE GROOTE
i rc apSiag acvrv extypaWco avrov' rai Ecao,Uaz v ov 3idLoaX #1 K:aatroq rov ra o eig xao6v.Kai aIzT6vOe6;, Kai aroi e'aovtai o nkiov a Kto?iral eKaatrog rov deAjopbv avrov avov yco7vyv&OLv KV6pOV' - " el, OS J, > I el 165 raivreg ei`SaovaI pe darb iipov avrov ial Eog peydcAovartSv, on i1eag eaopial raig da63iaig; avrt&vKai Triv c.taptriov avTrv ov p pvivaO&E'T.'Algct v ov u17oapavO6 EVaig pEptialKa, arduala Tras;optg vpiwvKaical :avryivpeamv a&v Kai Ovaiag vicov, ov Ka rev poit6)o,oavtrzara vi4cv' 5&6't 8v'ry icat irrv bLavolav avrtv Kai
ppoaseo#al acux6t,icai aownpiopvEltvaveiazo viu&vOVKErpEJflyoual.petiaral170 aov ar' Ep l #ov opyavwv EoUV ov qSciv aov, Klai aao opyK aKOvaopai. Kai Ev OVK vi)iv, Aiyei Kr6pliog avTwOKpdaTp, MaXaXiou eoari cot OEAi7a TCx v Zetp&v V#&v. Aai6' drovaov, Xao6 pov, cai Ovaiav ovi poa4'opaal EK ctc a Krco 148V aoi, aptpipoaai aoi, IKai 'lapar, p, iq o e4opaiIt o )ax,rao VIv (cov oi'KOVaov p,C6azovxKai Ta ie4;. 'Haio{o'u nrpoaexzETE Kai Toti 175 EcaaKoAoviaaTe trai 68oi ; pov' CEaKovaatepov, Kai jiaetazi v ayaOogi;4 vV Kai SlaoOCopal i.VIv 8ia0frK7vaicrovov, ra iao'a AaviS zrdmarz't yf/vXl WV v6o Kai' 0l6yoqrvpiov E 'IEpovaa,l.4c. Kai cKaiia6Xtv ?cK EZiV eXeioevaEal pc ri rot AiI6ogtn v Ovaciv VAv, KplVEi dvd PEIaoVeOv&v CoXXO&v. Kai acOt' Kai aroap apv6iv Kai afia p nprA4p;elii 6oLoravrcaodrov pptv Aiyei KV6pIog'
180 ra6vpov rai rpdycv ov poviopao, ov6' av EpX7Oce 6Eo(fvai o10. rig yap a6ATV v povOV06 poaOx eaOe' Vi&v; nratrevtiv e44~nerqaeravi3a Ki T&vXEip6&v pidatov Oviap'a pSEfivyp.adpoi earl ra edv oeprliE 0ot aepiaiv, iKai Ta dvioapal vcr7aEiav Vbiuov iju epav puEydav OVKic adi3ppaa Kai vov#pviag Kali apyiav Kai ra'g optda Vip6vpieri t 4 Yvz pov. 'cai nahtiv iSO6 KViploS 185 KadiOrai ,ri vEcpQiAg KovpqrgKai ifjei ei? Ai'yArtov, rai caElaOjaerai nrav:a ra
Elipociro7Ta Aiyv6rtov adrb rpoaorov aivov.
o(poviov' ElrcpavicaeTal OeoVS r6&vEOv&v,Kai iav npoaKrvv7aovacvax) KaaTogEKTrov ronv avrov. ZaXapiov. rai Earatl v t,f i EoAoOpea)w zrd ovo6para rzv eio6Awov owapa0, il4epa cKeivjr, Aye KIpio5 190 dbrr jg yrjg,Kai ovclre avrciv g'ara pvveia. Aav/Xi' K'ai cavv4jae1-'dcr 460ov X6yoyv Tov daroKpilijvai Kai ovoi3o oopoiiacxl 'IpovaaArlu k'Co Xpicoo rd Kai Efoadio6ESi5g e4ovra 6Vo' E4oXoOpEvO*aetal 4yovp#vov Ep6SCoadSEg v T yiov SiaocEpei aviv r& {oTalt Kai rK apr6Xtv ali XpFapa, Kai Kpita OViK Tep opo,vcpv. doaa)To)qKatib 0eio; 'IaKco 7ppoeon7it(ov rOvxp6vov 74yovp#vqp 195 Tfi Xptaroo 7apovoiac qprociv'OVK KceI/tWEt dapZove 'IovSa Kai47lyovpvog ro IKplo5 ET'avrovg Kaai Eio2oOpeVaeit vravTaSg
167/170 174/176 186/188 195/196
Am. 5:21-23 171/172 Mal. 1:10 172/173 Ps. 49:7 173/174 Ps. 49:9 Is. 55:3 177/178 Is. 2:3-4 178/184 Is. 1:11-14 184/186 Is. 19:1 Soph. 2:11 188/190 Zach. 13:2 190/192 Dan. 9:25 192/194 Dan. 9:26 Gen. 49:10
IUDAEOS ADVERSUS TESTIMONIA AVOJVYMA
331
and andtheyshallbe to mefor a people.Andin no wayshalleachteachhis neighbour, least all know the the shall from Know man his me, Lord,for they brother, every saying, of themuntothegreatestof them,for I willforgivetheiriniquity,andI will remember I havethrustawayyourfeast days,and I theirsins no more.Amos: I havedetested, and will notsmellinyoursolemnassemblies. Thus,even ifyou ofermeburntofferings I look the will I not neither will meat ofyour upon splendour acceptthem, offerings, your deliverance. Takeawayfiom me thesoundofyourodes,for I will nothearthepsalms neiMalachi: I havenopleasureinyou, says theLordAlmighty, ofyourinstruments. I o will and hand. David: therwill I acceptan offering Hear, mypeople, speak atyour outof toyou, o Israel,andI testifiagainst you, and further:I will takeno bullocks your house,and so forth. Isaiah: Inclineyourear,andfollowaftermy ways;hear, withyou, thesacred andI will makean everlasting covenant andyoursoulshallprosper, And Out shall ones. the of Zion goforththelaw, again: thingsof David, trustworthy And he shalljudgeamongmany nations. and the wordof theLordfromJerusalem. untome,saystheLord: And again: To whatpurposeis themultitude ofyoursacrifices I amfull of theburntofferings rams and the and of fat of lambs, I do notdelightin the bloodof bullocksandgoats,evenwhenyou cometo appearbeforeme. For who has thisatyour hand?rou shallnotproceedto treadmy couryard.Ifyou should required untome;yournewmoons, me bring fineflour,it is in vain;incenseis an abomination and thesabbathsandthegreatday,I cannotendure; idleness, yourfasting yourholidays mysouldetests.And elsewhere:Behold,theLordsits upona nimblecloudandshall idolsof Egyptshall be shakenbeforehisface. comeintoEgypt,and all thehandmade them andhe shallutterlydestroy all thegodsof The Lord will to appear Zephaniah: thenations;andmenshall worshiphim,everyonefrom his place.Zechariah:And it thenamesof shallcometopass in thatday,saystheLordof hosts, thatI will destroy Daniel: Youwill pertheidolsfrom theland,and theyshallno morebe remembered. and to buildJerusalemuntoonewho is ceive:fromthedelivery of thewordto respond andtwoweeks.Theunction anointed anda leader,shallbe sevenweeks,and threescore shall not be there. And thecityand theholyplace shall be utterlydestroyed, judgment withtheonetakingthelead,theonecoming.Likewise,foretellingthe he shallcorrupt time of Christ'sparousia, the holy Jacob says:Not shalla rulerfail fom outof
332
MARCDE GROOTE
?KrTCoVr7lp6ov avrov, eo0 av 'g !
TeXemvri 'AEgdvSpovu To
ioxraxoi
a&oKicirtxal. flp4av yap oi 'Io8aiootC eo) vq auTcxv fiyloagevotu [aatXeo; O,UOV icai
To;0 Tla V &pXtepeox.ge9' ov gOVTI yuv/i, T6 og1)cro?eyeyov6;, xIvtcKaVxa i'0vov; V tei 1;v O 1o) m &pXiv cKai V1v gV aPXavfpoq aui"q TXcEuTilVXapavet, 6( ito v, aDTv Sk Tiv paaotaXavVqt vv?a 200 tgpoxvnllv 'YpKav4 T) uiDi ge0' lv 'Aptox'3pouXog,Extpo; 7cai; a)Tv;S,aOaoatloaa Tiv ipb; TO'v &daX(pov adpXt?pcpDvlv a(papitpeatial TiV paaotX?av, IleX&Kai Tx Tpitov ?Tro;a&CocixLtttf; d&,ia;S'Pwoiaiov yap avriKcaotpaTnybg lon6Luto xv LIV 'IepovaanltcotIoppKet KaaiTa dayta gtaivet, Tov 86 MtaIxta&; 205 'Aptoxt6ouXov jaia Toi; TK'vot; it 'Pc)1igv ?Kic:CTget.g0o' ov, Kai TOV 0v6vv Tiv 'Iouvaiav 'e roS npat 'Ypicavo bGi6oflnpOcv aiwxaXwo-taoe0vxoS, 6o; XkyEt 'I(oniro;, 'Hpo,Sr Tcnapa& T5; auyKicXrou 'P arlS; 7ytipirati, 8 Kicax gqxTTpa,&p' oI) iaepa Ov, 'ApadptoS; 'Ioouga1iog;gLv TOyevog; icaXr& xoivuv, yevvi,0si; XptaTO6;,6 aoyrxp ig6Iv, i1 rpoaCoKia TOV EOv6Cv, 210 ?ioo)0pp)90i ia sa dpx i3xv 'IvIoaiov. geTa obv To Kltoavat x6 &yia.aoa iKa ox Ti; capouo)la; 149r lv 'IpouoaXilg kFeilcovxaevvea eiP0?odiaS | ?7yVOVwo oveo 6 Xao6 ettl Kvpou. rop tp(xq) XptoTrov. ac&d Orly ap KvpoSg T p pacaikvGuoe8 K xT^ T) T1 a)xTOv 5eTxepq) c Exet d&aeXv0&loav oi 'IovuaiotL K XP'---TO paotXeiag ti; aiXlaXooia(; eiS 'IEpoo6Xuva iKailFcp6Tpdaav IKTioatTOVvaov, Kail ei 215 TOE`5ogiov'o ro; To) Aapeiou TreXa&ui 6 va6o;-Kal Kacglo'r(, 6bvio6;aiTo), caraaXooaa
exrekX?*.
iKoti eoEaOrl 6 va6o. gEat TOb EiTrrl', Kal Aapeio; *'6bgo vyivovra rl?gg', Xro vaov NnlpiovTalt 0'tp,oPGd?G; O{iStO;'epaoiXExo?E Kxtiaovai TOIVVV AapeioS &Xaa cTql KO' Kcai E.p14S K', 'ApTapadv;Sa', 'ApTatEptls Kai N6Oos;xT1 Zoy8oadvll; Kai E?poS 'ApTatpp4lS Tl gaX',Aapeio; 6 7trcKXrl0eil 220 O', 'ApTamp4q; 6 TxovKipoiv to veoT6po g', 'ApTaEpiS; 6?Kai X6o; Ka, ixlT pc'), 'AXtav8po; Kai oi a&naTrxob "Aporal ', AapeioS 'Apadgov ei (6bOgo 0 nlToXeaioV; 'Ioo6Xto;gkevnp6uro; 'Po0gaitov nIToXalaiot Trlavo', iger&a TODI; ?rO ; " 'rtl urny' ytv6ogiva l *lp 6bgoi) dap4a; rri a' Kai ger' aTov Ai-yooxo0 Aav* 6 ayyEXo; T' yap* (p,puoi f0'. Kai ?tI a' cKaOx;etreV p5ojLd560aS; 225 p86ofpd6eS;P13ogrKova avvew#4Graav Ei TOV Aa6v aov Kal smi -Vv n6Ativao Tiv ayotv To); Toi caalto)fivat zTO :apaTogaa iKaiTXeeoOavat a&dapriavKai rov a(ppayfiala&iapT(ag Ka[lTo d&aoXaEiWat TaS;&vogiaS;cail ov0elac aaa6ail di3dKia ral Tio dyayeiv 3tKaioa6vv7vaiawvov Kal TOVcrppayiaat opaatv Kai
introductio elementaria 196/208 cf. Euseb. Caes., Generalis (CPG3475) VIII,46; ed. PG 22,1184A12-C6 207 sc. Flau.Ios.,Antiq.lud.20,247;ed. B. Niese, FlauiilosephioperaIII VI,11; (Berolini,1892)317,12 209 Gen. 49:10 212/221 cf. GeorgiusMonach.,Chron. I (Lipsiae, 1904) 285,1-7 ed. C. de Boor, GeorgiiMonachiChronicon
225/229 Dan. 9:24
IUDAEOS ADVERSUS TESTIMOIA ANOJYMA
333
shouldcomefor whom it is from his thighs,untilwhenever Judah, norone leading reserved. Indeed, the Jews ruled until the death of Alexander who was the last to lead them both as king and high priest. After him-and this had never happened before-his wife exercised on her own authority over the people after her husband's death; she gave the high-priesthoodto her son Hyrcanus and died after having been queen for nine years. After her death Aristobulus,another son of hers, who had been quarrelingwith his brother, deprived the latter of the high-priesthoodand the kingship, and lost his royal dignity after his third year in office, for the Roman general Pompey turned up at once, besiegedJerusalem, degraded the sanctuariesand sent Aristobulusaway to Rome, together with his children. After him, Hyrcanus having been taken prisonerby the Parthians,Judaea was committed by the Roman senate to Herodes, being the first descendant from the nations, as Josephus tells us; on his father'sside he stemmed from Idumaea, and on his mother's he was an Arab. Well then, in his time, when Christ was born, our saviour and theexpectation of nations,the whole dominion of the Jews was utterly destroyed. So, after building the temple and Jerusalem, sixty-nine weeks elapsed until Christ's parousia. The people became free in the first year of Cyrus' rule. Cyrus reigned during thirty-twoyears-in the second year of his kingship the Jews departed to Jerusalem, freed from their captivity, and were commanded to build the temple, and towards the seventh year of Darius, the temple was accomplished-, his son Cambyses eight years and Darius seven, in total forty-six, and the temple was ready. The sixty-nine weeks, following the building of the temple, are reckoned in this manner: Darius ruled for another twenty-nine years, Xerxes twenty, Artabanes one, Artaxerxes, Sogdoanes and another Artaxerxes forty-one, Darius called Nothos nineteen, Artaxerxes,son of Cyrus the younger, forty, Artaxerxes, also called Choos, twenty-one, Arses four, Dareius, son of Arsames, five (in sum one hundred and eigthy years), Alexander and the Ptolemies who succeeded him, two hunderd and fifty-nineyears; after the PtolemiesJulius ruled as the first Roman during two years, and Augustus after him for forty-twoyears; in total four hundred eighty-threeyears being sixty-nine weeks. Plus one to be added, as the angel told Daniel, saying: uponyourpeopleand uponyour holy ciy until the Sevenyweeksweredetermined is terminated andsins aresealed,lawless transgressionis put to an end, sinfulness is brought deeds are erased and iniquitiesatonedfor,everlasting righteousness in, a seal is set uponvisionand theprophet,and themostHol is anointed. Indeed, the
334
MARC DE GROOTE
XrpoVqrv raltoiT pical ajiov a&yiov. 90eyap o67pogprlTeu6evoSXptoa6;, 6 230 Oe;g fig-v, i1 aicVto; btKaloovrln Kai a&(peot;Tv &agapticovTigCv, gLezaTb Kctotrivat 'Tv t6OXtvKal TOVva6v, ge-r&a Dt'cy?V, nA; po601ioiKcoa; p56o0acKai KcalXpiaRja. nacoa 60o; g Xtapaox)joq;, n7poqnpeeia n;ek,ipoeat ApparatusCriticus 1 Kaxa iovoaiov gpapTupiat ypa(ptiuc (tr.) P Oeiov om. A 2 oyuaooi:pgo,aoo; in P 3 IcKpto;' om. P iovi P at& 8i&a&e(5):xTv xtptv marg.V, Txo8euTepovogiov inoaodna&ov Ti bE ita&;o$oiaS TOei; eaotv P railavxrKuvxT KDpto;6 Oe6o;Ku'pto;.' 5 Kal Exepoti add. ante Kai3 P 6 Tx om. P iaOoxt P post avxT( add. 6 P 8 giWC;--ove)oiVTov (11): oawcp; 8eiKcvurat iTov gpoorajnov E?ivat ormavXtKic; raS; T P post cSg; add. iKa V voialoGojev: T&vEi; pgiav poatv aOVTxeko)vTeov aX&a; (pova&S apv/iooiev V X6 scripsi:T&iAV 10 e'tioCevV 11 post ntp add. cKalOeiov P 13 eiprtIevovP ac6x6SP 14 6 om. P 15 post E7coiaOll add. n&XS 8E TO p6O;appa&a
x0oei oot EVx6OOC x6 E Eiigt6 0EO;6 Peix 0EO (= Gen. 31:13)P Tov eipipvov ApogpEvTO axoroC ooeco; EVTi E6&5oadd. ante iKa P Kupto;om. P 16 xobxoom. A Eifig: codd. 20 E?CoKc--iom. P 21 7notao?t 7ca,tv P 17 6taldapxzpatscripsi: taatdapxupe P add. ante 8aiiS P 22 ticKaXioat cKaom. P post cKatrapioEat add. Kicpto;P TOV
23 i?oi P post Evxrabaadd. oaq(pi;P 25 post ivico(p add. xra EciXaV a; om. P xOVa&o$ioatTbv 26 8a&ieV post xo2add. Kicipto5; oSpavoi Ct TiivyTiv EbcPXEW?vV' TOV x&Dv7eExCE5levov. TO XivoaltTObi;Viot, -T&v Te0avaTOAEVOv. avaTyEixat oTevaTypiov eV atov TcoovojlaKupioi (= Ps. 101:20-22)-Kai oViKEcinvxro avayyixatl V otIOVT6 6vopa axIoo- Kal adXtv P 27 ,Iov om. V iai2-aio6v (31) om. P 29 6 om. V P 32 post 31 cKaante aeox;S add. P EK;cpooroo Toi 0Oco 9paotadd. ante KaxTOTxpeWa yo6oppa add. XEyetKu6pto;V iadt{ovu:ial 'o ljaa'ta P 33 postECnEV add. Kal P Kai P 35 6 0E6; ?V ooi (tr.) A if6Cv om. P ta.Xtv:6 aOx6oP 34 a&coXouia0ooaiv 36 io&rltEv V, EcS6nEvP oaonip:aocov P OE6 E'aot:6 0Ec6P 37 EI:6 P post 6ERoi add. to&EicEpo; VoeiV POiXoFtVc P aiOtS: iaXtiv 6 av6x; P 39 igtviqoati V 41 CpEpi om. P 43 post Kai add. Tov avxio --ai6 A 46 vofioat A 47 eetxa 86: Ei yap xovxoP P 44 a&XrOciaP 45tp6oaraTzygax 48 Kai om. P 49 iltv P 50 Evepyoiv: OTepeoiv P, post quod Kialadd. cKavi{ov P 51 aorlpiav P 52 rvEijaToS;-- yiou1:ayiou 7vegaxooSP 53 sappouoiav V 54 6 ante MoyoSadd. P post 86 add. 6 P post Kai add. natX,tvP 55 post cai3 add. nadtv P 58 S6 om. P 59 mvebciaom. P ia&oat: avaKaiviEctv P post ix6;add. e",oyov P Eoait: (pavioEaTatP 60 post avuvl6oTaTov add. Ti xoi; oinoooi)v X6yov CgETEtX,q(p[stv ?vvoEiv P 61 post ncaponuoia;add. Kai A EketSii?Eyocat: 70yOIutvy?apP 62 &a om. A 63 papo6X: iEpeCiouerrore AV post papoi% add. Oix0E6; 6 Epx6Isevo;P OEOV 65 post IET&a add. 8E P 66 nepi om. V xapeX0OvTcovP 67 geX)ovTO P otv& A 68 post 'i!pv add. Tcp&ov sEv P oaTi om. P ?v TOt;: ?V& P post ra add. TE P 69 ?vEsoxToa in textu, txov in marg. P xa om. P 70 cKa om. P 71 cT: TO V P 73 post 7rvveitaTa add. icai TOVi;X?txoupyoi; av)xob 7ip 72 evEoxrcTa P tE:X3ovTa cti Tlv ao(padLetav aSuTfi P (pXYcov P post Kal' add. 6 P iail2-o9pavov: 74 cKaioaaCev P ial KicaD6oapEv om. A xo2 om. P 76 o; inEpi x&v: oionep P 77 T;--vopso0ecaia (78): TOWv icaataov voio0aoti&v A, Tas; naXat'ia vojo0eoEiaS P, post P av xi aTXTO) ncait taKcjop quod 6 7po(prllTqadd. 78 cKailra fi;: iKaci S'oKV aolv
iinooxadocov post ptp&v(38) tr. P
IUDAEOS TESTIMONA ADVERSUS ANOWYMA
335
prophesyingChrist, our God, the everlastingrighteousnessand remissionof our sins, has come after the building of the city and the temple, after four hundred eighty-three years, in the course of the seventieth week, and all prophecy and the unction have come to fulfillment.
79 post dq&pr add. Kicai roTsd&vpow(ot; (vaveotxparq A 81 i6ovl P postBpaxiov add. avxoi) P icupicaP 83 post avxoviadd.ItXio a&KoGoae Xao'li&vxe; 6yov icai Xo. alai dvxe; oil KaotiKovvTe;ev amr'. Kai aouxelptlo; e V{I)i ei; 1 Rtpooexe0co yI xoixovxrv &dcapxfi; j?aptrptov' Kipto K vaoi fiTo) aivov (= Mich. 1:2)P Kalwi&Xv: iKaladP' llxepv aiOvo;, eiKoap9evou xiiceOat 6 I1oaia; irpoe xrevoeveiX&vP X!ieralt: {eet P 84 o--ioi06ov (89) om. P 87 wap0evov {vieVvlnoev v: itap8evo Wl V 91 post napafSoov add. cKa av9ot; V, gap658oov P iKaelvtazoeUvl goyttkaXov (106) om. P 93 post &pxi add. eyeviNr V 99 post rfiXo;add.Txo oitiKo V 106 goyyiXai,ovV St'oi ante i8o{ add. P 107 bitpioe;rat:avaaioetat P ial Itrktv:xov av6xovP 108 e(ppaOaVP oiyooxoS V 109 yap om. P eitopXovTaP 110 a&rapxfi P ?E: a'p' P SXaviu: ro avzovi P 111 iai: TOVacvzzo P post eu(piaP 112 post glaigadd. raxapiou' Sal tLavaooij vlJti add. evavtiov kppailKail cpvta!itv xaipe Kal ewppaivoUv)yaTep atiV (= Zach. 2:10), i8ov o paoItXelq oov epxerai aot 8iKato Kalio
P iaKcb5 6&r4xatTfi; ptaoov tapovaoia;P oi om. V T: TOP 119 tmoTeaoavTes om. V 121 post iOv6v add. Tzo Aavi- cl &aivayyeXovot iv 8tlKaltoovnvauizoi Xac) xr exEifhlooeVOm Ov, eaoirloev 6 C6pto;.(= Ps. 21:32)TxoaCv)rxo avr eis yeve&v ypaqpjTlTo expav * cai a6S; 6 rrtt6oievo; aivoaet tOv iKcptov.(= Ps. 101:19) Txo av)xov. ical etctspapiaFovxat aravTaxa etcpaca Tfj; y;- Kal ptvnaor)loovTtat aipb cupt ov &aal atiarpiaiTxpti v Ovv 5it rOVi Kuptio in ipoolCuviaovotv evmctov avcovi paotXeia,ial avO)6;8eom6jetexv 9Ov6ov (= Ps. 21:28-29)P 122 i8ov om. A ev gelap: EteoscoP 124 iittaiov erroreAV 125 Kal om. P 128 Bavui--avtio (135) om. P 135 e'{pavi (136)post tOqOIbtv(136) tr. A 136 iKa om. A pil om. P S-eepoe6)itv 0Ovet tidtv: xoi scripsi:{0vrIcodd. 137 6 P To)6v6oaxtiA Kial azTxo P post eoxai add. Tfiiln1epae1ceiv P 138 post Xemtooiwadd. ToVavxoi napa&SoS xavra xtavcaxot; ' 6veotv, nT YapJpovXiavim,, ei IavTa TatvrnI (= Is. 25:7) P cKai2-caxa(peaoovrat (141) om. P
141 KictniXv: ioaa{ov P
142 post KXTfiroeTaadd. TO P
o: Kai P post si
add. itacrnqP 143 iai avOlt;:TOVav)rovP 145 icaltidXtv: ToVavrov P 146 T,: Tr P !lov-6Kpto; om. P ?xnt P 149 e4ETao(o!ev----y ; (154) om. P 150 !i(0aoo V 155 ai Oucait:uOvoaP Kal---^pioa (156)om. P post Ial2add. ai V 156 q om. P ia (157):Txo) ptoToi post ICeptoll add. &vaoxrerioeataP KiaXuaehioetai P T ntl&jCi Staxioopat P 157/158 ?ti tOV oIKov1,2: tapaytvoze1vo) P 157 eppxwovatP CruvxveXoo: T&oticKoP
160 bv om. P 161 ilkaloa A post Kpipto;add. otI acvi &ta9iflK ijv Ier. Stia0ooat To O'itcoiaopa-(X' taq ?ie,pa; byet Ki'pto; (= .Her& 38:33) V, add. e:KeivaC; 6 9e6;-' Ott a' ailCvo;soaDvptwaS tov Toi avTovi o{iKesoicnOa it Goil XYet lCUipto;
336
MARCDE GROOTE
aou. Kal 8t'&ppt{aoS uiVy6v egtna,oa)&OiXio), &ix Cope6olulat Toi{s; 8eolog; ooZcaloca Cit icivra PouVOiv ?it~xv' Kal inoKadco icavTob; SXou KaraaKioou (= ler. 2:19-20) P Staobi-eXt (166) om. P 166 f'rt om. A 167 ianooxat P 169 auxa: 'Oa-; A Ei7ctavia; P
170 IaXgoiv P 171 gakaXtiaA 172 ati--r-ooU6v (178) om. P 178 icai a9i0t;: iaalou P 179 nIXlpet P 180 EpXeo0atP 182 oegtiXtv P 183 veoglnviaS P post oaippara add. {4oivP 184 xKacitaXv: iload{o P 185 veqkTiqg tr. V 186 post aiTxovadd. Txoadxo).-yvo)oioexat ic6ptooS lcoi)qpT xt;o aiyutTiot;,ica TOvKriptov Evmni iplpa iKceiVq (= Is. 19:21)P oocpoviou (popt0hlOovXat scripsi:iKaiaOit; erroreAV, tov aDToibP 187 Kai2c--piaoa (232):86?eteat iKav6; 'Ot icaKl i1Cpto; XptoOS6, cKaioicot iouaioiao;avacKaaoeTaxt epx6gevoS,6;cav6ro(ppe?vataovrata,a&a V Knuaoet cKa6oX)ovXZapeiav Kcailt ovoia a)xToO Kcat z&a?OGV KcXElat' K i l vol ticv itCtfiae?t oV)K? t Kvioa Kait a'c R ta, aak& Ouoia Kcaapa, T0oi ?ei aoibv IctozteODotv KcaOr
&aX'?v Tx6xi tavxl oi)86 v tPepoaooXV{oti; Xaxpeia 07uriaHa cal i)oaia tiepi6pcpoe?Tai, icKaap&a Kx&v iueit; ipooeveXfaoeTe?Tx Oe)i O5tIo5v Txata tiavta eioapyov inXN at7CnooAev,o0 Xi0otKecKpaoovrat(= Luc. 19:40)-.n6x ovv x)iv npopqlnTeu0vevv tepaS XapovTov Ekttapvoivat to 0xTt X?9ev,cKaitxt epXo6evov avrbv ICpoOKicoxtv-iSoi yap da& dvaToXwvihXiovu gXpt ?uo,ativ KcaTaTov cpo(pqrnv(= Mal. 1:11),rx KriipuyTa Tr; Xptoao ctapouvoia;??TxdrI Kal u'oiaa KaOapa (= ib.) npocppesrat icKalTi) ov6oaxt xTioeit aiveti Tbv KVlptov-Kcalgiv cal Ta& avixoi e'iSoXa geTa eitocX10rgIev, icai Xaob; K Tilv XptloTxoC7tntrliav KaT'eX9qoraav.Kal o0d to6vov{09v'n ioXX&ei5XoXaTpeioat &el eioXo0ruo)VTe;g Ksa xoi; uvoio; icail Ta U &deoaetoav, &XX Icai aixol ioua&tot vvv TOtiXptoTo ivSrqiRcavToT;,cKalaKiovt?; 9uyaxrpa; Tot<;5aijOoav 6ol0CaxTzO)VTE;. TO)vp38eXupl)v BIceivCv add. V EI aiaavxo 0)uotiv P 192 cKa ante ESoXoOpeuo91aEat V Tiv--pXllV 195 post Tfi;add. TxoV 197 6axtTov:boatodcou A 198 o/it'MOOTE (199) om. V 200 ivvEa scripsi: Ev:a A, 0' V 201 teXet sic lin. fin. causa V V Jv V 208 &ppdaito;V 209 ootilp: 205 aia -poClnv: ici pcrgTS; aga TEKvot;
KiptoSV 211 EKicovxa evvca: 90'V 213 5euxpp: j' A 216 ': e?zTaV i;':gP' A 220 A': X' V Xc6o:X6; A ica' scripsi(sc. 359/8-337 a.C.n.):ice' AV 221 &pot; A post apasr add. 6 Xoi man. sec. V erlq om. V pty' A 223 1': 86o V 224'tt o' V 231 13ognKicOOmfiq: o' V scripsi:kTo;AV 225 k3bSoglicovXa:
B-8200 Sint-Michiels-Brugge,Kortebrugge3
REVIEWS
A Commentary TheApostolic Tradition. by Paul Bradshaw,MaxwellE.Johnson, and L. Edward Philips (Hermeneia:A Critical and HistoricalCommentary on the Bible), Minneapolis, Fortress Press 2002, ISBN 0-8006-6046-3, $ 47. The document, usually called by scholars 'The Apostolic Tradition', is one of the most enigmatic sources of early Christianliterature.For a while, consensus seemed to have been reached regardingits date (early third century), provenance (Rome) and authorship(Hippolytus).During the last few years, however, practically all of the commonly accepted ideas about the origin of this source have been seriously questioned by several scholars, in particularby M. Metzger, C. Markschiesand P. Bradshaw(see my review of W. Kinzig, C. Markschies,M. Vinzent, Tauffragen undBekenntnis, in VC 2003, 343-347). At the moment, very little is left of the old consensus. Even the very idea that the source under considerationwould be the work of a single author or redactor, is being abandoned by an increasing number of scholars. The document is viewed rather as an anonymous composite work invested with apostolic authority and containing community rules from disparate traditionswhich, moreover, continued being updated for a long period in different Eastern and Western churches (a process which accounts for the differencesbetween the numerous translationsand versions). One of the implications of this small revolution was that the most commonly used 'edition' of the Apostolic Tradition, that of BernardBotte, had in several respects become unsatisfactory.Apart from giving translationsof the orientaltexts in Latin and French-languages inaccessibleto an increasing number of students-and containing concise footnotes only, it was based on an attempt to reconstruct the allegedly original text composed by Hippolytus which at times resulted in too much harmonization of the differences between the various witnesses. The synoptic Latin translation of the relevant text by J. Hanssens does not have this drawback but is, apart from the exclusive use of the Latin, very difficult to handle. The present edition intends to fill this gap by presentingnew English translations ? KoninklijkeBrill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also availableonline - www.brill.nl
Vgiliae Christianae59, 337-340
338
REVIEWS
of the relevantwitnessesdisplayedin parallel columns, each of the different chapters being accompanied by a detailed and extensive commentary. The translationof the texts and commentaryare preceded by an excellent introduction in which all the issues related to the source are discussed in a succinct and lucid way. With regard to questions such as authorship, date and provenance, the authors are very cautious.While anticipatingand resuming the conclusions at which they will arrive in the next chapters, they tentatively characterizethe document as an 'aggregationof material from differentsources,quitepossiblyarisingfrom differentgeographicalregions and probably from different historical periods, from perhaps as early as the mid-second century to as late as the mid-fourth'.The oldest core, tentatively dated to the mid second-century,is considered to have included three basic parts dealing with the following topics: appointment to ministry, initiation of new converts and, finally, community meals and prayer. The translationsof the texts are literal, in general well readable-except when the original text is confused-and conveniently arranged.The translation (of the witnesses)of each chapter is first followed by a discussionof textual problems that may be caused by the transmissionor translationof words or expressions from one language into another. If there is reason to do so, attempts are made to demarcate possible strata of the text, to distinguishbetween the oldest core and later additions, interpolations,and traces of reworking.Next, in a different section called 'comment', various issues raised by the interpretationof the texts are discussed, with special attention being paid to a comparison with parallels in divergent Christian sources of the second, third and fourth centuries. For that matter, it may be noted that, just prior to the appearance of this book, another English translation of the Apostolic tradition has been published by A. StewartSykes (A. Stewart-Sykes,Hippolytus.On theApostolicTradition,St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, New York 2001), which also contains extensive footnotes, attempts to distinguishseveral redactionallevels and hypothesizes that the document is basically the work of two (Roman!)authors belonging to the so-called Hippolytean school as reconstructedby A. Brent, one of them and the other one being the author of the Refitationsof all Heresies(Elenchos) of the writing called ContraNoetum. In general, the approach followed by Bradshaw,Johnson and Philips in their comment on the various chaptersmay be characterizedas remarkably prudent. They limit themselves quite regularly to mentioning diverging opinions expressed by scholars on controversialquestions without taking a position of their own (a method which, at times, may make the reader feel
REVIEWS
339
at a loss). Nonetheless, some of the (tentative) conclusions to which the authors arrive are remarkableindeed and have far-reachingconsequences for the reconstructionof the development of liturgy and ministry in early Christianity.Thus, it is suggested(p. 59) that the prayersfor the ordination of a bishop with its strikingly sacerdotal language (ch. 3), of presbyters (ch. 7) and deacons (ch. 8), as well as the famous Eucharisticprayer (ch. 4)the oldest example of a more or less classical anaphora-were added to the original core at a later stage. In addition, the oldest stratum of the instructionsfor the ordination of a bishop (ch. 2,1-4) is considered not to have contained any allusion to the involvement of other bishops in the imposition of hands (which would have been performed by the presbyters only). In this way, the different strata of the texts reflect various stages in the development of the office and the authority of the bishop, with the 'authoritarianand sacerdotal' (p. 34) concept attested by the ordination prayer for the bishop representingthe outcome of a gradualprocess instead of an extremely early (end of the second century)witness of a tendency to emphasize and to sacerdotalize the position of the bishop. Likewise, the Eucharistic Prayer can no longer be considered a major source for the reconstructionof the Eucharist in the second or the first half of the third century. As regards the eucharisticpractice of that early period, we might rather base ourselveson the directionsabout the 'Lord'sSupper'(ch. 26-29), which still has the character of a 'communal meal', as is rightly suggested by the authors (p. 37). For that matter, the Eucharisticprayer transmitted by the oldest versions of our document is already supposed to have undergone several modifications.Thus, it is suggested that the institution narrative, the anamnesis and the epiclesis do not belong to the oldest nucleus, but have been added at a later period. The long chapter 21 which deals with the ritual of baptism is considered to be made up of at least three strata. In the original reconstructed core which might go back to midsecond century directives concerning the roles of ministers (bishops;presbyters and deacons) would have been lacking, just as the pre-baptismal anointing, a renunciation of Satan and post-baptismalrites (including the episcopal laying on of hands and the anointing by the presbyter and the bishop). Further, the widely held view that chapters 15-21 intend paschal baptism is called into question (p. 110). Finally, it is convincingly argued that the long ch. 41 dealing with set times of prayer during the day is the result of an expansion of ch. 35 which means that regulations regarding prayer at the third, sixth, and ninth hours, at midnight, at bedtime and at cockcrow were added at a later stage.
340
REVIEWS
In spite of the remarkablecaution used by the authors, some of their conclusions remain-unavoidably-open to discussion. Thus, I was not convinced by their attempt to reconstructan original core of the anaphora which would have included neither an institution narrative nor an epiclesis. Similar reconstructionsof an allegedly original or earliest stratumhave been proposed by several other scholars. They are for a large part based on the argument that the prayer contains a number of features encountered only in the fourth century.This argument,however, fails if the prayer in its entirety would have been added at a somewhat later period as is, in my view, rightly suggested by the authors. Likewise, the precise delineation of the strataunderlyingch. 21 may lend itselffor discussion.Assuming that certain older layers have been integratedin the present text, it remains impossible to know whether these were incorporated in their entirety or only in part. Some issues would deserve more elaboration. It would be worthwhile to study the different versions of the alleged TA as independent sources rather than as witnesses of a document now lost. Which tendencies and strategiesbetray these divergingversions?Answeringthese questions might allow us to better understand these versions as separate sources reflecting liturgicaldevelopmentsin specific areas and communitiesbut also to check attempts of reconstructingstrata of the TA. In addition, the comparison with contemporaneous sources might be carried out more systematically. At least, an attempt should be made to formulatesome (tentative)hypotheses with regard to the possible geographical origins, for instance Western or Eastern, of the different stages of the document. In this regard, it may be remarked that Stewart-Sykes'attempt to relate the different strata of TA to representativesof a supposed Hippolytean school at Rome at times makes a rather speculative impression but, at least, would deserve a serious reply. These remarks and suggestions for further research are not meant to minimize the importance of this translationand commentary.The authors have made an exceptionallyvaluable contributionto the study of the enigmatic document which, in the absence of a better designation, will continue to be called the 'Apostolic Tradition'. Catholic Theological University at Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht.
GERARD ROUWHORST
REVIEWS
341
Hubertus R. Drobner, Augustinusvon Hippo, Predigtenzum Buch Genesis undAnmerkugen 1-5). Einleiung,Text,Ubersetzung (Sermones (Patrologia.Beitrage zum Studium der Kirchenvater Bd. 7), Frankfurtam Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang 2000, 228 S., ISBN 3-631-36976-X, SFR 56, - (pb). Augustinusvon Hippo hat in einer schriftstellerischenTatigkeit von fast fiunfundvierzigJahren (386-430) ein in der lateinischen Literatur einzig dastehendes aCuvregeschaffen.AuBerordentlichist sowohl der Umfang als auch der ausgesprochenreligioseInhaltseinerSchriften.Mit seinen Confessiones hat er die erste groBe Autobiographie geschrieben. Von keinem Autor besitzen wir so viele miindliche, von notariiaufgezeichnete oder schriftlich verfaBte Auseinandersetzungenmit religiosen Gegnern aller Art. Zahllos sind die Werke, in denen er den Text von Biichern des Alten und des Neuen Testamentes erliutert hat. Tag fur Tag war er auch bemiiht, in seinen Predigten die Christen von Hippo oder von anderen nordafrikanischen Orten im christlichen Glauben und Lebenswandel zu unterrichten. adpopulum, immerNur ein kleinerTeil von diesen Predigten,den Sermones hin doch noch uiber550 Texte, ist auf uns gekommen. In diesen Sermones fehlt es nicht an Wiederholungen. So kehren gewisse Themen regelmaBig uiber die Jahre wieder, manchmal im gleichen Wortlaut und Ausdruck. Aber, ob es sich nun um Vielerortertes oder um Neuerdachtes handelt, zahllos sind die glanzenden Einfalle und endlos die vielfach abgehandelten Wortspiele,das Ganze ein auBerordentliches Sprachdenkmal.Bedauerlich ist es deshalb, daB eine vollstandigezuverlassigeAusgabe immer noch nicht hat Cyrille Lambot einen krivorhanden ist. Von den ersten 50 Sermones tischenText verfaBt(nichtganz einwandfrei,weil hier und da ein Druckfehler S. 2,9: gloriabuntur statt gloriaauftaucht:in den hier behandelten Sermones: in in hat der hier statt S. Drobner Iesus Iesu; 5,3 bantur,4,18 vorliegenden von Lambot iiberommen, aber dessen statt segregaretur Ausgabe segregeretur Textfehler in 5, 8, praescidistatt praecidi,hat er mit Recht korrigiert).Wir verfiigenjetzt auch uiberkritischeAusgaben weiterer Predigten,verfaBtvon Morin, Verbraken,Demeulenaere,Dolbeau und anderenmoderen Editoren. fir die wir uns noch mit dem von Aber zahlreich sind noch die Sermones, Latinauiberommenen und verhaltnismaBigguten, Migne in seiner Patrologia aber doch uiberholtenText der Mauriner-Moncheaus dem 17.Jahrhundert begniigen miissen. sind Personen und In den fiinf hier edierten und kommentiertenSermones Ereignisseaus dem ersten BibelbuchGegenstandder Predigung:sie handeln ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VrgiliaeChristianae59, 341-346
342
REVIEWS
iiber die Schopfung, iiber Abraham, Isaac, Hagar und Ismael, Esau und Jakob. In seiner kritischenEdition zahlt Lambot Sermo3, iiber Hagar und Ismael, mit, gibt aber nicht den Text, weil von diesem nur ein vom Angelsachsen Beda iiberliefertesBruchstiickbewahrt ist. Lambots Absicht war es, das Fragment in einem fur spater vorgesehenen Anhang herauszugeben, aber schwere Gesundheitsproblemehaben dies verhindert. Die Mauriner haben von Sermo3 den Text und Pierre-PatrickVerbraken hat eine modeme kritischeEdition davon besorgt. Mit Recht nimmt Drobner das trotz seiner Kiirze inhaltreiche Fragment in seine Ausgabe auf. Von den Problemen um Sermo3 abgesehen, ist noch vieles iiber Inhalt und Aufbau dieser Predigten unsicher. Uber den Ort bzw. die Orte, wo sie gehaltenwurden,verehmen wir nichts.Auch die Datierungist ungewiB. Die Hinweise auf die Auseinandersetzungen mit den Manichaern, den Donatisten und anderen Haretikernbieten keine deutlichen Anhaltspunkte fur eine prazise Datierung. Man kann nur mit Drobner vermuten, daB die Predigten kurz vor oder in einem der zwei ersten Dezennien nach 400 gehaltenworden sind. Was Inhalt und Art der Predigungangeht, Augustinus bedient sich an manchen Stellen dieser Predigten der traditionellen,den neutestamentlichenTexten entnommenen allegorischenMethode: sie hatte fur seine reiche Phantasie einen besonderen Reiz, muB aber manchmal den Zuhorem viel zugemutethaben. In Lange und Aufbausind die Predigten sich sehr ungleich. Speziell Sermo4 ist ein nichtendenwollenderDiskurs iiber verschiedeneGegenstande,alle ausgerichtetauf das Esau-Jakob-Thema: Fleisch versus Geist. Die Kommentatoren spiiren nach moglichen besonderen Ursachen fur diese scheinbareMaBlosigkeit.Drobner weist daraufhin, m.E nicht zu Unrecht, daB Augustinusoft sehr lange predigte. Liturgische und andere, manchmal nicht nachweisbare, Umstande bestimmten die Lange seiner Reden. In seinenEinleitungenund AnmerkungenbietetDrobnerviel Wissenswertes zum Text der fuinf Sermones. Reichlich sind auch die bibliographischen Informationen iiber die jeweils zur Sprache gebrachten Probleme. Uber wenige Autoren wird so viel geschriebenwie iiber Augustinus,und Drobners Auswahl ist hilfreich fur weitere Studie. Das letzte Wort ist iibrigens noch nicht gesprochen. Von den hier herausgegebenenSermones muB allerdings vieles mangels der notwendigen Angaben unerlautert bleiben. Es scheint mir aber, daB in Drobners tJbersetzung und Kommentierung nicht alle losbaren Fragen beantwortetwerden. Drobners kritischerApparat beschranktsich auf die Wahl zwischen dem Text der Mauriner einerseits und jenem von Lambot bzw. Verbraken
REVIEWS
343
andererseits.Dies bringt aber die Gefahr mit sich, daB der interessierte Leser, weil er nicht iiber die der Wahl der Editoren zugrunde liegenden Lesarten der Handschrifteninformiertwird, sich kein klares Urteil bilden kann. In S. 4,8 formuliertLambot: In Genesiin omnibus diebusdictumest: 'factumest vespera'" in septimodie non dicitur'factaest vespera". In Drobner lautet der Text: In Genesiin omnibusdiebusdictumest: 'facta est vespera"; in septimo die non dicitur'factaest vespera". Lambots kritischerApparat besagt, (1) daB im ersten Satz die Lesart aller Handschriftenist, von den factumest vespera Maurinern aber in facta... verandertwurde und (2) daBfacta est vespera im zweiten Satz in einem Teil der Handschriftenfactum... geworden ist. Die letzte Korrekturist ohne Zweifel eine Verschlimmbesserungvon facta...: facta est vesperaist richtig. Was den ersten Ausdruck betrifft, das factum... der ganzen Texttraditiondarf nicht fallengelassenwerden. Drobner schreibt hier, darin den Maurinern folgend, facta... mit der Anmerkung, daB Lambotfactumhat. Dem Leser entgeht damit, daB eben diesesfactumdie alleinige, von alien Handschriften bestatigte und richtige Lesart ist. Die sachliche Form factummuB einer Textform der VetusLatinaentstammen (Fischers kritische Beuron-Ausgabe von VetusLatina Genesisist hier nicht aufschluBreich.Ist vielleicht die Lesartfactumest vespere von einigen Vetus Latina-Zeugendie richtige Lesart?). In S. 4,9 erwahnt Augustinus die Gefahr, daB Neugetaufte von dem aliud alieingeschlagenen guten Weg abweichen: Nam occurrunt temptationes de via deliias huiusmundi,aliamquamdam vitam;ut unumquemque quidsuggerentes, et a propositodeducat.Gegen Lambot hat Drobner hier zweimal detorqueat, den Plural: detorqueant und deducant. Die Handschriftenverzeichnen nur die und deducat (in einem Teil der Handschriften abgeanSingulare detorqueat dert zu abducat).Lambot bemerkt eigens, und m.E. zu Recht, daB aliud aliquidSubjekt ist und die Singulare also richtig sind: 'Es kommen Versuchungen, die etwas anderes vorspiegeln, die Freuden dieser Welt, eine andere Lebensweise,(irgendetwas),das einenjeden von seinem Weg ablenken und von seinem Vorsatz wegfiihren konnte'. In S. 4,35 spricht der Prediger einem Mann zu, der vom Schwert lebt et und Zwietracht und Uneinigkeit sucht: in gladiotuo vivis,et de seditionibus aut Fur das Wort letzte dissensionibus gaudesaut terreris. konjiziert Drobner, gegen die von Lambot ubernommene Lesart von allen Handschriften,die aktive Form terres.Ich glaube nicht, da3 die Anderung einen besseren Text ergibt, denn der durch die Wiederholung von aut erforderte Gegensatz entweder du freust dich besteht nur bei aktivemgaudesund passivem terreris: oder du wirst in Schrecken versetzt.
344
REVIEWS
Unschliissigbin ich iiber die Konjektur,die Drobner in S. 2,1 vorschlagt. Augustinus zitiert Paulus, Gal. 4,23, iiber Abraham, dessen 'Sohn Isaac nicht nach dem Fleischegezeugt wurde, sondern aufgrundder VerheiBung', sed quia de summadesund kommentiert:non quiacumcamenon eratoperatus, weil fleischlichen er keinen 'nicht, perationesusceperat (Abraham) Umgang gehabt hatte, sondern weil er ihn (Isaac) aus einer vollig hoffiungslosen Lage heraus bekommen hatte'. Drobner schlagt vor, cumcame ... aus dem von Lambot iibemommenen handschriftlichenKonsensusdurch eumcare ... zu ersetzen. Die Konjektur hat etwas fur sich, weil die zweite Halfte des Satzes ein Objekt in der ersten zu erforder scheint und transitivesoperari zum christlichen Schrifttum gehort. Die Ubersetzung ware dann: 'nicht, weil er ihn nicht durch fleischliche Aktivitat hatte entstehen lassen, sondern. ..'. Weil aber die zweite Halfte notfallsauch ohne Objekt verstanden werden kann, kommt doch vielleicht der handschriftlichenLesart cumcarne der Vorzug zu. In S. 2,6 ist die Rede von sacramenta...scripturarum,...quae... satiant esurientes, qui non ita satienturutfastidiant,sed sit satietassinefastidio... 'den Geheimnissen der Heiligen Schrift, die die Hungemden sattigen, die aber nicht so gesattigt werden sollen, daB sie UberdruBempfinden:es soil eine Sattheit ohne UberdruBsein'. Die Mauriner,und mit ihnen Drobner, lesen satianturgegen die ganze, auch von Lambot akzeptierte handschriftliche ist aber zweifellos richtig, wie auch Uberlieferung.Der Konjunktivsatientur aus dem folgenden sit satietashervorgeht. In S. 4,36 warnt der Predigervor dem Teufel, der die Christen antreibt, fur die Losung ihrer Probleme 'zu Weissager' ad sortilogos zu gehen. Die Mauriner haben die handschriftlicheLesart sortilogos in sortilegos verandert. Aber es empfiehlt sich, mit Lambot sortilogos beizubehalten. Der Terminus findet sich auch bei spaterenAutoren wie Caesariusvon Aries und sortilogus dem GroBen (s. Blaise - Chirat, Dictionnaire des auteurs Gregor latin-fJanfais chritiens,1954, S. 767). Er scheint mir eine in ihrem Ursprung vulgarsprachliche Kontamination von den gleichbedeutenden Worter sortilegus und sortiloquus zu sein. In S. 4,19 und 32 streicht Dobner zwei Passus, in der Uberzeugung, daB der hier praktizierteGebrauchvon habereals Hilfszeitwortnicht augustinisch sei: (19)... intellegentiam habebatintelspiritalem quaein illa benedictione der in verstanden werden legi ('der geistige Begriff, jenem Segensspruch und ventilator... habet excludere Worfler Christus sollte') (32) paleam('der wird einmal die Spreu beseitigen').Es handelt sich um einen Vulgarismus, den Augustinus aber nicht gescheut hat. So in S. 5,8: malipraecidihabent
REVIEWS
345
(cfr Mt 18,8) 'die Bosen werden einmal abgeschnittenwerden'; S. 57,5,5: petamus,non petamus,venirehabet... regnumdei 'ob wir darum bitten oder nicht, das Reich Gottes wird einmal kommen'; S. 59,3,6: nec verba... ista did habent'und jene Worte brauchen nicht gesagt zu werden'; S. 125,6: turbatur sanarihabet(cfr Io 5,4) 'das Wasser wird bewegt, fur aqua,aegrotus den Kranken steht die Heilung bevor'. Betreffs der deutschen Wiedergabe vom Text der Sermoneshabe ich manchmal meine Bedenken. In S. 4 verweilt Augustinus lange bei der Geschichte von Esau und Jakob, dem alteren und dem juingerenSohn von Isaac. In allegorischerAuslegung ist Esau das altere Volk, die Juden, und Jakob das jiingere, die Christen. In 4,11 will Isaac den alteren Sohn seg'das primopopulopromittebat nen, und das bedeutet, daB er VetusTestamentum Alte Testament dem ersten Volk - den Juden - verhieB'.Drobner versteht primoals Adverb, und verfehlt damit den Gedanken. Am Ende desselben Paragraphen wird gesagt, daB die fleischlichen VerheiBungen des Alten Testamentes etwas Geistiges spiritalenescioquid beinhalteten, und daB sie insofem dem jiingeren Sohn zukommen, weil dieser, als der jiingere, erst fleischlich ist, und nachher, vom Vater gesegnet, geistig: spiritalesergoad minorem filium, quiapriorest caralis, et posteaspiritalis.Drobner versteht carnalis m.E. zu Unrecht vom alteren Sohn Esau. Beide Adjektive betreffen den jiingeren, Jakob, was ein Passus vom Anfang des anschlieBenden Paragraphen 12 zu bestatigen scheint, dessen Text lautet: nemofit spiritalis nisi ex carali 'niemand wird geistig, ohne zuvor fleischlichgewesen zu sein'. Kurz darauf ist noch von den zwei Sohnen die Rede: abstulitille voluptatem 'Dieser (Esau) ging mit dem abstulitille dignitatem sempiternam temporalem, zeitlichen GenuB davon, jener (Jakob) mit einer ewigen Erhabenheit'. Drobner iibersetzt dieses abstulitmit '... lieB sich nehmen', aber das Zitat in 4,15 von Genesis27,36: accessitcumdolo(Iacob)et abstulitbenedictionem (Die macht deutlich, daB auferrehier soviel wie benedictionem) Vulgatahat subripuit 'mitnehmen', 'sich zueignen' bedeutet. In 4,14 heiBt es von frommen, aber angstlichenMenschen, daB sie sich fiirchten, sich unter die Sunder zu miet schisetperhaereses in unitatemaculentur schen ne quasiperconsortium peccatorum mata pereant.Drobner iibersetzt: 'damit sie nicht gleichsam durch die Gemeinschaftmit den Siindern gleichermaBenbefleckt werden und durch Haresien und Schismen zugrunde gehen'. Ich glaube, daB in unitateauf die Einheit der Kirche hinweist. Die Frommen haben Angst, sie mochten, durch Haresie und Schisma auf schuldige Weise des Zusammenseins in der einen kirchlichen Gemeinschaft beraubt, zugrunde gehen. Der erste ista (die Rede ist von den Satz von S. 4, 32 lautet Cumad ambospertineant
346
REVIEWS
zwei Arten von Menschen, Guten und Bosen), nontamenpertinent omnesgentes nisi ad spiritales, ad ecclesiam, quiaipsipertinent quaeimplevittotumorbemterrarum. Drobner iibersetzt:'... gehoren sie dennoch nur zu den geistigen Volkern, weil eben diese zur Kirche gehoren, die den ganzen Erdkreiserfiillt hat'. Aber omnesgentesscheint mir Subjektzu sein: '. . . gehoren doch alle Volker den Geistigen (gemeint ist, daB die Heiden und andere Fleischliche den Geistigen dienstbar sind), denn diese (die Geistigen) gehoren zur Kirche, die den ganzen Erdkreiserfillt hat'. Im Folgenden wird der Gedanke in dieser Weise ausgefuhrt,daB den Fleischlichenin der Kirche nur der Dienst an den Geistigen offensteht (camalesin ecclesia... nonserviunt nisi spiritalibus). In 4,35 ist wiederum von bosen Menschen in der Kirche die Rede, die ut habeant ertragen werden um des lieben Friedens willen: ut admittantur, sacramenta in Drobners Wiedergabe 'daB man sie gewahren laBt communia, und daB sie gleichermaBendie Sakramentebesitzen'. Es scheint mir, daB admittantur den Begriff 'Zugang'voraussetzt:den Bosen stehen die Mitgliedschaft der Kirche und der Empfang der Sakramente offen. Allerdings ist es so, wie weiter im Text betont wird, daB sie sich mit diesem Empfang ein Urteil essen und trinken (1 Kor 11,29). Meine SchluBbemerkungist die, daB Drobners Buch hilfreich ist, wenn man die Bekanntschaftdes PredigersAugustinusmachen will. Fehlerfreiist es jedoch nicht und die Lekture erfordertstandig einen kritischenBlick. Nijmegen
[email protected]
ANTOONBASTIAENSEN
BOOKS RECEIVED Athanase d'Alexandrie, Les TroisDiscourscontreles ariens.Traduction et notes par Adelin Rousseau;overtureet guide de lecturepar Rene Lafontaine (Donner raison 15), Bruxelles:EditionsLessius2004, 516 p., ISBN 2-87299130, ? 39,00 (pb).-'Premiere traductionfrancaiseintegrale de ces discours, assortie d'un apparat critique fouille. Un destine au lecteur non averti comme au familier de la litteraturepatristiquepermet de reconnaitre le trace et la rigueur de l'interpretationathanasienne de l'Ecriture'. 54 (2004) 1-4: Melanges offerts a TJ. van Bavel a l'occaAugustiniana sion de son 80e anniversaire, Leuven: Augustijns Historisch Instituut / Institutum Historicum Augustinianum Lovanii 2004, 746 pp., ISSN 0004-8003, E 38 (pb).-B. Bruning & J. Lam Cong Quy, Avant-propos (1-2); L. De Coninck, B. Coppieters 't Wallant & R. Demeulenaere, Le sermo ad populum LXVII de saint Augustin (3-33); G. Partoens, Le sermon 131 de saint Augustin: Introduction et edition (35-77); G. Folliet, L'acclamation biblique et liturgiquefiat fiat chez saint Augustin (79-102); A.A.R. Bastiaensen, Augustin on the Deacon-Preacher-Martyr Stephen (103-127); A.D. Fitzgerald, Ambrose, Paul and Expositio Psalmi CXVIII (129-146); T.F. Martin, Exercises in Grace: Augustine's En. in Ps. 118 (147-175); G. Ring, Der Anfang des Glaubens: Verdienst oder Gnade? (177-202);D. Ogliari, An anti-Pelagiancaueat.Augustine'sEp. 188 to Juliana (203-222);M. Verschoren, 'I do the Evil that I do not will'. Augustine and Julian on Romans 7:5-25 during the Second Pelagian Controversy (418430) (223-242);J. Yates, Weaker and Hindered Prayers: 1 Peter 3:7 in Jerome and Augustine (243-259);R. Teske, St. Augustine on the Humanity of Christ and Temptation (261-277); M. Lamberigts,Augustine on Predestination:some Quaestiones Disputatae Revisited (279-305);M. Smalbrugge, L'identificationinterdite et imposee avec Dieu: Sur le moralisme de Julien d'Eclane (307-323); K. B0rresen, La feminologie d'Augustin et les droits humains des femmes (325-341); L. Seelbach, 'Wenn Manner nach den Schriftenfragenwiirden,wiirde ich nicht mit Frauenreden'-Oder: Marcella als LuckenbiuBerin? (343-358); C.P. Mayer, 'Die Frau und ihre Gottebenbildlichkeit bei Augustin' (359-378); B. Bruning, Ab uteromatrismeae,quae
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
Vziliae Chrstianae59, 347-353
348
BOOKS RECEIVED
multumsperauitin te: la maternite et la paternite d'Augustin (379-400); J. L6ssl, Augustine'sFamily as a Space of Religious Experience (401-415); J. Lam Cong Quy, Die MenschheitJesu Christi und die Gottesschau in (417-430);R. Dodaro, Politicaland Theological AugustinsWerk De Trinitate Virtues in Augustine, Letter 155 to Macedonius (431-474); A. Dupont, Using or enjoying humans. Uti and fui in Augustine (475-506); G. Van Riel, Mensinmotamotamane:Neoplatonic Tendencies in Augustine'sTheory of Passions (507-531); P. van Geest, Stoic against his Will? Augustine on the Good Life in De beatavita and the Praeceptum (533-550);J. van Neer, Didactically Responsible Use of Humour in St. Augustine'sSermo53,12-14 (551-588); M. Schrama, The Office in Honour of Saint Augustine: an Unknown Work of Rupert of Deutz (589-651);A. Zumkeller,Neuentdeckte Schriftendes ErfurterTheologieprofessorsJohannes Nathin OSA (653-658); C. Prozeller& M.K. Wernicke,Alexius (Johann Adam) Molitor:Augustiner und Komponist (659-684); W. Eckermann,Nudus Christusin nuda cruce: Ein christologischesThema der Spiritualitatdes Simon Fidati von Cascia OESA (685-717); C.M. Oser-Grote, 'Simplicitasevangelica'. 'Einfachheit' als Norm und Methode im Leben des Simon Fidati von Cascia (719-743). des homiliessur les ancienne Chetanian, Rose Varteni, La versionarmenienne HomeliesI, II, VII, VIII, editees par 'Actesdes Ap6tres'de Jean Ch?ysostome. R.V. Chetanian (CorpusScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium,Vol. 607, ScriptoresArmeniaci, Tomus 27), Lovanii: in aedibus Peeters 2004, LXVI + 152 p., ISBN 90-429-1404-1, e 65 (pb); Chetanian, Rose Varteni, La deJean Chrysostome. version ancienne deshomiliessurles 'ActesdesApotres' armenienne HomiliesI, II, VII, VIII, traduitespar R.V. Chetanian (Corpus Scriptorum ChristianorumOrientalium, Vol. 608, Scriptores Armeniaci, Tomus 28), Lovanii: in aedibus Peeters 2004, XXXII + 239 p., ISBN 90-429-1405-X, e 55 (pb). of a New Millennium, I-II, Proceedingsof the CopticStudieson theThreshold Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden, 27 August-2 September2000, edited on behalf of the InternationalAssociationfor Coptic Studies (IACS) by Mat Immerzeel & Jacques van der Vliet, with the assistance of Maarten Kersten & Carolien van Zoest (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 133), Leuven-Paris-Dudley, MA: UitgeverijPeeters & Departement Oosterse Studies 2004, XIII [+ XIII] + 1550 pp. (incl. many illustrations),ISBN 90-429-1409-2, E 210 (clothboundwith jacket).-Impressive volumes resulting from the Leiden Congress, edited and published with meticulous care. Apart from a wealth of contributionson Coptic language, art, material culture, history, archaeology, papyrology and epigraphy, a
BOOKS RECEIVED
349
great number of studies in the sections 'Liturgy and Theology', 'Gnostic, Manichaean and Hermetic Texts' and 'Monasticism'are of particularinterest. We may highlight: Theofried Baumeister, 'Die Historia Monachorum in Aegypto und die Entwicklungder koptischen Hagiographie' (269-280); Bigouel el-Suriany, 'The manuscript collection of Deir al-Surian: Its survival into the third millennium(281-294);Dmitij F. Bumazhnov,'Das Gebet in De animaet corpore des Ps.-Athanasius(295-307);Gesina Schenke Robinson, 'Codex Berolinensis Papyrus 20915: A Final Report (377-391); Mark Sheridan, 'A homily on the death of the Virgin Mary attributedto Evodius of Rome' (393-405); Youhanna Nessim Youssef, 'A contribution to the Coptic biography of Severus of Antioch' (407-419); Diliana Atanassova, 'Zu den sahidischen Pascha-Lektionaren'(607-620); Michael Ghattas, 'Die bei Didymos philosophisch-christliche Verwendungdes Begriffh"OKEIMENON" dem Blinden von Alexandrienin den Tura-Papyri'(621-627);Philip Sellew, 'A blessing for reading the Apocalypse in the Paschal liturgy' (629-637); Esther A. de Boer, 'A Gnostic Mary in the Gospel of Mary?' (695-708); Paul Chandler Dilley, 'Talking about the soul and its ascent in the Dialogue of the Savior.On "visible voices" and the interaction of the oral and the visual' (709-721); Claudio Gianotto, 'Quelques remarques a propos de Melchisedek (NHC IX,1)' (739-748);Judith Hartenstein, 'Anmerkungenzu den vier koptischen Versionen von "Eugnostos" und der "Sophia Jesu Christi"' (749-758);Jan Helderman, 'Logion 50 des Thomasevangeliums' (759-768);Ursula Ulrike Kaiser, 'Der FallJaldabaothsin NHC II,4: Motivik und Variationen' (769-778); Antti Marjanen, 'How egalitarian was the Gnostic view of women? Mary Magdalene texts in the Nag Hammadi and related documents' (779-791);John D. Turner, 'Gnostic Sethianism and the pre-Plotiniantheological interpretationof Plato's Parmenides' (811-827); Malcolm Choat, 'Philological and historical approaches to the search for the 'third type' of Egyptian monk' (857-865);Andrew Crislip, 'Sicknessand health in the monasteries of Pachomius and Shenoute' (867-876); A.L. Khosroyev, 'Eine Bemerkung zur Frage nach dem Original der "Vita Pachomii"' (877-887); Catherine Thirard, 'Histoire architecturale des monasteres paleochretiensdu Proche-Orient:du silence de l'archeologie a son dialogueavec les sourcestextuelles'(889-901);Hans Hauben, 'Catholiques et Melitiens a Alexandrie a la veille du Synode de Tyr (335)' (905-921); Johannes den Heijer, 'Relations between Copts and Syrians in the light of recent discoveries at Dayr as-Suryan' (923-938); Maged S.A. Mikhail, 'An [sic] historicaldefinition for the "Coptic Period"' (971-981). Moreover, the surveys of recent studies and trends of research in the several sub-fieldsof
350
BOOKS RECEIVED
Coptology are of particularvalue: Mark N. Swanson, 'Recent developments in Copto-Arabic studies, 1996-2000' (239-267); Peter van Minnen, 'Greek papyri and Coptic studies, 1996-2000' (423-445); Heinzgerd Brakmann, 'Neue Funde und Forschungenzur Liturgie der Kopten, 1996-2000' (575606); Roelof van den Broek, 'Coptic Gnostic and Manichaean literature, 1996-2000' (669-693); Ewa Wipszycka, 'Les recherches sur le monachisme egyptien, 1997-2000' (831-855); Peter Grossmann, 'ChristlicheArchaologie in Agypten:Bericht iiber die Forschungslageseit 1996' (1011-1036);Wlodzimierz Godlewski,'ChristianNubia, Studies 1996-2000' (1037-1051);MarieHelene Rutschowscaya, 'Etat des recherches sur l'art copte, 1997-2000' (1121-1139). Kommentar desMose. Text,Ubersetzung, Dochhor, Jan, Die Apokalypse (Texts and Studiesin AncientJudaism/ Texte und Studienzum AntikenJudentum 106), Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005, XIV + 657 S., ISBN 3-16-148255-7, E 119 (Leinen mit Schutzumschlag)-GroB angelegte und eindrucksvolle Arbeit (urspriinglichDissertationGeorg-August-Universitat Gottingen 2003), mit vielen Verweisen auf patristischeSchriftstellerund Nag Hammadi Texte im Kommentar:'Die Untersuchungenzum historischenOrt haben ergeben, daB die Apc Mos als eine Schrift des palastinisch-judischenMilieus zu bestimmen ist; als Entstehungszeitist das spate erste und das fruhe zweite Jh. n. Chr. anzunehmen. Inhaltlich gibt die Apc Mos einem Interesse an als Atiologievon Tod und Siinde Ausdruck, der biblischenAdamuberlieferung das auch in anderen Schriften aus dem 1./2. Jh. im judisch-christlichen Milieu mehrfach bezeugt ist. Eine christlicheVerfasserschaftder Apc Mos legt sich angesichts dieses Befundes nich nahe; es verhielte sich anders, wenn es wenigstens einen expliziten Verweis auf dasjenige gibt, was auch palastinischeJudenchristen von ihrer Umwelt unterschieden hat, also vor allem die GestaltJesu Christi' (172). zu ihrerAuseinandersetzung Fiedrowicz,Michael, ChritenundHeiden.Qellentexte in derAntike,Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft2004, 799 S., ISBN 3-534-15790-7, E 128 (Geb.).-'Die hier zusammengestelltenTexte [sc. in Deutscher Ubersetzung] illustrierenzunachst in einem historischen Uberblick vom 2. bis 5. Jahrhundert die verschiedenen Anlasse, Phasen zwischenHeidentumund Christenund Protagonistender Auseinandersetzung tum. AnschlieBlichwerden in einem systematischenTeil die wichtigsten Argumentationsstrategienund Themen jenes Disput dargestellt'. Field, Lester L., On the Communion of DamasusandMeletius:Fourth-Centu?y LX. With CriticalEditionand Translation Formulae in theCodexVeronensis Synodal
BOOKS RECEIVED
351
by L.L. Field Jr., Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 2004, xii + 304 pp., ISBN 0-88844-145-2, $ 69.95 (cloth). Flaviusosephus,JudeanAntiquities Books8-10. Translationand Commentary T. Paul & by Christopher Spilsbury (FlaviusJosephus, Translation Begg and Commentary, edited by Steve Mason, Vol. 5), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2005, XIV + 392 p., ISBN 90-04-11786-5, e 115 / $ 155 (hardback).Impressive new tomusin the remarkable series. 'This volume provides a new English translationand commentaryonJosephus'JudeanAntiquities 8-10 in which he retells the history of Israel from the time of the later divided monarchy down through the exilic period'. With Bibliography, detailed Indices, as well as several references to (post-Biblical)Christian Authors. et morales. Texte critiquede J. Fraipont ascitiques Fulgence de Ruspe, Lettres CCL Traduction et Notes (= 91). Introduction, par Daniel Bachelet (Sources Chretiennes 487), Paris: Les Editions du Cerf 2004, 298 p., ISBN 2-204et morales,rediges entre 510 07678-3, e 26 (broche).-Les Lettresascetiques et 523, alors que Fulgence etait exile en Sardaine pour la deuxieme fois, et reflechissantles reponses orthodoxes de l'Eglise de son temps sur les questions abordees: le marriage, le veuvage, la virginite, la penitence... 'Les lettres sont presque de petits traites, largement nourries de la pensee d'Augustin dont Fulgence reprend inlassablementla doctrine de la grace et de la predestination'. andtheEuropean Reformations: James III, FrankA. (ed.), PeterMartyrVermigli in the of Christian Traditions (Studies History 115), SemperReformanda Leiden-Boston: Brill 2004, XXV + 330 pp., ISBN 90-04-13914-1, e 109 / $ 147 (hardback).-Collection of essays on one of the formative shapers of Reformed Protestantism,who was a profound Patristic scholar as well. On this last aspect, see in particular Douglas H. Shantz, 'Vermigli on Tradition and the Fathers:PatristicPerspectivesfrom his Commentary on 1 Corinthians' (115-138). on the Gospelof John Kalantzis, George, Theodore of Mopsuestia,Commentay Christian Studies Australia: St. Paul's Publica7), Strathfield,NSW, (Early tions 2004, ix + 165 pp., ISBN 0-975-74839-6, AUS$ 38.00 (pb). and WildHoney" Kelhoffer,James A., TheDiet ofJohn theBaptist."Locusts in Synopticand PatristicInterpretation (WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 176), Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, XXIII + 256 pp., ISBN 3-16-148460-6, e 69,00 (cloth with jacket).-Thoroughly researched thematic study, with an extensive fifth chapter mainly on Patristic sources (John's Diet as 'Vegetarian' and a Model of Asceticism: 'Locusts', Wild
352
BOOKS RECEIVED
Honey and the imitatioIohannisin Patristicand Subsequent ChristianInterpretation, 134-193), yet without an unequivocal conclusion on John's Diet: 'Given that such a diversity of expression is already present within the Synoptic tradition, it is perhaps not surprisingthat later Christian interpretationsof John's diet would reflect novel variationson these, and other, themes' (133). Publishedby Mohr in an exemplary way in the well-known and rapidly expanding WUNT-series. King, Karen L., WhatIs Gnosticism? Cambridge,Massachusetts/ London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 2003, xii +343 pp., ISBN 0-674-01071-X, , 19.95 (cloth with jacket).-Pivotal contribution to the ongoing discussion. Mardirossian, Aram, Le livredes canonsarmeniens(Kanonagirk' Hayoc) de Tovhannes duIVeau VII! siecle (Corpus Awjnec'i.Eglise,droitet sociitienArmenie Scriptorum ChristianorumOrientalium, Vol. 606, Subsidia, Tomus 116), Lovanii: in aedibus Peeters 2004, XIX + 711 p. (incl. 2 cartes), ISBN 90-429-1381-9, e 145 (pb).-La version legerement remaniee d'une these de doctorat en droit soutenue en janvier 2002 a l'Universite de Paris X-Nanterre (Dir. Jean-Pierre Poly & Jean-Pierre Mahe): PremieirePartie: De Grigor l'Illuminateurau Synode de Sahapivan: La Genese (41-251); Seconde Partie: Du Synode de Sahapivan au Livredes Canons:Reformes et Progres (253-493); Conclusion (495-500); ExcursusI: Le Corpusde Sahapivan (501-532); Excursus II: Le Corpusde Yovhannes Mayragomec'i (533-625); Bibliographie (627-692); Annexes (693-701); Cartes (702-705; tires de Garsoian, L'Eglisearmenienne, 1999). 'Cet ouvrage a ete couronne par le premier prix du concours de theses (2001-2002) decerne par l'Association des Historiens des Facultes de Droit'. dansl'ecclesiologie des Peres.Une lecMueller,Joseph G., L'AncienTestament turedesConstitutions (InstrvmentaPatristicaet Mediaevalia:Research Apostoliques on the Inferencesof Early and Medieval Christianity41), Turnhout:Brepols 2004, 634 p., ISBN 9-503-51631-9), e 120 (hardback). A doctoral dissertation(Centre Sevres, Paris)on a highly interestingtheme, magnificently designed and publishedby Brepols as a new volume of a well-knownseries, but here and there too long-winded and, alas!, marred with several stylistic oddities and a great number of typing errors. O'Donnell, James J., Augustine,Sinnerand Saint, London: Profile Books 2005, XIV + 396 pp., ISBN 1-86197-686-0, ? 20 (hardbackwith jacket).Fairly general introduction to Augustine by an author who particularly became well-known by a large commentary on Augustine's Confessions.
BOOKSRECEIVED
353
Symeon le Nouveau Theologien, Hymnes41-58. Texte critique et Index par Johannes Koder. Traduction et Notes par Joseph Paramelle & Louis Neyrand (SourcesChretiennes196), Paris:Les tditions du Cerf 2003, 406 p., ISBN 2-204-07372-5, e 34 (broche).-Reimpression de la premiere edition (1973), avec additions et corrections. J. VANOORT [email protected]
Academic
1;i
Publishers
B R ILL
and issues relating to early Christianity.
La decretale Ad Gallos Episcopos: son texte et son auteur Textecritique,traductionfrancaiseet commentaire
YVES-MARIE DUVAL
A new edition(andits Frenchtranslation)of the oldestknownDecretale.The commentarydemonstrates the originalityof the argumentsleadingto decisionsconcerningtheblessedvirginsandthe ecclesiasticalhierarchy. Thisanswerto the bishopsof Gaulcouldbe the makingof Jerome,personalassistantto PopeDamasusbetween382 and384. Yves-MarieDuval was successivelyProfessorof the Universitiesof Tours,Poitiers andParisX wherehe taughtlate LatinliteratureandPatristics. * In print2005 * Hardback(x, 182 pp. in French) * ISBN90 04 14170 7 * ListpriceEUR75.- / US$ 99.* VigiliaeChristianae,Supplements,73
Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City
JANWILLEM DR1JVERS
This study deals with aspects and events of the episcopacy of Cyril of Jerusalem(350-
betweenthecityanditsbishopand,inparticular, 387).Itsoverallthemeis therelationship as theChristian Cyril'seffortsto promoteJerusalem cityparexcellence. Jan WillemDrijvers, Ph.D.(1989), is Lecturerin AncientHistory,Universityof Groningen. * In print2004 * Hardback(xvi, 216 pp.) * ISBN90 04 139869 * List priceEUR92.- / US$ 132.* VigiliaeChristianae,Supplements,72
INSTRUCTIONS
TO AUTHORS
(1) Contributionsshouldbe submittedin duplicateand be accompaniedby a disk. Both WordPerfect and Microsoft Word are accepted word-processing programs. ASCII-formatted disks are also accepted. Contributions submitted should not have been published elsewhere. (2) Manuscriptsshould be printed with a wide margin and double space between the lines. Please use one side of the paper only. The first page should have ample space at the top around the title. (3) Titles should be as short as possible. (4) Italics should be used sparingly (but see below nrs. 6 and 7). (5) Latin quotations should be underlined to be printed in italics. Syriac, Hebrew and Coptic quotations should be transcribed. (6) References should be given in footnotes with continuous numbering. Titles of books and of journals (not of papers in journals) should be in italics to be printed in italics. For example: H.A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the ChurchFathers1 (Cambridge, Mass. 41964) 106-111. L.W. Barnard, "The Antecedents of Arius," VigiliaeChristianae 24 (1970) 172-188. Gregory of Nyssa, De hom.opif.24 (PG 44,212D) - Greg.Nyss. Hom. opif.24 (PG 44,212D). Tertullian, Adv.Marc.4,28,1 - Tert. Adv.Marc.4,28,1. (7) Correction. Authors are requested to check their manuscripts,and especially their quotations, most carefully, and to type out all Greek, as later corrections in the proof stage are expensive and time-consuming. Corrections by which the original text is altered will be charged. (8) Offprints.Contributorswill receive 15 offprintsfree of charge for articles and 3 free offprints for reviews.
? Copyright 2005 by Koninkljke Brill NV, Leiden,TheNetherlands All rightsreserved. storedin a retrieval No part of thispublicationmay be reproduced, translated, system, or transmitted in anyform or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or othenwise, withoutpriorwrittenpermission recording of thepublisher. to photocopy itemsfor internal Authorization personaluse is grantedby Brillprovidedthatthe appropriate Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, fees arepaid directlyto Copyright Suite910, Danvers,MA 01923, USA. Feesare subjectto change.
ISSN 0042-6032 (print version) ISSN 1570-0720 (online version)
This journal is printed on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS T. RASIMUS, Ophite Gnosticism, Sethianism and the Nag Hammadi Library ..............................................................................................
235
A. KAMESAR,Hilary of Poitiers, Judeo-Christianity, and the
Origins of the LXX ........................................................................
264
P.B. HARVEYJR., Jerome dedicates his Vita Hilarionis .................... A.M.C. CASIDAY,Grace and the Humanity of Christ According
286
to St. Vincent of Lrins .............................................................
298
M. de GROOTE,Anonyma TestimoniaAdversusIudaeos, Critical Edition
of an Antijudaic Treatise . ..................................................
337
Reviews ..................................................................... Books received ........................................................
315
...........
347
Vigiliae
Ch
ristianae A
Early
Review
of
Christian and
LLfe
Language VOL.
I
LIX
NO.
4
2005
www.bril.nl
BRILL LEIDEN-BOSTON
|
VIGILIAE CHRISTIANAE a reviewofEarly ChristianLife and Language EDITORS-IN-CHIEF:
AsSOCIATE
EDITORS:
SCOPE:
J. VAN OORT, Utrecht/Nijmegen,
J. DEN BOEFT, Amsterdam,
W.L.
PETERSEN,
Koiln, Melbourne, C. SCHOLTEN, State College, Pennsylvania,D.T. RUNIA, J.C.M. VANWINDEN,Leiden - R.M. Grant (Chicago) A. Le Boulluec (Paris) - A. Davids (Nijmegen) (Paris) - Elaine Pagels (Princeton) Marguerite Harl (Paris) - J.-P. Mahe G. Rouwhorst (Utrecht) - R. Staats (Kiel)
-
This quarterlyjournalcontainsarticlesand shortnoticesof an historicaland posterior cultural,linguistic or philologicalnatureon EarlyChristianliterature
in thewidest sense of the word, as well as on Christian to the New Testament Church and dogmatic history will only be dealt epigraphy and archaeology. litera and Mediaeval with if they bear directly on social history; Byzantine ture only in so far as it exhibits continuity with the Early Christian period.
studies,publishedelsewhere. The journalwill also containreviewsof important
MANUSCRIPTS:
Each
volume
appears
in 4 quarterly
issues.
All manuscriptsand editorialcorrespondenceshouldbe sentto theSecretaryof 4-6, 231 1WB the Editorial Board, Professor J. den Boeft, Commanderijpoort for review should be sent to Professor J. van Leiden, The Netherlands. Books
PUBLISHER: PUBLISHED: SUBSCRIPTIONS:
Oort,DepartmentofEcclesiasticalHistory,P.O. Box 80105, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected]. Brill Academic Publishers May, August andNovember Four timesa year: February, The subscription price ofVolume 60 (2006) isEUR 229.- (US$ 286.-) for institutions, and EUR 71.- (US$ 89.-) for individuals,inclusiveof postage and handling charges. All prices are exclusive not applicable outside the EU).
of VAT
in EU-countries
(VAT
Subscriptionordersare accepted forcompletevolumesonly.Orders take
effect with the first issue of any year. Orders may also be entered on an auto matic continuing basis. Cancellations will only be accepted if they are received 1st of the year preceding is before October the year inwhich the cancellation issues will be met, free of charge, ifmade to take effect. Claims formissing customers and five months for within three months of dispatch for European
customersoutsideEurope. Once
the issue
is published
ourwebsite:www.brill.nl. OFFICES:
BACKVOLUMES: BACK
ISSUES:
Subscription orders may or direct to the publisher.
the actual
be made
dates
of dispatch
via any bookseller
can be found on
or subscription
agency,
U.S.A. TheNetherlands Brill Academic PublishersInc. Brill Academic Publishers 112Water Street,Suite 400 P.O. Box 9000 2300 PA Leiden Boston,MA 02109 Tel: +31 71 535 35 66 Tel: 1-800-962-4406 (toll free) Fax: +31 71 531 75 32 Fax: (617) 263 2324 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] All backvolumesare available from:PeriodicalsServiceCompany, 11Main /www. Street,Germantown, NY 12526, USA. [email protected] periodicals.com/brill.html Back
issues of the current and last two years are available VISIT THE BRILL WEBSITE: WWW.BRILL.NL
BRILL LEIDEN BOSTON
from Brill.
MELITO'S INFLUENCE UPON THE ANAPHORA OF APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS 8. 12' BY PAUL GAVRILYUK ABSTRACT: Drawing upon thework of Enrico Mazza, this article shows that Melito's On Soul and Body,which survives in fragmentaryform in several ver sions, was one of the literarysources of the anaphora found in Apostolic 8. 12 (AC). Specifically,six verbally similar clauses shared by the Constitutions theopaschitechristologicalhymn of On Soul andBody 13 and the Post-Sanctus of AC 8. 12. 33-4, as well as the threeother literaryparallels between On Pascha 46-105 and AC 8. 12 attest the anaphora's literarydependence upon Melito's works. In addition, a considerable overlap in contentbetweenMelito's and theAC redactor's (1) hymns in praise of the creator; (2) salvationhistories based upon theOT hero lists; (3) recitalsof divine acts in Exodus, make it probable that the oral traditionattestedby On Pascha is behind thePreface of the anaphora. In his essay on the evolution of early anaphoras Paul Bradshaw has urged that 'ifwe are to have a full and proper appreciation of the formation of the so-called "classical" eucharistic prayers of the fourth century' we need 'to cast the net much more widely, to draw in all potential sources of evi dence from the first three centuries'.2 Enrico Mazza
suggested that one of
such neglected sources was the second and third century paschal including the material Mazza's
valuable
attributed to Melito
of Sardis.
insight,4 this article shows thatMelito's
literature,
Drawing
upon
On Soul and Body,
1The author is on how suggestions grateful toWalter D. Ray for providing valuable to improve section four of this article. 2 Paul F. in Essays on of Early Anaphoras', 'Introduction: The Evolution Bradshaw, ed. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, Early Eastern Eucharistie Prayers, Paul F. Bradshaw,
1997),9.
3 Mazza,
The Origins of theEucharistie Prayer (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), e Birkat ha-mazon: di Ippolito?' fonti delPanaphora id., 'Omelie pasquali Ephemerides Liturgicae 97 (1983), 409-81. 4 as well as concur with his obser toMazza's I owe much general insight, Although sources of the anaphora of Apostolic Constitutions 8. 12 the vations regarding paschal 102-49. See also
{Origins, 129-33),
I at the same time share Paul Bradshaw's
? Koninklijke Brill NV,Leiden,2005
Also available online- www.brill.nl
reservations
regarding Mazza's
Vigiliae Christianae 59,355-376
356
PAUL
GAVRILYUK
which survives in fragmentary form in several versions, was one of the lit erary sources of the anaphora AC).
found in Apostolic Constitutions 8. 12 (hereafter
In addition, I argue that the redactor of AC
drew upon the oral tra
dition behind Melito's
(hereafter PP). I begin with a brief dis irplpnaiax cussion of PP's genre and the text-criticaldifficultiesassociated with On Soul and Body (section one). I then survey the state of historical research on the sources of the anaphora
in question (section two). In section three I estab
lish several literary parallels between Melito's
two works and AC
8. 12. I
subsequently analyze the structural similarities between the three units in PP and the Preface of the anaphora
(section four) and come to the conclusion
that such similarities owe more
to common oral tradition, than they do
directly to the Bible or other sources.
1 It has been widely accepted thatMelito
is the author of PP and that the
work was most probably written in the sixties of the second century.6Apart from the Greek Georgian,
original, there are three surviving translations: Coptic,
and fragmentary Syriac, an indication of a relativelywide circu
lation ofMelito's writings in late antiquity. The
determination of PP's genre has proved to be controversial. F. L.
Cross suggested that this document is not a mere homily, as was previously believed, but instead should be viewed as a Christian paschal haggadah.7 Stuart Hall offered additional arguments in support of Cross's suggestion.8 Hall pointed out that PP is divided into the twomajor parts. He contended that chapters 1-45 drew upon the tradition of the pre-Passover homilies on Exodus
12 and
that the remaining chapters 46-105
Christianized version of the Jewish Passover haggadah.9
qualified
as a
In the absence of
thesis that the anaphora of Hippolytus depends upon the material uniquely characteris tic of paschal literature. See Paul Bradshaw, 'A Paschal Root to the Anaphora of the to Enrico Mazza', Studia Patr?stica xxxv (2001), 257-65. Apostolic Tradition?' A Response 5 This title is attested by Papyrus Bodmer 13. See M. Testuz, Papyrus Bodmer XIII, M?liton de Sardes Hom?lie sur la P?que (Geneva: Bodmer, text: S. G. Hall, 1960). Critical Melito 6
of Sardis: On Pascha and Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979). See Hall, Melito of Sardis, xvii-xxii. 7 The Early Christian Fathers (London, 1960), 104-9. Cross's position was challenged by on the Form of Melito's 'Some Comments Paschal Homily', Studia J. I. H. McDonald, Patr?stica 12 pt. 1 (1975), 104-12. 8 'Melito in the Light of the Passover Haggadah', JTS 22 (1971), 29-46. 9 In addition to internal considerations, Hall brought out three external pieces of evi
MELITO'S
UPON
INFLUENCE
THE
357
ANAPHORA
reliable evidence for the second century Jewish paschal practices, the Cross hypothesis, recently challenged by Lynn Cohick, remains highly spec
Hall
ulative.10However,
itmay be regarded as established that themajor division
of PP occurs in chapter 46. The
second part could be more
cautiously
described as a liturgical prose hymn.'1 authorship of the surviving fragmentary version of
The case forMelito's
On Soul and Body is not quite as strong as that for PP. For this reason the authenticity of On Soul and Body warrants a brief discussion here. Partially overlapping fragmentary portions of thiswork survive in seven versions.'2 The only version that attributes thiswork toMelito tury FlorilegiumEdessenum anonymum.The
is found in the fifthcen
heading of the fragment reads:
'Melito, bishop of Sardis, from his treatise On Soul and Body'.'3 This version of the text is commonly designated as fragment 13.14The
title On Soul and
Body is obviously a misnomer for the text that deals primarily with the the ological significance of Christ's passion. Nevertheless, I will use this title as a convenient umbrella term to designate the (now lost) original that can be reconstructed with some degree of accuracy from the surviving fragmentary versions. The most complete (although not necessarily themost reliable) version of On Soul and Body containing, with minor variations, fr. 13, was discovered by Van
Esbroek
in a Georgian
Alexandria?).'5 Hall
homily, under
the name of Athanasius
(of
designated this text as 'the new fragment ii'.16 In addi
tion, the original Greek may be partially reconstructed fromPs.-Epiphanius's De
and from the homily on the Ascension resurrectionel7
found among
the
version circulating as for the major division of PP in chapter 46: (1) a Georgian of the same work; of two books, presumably two separate works; (2) Eusebius's mention on the pascha. See Hall, a of structure division and similar homily Ps.-Hippolytus's (3)
dence
46. 'Melito in the Light of the Passover Haggadah', 10 In addition notes that the thematic parallels to the dearth of evidence, Cohick are all biblical. See The Peri the second part of PP and the pesach haggadah between Pascha
Attributed toMelito
additional
evidence
148. The Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), of Sardis (Providence: in A. Stewart-Sykes, The Lamb's High Feast (Leiden: Brill, criticism. the Cross-Hall hypothesis immune from Cohick's
presented little tomake
1998), 32-6 does 11On see Stewart-Sykes, The Lamb's High Feast, 100-4, 114. this characterization 12 discussion of Sardis, xxxiv-xxxvii. largely upon Hall, Melito depends My 13P. Nautin, Le dossier d'Hippolyte et deM?liton (Paris: Cerf, 1953), 56-7. 14 I. C. T. Otto, Corpus apologetarum christianorum (Jena, 1872), ix. 419. Following 15M. Van de Sardes', Analecta Bollandiana 'Nouveaux Esbroeck, fragments de M?liton
90 (1972),63-99.
16 Hall, Melito of Sardis, 86-95. 17Critical text: P. Nautin, Dossier,
155-9.
PAUL
358
GAVRILYUK
spurious works of John Chrysostom."8 There ing the name of Athanasius of Alexandria, under the name of Alexander The
arguments forMelito's
is also a Coptic version bear
as well as two Syriac fragments
of Alexandria.'9 authorship of fr. 13 and by extension of the
corresponding part of new fr. iimay be briefly summarized as follows: 1. Eusebius
lists thework with a very similar20 title, ?pi pwuXi; inHE 4. 26. 2.
Kalt cLRato;,
among thewritings ofMelito 2. There
are no
Edessene
reasons
to suspect the compiler of the fifth century
florilegium of deliberately falsifying the name of the author of
fr. 13. If the compiler knew thisparticular version of thework under the name of any of the two great bishops of Alexandria, he would have pre ferred to claim their incomparably greater authority for the proof-text he cited in support of his controversial monophysite position.2' 3. Most
importantly, there are numerous close parallels between the ideas
and expressions of On Soul and Body (new fr. ii) and PP. The
style is like
wise markedly similar. These parallels may be summarized as follows (I also note parallels with fr. 15 for the reasons discussed below):22 Table A Themes a. List of theOT figureswho prefiguredtheLord's sufferings b. 'Improperia' c. Theopaschite statements d. Nature's reaction toGod's death e. Teleology of Christ's passion f. Summary hymn g. 'he rose from the dead as God'
18 Reconstructed
new fr. ii
PP
fr. 15
2-3 8. 68-9. 85 10 11 14 19 21. 227
59; 69 72; 90 96 97-8 66; 100
19-27 40-3
58-70 8. 53
text in M. Richard, 'T?moins grecs des fragments xiii et xv de M?liton de Sardes', Le Mus?on 85 (1972), 309-17. 19 Hall, Melito of Sardis, xxxv. 20 For see Hall, Melito variant readings of the tide in Eusebius of Sardis, xiv. Rufinus and Jerome support the reading of the Syriac florilegium. 21 In the name of fact, the compiler did include a fuller version of fr. 13 under Alexander of Alexandria in the same collection. See Hall, Melito of Sardis, xxxiv-v. 22 I collected most of this information from the footnotes in Hall, Melito ofSardis, 82-4, 86-95.
MELITO'S
INFLUENCE
UPON
THE
ANAPHORA
359
A detailed analysis of this evidence would warrant a separate study. In some places the correspondence
is so close that On Soul and Body reads like
a variation on the themes of PP. The bined together,make Melito Both contemporaries
and
above-discussed considerations, com
themost likely author of On Soul and Body. later Christian
work.23M. Richard discovered a Greek
authors drew upon Melito's
text ofMelito's
fr. 15 imbedded in
a litany attributed to John Chrysostom.24 This is an important testimony to the liturgical adaptation ofMelito's
hymnography, possibly coming from the
same area and liturgical tradition as AC. As we can see from table A, fr. 15 shares a number of themes and expressions with new fr. ii, the principal source of On Soul and Body. Moreover,
on stylisticgrounds Egon Wellesz
identified PP as a forerun
ner of a major genre of Byzantine hymnography, the kontakion.25 It is pos sible that PP
72 and 90, together with
sources, are behind proaches Western
the related biblical and Jewish
the tradition of Good
Friday
of Christ against his unfaithful people, liturgical traditions.26Melito's
'Improperia', or re in both Eastern
and
bold theopaschitism finds extensive
literary parallels in the theopaschite hymnography of the Byzantine Lenten Triodion.27 There tor of AC
is, therefore, a solid antecedent probability that the redac
could put Melito's
two works to liturgical use.
23 See Bonner, The Homily on thePassion, 56-65. 24 'T?moins de Sardes', 318-21. grecs des fragments xiii et xv de M?liton 25 E. on the Passion: An Investigation 'Melito's Homily into the Sources of J. Wellesz, JTS 44 (1943), 41-52. Byzantine Hymnography', 26 Sebasti? Janeras, Le Vendredi-Saint dans la tradition liturgique byzantine: structureet histoire s. Anselmo, de ses offices(Rome: Pontificio Ateneo 1988), esp. 260-70. For the discussion of the sources
see E. Werner, 'Melito of Sardes, the First Poet of Melito's Tmproperia' 'On the Jewish Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966), 191-210; M. D. Brocke, ', Immanuel 1 (1977), 44-51. Origin of the "Improperia" 27 See Mother and Kallistor Ware, trans., The Lenten Trioditon (South Canaan, Mary PA: St. Tikhon's 371, 393, 394, 397, 423, 510, 532, 543, Press, 359, 2001), Seminary of D?icide',
compilers of the Triodion drew upon the oral homiletic tra of Rome, Contra and including the works of Hippolytus stemming from Melito the Syrian, De crucifixioneIV. 6; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat?ch?ses JVoetum18; AC 8. 12; Ephrem of Iconium, Serm. 5 13. 13; Asterius of Amasea, Serm. 19 (PG 59: 721-23); Amphilochius of Constantinople, Serm. 13. 4 (PG 40: 433); Romanos the {CCSG iii. 133); Proclus 583, 587, 594, 595, 642. The
dition
'to ?pyov xov Me^?xcovoc Akathistos Hymn. Panagiotos Chrestos, Ilepi Il?o^a ra? xo?) rcaOouc', Kleronomia 1 (1969), 65-78; see also my The Sufferingof theImpassible God: The Dialectics ofPatristic Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 128.
Melodist,
ocKotan)9ia
PAUL
360
GAVRILYUK
2
AC
is a church order ofWest
nance. The
collection acquired
Syrian, most probably Antiochene prove its final form around 380.28 Theologically
in general and the anaphora
AC
in question
in particular manifests pro
nounced, although not entirely consistent, anhomoian
tendencies.29 I will
show in the next section that the redactor's theological leanings account for some changes that he introduced into the text ofMelito's included into the anaphora of AC AC
On Soul and Body
8.
1-6 incorporates the material
from the Didascalia Apostolorum.AC
7
represents a substantially reworked version of the Didache in the light of the fourth century liturgical practices. The
redactor also had at his disposal at
least one other church order, the Hippolytean AT). The
Apostolic Tradition (hereafter
latter is an early third century document with a very complex his
tory of transmission into which we cannot enter here.30 Broadly the eighth book of AC
speaking,
follows the outline of AT.3' Particularly relevant for
the present study is the fact that the eucharistic prayer inAT tially incorporated intoAC
8. 12. The
the short anamnesis of AT
432was par
redactor took the initial dialogue and
4 and inserted them into his anaphora
largely
28 Critical
text:M. Metzger, ed. and trans., Les ConstitutionsApostoliques, in SC 320, 329, Minor Cerf, (Paris: 1985-7). interpolations and changes were introduced into the text in the process of transmission. See M. Metzger, 'The Didascalia and Constitutiones Apos
336
tolorum1in The Eucharist of theEarl)! Christians (New York: Pueblo, 1976), 212. 29 Some inconsistencies may be due to later orthodox tempering with the text, notice able in a number of surviving manuscripts. For the discussion of anhomoian tendencies
see Georges Wagner, 'Une Liturgie Anom?enne', in Trinit? et liturgie, ed. A. M. Triacca and A. Pistoia Edizioni (Rome: 1984), 385-93. Tomas Liturgiche, Kopecek provides a the Evidence convincing reconstruction of the anhomoian liturgy in 'Neo-Arian Religion:
of the Apostolic Constitutions', in Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments (Cambridge, Patristic Foundation, still Philadelphia 1985), 153-79. I find the term semi-Arianism, used by some liturgical scholars to characterize the theological of the redactor, leanings
MA:
the term 'semi-Arian' is normally used to characterize the quite unsatisfactory because in contrast, followed Homoian the theological redactor, party. The AC teachings of Eunomius, who held that the Son was a creation of the Father's will and was unlike the Father in essence, hence the designation 'anhomoian'. 30 See recent discussion the most in A. Stewart-Sykes, Hippolytus: On the Apostolic Tradition (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's 11-52. Seminary Press, 2001), 31 see M. For the comparison of structures of the two anaphoras 'Les deux Metzger, des Constitutions Revue Sciences des pri?res eucharistiques Apostoliques', Religieuses 45 (1971), 56-7. 32The best witness survives
for AT
4
is the Latin
in a single fifth century palimpsest.
translation See
from the original Greek, Stewart-Sykes, Hippolytus, 45-6.
which
MELITO'S
INFLUENCE
UPON
THE
ANAPHORA
361
verbatim, expanding themwith several biblical quotations. He partially bor rowed the epiclesis of AT
4. 12 and considerably reworked it in AC
39. W. H. Bates and E. Mazza
proposed
12. 8.
that the three common expres
sions listed in table B below could serve as the additional evidence of the redactor's dependence upon AT
4:33 Table B
AT 4 B
AC 8. 12
1 angelum voluntatis
tuae ...
B 2
per quem
B 3
voluntatem
B 4
ut a passione
B 5
et vincula diaboli dirumpat
omnia
tuam complens
8t' ov r&a'tvra
(v. 7)
(v. 7)
To O?Xijga' cou iXnkpwaev
liberaret ... ut mortem
solvat
(v. 32)
"va nr00ou; XvOfl KicaiOav&rov ?EX ... Kat
(vv. 7, 8)
at
4ilj la 8&aug toi 8tao3Xou
'angel of his great counsel' and
It should be noted thatAC's whom
...
ayyr).ov Cin;REy6a'X% Bo00,ii 0ov
fecisti (vv. 4, 5)
all things'more possibly derive directly from LXX
(v. 33)
'through
Is. 9: 5 (a{toio
gey Xmc,oukij
a`yyeXo;)and 1Cor 8: 6b (&t' o' ta lcivta). Since the redac tor quotes theBible more precisely thanAT, themediation ofAT is unlikely
in this case.34 The second expression, 'fulfilledyour will', is so brief and gen eral that it can hardly be considered a borrowing. The
third parallel is the
most extensive and makes a compelling case for the redactor's dependence upon AT
4. 7-8 in thisverse. Mazza
has shown thatHippolytus's
cumpatere
tur,ut a passione liberaret... in turn reflects the play on themeanings of the word passio, 'suffering'and 'passion' (taken in this context sensumalo as 'sinful desire'), the jeu de mots characteristic of paschal This evidence shows that the redactor used AT ing upon
this earlier anaphora
literature.35 4 very selectively, draw
primarily in composing his anamnesis.
It
should be noted that the redactor borrowed the account of institution from a different source, evidently deeming thematerial of AT for his purposes. In addition, AC anaphora
of Hippolytus:
4. 9-10 unsuitable
8. 12 has two parts lacking entirely in the
the Sanctus
(together with
the elaborate Post
Sanctus section) and the intercessions.We may agree with Raphael
Graves
33 'The Composition of the Anaphora of Apostolic Constitutions VHP, Studia Patr?stica 13 pt. 2 (1975), 343-55; Mazza, The Origins of theEucharistie Prayer, 106-29. 34 Bates and Mazza do not discuss the biblical background of this text. 35 Origins, 117-19; cf. n. 49 below.
PAUL
362
GAVRILYUK
that 'it is difficult to account for the anaphora of AC AT
8 as an expansion of
alone.'36 It has been frequently noted that the redactor drew upon his own col
lection of prayers found in AC
7. 33-8. Some of these prayers have been
alleged to derive from the synagogue worship.37 I will return to this issue when I consider the structural parallels between Melito's
PP and AC
8. 12
in section four. In his comparative study John Fenwick proposed 8, together with the (Syriac) anaphora
AC
that the anaphora
of
of the twelve apostles (APSyr)
and the anaphora of the liturgyof St John Chrysostom (CHR), ultimately derived from one ancestral form that was not extant (UR-APSyr/CHR).38 While
acknowledging multiple anaphoral
sources behind AC
drew attention to the large amount of material
8. 12, Graves
that the Pre-Sanctus of AC
8. 12 and the descendents of the fourth century anaphora of St Basil (UR BAS) shared in common.39 These
findingsmay be schematically summed up
thus: Statusquestionis AT4
\
\ ~ ~~~~ XUR-APSyr/CHR/BAS
|
| ancestor| ~~Jewish |of AC 7. 33-7
|
36
'The Anaphora of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions', in Essays onEarly Eastern Eucharistie Prayers, 178. 37 For a summary see David Fiensy, 'The Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers: One Hundred Years of Discussion', 'The Journal of theStudy of thePseudepigrapha 5 (1989), 17-27; Graves, of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic 174-8. Constitutions', Anaphora 38 'The Missing Oblation': The Contents of the Early Antiochene Anaphora Fenwick, (Nottingham: Grove Books, 1989). 39 'The Anaphora of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic 194. Constitutions',
MELITO'S
Valuable
INFLUENCE
UPON
THE
363
ANAPHORA
as these findings are, it is generally recognized that 'much of the
content of the anaphora ofAC
8 has no close parallel in any other surviving
early eucharistic prayer'.40 In what follows I will show thatMelito's supply several missing tesserae in themosaic
of the anaphora
twoworks
in question.
3 8 that finds
It is precisely the unique material of the Post-Sanctus of AC the closest literaryparallels inMelito's
On Soul and Body. The Post-Sanctus
begins by recapitulating the second part of the Preface: humanity's ever increasing captivity to sin despite God's history. The Post-Sanctus thenmoves
OT
providential interventions in the to the incarnation and ends with
a theopaschite hymn praising the divine Son's self-limitation in the passion. The
relevant part from the hymn togetherwith the parallel passage
Melito's
from
On Soul and Body is reproduced in Table C below (identical words
and expressions are underlined with a continuous line; similar expressions with a broken line): Table C AC C
0
(He was delivered
8. 12. 33 to Pilate
C
1
the judge was
C
2
and
C
3
the impassible was nailed
Melito, the governor and)
to the cross;
the immortal by nature died;
C
the life-givr
one was buried.43
and the heavenly And
the Lord was born a man
and was
7
judged
in order to pity man,
C 8
he was bound
C
9
he was
C
10
he suffered passion
C
11
in order to free from passions
C
12
from death
C
13
in order to break
those forwhose
C
14
deliver humankind
seen42
and the impassible suffered, and the immortal died,
was buried
C 6 C
sake that):
judged
and the invisible was
condemned;
C 4 5
forman's
the judge was
judged
the Savior was
(It was
On Soul and Body 13. 131-541
and release
sake he came;
the bonds of the devil and from his deceit.
in order to release,
flogged in order to pardon, for you by the
cross in order to free you from passions, he died by the cross to make
you alive by the cross,
he was buried
40
to raise you.
'The Missing Oblation': The Contents of theEarly Antiochene Ibid., 194; cf. Fenwick, 1989), 34. Anaphora (Nottingham: Grove Books, 41 = new textual variations noted in fr. ii. 13. 131-5 = fr. 13. 27-33 with the major footnotes 41 and 42. 42 Fr. 13 adds 'and the immeasurable was measured'. 43New fr. ii. 13. 135 adds 'in the earth'.
PAUL
364
Clauses on line C
GAVRILYUK
1 are identical in translation. The
series of oxymorons
on lines C 3-C 5 follow the same sequence of ideas expressed in a remark ably similar way. On what
line C 3 the redactor improved upon Melito's
artificial parallelism
impassible was nailed
and changed
some
'the impassible suffered' to 'the
to the cross', retaining Melito's meaning.
the redactor inserted 'by nature' intoMelito's
Likewise,
clause on line C 4 to sharpen
the paradox and, perhaps, for the sake of greater theological precision. It may be objected
that the sequence of Christ's actions on lines C
3
C 5: 'suffered/died/buried' is, broadly speaking, creedal and as such does not show conclusively the redactor's dependence upon thematerial unique toMelito. To make
this objection even stronger, similar theopaschite state
ments, i.e., the statements inwhich sufferingor death are attributed to the unmistakably divine subject,44could be found in other second and third cen turyworks. For example, a fragment attributed toMelito's
contemporary,
Apollinaris of Hierapolis, presumably from the book entitled On Pascha, con tains the same judex judicatusmotif as found on line C living and Campbell
the dead was Bonner,
judged'
to whom
(o KptOEi; Kprl
1: 'the judge of the
Cxvv
I owe this parallel, proposed
K Ra v Kp v).45 that Apollinaris
and Melito most likelyknew each other personally and had the opportunity to share their reflections on various aspects of the paschal celebration.46 To
be sure, other early Christian authors also used
guage. However,
theopaschite lan
all other surviving expressions are even more distant from
those found in AC
8. 12. 33 than the above quoted passage
from Apol
linaris.47It is the convergence of the sequence of ideas with the oxymorons used to express these ideas that uniquely qualifies Melito's most plausible source behind AC
On Soul and Body as the
8. 12. 33. An additional consideration will
further support my case. Melito
repeats the sequence very similar to C
1-C 14 twice in the pre
ceding part of On Soul and Body. Such unusual repetition,more characteris tic of liturgical hymns than of homiletic literature, indicates the importance of thismaterial forMelito. This
'Bolero-like' reiterationwas possibly meant
to increase the dramatic effectofMelito's words. The 44 I follow
the definition
of theopaschite
in Second-Century Irenaeus', D. Phil,
'Theopaschite
Expressions',
236-42.
in ques
in M. Slusser, expressions 'Theopaschite as Reflected in theWritings of Justin, Melito,
Expressions Christianity Celsus and thesis (Oxford, 1975), 8. 45 Fr. 4. Otto, Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum ix. 487. 46 Bonner, The Homily on thePassion, 56. 47 Cf. esp. Hippolytus, Contra JVoetum 18. For a catalog Slusser,
two passages
of the relevant
passages
see
MELITO'S
INFLUENCE
UPON
THE ANAPHORA
tion are compared against the Greek original of AC (see appendix). In both cases Melito's
365
8. 12. 33 in table D
original Greek may be reconstructed,
followingM. Richard, almost entirely from ps.-Epiphanius's De resurrectione. Turning on line C
to table D, we may observe that the judex judicatusmotif found 1 is similarly developed on line D
closely paralleled by the sequence D omission.48 All textsmove
sequence C 3-C 5 is
from the statement of the paradox
be called its teleological resolution: God
towhat may
suffered in orderto free humankind
repeat my earlier observation, it is the convergence of
from passions.49 To the sequence
1. The
3-D 5, with slight variations and one
'judged/ .../ suffered/died/ buried' with boldly theopaschite
language chosen to express it, togetherwith themovement ological resolution of the paradox tor's literary dependence
towards the tele
thatmakes a strong case for the redac
upon On Soul and Body, and not on any other
source. In addition, AC
8. 12. 33 contains threeminor points of contact with the reproduced in table D:
material fromMelito (D 5) echoes Melito's
(a) The
redactor's 6o )onoto';
6o 4ooyovFv (D 4); (b) the redactor's
icaOt OavaTot
FT4hXqai to&rou; &t' oi; napqyiveo appears to be a reworking ofMelito's cA&?jXXovto xuxai (D 9); (c) it is also possible to discern a ring ofMelito's o Ki'pto;
&v?c0"
?K VEKp(OV KatIraflxa;
-ov 00vaxTov
MAx&sas;
TOv
icspov
KcficXa ta 68e-ag toio 6xaoXou n tt RtXcaax; -ov &vOponrov in the redactor's ico't yi st\ i EI pa Irat tot; avvpJo0; K ti5;a&iar6i; au'ob. Kat acVFA'tT9 ?K V?KIpO)V... individually each of these three parallels does not prove
(D 10-D 14). Taken
anything conclusively. But if they are considered togetherwith the rest of the evidence discussed above, the convergence is considerable and points to Melito's
On Soul and Body as one of the literary sources behind the Post
Sanctus of theAC
anaphora.
Curiously, the redactor's use of On Soul and Body furnishes an additional argument forMelito's
authorship of thiswork. To
remind the reader, the
fragments of On Soul and Body are variously attributed toMelito, Alexander of Alexandria
(in three sources), Athanasius of Alexandria
John Chrysostom
in the surviving manuscripts.
48 impassibilis passus is lacking in new Although new fr. ii. 13. 49 As we saw in section two, the text of AC 8.
(also thrice), and
It is impossible that the
fr. ii. 10 (line D
3), it does
appear
in
12. 33 (lines C 11- C 13) finds a more 'suffered to free from passions' is also See In sanctumpascha 49, and, therefore, is not unique toMelito. found in Ps.-Hippolytus, 118. that the redactor follows Melito's Ps. and Mazza, Note, however, Origins, a passione a passionibus (plural), rather than AT's (singular). Hippolytus's extensive
parallel
in AT
4.
7-8. The
expression
PAUL
366
GAVRILYUK
redactor knew thiswork under the name ofJohn Chrysostom, since the lat ter became
in 381 and, as a younger orthodox contemporary,
a deacon
could not serve as an 'apostolic' authority for the redactor who was com pleting his work in the eighties of the fourth century at the latest.Given redactor's anhomoian would
the
leanings it is highly unlikely, ifnot impossible, that he
use anything authored by Alexander
opponents of all versions of Arianism
or Athanasius,
the staunchest
in the fourth century.Melito
appears
to be the only suitable candidate on the list, unless the redactor knew the work under some other name, which In addition to the parallel
is unlikely.
texts discussed above,
the beginning of the
Christological part of the Pre-Sanctus contains a number of points thatmay best be explained by the redactor's reliance, ifnot direct dependence, upon Melito. The relevant passage from On Soul and Body reads (the original Greek is not extant): 'He put on a body from a virgin for the sake of humans, he who
isWord
and Man
with you (vobiscum); and God
iswith God.
For God
Compare
isMan, he had
sent his Son, who was fleshless (non
carnem habentem), that he might become and be born a man...'50
and Word
visited his own creation, which
in his imagje and likeness. He
made
isWord,
incarnate in the virgin's womb
this textwith AC
8. 12. 31: 'He was
begotten of a virgin (1Yvwvo? E ?K napO'vou), he became God
theWord
in
the flesh (yev6vsvo;0?V aapKI 0 O0e6 Aoyog) (. . .)The one who formed all whoQare born, was born in the virgin's womb. The fleshless one took flesh (Kai
? EcpK0)101
O
aapKo;).
Itmay be observed that (a) both texts contain a rather awkward and (con sidering themovement of thought) quite unnecessary repetition of the point that theWord
became
incarnate of the virgin;(b) the second time the vir
gin's involvement ismentioned, both texts specify that theWord womb; (c) it is likely thatMelito's AC
8. 12. 31; (d) theWord's
texts and contrasted with his own becoming
flesh. Additionally, Melito's
abrupt and otherwise unattested switch to the second person: Word
'he who
is
with you' gives some grounds for believing that this textmay have
been used as a prayer addressing God, which by the redactor of AC.
50 Melito, ations. Last Dossier,
used her
non camem habentemis behind 6oa6capKo; of creation of humanity ismentioned in both
58.
new
fr. ii. 4. 27-36;
sentence
is precisely how it is treated
In this case it is not the literary parallels, but the
cf. fr. 13. 2-3. Trans.
is reconstructed
from Ps.-Alexander,
Hall, Melito,
87 with
Additamentum A;
slight alter text in Nautin,
MELITO'S
INFLUENCE
UPON
THE
ANAPHORA
367
awkwardness of the repeated references to the virgin and other oddities that make
the redactor's reliance upon Melito's
text plausible.5'
It is also possible to hear a reverberation ofMelito's
ideas in one pecu
liar turn of phrase that occurs in the redactor's rather free rendering of the words of institution (AC 8. 12. 36). After the introductoryphrase: 'He broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying. . .' taken fromMt
26: 26, the redac
tor gives Christ's words over bread in the following unusual form: 'This is themystery of the new covenant (Toi'ro tb gtuX'jpiov ti; iccatvi;&aOii): take from it, eat, this ismy body broken formany for the remission of sins.' The expression 'the mysterion of the new covenant' is not biblical. Moreover, in the relevant NT
passages
the expression 'of the (new) covenant' always
qualifies the bloodof Christ, not his body.52 It is noteworthy thatMelito
uses
theword mysterionfifteen times in PP and at least three times in On Soul and Body, often with the adjective kainon.53In Melito mysterionrefers consistently to Christ's
prefigured in the slaughter of the Passover
passion
lamb.
says that 'themystery of the Passover has been fulfilled
Specifically, Melito
in the bodyof the Lord'
(PP 56. 396). It is possible, then, that the redactor's
odd reference to Christ's broken body as 'themystery of the new covenant' is an echo ofMelito's
linking of 'the new mystery' with the body of Christ.
Finally, twominor parallels between PP and the anaphora of AC be noted. Both are found in a lengthy Preface of AC God's work in creation and history. Campbell (aY evo; ocauaov of 6oaI'aa;
8 may
8, which celebrates
Bonner noted that o zarni
('who limited the deep') inAC
8. 12. 13 could be an echo
('who formed the deep')
in PP 82. 600. Likewise, o
i5azeuov
?K'rCtVa; t6o itep?,u ('who spread out the firmament') in PP 82. 601 could be behind 6o in'ao acep&oga ('who fixed the firmament') in AC 8. 12. 9.54 Indicating the biblical background of these expressions, Bonner was careful not to draw any far-reaching conclusions. He was also the firstto point out the structural parallels between PP 82 and AC
8. 12. 6-13. It is to these and
related issues thatwe now turn.
51 The redactor's rather repetitious preference for yivoum, which he uses three times in our passage (yevousvo? ek rcapo?voi), yev?jxevoc ?v aapK?, y?yovev ?v \ir\xpanap??vo-o), and the corresponding of the verb yevv?co is another testimony to his anho avoidance moian sensibilities. It is noteworthy that some manuscripts replace the first yev?fievoc with in the history of textual transmission. 'correction' is common yevvo|xevo?. Such orthodox See
SC 336, p.
194.
52Mk 14: Mt 26: 24, 28, Lk 22: 20, 1Cor 11: 25; Heb 9: 20, 29; 13: 20. 53
54
For
two instances
Bonner,
The Homily
see line D
0 in table D.
on thePassion,
144.
PAUL
368
GAVRILYUK
4
E presents the structural parallels between the anaphora
Table
inAC
8
and the second part of PP (liturgical units are italicized): Table E Doxology after the litany of the faithful (11. 6)
Doxology (45. 300) PP 46-105
Anaphora
of AC
8. 12
Initial dialogue.Preface (12. 6-26) [Cf. Praise of Christ the Creator Creation of man
Praise of God Fall &
(48-56)
OT
salvation history (57-65) sufferingprefigured inOT
Word's
the Creator & his Christ (12. 6-15)
Creation of man
Fall and its consequences OT
in PP 82]
(47)
(12. 16-19)
its consequences
(12. 20)
salvation history (12. 21-6) Saving acts throughOT
figures
figures (12. 21-4)
(57-60; cf. new fr. ii. 1-3) and prophesied (6 1-65) [Cf. Saving acts in Exodus in 84]
Saving acts in Exodus (12. 25-6) Sanctus (12. 27)
Doxology (65. 450) Incarnation, ministry in the light of passion
Post-Sanctus. Incarnation, ministry leading to
(66-105; cf. new fr. ii. 4-17)
passion (12. 28-35)
Three
similar units deserve special consideration:
1. PP 82 and AC
8. 12. 8-13. As shown in table E, in PP 82 we find a
hymn in praise of Christ portrayed as a creator. The hymn mentions creation of light, day, darkness,
'firstmarker',
world, stars, luminaries, angels, thrones, and man. the Preface of AC thenmoves
8. 12 speaks of God's
the
earth, abyss, firmament, Similarly, the prayer in
creation of the invisible powers and
to the description of the visible creation. Having
drawn atten
tion to the similaritybetween the two lists,Bonner suggested that they could have a commonJewish ancestor. In his critical edition Hall briefly criticized Bonner
for exaggerating the resemblances and claimed
ground was
that the common
'all biblical'.55
A closer analysis shows that neither Melito,
nor the redactor of AC
fol
lowed consistently any one particular biblical passage enumerating various aspects of creation. The Preface of AC
55 See
Bonner,
The Homily
ofMelito,
8. 12 contains eleven out of thirteen
25-7; Hall, Melito
of Sardis, 45 n. 51, 47 n.
MELITO'S
itemsmentioned
INFLUENCE
UPON
in PP 82. In comparison, the anaphora
by Melito
porates only nine items out of a much in Genesis
1. Other
THE ANAPHORA
369
incor
longerlist of created things described
relevant biblical texts, such as the great Hallel
(Ps 136)
and Isaiah 44: 24-8, despite their length, have even less in common with thematerial AC
in AC. The mention of angels and thrones in both PP 82 and
8. 12 is a feature not shared by the relevant biblical lists (Ps 148 men
tions angels, but does not mention
thrones).Although no far-reaching con
clusions can be made on the basis of this evidence, it is highly probable that some extra-biblical tradition, such as reflected in PP 82, is behind this part of our anaphora. 2. Melito's
writings under consideration and AC
accounts of theOT
salvation history. Although
7-8 contain several
the overarching themes of
these accounts vary, all of them are based upon the listsof theOT There are four such accounts inMelito,
heroes.
the fullestone found in the new fr.
ii. 3 (= On Soul and Body 3). The oral tradition behind the hero lists inMelito is remarkably stable, since the list in PP 59 is a subset of the list in PP 69, in turn is a subset of the list in fr. 15, which
which
likewise is a subset of
themost extensive list in the new fr. ii. 3.56 Incidentally, such strong resem blance between PP 59, 69 and the new fr. ii. 3 furnishes another piece of evidence in support ofMelito's
authorship of On Soul and Body. In table F in
the appendix I give a detailed comparison of the pertinent listswith select biblical passages.57 The hero list inAC In addition, AC
8. 12. 20-6 is of principal concern to us in this study.
contains four other somewhat different lists. In the prayer
of thanksgiving inAC the names of the OT
7. 38 the expression 'in the days of' is repeated before is an indication that the names some
figures. This
times functioned as rough chronological markers. A substantially different hero list in AC
7. 39 (F 10) appears
in the context of the baptismal cate
chesis. In this case the names could serve as convenient mnemonic
tools for
learning salvation history.58
56 See
table F, columns F 4-7. appendix, 57 Other relevant biblical lists, such as 1Mac 16: 16-23, 18: 11-19, 2: 51-60, 4 Mace or less and 4 Ezra 7: 105-111 will not be considered here because share they only five names in common with the target list in AC 8. 12. For the analysis of biblical lists see P. M. For
Eisenbaum, the discussion
Function ofHebrews 58 Cf. Irenaeus,
The Jewish Heroes of extrabiblical 11 (Ma?on, Epideixis
ofChristian History (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997). lists see M. R. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and
GA: Mercer
17-29; Origen,
1988). University, De Princ. 1. 4.
PAUL
370
GAVRILYUK
Let us note a number of thingswith reference to table F. The mention of Lot remains unique to the target list.59The
sequence Melchisedek/Job
is
not found in the biblical lists at all.60 It is possible that the target list owes Melchisedek/Job attested by AC
sequence
to the Jewish liturgical or catechetical tradition
8. 5 (F 11) and AC
7. 39 (F 10) correspondingly.
list in Sirach 44-50 (F 1) has the largest number of names, 13, over
The
lapping with the target list. If we
take into account the fact that Sirach
is
also the longest list,we will discover that the target list contains only 13/ 34 = 38% of all names mentioned by Sirach. The assumption that the redac tor drew upon the list of Sirach would make
it hard to explain his exclu
sion of almost two thirds (62%) of all names on this list.Given
the redactor's
tendency in other places to amplify the non-biblical liturgicalmaterial with the biblical quotations 4 mentioned
AT
(we may
recall his elaboration of the anamnesis of
in section two), it is highly unlikely that in composing the
anaphora he drew upon any one of the biblical lists in any direct way. More
precise statistical analysis must go beyond registering the absolute
number of overlapping names. In order to quantify the relativesimilarity of the lists in question it is useful to introduce a factor that could be termed 'the degree of similarity'.The degree of similaritybetween, say, list 1 (Sirach 44-50) and the target list has the following meaning. Consider
the list of
names created by putting list 1 and the target list together. If we exclude the repetitions of the overlapping names we will obtain the following num ber of names on the resultant list: 34 (the number of names in list 1) + 16 (the number of names in the tar 13 (the number of overlapping names) = 37.
get list) The
degree of similarity gives the probability that the name randomly
chosen from the resultant list is included both in list 1 and in the target list. It is easy to see that such probability equals: 13/37 = 0.35, where 13 is the number of overlapping names. The
last row in table F gives the degree of similarity (calculated
as
explained above) of each of the eleven listswith the target list.Judging by the degree of similarity,we may conclude that the lists inAC
7. 39 and AC
8. 5 (F 10 and F 11) and the target list are probably variations of the same
59
The
to Lot isWis. 10. 4. 10; cf. 1 Clement only biblical hero list that alludes not Wis. 10 does of the OT mention it is name, any Although figures by noteworthy that it refers to as many as eight figures in the target list. 60 towards the end of the list in Sirach 49: 9. Cf. 1 Clement 17: 3, where Job appears is mentioned between Abraham and Moses. Job (without Melchisedek)
INFLUENCE
MELITO'S
tradition.Among
the non-AC
UPON
THE
371
ANAPHORA
new fr. ii. 3 (= On Soul and Body
lists,Melito's
3, F 7) has the highest degree of similarity, 0.53, with the target list.Nine out of ten names inMelito's same sequence.
new fr. ii. 3 are present in the target list in the the sequence Abel/Noah/Abraham/Isaac/
In addition,
Jacob in new fr. ii. 3 (F 7) is identical to the one found in the thanksgiving 7. 37 (F 8). The
prayer in AC
degree of similarity of the biblical lists is
noticeably smaller, from 0.35 (Sirach 44-50) to 0.44 (Acts 7). The most plau sible inference is that some extra-biblical Melito's
tradition, such as attested by
On Soul and Body, is behind the listof theOT
figures in the text of
the anaphora. 3. The
last piece of evidence to be examined here is the recitals of God's
mighty acts in Exodus, the text of AC
found in both PP 84 and AC
8. 12. 26. In this case
has ten common elements with Ps 78 (LXX
seven common elements with PP: God
77)61 and only
gave the law/cut the Red
destroyed the enemy/gave drink from a rock/gave manna
Sea/
from heaven/
lit theway with a pillar/sheltered Israel with a cloud. The overlap with PP is not negligible. One peculiarity points to a certain independence from the biblical material. The
redactor firstmentions God's
provision of 'the pillar
of fire to give light at night' and subsequently 'a pillar of cloud by day to overshadow from the heat', in agreement with the same sequence of these two items in PP 84. 615-16.
In contrast, the relevant biblical texts consis
tently speak of the day-time cloud firstand of the night-time fire second.62 This means
thatMelito
and the redactor agree between themselves against
the biblical sequence of the two supernatural means of the divine protec tion. For the third time the evidence points in the direction of common extra-biblical source behind -thesimilarities between PP and AC 8. 12. In table E I also drew the parallel between the doxology in PP 65. 450 and the Sanctus of the anaphora. It should be noted that thisparticular dox ology breaks the second part of PP into the two subsections.63Thematically, Melito moves from the creation of man, fall, and the OT prefiguration of Christ's sufferingin the firstsubsection to the incarnation, ministry and pas sion of Christ in the second subsection. The movement of the Preface and the Post-Sanctus of AC
8. 12, as I pointed out in detail above, is inmany
61 instances include Neh. 9: 9-31; Ps. 105; 106; 107; 136. Other 62 Ex. 14: 14; Ps. 78: 14; 105: 39; Neh. 9: 12; 9: 19; LXX 13: 21, 22; 40: 38; Num. 10: 17. 19: 12, 19;Wis. 2 Esd. 63 that the doxologies and compelling argument presents a detailed Stewart-Sykes function as major divisions in The Lamb's High Feast, 114.
GAVRILYUK
372
PAUL
respects similar. This means
that the Sanctus breaks up the anaphora pre
cisely at the point where the doxology divides a similar structure in PP. In this respect the Sanctus functions in the same way in the anaphora
as this
doxology does in PP. The
history of the liturgy knows at least one confirmed case when
the
Sanctus actually replacedthe original doxology. I have inmind the doxology that appears at the end of the Strasburg Papyrus, themost ancient surviv ing version of the anaphora of St Mark. This doxology was at some point deleted and replaced with the Sanctus, which now appears text of this anaphora.64 There
in the received
is liturgical logic to this change: the Sanctus
may be regarded as an expanded
doxology, since it contains the clause
'heaven and earth are full of his glogy' (cf. Isa. 6: 3). It is possible that the liturgical tradition reflected by PP influenced the redactor's placing of the Sanctus between the accounts of the OT
salvation history and of Christ's
ministry in the anaphora.
5 To
recapitulate, my case for the literary dependence
upon Melito's
of the Post-Sanctus
On Soul and Body rests upon the following five points: (1) AC
8. 12. 33 repeats exactly the sequence of 'judged/... ./suffered/died/buried' and reproduces more
or less verbatim the four theopaschite oxymorons
found (with variations) three times inMelito's
new fr. ii (tables C and D);
(2) Both writers provide similar teleological resolutions to the paradox of the divine suffering; (3)Melito's account of the incarnation in new fr. ii. 4 con tains four peculiarities closely paralleled by AC
8. 12. 31; (4) The
redactor's
odd insertion of the expression 'themystery of the new covenant' with ref erence to the bread in the account of institution is an echo ofMelito's
link
ing of 'the new mystery' specificallywith the body of Christ; (5) Two minor parallels between PP 82 and AC
8. 12. 9, 13.
Points one and two are central tomy case. It is extremely important that none of the surviving early eucharistic prayers contain anything like the theopaschite paradoxes claim, only inMelito
found in the AC
and in AC
anaphora. To
repeat my major
8. 12 do we find this particular sequence
of ideas expressed in theopaschite form.
64 See Walter Prayers, 42.
Ray,
'The
Strasburg
Papyrus',
in Essays
on Early Eastern Eucharistie
MELITO'S
UPON
INFLUENCE
In addition, it is highly probable
THE ANAPHORA
373
that the three units of PP were on the
redactor's mind, as he was putting together his anaphora. A considerable and the redactor's (1) hymns in praise
overlap in content between Melito's
of the creator; (2) salvation histories based upon recitals of divine acts in Exodus,
the OT
hero lists; (3)
as I have pointed out repeatedly, cannot
be convincingly explained by their dependence
upon the biblical material
that the oral tradition attested by PP is behind
alone. It ismore plausible the Preface of the anaphora.
If one considers all literary and structural parallels cumulatively, not in isolation from one another, one will conclude dence upon
depen
is extensive and sub
the chart reflecting the status questionis in section two
stantial. Therefore, must be amended AC
that the anaphora's
the paschal material attested by Melito to include Melito's
two works among the sources of the
anaphora:
Paschal material (Melito)
UR-APSyr/CHR/BAS ////'
X
AC8. 12| TheologyDepartment 2115 Summit Ave. JRC Saint Paul MN
55105
153
Jewish ancestor AC 7. 33-7 ~~~~~~~of
PAUL
374
19=T m t4 w
C?
-oi
C6 Ck 0-
W (X) vo W
0 >
cei
?d
?dl
C?, ::S0 14 W 0 W ;> 0 >
0 t-I W t., C? N (P 0 W C,4 0.
ql)
-0
-0
L5
Q0
kW 174 ;> IZ31 ';> (t-p 0 'o
10
W 4.1
0 'o to (Ij Cl t 9 t-P 0
0 >
0,
-o
-0:
0
>
0 C)o 00 (X>
cn
04., ,C). ;z 4-1
-W -4-10 4-1
0
?o
C14 P R F CL 'e?01 C)
W
0 P t
4Ct
> 0
M
,-I, U-) Qc
0 >
0: >, 0
o W >> t) W >
-W 0
CN n
(X)
0
?o
0: P. >:
(J
C)
t) u 0 8 P ?d
>: O. e0:
> C)W VI
;>
Cld
(P 0
W: >.
00
W >
> 0
?d
-
(X)
Q6
W
10
0 4
0
W
=L > > ct
> cl
0 -0 C-rL ?C?
> 0ll? CL
C14 (X), 0,
O'.
?d
CL p ($=
0: t4.
-a
,W
C-4
cli
W
?e t)
w =L
0
P
0
>
?e
cr)
0: p lp: 0:
-o
W
P.
0 -?
0 p Z3 >
> 0 =L w
co co
GAVRILYUK
r-
W >
00 C)
CN M
u
MELITO'S
~~~~
C
~
.0
~
UPON
INFLUENCE
~
~
~
375
THE ANAPHORA
l
41
~
4 ,,0N I 0~~~~c (~~~~~~~~~~(~~~~~~~~~( ~~ ~-~~~~~~' -~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ U -~~~~~~~--v~~~~~~~~~~
c
Ill
.
00~~
d
'c
-
(0
~~~
~~~~~ liii
-c0 ,4~ 0.0
Q0 0
-
00
0 S
u
Z
.0 ol
C~~~ o c~I
0
m
Q
Q00 c~~~00~~o I c~.(~0I-~I
ct u
0C'
~
0
~
L
C'so~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
as~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
~ 11111
PAUL
376
GAVTRILYUK
~~~~~~ -
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
C;
-c
C~~~~~~~4 ~- ~ 00
cn
u 0~~~~~C- ~
co
CN
co
c
Caa
~
C's~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C C'sC's
C'S
C's r
cn
~
~
Cld
~
. U 41
Ct
~C
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C
$-
>
0
-~~~~~~~~~
-~~~~~~~~~~~4 ct~~~~~-~
Ln
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~C~~~~~C
~
~
u ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~
L
C)
~
~
C
WELCHE SEELE HAT DER EMBRYO? JOHANNES PHILOPONOS UND DIE ANTIKE EMBRYOLOGIE VON
CLEMENS SCHOLTEN ABSTRACT: In Late Antiquity, most non-Christian philosophers doubted whether the human embryo could be regarded as a true livingbeing (4(ov). Their Christian rivalsheld a differentconviction.John Philoponos went even furtherthan his Christian predecessorswith his view that the human embryo ' has not only an aXoyo; 4ifxui,but also a rational soul (Xoyi xnyj). Unfortunately,he has expounded his arguments in a lostwork, which proba mundiof 529 A.D., so that only reasonable bly antedated his De aeternitate assumptionsconcerning theseargumentsare possible.
Gliederung: I. In welcher Schrift hat sich Johannes Philoponos mit der Beseelung des
Embryosbeschaftigt? 1. De aeternitate mundi 2. Hinweise II. Was
in anderen Schriften
denktJohannes Philoponos
1. Die
fiber die Beseelung des Embryos?
Schriften auBer opm. und AnCom.
2. De opficio mundi III. Die Beseelung des Embryos in philosophischer Tradition IV. Die Beseelung des Embryos in christlicher Tradition V. Die Folgerungen furJohannes Philoponos Im 5. Buch
seines Hexaemeronkommentars
(De opficiomundi; entstanden
zwischen 547 und 560) bemerktJohannes Philoponos: Der Tatsache, daB der Embryo die Vernunftseele (xil- XoyIK) imMutter schoB empfangt,haben wir an anderem Ort eine eigene Untersuchung und Beweisfuhrung (?V&r?pol; i&s; ?V%uX ?4ev et6o& 'reKai &ro5ti4eo);) zuteil werden lassen.I
1 Johannes
Philoponos,
opm. 5,1
(460,27-462,2
C KoninklijkeBrillNV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online- www.brill.nl
Sch?lten).
VigiliaeChristianae 59, 377-411
378
CLEMENS
SCHOLTEN
Ahnlich heiBt es im 6. Buch: Auch haben wir an anderer Stelle gezeigt, daB, wenn die Embryonen der Menschen das Leben der Sinneswahmehmung und der Bewegung empfangen, in sie gewiB gleichzeitigauch die Vernunftseele eintritt.2 Die Angaben
werfen die Fragen auf, welche
die Geistbeseelung wenn
Stelle Johannes Philoponos
er es fur notwendig halt, eigens herauszustellen, daB er
meint und weshalb
des Embryos bewiesen hat. Antworten sind erstmoglich,
dem Problem
einer Vernunftseele
des Embryos unter Berucksich
tigung der Verstandnisweisen von vorgeburtlicher Beseelung
in der Zeit vor
Johannes Philoponos nachgegangen worden sowie dessen eigene Seelenlehre und sein Verstandnis der vorgeburtlichen menschlichen Entwicklung abge klart worden
ist.
I. Inweicher hatsickJohannes Schraf Philoponos mitderBeseelung desEmbgyos beschaftigt? 1. De aeternitate mundi Eine direkte Beweisfuhrung zur Beseelung seele hat sich weder
des Embryos mit der Vernunft
in opm. selbst noch in den anderen uberlieferten Tex
ten des Johannes Philoponos daB seine Bemerkungen
erhalten. Es hat allerdings den Anschein,
in opm. an einWerk
erinnern, das schon vor sei
ner Schrift De aeternitate mundi (entstanden kurz nach dem Jahre 529) verfaBt wurde. Das
scheinen zumindest seine Angaben
im 9. Buch dieser Schrift
nahezulegen. Es heiBt dort namlich zum SchluB von Kapitel
14:
Denn es istbei der Entstehung der Dinge zu sehen, daB die Form allmahlich aufleuchtetund in der Zeit zur Vollendung schreitet, wie man es sowohl bei allem beobachten kann,was durch die Kunst entsteht,als auch bei dem, was durch die Natur entsteht, wie wir es bei den mit Leben versehenenEmbryonen gezeigt haben, die stetszur vollendeten Form des Lebens voranschreiten.3 Die Formulierung ". . .wie wir es bei den mit Leben versehenen Embryo nen gezeigt haben
(?6 itxjsev).. ." erweckt den Eindruck, daB wie
auf eine Stellungnahme verwiesen wird. Zogern
2 Ebd. 3
6,23
Johannes
(584,6-22 Philoponos,
zur Embryonalbeseelung
in einer fruheren Schrift
laBt freilich, daB Johannes Philoponos
Sch?lten). aetm. 9,14
(371,11-6
Rabe).
in opm.
zuvor im
UND DIE
PHILOPONOS
JOHANNES
ANTIKE
379
EMBRYOLOGIE
selben Kapitel von aetm.9 bereits auf die Beseelung des Embryos, und zwar folgendermaBen, zu sprechen gekommen ist: Vielleicht aber haben wir nicht zu Recht zugestanden,daB bei der Entstehung der Individuen die Formen zeitlos ohne Entstehungda seien,passend aber nur dieMaterie entsteheund geeigneterAufnahmeort furdie Formen sei. der Form zeitlos da ist,gestehen auch wir zu; DaB namlich die Vollendung wir sagen allerdings,daB es vor allem ihre (sc.der Form) Entstehunggibt,denn die Belebung und Gestaltung des Embryos imMutterschoB3istEntstehungdoch wohl nicht von Materie, sondern von Form. Denn daB der sich noch im MutterschoB befindlicheEmbryo lebt und immer zur vollendeten Form des Lebens voranschreitet,ist jedem klar; daB aber das Leben nicht die Materie des Lebewesens, sonderndessen Form ist,der zugrundeliegendeund mit Leben verseheneK6rper aberMaterie istund gemaB dem eigenen regulativenPrinzip des K6rpers unbeseelt und leblos ist, istebenfallsklar.Wenn nun der Embryo schon vor seinerVollendung, wenn auch noch unvollkommen, am Leben Anteil hat, das Leben aber Form des Lebewesens istund nichtMaterie, diese aber in der Zeit und in allmahlicherEntstehung zur Vollendung gelangt und imMutterschoB die Vollendung empfangt, ist folglichdie Form nicht zeitlos und ohne Entstehung vorhanden.4 Es kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden, daB die SchluBbemerkung von aetm. 9,14 sich auf diesen Passus bezieht. Im Kontext
tragtJohannes Philoponos
seine Zweifel an der von ihm im bisherigen Argumentationsverlauf mit Proklos geteilten Pramisse vor, daB Formen
seinem Gegner Materie
hinzutreten. Stattdessen sei auch eine andere Moglichkeit nach
Seiner Meinung
komme
einer sukzessiven und
damit
zeitlos zur denkbar. zeitlichen
Entstehung von Form sogar groBere Plausibilitat zu, als wenn man
eine
solche Entstehung als zeitlosen Vorgang auffasse. Daher konne man hoch stens sagen, daB die Vollendungder Form zeitlos vonstatten gehe. Trafe die Hypothese
zu, ware dem Argument des Proklos endgultig der Boden unter
den FuBen entgezogen. Als Beispiel
fur die Richtigkeit einer zeitlichen Entstehung von Form
liefertJohannes Philoponos
die Entfaltung der seelischen Konstitution des
Embryos. Es basiert auf der bekannten Vorstellung von der Seele als Form des Korpers. Die kontinuierliche Veranderung des vorgeburtlichen men schlichen Wesens
zeigt fur Johannes
formgebenden Lebensprinzips
Seele
Philoponos
die Wirksamkeit
des
in zeitlicher Erstreckung. Gleichzeitig
demonstriert fur ihn die Entwicklung des Embryos aber auch, daB, wenn schon nicht die Ubertragung der Form, dann aber doch die Vollendungder Form zeitlos eintritt. 4
Ebd.
9,14
(369,1-21
Rabe).
CLEMENS
380
SCHOLTEN
in aetm. 9,12 hatte Johannes Philoponos
Schon
noch unter Teilung
der
Pramisse des Proklos vom zeitlosen Hinzutritt der Form zur Materie
das
Thema
der Form im Blick gehabt und geschrieben:
der Vollendung
Dasselbe (sc.die Vollendung der Form vollzieht sich zeitlos)geschiehtauch bei den naturlichenFormen. Denn wenn der Embryo einen einzigenTag vor der von der Natur bestimmtenZeit oder auch nur eine einzige Stunde vor der endgultigenVerfestigung des Lebewesens vom MutterschoB getrenntwurde, Natur nicht vollendetwurde, notwendi wird er, da er durch die schopferische gerweise zugrundegehen,weil eine vollkommeneGestalt des Lebewesens fur das Zugrundeliegende nicht entstand.Daher kommen die Formen zeitlos zum Zugrundeliegenden hinzu.5 ist nicht ganz klar, in welchem Moment
Zwar
die Form als vollendet gedacht wird. Zwar die Formvollendung und der Gewinn
der Embryonalentwicklung
scheint sich die Geburt,
in der
einer eigenstandigen Existenz zusam
menfallen, anzubieten, doch kann es sich auch um einen Zeitpunkt kurz vor der Geburt handeln, zu dem der Embryo bildetes Lebewesen
imMutterschoB
ein vollausge
und zur Geburt bereit wird.
Freilich istdie Entscheidung daruber, ob furJohannes Philoponos Vernunftseele
in aetm.
der Form des menschlichen Embryos mit der Verleihung
die Vollendung
an den Embryo
der
identisch ist, damit noch nicht gefallen.
Johannes Philoponos spricht an der zuletzt zitierten Stelle nur allgemein von der Embryonalentwicklung und nicht speziell vom menschlichen Embryo. Ebenso wird nicht explizit von einem Eintritt der Vernunftseele Korper des Embryos gesprochen. Wenn
in den
es nicht die Begabung mit der Ver
nunftseele sein sollte,welche die zeitlose Vollendung lichen Embryos furJohannes Philoponos
der Form des mensch
ausmacht, ware eine Alternative,
daB Johannes Philoponos von der vollstandigen Ausbildung der &iXoyo;WuiXn an den Embryo kurz vor oder mit der Geburt spricht. Die Folge aber ware, daB dann die Stellen in aetm.grundsatzlich uberhaupt nicht mit den in opm. in Beziehung gesetzt werden konnten.
gemachten Bemerkungen
Aber die Vermutung, Johannes Philoponos denke in aetm. lediglich an die der
kXoyo;Wiu , aIBt sich ebenfalls nicht wirklich beweisen. kann ebenso argumentieren, daB er auch in aetm. 9,12 primar den
Vollendung Man
Menschen
im Blick
hat, weil
er bei
der Behandlung
nalentwicklung normalerweise nie auf andere Lebewesen Fur den Menschen 5 6
Ebd. Vgl.
848,8;
nimmt.6
gilt aber, daB nur die Vernunftseele als hochste Form
9,12 (366,3-11 Rabe). zB. Johannes Philoponos,
opm. 3,10
der Embryo Bezug
(324,11-3
Sch?lten).
GenCorCom.
271,19-22;
297,lf;
310,8; PhysCom. 812,7;
JOHANNES
UND DIE
PHILOPONOS
ANTIKE
381
EMBRYOLOGIE
der Seele die Entwicklung der Seelenstruktur und damit auch die Formge bung fur den Korper Ubereinstimmungen
bringt. AuBerdem
zur Vollendung
in diesem Punkte auseinandergehen
zweifeln, daB beide Schriften gerade sollten.7Weil
lassen die anderen
zwischen aetm.und opm. allgemein daran
und Bezuge
an der menschlichen
Embryonalentwicklung
nicht nur die
sukzessive Entstehung von Form, sondern auch die zeitlose Vollendung von Form, und zwar vor der Geburt, abzulesen ist,konnte man also genauso gut davon ausgehen, daB Johannes Philoponos bereits in aetm. eine Besee lung des Embryos mit der Vernunftseele lehrt. dann aber, wenn man diesen SchluB nicht fur sicher halten sollte,
Gerade
istunausweichlich, daB aetm.nicht der Behauptung von opm. 5,1 genugt, die Beseelung des Embryos mit der Vuri koyudj in einer eigenen Untersuchung und Beweisfiuhrung abgehandelt zu haben. Denn von einer ausfuhrlichen Argumentation
kann an den Stellen
Vernunftbeseelung
in aetm. nicht die Rede
sein. Die
der Form des Embryos wird
als Vollendung
nicht zum Beweisgegenstand. Daher
in aetm.
verfestigt sich anhand von aetm. eher
der Eindruck, daB sich opm. auf eine andere Schrift als aetm.bezieht, in der dieser Beweis Angabe
gefuhrt worden
sein muB. Mag
am SchluB desselben Kapitels,
vielleicht aetm. 9,14 der
es sei "gezeigt worden"
(i6c4aewv),
genugen und deshalb die in opm. anvisierte Beweisfuhrung zeitlich auch noch nach aetm. angestellt worden
sein konnen, so ist doch wahrschein
licher, daB sich auch der SchluB von aetm. 14 auf dieselben Ausfuihrungen opm. beziehen mochte
wie
und fur deren Abfassung
somit ein Zeitraum
vor der Entstehung von aetm. in Frage kommt. Allerdings wird man dann, wenn man
die Bemerkungen
Ausfuhrungen zum Thema vorsichtig sein mussen,
von
aetm. als Verweis
der Geistbeseelung
auch
auf friuhere
des Embryos versteht, so
im erhaltenen Schrifttum des Johannes Philoponos
insgesamt nach Anhaltspunkten
zu suchen, die den Hinweisen
von opm.
genuge tun. 2. Hinweise in anderenSchrften Allerdings
ist die Umschau
nach Aussagen
zur Geistbeseelung
bryos bzw. allgemein zur menschlichen Embryonalentwicklung
7
des Em in anderen
zu den der Ewigkeit der Welt; besteht in der Ablehnung Grund?bereinstimmung von opm. auf aetm. vgl. C. Sch?lten, AntikeNaturphilosophie und christliche Kosmologie in der Schrifl ?de opificiomundi? des Johannes Philoponos = PTS 45 (Berlin 1996) 72-6. Die
Verweisen
CLEMENS
382
SCHOLTEN
rasch erschopft. Beachtung
Schriften des Johannes Philoponos
verdient
zunachst vor allem ein Abschnitt aus dem frilher als aetm. entstandenen
Entstehungszeitpunktes scheint AnCom.8 Wegen seineswahrscheinlichen zu bestatigen, Johannes Philoponos
zunachst
sich die Vermutung
sich schon vor aetm.mit der Geistbeseelung
des menschlichen
habe
Embryos
beschaftigt. Der Abschnitt auBert sich wiederholt
zur Embryonalentwicklung. Da
jedoch die Perspektiven innerhalb des Abschnittes wechseln bzw. die Kon texte der Aussagen hen des Textes
jeweils verschieden sind, ist zunachst eine das Vorge notwendig, um die Inhalte im
aufarbeitende Gliederung
einzelnen einordnen zu konnen. Ausgangs- und Bezugspunkt
ist die Aristotelesaussage
nen wir die Ernahrung durch sich selbst,Wachstum Kommentierung
entwickelt sich so, daB
vorgenommen werden.
Als
zwei Abgrenzungen
zunachst
erstes werden
"Leben aber nen
und Abnahme."9 Die
die Begriffe Wachstum
und
Ernahrung voneinander geschieden. Der Begriff "Wachstum"
ist nicht, wie
es zunachst
des Begriffs
scheinen konnte, eine
tautologische Variante
"Ernahrung durch sich selbst", sondern er impliziert daruber hinaus, daB etwas anderes hinzugefugt wird.'0 AnschlieBend wird der ErnahrungsprozeB des Lebendigen
von ahnlichen Phanomenen
unterschieden. Dem
Recht Ernahrung und Wachstum durch Organe
seine Nahrung
jedem seiner Teile
in der unbelebten Materie
Feuer, das lebendig zu sein scheint, sagtman nicht zu nach, weil es nicht wie die Lebewesen
aufnimmt und das Wachstum
vollzieht."1 AuBerdem
etwas dauerhaft Vorhandenem, und Vergehen wahrzunehmen
wahrend
sich nicht in
fuhrt der WachstumsprozeB
zu
beim Feuer eher ein Entstehen
ist.12
An dieser Stelle kommt zum erstenMal
die Rede
auf den Embryo. Und
zwar folgern aus der gerade getroffenen Feststellung, ein Lebewesen sei durch die Nahrungsaufnahme mittels von Organen
(4cpov)
charakterisiert, nicht
naher benannte Gegner,'3 daB dieser Bestimmung zufolge der Embryo kein
8
Es
handelt
sich um
den Abschnitt
AnCom.
212,28-214,33.
Gew?hnlich
AnCom. vor 517, dem Entstehungsdatum des PhysCom., eingeordnet. 9 Aristoteles, de An. 2,1 (412al4). 10 AnCom. 212,28-32. 11 verstanden; ?ipov ist im aristotelischen Sinne als "tierische Lebensform"
wird
der
der unsch?r
fere platonische alles, was "lebt", auch Pflanzen; Begriff ?coov umfa?t hingegen vgl. R. Sorabji, Animal minds and human morals (London 1993) 97f; u. Anm. 93. 12AnCom. 212,32-213,7. 13 \Yer sie sind, bleibt unbestimmt. Es d?rfte sich um heidnische Philosophen handeln.
JOHANNES
Lebewesen
PHILOPONOS
UND
DIE
ANTIKE
EMBRYOLOGIE
sei, da er sich nicht durch eigene Organe,
ernahre."4 Der Verfasser entkraftet den Einwand sich sehr wohl
speziell den Mund,
damit, daB der Embryo
selbst ernahre. GewiB werde zwar die Nahrung
Mutter zubereitet und auch nicht durch den Mund durch die Nabelschnur Lebewesen
383
aufgenommen,'5 aber ganz wie im Magen
komme der VerdauungsprozeB
Gang, und anschlieflend werde die aufbereitete Nahrung von dort an alle Teile
durch die
des Embryos, sondern bei vollendeten des Embryos
in
an die Leber und
des Korpers weitergeleitet.'6 Der Verfasser schlieBt
dann noch ein weiteres Argument
fur den Embryo
als Lebewesen
an:'7
"Wenn die vollendetsten Lebewesen Ortsbewegung besitzen, sich aber auch die Embryonen DaB
ortlich bewegen, dann sind sie auch Lebewesen
echte Lebewesen
(4xa)."''8
sich ortlich bewegen, sieht der Verfasser anscheinend
in der Bewegung des Embryos imMutterleib
realisiert.
Offensichtlich lassen sich aber damit die Bedenken nicht ausraumen. Die Anhanger
der Gegenmeinung wenden grundsatzlich ein, daB der Embryo (~4ov) sein konne, da die Natur
kein wirkliches Lebewesen Grund
im MutterschoB
zuruckhalte und
lebt, zum Beispiel den Mund, Dies
ihm die Organe,
ihn nicht ohne durch die er
noch nicht zum vollen Gebrauch
veranlaBt den Verfasser wiederum mit
gewahre.'9
folgenden Worten
Bekraftigung der Ansicht, daB der Embryo ein Lebewesen
zu der
sei:
Aber auch dagegen istzu sagen:Wie er (sc.der Embryo) auch, wenn er schon geboren wurde, zwar ein Lebewesen ist, jedoch noch nicht, da er der
zu scheint zu den Gepflogenheiten des Schulbetriebs unbe geh?ren, von Gegnern stimmt in der dritten Person zu sprechen; vgl. C. Sch?lten (ed.), Johannes Philoponos, de aeternitatemundi (erscheint demn?chst in der Reihe "Fontes Christiani"). 14 AnCom. 213,7-12. Die Ern?hrungsart des Embryos, die R?ckschl?sse auf seinen Status zul??t, wird in den Commentarii inHippocratis librumde natura pueri 2 (219,23-34 Dietz)
Es
des Johannes 7. Jh.?) ausf?hrlich er?rtert, der nicht mit Johannes Philoponos (Medicus; u.a (Hg.), Tusculum-Lexikon griechischer und lateinischer identisch sein soll; vgl. W. Buchwald Autoren des Altertums und desMittelalters (M?nchen/Z?rich 31982) 384. 15 Anscheinend hat sich diese Ansicht ?ber die Ern?hrung des Embryos, die zB. von vertreten Aristoteles und Galen in der Sp?tantike wurde, Empedokles, Anaxagoras, durchgesetzt;
vgl. zu den beiden Modellen
4 (1959) 1228-44,hier 1235f.
C.
E. Lesky/J.H. Waszink,
"Embryologie":
RAC
16AnCom. 123,12-23. 17Der neue zu dieser Technik wird mit Kai oc??co? angeschlossen; Gedankengang vgl. Sch?lten, "Ein unerkannter Quaestioneskommentar (Exe. Theod. 4f) und die Auslegung
derVerkl?rungChristi in fr?hchristlichen Texten", VigChr57 (2003) 389-410, 394f. 18 AnCom. 19AnCom.
213,23-5. 231,26-31.
CLEMENS
384
SCHOLTEN
Verfestigungder Organe bedarf, die vollkommenenAktualitaten des Lebewe sens ausfiihren kann, so, sage ich, bedarf er auch, wenn er im Mutter schoB ist,mehrfach der Hilfe, da jederK6rper in der Zeit (Xpo'vp)seine eigene und deswegen wird imMutterschoB die Form des Lebe Vollendung erhalt,20 wesens, die er erhalten hat, bewahrt,2' wobei das Organ, wie ich sagte, Wenn jemand auf die groBerenteilsder Bewachung und Fiirsorge bedarf.22 vollendetenAktualitaten schaut,wird er auch nicht den Knaben 'Lebewesen' nennen, wenn er nicht in vollerManneskraft steht und die Zeugungskrafte ausuibt;es istaber unsinnig,nur den, der sich soverhalt, 'Lebewesen' zu nennen.23 Da
der Mensch
auch nach der Geburt noch nicht ausgereift ist und ihm
trotzdem der Status "Lebewesen" man
also nach Meinung
nicht abgesprochen werden
kann, darf
des Autors aus dem noch unfertigen Zustand des
Embryos nicht schlieBen, daB er kein Lebewesen
ist.
Bis hierhin macht der Verfasser sich ohne Zweifel dafur stark, daB der Embryo ein Lebewesen
(4Cpov)ist.Die
allerdings zunachst uberraschend
anschlieB3enden Ausfulhrungen treten
fur das genaue Gegenteil
ein. Denn
es
werden weitere Argumente vorgestellt, die geeignet sind, um dem Embryo den Status des L4ov abzusprechen. Anfangs ist zwar nicht deutlich, worauf sich der einleitende Satz "Aber vielleicht ist das Gesagte nicht zwingend" bezieht.24 Er konnte sich auf die Ausgangsaussage
des Aristoteles beziehen,
sich selbst,Wachstum
und Abnahme
daB Leben
sei. Dafur
Ernahrung
durch
scheint zu sprechen, daB
bezweifelt wird, daB Ernahrung durch sich selbst zur Definition des ausreicht. BloBes Leben unterscheide sich vom Lebewesen:
Lebewesens
20Der Verfasser differenziert nicht, wie es in aetm. geschieht, zwischen dem allm?h lichen Voranschreiten und der zeidosen Vollendung der Form. 21 von wird A H.G. Liddell/R. E|i(pi)taxTCC? Scott, Greek-English lexicon.A new edition, revised and augmented throughout by H. St. Jones/R. McKenzie (Oxford 91940); revised ed. by P.G.W. Glare/A.A. supplement, (Oxford 1996) 51b und G.W.H. Thompson = Greek lexicon Lampe, A Patristic Greek lexicon (Oxford 1961 1982) und E.A. Sophocles, the Roman and York nicht verzeichnet. Allein E. Trapp of Byzantine periods (New 1900) (Hg.), Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gr?zit?t 1 (Wien 2001) 497b belegt dieser Stelle des AnCom. Er schl?gt die "bewahren" ?bersetzung in den Mutterscho? d?rfte sein. Der Hineinlegens mitgedacht
es, und zwar an eben vor. Der Aspekt des "Thesaurus Linguae
kennt nur noch zwei weitere Belege: Galen, De semine libri 2 (4,533,2 Graecae CD-ROM" inHippocratis librum defiacturis commentarii3 (18b.422,1 K?hn). K?hn); 22Die von ttXe?ovo? ist nicht da? gemeint Beziehung eindeutig; es istwahrscheinlicher, ist: "der gr??ere Teil der Organe bedarf der F?rsorge", auch wenn dann der Text in icov ?py?vcov ge?ndert werden mu?. 23AnCom. 213,31-214,2. 24AnCom. 214,2f.
JOHANNES
Pflanzen
ernahrten
UND
PHILOPONOS
sich,
seien
DIE
aber
ANTIKE
EMBRYOLOGIE
keine
Lebewesen.25
385
Doch
die
Fortsetzung spricht eher dafur, daB nicht beabsichtigt ist,Aristoteles zu kri tisieren.Das
Folgende beschaftigt sich namlich durchgehend mit der Frage,
ob der Embryo ein Lebewesen icht ist das Gesagte
(4Cov) ist oder nicht. Der Satz "Aber vielle
nicht zwingend"
leitet offenbar Argumente des Ver
fassers gegen die bis dahin vertretene Position ein, der Embryo Lebewesen. Nachdem ein Lebewesen
er die Ernahrung durch sich selbst als Kriterium fur
als unzureichend abgelehnt hat, fahrt er fort,daB der Besitz
von Sinneswahrnehmung Lebewesens
sei ein
ebenfalls kein hinreichendes Merkmal
sei, da auch pflanzlich-tierische Lebensformen
des echten
(4p6(pu6x) hap
tische Fahigkeiten besaBen.26
25AnCom. 26AnCom. die mit
214,3-5. der Antike Lebensformen, Ccpocpuxa sind in der Wahrnehmung in einem Untergrund, also die fehlende die Verwurzelung den Tastsinn teilen. Es handelt sich um Meeres und mit den Tieren
214,5-7.
den
Pflanzen
Ortsbewegung, lebewesen wie Muscheln
(it?vva), Schw?mme (a7coyyo?) oder Seeanemonen (dcKa?i|(pT|). zum einen, die wegen nat. 1 [41f] (3,23-4,11 Morani): Dieser behauptet Vgl. Nemesios, zum anderen, sei seit alters her in Gebrauch, der Eigenschaften gew?hlte Bezeichnung untersucht habe. Letzteres ist zutreffend, vgl. Aristo da? Aristoteles die Schw?mme
teles,HA 5,16 (548a22-549al3), 1,1 (487b9-ll), 8,1 (588M0-21).Den BegriffCcp?cpwov
benutzt Hipp,
Aristoteles et Plato.
gesprochen
der laut Galen, Poseidonios, nicht, ebensowenig plac. hingegen von die wie Pflanzen an Felsen wachsen, Tieren, unbeweglichen Ob Nemesios auf Poseidonios?der Nemesiostext wird als auch
5,6,38, hat.
309a
Poseidonios,
figm.
Ammonios,
PorphlsCom.
ist im ?brigen mehr gef?hrt?zur?ckgeht, gibt es drei Arten beseelter K?rper:
70,13-7,
als unsicher. Pflanzen,
Tiere
Nach und
Lebensformen; 14,3-12; pflanzlich-tierische vgl. ebenso Johannes Philoponos, AnalPrCom. AnalPostCom. 411,20-8; PorphlsCom. 77,16-78,1, Simplikios, PhysCom. 3,5f; nach Ammonios, hat die Pflanze drei F?higkeiten, n?mlich die zur Ern?hrung (0pe7ixiicf|), zum Wachstum zur Vermehrung dar?ber die hinaus (yevvr|xiicr|), das Lebewesen zur und die ?uvauiv (xr\vaiaOnrncriv F?higkeit Ortsver?nderung Sinneswahrnehmung (a\)?r|TiKr|)
und
Platoniker nennen nach Nemesios, Kai TT|V U?Ta?aTiicf|V TT|V arc? x?tiou e?? x?rcov)?die nur die aiaGnaic?, nat. 2 [114] (34,5-17 Morani) w?hrend das Cco?qnycov zus?tzlich nur zu auf Ber?hrung den Tastsinn?oder ist gemeint: die F?higkeit, reagieren? (??micri zur Ortsver?nderung auf die nicht besitzt; vgl. den Hinweis jedoch F?higkeit ?t>vaui?)?, GenCorCom. 213,29-214,13; die Schw?mme auch bei Johannes opm. 1,9 Philoponos, nennt als Beispiele Austernmuscheln und Schw?mme; Ammonios Sch?lten). betreffenden Meereslebewesen bei die der Hierophilos Soph, et vielf?ltiger Aufz?hlung (112,2f
1939]), einem Autor wohl (458,8f A. Delatte, An?cdota Atheniensia 2 [L?ttich/Paris Kenntnisse nach H. Hunger, Die hochsprachlicheprofane 11. Jhs., dessen medizinische Literatur der Byzantiner 2 = HAW 5,2 (M?nchen rcepi ?iaiin? 1978) 309, auf Hippokrates' Nach Psjohannes CaelCom. ferner 384,18-22; 386,31-387,4. Simplikios, zur?ckgehen. Vgl. Phil. des
AnCom. Philoponos, Form des Tastsinnes
577,4-30,
in die ? oipuxa, weil sie mit Sinneswahrnehmung v|n)xn (woraus f?r den Autor folgt, da? sind, die a^oyo?
besitzen
ausgestattet
CLEMENS
386
SCHOLTEN
Es folgen drei Argumente, die geeignet sind, dem Embryo den Status des
Lebewesensabzusprechen:27 1. Der Embryo genugt nicht dem Charakteristikum eines Lebewesens, sich zur Ganze
und vollstandig von Ort zu Ort zu bewegen.28 Der Gedanke
greiftden schon im vorherigen Teil referiertenEinspruch auf, legt jetzt aber dessen entscheidendes Moment
dahingehend
fest, daB der Embryo
sich nicht vollstandig ortlich bewege; die bloBe Bewegung
selbst
imMutterschoB
gilt offenbar nicht als Ortsveranderung. 2. Der Verfasser geht zwar von einer kontinuierlichen Hoherentwicklung des menschlichen
Embryos bis zur Geburt
Erreichen bestimmter Merkmale imVollsinn hinweist. Vielmehr sowie die Ortsbewegung,
aus, bestreitet aber, daB das
auf das Stadium eines Lebewesens seien der Gebrauch
die zusammen
(4cpov)
der Sinne und Organe
ein Lebewesen
ausmachen,
erst
nach der Geburt zu konstatieren. Gleiches gelte auch fur die Begabung mit der Vernunft, welche die Entwicklung des Menschen
erst lange nach der
Geburt krone: Wenn die Erschaffung auf einemWeg vom Unvollkommeneren zum Voll kommeneren voranschreitetund nicht auf andereWeise die hoheren Eigen schaften des Lebens hinzukommen, wobei die mangelhafteren Fahigkeiten nicht zuvor existierthaben, die Ordnung aber folgendermaBenlautet: zuerst das Unbeseelte, dann das pflanzlicheLeben, dann das (Leben) der pflanzlich tierischenLebensformen (1 ziiv CpoqpiTv), dann das (Leben) der Unvernuinf tigen (i tov 6oV ycov),als letztes das der Vernunftigen (1 TCovXoylKwv),ist es notwendig zu beobachten, daB sich die Natur eben dieser Ordnung der Erschaffungbedient.Denn nach dem Festwerden des Samens istjenes Gebilde etwas Unbeseeltes, dann, nachdem es mit Organen versehen wurde, gleicht es anfangs einer Pflanze und hat bis dahin keinenAnteil an der Sinneswahr nehmung, im Voranschreiten aber, wenn es den Beruhrungssinn und die Bewegung hinzubekommt, gleicht es zu dieser Zeit den pflanzlich-tierischen Lebensformen und ist durch seinen eigenen Anfang mit dem MutterschoB verbunden, wie jene (sc. die Zoophyta) an Felsen oder umherliegenden
die Ortsbewegung nicht auf die a^oyo? \\fx>%y\ zur?ckgeht), und nach ebd. 589,26-590,37 eine Form der (pavxaaia, n?mlich die, die mit dem Tastsinn verbunden ist; vgl., auch zum Autor, W. Charlton On On Aristotle the Soul with Stephanus 3.9-13 (transi.), Philoponus' On Aristotle On Interpretation (London 2000) 1-15. 27-32. 41-3. Die Vorstellung, da? ataycc ?coa mit
sind, ist nicht ungew?hnlich; vgl. Johannes Philoponos, AnCom. von Damaskus, De animato 95,229,30-8, rechnet ?ber 13,20-4: 18,34-19,2. Johannes von Pflanzen und zum raschenderweise die K?rper Unbeseelten. ?qxScpDia 27Die ersten beiden werden wieder ?bersichtlich te (AnCom. 214,7.11) durch oXhaq o. Anm. 17. eingeleitet; vgl. 28AnCom. 214,7-11. cpavxaa?a
begabt
JOHANNES
PHILOPONOS
UND
DIE
EMBRYOLOGIE
ANTIKE
387
Scherben [oder: Schalen,Muscheln] haften,und das bis zurGeburt. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt entstehen vollkommene Lebewesen, die Bewegungen ausfiihren, die sie anderswohin bringen, und die sich durch eigene Organe ernahren, ich meine durch den Mund und derartiges, und die alle Sinneswahrneh mungen aktuell ausfuhren.Als Vollendung aber bei den Menschen empfangt es (sc. jenes Gebilde) auch das vernunftgemaBeLeben, wahrend er (sc. der Mensch) anfanglichdas alogische Leben ftihrte.29 Es schlieBt sich noch die Abweisung
des Gedankens
nicht von einem wirklichen Lebewesen
an, es konne solange
sein, bis die Zeugungs
die Rede
fahigkeit betatigt werde. Der Verfasser schlieBt aus, daB Zeugungsfahigkeit ein Kriterium fur ein Lebewesen
ist; schlieBlich gabe es Lebewesen,
die sich
ohne Zeugung vermehrten.30 Starker konnte der Kontrast
zu den Uberlegungen
zuvor nicht sein.
Hatte der Verfasser dort noch argumentiert, daB man aus dem noch unfer tigen Zustand des menschlichen Embryos nicht schlieflen durfe, daB dieser kein Lebewesen
sei, schlieBt jetzt der in der epigenetischen Entwicklung zu
konstatierende unfertige vorgeburtliche Zustand daB dieser ein vollkommenes Lebewesen Stadium
ist. Bis zur Geburt werde nur das
der pflanzlich-tierischen Lebensform
mit der Geburt werde Lebewesen,
der Embryo
des Embryos gerade aus, (o(p6trrov) erreicht.3' Erst
zu einem vollkommenen
da ihm erst ab diesem Zeitpunkt Ortsbewegung,
nehmung und Nahrungsaufnahme
alogischen
Sinneswahr
zu eigen sei. Die Vernunftbegabung, die
die Entwicklung abschlieBt, folgt zu einem noch spateren Zeitpunkt. DaB die Entwicklung auf der Formung durch eine entsprechende Seele beruht,
29AnCom. 214,11-25. 30AnCom. 214,25-30. 31 Same und der Embryo, der noch Der kein Leben. Der Autor 209,10-22 ?berhaupt aber
keine Organe hat, besitzen nach AnCom. erw?gt eine potentielle Lebendigkeit, legt "Denn weder hat eines der Unbeseelten poten
an den Tag: Skepsis noch der Samen noch der tote K?rper
eine deutliche
noch der Embryo, der noch keine hat (oder: nicht strukturiert ist; ?iopyavcou?vov; [o. Anm. 21] vgl. Liddell/Scott Organe . to be provided with organs). Weder hat das Tote potentiell das Leben 434a: (. .) noch hat der Samen potentiell das Leben, da er noch nicht strukturiert und geeignet ist, das tiell das Leben
aus der Seele zu empfangen.?Aber vielleicht k?nnte man sagen, da? der Samen es kann hat. Denn der noch keine Organe der Embryo, hat, potentiell Leben es (sc. Samen und Embryo) potentiell Leben hat. Aber das Vollkommene da? geschehen, das nennt er (sc.Aristoteles) potentiell Leben und schon das Leben empfangen Habende, habend. Wieso es, soweit es die eigene Natur betrifft, potentiell und nicht aktuell? Weil
Leben bzw.
leblos ist und nur geeignet ist, das Leben zu empfangen". an, da? es sich um die zweite Potenz handelt.
Es
schlie?t
sich die ?berlegung
CLEMENS
388
SCHOLTEN
wird zwar nicht gesagt, durfte aber vorausgesetzt sein. In jedem Falle gilt wfx nach dieser Auffassung: Sowohl die a5koyop; sind vor der Geburt nicht vorhanden.
ein Lebewesen
3. Es folgt ein letzterGedanke: Wenn
Danach
definiert ist als eine
beseelte Substanz, kann der Embryo kein Lebe
mit Sinneswahrnehmung wesen
als auch die Nvux Xoyti
ihre Sinneswahrnehmung
sein, da Fruhgeburten
geht der Text unvermittelt zur Kommentierung
nicht betatigen.32 des nachsten Ari
stotelessatzes uber. Eine
ausgleichende Bewertung
der gegensatzlichen
Standpunkte wird
nicht gegeben. Ein abschlieBendes Urteil uber den Standpunkt des Verfas sers ist somit nicht moglich. Welches
Gewicht
der zweite Teil durch die
Einleitung mit 'Y(co;erhalten hat, ist nicht eindeutig abzuschatzen. Legt man Gepflogenheiten der Kommentierung
zugrunde, sind es gerade die als Hypo
thesen eingeleiteten Stucke am Ende eines Abschnittes, in denen ein Autor seine eigene Einschatzung
zum Ausdruck bringt.33
Freilich ist die Verfassersituation beim AnCom. alles andere als klar. Falls die Uberschrift des AnCom. die authentischen Abfassungsverhaltnisse wider spiegeln und keine sehr viel spatere Zutat sein sollte, istmit zwei Beteiligten, namlich Ammonios und seinem SchulerJohannes Allerdings scheitert der Versuch, auf Ammonios
und Johannes Philoponos
Sinn, die zweite Position, der Embryo dem Johannes Philoponos
Philoponos, zu rechnen.34
die kontraren Positionen des Abschnittes
zuzuweisen
zu verteilen. Es macht
sei kein Lebewesen, und
keinen
ausgerechnet
im Sinne des Titels
als eine
seiner "eigenen Bemerkungen"
aufzufassen, die er zu den ihm vorliegenden
Ausfulhrungen des Ammonios,
die im ersten Teil des Abschnittes vorlagen,
beigesteuert hat. Der
Schuler wurde hinter die Vorstellung
zuruckfallen. Wurde
schon die erste Position, die zwar den Embryo
Lebewesen
seines Lehrers als
gelten lIBt, aber keineswegs an eine Begabung mit der Geistseele
denkt, sich nicht mit
der
spateren Einschatzung
des Embryos
durch
32 AnCom. 214,30-4. 33Die am Schlu? des dritten "ouko-uv ?coov rjv" istwiederum Folgerung Arguments irreal formuliert. 34 AnCom. 1,1-3: '"Ico?vvoD e?? xf|v itEpi \|n>%fi? 'Apiaxox?Axyu? o^oAaKal 'A?E^av?p?co? a7coar||Li?ic?aEi? ek xcov ot>vo\)Gic?v 'A|X|ia)vioi) xo?> fEp|iE?oo) u?xa xivcov i?icov ?maxaoEcov". Denkbar
ist ein Verhalten
von Plutarch
und Proklos
zwischen
Lehrer
berichtet:
Proklos
v. Prodi 12, Sch?ler, wie es Marinos, soll von seinem Lehrer Plutarch ermuntert
und
zu Piatons Phaidon von seinem Lehrer Geh?rte sein, das in der Veranstaltung zu ver?ffentlichen. Das dritte Buch des AnCom. als Schrift unter eigenem Namen gilt in zugeh?rig. jedem Fall als nicht urspr?nglich
worden
JOHANNES
Johannes
PHILOPONOS
Philoponos
UND
decken, ware
DIE
ANTIKE
389
EMBRYOLOGIE
des Charakters
die Negierung
Embryos als ~Cpovmit ihr ganzlich inkompatibel. Der Weg
des
zu der Position
in opm. (und aetm.)konnte nur die erste Position, den Embryo wenigstens als Cpov zu qualifizieren, zur Voraussetzung Konnte
haben.
deshalb nicht im ersten TeilJohannes
Philoponos zuWort kom
men? Setzt er sich nicht zB. in aetm. als Christ in gleicher Weise mit den heidnischen Philosophen als einem anonymen Gegner ("Sie") auseinander?35 Doch
ein solches Stilmerkmal ist unspezifisch. Es handelt sich um eine
schulische Umgangsform,
sich in der dritten Person
Gegenuber mit anderer Meinung von christlicherWarte
aus uber den Embryo
standlich bliebe, weshalb
gerade
fuhrlich die Gegenargumente
("Sie") von einem
abzusetzen.36 Nirgends deutet sich an, daB gesprochen wird. Unver
im zweiten Teil
des Abschnittes
gelassen werden. Der Verfasser gibt sich keine Muhe,
sie zu entkraften, son
dern scheint ihnen eher Sympathie entgegenzubringen. Die
von Forschern
gelegentlich bemiihte Pietat gegenuber dem Lehrer als Motiv Verhalten
aus
geboten und vor allem unkommentiert stehen
fur dieses
zu nennen, ware eine Verlegenheitslosung.
Es gibt somit keine Anzeichen, zwei Autoren am Werk
in diesem Abschnitt des AnCom. insgesamt
zu sehen. Man
begreift die Gegenuberstellung
der
kontraren Positionen zum Leben des Embryos vermutlich am besten, wenn man
sie als ein Stuck problemorientierten Kommentierens
etNon einordnet.37Dann und vom Aufbau
im Stile des Sic
aber ist es aus den genannten inhaltlichen Grunden
des Abschnittes her eher wahrscheinlich,
daB der Text
Ammonios und nichtJohannes Philoponos zum Verfasser hat,38 zumal, wie sich zeigen wird, die Inhalte weitgehend
dem entsprechen, was
in der
philosophischen Tradition zum Embryo als Lebewesen gelehrt wurde.39 Der Verfasser kannte gegensatzliche Argumente, wollte oder konnte aber keine eigene Losung
anbieten, auch wenn er vermutlich der Meinung
zuneigte,
35 Vgl.
zur von aetm.: C. Sch?lten dazu die Einleitung (ed.), Johannes ?bersetzung 13). Philoponos, de aeternitatemundi (o. Anm. 36 CaelCom. 2,5-12; 2,29; IntCom. 154,21-31; ebd.; zB. Ammonios, Simplikios, Vgl. u. ?. CatCom. 256,14 134,5; 138,27; PhysCom. 84,12; 37 kommentiert. ?hnlich wird in AnCom. 209,10-22 38Die von K. of Philoponus' "The development thought and its chronol Verrycken, their commentators and The ancient Aristotle influence, ed. by. R. Sorabji transformed. ogy", auf Philoponos 1990) 233-74, versuchte Aufteilung der Schriften des Johannes (London f?r die zwei Phasen {AnCom. Phase 1; aetm. Phase 2) ist sicher nicht die beste L?sung inhaltlichen Unterschiede. 39 u. S. 397-404. Vgl.
CLEMENS
390
SCHOLTEN
daB der Embryo, gemessen an den ublichen Definitionen, uberhaupt kein Lebewesen
(4Cpov)sei.
So interessant die vom AnCom. verschafften Einblicke
in die Uberlegun
gen zur Embryonalentwicklung auch sind, in jedem Fall kann mit Sicherheit ausgeschlossen werden, daB sichJohannes Philoponos mit seinen Hinweisen in opm. (und aetm.) auf den AnCom. bezieht. Von 214,33
(und 209,10-22) nicht die Rede
und
sein. Die Texte deuten darauf hin,
daB sich die heidnischen Philosophen Lebewesen
einer Untersuchung
des Embryos kann in AnCom. 212,28
Beweisfuhrung zur Geistbeseelung
als
uber den Status des Embryos
bzw. die Potenzen des Embryos
in seinem Fruhstadium nicht
einig waren und sich uber diese Frage kontroverse Debatten
geliefert haben.
Die Skepsis ist nicht zu uberhoren, dem Embryo vor der Geburt uberhaupt den Status eines 4Cpovbeizumessen. Die Bemerkungen zur Entwicklung des Embryos inAnCom. machen
aber bereits fur die Bedeutung der Aussage
aus
opm.hellhorig, daB der Zeitpunkt der Ausstattung des Embryos mit Sinnes wahrnehmung und Bewegung derselbe ist, in den in ihn auch die Vernunft
seeleeintritt. II. Was denkt desEmbgyos? uiber dieBeseelung Philoponos Johannes 1. Die SchrftenauJ3er opm. undAnCom. Den
anderen Schriften des Johannes Philoponos auBer opm.und AnCom. laBt
sich kaum etwas an Hinweisen
zur embryonalen Physiologie und Beseelung
entnehmen. Das Wenige, was bekannt ist, istnicht unabhangig vom zugrun deliegenden Verstandnis
der Seele.40 Freilich kann von einem Gesamtent
wurf zur Seelenlehre bei Johannes Philoponos Seine Vorstellungen
nur bedingt die Rede
sein.
sind vorgegeben und ruhren aus den unterschiedlichen
philosophischen Traditionen her. Die platonischen, aristotelischen, stoischen und medizinisch-physiologischen Ansatze Ubereinstimmung
gebracht und
sind nicht strengmiteinander
vereinheitlicht. Sie
erscheinen
schliissig prasentiert, werden
jeweiligen Einzelkontexten
Stelle zu einer Gesamtkonzeption
zusammengefiigt, wobei
in
in den
aber an keiner zu berucksichti
gen ist,daB die Texte weitgehend keine systematischen Anliegen verfolgen.
40Die h?chstens
Seelenvorstellungen zu Vergleichszwecken
des AnCom.
sollen wegen
der
ungesicherten
Autorschaft
werden; dazu vgl. HJ. Blumenthal, hinzugezogen "Body zu den anderen The Monist 69 (1986) 370-82. Divergenzen
and soul in Philoponus", Schriften des Johannes Philoponos
best?tigen
sich.
JOHANNES
Im Denken
PHILOPONOS
UND
DIE
ANTIKE
des Johannes Philoponos mogen
EMBRYOLOGIE
diese Ansatze
391
gleichwohl als
Artikulationsformen eines ihmselbstverstandlich erscheinenden Gesamtver standnisses uberbruckt und verknupft sein und er deshalb Harmonisierung
oder grundsatzliche Thematisierung
eine explizite
als unnotig empfun
den haben. Um
den Ausgleich verschiedener Denkmodelle
hatten schon die Philo
sophen in den Jahrhunderten zuvor gerungen, aber ebenfalls kein Kon zept vorlegen Das
konnen,
das
seitdem allseits akzeptiert worden
ware.41
riihrte auch daher, daB seit dem 2. Jh. das medizinisch-physiologische
Wissen
gewachsen war und den philosophischen Beseelungsmodellen
lichen Erklarungsbedarf aufnotigte. Das Wachstum des Embryos
etwa
lieB sich aus medizinischer
zusatz
der vitalen Fahigkeiten Sicht wie bei Galen
als
naturgeleiteter ProzeB verstehen und nicht nur als Folge einer Formierung durch ein seelisches Prinzip begreifen. Aus philosophischer Sicht verlangte das wiederum
einen Naturbegriff, der nicht ausschlieBlich physiologisch
konzipiert seinkonnte.42 BeiJohannes
Philoponos
stoBtman einerseits auf typischeElemente einer (xVui
(pqrtnt, akoyo; wuxi , Xoyci wxvu/ ihre Existenz nur als Entelechie des vobq).43 Seele hat in diesem Modell kann ein vom Korper gel6stes Dasein Korpers, und nur die Xoyudij 'ij aristotelischen Drei-Seelenlehre
haben. Gleichzeitig denktJohannes Philoponos aber auch von einem einzi gen Seelenprinzip
her, wobei wie
schon in der Tradition
nicht klar zu
entscheiden ist,ob es sich bei einer inneren Strukturierung der Seele wie der in Opmrt"i, aia0xlOu
und voltIu" Vn44f um Teile oder Potenzen handelt.
41
halten aber ein der Plotin, Porphyrios und andere sprechen zwar von Seelenteilen, f?r nicht flexibel genug und den tats?chlichen Gegebenheiten f?r nicht artiges Konzept sondern vertreten die Ansicht, da? es sich um bestimmte Potenzen der einen angemessen, Unterricht bei Or?genes", Hairesis. FS Seele handelt; vgl. C. Sch?lten, "Psychagogischer K. Hoheisel 34 (M?nster 2002) 261-80, hier 27 If (Lit.); weitere antike =JbAC Ergbd. Autoren bei H. D?rrie/M. Baltes, Die philosophische Lehre des Piatonismus. Von der "Seele" ab in der Antike der Ursache aller sinnvollen Abl?ufe = Der Piatonismus 6,1 (Baustein 164) 104-22. 343-74; K. Schindler, Die stoische Lehre von den 2002) (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt Seelenteilen und Seelenverm?gen insbesondere bei Panaitios und Poseidonios und ihre Verwendung bei Cicero. Diss. Regensburg 1934). (M?nchen 42 on Aristotle's definition of Vgl. E.M. Macierowski/R.F. Hassing, "John Philoponus Ancient 8 nature", 7) 349f. Philosophy (1988) 73-100; Sch?lten, Naturphilosophie (o. Anm. 43 zu den U. der Seelenlehre Tier bei Aristoteles Dierauer, Bez?gen Vgl. biologischen undMensch imDenken der Antike (Amsterdam 1977) 102-5. 44 Zur Herkunft von Aristoteles vgl. E. Lesky, Die ^eugungs- und VererbungslehrenderAntike und ihreNachwirkung = AAWLM.G 1950,19 (Wiesbaden 1951) 1225-1425, hier 1366-8.
CLEMENS
392
SCHOLTEN
Nicht klar wird, ob in seinem Verstandnis
fuXziXoyuctjdasselbe wie VO7iTIK
inrxi ist45bzw. &Xoyo; 4fux und WuXi aicaOqt c deckungsgleich sind.46Die Flexibilitat bei der Gliederung der Seelenfahigkeit harmoniert mit der eben
an der physiologischen Entwicklungorientierten falls vorzufindenden, Auffassung, welche tende Potenzen
die niederen Seelenkrafte nicht als von auBen eintre
versteht, sondern
die Natur
lung auch der Seelenkrafte des Lebewesens
selbst fur die Entwick
verantwortlich macht. Aristo
zur naturgeleiteten kontinuierlichen Hoherentwicklung
telische Gedanken
der Lebewesen47 und die stoische Auffassung von der Natur
als kreativem
Prinzip der Embryonalentwicklung48 sind hier miteinander verbunden und durch einen neuplatonisch konzipierten Naturbegriff uberformt. Schaut man die Aussagen zur Beseelung des Embryos auBerhalb von opm. zusammen, ist offenkundig, daBJohannes Beseelung
Philoponos von dessen sukzessiver
ausgeht. Am Beginn, noch vor der Beseelung,
gemeinsam Samen und MonatsfluB,
stehen zunachst
die fur den nachfolgenden ProzeB erst
umgewandelt werden miissen.49 Nichts
deutet bei Johannes
Philoponos
45 verwendet den Begriff f| vonTnai yx>xr\ nicht. Johannes Philoponos 46 aetm. 9,11 (348, 4-6 Rabe), nennt als alogische Kr?fte Johannes Philoponos, sinnliche Seele Ern?hrung, Wachstum, Zeugung, Wahrnehmung, Strebeverm?gen
der und
der ?^oyo? in eingeschr?nktem Als Spezifikum Sinn nur die v|A)%r|k?nnte und Zeugung sinnliche Wahrnehmung auch den gelten, da Wachstum, Ern?hrung wird aber davon Pflanzen zu eigen sind (doch vgl. die Zophyta; o. Anm. 26). Anscheinend die vorangehenden da? epigenetisch die h?heren Lebensformen ausgegangen, aufgenom anderes.
zur Wahrnehmung F?higkeit (a?aOnxiK?v) jedem zu Lebewesen, eigen: Vgl. Johannes Philoponos, AnalPrCom. 355,8f; in der Sarx; genauer wird sogar gesagt, das a?aOr|TiK?v befinde sich bei den Lebewesen cpavxaaia und vgl. ebd. 15,34f. Nach AnalPrCom. 32,16-9 sind alogische Erkenntniskr?fte
men
haben.
Wie
?blich
ist die
aber nicht der Pflanze
a?aOnai?. 47 Vgl.
con criticism of Aristotle's Aristoteles, HA 8,1 (588b2-21); A. Preus, "Galen's "Galen and ception theory", Journal of the history ofBiology 10 (1977) 65-85, P. Moraux, de partibus animalium", Aristotle On nature and living things.FS D.M. Aristode's ed. Balme, hier A. Gotthelf 332f. 1985) 327-44, (Pittsburgh/Bristol 48 = SVF II 745; T. Tieleman, Philo Alex, opif. 67 (l,22,13ff Wendland) Vgl. of and stoic embryology. Ps.Plutarch, 15,4 reconsidered", "Diogenes Babylon plac. V 44 (1991) 106-25, hier 120f. Mnemosyne 12264. 49 aetm. 13,9 (501,2-12 Rabe): "Ich habe aber Johannes Philoponos, zur des Embryos der selben Hinsicht' hinzugef?gt, weil die Entstehung Mutter
genommene aber nicht
geh?rt, ist, sondern Same
Materie
Teil
Same
und Monatsflu?
in derselben
zugleich sie sich ver?ndert
(erst), wenn bzw. Monatsflu?
verg?nglicher
wie und
ist, weder
des Embryos
Hinsicht
wohl auch
und umgewandelt
(schon) zu den Erzeugern eigenst?ndiges Endprodukt sie hat. Sie ist also, wenn noch ist sie, wenn sie ein
eigenst?ndiges Endprodukt, ist und sich in seine Natur
geworden
'zugleich und in von Vater bzw.
gewandelt
hat, ein
JOHANNES
PHILOPONOS
UND
DIE
ANTIKE
EMBRYOLOGIE
393
darauf hin, daB phytische und alogische Seele potentiell im Samen vorhan ihn ubertragen wurden.50 Mit
den waren
oder durch
Lebensform
setzt die Beseelung
ein.5 Bevor der Mensch
der pflanzlichen voll ausgebildet
des Beseelten ist,rechnetJohannesPhiloponosmit der Differenzierung und Pflanzlich-Tierisches Tierisches in Pflanzliches((pqutv), (4Toup6ov) Die Entwicklung des Embryos laBt kontinuierliche Abstufungen im (~4Cov).52
Hinblick
auf das angezielte Ideal erkennen.53Wie liegt die Abgrenzung
schen Texten
in anderen zeitgenossi
der Stufen voneinander
schiedlichen Fahigkeiten begrundet. Alle Ablaufe
in den unter
vom Samen
uber das
Fleisch und den die verschiedenen Etappen des Lebendigen durchlaufenden
des Erschaffenden"; vgl. aetm. 9,8 (339,4-9 R.); aetm. 14,1 (542,22-5 R.) spricht von steht damit in der Tradition Galens und "durchmengter Gestalt". Johannes Philoponos an das Galen Aristoteles Zusam hatte, ankn?pfend gegen Hippokrates, Porphyrios'.
Teil
eines Embryos gelehrt weiblicher und m?nnlicher Materie bei der Entstehung Galen and Aristotle's de partibus animalium [o. Anm. 47] 332f; Ders., Der (vgl. Moraux, Aristotelismus bei den Griechen 2 = Peripatoi 6 [Berlin/New York 1984] 745-9), auch wenn er in der oder Part um Menstrualblut schwankte, ob es sich beim weiblichen Beurteilung
menwirken
weiblichen aber
sind zwar auch Frau und Mann handelt. F?r Aristoteles beteiligt, liefert nur das pneumatische criticism vgl. Preus, Galen's Formprinzip; von der Beteiligung 78-82. Zur Vielfalt der sonstigen Verst?ndnisweisen
"Samen"
der Mann
[o. Anm. 47] Mann und Frau
15) 1228-44. Undurchsichtig (o. Anm. Embryologie vgl. Lesky/Waszink, ob die Zeit zwischen der und dem Beginn bleibt bei Johannes Empf?ngnis Philoponos, Stadium verstanden wird. Man wird jedoch der pflanzlichen Phase als rein materielles
von im aristotelischen Sinn die Potenzen davon ausgehen k?nnen, da? dieses Stadium in sich tr?gt. Pflanzen- und Tierseele 50 AnCom. 13,24-14,1 geht von unk?rperlichen (pvaiKOi taSyoi aus, die in jedem Teil des sind dieselben nat?rlichen Prinzipien Samens existieren: "Denn in jedem Teil des Samens insgesamt sind, n?mlich die des Ern?hrens, des Wachstums ungeteilt, die auch im Samen und der Ausformung. Wie n?mlich der Same insgesamt, wenn er durch den Mutterscho? so bewirkt er es um (? ov) hervorbringt, aufgenommen wird, ein vollendetes Lebewesen nichts weniger, auch des AnCom. Anliegen
wenn
er nicht
als ganzer,
sondern
nur
als Teil
ist es zu zeigen, da? Zusammenhang sind; vgl. Blumenthal, Body and soul (o. Anm. 40) 376f. unk?rperlich 51 die auf die entsprechenden Aristotelesschriften bezogene Vgl. in diesem
GenCorCom.
2,10-20: Metalle
Johannes Philoponos, haben aber keine Sinneswahrnehmung; die Frage, ?ber Sinneswahrnehmung.
Lebewesen ob Pflanzen
sind unbeseelt;
(da ist)". Das alle Seelenarten
bei Einteilung Pflanzen sind beseelt,
sind beseelt und besitzen (? a) sind die antiken eine Seele haben,
zu den Bef?rwortern z?hlt als erster Aristoteles, dann zB. Plotin und geteilt; zu den Bestreitern werden zB. die Stoiker, Porphyrios und Eusebios gerechnet; Or?genes, bei Sorabji, Animal minds (o. Anm. 11) 97-100. vgl. den ?berblick 52 AnalPrCom. 16,1-7; AnalPostCom. 14,3-14; 411,22-32; Philoponos, Vgl. Johannes
Meinungen
GenCorCom. 213,26-214,13. 53 Johannes Philoponos,
GenCorCom.
271,21.
CLEMENS
394
SCHOLTEN
Embryo bis hin zum ausgebildeten Menschen
sind somit epigenetisch und
vollziehen sich in einer festgelegtenReihenfolge. Die Natur Kraft, die auf das zu erreichende Ziel hinwirkt.54Mit Prinzip
gefunden, das
burtlichen Entwicklung
istdie steuernde
der Natur
zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt aus dem durch Samen
ist ein
in der vorge
und MonatsfluB
bereit
gestellten Substrat selbst kreativ die phytische und alogische Lebensform hervorzubringen in der Lage
ist.Die Natur
Form, sondern auch die das Leben
schafftnicht nur die physische
charakterisierende Fahigkeit
(4wrtuc
Uva,utq), namlich Wachstum, Ernahrung und Sinneswahrnehmung, also die alogischen seelischen Potenzen von Pflanzen und Tieren.55 Philosophisch
betrachtet macht
aber nicht die Materie,
Form, also das seelische Lebensprinzip, logischen Stadium Wachstums
eine einzige Seele
durchlauft, oder
das Lebewesen
sondern die
aus. Ob
es im vor
ist, die unterschiedliche Stadien des
ob mehrere
voneinander
unterschiedene
Seelen aufeinander folgen, laBt sich, wie gesagt, nicht genau erkennen. Laut PhysCom. geht Johannes Philoponos
davon
aus, daB der soeben geformte
Embryo die Stufe des XoywKOv noch nicht erreicht.56Die Form des Embryos entwickelt sich nach aetm. allmahlich und empfangt noch imMutterschoB zeitlos die Vollendung.57 Johannes Philoponos
54 Vgl. Johannes Philoponos, auch, wenn aus wenig Samen
vertritt somit die aristoteli
aetm. 11,8 (432,11-6
"Auf gleiche Weise ern?hrt Rabe): f?r entsteht, die Natur, die den Monatsflu? die Hinzuf?gung des Samens bereitstellt, die Frucht imMutterleib und f?hrt sie zu ihrer erste Materie nat?rlichen indem die dem Monatsflu? der Gr??e, zugrundeliegende des Samens Materie ausges?t war"; hinzugef?gt wird, der seit Beginn vgl. PhysCom. ein Mensch
319,23-8; 848,6-8. 55 Johannes Philoponos,
aetm. 9,9 (340,10-24 Rabe); vgl. den nicht physiologisch in aetm. 7,16 (280,5-7 R.): ". . .denn auch wir r?umen ein, da? konzipierten Naturbegriff zwischen die Verstandesseele und den K?rper die Natur und die alogischen Kr?fte treten, die selbst geworden und verg?nglich sind". 56 "?xav yap y?vexai A-oyuc?v xi, ?n^ovoxi Johannes PhysCom. 129,27-30: Philoponos, x? yiv?jxevov ta>yiK?v ax?pnaiv ei/e rcp? xo?xou xo? e??od? xo? XoyiKo?? (o?ov xo apxi eu?p-Dov), e?xa xo? e?8ou? xouxou ?7ciyivo|i?vo\) ?v x imoKEijaivco f| ax?pnai? an erci Tcavxo?v ?jioico?". Mit "?pxi ?ia?i^aaO?v" m! ist die erste Formgebung ?Tiexc?pnGe, von Samen und Monatsflu? das aus der Umwandlung entstandene Fleisch gemeint. Es 8ia7t?,aa0?v
im Zitat mit dem "Zugrun nicht endg?ltig beweisbar, da? legt sich nahe, obwohl wieder der Embryo (und nicht ein rein abstraktes Prinzip oder der Mensch deliegenden" nach der Geburt) gemeint ist und da? somit bereits im PhysCom. aus dem Jahre 517 die des Embryos mit der \|/i)%f|A,oyncr| gelehrt wird. Dann aber steht nichts ent Beseelung gegen, auch in aetm. diese Vorstellung 57 aetm. 9,14 Johannes Philoponos,
vorauszusetzen; (369,1-371,16
vgl. o. S. 3f. Rabe).
JOHANNES
PHILOPONOS
DIE
UND
ANTIKE
EMBRYOLOGIE
395
sche Bestimmung jeder Seelenart als Entelechie.58 Alles Seelische bis ein schlieB3lichzum Alogischen besteht freilichnicht dauerhaft, sondern lost sich mit dem Tod wieder auf: So heiBt es in aetm.,daB die alogischen Krafte der ins Nichts ubergehen.59 Es legt sich nahe, daB damit implizit
Seele wieder
von der Untrennbarkeit
der alogischen Seele vom K6rper
ausgegangen
wird.60
2. De opficio mundi DaB
Seele
Entelechie
ist, gilt auch
fur die koyi
Verhaltnis zum Embryo nur in opm.-abgesehen PhysCom. explizite AuBerungen
iu,
uiber deren
vielleicht von der Stelle aus
zu finden sind. Wie
schon gesagt, lehrt
in opm., daB sie gleichzeitig zur akoyo; xvnu' in den xiiruxXoyci unterscheide sich aber von dieser durch ihre
Johannes Philoponos Embryo tritt.Die
Trennbarkeit vom Korper.6' Darin
drucke sich eine divergierende Ente
lechie aus: Er (sc.Aristoteles) sagt aber, daB die eine Art Entelechie untrennbar (sc.mit dem Korper verbunden) sei, wie die musikalische Aktualitat der Flote und der Leier-so verhalt sich auch die Seele der Lebewesen ohne Vernunft, die zugleichmit der Verbindung zum Korper aufgel6stwird; die andere Art der Entelechie aber sei trennbarwie der Steuermann vom Schiffund der Lenker vom Wagen, denn der eine stattedas Schiffmit Form aus, der andere den Lebewesen.62 Wagen, wie auch die Seele derMenschen das vernuinftige darf man den SchluB ziehen, daB die xivoxlqutud und die &aoyo; i der Natur sind und als solche bei der Auflosung Hervorbringungen Vyu des Lebewesens, wie es schon in aetm. gesagt wurde, auch wieder zugrun
Daraus
58 Aristoteles, de An. 2,1 (412al5.23; 412b5). 59 aetm. 9,11 (348,4-7 Rabe). Johannes Philoponos, 60Die der verschiedenen Frage der Trennbarkeit vieldiskutiertes 10,4-9
Thema;
in dieser
Frage
vom K?rper ist ein Seelenarten AnCom. Der AnCom. sich in selbst 9,35-12,12. vgl. positioniert zur \\fx>%r\ im Unterschied so, da? die aXoyo? \\fx>x?\ (pamicri vom
ist, sich jedoch nicht von ihrem gcuuxx hve'duxxtikOv l?sen kann; vgl. des damit gemeinten Blumenthal, Body and soul (o. Anm. 40) 373. Die Nichtexistenz in aetm. 7,14 Seelengef?hrtes (avyoei??? ocojia oder ?%n|xa) wird von Johannes Philoponos
K?rper
trennbar
21 bewiesen. 61Darin
besteht
zB.
ein Unterschied
zu AnCom.;
(o. Anm. 40) 379. 62 opm. 6,23 (584,17-22 Johannes Philoponos, (413a3-9); Simplikios, CaelCom. 380,16-9; PsGalen 16; 47,28-48,8
Kalbfleisch).
vgl. Blumenthal,
Body
and
soul
de An. 2,1 vgl. Aristoteles, (Porphyrios), Ad Gaurum 10,4. 6 (47,5
Sch?lten);
CLEMENS
396
degehen.63 Die Xoyti
SCHOLTEN
ivu' hingegen ist unsterblich und trittdeshalb auch
von auBen in den Embryo ein. Deshalb zip "Natur"
ursachlich
kann dafur auch nicht das Prin
sein, sondern nur der Schopfer.64 Daher
kein Seelenteil, sondern eine eigene Substanz.65 Diese Konzeption
ist sie wirft die
Frage nach der Existenzweise der unsterblichen Xoytcii ijnj vor ihrem Ein tritt in den K6rper Praexistenzlehre, wie
auf. Johannes Philoponos sie Origenes
ihn mit anderen Worten
als Kreatianisten
Einfuhrung der Xoytd x yj
schlieB3t als Antwort eine
vertreten hat, aus.66 Daher
darf man
einordnen. Der Zeitpunkt der
in den Embryo
ist nach opm. dann gegeben,
im Embryo die aXoyo; yxnViausbildet.67 Bestatigt wird die Beseelung des Embryos mit der Xoyt i xVu t furJohannes Philoponos durch
wenn die Natur die Schrift:Das
Strafgesetz Ex. 21,22f (LXX) zeigt, daB Moses
das zu einer
Fehlgeburt fuhrende StoBen einer schwangeren Frau nur unter der Be dingung nach dem Vergeltungsprinzip
"Gleiches durch Gleiches"
wissen will, wenn der Embryo beseelt iSt.68Gleichwohl
bestraft
besitzt der Embryo
63 59. Die opm. 6,23 (582,5-18 Sch?lten); vgl. o. Anm. Philoponos, Johannes im thematisiert Alkinoos, did. 25 (50 Whittaker), wobei Sterblichkeit der aXoyo? \\fv%r\ et Plat. 598,26 vielleicht Piaton, Ti. 69C steht; vgl. Galen, De plac. Hipp, Hintergrund um die im kaiserzeitlichen H. "Kontroversen D?rrie, 600,18); Seelenwanderung auch in: Ders, Plat?nica minora (M?nchen (1957) 414-35, 1976) referiert die unterschiedlichen TimCom. 3,234,8-238,26 Proklos, Diehl, zu dieser Frage. Interessanterweise opm. 6,23 sagt Johannes Philoponos, sondern auch die nicht nur die Sinneswahrnehmung, S.), da? der Embryo Hermes
Piatonismus", 420-40,
85
424.
Meinungen
(584,11-4 um die Orts scheint die Diskussion als Hintergrund Bewegungsfahigkeit empfangt; o. S. 383-7) durch. (vgl. bewegung des Embryos 64 . .Die Seele der Menschen aber opm. 6,23 (582,7-18 S.): ". Johannes Philoponos, trennbare entstand aus einem anderen Anfang, denn sie besitzt eine von den K?rpern Substanz
und geht in sie nach der Ausformung den Lebenshauch, und der Mensch
sein Antlitz 2,7LXX). 65 Ebd. 66 Ebd. 67 Ebd.
. .". 6,23
ein. wurde
'blies in 'Gott', sagt er {sc.Moses), zu einer (Gen. lebendigen Seele'
(582,13-8).
7,2f. 6,23
(584,6-22
S.). es sich um die A,oyucii \j/u%r|handelt, (588,10-590,18 S.). Da? zeigt im Kontext die Beziehung auf Gen. und der Eintritt der Seele in den K?rper 2,7 (LXX) "von au?en" nach der Formung f| xfj? \|n)%fj?e?aKpiai?). Damit wird (|iex? xf|v bi?nXaciv 68 Ebd.
6,24f
der Eintritt der ?oyncri \|/i)%r|in den Embryo anscheinend zeitlich nahe an die erste Stufe des Seelenlebens, die Begabung mit den vegetativen Kr?ften, heranger?ckt. Ex. 21,22f ist der biblische locus classicus aller und rechdichen (LXX) sp?teren moralischen des Status des Embryos; Ders. "Introduction", (ed.), The Bewertung vgl. G.R. Dunstan, human embryo.Aristotle and theArabic and European traditions (Exeter 1990) 1-10; 4f. Dunstan istwie FJ. D?lger, "Das Lebensrecht des ungeborenen Kindes und die Fruchtabtreibung
JOHANNES
PHILOPONOS
UND DIE
ANTIKE
nicht die vollen Fahigkeiten des Xoytcov.Denn Kind
EMBRYOLOGIE
397
auch dem gerade geborenen
steht noch nicht zur Verfuigung, was naturlicherweise bei der XoytKlm ist.69
Mru vorhanden
desEmbgyos inphilosophischer III. Die Beseelung Tradition Die Besonderheit dieser Anschauungen
macht der Vergleich mit fruiheren
philosophischen Positionen zur Beseelung des Embryos erkennbar. In deren
Hintergrundstehen explizitoder implizitstetsbiologischeZeugungs-, Vererbungs-
und Entwicklungslehren.70 Auch wenn
die antiken Vorstel
lungen zur Embryonalentwicklung notwendig begrenzt sind und es schwer fallt,einen allgemeingultigen biologischen Kenntnisstand fur eine bestimmte Zeit
festzustellen,7' lassen sich die Etappen
schen Embryologie und der Wissens-
der medizinisch-philosophi
und Diskussionstand,
der Johannes
Philoponosvorliegt,in Umrissenbeschreiben. Mit der Aristotelesschrift De generationeanimalium liegt ein seinerseits bereits altere Stellungnahmen
in der Bewertung der heidnischen (1934) 1-61, hier 9, der Meinung,
und christlichen Antike", ders., Antike und Christentum 4 von Ex. 21,22f da? sich bereits in der Formulierung of Alexandrian culture by accepted Greek embryology and the
"the domination (LXX) Aristotelian hat. Die hebr?ische language" niedergeschlagen der Sache nach bereits auf altorientalische Bestimmungen,
Fassung von Ex. 21,22f geht zB. den Codex Hammurabi,
in der Bewertung des Embryos ist folgenreich f?r die Differenzen Divergenz u. Anm. in j?discher und christlicher Tradition: 123. vgl. 69 . . x? opm. 2,5 (198,1-5 S.): ". apxixoKov ?pecpoc ?iyoi xi? eivai Johannes Philoponos, unie cruujtri?ec?? xfj? ?eouan? ur|Te f^iK?a? xt>xov ur|xe xcov Kax? (p\>aiv ccKaraaKe?aaTov,
zur?ck. Die
. . .". Damit sind die rationalen F?higkeiten gemeint. rcpoa?vxcov xr\Xoyncp iiruxfi, 70 K. Emmel, Das Fortleben der antiken Lehren von der Beseelung bei den Kirchenv?tern. Diss.
1918) (allerdings zum Teil nicht pr?zise genug); Lesky, Zeugungs (Borna/Leipzig und Vererbungslehren der Biologie 1. Biologie von (o. Anm. 44); ?. B?umer, Geschichte a der Antike bis zur Renaissance bes. H. 72-89; (Frankfurt/Bern 1991), King, "Making man. Becoming in early Greek medicine", human Dunstan (ed.), The human embryo Gie?en
et criticism (o. Anm. 47); J. Berthier, "M?decine 68) 10-9; Preus, Galen's sur l'Ad la mani?re dont Tratados dans Gaurum, l'embryon s'anime", hipocr?ti philosophie cos (estudios acerca de su contenido, forma e influencia).Actas del Ule colloque intern,hippocratique (o. Anm.
Ferez 24-29 de septiembre de 1990), ed. J.A. L?pez (Madrid 1992) 635-45. zur zur Entstehung des Samens, zur ?hnlichkeit sind etwa Theorien Vererbung, aus. sehr unterschiedlich der Kinder mit den Eltern. Im einzelnen fallen die ?berlegungen 71 vor ZB. kann ?pecpoc ein Wesen Hinzu kommen terminologische Mehrdeutigkeiten: oder "geboren werden" meinen; oder nach der Geburt meinen; yevv?v kann "zeugen"
(Madrid, Themen
? ov speziell u. a. m.
ein animal,
aber
auch
allgemein
das, was
lebt bezeichnen
(auch Pflanzen),
398
CLEMENS
SCHOLTEN
bewertender Ausgangstext vor,72 dessen Inhalte im Laufe der Zeit in den
verschiedenen medizinischenund philosophischen Schulen rezipiertund korrigiertwurden. Fur die Spatantike wird man Galen
und seine am ari
stotelischen Modell der Embryonalentwicklung vorgenommenen Modi zifierungen als medizinischen Aristoteles
im Grundsatz
Standard
ansehen
k6nnen.73 Galen
folgt
in der epigenetischen Auffassung, nimmt aber
meist auf hippokratischer Tradition basierende Korrekturen vor.74So stellt er zB. fest, daB die aristotelische Aufteilung von Form und Stoff an Vater und Mutter ungenugend und auch der Vater
inmaterieller Hinsicht an der
Entstehung des Embryos beteiligt sei75oder daB das animalische Leben des Embryos mit dem ersten Herzschlag als Aristoteles meint,
beginne;76 der Embryo bilde, anders
schon zuvor Leber
und Venen
aus, lebe aber
in
dieser Phase wie eine Pflanze und benotige daher noch kein Herz.77 Die
72Dazu pocratic
z?hlt bes. die hippokratische Schrift De natura pueri (ed. I.M. Lonie, The hip "On generation", "On the nature of the child", "Diseases IV" (1981); a man der Biologie (o. Anm. 70); B?umer; Geschichte Making (o. Anm. 70)
treatises
vgl. King, 73-5. 73 Texte
usu partium sowie in semine, De foetuum formatione, De ?u?erungen TimCom. F?r B. "Die der Schriften, Bloch, geschichtlichen Grundlagen bis auf Harvey", Embryologie Abhandlungen derKaiserlich Leopoldinisch-Carolinischen Deutschen anderen
sind De
zB.
Akademie derNaturforscher 82 (1904) 213-43, und B?umer, Geschichte der Biologie (o. Anm. Galen den bedeutet der antiken bzw. eine Phase der 70) 89, jedoch Niedergang Biologie istmehr als einseitig; zB. wird der Fortschritt nicht gesehen, den Stagnation. Das Urteil
von Seele und Galen in der Problematik der Beziehung Faktoren bietet. biologischen 74 Galen's criticism Anm. Galen and Aristotle's de par Vgl. Preus, (o. 47); Moraux, tibus animalium (o. Anm. 47). 75 Aristotelismus Moraux, Balme, (o. Anm. ""Av?pcimo? avOpcoTcov 49) 745-9; D.M. is generated by human", Dunstan yevva. Human (ed.), The human embryo (o. Anm. 68) selbst das Nousprinzip durch 20-31, zeigt, da? nach Aristoteles, GA 2,3 (736b8-737al8) im Samen vorhandene Pneuma vermittelt ist, auch wenn es frei von K?rperlichkeit in den Embryo im Embryo eintritt, und da? somit alle seelischen Prinzipien potentiell
das
bereits
seit der Empf?ngnis vorhanden sind; anders Lesky/Waszink, Embryologie (o. Anm. 15) 1238, f?r die das Sperma nur die Empfindungsseele ?bertr?gt. 76 3 (4,663-5 K?hn); P. Moraux, "Galien comme philosophe. Vgl. Galen, Defoet.form. La philosophie de la nature", Galen. Problems and prospects, ed. V. Nutton (Cambridge/ London der Biologie 1981) 87-116, hier 93-5; B?umer, Geschichte (o. Anm. 70) 86-9; = zu Piatons Timaios C J. Larrain, Galens Kommentar zur Altertumskunde 29 Beitr?ge (Stuttgart 1992) 67-75. 77 Aristotelismus der 768; B?umer, Geschichte Vgl. Moraux, (o. Anm. 49) 749-51. Anm. 87. (o. Biologie 70)
JOHANNES
PHILOPONOS
DIE
UND
EMBRYOLOGIE
sich auf drei
beschranken
folgenden Ausfuhrungen
ANTIKE
399
typische spatantike
Stellungnahmen.78 1. Galens
eigene Schrift De foetuumformatione versucht den Sachstand
formulieren, laBt aber gleichzeitig die Unsicherheit der antikenMedizin
zu und
zu einemschlissigen VerstandnisderUrsachen der Philosophieerkennen, zu kommen.79 Galen gehtvon einerkontinuierlichen Embryonalentwicklung Entwicklung des Embryos aus, hat aber keine Klarheit, ob das ursachliche Prinzip die Natur oder die Seele ist und, wenn es die Seele sein sollte,wie zu fassen ist als Alternativen kamen
ihr Status genauer
oder "die Natur" in Frage TcrtOupxt" W-rxi'j,&Xoyo; rxnyo den Embryo tritt zB. mit dem Samen. Sicher ist sichGalen
qptixi Arxi, und wie sie in aber, daB trotz
keine iVuxi koytd in Frage kommt.80Als eine Begrundung wird angegeben, daB die Seele die inneren
der Weisheit
der Ausstattung des Korpers
Teile des eigenen Korpers im Embryo
nicht kenne. Am Ende der Schwangerschaft ist
allenfalls ein ausgebildetes allerdings wegen
dessen Fahigkeiten
alogisches Lebewesen
der
es umgebenden
realisiert,
Feuchtigkeit
gehemmtsind.8' 78
bzw. wichtige Teilaspekte Embryologie geben Piatonismus 11) 100-3; D?rrie/Baltes, (o. Anm. 41) 94 104; 321-43; Lesky/Waszink, 15); J.H. Waszink, (o. Anm. "Beseelung", RAC Embryologie und Vererbungslehren 2 (1954) 176-83; Lesky, Zeugungs(o. Anm. 44); B?umer, der Biologie Introduction: ders. (ed.), The human Geschichte 70); Dunstan, (o. Anm. Einen
Sorabji,
?ber
?berblick
Animal
die
antike
(o. Anm.
minds
A history of embryology.Second edition revised with embryo (o. Anm. 68) If; J. Needham, York bes. G.R. "The human the assistance of A. Hughes 27-84; Dunstan, (New 21964), western status of the Seller The G.R. in the moral tradition," Dunstan/MJ. (ed.), embryo human embryo.Perspectivesfrom moral tradition (London 1988) 39-57; H. Schmoll, "Wann wird S. 15. der Mensch ein Mensch?", FrankfurterAllgemeine Leitung 125 vom 31.5.2001, 79 = Hildesheim Ed.: Claudii Galeni opera omnia 4, ed. C.G. K?hn 1822 194) (Leipzig Aristotelismus 652-702; (o. Anm. 49) 767-73. vgl. Moraux, 80Die da? der vern?nftige Teil der Seele dem Samen mitgegeben ist,wird, Meinung, wie Larrain Anm. (o. 76) 69f meint, in der Schrift PsGalens An animal in utero (19,158-81 scheint das nicht sicher. Der Verfasser will, wenn er dem Embryo anscheinend und Logismos lediglich sagen, zuspricht, ebd. 19,168 K?hn, einer sinnvollen Ausdruck erkennbar vorhandenen da? die beim Embryo Sinnesorgane sind?der gelegt?nicht Sch?pfer des Alls hat ja die Seele in den Mutterscho? Ordnung eine \|A)xflta>yiKT| besitzt; der Begriff wird in der Schrift nicht jedoch, da? der Embryo
K?hn) Anteil
vertreten. Doch
an Seele
benutzt. Moraux, Anm.
Galien
774, weist
comme
daraufhin,
76) 93-5 und Aristotelismus (o. (o. Anm. philosophe im platonischen Sinn von einer Seele ausgeht; da? Galen ihre Dreiteilung; "Galen's anatomy vgl. RJ. Hankinson, 197-233, bes. 197-208.
49) allerdings bedeutet das zugleich of the soul", Phronesis 36 (1991) 81 usu partium 15,5 K?hn; Vgl. Galen, De
Platonismus
(o. Anm.
41)
332-7.
Larrain
(o. Anm.
76) 67-75;
D?rrie/Baltes,
400
CLEMENS
SCHOLTEN
2. Die bekannteste istdie spatantike philosophische Positionsbestimmung psgalenische Schrift np'; Fakpov, als deren Verfasser Porphyrios gilt.82Sie und halt die Beseelung des Embryos ebenfalls fur ein medizinisch naturkundlich
will aber zeigen, daB dem Embryo
schwieriges Thema,
der Status eines Lebewesens
besten mit den biologischen Gegebenheiten zu bringen Seele
ist und daB3 am
sogar ganzlich abzusprechen
ist, der dem Embryo
die Ansicht Platons in Einklang
erst mit bzw. nach der Geburt
die
Richtigkeit der Lehre Platons zu demonstrieren bzw.
zuweist. Die
Platontexte vor Fehlinterpretationen zu schutzen ist ein wesentliches Ziel der Schrift.83Der Verfasser geht dementsprechend von einer platonischen Seelenvorstellung
Seele
aus: Die
ist ein einziges Prinzip aus
r0ygoVItKOV,
0-oig6 und kt7lupnj?tKOV.Der Verfasser kennt und benutzt zwar auch auf anderen Vorstellungen basierende Termini wie zB. die iwuXii(Pq)utKi als Prinzip von Ernahrung und Wachstum, gange den Begriff Seele nen nur einige
mochte
aber auf vegetative Vor
eigentlich nicht anwenden.84 Im folgenden kon
in sachlicher Verbindung
mit Gedanken
bei Johannes
Philoponosstehende Aussagen referiert werden.85 Schrift bemuht sich zu zeigen, daB der Embryo weder aktuell noch
Die
potentiell ein Lebewesen
(4Cpov)ist, und selbst wenn
letzteres der Fall sein
sollte, daB dann die animalische Seele nicht durch Vater oder Mutter,
son
82Das
Ende des Textes ist nicht erhalten. Vgl. K. Kalbfleisch (Hg.), Die neuplatonische, nepi rov n?? e?y/vxovTca ta efi?pva f?lschlich dem Galen zugeschriebene Schrift Kpo? Tavpov = AAWB (Berlin 1895). U. Jurisch, Grundfragen der Embryonalentwicklung aus der Sicht eines nicht 1991) bietet eine fehlerhafte und die Textstruktur Neuplatonikers (Diss. Erlangen eine franz?sische ?bersetzung findet sich bei genau erfassende deutsche ?bersetzung; A.-J. Festugi?re, La r?v?lationd'Herm?s trism?giste3. Les doctrines de l'?me (Paris 1953) 265-302; Fortleben (o. Anm. 70) 21-5; Berthier, M?decine vgl. Emmel, (o. Anm. 70); D?rrie/ W. Anm. zur Baltes, Platonismus Deuse, (o. 41); Untersuchungen mittelplatonischen und neupla tonischenSeelenlehre (Wiesbaden 1983) 175-9. 186-8. 197f. 83 stimmen Piaton und Vgl. PsGalen (Porphyrios), Ad Gaurum 2,4. F?r den Verfasser von in der Einf?hrung der Seele au?en nach der Geburt Aristoteles (mitsamt Intellekt) ?berein der Hebr?er", also Moses (ebd. 12,3), und einmal wird auch der "Theologe (Gen.
2,7),
sp?tantiken
in diesem
Sinne
Schuldebatte von
zustimmend
nicht
aus,
da?
Positionen
angef?hrt (ebd. 11,1). Das sich der Text auch um zB.
schlie?t die
ebd.
im Stile der
"Sache 10:
an
"Auch
sich" ohne
bem?ht; unabh?ngig platonischen vgl. Piatons mu? man die Frage an sich (sc. hier: den Zeugungsvorgang) Ber?cksichtigung . . .". ?berpr?fen 84 PsGalen 6,3f (42,28-43, (Porphyrios), Ad Gaurum 4 (37,27-41,4 Kalbfleisch); Vgl. 11 K.); Sorabji, Animal minds (o. Anm. (o. Anm. 70) 641. 11) lOOf; Berthier, M?decine 85 Inhalts?bersicht bei Kalbfleisch bei Berthier, (o. Anm. 82) 5-11; gute Analyse M?decine 70). (o. Anm.
JOHANNES
PHILOPONOS
UND
DIE
ANTIKE
EMBRYOLOGIE
401
dern nur von auBen zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt ubertragen werde. Dazu geht der Text von der Frage aus, ob der Embryo ein animalisches oder pflanzliches Leben nehmung und Drang
fuhrt.86 Animalisches Leben
(4cov)
ist durch Sinneswahr
zu ortlicher Bewegung
(opglw)definiert, pflanzliches unter AusschluB von Sinneswahrnehmung
durch Ernahrung und Wachstum
und Bewegungsdrang. Der Embryo besitzt nach Meinung keine von der Sinneswahrnehmung
des Autors jedoch
abhangige Vorstellung
und keinen
Bewegungsdrang und sei daher eine Pflanze oder pflanzenahnlich. Ferner gibt der Text die Auskunft, daB diejenigen, welche den Embryo fur ein ~4ov halten, uneins sind, ob dieser aktuell oder nur potentiell ein Lebewesen
ist; dabei werde potentiell einmal im Sinne der-in
so genannten-zweiten
Potentialitat verstanden: Wie
spaterer Zeit
ein junger Mensch
die
Grammatik bereits kennt, aber aktuell nicht anwendet, besitze der Embryo zwar die Seele, diese befinde sich aber zunachst nur im Ruhezustand.Y Nehme man
jedoch an, die das Lebewesen
schaffende (Xpo7ool6v)Seele sei
potentiell so im Embryo, wie ein junger Mensch
die Grammatik erst noch
lernen muB, dann erhalte er die Seele des 4Cov erst zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem er eben ein ~Cpov wird.88Wenn
aber gezeigt wurde, daB der Embryo
weder aktuell noch potentiell ein Lebewesen Autor zeigen, Platon
sei, bekame, und das will der
recht, der den Eintritt der animalischen Seele von
auBen mit dem Zeitpunkt der Geburt ansetzt.89 Alle
anderen Annahmen
zum
Schwierigkeiten verbunden und Nach
dem Referat
PsGalens
Zeitpunkt
der Beseelung
(Porphyrios') wurde
Augenblick der Ubertragung des Samens der ersten Ausformung nach 30 Tagen absurd Zeugung
sei die Annahme,
von Numenios
der
in die Gebarmutter genannt, von
unbekannten Platonikern, die sich auf Hippokrates oder auch der Moment
sind mit
lassen sich nicht glaubwurdig beweisen.
beriefen, der Zeitpunkt
bei Jungen bzw. 42 bei Madchen
der ersten Bewegung daB die Beseelung
angegeben.
In jedem Fall
unmittelbar beim Akt der
dadurch erfolge, daB die Seele durch den Atem an den Samen
86 PsGalen Zum dih?retischen (Porphyrios), Ad Gaurum 1,1 (33,4-12 Kalbfleisch). Anm. Aufbau vgl. D?rrie/Baltes, Piatonismus 323-5. (o. 41) 87 PsGalen Zum des 1,2-4 (33,12-34,7 K.). Zeitpunkt (Porphyrios), Ad Gaurum Vorhandenseins der animalischen Seele in dieser Sicht sagt der Text nichts; die ?ber seien setzung von 1,2 durch Jurisch, Grundfragen 82) 14f, "die Embryonen (o. Anm. bereits von Anfang an im Besitz der Seele", ist falsch. 88 Zu den unterschiedlichen PsGalen 1,4 (34,7-10 K.). (Porphyrios), Ad Gaurum von Potentialit?t vgl. Deuse, Bedeutungen (o. Anm. 82) 197f. Untersuchungen 89 Ebd. 2,1 (34,11-20 K.).
402
CLEMENS
gebunden werde.90 Allen Theorien
SCHOLTEN
stehen furPsGalen
(Porphyrios) unuber
windliche Schwierigkeiten entgegen, wenn ihreVertreter an einer Beseelung von auBlen festhalten und nicht eine Ubertragung der Seele mit dem Samen des Vaters annehmen.91 PsGalen
(Porphyrios) beschaftigen wie den Verfasser des AnCom. Fragen
wie Nahrungsaufnahme,
Sinneswahrnehmung und Bewegung des Embryos.
Fur das rein pflanzliche Leben
Embryos
fuhrt er die
und die fehlende Atmung
einwende, Platon nenne doch auch die Pflanzen Lebewesen,
an.92Wer
die homonyme Verwendung Bewegungen Der
des menschlichen
durch den Mund
fehlende Nahrungsaufnahme
hat
des Begriffs durch Platon nicht beachtet.93 Die
des Embryos seien rein vegetativ erklarbar.94
Embryo
ist potentiell wahrnehmungsfahig,
Sinn, daB er in der Lage
aber lediglich in dem
ist, die Fahigkeit zurWahrnehmung
In den unvollendeten Organen
vor der Geburt
zu erwerben.
ist das Wahrnehmungsver
mogen noch nicht vorhanden.95 Scharf kritisiertder Verfasser die Stoiker.96 Sie dachten praformistisch und meinten, bereits imKeim
sei die Anlage der
sich bei der Geburt unter Hinzutreten der Luft entfaltenden Fahigkeiten des Lebewesens
enthalten.97 Sie begehen in der Sicht des Verfassers den Fehler,
die Materie
zum bestimmenden Prinzip zu machen
der Seele zu leugnen: Die Natur sein, die animalische
Materie)
und die Immaterialitat
lassen sie ein Produkt des Zustands Seele
ein Produkt der Natur,
(sc.der
die Ver
nunftseele wiederum ein Produkt von Natur und animalischer Seele und den Nous
ein Produkt der Vernunftseele.98
Das Fazit der nur sehr gerafftund inAuszugen
referiertenUberlegungen
90 Ebd. 2,2f (34,20-35,21 K.). 91 Piatonismus Vgl. das ?bersichtliche Referat von D?rrie/Baltes, (o. Anm. 41) 329f. 92 PsGalen (Porphyrios), Ad Gaurum 3,2-5 (36,18-37,26 K.); vgl. 12,4 (50,27-51,10 K.); Berthier, M?decine (o. Anm. 70) 642f. 93 PsGalen (Porphyrios), Ad Gaurum 4 (37,27-41,4 K.). 94 Ebd. 7 (43,12-44,3). Es ist anfechtbar, wie D?rrie/Baltes, Piatonismus (o. Anm. 41) 332 mit Anm. 95 PsGalen 96 Wichtige
(puoi? zu identifizieren. Ad Gaurum 13,5 (53,2-7 K.). (Porphyrios), zu stoischen, aber auch anderen Informationen 44f, yu^n
(pimicri und
Positionen
?berliefert
plac. 5,7; 5,15-23; dazu Tieleman, (o. Anm. 48); vgl. H. Daiber, Aetius Diogenes arabus. Die Vorsokratiker in arabischer ?berlieferung (Wiesbaden 1980) 229-39. 488-91. 495-505. 97 In Ad Gaurum PsGalen wird den Stoikern vorgeworfen, 14,2 (54,3 K.) (Porphyrios), sie machten, da? die Seele Keime rcoio?vxe? xf|v \|/i>xr|v".Oder enth?lt?"a7i?p(|ia)xiKf|V
A?tios,
soll gemeint 98 Ebd. Emmel,
sein, da? 14,1-4
Fortleben
die Seele
im Samen
(53,28-54,25 K.). (o. Anm. 70) 20.
Diese
enthalten Kritik
ist? hat
bereits
Plutarch
ge?u?ert;
vgl.
JOHANNES
PHILOPONOS
kann kurz ausfallen: Die
UND
DIE
ANTIKE
EMBRYOLOGIE
Seele trittnach PsGalen
Geburt von auBen in den Menschen.
403
(Porphyrios) erstmit der vor der Geburt
Die Vorgange
sind
rein vegetativer Art. im einzelnen auch Differenzen bestehen, so teilen doch andere
Mogen
platonische Autoren wie Alkinoos, Jamblich und Proklos die Grundposition des Porphyrios:99 Erst mit bzw. nach der Geburt
erhalt der Embryo die
'Vvi Xoyuci, vorher ist er bestenfalls als ein animalisches Lebewesen einzuordnen, und selbst dies ist hochst umstritten und mehr als zweifelhaft. 3. Eine inmancher Hinsicht andere Position vertreten die bei Galen und
Porphyrios wiederholtkritisierten Stoiker.Bei allenDifferenzenim einzel nen teilen alle Stoiker jedoch
im Grundsatz
daB das
die Uberzeugung,
ursachliche Prinzip der Embryonalentwicklung mit der Qbertragung in den MutterschoB
Samens Darin
des
gelangt und sich seitdem sukzessiv entfaltet.
stimmen sie zwar mit Aristoteles uberein. Anders als bei Aristoteles
wird dieses Prinzip jedoch materiell verstanden. Es kann mit dem Samen selbst oder teilweise unter Steuerung von auBen ubertragen gedacht sein, als im Samen enthaltenes Pneuma, "Natur" oder auch "Seele" bezeichnet wer den. Aber auch die Stoiker sehen den Embryo deswegen keineswegs mit der xV-ovXoyuf ausgestattet. Auch als potentielles Prinzip ist sie im Embryo fur sie nicht vorhanden. Zwar ist er ein Gebilde, das die Potenzen zur weiteren Entwicklung in sich tragt, aber die Beseelung Diogenes
u.a.
zufolge ein Vorgang,
ist Stoikern wie Chrysipp,
der sich erst mit dem Beginn der
Atemtatigkeit unmittelbar nach der Geburt vollzieht und als Umwandlung des Samenpneumas Fahigkeit
zur Seele beschrieben werden
entfaltet sich bzw.
tritt zu
kann;'00 die noetische
einem noch
spateren Zeitpunkt
hinzu. 101 Zusammenfassend
ist festzuhalten: Bei
besteht in der Spatantike Philosophen abzusprechen
allen Divergenzen
groBe Einmutigkeit: Platonische
in Details und
stoische
daB dem Embryo eine nVo1 Xoytd ist.Aus medizinischer Perspektive kann hochstens davon die
teilen die Einschatzung,
Rede
sein, daB der Embryo mit dem Beginn des Herzschlages
Aber
selbst das ist von philosophischer Warte
ein 4Cov ist.
aus hochst zweifelhaft und
wird nicht von vielen geteilt. Es verwundert daher nicht, daB der Verfasser des AnCom., wie oben gesehen, die Frage nach dem Status des Embryos als
99 im einzelnen bei D?rrie/Baltes, Piatonismus Nachweise (o. Anm. 41) 383-43. 100 Tieleman, (o. Anm. 70) 19-21. (o. Anm. 48) 112-5. Emmel, Fortleben Diogenes 101Eine im r?mischen ist die der Recht; dazu vgl. Bewertung Abtreibung Konsequenz Anm. Lebensrecht 37-42. (o. 68) D?lger,
CLEMENS
404
14ov weiter auf der Tagesordnung
SCHOLTEN
hat und nicht ohne weiteres beantworten
will oder kann.
IV. Die Beseelungdes Embgyos in christlicher Tradition im selben philosophischen Rahmen
Grundsatzlich
bewegen
sich auch die
Beseelungsvorstellungen christlicher Autoren,unter denen im folgenden nur eine Auswahl
wiederum
getroffenwerden
erneut in der Wahrnehmung, einem
differenzierten, geschichteten auch
Gleichwie
kann. Der
Schlussel
liegt
ob und wie sie den Beseelungsvorgang mit Seelenmodell
zusammenbringen.
immer die mit den Stichworten Traduzianismus,
tianismus und Praexistenzvorstellung abgesteckten Grundmodelle zelnen bei christlichen Autoren vor Johannes Philoponos sobald der Tatsache Rechnung
Krea im ein
entwickelt sind,
getragen wird, daB Beseelung
ein Vorgang
ist,der verschiedene, sich in kontinuierlicher Entwicklung aufeinander bezo gene seelische Teile
oder Fahigkeiten an den Korper
besteht Ubereinstimmung,
vermitteln muB,'02
daB das oberste Seelenvermogen,
die Ratio,
als
oder spater als Nvi1 Xoyu# bezeichnet, im Embryo nicht ii7?egOViKOV vorhanden ist.Mit fortschreitender Zeit schalt sich diese Gesamttendenz deutlich heraus, auch wenn die Ermittlung der genauen Vorstellungen nicht immer einfach ist. So hebt ein unbekannter christlicher Autor des 2. Jhs. zwar hervor, daB die Seele von auBen durch einen Engel vermittelt wird, geht also von einer praexistenten, beim Zeugungs- oder Empfangnisvorgang anwesenden
Seele
aus. DaB
aber auch die hochste Seelenpotenz
gehort, ist deswegen unwahrscheinlich, weil dem Autor nur daran festzuhalten, daB das Gebilde
imMutterschoB
dazu liegt
ein 1Cpov ist.Auch nur aus
diesem Grund wird mit Lk. 1,41 auf dessen Bewegungsfahigkeit verwiesen.
102Zu
von Pr?existenzlehre, der Entwicklung den Grundz?gen Traduzianismus und = BFChTh Probleme altchristlicher H. 44,3 (G?tersloh vgl. Karpp, Anthropologie
Kreatianismus
1950) 240-53, (vegetative,
der
sich allerdings
animalische,
geistige
nicht n?her mit Seele)
der Frage nach den drei Seelenarten zum entelechischen Seelenmodell
im Verh?ltnis
das Problem nicht (o. Anm. 78), ber?cksichtigt besch?ftigt. Auch Waszink, Beseelung ausreichend. den Zeitpunkt der Beseelung in ?lterer katholischer Sicht berichtet ?ber "Die Beseelung H. Vorwahl, des Menschen", Archiv f?r Geschichte derMedizin 13 (1921) 126f. Er glaubt, da? die Angabe auf der aristotelisch-galenischen Dauer der Wochenbettsunreinheit
f?r Jungen und des 80. f?rM?dchen nicht sondern auf der Entlehnung der j?dischen 12,4) basiert.
des 40. Tages Physiologie, (Lev.
JOHANNES
PHILOPONOS
UND
DIE
ANTIKE
EMBRYOLOGIE
405
Das Problem des Verhaltnissesdieser Seele zur Embryonalentwicklung bleibtallerdings unthematisiert.'03 Klemens
von Alexandrien
halt es fur selbstverstandlich, daB anders als
das TlyFqiVoKOV nicht durch den Samen ver mittelt wird. Uber den Zeitpunkt sagt er zwar nichts explizit, ausgeschlossen die ubrigen Seelenvermogen
ist aber, daB das hochste Seelenvermogen bereits bei der Zeugung vorhan den ist,da Klemens von einer Ausbildung der Leibesfrucht erst im sechsten und zugleich von einer Beseelung
Monat'04
erst des
Xkoyov g?pOq
ZU
Wachstum und Bewegung dessenLebensfahigkeit gehorenErnahrung, ijyeIOVuKovausgeht.105 DaB
mit dem
Beginn der Sinneswahrnehmung
Klemens
erst nach der Geburt den
ansetzt, spricht sogar klar dafur, daB auch
das I'q?0VoK&V zu keinem fruheren Zeitpunkt existiert.'06 Gregor
von Nyssa
nimmt
in seiner Schrift De
hominis opficio eine
Beseelung zum Zeitpunkt der Empfdingnis an.'07Aber fur ihn heiBt dies nur, daB sich die Seele zu diesem Zeitpunkt analog zum Korper
in einem unfer
tigenZustand, also einer Art "seelischem Embryonalstadium", erst noch einen WachstumsprozeB das Animalische
hin zur menschlichen
Vollgestalt
durchlaufen muB.'08
Letztere ist endgultig erstmit dem Erreichen des Mannesalters 103 Bei
befindet und
der Seelenpotenz vom Vegetativen uber gegeben,'09
Alex. ecl. 50,1-3 St?hlin/ 3,150,21-151,10 Alex., (GCS Klem. Anm. Lebensrecht 28f. Fr?chtel); vgl. D?lger, (o. 68) 104 Klemens Alex., str?m. 6,139,1 St?hlin/Fr?chtel). (GCS Klem. Alex. 24,502,19-22 105 "x? tayiaxiK?v Kai Ebd. 6,135,2 St?hlin/Fr?chtel): (GCS Klem. Alex. 24,500,14-6 xcp ?coc?, ?Xkk Kai xot> xo a?,oyov uipo? xfl? auGxaaecoc fiyeuoviK?v a'ixiov eivai ?au?v Klemens
seit ?\|/\)x a0ai xe Ka! u?piov auxfi? eivai". Die physiologische Entwicklung des Embryos der Zeugung im wesentlichen wie Aristoteles; vgl. paid. 1,48,1-49,1. denkt sich Klemens 106 Klemens Alex., str?m. 6,135,1 (GCS Klem. Alex. 24, 500,13f S./F.): "xf\ x?^ei y?p xcov ? arc? TtaOnxiKcov xf|v ?pxnv x?? &v av9pco7co? Xau?avev". e?Oecoc yev?|i,evoc 107 von Nyssa, horn. opif. 28-30 (PG 44,229B-256C). Gregor 108 so kann sie nach Gregor mindere F?higkeiten; hat die Tierseele Dementsprechend
nur eine Reflexion des Sonnenlichts erkennen, da? das Mondlicht ist; vgl. P. M?nch "Das Tier in der Sp?tantike und imMittelalter", (Hg.), Tiere und Menschen. Geschichte und Aktualit?t eines prek?ren Verh?ltnisses (Paderborn/M?nchen 21999) 227-46, hier 233. 109 "Allein wie wir es (sc. das Geb?de, das Gregor Nyss., hom. opif 29 (PG 44,237A/B): zum Anfang des entstehenden Lebewesens wird) nach seinem k?rperlichen Teil nicht zB.
nicht
A. Nitschke,
nennen und was man sonst am Menschen und Haare sieht, son es noch nicht als solches, sei sichtbar aber erscheine davon (sagen), jedes potentiell, so sagen wir auch in bezug auf den seelischen Teil, es habe zwar noch nicht das A,oyiK?v sonst an der Seele wahrnimmt, schon in und e7u0\)ur|XiK?v und 0i)uoei8?? und was man
Fleisch
und Knochen
dern
zur und Vollendung des K?rpers Gestaltung jenem Platz, analog aber auch die Aktualit?ten der Seele zugleich mit dem Zugrundeliegenden.
entwickeln
sich
wie
der
Denn
CLEMENS
406
wie
SCHOLTEN
auch die spater in diesem Zusammenhang
13,1 1 (Kind und Mann soll."10Uber
1 Kor.
stellen verschiedene Reifestadien dar) demonstrieren
den Zeitpunkt der ersten Aktivitat des Logikon
nicht prazise; wenn
Gregor
angefuhrte Stelle
er aber die Analogie
auBert sich
zum Wachstum
der
Pflanze zieht und das Logikon bildlich als deren Frucht einordnet, legt sich ein Termin erstmit bzw. nach der Geburt nahe."'1 Gregor benutzt die pla
tonischeSeelenkonzeption, differenziert aber durch die Verhaltensmerk male,
die auf den Entwicklungsstufen des Embryos
erreicht werden,
im
aristotelischen Sinn nach Arten von Seelen; dazu paBt, daB er imWechsel auch von der Natur als kreativer Potenz sprechen kann."12 Bei Gregor also
bereits die Theorieelemente
vorhanden,
die
auch
Philoponos begegnen. Wenn Gregor das Seelenwachstum einer einzigen Seelenpotenz von PsGalen
sind
bei Johannes
fur die Entfaltung
halt, lehrt er im Grundsatz nicht anders als die
(Porphyrios), Ad Gaurum, kritisiertenplatonischen Philosophen,
die im Embryo die Seele nur potentiell vorhanden sowohl eine Seelenpraexistenz
sehen." 3 Gregor, der
als auch die Erschaffung der Seele zeitlich
nach der des Korpers ablehnt, erklart die Anwesenheit der Seelenpotenz
im
gerade gezeugten Embryo also traduzianisch. Ganz
wie Gregor
Anschauungen
urteilt auch der fur die spateren anthropologischen
hochst einfluBreiche Nemesios
in seiner Schrift De
natura
hominis,daB beim Embryo von einer Nfuy,i koytu' nicht die Rede sein kann. In einem das Thema Seelenwanderung behandelnden Kontext verweist er
schon der Gr??e
nach
vollendete Mensch
eine offen hervortretende
Aktualit?t
der Seele
so gibt er am Anfang der Entstehung die korrespondierende und dem gegenw?r Bed?rfnisse der Seele in ihm darin kund, da? diese sich angemessene Mitt?tigkeit tigen aus dem eingelegten Stoffe die ihr angeborene Wohnung bereitet". 110 Ebd. 30 (PG 44,253D-256A). 111Ebd. "Wird es aber bereits stark und schie?t zur entsprechenden 29 (PG 44,237C):
besitzt,
zu leuchten, auf, so beginnt wie eine Frucht die rationale Potenz (A-oyncn?uvaui?) nicht auf einmal ganz hervortretend, sondern mit der Ausbildung des Werkzeugs (sc. des immer so viel Frucht bringend, als die Potenz durch Ausbildung mitwachsend, Gehirns?) erlaubt". Das Bild von der Frucht ist stoisch und weist deswegen des Zugrundeliegenden
H?he
auf den Zeitpunkt der Geburt hin; vgl. A?tios, plac. 5,15,2. 112Ebd. 29 (PG 44,240A): cpuaiK?v xfj? i|n)xrj? und cpuai?. 113 Zur Herkunft der Seelenpotenz traduzianischen vgl. Karpp, Anthropologie Anm. "La coexistence initiale du corps et de l'?me d'apr?s 102) 243. E. St?phanou, de Nysse et saint Maxime Echos d'Orient 31 (1932) 304-15, Gr?goire l'Homolog?te", der Seelenpotenz 307, meint falschlich, der Zeitpunkt der ?bertragung statt korrekterweise die Enstehung des Embryos (y?veai?), also den Moment anzugeben.
(o. saint hier
sei die Geburt, der Zeugung,
JOHANNES
PHILOPONOS
UNI)
DIE
ANTIKE
EMBRYOLOGIE
407
zunachst auf die Uneinigkeit der Platoniker uber Art und Anzahl der Seelen und versichert dann, daB alogische Wesen der Xoyti Nru
zu keinem Zeitpunkt Anteil an
haben, da sie sie in diesem Fall ohne Grund besaBen und
Gott nichts Uberfluissiges schaffe. Anders
bei ganz jungen Kindern:
Sie
besitzen die unfii koyuc#,aber dies auch nur potentiell."14 In ausfuhrlicher Darstellung wortlicher Ubernahme,
begegnet Gregors Modell,
noch beim Arzt Meletios
teilweise in
(vielleicht 8. oder 9. Jh.),
der sich ebenso bildhaft und damit diskret wie Gregor
zum genauen
Zeitpunkt der Aktualitat des Logikon auBert.1"5 Mogen
Klemens,
Gregor
und Nemesios
immateriell halten, so geht Tertullian von der Stofflichkeit der Seele seinem zentralen Anliegen Ubertragung
fur
aus, macht
es aber gerade deswegen
zu
zu zeigen, daB es allein richtig ist, von ihrer
in einem Seelensamen
durch den Erzeuger
als Platoniker die Seele
in seiner Schrift De anima hingegen
schon im Augenblick
der Zeugung
selbst auszugehen und jede Art der Seelenwanderung
als falsch abzulehnen."16 Dementsprechend
halt er die sukzessive Formung
des Embryos vom Samen uber das bloBe Fleisch zum animal und schlieBlich der auBeren Gestalt nach zum homonoch in der Gebarmutter fur evident."7 In vieler Hinsicht entspricht das, wie er selbst gelegentlich einflieBen laBt,
114 Nemesios,
nat. 2,115-20 daraus 119: "Denn wenn auch bei (34,18-36,13 Morani); nur die vernunftlose Bewegung vorhanden ist, so sagen wir ganz jungen Kindern da sie beim Heranwachsen sie eine Vernunftseele die logische haben, doch, da? Aktualit?t an den Tag seine eigene Position nicht explizit dar, legen". Zwar legt Nemesios nur aber es bestehen wenig Zweifel, da? f?r ihn Embryonen sind; vgl. alogische Wesen den
nat. 2,104-8) und Fortleben EunomiosEmmel, (o. Anm. 70) 56-9. Die (Nemesios, bed?rften der ?berpr?fung und der Aufar (ebd. 2,108-10) Apolinarisdoxographien Danach bei Nemesios: vertritt Apolinaris die Meinung, beitung des Argumentationsganges da? die Seele mit dem Samen lehrt, da? die Seele ?bertragen wird, und Eunomios
eine unk?rperliche Wesenheit erschaffen wird. ist, die im K?rper 115 den Abschnitt Meletios Medicus (Monachus), De natura hominis (PG 64,1084A Vgl. "eixa rcpo?ovxo? ei? cpco? xo? (puxo?, Kai r\Xi(? xrjv 1089B), daraus nat. (PG 64,1089A): ?? ?i?n Kai %api? ?7cf|v0T|O?v ?v?pcoO?vxo? f| aiaOnxiKfi ei? ?taxainv ?ei^avxo?, uf|Ko? ?va?pauovxo? KaOarcep xi? Kaprco?, fjta>yncr| ?uvaui? apxexai, o? rcaaa . ." ?Gpo ? ?K(paivop,?vr|, ?XX? xr[ xo? ?py?vo\) xeA-eicoaei ?i' ?nxyieXzia? auvau^o^aa. mit Gregor Nyss., hom. opif. 29 (PG 44,237C). Es gibt weitere, teilweise explizit im Text aus Gregor. genannte ?bernahmen 116 an. 25 Tertullian, (CCL 2,818-21 Waszink). 117Ebd. 37,2 (CCL 2,839,8-13 W.); 36,4 (CCL 2,839,19-29 Waszink); vgl. D?lger, a?|i|xexpov
(o. Anm. 68) 28-36, Waszink, (o. Anm. 78) 180-2. Zu den teil Beseelung zur Embryologie in den Schriften an., bei Tertullian uneinheitlichen Vorstellungen carne Christi adv.Marc, und De (o. Anm. 15) 1241 f. Embryologie apol. vgl. Lesky/Waszink,
Lebensrecht weise
CLEMENS
408
stoischer Lehre."8 Von schen Anschauung
SCHOLTEN
den Stoikern setzt er sich in den naturphilosophi
explizit jedoch dadurch ab, daB er ein Einsaugen
der
Seele aus der kalten Luft bei der Geburt ablehnt. Trotz der Heftigkeit, mit der Tertullian
fur das Leben
des Embryos eintritt und Philosophen
Arzte angreift, die das Ungeborene
und
fur unbeseelt halten und abtreiben, ist
das von ihm nachdrucklich verfochtene und begrundete Hauptargument lediglich, daB der Embryo ein Lebewesen rationale Seele
ausgebildet
ist,nicht aber, daB er schon eine
hat.' 19Tertullian
ist klar, daB das Seelen
vermogen in seinen Fahigkeiten wachst und sein rationaler Teil im Embryo nur potentiell vorhanden
durfte Tertullian
ist.110Dementsprechend
in an.
so zu verstehen sein, daB Unsterblichkeit, Erkenntnisfahigkeit,
38,6-39,1
Sinnesfahigkeit, Denkkraft und Willensfreiheit erst mit der Geburt ubertra gen sind.2I
Zeitgenossen Aus der Perspektiveihrer heidnisch-philosophischen nehmen
die christlichen Autoren
Embryo
seit der Ausbildung
wesen
ist. Einige Philosophen
somit den Standpunkt
ein, daB der
ein menschliches Lebe
der auBeren Gestalt teilen diese Meinung,
die Mehrheit
lehnt sie
ab, weil sie naturphilosophisch nicht davon uberzeugt ist, daB der Embryo ein Lebewesen
ist. Sicherlich am weitesten wagt sich Tertullian vor, wenn
er in der ihm eigenen popularisierenden Art energisch das Lebendigsein des Embryos demonstriert und sogar so weit zu gehen scheint, daB er auch die rationalen Fahigkeiten im Embryo potentiell angelegt sieht. Was
die moralische
Bewertung
bei den fruhchristlichenAutoren
von Handlungen anbelangt,
gegen den Embryo
ist, ohne hier naher darauf
118 an. 25,9. Vgl. Tertullian, 119Dem an. 26,4, an der gesagt wird, da? auch nicht die Stelle Tertullian, widerspricht von Elisabeth im Scho? und Maria nicht nur Seelen, sondern sogar Geist die Kinder waren. Denn es ist von Spiritus und nicht von ratio die Rede. Das bezieht sich f?r Tertullian der
darauf, da?
jeweiligen
die ungeborenen Kinder die eigentiichen, g?ttlichen Antriebskr?fte ihrer M?tter hier ist der Skopos, sind. Auch da? beide
Handlungen leben, und zwar
das die Naturordnung, in Unfrucht ein Leben, bestehend Embryonen barkeit und Jungfr?ulichkeit, hat. aufgehoben 120 an. 38. Die Anlagen entwickeln sich allm?hlich durch die Zeitr?ume des Tertullian, der Seele zB. falltmit der des K?rpers Lebens hindurch. Die Geschlechtsreife zusammen; das 14. Lebensjahr. genannt wird als ungef?hres Datum 121 Tertullian ?ber die Seele (Z?rich/M?nchen J.H. Waszink, tusmit "Augenblick der Entstehung" und ianua nativitatismit
und pre?t damit den lexikalischen und nicht auf die Empf?ngnis beziehen; = (Oxford 1949 1996) 262; A. Blaise/H. 1954) 549. fran?ais des auteurs chr?tiens (Turnhout Geburt
der Seelen
an"
1980) 141, ?bersetzt nativi "von Anfang und von der Befund, nach dem sich beide
Begriffe auf die Geburt of later latin to 600 A.D.
Souter, A glossary Chirat, Dictionnaire latin
vgl. A.
JOHANNES
zu konnen,
eingehen
UND
PHILOPONOS
DIE
ANTIKE
EMBRYOLOGIE
angesichts des Befundes
409
konstatierbar, daB
die
Zuruckweisung der Abtreibung in erster Linie aus der Absicht erwachst, das Gut des LebewesensMensch
zu schutzen, wenn
es einmal imMutterschoB
seine Form erhalten hat. Sie stellt ein aus dem Respekt vor dem Menschen als 4Cov erwachsendes Gebot
dar, das als solches Gegenstand
gottlicher
Fursorge ist,'22 ist jedoch nicht darin begriindet, daB das Lebewesen vorgeburtlich durch eine von Gott geschaffene koyu 'i
bereits
j zum vollstandi
geadelt ist. Schon Philo hatte im AnschluB an Ex.
gen Menschen
21,22f
(LXX) die Ablehnung der Totung des ausgeformten menschlichen Embryos als VerstoB gegen das Menschengeschlecht der Ausformung ein lebendiger Mensch
bezeichnet, weil der Embryo mit
sei, aber nicht als Vergehen gegen ein
durch Gott mit der rationalen Potenz beseeltes Wesen
eingeordnet.'23 Der
Xoytoagi6wird bei Philo als von auBen kommend von der innerembryonalen
Entwicklung ausgeschlossen.'24
V. Die Folgerungen fur Johannes Philoponos Vor
dem
antiken Hintergrund
springt unmittelbar
ins Auge,
daB die
Feststellung des Johannes Philoponos, der Embryo sei nicht nur ein 4Cov, sondern besitze seit der Ausstattung mit der &akoyo; V-uoxqsogar eine Xoyuc#, in der Spatantike philosophisch-medizinischen Forum
der
122 Ygi Embryo
bemerkenswert Begrundung
ist und
Athenagoras,
rX einer
bedurft hat, um sich vor dem
anders positionierten Mehrheitsmeinung
herzustellen,
in der Tat
rechtfertigen und
zwischen demiurgischem Bezug presb. 35. Diesen Prinzip und ist nicht das Spezifikum chrisdicher Autoren, wie das Beispiel Galen
zeigt. 123Philo Alex., ist in der Fr?hzeit 2,2,
?hnliche
c. Apionem 2,254. Es spec. leg. 3,108f. 117-9; ?hnlich Flavius Josephus, davon auszugehen, da? fr?hchristlichen Abtreibungsverboten, zB. Did. in deutlich diesem Sinne Begr?ndungszusammenh?nge zugrundeliegen;
in Const. Apost. 7,3,2, das ebenfalls auf Ex. 21,22f (LXX) pr?s. 35. Auch des Abtreibungsverbotes mit der Existenz einer Seele rekurriert, basiert die Begr?ndung von im Embryo da? dem das Gott verliehene darauf, \|A)xf| ausgeformten Embryo
Athenagoras,
ist. Zur Bewertung des Embryos im antiken rabbinischen Judentum vgl. Lebensprinzip F. Weber, J?dische Theologie aufgrund des Talmud und verwandterSchriftengemeinfa?lich dargestellt, = Hildesheim/New Schnedermann York 1975) 225 hg. v. F. Delitzsch/G. (Leipzig 21897 status Anm. I. "The of the 31; Needham, 77-82; (o. 78) Jacobovits, History embryo in the Jewish tradition", Dunstan/Seller (ed.), Status (o. Anm. 68) 62-73; er stellt eingangs zur Position des Judentums fest: "... on one fundamental principle there ist complete . .". Den status not full human until f?r die vom is birth,. agreement: acquired Ursprung Christentum Differenz 124So
abweichende
der hebr?ischen Lesky/Waszink,
durch das Judentum sieht Jacobovits Bewertung und griechischen Fassung von Ex. 21,22f. (o. Anm. 15) 1241. Embryologie
in der
410
CLEMENS
durchsetzen zu k6nnen.'25 Leider
SCHOLTEN
lassen sich nur Vermutungen fur seine Behauptung
Beweisfiguren des Johannes Philoponos
uber die anstellen.
Wenn man von aetm.ausgeht, hat er vielleicht in aristotelischem Sinne auch damit argumentiert, daB3 im Embryo
ein Formgebungsprinzip sein muB
potentiell, sondern auch aktuell wirksam
nicht nur
und dafur die NVJi1
Nri%Xoyt# ware dann allerdings nicht mehr Xoy7t in Frage kommt. Die nur als Denkvermogen, sondern als allgemeines Geistprinzip gedacht. Die Vermutung, Johannes Philoponos
habe mit der Geistseele
als Formprinzip
argumentiert, reicht allerdings deswegen nicht aus, weil die 'vv'x Xoyud nicht wie bei Gregor ein internes Prinzip ist, sondern von auB3enmitgeteilt wird, und zwar erst dann, wenn die Natur die aXoyo; xgux entwickelt hat. Form aber hat sich auch bis dahin schon entwickelt. An welchen Signalen Johannes Philoponos abgelesen
und
somit die Begabung
des Embryos mit der xVuXiXoyt" und Sin
festgemacht hat, bleibt offen, da Bewegung
neswahrnehmung der aiXoyo;Vxi zuzuordnen sind und es dafur einer MVvX1 Xo7yucinicht bedarf. Eine rein biblische Argumentation durfte beiJohannes Philoponos
ebenfalls ausscheiden. Denn Ex. 21,22f (LXX) wird in opm.nur
als zusatzlicher Hinweis auf die Richtigkeit eines auf andere Weise, ins Spiel gebracht. Auch
philosophisch gefuhrten Beweisganges
namlich die nicht
eindeutigen Aussagen Gregors konnen nicht die unmittelbare Vorlage
sein,
da dieser die externe Herkunft der Seele ablehnt. DaB
die Uberlegungen
des Johannes Philoponos
kelt, sondern in einen Diskussionshorizont AnCom., welcher
nicht abstrakt entwic
eingebettet sind, zeigt bereits der
gleichsam die Front der Skeptiker markiert. AuBerdem
scheint Johannes Philoponos
nicht der einzige und wahrscheinlich
nicht der erste zu sein, der damals dergleichen Uberlegungen bei einem seiner Zeitgenossen Indikopleustes, wird
und Diskussionspartner,
ebenfalls, diesmal
allerdings aus
auch
anstellt. Denn
dem sog. Kosmas rein theologischen
Grunden, mit der vwuxi Xoyti" argumentiert, wenn zur Beantwortung der Frage, wie
tote Embryonen
zur Gotteserkenntnis gelangen konnen, die
Behauptung gemacht wird, der Embryo "koste" (oder: "nehme zu sich") von der xVo Xoytif seiner Mutter.'26 Die
beiden Christen scheinen sich einig
zu sein, daB fur den Embryo die Moglichkeit
zur Erkenntnis vorhanden
sind aber offenbar uber ihre Herkunft verschiedener Meinung. lehnt sich anscheinend an ein stoischesModell 125Andere
ist,
Kosmas
an, wenn er den Embryo als
Autoren lassen sich nicht namhaft machen. Emmel, Fortleben (o. Anm. 70) an Denken dem Embryo von seiner Entstehung zwar, da? f?r Parmenides 8, behauptet und Empfindung zukomme. Das geben aber die von Emmel genannten Belege nicht her. 126 ". . . x? eu?puov x? Xoync?v yeuc? Kosmas, top. 7,78f (SC 197,141 Wolska-Conus): . . . (xevov, (b? erco? ?i7t?w, xfj? unxp a? yaoxp?c yvcoaiv ?v xf\ [ieXXo\)?r\ taxu?avov
JOHANNES
Teil
der Mutter
menhangen
PHILOPONOS
begreift
UND
DIE
ANTIKE
EMBRYOLOGIE
Stoisches findet sich auch
bei Kosmas-,127
wahrendJohannes
aristotelisch argumentiert zu haben
411
in anderen Zusam
Philoponos neuplatonisch
scheint und darauf besteht, daB der
Embryo nicht bloB an der Erkenntnisfahigkeit seiner Mutter
partizipiert,
sondern als Individuum bereits eine eigeneGeistseele besitzt. Einer historischen Einordnung bedurfte in diesem Zusammenhang nochmals die Schrift De astrologiades Christen Hermippos.'28 dafur ein, daB die Embryonen
&4xxsind,'29 aber das logische Vermogen
nach der Geburt betatigen nach der Reihenfolge, die im Samen ist.'30Sorabji halt sie fur eine direkte Reaktion auf PsGalen damit offenbar wie Hunger
schon Kroll
auch
Sie setzt sich erst
angelegt
(Porphyrios) und
fur einen spatantiken Text, wahrend
sie in die Zeit zwischen 1000 und 1322 undjJurss sie sogar ins 14.
Jh. einordnet.13'
An welcher Stelle Johannes Philoponos
seine Argumente vorgestellt hat,
laBt sich ebenfalls nicht mehr klaren. Wenn Abfassung von aetm. zu dem Thema
er sich in der Zeit vor der
geauBert haben sollte, konnten seine
verlorenen SymmiktaZetemata in Frage kommen. Schon bei Porphyrios war eine Schrift dieses Titels ein bevorzugter Ort, Probleme der Seele und ihres
physiologischen Unterbauszu diskutieren.'32 Universitat zu Koln
79e KlosterstraBe D-50931 Koin [email protected] Kaxaax?cEi jt?7i??paxai 127Zwar
imouiuvfiaKexai U?piKco? Kai a?xo
Kai
eiq aiaOnaiv
ep%?xai
xf|? unxpcoac
yaaxp?c,
?v
r\
xfl? xoiauxn? KaxaaxaaEC??." im platonischen Modell des
besteht auch PsGalen eine (Porphryios) der Mutter und dem des Ungeborenem, zwischen dem Seelenverm?gen aber Verbindung beider Seelen sind nicht identisch; vgl. Deuse, Untersuchungen (o. Anm. 82) 186f. 128 W. PW 8 9: Kroll, 854-7; (1913) Anonymi Christiani Hermippus De Vgl. Hermippos astrologia dialogus, ed. W. Kroll/P. Viereck 1895). (Leipzig 129 astrol. 17 [144-7] (61,17/4 Kroll/Viereck). Hermippos, 130Ebd. 17 [157] (64,1-7 K./V.). 131 Die hochsprachliche profane 11) 101; H. Hunger, (o. Anm. Sorabji, Animal minds Literatur derByzantiner 2 = HAW 5,2 (M?nchen 1978) 251, mit Berufung auf F. Boll, Eine = SHAW.PH des Dialogs 1912,18; F. J?rss, arabisch-byzantinische Quelle Hermippos oder die BZ 59 (1966) und Katrarios der ?ber Johannes Dialog Hermippos Astrologie: 275-84. Welche schiedenen
schwerer wiegen, wird Argumente hier nicht n?her er?rterbaren
anderen,
eine durchaus attraktive Annahme. 132 H. D?rrie, Porphyrios' "Symmikta^etemata" Vgl. sim, etwa 159/61.
sich noch
erweisen m?ssen.
inhaltlichen = Zetemata
Gr?nden 20
Aus
ist das
(M?nchen
ver 6. Jh.
1959) pas
MIRACLES, MARTYRS, AND ARIANS: GREGORY
OF
TOURS'
SOURCES
FOR
HIS
ACCOUNT
OF
THE VANDAL KINGDOM* BY ANDREW CAIN ABSTRACT:This article investigatesGregory of Tours' sources forhis account of theVandal kingdom (DLH 2.2-3). The account revolves around a healing miracle by Eugenius, theNicene bishop of Carthage during theVandal Arian Huneric's persecution of Catholics in 484. Victor ofVita's Histornapersecutionis is the only extant contemporaneous African source that spotlightsHuneric's reignand gives a versionof Eugenius' miracle story,albeit vastlydifferentfrom Gregory's. After demonstratingthatGregory could not have relied on Victor forhis information,the author argues thatGregory had access instead to a lost written inAfrica around the same timeas Victor's, and that Historiapersecutionis he retrieved from it circumstantialdetails not reported by Victor, such as names of severalNicene bishops and confessors,and a letterby Eugenius not attestedelsewhere. On
25 February 484, theVandal Arian king Huneric
issued an edict of
persecution against all Nicene Christians inNorth Africa who refused to be rebaptized and convert toArianism. They saw their churches closed, their bishops exiled, their holy books burned, and their land confiscated. One scholar has dubbed cisme africain'.' The
this 'la repression la plus dure qu'ait subie le catholi sources for this period of the Vandal
hegemony are
both few and biased.2 Victor of Vita's Historia persecutionis Africanaeprovinciae * I am very grateful for the comments and criticisms of several friends and colleagues: Danuta Kulikowski, Andreas Shanzer, Ralph Mathisen, Michael Schwarcz, Noel Lenski, Florin Curta, and Ian Wood. 1 Histoire de l'Afrique du nord: Tunisie, Alg?rie, Maroc C.A.Julien, (Paris, 1966), 249. 2 The three principal sources are: Victor of Vita, Historia persecutions Africanae provincial ed., CSEL 7 (1881), from which edition Petschenig in this paper; the Vita sanctiFulgentii episcopiRuspensis: PL Vandalicum: O. Veh ed., Prokop: Werke (Munich, 1961), sources are the Passio septem monachorum (Petschenig,
M.
all citations 65,
117-50;
vol. 4. Two
from theHP
are taken
and Procopius, Bellum minor contemporary
108-14) and the Notitia provinciarum toHP in the manu 117-34), both of which are appended (Petschenig, above-cited edition. For script tradition; quotations from each are taken from Petschenig's
et civitatumAfricae
C Koninklijke Brill NV,Leiden,2005
Also available online- www.brill.nl
Christianae Vigiliae 59,412-437
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
AND ARIANS
413
[HP], written ca. 485, is the only surviving eyewitness account, which Pierre de Labriolle poignantly called
'le tour d'une
longue et douloureuse
Passio
Gregory of Tours, writing some one hundred years afterVictor, mar_yrum'.3 gave a brief overview of theVandal kingdom at the beginning of the sec ond book of his Decem librihistoriarum[DLH].4 Gregory's account revolves around a healing miracle performed by Eugenius, Carthage during Huneric's
the Catholic
bishop of
reign.Victor gave the only other known account
of thismiracle, but his version could not be more different in nearly every detail. Gregory also reproduced an original letter of Eugenius not attested in HP
or anywhere else. In this study I shall compare
the two accounts
closely to see what light can be shed firston Gregory's sources and second on connections and communication between theVandal in and after theVandal
kingdom and Gaul
period.
Structure of Gregogy'sVandal account The
second book of Gregory's DLH
St. Martin
and Brictius, Martin's
opens with an anecdotal story about
successor as bishop of Tours. The
and third chapters cover theVandal
kingdom. The
second
fourth contains a short
story about theVisigothic king Athanaric, while the three subsequent chap ters touch upon theHunnic cussion about
kingdom. The eighth chapter leads into a dis
the origins of the Frankish kingdom, and
the remaining
thirty-fivechapters are a continuation of this theme, spotlighting the first kings of the Franks. Gregory's discussion of other barbarian kingdoms Vandal,
Visigothic, and Hunnic
is intended merely as a brief preface to
explain and contextualize the rise of the Franks.5 see L. Schmidt, Geschichte derWandalen of the Vandals, (Munich, 1942); Les Vandales et l'Afrique (Paris, 1955); H.-J. Diesner, Das Vandalenreich (Stuttgart, 1966); B. Pischel, Kulturgeschichte und Volkskunst derWandalen (Frankfurt, 1980-7), 2 vols. 3 L'Histoire de la litt?raturelatine chr?tienne (Paris, 1924), 594. For a discussion of Victor
modern
histories
C. Courtois,
'Vittore di Vita e la Historia persecutionisAfricanae aims, see S. Costanza, Vetera Christianorum 17 provinciae1, (1980), 229-268, and more recentiy S. Lancel, Histoire de recent still is D. la pers?cution Vandale en Afrique (Paris, 2002), 3-63. More Shanzer, 'Intentions and Audiences: and Confession in Victor History, Hagiography, Martyrdom, and his authorial
of Vita's Historia Persecutionis' in A. Merrills
ed., Vandals, Romans, and Berbers: New Perspectives on Late Antique Africa 271-90. 2004), (Cambridge, 4 are taken from the edition of B. Krusch Citations and W. Levison, from the DIM
SRM 1.1 (Hannover, from Gregory's various hagiographical 1937-51). Citations SRM works come from B. Krusch 1.2 (Hannover, ed., MGH, 1885). 5 M. Heinzelmann, Gregor von Tours: ?ehn B?cher Geschichte. Historiographie und Gesell im 6. 1994), 118-20. schaftskonzept Jahrhundert (Darmstadt,
MGH,
ANDREW
414
Gregory's account of the Vandals and
then of Spain under Gunderic.
CAIN
opens with their occupation
graphical type-scene in which an anonymous Catholic woman under
the Arian
Huneric's
'Thrasamund'
of Gaul
follows a conventional hagio
Then
in Spain. The
ismartyred
next segment, devoted
to
persecution of Nicene Christians inNorth Africa, forms the core
of the narrative. Gregory reproduces an original letterof Eugenius and pro ceeds with a story about one of the bishop's miracles. The Vandal is then brought Huneric's
to an abrupt close with
account
some cursory remarks about
demise and the subsequent fate of theVandal
kingdom.
of theVandal kings Gregogy'schronology Moorhead
notes that 'the quickest reading of Gregory is enough to estab
lish that he is not reliable for the history of theVandal
kingdom inAfrica'.6
is indeed riddled with inaccuracies. His chronology for
Gregory's account
the succession of the Vandal migration of theVandals
kings is badly garbled. After mentioning
under Gunderic
intoGaul
the
and Spain, he recounts
their tense confrontation with the Alamanni, who had followed them into Gaul.7 He
has Thrasamund
succeed Gunderic,8
became king afterGunderic, and Thrasamund (d. 523), decades
496
after the Vandals
though in reality Geiseric
ascended
the throne later in
had arrived in Africa. Gregory's
story about themartyrdom of Anonyma during the reign of 'Thrasamund', still occupied
the Vandals
while
Spain,
is framed anachronistically,
for
Gunderic was ruling at that time.9 In addition, the historical Thrasamund apparently did not take a hard line against Nicene Christians, as did other Vandal
6
kings.'0
J. Moorhead,
'Gregory of Tours
(1995),903-15 (904).
on the Arian Kingdoms',
StudiMedievali
ser. 3, 36
7
Post haec Wandali a loco suo digressi, cum Gunderico rege in Gallias ruunt. Quibus valde vasta tis,Spanias adpetunt.Nee multo post scandalum interutrumque oriturpopulum, quoniam propinqui sibi erant. Cumque ad bellum armati proc?d?rent et iamiamque in conflictoparati essent, ait Alamannorum rex: 'Quousque bellum super cunctumpopulum commovetur? Me pereant, quaeso, populi utriusquefalan gae, sed proc?dant duo de nostris in campum cum armis bellicis, et ipse inter se confligant.Tune Ule, ' cuius puer vicerit, regione sine certamine obtenebit. Ad haec cunctus consensitpopulus, ne universa mul titudo in oregladii rueret (DLH 2.2). 8His enim diebus Gundericus rex obierat, in cuius loco Transimundus obtenuerat regnum (DLH this error but does not elaborate. Vandales, 56n5, mentions 2.2). Courtois, 9 tenure ended to Victor, HP in Spain, prior to the 1.1-2, Gunderic's According Vandals' arrival in Africa. 10 relative clemency, Courtois, Vandales, Procopius, BV 1.8. Arguing for Thrasamund's 267, notes that 'on ne conna?t pas de martyrs sous son r?gne'.
MIRACLES,
There
MARTYRS,
AND
415
ARIANS
After the Vandals
are other chronological miscalculations.
is omitted altogether, as if he had never reigned.
of the kingdom. Geiseric Gregory has Hilderic
succeed Huneric,
though the former did not come Gunthamund, who
to power until 523, when he succeeded Thrasamund. ruled before Thrasamund, more
had
assumed the reins
crossed over intoAfrica, according to Gregory, Huneric
is also passed over in silence. Gregory further
thinks thatGelamir became king upon Hilderic's
death, but Gelamir
chart below
contrasts Gregory's
in fact deposed Hilderic
in 530. The
faulty chronology, which omits Geiseric
and Gunthamund, with the true
chronology: order Gregory's
Correct orderof Vandal succession Gunderic Geiseric Huneric Gunthamund Thrasamund Hilderic Gelamir Despite
Gunderic Thrasamund Huneric Hilderic Gelamir
407-428 428-477 477-484 484-496 496-523 523-530 530-534
numerous inconsistencies about the other kings, Gregory is cor
rect about Huneric's position as thirdof those named in his narrative. There is a practical reason for this tunnel vision: his Vandal
account
around Eugenius, who became bishop of Carthage during Huneric's Huneric's Arian
revolves reign.
sympathies and his persecution of Catholics would natu
rally have piqued Gregory's interest and even aroused his ire, inasmuch as theDLH
are laced with anti-Arian propaganda."
The account has another peculiarity that should be mentioned, geographical
rather than chronological. Gregory
point of departure from Spain intoAfrica inMay
this one
identifies the Vandals'
429 as the small port city
11 . .. Hence Gregory writes in the preface to the first book of the DLH: scripturus bella ecclesiarum cum hereticis,priusfidem meam prof erre cupio, ut qui ligeritme non dubitet esse catholicum. sect burns in the pages of Gregory of Dill put it spiritedly: 'The hatred to the Arian Tours. Arian
Nothing doctrine':
could well be fiercer than the tone of that usually amiable bishop towards S. Dill, Roman Society in Gaul in the 1926), 466. Merovingian Age (London,
ismore sober, suggesting that 'a narrative refutation of Arianism may have been one of the original aims of Gregory's Histories': I. Wood, Gregory ofTours (Oxford, 1994), and 34. See also A.H.B. Breukelaar, Historiography Episcopal Authority in Sixth-Century Gaul
Wood
of 'Heresy in Books I and II of Gregory 1994), 276-81; M. Heinzelmann, (G?ttingen, Tours' Historian in A.C. Murray ed., After Rome's Fall: Narrators and Sources ofEarly Medieval History (Toronto, 1998), 67-82.
ANDREW
416
of Julia Traducta
CAIN
(modern-day Tarifa), located at the southernmost tip of
Spain.'2 Since this detail is not attested in any other source, it is impossible to verifywhether Gregory's
source was correct. Courtois and others how
ever have been willing to take Gregory at his word and accept Tarifa as the Vandals'
'port d'embarquement'.'3
Gregory's confusion over the Vandal firstglance
to be a mishandling
kings' succession would
which he is implicated on other occasions.'4 But what were The
appear at
of sources, the same kind of misstep
in
these sources?
imprecise dating probably rules out a chronicle, such as the Chronicon
of theAfrican bishop Victor of Tunnuna Gallic bishop Marius
of Avenches
(d. ca. 567).'5 The Chroniconof the
is likewise excluded. Even though it con
tains a brief notice about Gelamir's
defeat byJustinian, an event to which
was composed no earlier than 581, whereas Gregory alludes,'6 the Chronicon Gregory's Vandal
account was written in the early 570s.17 Gregory did not
know Greek, so Procopius' BVwas believe
that he was
not working
not an option either. There from Victor
instance, the entire firstbook of HP
of Vita's HP
covers Geiseric's
is reason to either. For
reign, but Gregory
never once mentions him.'8 Surprisingly, he knew of the town (Tarifa) from which theVandals
allegedly had set sail intoAfrica, and yet he was appar
ently unfamiliar with the king who had led this large-scale incursion. The
12Post haec prosequentibus Alamannis usque Traductam, transitomare, Wandali per totamAfricam acMauritaniam sunt dispersi (DLH 2.2). 13 Victor de Vite et son oeuvre (Algeria, 1954), 29. Cf. id., Vandales, 158-64 (with diagrams). See also R. Thouvenot, Essai sur la province romaine de B?tique (Paris, 1940), 273; and E.-F. Gautier, Gens?ric, roi des Vandales (Paris, 1935), 167. 14Cf. DLH of a passage borrowed from Orosius, 2.9, where he fumbles the meaning Hist. 7.40. 15For as Huneric's successor, whereas instance, Victor correctly has Gunthamund see T. Mommsen is conspicuously AA silent about Gunthamund: ed., MGH, Gregory de Hartmann and R. Collins 11.2, 184-206 (190). On Victor and his work, see C. Cardelle ex cum et Victor chronicon consularibus Iohannis Tunnunensis Biclarensis edd., reliquiis caesaraugustanis chronicon (Turnhout, 2001), 95*-115*. 16 Marius: Gelimer rexWandalorum captivos Constantinopoli exhibetur.J. Favrod, La Chronique deMarius d'Avenches (455-581): Texte, traduction et commentaire (Lausanne, 1993), 72. Gregory:
Gelesimeris regnum suscipit. Ipse quoque a republica superatas, vitamprincipatumquefinivit (DLH 2.3). 17 not the other way Monod concluded that Marius relied on Gregory, around: G. Monod, Etudes critiques sur les sources de l'histoirem?rovingienne (Paris, 1872), I, 161-2. For a recent 18 On
1987).
and his sources, see Favrod, Chronique, 27-41. study of Marius see H.W. Geiseric's Geiserich. Vandale ohne Vandalismus reign, Quast,
(Munich,
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
AND
417
ARIANS
sum of all the historical inaccuracies and omissions inGregory's account of kingdom again raises the inevitable questions: what sources was they?'9 In order to place these and
theVandal
he accessing, and how reliable were
other issues in the proper light, itwill be instructive to examine in detail the contents of Gregory's and Victor's narratives.
Gregogy'sstogyaboutEugenius Gregory's account of theVandal
kingdom centers around the character
of Eugenius, who was historically the bishop of Carthage ca. 505.20 His because
episcopate
carried with
it a unique
from ca. 480 to
symbolic importance
the see at Carthage had been kept vacant, ever since the death of
Bishop Deogratias
in 456,21 by order of theVandal
the first time in over two decades,
the Nicene
Arian authorities. For
Christian community was
granted permission to install its own bishop. Victor reports the happy cele bration that followed on the heels of Eugenius' ordination: crowds cheered, and young men and women
rejoiced that for the firsttime in their lives they
saw a bishop presiding from his see.22Their joy would prove to be short lived. For as Victor portrays it, the Arian Cyrola,23
faction, led by its chief bishop
lurked surreptiously in the shadows,
conspiring against
the
Catholics. Gregory's story about Eugenius bears his trademark hagiographical exu berance, boasting all the crucial elements of drama: action, intrigue, irony, and vividly drawn characters who personify the universal battle between good and evil. As the plot unfolds, the reader is presented with a pleasant study in contrasts. On the one hand there isEugenius, the archetypal ortho dox bishop representing all that is good and holy (sanctum... episcopum,verum magnae prudentiaeesse),and on the other inenarrabilisanctitate,qui tuncferebatur
19On as they relate to his credibility as an handling of sources, especially Gregory's historian, see G. Kurth, ?tudes franques (Paris, 1919), II, 117-206. 20 For a brief summary of his career, see A. Mandouze, Prosopographie chr?tiennedu bas (Paris, 1982), I, (hereafter PCBE) empire: Prosopographie de l'Afrique chr?tienne (303-533) 362-5, 'Eugenius 2'. 21On see PCBE I, 271-3, 'Deogratias F. Deogratias, 22 Ordinato nata est laetitia etgaudium itaque episcopoEugenio, viro soneto deoque accepto, sublimis cumulatum est ecclesiae dei. Exultons multitudo catholica sub barbara dominatione de ordinatione nam m?ximas iuuenum numerus atque adulescentularum sibimet in commune congau pontifleis reparati: dens attestabatur, quod numquam vidisset episcopum in thronosedentem [HP 2.6). 23On see PCBE I, 260-2, 'Cyrila'. Cyrola,
ANDREW
418
hand
there is Cyrola,
CAIN
the quintessential
heretical pseudo-bishop
who
tunc embodies all that is evil and dishonest (falso vocatus episcopus,hereticorum maximus habebaturassertor). The
theme of episcopal conduct is one thatGregory explores repeatedly
in the DLH,24 and notably in the second book, which opens with an anec dote about Martin and Brictius.25One day Brictius chances upon a sickman in the streetwho
to pass by and heal him. Brictius,
ridicules the bishop behind his back and calls him a mad
still a deacon, man. Martin,
iswaiting forMartin
standing some distance away, overhears the comment and
rebukes him, prophesying that his future bishopric will be plagued with scandal, but the rebuke is mocked. Brictius succeeds Martin
The
prophecy
is fulfilled, for after
he is harassed by allegations of sexual misconduct
that eventually lead to his banishment from the city. Gregory story as an occasion they should
inserts this
to sermonize on themoral character of bishops, how
and should not behave. Martin
and Brictius, like Eugenius
and Cyrola, are polarizing figureswhose actions situate them on mutually opposing ends of themoral spectrum.Martin
is a summuset incomparabilis vir,
whereas Brictius is superbuset vanus and a conniver since childhood tendebatinsidias).Likewise, Eugenius Cyrola
(multas
is sanctusand has magna prudentia,while
is tagged with the pejorative epithet elatus vanitateatque superbia.Thus
in some ways, mutatis mutandis, theMartin-Brictius Eugenius-Cyrola Cyrola,
story foreshadows the
one and puts it in relief.
like Brictius, is the antagonist who
morally upright counterpart. Eugenius
initiates a rivalry with his
is summoned before Huneric
to
debate with Cyrola about the doctrine of the trinity,resulting in a humili ating defeat for theArian bishop.26 Afterward, Cyrola burns with blazing at seeing Eugenius hot envy (invidia infiammante) many miracles.27 Gregory's wording
(instead of himself) perform
is subtle but significant: Christ is the
one performing themiracles, with Eugenius
serving as only the incidental
human agent (multasper eum virtutesChristus ostenderit). Cyrola
24 Shanzer
has no such
concentrates on the sexual misconduct of bishops: see D. Shanzer, 'History, and Love, and Sex in Gregory of Tours' Decem Libri Historiarwrri in K. Mitchell Romance, I.Wood edd., The World ofGregory ofTours (Leiden, 2002), 395-418, esp. 400-5. 25DIM 2.1. 26 Ductus itaque sanctus Eugenius ad regem, cum illoArrianorum episcopumprofide catholica decer tavit. Cumque eum de sanctae Trinitatis mistirium potentissime devicissit. . . (DIM 2.3). 27 to say: non patior, quod hi episcopi multa inpopulos signa depromuntMosque ismade Cyrola me secuntur cuncti, (DIM 2.3). neglecto,
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
AND
ARIANS
419
claim to divine power, and in order to upstage his rival he resorts to a coun terfeitmiracle. He
concocts a scheme to bribe an Arian co-conspirator with
fiftypieces of gold to sit in the street and feign blindness until he arrives and
'miraculously' restores his sight. The plan takes a turn for the worse,
however, as the man
really does lose his sightwhen Cyrola
touches him.
The blindness is also figurative, for he is said to have been hoodwinked by avarice into making a mockery of the Almighty (caecaverateum cupiditas, et virtutem Dei omnipotentisinridere per pecuniam aestimabat).He judgment,
immediately disavows
recognizes God's
the bribe, and begs
for mercy
from
Eugenius, who has just arrived on the scene as a deus exmachina. Eugenius presides over themiracle, though he delegates the actual laying on of hands to two of his associates, Longinus and Vindimialis. The Arian's physical eye sight is restored only after he renounces his heresy and professes theNicene faith. But with this comes a restoration of his spiritual eyesight, which he had
lost through adherence
to Arian
teachings.28Whereas
Cyrola brings
about physical and spiritual blindness through his heresy,29Eugenius cures both physical (visibiliumoculorum)and spiritual (mentium)blindness through legitimate divine power that is his by virtue of being an orthodox bishop. Gregory metaphor
thus constructs the healing of the blind man
as an elaborate
for conversion,30 one that seems on one level to parallel St. Paul's
famous conversion scene in theNew Testament.3'
28Words
caecitas are regularly employed by early Christian and the image of spiritual blindness of the enemies of God (Jews, heathens, heretics, etc.). See I. Opelt, Die Polemik in der christlichen lateinischenLiteratur von Tertullian bisAugustin (Heidelberg, 1980), 74, 91, 106, 111, 131, 133, 143-4, 190, 177, 252. 29 Manefestissime autem patuit per huius caecitatem, qualiter hereticorum episcopus oculos cordium such as
patristic writers
caecus and
to evoke
misero adsertionis suae velabat amictu, ne veram lucem licuerit fidei oculis contemplare (DLH 2.3). 30A. 'Arians and Jews in the Histories of Gregory of Tours', Journal of Medieval Keely, smile: spiritual reality, History 23:2 (1997), 103-15 (107-8); G. de Nie, 'Gregory of Tours' and earthly events in the Histories', in A. Scharer and G. Scheibelreiter edd., 'Das Historiographie imfr?hen Mittelalter (Munich, 1994), 68-95 (71). Cf. G. Scheibelreiter, Wunder der Konfliktbereinigung,' als Mittel Archiv f?r Kulturgeschichte 74 (1992), 257-76. 31 Acts 9.1-18. Throughout invokes the antithesis between the Confessiones Augustine darkness and light, blindness and sight, to conceptualize the process of conversion; e.g., imagination
nonne multi ex profundiore t?rtaro caecitatis quam Victorinus redeuntad te et accedunt et inlumi nantur recipientes lumen:M. Skutella, ed., S. Aurelii Augustini Confessionum Libri XIII (Stuttgart, later Christian darkness 1934), 159-60. Also Conf. 2.3; 3.3, 7; 5.2, 3, 8; 6.16; 9.4. This of conversion (see, e.g., / light antithesis may derive in part from the Johannine model
8.4:
Jn.
1.5-7).
ANDREW
420
CAIN
Cyrola bears a striking resemblance to a character who appears in a later work of Gregory's, the Liber ingloria confessorum [GC]. 2The dramatic setting isVisigothic Spain, during the reign of theArian king Leuvigild Here
as in DLhI
(569-586).
2.2-3 Gregory's anti-Arian sentiments color his depiction
of a foreign power.33 The king impatiently asks one of his Arian bishops why theNicene Catholics are able to perform miracles while theArians cannot.34 Chagrinned,
the bishop falsely claims that he has often healed the blind and
the deaf. To validate his claim he secretly (clanculo)pays a man
fortygold
pieces to sit in the town square and pretend as ifhe were blind. The bishop would
then 'heal' him as he passes by with Leuvigild (praetereunte me cum rege).
Instead of being healed of feigned blindness, theman blindness as soon as the bishop touches him. One the unmistakeable Eugenius
this story and
similarities between
and Cyrola. The
is strickenwith real
cannot help but notice the one
about
only noteworthy difference between the two is
the absence from GC 13 of a protagonist, an alterEugenius, to play the foil to theArian bishop. is clearly cross-referencing GC
Gregory
13 and DLH
2.3 when he calls
theVisigothic Arian bishop a novusCirola. This is a case of intertextual guilt by-association, in that the 'new Cyrola'
is indicted for being as nefarious as
the original one. Itmay be noted that this is the only instance in Gregory's writings in which
the adjective novus assumes negative connotations when
modifying a person. Gregory frequently employs it as a typological device when
favorably comparing
a contemporary or near-contemporary
figure from theOld Testament.35 When King Chlothar
to a
faces off against his
usurping son Chramn, he is said to be tamquamnovusDavid contraAbsolonem
32 GC For
13. The
GC was
written
see
I. Wood,
the chronology,
28-9. 33 W.
some
ten years after the first two books of the DIM. The Merovingian Kingdoms 450-751 (London, 1994),
'Foreigners in theHistories of Gregory of Tours', Florilegium 4 (1982), 80 that Gregory's in an unfavorable (89-91), casting of the Visigoths light has far less to do with their ethnicity than with their heretical leanings. Cf. B. Saitta, 'I Visigoti di Tours', Quaderni Catanesi 7 (1985), 391-432; id., Gregorio negli Historiarum libridi Gregorio 99
Goffart,
shows
di Tours e i Visigoti (Catania, 1996). 34 Cf. DIM 9.15, where the Arian verts to Nicene were
not able
son and successor, con king Reccared, Leuvigild's (in 587) after allegedly losing faith in his own bishops, who Christianity to perform miracles like their Catholic the imposition counterparts. On soon
of Toledo in 589, see thereafter at the Council in 400-1000 53-8. Collins, Spain: Unity 1983), Diversity, (London, 35 On Gregory's of biblical Saints' Lives and the application typology, see J. Kitchen, Rhetoric ofGender:Male and Female inMerovingian Hagiography (New York, 1998), 75-86. of Catholicism
R.
in Visigothic
Early Medieval
Spain
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
AND
filium pugnaturus.36 By comparing Chlothar
ARIANS
421
to David,
evokes the
Gregory
conflicting emotions of domestic betrayal from the story of David son Absalom.
There
are four other such examples
and his
in Gregory's writings,
and in each case, with the exception of one, either tamquamor quasi precedes novus.Y'The
exception is found in the scene of Clovis' baptism, where
king approaches
the baptismal
tamquamor quasi were inserted here, itwould weaken symbolic connection Constantine The
that Gregory was
and Clovis. The
the
font as the 'new Constantine'.38 If either the forcefulness of the
attempting to establish between
same is true of Cyrola and the novus Cirola.
latterwas not like another Cyrola; he was another Cyrola, an episco
pal anti-typewho embodied all thatwas deceitful.
Gregogyand Victor:Their storiescompared Gregory's and Victor's
respective renditions of the Eugenius
story share
salient points of comparison and contrast. Like Gregory's Eugenius, Victor's cures a man of blindness.39 But Victor, who may well have been an eye witness to themiracle,40 identifies the blind man as Felix, a well-known res ident of Carthage
(civibuscivitatiquenotissimus). Gregory's blind man
isArian,
but Felix almost certainly was not. It is difficult to imagine Victor not cap italizing on the scandal thatwould assuredly have stung the local Arian fac tion when one of their own deserted the ranks and sought healing from a Catholic
bishop. After being admonished
three times by God
vision, Felix goes to the basilica on Epiphany
Sunday
where he firstmeets the subdeacon Peregrinus. He
in a dream
(6 January 484),
is brought to Eugenius,
who anoints him with water from the baptismal font and heals him of blind ness. As the rumor of themiracle spreads throughout Carthage, accuse Eugenius
of sorcery.41The
next segment of Victor's
theArians narrative is
devoted to a theological debate, scheduled for 1 February 484 by decree of
36DIM 4.20. 37 Abbot Abraham the priest Anastasius 2.31). 38 On Grossen
is quasi novusHelias (VP 3); Illidius is tamquam novusMoyses (VJ 7); is tamquam novus lonas (DIM 4.12); Clovis is novus Constantinus (DIM
see E. Ewig, typology and Clovis, ersten Jahrhunderten des abendl?ndischen
the Constantine in den
Jahrbuch75 (1956), 1-46 (26-9). 39
40
The
whole
Courtois,
41 HP
2.51.
story is told at HP Victor. 24.
2.47-51.
'Der Bild Constantins Mittelalters',
des
Historisches
ANDREW
422
CAIN
Huneric, between theArian bishops, led by Cyrola, and the Catholic bish ops, led by Eugenius.42 On Victor's
timeline, themiracle occurs less than a
month before this debate. Gregory however reversesVictor's order, placing the debate beforethemiracle. is an Arian co-conspirator hired by Cyrola, but he
Gregory's blind man
is not actually blind until Cyrola hand, was
touches him. Victor's Felix, on the other
really blind and was probably also a Nicene
Christian. Addi
tionally,Victor's Cyrola
is never cited as performing a miracle, counterfeit
or otherwise. Gregory's
story contains a few other apparently circumstan
tial details not found in Victor. For instance, he names Vindimialis43 and Longinus,
two of Eugenius'
episcopal colleagues known for theirwonder
working powers,44whereas Victor mentions neither one. Gregory drops the names of two other people not mentioned by Victor. One catholic archdeacon martyred under Huneric. bishop who apostasized
The
isOctavianus,
a
other is Revocatus,
a
from the Nicene
faith (infilixille episcopus nomineRevocatus est revocatus afide catholica).Both Courtois and Moorhead have
Catholic
called the latter's historicity into question, arguing thatGregory's irresistible punning is too convenient.45 Their caution is unwarranted for two reasons. First of all, Revocatus
is a perfectly plausible African name that follows the
same pattern as many other ones formed from the perfect passive participle of firstconjugation verbs, such as Optatus, Rogatus, Donata,
and Speratus.
thinks also of the young catechumen Revocatus
figures in the
One
who
story of Perpetua and Felicitas.46 Furthermore, ecclesiastical writers could enjoy a clever pun on the names of real people, such as Avitus of Vienne on Vincomalus'
name:
quemDeus
tribuatut in bono vincatismalum.47Jerome
42HP 2.53-55. 43 in Byzantium in the second half of the fifth century, the bishop of Capsa Probably inMotitia provinciarum et civitatumAfricae B 60 and in Passio septemmonachorum 7.3. mentioned this identification, see J.-L. Maier, L'Episcopat de VAfrique Romaine, Vandale etByzantine 1973), 122, 144. (Rome, 44 Erant enim tune temporis cum sancto Eugenio viriprudentissimi atque sanctissimi Vindimialis et ferebatur mor Longinus episcopi,pares gradu et virtutenon inpares.Mam sanctus Vindimialis eo tempore For
tuos suscetasse; Longinus autem multis inflrmissalutem tribuit (DLH 2.3). 45 Courtois, Vandales, 299nl2; Moorhead, 'Gregory', 906. 46 Passio SS. Perpetuae etFelicitatis 2.2, 18, 19. 47 in patristic writers, see R.T. 16.1: PL 59, 234. For one study of punning Epist. in and Puns Palladius' Historia Studia Patr?stica 8 (1966), 420 'Proverbs Lausiaca?, Meyer, ou nom propre?' 23; also V. Saxer, 'Victor, titre d'honneur Miscellanea in onore di Enrico Josi (Paris, 1968), 209-18.
XUV,
in Rivista di archeologia cristiana
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
AND
ARIANS
423
name in refer
plays on theGreek meaning of the letter-carrierApodemius' ring to his extensive of Tours
perhaps more
(&Ro'66,uo;= sojourner).48 Gregory
travels abroad
than other writers is prone
to pun on people's
Two exampleswill suffice. When Floridus,a crippledboy from names.49 Angers,
of his
is healed, Gregory jokes that he has fulfilled the meaning
name: restitutis nominis quasinovus membris, iuxta suiproprietatem Floridus.50 effloruit The Arian Oppilla receivesthiscomical reactionto his thick-headedness when he refuses to affirmChrist's divinity: certesi oppilatas habeas aures,ut ista
nonaudias,crede well-documented apostolis.5' Gregory's penchantforpunning on the names of real people demonstrates moreover
that Revocatus
not be a fictionalized character, but rather an African bishop who did apostasize from theNicene
need in fact
faith under pressure fromArian authorities.
Gregory's and Victor's versions of the story differ in yet another impor tant respect. Gregory reproduces a letterwritten by Eugenius on the eve of his exile in early July 484 to encourage his flock to remain stalwart despite his absence.52 This is the only sizeable original document quoted in the first eight books of the DLH,
and it is not preserved elsewhere. While Victor
does not preserve this letter, he does reproduce another by Eugenius not found in any other source.53Both letters are generally assumed to be gen uine, and at the very least their stylistic similarities confirm that they are almost certainly by the same author.54 The
chart below summarizes what
is the same
and what
is different
inVictor'sandGregory'saccounts:
48
121, prol.: Filius meus Apodemius, qui interpretationemnominis sui longa ad nos veniens navigatione signavit et de oceani litore atque ultimis Galliarum finibus Roma praeterita quaesivit see A. Cain, Bethl?em . . .: I. Hilberg, ed., CSEL 56, 3. On Apodemius, 'Defending Hedibia Epist.
and Detecting 121)', Medieval 49 See M. 50
FM
51DIM 52DIM 53 HP
Eusebius:
Jerome's
Correspondence
Prosopography 24 (forthcoming). Bonnet, Le Latin de Gr?goire de Tours
with Two
(Paris,
Gallic Women
1890), 734-6
(Epp.
120
(with examples).
3.27. 6.40. 2.3.
to Courtois, this letter from Victor, 28, Victor salvaged According Eugenius' personal archive. 54 to Eugenius' Cf. Gennadius, De script, eccl. 98, who refers non-specifically epistulas, velut commonitoriasfidei:PL 58.1117. Courtois, Victor, 58-9n285, accepts the letter's authen as does Lancel, Histoire, 26. Moorhead, on the other hand has reser ticity, 'Gregory', 906, the letter but his position holds little ground because he fails to clarify whether took for granted as genuine, or itwas Gregory's been a forgery that Gregory literary fabrication.
vations, may own
2.41-2.
have
ANDREW
424
CAIN
Victor
GregoDy
Healing of Catholic blindman (Felix) Eugenius Cyrola Peregrinus -----------------
Healing ofArian blindman (unnamed)
Vindimialis Longinus Revocatus Octavianus Eugenius' letterB
Eugenius' letterA The one common denominator
in both stories is that Eugenius
heals a
blind man, but even this appears negligible when weighed against the con
The insertion B immediately siderabledifferences. of Eugenius' letter dis tances Gregory fromVictor.55 And since Victor does not preserve this letter, Gregory must have obtained
it from some other source. The
absence of
Vindimialisand Longinus fromVictor's account is equallyproblematic. This and other evidence examined
thus farwould
seem to permit only one
geneticrelation preliminary conclusion: Gregory'sstoryhas no discernible ship with Victor's.56 For using what is known about Gregory's adaptation of we would expect to see more shared other source material as a comparandum, featureswith Victor if he consulted him.57
Grego7y'ssources:The possibilities As he intimates in the prologue to the second book of theDLH, Gregory draws in this book from an eclectic range of sources including histories,58
55 Cf. R.
trans., Gr?goire de Tours, Histoire des Francs (Paris, 1996), 79n6, who Latouche, more than 'bref r?sum?' of Eugenius' Gregory's wrongly surmises that letter B is nothing inserted in his HP at 2.56-101. long Libellus fidei catholicae, which Victor 56 Monod, Etudes, I, 80-1, arrived at the same conclusion, but Courtois, Victor, 58n285, disagrees. 57 Cf.
van
Acta Andreae and Gregory's De miraculis Andreae\ Vigiliae Kampen, 'The Transformation of theMiracle (1991), 18-26; K.A. Whitehead, Story in the Libri Miraculorum of Gregory of Tours', Medium Aevum 59 (1990), 1-15. 58Orosius' Historia adversus paganos (DLH 2.9). Gregory also quotes long selections from two fourth-century historians whose works are now lost, Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus L.
Christianae 45
and Sulpicius
Alexander
(DLH
2.8-9).
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
AND ARIANS
425
chronicles,59 letters,60homilies,6' and saints' lives,62as well as some oral tra dition.63With
regard specifically to theVandal
about two types of sources, namely Eugenius'
account, he is forthcoming letterB and martyr acts dat
sourcesare generally ingfrom Huneric'spersecution.64 Gregory'stext-based the easiest to detect because
they often leave visible traces of themselves,
however faint, in the narrative. The DLIH
straddle two genres simultane
ously, historiography and hagiography.65 The
Eugenius
story has a pro
nounced hagiographicalflavor,and so it seems reasonable to suspect initially that at least one of the following classes of hagiographical
textsmay
lie behind it: 1)martyr acts and passion stories (actamarrum and passiones);
Are of saints' miracles(libelli miraculorum).66 2) saints'lives(vitae); 3) collections traditions about Eugenius preserved in any of these kinds of texts, and if so,
letus did Gregorywork fromthem?Before exploringthesepossibilities, consider another alternative in the form of oral tradition.Oral
sources tend
to be elusive and phantom-like and therefore the most difficult to track, especially when Gregory does not explicitly cite them.What
if any oral tra
ditions about Eugenius may have influenced Gregory, and how did they reach his ears?
59
to the methods of Eusebius, Cf. DIM 2, prol., where he states his indebtedness Severus, and Jerome in their respective chronicles. 60 One letter by Eugenius (DIM 2.3), two by Sidonius Apollinaris (DIM 2.24-5), and some by Avitus (DLH 2.34). 61 Several by Avitus (DIM 2.34). 62 Vitae of Anianus of Rheims (DIM 2.31), and Maxentius (DIM 2.6), Remigius (DIM 2.37). 63
to the the eighth bishop of Tours, and his pilgrimage E.g. the report about Licinius, Land hangs on a thread of oral tradition, as Gregory discloses with the customary text-based and oral sources, see fertur (DIM 2.39). For a thorough discussion of Gregory's Kurth, ?tudes, II, 117-206. 64 ex quibus quaedam republicanda sunt, ut Legimus tarnenquorundam ex ipsis martyrumpassiones, ad ea quae spondemus veniamus (DLH 2.3). 65 sense of Thus J.M. Wallace-Hadrill urges that 'ifwe wish to make [Gregory's] his tory we must relate it to the main body of his hagiographical writings': The Long-Haired Holy
seeW. Goffart, Kings (New York, 1962), 51. On Gregory as historiographer-hagiographer, Barbarian The Narrators 127-53; History (A.D. 550-800) (Princeton, NJ, 1988), of von Tours', M. Heinzelmann, und historischer Diskurs bei Gregor 'Hagiographischer Aevum inter utrumque:M?langes 1991), 237-58. offerts? Gabriel Sanders (Steenbrugge, 66 For an overview of these genres, see R. Aigrain, L'Hagiographie: ses sources, ses m?thodes, son histoire (reprint: Brussels,
2000),
132-85.
ANDREW
426
CAIN
Oral tradition and thecultofEugenius Eugenius
occupied
the influential episcopate
twenty-five years, during which bishop inNorth Africa.67He against Huneric's
time he was
at Carthage
for nearly
the pre-eminent Catholic
spearheaded a grass-roots resistance movement
oppression
of Catholic
religious liberties and
in the
process he earned a household name among Nicene Christians throughout North Africa. Within
a decade of Huneric's
reputation had reached Gennadius time, in 494, Pope Gelasius
I made
persecution in 484, Eugenius'
in distant Marseille.68 Around
this same
a flattering reference to him in an open
letter to the bishops of Dardania.69 InJuly 484 Huneric banished Eugenius
to a desert on the outskirts of the
African town of Turris Tamalleni, where he was ordered to live under the supervision of the notorious Arian bishop Antonius.70 He was among 302 bishops sent to concentration camps in the African desert, while another forty-sixwere Huneric's
exiled
more
to Corsica.
In 487 he was
liberal successor Gunthamund
recalled from exile by (484-496),
and he was
allowed to reopen the churches closed by Huneric. At some point between 496 and 498 he was
exiled again, this time by Gunthamund's
successor
Thrasamund, who did so in the interestof crippling theNicenes'
anti-Arian
power base at Carthage. Eugenius was sent toAlbi (Albiga), and itwas here that he would
live out the remainder of his years until his death in 505.71
nevertheless continued to act as episcopus in absentiaof Carthage, as Albi already had itsown bishop, Sabinus, who represented his see in the Council
He
of Agde
in 506.72
Eugenius'
repute as a charismatic bishop and miracle-worker evidently
followed him to Albi, where a local cult materialized death. According
around him after his
to Gregory, the faithfulwould gather in droves to cele
brate his feast day, an indication of his personal celebrity and of the success
67 On
the primacy of Carthage among African churches, see F. Ferr?re, La Situation religieusede VAfriqueRomaine (Paris, 1897), 11-15. 68De script, eccl. 98: PL 58, 1116-7. 69 Ecce nuper Honorico r?gi Vandalicae nationis vir magnus et egregius sacerdos Eugenius Cartaginensis episcopus multique cum eodem catholici sacerdotes constanter resistere saevienti cunctaque extrema toleranteshodieque persecutoribus resisterenon omittuntO. G?nther, ed., CSEL 35/1, 391. 70 see HP Little is known about Antonius: 3.42-3. Maier, Episcopat, 256. Victor, 71 DLH urbem exilio Galliarum 2.3: Gregory, apud Albiginsem deportatus est; ubi etfinem vitae 3.34. On Albi, see A. Jacobs, G?ographie de Gr?goire de Tours, praesentisfecit. Cf. Victor, HP de Fr?d?gaire et de leurs continuateurs (Paris, 1861), 92. 72 Fastes ?piscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule L. Duchesne,
(Paris,
1907),
II, 42.
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
of his cult.73Cults in theMerovingian two kinds of 'saints'
AND
ARIANS
427
period generally sprang up around
either martyrs or holy men who had performed mir
acles. But even the term 'martyr' at this timewas farmore elastic inmean ing than it had been in the first two centuries of the church, when
it had
been reserved exclusively for those put to death for their faith.74By the sixth century, itwas virtually synonymous with 'confessor' in certain contexts and it therefore could refer to one who suffered but did not die for his faith.75 Gregory applies this open-ended
definition when he lists Eugenius
as an
honorary Gallic martyr.76 The formation of his cult was probably also linked to the rise in popularity of bishops' cults in the fifth century.77 The Albigensians probably claimed him as their own local saint,much as Tours had done with St. Martin.
Inhabitants of a city sometimes regarded mar
tyrs or saints as their own for reasons thatmight seem to border on the ridiculous. For instance, even though St. Vincent Valentia,
the residents of Caesaraugusta
tyr.He had grown up in Caesaraugusta
had been martyred at
were proud to call him their mar and even served there as a deacon
for a time, but the real reason for their claim was
that his martyr's blood
had once been spilt there from a nosebleed!78 By the time Gregory was penning his story about Eugenius
in the early
570s, frequentmiracles were occurring 'even now' at his tomb.79Tombside miracles Christian
are
a
fixture in his hagiographical
writings.80 For
spectators they certified that the deceased
gained entrance into heaven and was able to intercede with God
C.
admiring
'saint' had already on their
73 . . . ad cuiusfestivitatem cum temporequodam innumeripopuli convenirent. . . (GM 57). 74 H. Delehaye, Sanctus. Essai sur le culte des saints dans l'antiquit? (Brussels, 1927), 74-121. 75 R. van Dam, trans., Gregory of Tours: Glory of theMartyrs (Liverpool, 1988), 11-13; and Christian the Great, Augustine, and Straw, 'Martyrdom Identity: Gregory
inW.E. Klingshirn and M. Vessey edd., The Limits ofAncient Christianity:Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture inHonor ofRA. Markus (Ann Arbor, 2002), 250-66. 76 GM 57. six chapters in the GM (beginning with Almost half of the one hundred
Tradition'
chapter forty eight on the martyrs of Lyons) is devoted to Gallic martyrs and saints, i.e. or whose those who were Gallic by birth, who were martyred in Gaul relics eventually made their way into Gaul. The chapter on Eugenius cluster. (57) belongs to this Gallic 77 See E. Griffe, La Gaule chr?tienne? l'?poque Romaine (Paris, 1965), III, 235-40; and R. van Dam, Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul (Berkeley, 1985), 166-72. 78 Prudentius, Per. 4.89-104. 79 . . . ad cuius nunc sepulchrummultae virtutis et creberrimae ostenduntur (DIM 2.3). 80 at Dijon at Saintes (GM 55); Amarandus at Albi E.g. Benignus (GM 51); Eutropius (GM 56); Patroclus
(GC 79).
at Troyes
(GM 63); Maximus
at Chinon
(GC 22); Ursinus
at Bourges
ANDREW
428
CAIN
behalf for healings and other special requests.81 The
eerie, other-worldly
mystique of the tomb itself further reinforced a sense of holy awe in curi ous visitors. It is no wonder
then that saints' tombs were a focal point of
cultic worship.82 Shortly before he died, Eugenius allegedly prostrated him self before the tomb of St. Amarandus his companion
and declared that he would
soon be
in death.83 As indeed he was, for the pair shared a crypt in
a church at Vieux, not far fromAlbi. By 924 this church was known as the ecclesiaSS. Eugenii etAmarandi, though later its name was changed to ecclesia S. Eugenii de Viancio (= Vieux).84 Saints' cults throve on rich oral traditions.When larly to occur at Eugenius'
dictably have inflated the historical Eugenius
pre
into a quasi-mythical hero. As
stories about him may have assumed a folkloric
a result, even mundane bent. A window
miracles began regu
tomb, the devotion of the locals would
of nearly seven decades
Gregory's writing, a more tiply and metamorphosize
separated Eugenius'
death and
than adequate amount of time for stories tomul into legends that perhaps contained few if any
traces of the original tellings. But the question is, did any of these legends influence Gregory's
story?Though
he never went to Albi,85 he could con
ceivably have heard tales by word ofmouth either from locals inTours who had passed
through there on pilgrimage, or alternatively fromAlbigensian
natives who made
the pilgrimage toTours
to visit the shrine of St. Martin.86
81 Les Origines du culte des martyrs (Brussels, 1933), 100-40; P. Brown, The H. Delehaye, Cult of theSaints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago, 1981), 71-4; id., 'Relics in Society and theHoly in Late Antiquity and Social Status in the Age of Gregory of Tours' tombside miracles and visions, see I. Moreira, 1982), 222-50 (223-5). On (Berkeley, 108-35. Dreams, Visions, and Spiritual Authority inMerovingian Gaul (Ithaca, 2000), 82 See H. 'Loca sanctorum', Analecta Bollandiana 48 (1930), 5-64; J. Hubert, Delehaye, du IVe au Xe si?cle' in 'Evolution de la topographie et de l'aspect des villes de la Gaule Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi su?l'AltoMedio M.
Vieillard-Tro?ekouroff,
(Paris,
1976); B. Beaujard,
Evo
16 (Spoleto, 1959), 529-58; oeuvres de Gr?goire de Tours les d'apr?s Le Culte des saints en Gaule: les premiers temps, d'Hilaire de Poitiers
Les Monuments
de la Gaule
? lafin du PF si?cle (Paris,2000), 333-64. 83 Moscens,
se martyriAmarando socium essefuturum, ad eius sepulchrum diregitur,prostratusque solo, diutissime orationem fudit ad Dominum (GM 57). 84 A. Longnon, G?ographie de la Gaule au VIe si?cle (Paris, 1878), 521. 85 He never ventured far outside of Clermont and Tours, with the exception of brief
Riez, Cavaillon, Vienne, stays in these locales: Saintes, Bordeaux, Lyons, Chalon Soissons, Metz, sur-Sa?ne, Ch?lons-sur-Marne, Rheims, Coblentz, Braine, Paris, and Orleans. 86 C. de Tours au VIe si?cle', Bulletin trimestriel 'De l'importance du p?lerinage Lelong, de la soci?t? arch?ologique de Touraine 32 (1960), 232-7; R. van Dam, Saints and Their Miracles
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
AND
ARIANS
429
Another possible source is his friend Salvius, the bishop ofAlbi from ca. 571 to 584.87 Salvius might have been more
familiar with local legend than
anyone else in Gregory's circle of contacts, for he would have possessed a written record of all reported miracles
performed at Eugenius'
tomb.
Furthermore, he would have had a distinct motive for actively promoting the Eugenius
cult, namely to increase the prestige of his church and to
attract pilgrims who might then fill its coffers. Gregory often had recourse to folk legends, especially when writing about
events.88 contemporary For instance, theItalianmartyrs AgricolaandVitalis had been buried above ground, but Gregory knew this only from oral tra dition (revelatio fidelium),since their passio had not survived.89Here
he cites
oral tradition as his source, a claim however he does not make
for his
Eugenius
story.This
is not to suggest that he did not incorporate elements
of word-of-mouth stories into his narrative, though ifhe did, theywould be for all practical purposes wholly undetectable now. It is safer to proceed with what can be verified intra-textually, such as possible written sources thatmay have inspired the account.
Gregogy'sstoryand a Vita
s. Eugenii?
Saints'vitae captivatedliterate audiencesinsixth-century Frankish Gaul.90 Gregory was well acquainted with this vast subset of hagiographical
litera
ture and he is known to have worked from several contemporary and ear lier vitae in crafting certain episodes of his DLH.91 For the narrative at DLIH in Late Antique Gaul
Saint Martin de Tours Dauzet, (Princeton, NJ, 1993), 116-49; D.-M. au L. de du La Ville Tours IVe VIe si?cle: naissance d'une cit? 267-96; Pietri, (Paris, 1996), chr?tienne (Rome, 1983), 140-69. On the diffusion of folk legend, see L. Pietri, 'Gr?goire et la g?ographie de Tours du sacr?' in N. Gauthier and H. Galini? edd., Gr?goire de Tours et l'espace Gaulois: Actes du Congr?s International, Tours, 3-5 Novembre 1994 (Tours, 1997), 111-14. 87On their friendship, see DIM 5.50; 7.1. 88 van R. trans., Gregory of Tours: Glory of theConfessors Monod, Dam, Etudes, I, 89-108; 1988), 7-8. (Liverpool, 89 GM 43: Agr?cola et Vitalis apud Bononiam Italiae urbempro Christi nomine crucifixisunt, quo rum sepulchra, ut per revelationem fidelium cognovimus, quia nondum ad nos historia passionis advenu, super terramsunt collocata. Cf. GM 39: multi quidem suntmartyres apud urbemRomam, quorum his toriaepassionum nobis integraenon sunt delatae. De Iohanne tarnenepiscopo, quoniam agon eius ad nos usque non acc?sit scriptus, quae afidelibus comperi, tacerenequivi. Also GM 46: et quae super his quo dam referenteaudivi, absurdum non putavi inserere lectioni, quia non conteneturin historia passionis. 90 The Prankish Church (Oxford, 1983), 75-93. J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, 91 For a see Kurth, Etudes, II, 137-9. conspectus of vitae used by Gregory,
CAIN
ANDREW
430
2.31 he consulted
the vita of Bishop Remigius
authority for a story about Remigius Taking
into consideration Eugenius'
of Rheims
raising someone
(d. 530), his
from the dead.92
status as the leading Catholic
episco
pal figure inNorth African theological politics of the late fifthcentury, one can well imagine that he would have been a likely candidate for a starring role in his own vita,perhaps one penned on African soil. The healing of a blind man was his most famous miracle,
ifwe are to judge by the fact that
it is the only one ascribed to him independently in two different sources (HP and DLH),
and therefore itwould have been an obvious addition to the nar
rative. All of this however is pure speculation, for no such Vita s. Eugenii is known to have existed.
Gregory'sstoy and a Libellus de miraculis
s. Eugenii?
The writing of libellimiraculorum was a bustling industry in the sixth cen tury.93Gregory alone wrote seven: four on themiracles of St. Martin, on themiracles ofJulian of Brioude,
one
the GC, and the GM.94 Libelli were cat
alogues ofmiracles performed by a particular saint thatwere written to rein force cultic devotion to him. There composed
is however no evidence
that one was
forEugenius. Few miracles are ascribed to him,95 not enough to
filleven theshortestlibellus. Gregory'sstoy and thepassio Eugenii? Martyr acts and passion stories circulated widely among Christian audi ences in the firstfour centuries of the Church, and theywere particularly
92Est
enim nunc liber vitae dus, qui eum narr?t mortuum suscitasse (DLH 2.31). Cf. GC 78: et oratione sua defunctae cadaver puellae obtenuit suscitan. The story is found in Vita S. Remegii 6-8. AA 4.2, 64-7. and printed inMGH, This short vitawas edited by B. Krusch 93 on this work Delehaye's subgenre, though dated, remains seminal: hagiographical see H. Delehaye, libelli miraculorum\ Analecta Bollandiana 29 (1910), 427-34; 'Les premiers id., 'Les recueils
des saints', Analecta Bollandiana 43 (1925), 5-85 and antiques de miracles of Tours). On the composition and use of libelli miraculorum in the (on Gregory see T. the Cult medieval and Head, of Saints: The Diocese of Orl?ans, 800 period, Hagiography 1200 (Cambridge, 1990), 135-8 and 183-7. 94 In his autobibliographical notice at DLH 10.31, Gregory writes: septem [libros] miracu 305-25
lorum . . . scripsi. 95 I.e. the healing of the blind man, tombside miracle (GM 57).
reported by Victor
of Vita
and Gregory,
and one
MIRACLES,
popular
in Merovingian
MARTYRS,
AND
ARIANS
Gaul.96 A passio was
431
a condensed
saint's sufferingand final triumph through faith in God with a poignant anecdote designed to teach a moral
account of a
that usually closed
lesson. The passio of a
particular saint was read aloud either in its entirety or in excerpts, in place of the Epistles reading, once annually during the liturgical ceremony com memorating
his or her feast day.97 Given
that Gregory not infrequently
relied on passiones as literary sources,98 could a passio Eugenii be themissing link for his story about Eugenius' exist, and he was aware of it.He on Eugenius
healing miracle? This work did in fact refers to it at the beginning of his notice
in GM 57: huic criptaesociaturet illeHonorficianaepersecutionis mar
sacerdotalis infulae maximum decus, queminhacurbedetrusum exilio, vel yrEugenius, ipsius vel sociorumeius passio narrat.The Eugenius'
story informed him about
passion
place of exile (Albi), and possibly about the the false oath and
miracle at his tomb,which follows in GM 57. Unfortunately the passio Eugenii no longer survives, and so it is impossible tomeasure Gregory may
have depended
upon
the extent to which
it for his account
in DLH
2.3. A
medievalPassioS. Eugeniiepiscopi etmarnrisispreservedin severaltwelfth century codices However,
containing various
passion
stories and
saints'
lives.99
as Courtois has rightlypointed out, this ismerely 'un demarquage
romance du recit de Gregoire de Tours'.'00
96
see Griffe, Gaule, I, 146-57. Culte, 203-42. On earlier passions, Beaujard, 97 See B. De dans la pri?re liturgique en Gaiffier, 'La lecture des Actes des Martyres Analecta Bollandiana 72 (1954), 134-66; V. Saxer, Morts, Martyrs, Reliques en Occident', Afrique chr?tienneaux premiers si?cles (Paris, 1980), 200-8; M. van Uytfanghe, 'L'hagiographie et son public ? l'?poque m?rovingienne', Studia Patr?stica 16 (1985), 54-62; Y. Hen, Culture and Religion in (Leiden, 1995), 84-6. In the liturgical calendar Merovingian Gaul A.D. 481-751 5 is set aside as Eugenius' feast day: see G.B. de Rossi and L. Duchesne codicum adiectis prolegomenis (Brussels, 1894), lxxi. edd., Martyrologium hieronymianum adfidem 98 For some see GM 31, 34-5, 37, 46, 50, 56-7, 63, 70, 73, examples, representative
of Carthage
January
of the Holy in the Work 104. Cf. J. Corbett, and the Experience of 'Hagiography Gregory of Tours', Florilegium 1 (1985), 40-54. 99 Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum Bibliothecae Regiae Bruxellensis (Brussels, 1886), I, 30; for text, see 63-6. See also Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum Latinorum Bibliothecae Vaticanae 1910), 204 and 462; (Brussels, 1898-9), I, 402-3. 100 Victor, 59n285. (Brussels,
and Bibliotheca Hagiographica
Latina Antiquae etMediae
Aetatis
ANDREW
432
CAIN
revisited Gregoy's sources In the preceding pages
the broad
range of Gregory's possible oral and
account has been explored. Oral
literary sources for his Vandal
tradition
could have supplied him with the substance of themiracle story,but it could not have conveyed Eugenius'
letterB. As for possible written sources, there
is no evidence that either a Vita sanctiEugenii or a Libellus de miraculis sancti Eugenii existed. Nevertheless, based
his account upon
the principal objection
Lengthy original documents such as personal Merovingian
to Gregory's having
them is that he reproduces Eugenius'
(or African) saints' lives and
hand, the lost passio Eugenii is a more
letter B.
letterswere not a feature of
libellimiraculorum.On
the other
suitable candidate because Gregory
was working from it in GM 57, and thus itmay well have been one of the passiones cited as sources for his Vandal account.'0' But while it (and martyrum these other maryrumpassiones) could possibly have furnished him with some of the names not found inVictor's HP
Vindimialis, Longinus, Revocatus,
well as incidental details of themiracle story, it still remains
Octavianus-as
virtually impossible that letterB was derived from it, for the same reasons it could not have come from a saint's life or libellusmiraculorum. The
appearance
of Eugenius'
letterB inDLH
thatGregory did not base his Vandal a hagiographical
source. How
source-critical quagmire? Let
2.3 reasonably assures us
account and miracle story strictlyon
then can we navigate from here through this us adopt
the working hypothesis that he
retrieved this letter and sundry other items of information (e.g. people's names) from a source, now lost,which might be generically termed Historia persecutionissub Hunerico rege.This Historia may have resembled Victor's HP in its basic structural format, enshrining for posterity the tragedies and tri umphs of Catholic Christians under Huneric. have given Bishop Eugenius
Like Victor,
a privileged place
itswriter may
in the narrative, repro
ducing original documents such as letterB and preserving a version of the miracle
story upon which Gregory based his own. This writer would pre
sumably have been, also likeVictor, an eyewitness to the events. One might even hazard the HP,
the daring guess that thisHistoria could have been a sequel to
the writing of which Victor
seems to have anticipated in the pro
logue to his work.'02 101 Legimus tarnen quorundam ex ipsis martyrumpassiones, ex quibus quaedam republicanda sunt, ut ad ea quae spondemus veniamus (DIM 2.3). 102See D. 'Osservazioni sul prologo alla Historia di Vittore Vitense', Atti d?lia Romano, Accademia
di scienze letteree arti di Palermo,
ser. 4, 20
(1962),
19-36. See
also W.E.
Fahey,
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
AND ARIANS
433
This hypothetical Historia would have been written, at the earliest, dur ing the summer of 484. The
terminus post quem isJuly 484, the approximate
date of composition of letterB. Since Gregory does not mention Huneric's successor Gunthamund,
it seems plausible to assume that his source did not
either. Gregory also does not name Huneric's
predecessor Geiseric;
this too
could reflect the silence of his source. The potential scope of the Historia may now perhaps be narrowed down to cover the events of Huneric's
per
secution (and death) in 484, but nothing after his death. Gregory knew that Eugenius had been banished under Huneric
and later resurfaced in Albi,
but he did not specify that this took place under Thrasamund's (ca. 496). Quite
regime
to the contrary, he mistakenly thought that Thrasamund These
had ruled before Huneric.
that the source for his Vandal about Eugenius, was composed between early July 484 and
and other discrepancies strongly suggest account, and particularly for his account
inside an approximately six-monthwindow, 484. Gregory's
late December
fumbling of
chronology now comes into sharper focus. It is not that his source
Vandal
for this chronology was faulty. It was selective, offering a microscopic of Huneric's Gregory
two immediate
omits Huneric's
Thrasamund,
successors, Gunthamund
but he does mention the last twoVandal
530) and Gelamir
kings,Hilderic
and (523
(530-534). About Hilderic he says only that he succeeded
After Hilderic (huic Childericussuccessit).
Huneric
view
reignwhile evidently excluding the kings before and after him.
the Byzantine army conquered Since Gregory mentions
there was Gelamir, whom
to bring an end to theVandal
kingdom.'03
the collapse of the kingdom in 534, his source for
these last two kings was evidently more recent (perhaps oral and Gallic), though its coverage of earlier ones was selective inasmuch as it excluded Gunthamund
and Thrasamund.
The hypothesis constructed thus far assumes that the Historia was com posed
in North Africa during the penultimate months of Huneric's
reign.
Like Victor, its author was not interested inwriting a history of theVandals per se and their regnal successions. His priority was
to paint a graphic if
in D. Kries and C.B. Tkacz and Suffering in Victor of Vita' edd., 'History, Community, Nova Doctrina Vetusque: Essays on Early Christianity inHonor ofFrederic W. Schlatter, SJ. (New York, 1999), 225-41 (225-7). 103 Gelesimeris regnum suscipit. Ipse quoque a republica superatus, vitamprincipatumquefinivit. Et sic regnumdeciditWandalorum (DIM 2.3). The phrase a republica superatus refers to Emperor Justinian's Carthage
successful on
defeat
15 September
of
the Vandals.
533, and by March
His
forces,
534 Gelamir
led by Belisarius, had surrendered.
reached
ANDREW
434
CAIN
sensationalistic portrait of localized clashes between Arians and Catholics. This authorial selectiveness handily explains why Victor Geiseric and Huneric,
rowed his focus further toHuneric have migrated toGaul
focussed only on
and why the author of the Historia presumably nar alone. The work, likeVictor's HP, may
in the late fifthor early sixth century, perhaps smug
gled via an underground network by North African Catholic Christians who flooded into Gaul
before and during this time to find a safe haven against
Arian persecution.'04 Eugenius, who was part of thismass exodus, may even have brought a copy as part of his personal archive, not least because he and his campaign against Cyrola and theArians were evidently memorial ized in itspages. When ities,Albi became
Eugenius was exiled toGaul by theVandal
author
the new geographical center of his social network. From
here the Historia could easily have been found multiple venues for dissemi nation throughout Gaul, where asm by Catholic
itwould no doubt have met with enthusi
refugees fromNorth Africa.
The putative Historia persecutionis was not the only work of its kind on the shelf of late antique
literature. One
thinksmost
immediately of Victor's
HP.'05 A well known example from the early fourth century is Lactantius' De mortibuspersecutorum[Mll. 106In giving a biased commentary on contem porary political turmoil from 303 to 313, Lactantius both consoles Christians enduring the 'Great Persecution' and demonstrates how severely God will judge pagan rulers who persecute them.'07 Lactantius gives this concise thesis statement in the opening pages of his work: de quorumexitunobis fueruntvel qui postea futuri sunt, scirent testificari placuit, ut omnesqui procul remoti
104 On
see A. Schwarcz, the circulation of Victor's HP, und Text?ber 'Bedeutung von der Historia des Victor Vita' in A. Scharer persecutionis Africanae provinciae lieferung and G. Scheibelreiger, edd., Historiographie imfr?henMittelalter (Vienna, 1994), 115-140. 105 roots in mainline the HP\ On ecclesiastical historiography, especially as it relates to Rufinus'
translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, see P. Wynn, 'Rufinus of Ecclesiastical and Victor of Vita's the Vandal History Aquileia's Persecution', Classica History of etMediaevalia 41 (1990), 187-98. 106 of its sources, common For a discussion themes, and historical context, see J.L. ed. and De Persecutorum Mortibus trans., Lactantius, Creed, (Oxford, 1984), xv-xlv; citations are taken from this edition. On see T.D. its date of composition, Barnes, 'Lactantius and C onstantine ',Journal ofRoman Studies 63 (1973), 29-46. 107 'The Aim of Lactantius See R.G. Tanner, in the Liber de mortibus persecutorum', Studia
from theMP
17 (1982), 836-40. For this theme of God see in Victor, judging persecutors S. Costanza, 'Considerazioni storiografiche neWhistoria persecutionis Africanae provinciae di Vittore di Vita', Bollettino di Studi Latini 6 (1976), 30-6. Patr?stica
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
AND
ARIANS
435
quatenus acmajestaten suaminextinguendis nominis suihostibus virtutem delendisque In this twofold aim theMP deus summusostenderit.'08
is similar toVictor's HP
and presumably to the hypothetical Historia as well. All three works have
historiographical pretensionsin thattheyreproduceoriginaldocumentsin the stream of their narratives.109Victor and thewriter of the Historia quote
completeletters ofEugenius,whileLactantiusreproducestwolongerdocu ments:MaximianGalerius'edicthaltingpersecution andConstantine'sand Licinius' Edict ofMilan."10 Furthermore, the postulated Historia would not be the only lost historiographical work used by Gregory. The
histories of
thefifth-century writers RenatusProfuturus and SulpiciusAlexanderare in fact known only through Gregory's citation of them."' A possible trace of the lostHistoria may be detectable in Gregory's obit uary forHuneric. He Vandal
records that after being possessed by a demon, the
king went mad and tore himself to pieces with his own teeth."2 An
interpolator attached another version of his obituary to the end of Victor's HP,
according to which Huneric's
body was devoured so badly by worms
that itwas scarcely recognizable afterward."3 Enemies and especially perse cutors of God's people dying violent deaths by worm infestation or by some other grotesque means
is a Christian
literary topos."4Herod Agrippa,
said, was struck down by the angels of God
it is
for the sin of pride, whereupon
108A?P 1.7. 109 its aims and tone are markedly different from these three, Bede's Historia Though ecclesiastica should also be mentioned in conjunction with them, for Bede inserts original letters in his narrative: e.g. see at 1.23, 24, 27-32; 2.8, 10-11, 17-19. 110 MP 34 and 48, respectively. 111DIM 2.8-9. See Monod, Etudes, I, 83-4. In these instances Gregory does name his as in the case of the postulated Annales Andecavenses, a lost annalistic source for late fifth-century Angers (DIM 2.18). 112Honoricus vero post tantumJacinus arreptus a daemone, qui diu de sanctorum sanguine pastus se morsibus at, laniabat, in quo cruciatu vitam indignam iusta mortefinivit (DIM 2.3). fuer propriis 113Tenait sceleratissimusHuniricus dominationem regni annis septem,mensibus decem, meritorum suorum mortem consummans.Nam putrefactas et ebulliens vermibus non corpus, sed parks corporis sources,
eius videntur esse sepultae (HP 3.71). E. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur desMittelalters the first to propose the inauthenticity of this passage. 1874), I, 434n3, was (Leipzig, Other since followed suit, while scholars, e.g. Courtois, Victor, 16, have others, e.g. A. Roncoroni, 'Sulla morte di re Unerico', Romanobarbarica 2 (1977), 247-57, argue for its authenticity. 114 IV For example, Antiochus This topos carries over from pre-Christian Judaism. is said to have been afflicted with a crippling case of bowel disease and worm Epiphanes infestation after his persecution
of the Jews
(IIMace.
9.1-11).
ANDREW
436
CAIN
he was eaten by worms and died."5 The gruesome fate.According
to Lactantius,
emperor Galerius met a more
in the eighteenth year of his reign
Galerius was afflictedwith an ulcer on his groin which became
infected and
spread to his bowels and bladder, with worms all thewhile feasting on his putrid flesh."6 After plundering the votive giftsof the church at Antioch and blasphemously mocking
them, the emperor Julian's uncle, also named
Julian, met a grisly end when worms ate away his intestines and genitals, a death thatChristian writers were quick to tout as a visible display of God's vengeance."7
Gregory's
description of Huneric's
violent death
thus falls
within the general pale of this literary topos.IfGregory did not fabricate the details
and there is no reason to think that he did
but instead gleaned
them from an earlier writing, theHistoria persecutionis may well have been the source. Huneric's
obituary, with its vitriolic and bloodthirsty tone, would
have fitcomfortably in the Historia, as Galerius'
does in Lactantius' MP.
There are at least three discernible source layers inGregory's account of theVandals
inDLH
2.2-3. The
first is a series of maryrumpassiones (e.g. the
passio Eugenii) dating fromHuneric's
persecution of 484. Instead of being
several separate and unconnected works, theymay have been a collection of stories filed in a singlework, possibly extracted, one might speculate, from the postulated Historia itself.At least one unnamed written (or oral) source informed Gregory about Gunderic, Hilderic, and Gelamir,
as well as mis
cellaneous details about theVandals' movements intoGaul, Spain, and then North Africa. The third identifiable source is the hypothetical Historia perse which contained Eugenius' cutionissubHunerico rege, the miracle
letterB and a version of
story.Vindimialis, Longinus, Octavianus,
have appeared
and Revocatus may
in it, if not also in the maryrumpassiones. This Historia is a
ghost source whose shadowy contours are discernible only by indirect traces leftbehind in Gregory's narrative. Its footprints are faded, but they are not completely washed The
away.
stemmatic relationship between
analogous
to the one between Q
the Historia and Gregory's DLH
and the synoptic Gospels. Redaction
icism has shown that even thoughQis
lost, its existence can be inferred
and a skeleton outline of its contents reconstructed
115 Acts 12.22-3. 116 MP33. 117 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. Matt.
4.2.
5.8. Cf. Theodoret,
is crit
Hist. Eccl.
from residual traces left
3.9; John Chrysostom,
Homil.
in
MIRACLES,
MARTYRS,
in the Gospels ofMatthew, Mark,
AND
ARLANS
and Luke."I8 As the elusive Q
437
is the key
to solving the synoptic problem, so also is the Historia, I suggest, the crucial
missingclue needed forsolvingthemysterysurrounding Gregory'ssources for theVandals. Literary historians revel in the prospect of a newly discovered text.That the putative Historia has not, as far as we know, successfullyweathered
the
vicissitudes ofmanuscripttransmission shouldnotbe of concern.Habentsua fata libelli.The possibility thatGregory knew and worked from a lostHistoria has far-reaching implications for future source critical studies of persecutionis theDLH.
This work would be an invaluable addition to an otherwise little
attested genre, and its discovery would
alter the landscape of late antique
as it is presentlycircumscribed, that Christianhistoriography confirming Victor of Vita was not the only Catholic writing apologetic history during
Huneric'spersecution. ofColorado University
118 For a discussion
of the synoptic problem and the priority ofQ, seej. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories inAncient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia, 1987).
THE
APOCRYPHON
OFJOHN
(NHC
II, 1) AND
THE
GRAECO-EGYPTIAN ALCHEMICAL LITERATURE BY REGINE CHARRON ABSTRACT:The hermetic science known to us under themodern term of 'alchemy'was practised by Egyptian and Jewish 'loversofwisdom' in the first centuriesof theChristian era, as a sacred and mystical art of transformation, regenerationand ultimatelyof salvation, applied to thehuman soul as well as to thematerial elements, especiallymetals. The remainingGreek writings of thesephilosopherswere collected and edited in 1888 byM. Berthelot, as the des anciensalchimistes grecs.To the few scholarswho, in the firsthalf of Collection the last century,devoted theirattention to the studyof thesechallenging texts, itappeared that therewere linksbetween the salvificdoctrine of the alchemists and thatof the so-calledGnostics described by theChurch Fathers. The pur pose of thepresent article is, first,to introduce the reader to the alchemical lit erature and, second, to demonstrate thatnot only the doctrinal, but also the with the ritualsof both 'practical' side of alchemy shows significantsimilarities 'Valentinians' and 'Sethians' communities,better known to us since the dis coveryof theNag Hammadi Library.
Introduction The
is to draw attention to a corpus of ancient Greek
aim of this paper'
than a century after its firstedition, still remains
source textswhich, more
This today a kind of terra incognita.2
corpus
is the collection of Graeco
Egyptian alchemical writings, firstedited in 1888 by M.
Berthelot, under
1 This
of the is an expanded version of my paper read at the 1998 Annual Meeting in Orlando in the section "Nag Hammadi (Florida, U.S.A.) Society of Biblical Literature and Gnosticism," under the title "The Nag Hammadi Library and the Graeco-Egyptian to John D.
Turner (Univ. of Lincoln, Nebraska) me to publish the first results who (E.P.H.E., Paris) encouraged of my work in the field. I am also grateful to the editors of Vigiliae Christianae for their most helpful comments on my earlier version of this article. 2 The in: Cosimos ofPanopolis. On theLetter Omega expression used by H. M. Jackson, Alchemical and
Literature."
to Jean-Pierre
(Missoula, Montana
My
thanks go
Mah?
1978),
1.
BrillNV,Leiden,2005 ( Koninklijke
Also available online- www.brill.nl
59,438-456 Christianae Vigiliae
THE
APOCRYPHON OFJOHN
(NHC
II,
1)
439
the titleCollection This is a verysignificant desanciens alchimistes grecs.3 piece of scholarship, consisting of approximately 450 pages of Greek since itwas poorly edited and thematerial
text, but
itself is quite difficult to survey,
ignored by most scholars of the humanities. In the firsthalf of the
itwas
twentieth century, a few scholars did, however, make
fruitfulattempts at
exploring parts of the corpus; nonetheless, theirworks have been neglected in the decades
that followed. No doubt, they deserve to be re-examined for
theirpossible value to current research being carried out in the fieldsof Nag and Gnosticism. Two volumes of a projected twelve volume crit
Hammadi
ical edition of this corpus have already appeared
in the French "Collection
Bude."4 We must hope that this series,with its commentaries, will make texts more Hammadi
accessible and attractive to scholars in general, and research in particular. The
a Hermetic
"discipline"
links between "alchemy"5
the
to Nag which
is
and Gnosticism have long been recognized, and
it is not my intention here to address this topic in a general way.6 It may, however, prove useful to mention
some of the most evident reasons for
relating the collection of alchemical writings to theNag Hammadi
Library.
First, the original redaction was done at approximately the same time and 3M.
Ruelle, Collection des anciens alchimistesgrecs, Paris, 1888 (reimpr. translation I: Introduction; vol. II: Greek text; vol. Ill: French 1967). Vol. (hereafter cited CAAG). 4 R. Halleux, Les Alchimistes grecs. Tome I. Papyrus de Leyde. Papyrus de Stockholm. Recettes (Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1981); see pp. xiv-xv for the complete publication plan; M. Mertens, Les Alchimistes grecs. Tome IV, Ire partie. ?osime de Panopolis. M?moires authentiques Berthelot & Ch.-E.
Osnabr?ck
(ibidem, 1995). See also the excellent critical editions by H. M.Jackson (supra, n. 2) and une et les C. Viano, l'alchimiste de l'unit? (De pr?socratiques: "Olympiodore doxographie Arte Sacra, ? 18-27)," in Alchimie: art, histoire etmythes (ed. D. Kahn & S. Matton, S.?.H.A., Paris/Arche, Milan 1995) 95-150. 5 The term is to be found of the modern origin
in the Greek words %i)U??a, 'the art of alloying metals' 1968, (cf. H. G. Liddell & R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, me Greek for 'f?nt,' 'black earth,' the native name of 2013a), and XTlM-ia, Egypt (in Coptic: see W. & Scott this question, XHAi, Gundel, KHAC), (cf. Liddell 1990a). On in Reallexikon ftir Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart 1950) 240-241. 'Alchemie,' 6 See e.g. M. Berthelot, Les originesde l'alchimie (Paris 1885), 57-66; I. Hammer Jensen, Die ?ltesteAlchymie (Det Kgl. Danske Vidensk. Selskab, Hist.-filologiske Meddelelser IV,2, Kobenhavn 1921), who went so far as to assert that the first alchemists were Jewish Christian
Gnostics
(15-20,
77-78,
90);
F.
Sherwood
Taylor,
"A
Survey
of Greek
Alchemy,"JournalofHellenicStudies50 (1930) 109-139 (here 115, 138);H. J. Sheppard,
"Gnosticism and Alchemy," Ambix (The Journal of the Society for the Study of Alchemy and Early Chemistry) 6 (1957) 86-101 Theme and idem, "The Redemption (here 93-97); Hellenistic Ambix 1 (1959) 42-46; and the Unity of idem, "The Ouroboros Alchemy," Matter
in Alchemy:
A
Study
in Origins,"
Ambix
10 (1962)
83-96.
REGINE
440
in the same geographical
area, i.e., Hellenistic
specifically in Alexandria
more
Zosimos,
CHARRON
in the area of Panopolis
(Achmim) in Upper
authors of these texts display a common ground, and Christian
the common
and Christian Egypt, and
and, in the case of the Gnostic
alchemist
Egypt. Second,
the
intellectual and religious back
use of philosophical,
Jewish, Hermetic
sources.7 Finally, the ultimate goal of their activities was
and the
achievement of a salvific state of unity and of spiritual perfection. In this paper, I will focus on one particular aspect of the activities of the alchemists, namely, the practice of a kind of "baptism."
I will firstgive a
description of this operation, based on textual sources, and second, I will compare an alchemical writing to the so-called "Pronoia Hymn" which we find in one of themost important treatises from theNag Hammadi the ApocgyphonofJohn (NHC
Library:
II, 1).
1. The alchemicaldyeing of the alchemical writings concern the art of gold-making, which they
Most
a science and present as being a divine and sacred art (OeIa Kai iepa t?xrvn), a wisdom
opPia), a mystery (guatiptov) that demands initia tion.8This art, or philosophy, of gold-making, in addition to being a tech (?z1atiRG1Kai
nical operation, clearly has a mystical aspect, as Father A. J. Festugiere expressed it in his first study of this discipline ("L'alchimie religion mys tique"), where he concludes: "L'alchimie est une voie de vie, qui suppose un travail interieur de perfection."9 Indeed, the chemical activities in that context can be understood as a redemptive process, an attempt to bring
7
La r?v?lationd'Herm?s Trism?giste (hereafter RHT), Paris 19502, vol. et la gnose," Movum Testamentum I (1956) 54-69 [here 63 "Herm?s J. Doresse, Fowden, The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to theLate Pagan Mind (Princeton 171-73; M. Mertens, op. cit., 110-119.
See A.-J. Festugi?re,
I, 217-282; 65]; G. 19932) 8 See
1; 143, 20; 192, 2; 214, e.g. CAAG II 27, 7; 61, 5; 91, 20-92, 315, 2-3; 409, 3-4 (references are to pages and lines). 9 in H.J. Sheppard, Same conclusion "The Ouroboros. 260-282. RHT,
14-15;
258,
. .," 96:
20; "On
side, the importance for the alchemist process? lay in the complementary a result of as in a process carried out the obtaining of personal redemption participation . on the mineral in F. Sherwood Taylor, "A Survey. ref .," 138: "Numerous plane"and erences to Jewish, Egyptian and Gnostics beliefs all go to show that alchemy had a spir the esoteric
itual G. W.
significance
Bowersock, (Cambridge, Mass.
as a practical in "Alchemy," utility." See also N. Janowitz, to A the World P. Brown, O. Grabar Late Guide Postclassical (ed.): Antiquity. & London 1999), 284-285.
as well
THE
APOCRYPHON OFJOHN
at the same time the material
and
(NHC
the human
II,
1)
441
lower condition towards
perfection.'0 Already
in one of the oldest and most important writings of the collec
tion, called ArgijKptTou 4)-Iam Kai guaCtKa4," ("Democritus' writing on Physical and Mystical matters"), we find themention of the healing of the soul and the deliverance from hardship intended with thematerial experi ments.'2 It is thus evident that the philosophers we call "alchemists" exper imentwith physical substances, such as plants, minerals and metals, in order to "generate" gold, but this has nothing to do with the production of coun
terfeit gold. Now, what do theymean,
then, by "gold-making"? This expression refers
to a long process of transformation of a black metallic substance into a state of brightness and incorruptibility.The whole operation is called a "dyeing," because
the proof of its success is the change of colour of themetal into the technical term Kiacapa(p1 often used for this "deep dyeing," in the sense of pennanentdyeing,
brilliant colour of gold. The operation properly means for the colour obtained
at the end
is now unchangeable,
forever irre
versible.'3 And by thisvery change of colour, themetal is also meant to take on the divine nature of gold.
1.1 The technical andallegorical language One
of the most interesting features of the alchemical writings is their use
of allegorical language in the descriptions of technical material and opera tions. As I mentioned before, this art of dyeing metals
ismuch more
than
a chemical or a metallurgical process. In their descriptions, the alchemists speak of themetallic substances as composed of a body,a soul and a spirit.'4 The colour-or
quality
of gold is called its "spirit," themain purpose of
10
See e.g. CAAG II 47, 12-13; 213, 16-17; 245, 4. CAAG II 41, 1-53, 15. SeeJ. P. Hershbell, "Democritus Ambix 34, 1 (1987) 5-20 and C. A. Wilson, Alchemy," 11
Practice: the Cultic and Practical Background Dionysian in Hellenistic Egypt," Ambix 45, 1 (1998) 14-33. 12CAAG II 47, 12-13. 13 See e.g. CAAG II 214, 1; 214, 15. For a description
and
the Beginning of Greek and Theory "Pythagorean to Chemical Experimentation
of the whole process, which II takes place in the kerotakis apparatus 25-158, 157, 1; 250, 3-4; 268, 16-17), see (CAAG in particular A. J. Hopkins, "A Study of the Kerotakis Process as given by Zosimus and loc. cit.), 131-137 Later Alchemical Writers," Isis 29 (1938) 326-354; F. Sherwood Taylor, and M. Mertens, op. cit., CXXXVI-CXXXIX. 14 See e.g. CAAG II, 252, 4-6; 297, 5-6.
RE_GINE CHARRON
442
the process being to transfer this spiritof gold to another metallic body. This transmutation can be seen as regeneration, as the base metal, before being able to assume the new quality, must first"die" in the process, by losing its own specific nature. What
happens
then to thematerial
substances in the
successive operations of the gold-making process, is usually described not only in terms of human experience, such as generation, pain and pleasure, sexual union, death, burial, but also sometimes in religious terms such as resurrection, salvation, immortality and divinity. 1.2 The
The chemicaldyeingor "baptism" technical term for this dyeing process is the verb I3itsEIv, whose basic
meaning
is to "dip" or to "immerse," from the same root as the derivative
Pancrti4elvadopted by Greek-speaking Jews and eventually by Christians.'5 This is the firstanalogy between the act of dyeing and the religious ritual of immersion or baptism inwater. Another
analogy used proves even more
significant: the sulphur water
(b8cop OHiov) used in the dyeing process is also a divine water-the
word
Ogiovmeaning both "sulphur" and "divine".'6 This carefully prepared water, in combination with the powerful "spirit" hidden within it (IT nVVi4ta T0 and the action of fire,brings about the death of themetallic body fa3TtiwKov) and ultimately leads to its regeneration.'7 The
results of the process are the
brightness and the incorruptibility of the new metallic
form called "gold,"
due to the strong unity of its new elements. The dyeing is thus a real chemical "baptism," the regeneration inwater, spirit and fire,of a dead, dark metallic body into a luminous incorruptible one: the philosophers' gold, more precious than natural gold.
15 Cf. J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology. Its Origin and Early Development (Graecitas Primaeva Christianorum 1) (Nijmegen 1962) 27-47. 16 Cf. CAAG II, 215, 18-20. 17 Cf. F. Sherwood Taylor, "A Survey of Greek Alchemy," 131: "The recipes which seem to 'divine the water' indicate that it had the power of dissolving or disinte employ grating the substances used in the art, and that it had also the property of colouring met als. It was evidently also a volatile substance ..." See Zosimos, Flepi xou Oeiou u?axo?, inMertens, op. cit., 21, 30-32 (= CAAG II, 141-142 and 143, 19-144, 7) and 162-167; Synesius, CAAG II 60, 16-61, 3. For II 73, 10-11; 149, 12 (cf. 151, 1, 5);
the "spirit" 152, 8-9;
(to 7tve?uxx x? ?ajcxiK?v), 165,1.
see e.g. CAAG
THE
APOCRFPHON OF JOHN (NHC
II,
1)
443
2. An alchemicalsource text In order to illustrate this process and its allegorical description, I suggest to look at one particular alchemical of the Collection,
the third century C.E. Known Cleopatra"
text,which
as the "Dialogue
KaI KXcona'tpa;), (Aaikoyo; (pkXoaO6(pow
three oldest alchemical manuscripts: (=M),
is certainly one of the oldest
as most scholars date it somewhere between the firstand of the philosophers and this text appears
in the
the Venetian Marcianus Graecus 299
from the tenth or eleventh century,18the Parisinus Graecus 2325 (= B),
from the thirteenth c., the Parisinus Graecus 2327 (= A), from the fifteenthc., and inmany others.19 It is interesting to note that this "Dialogue,"
although
originally part of a largerwriting entitled "The Teaching of Comarius," circulated as an independent writing, mainly because
also
of accidents in the
copying and transmission of themanuscripts.20 In the passage
given here, a group of philosophers ask Cleopatra,
of gold-making. Their main
18
a
alchemist, to share her wisdom with them2' concerning the process
woman
request is to learn "how the highest descends
et description du manuscrit de Venise alchimique & S. Matton, art, histoire et mythes (?d. D. Kahn Paris/Arche, Milan, S.?.H.A., 1995) 1-10. 19 in CAAG II, 292, 13-299, It has been edited by Berthelot & Ruelle, 14; by I. L. Ideler, in Physici et medid Graeci minores, II (Berlin, 1842; reimpr. Amsterdam 1963) 248; See H.
Marcianus
D.
Graecus
Saffrey, "Historique in Alchimie: 299,"
in "Zur Geschichte der Alchemie und des Mystizismus," Machr. der by R. Reitzenstein, Gesellsch. der Wissensch. 2 Phil.-Hist. Klasse 1-37. zu kgl. G?ttingen, (This work of (1919) to me). See also J. Bidez & F. Cumont, Les mages hell?nis?s, II Reitzenstein is not available (Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1938) 325-327. A French translation is in CAAG III, 281-287 and (partially) in A. J. Festugi?re, "La cr?ation des ?mes dans la Kor? Kosmou," in Herm?tisme etmystiquepa?enne (Paris 1967) 230-248 there [here 241-246]. To my knowledge, exists no complete English translation of this alchemical text, but we find parts of it trans in "Rhetorical lated by C. A. Browne and Religious Aspects of Greek Alchemy. Part II," Ambix 3 (1948) 22-24 and by F. Sherwood in The Alchemists. Founders ofModern Taylor Chemistry (New York 1949) 58-59. The following translations are based on both of these sources. 20 For more transmission of this text, see details about the problematic manuscript loc. cit.; O. Lagercrantz, das Verh?ltnis CAAG I, 176-183; R. Reitzenstein, des "?ber in: Catalogue desManuscrits 2327 (= A) zum Codex Marcianus 299 (=M)", II and IV (1932), 399-432; A. J. Festugi?re, alchimiques grecs, (Bruxelles 1927) 341-358 in Herm?tisme et mystique pa?enne, 205-229 [here esp. 214-222]; M. Mertens, "Alchymica," coi filosofi"', Cassiodorus op. cit., 176-177; R. Romano, "Appunti sul 'Dialogo di Cleopatra
Codex
Parisinus
I (1995) 235-242. 21
CAAG
II 292,
15: La?pfrviaov
tui?v.
REGINE
444
CHARRON
to the lowest, and how the lowest ascends to the highest,"22which means: "how the spirit takes on a body" and "how the body becomes spiritual". follows a long discourse by Cleopatra
Then
about thewhole process, here
To begin with, she speaks in riddles, but called a "mystery" (to vwarfjpiov).23 her explanations become clearer and easier to understand as she reveals the successive acts of the process whose
truth to her brothers.24The
is the alchemical "regeneration" appear
ment
achieve
then as follows:
a) The descent of the life-givingblessed waters into Hades "How the blessed waters descend to visit the dead who lie in chains and are afflictedin darkness and gloom within Hades and how themedicine of life enters and awakens them, so that theyare aroused from sleep"25 /.../ "the waters thatpenetrate awaken the bodies and the spiritswhich are emprisoned and powerless."26 b) The
spirit of darkness chased away by the spirit of light
"The spiritof darkness fullof vanity and weakness of heart" / .../"But when the spiritof darkness and of foulodour is rejected /... ./ then thebody is filled with light,and the soul and spirit rejoice, because darkness has fled from the body."27 c) The
call to awakening and the resurrection
"And the soul calls the body thathas been filledwith light: "Wake up from Hades, arise from the tomb and come out of darkness.You have been clothed with spiritualityand divinitysince the voice of resurrectionhas sounded and themedicine of lifehas entered intoyou."28
22 CAAG ?v?pxexai
II 292, 15-17: tcco? Kax?pxexai x? Kaxcoxaxov icpo? x? ?vcbxaxov.
x? ?vcoxaxov
rcpo? x? Kaxcoxaxov
Kai
tcco?
23CAAG II 292, 14; 294, 5; 295, 7; 296, 3; 297, 7.
24 CAAG
II 294,
7: ?v a?v?yjLiaat
?e ap^ouai
xo? ?iyeiv;
CAAG
II 295,
8: f| ?Xr\Qem
Tcecpav?pcoxai. 25 CAAG II 292,
x? u?axa 18-293-2: tcco?Kax?pxovxai euXoynfieva xou ?TciaK?\|/aa9ai 7cepiKei(x?vou? Kai TC?Tce?r||jivoi)? Kai xe6Xi(X|x?vou? ?v aK?xei Kai yv??pcp veKpo?? x? (p?puxxKOv xr\q ?cofj? Kai ?cpUTCvi?ei auxo?? cb? e? ?vxo? xou "A?ou Kai ttco? eia?pxexai ?tcvod ?yepOnvai. 26 G4JG II 293, 7-9: x? u?axa e?aep%?)Lieva ?cpDTcvi?ouoi x? oc?uo:xa Kai x? Tcve?uxxxa ?yKeK^eiafx?va Kai ?aOevfi ?vxa. 27 CAAG II Kai ?Ouuxa? /. . ./ 296, 8-9: x? jcve?ua x? CKOxeiv?v x? Tc?fjpe? uaxaioxnxoc . ./ x?xe 'Etc' Kai 13-16: ?v ?? aux? x? x? aKoxeiv?v Tcve?jia 296, ?pcououv aTto?X.r|6eir| /. xo??
(pcoxi?exai x? acoua acouxxxo?. 28 CAAG
II 296,
Kai
xaipzxax
Kai r\ \\f\>%r\
16-19: Kai Kata?
x? Tcve?ua ?xe ?rc??pa
x? ctkoxo? ?nb
f| \|n)%f|x? aco|Lia x? Tcecpcoxicjjivov: "Eyeipai
xo?
?c; "A?ou
THE
APOCRYPHON OF JOHN (NHC
II,
445
1)
d) The enlightenment and the clothing with glory ". . .when, however, they clothe themselveswith the glory and the shining color which comes from fire" /... / "for (the body) has put on the lightof "and (fire)clothed themwith divinity,and darkness has fled from it" /.. divine spiritualglory."29 e) The
"sacred marriage"
of the art in the joining togetherof the bride and "Behold the fulfillment groom, and in theirbecoming one!" /... ./ "and theywere all united in love, thebody, the soul and the spirit,and had become one" /... ./ and the image (var.thedwelling-place)was made perfectfor thebody, the soul and the spirit, and theybecame one."30 f) The
sealing
"Behold themysterywhich is sealed up within" ... ./ "themysteryhas been accomplished; itsdwelling-place sealed up and a statueerected fullof lightand divinity."31
discourse32 thisallegorical behind 3. T7he basicchemical operations 3.1
The deathof the "body"= thedissolutionof themetal
The metallic body (here a lead-copper alloy) is reduced to death when
it
loses its qualities. This death, or dissolution, occurs by burning or boiling will then themetal. Its volatile substance, regarded as being its soul (xVnvoj),
Kai avaaxnOi Kai
Oe?cogiv
ek xo? x?q>o\) Kai ?^ey?p9r|Ti ek xo?> gkoxod?Kai f| (pcovf| xf|? ?vaoxaaEco?
?7t?i?f| nq)9aK?v
?v???i)aai Kai
to
y?p
Tcve-?ji?xcoaiv
cp?puaKOV xfj? ? fi?
eiotjABev rcpo? o?* 29 CAAG II 293,
ek xo? 7rupo? Kai xf|v %poi?v 16-17: ?xav ?e ?vo?acovxai xfjv ?o^av x? gkoxo?; XTiv 7iEpi(pavf|; 297, 4-5: ?vE?uoaxo y?p OeOxtjxo? (p ? Kai ?rc??pa ?n'ainov 7tvE\)|iaxiKnv. 297, 14: Kai (xo nvp) eve?uoev auxouc OE?av ?o^av 30 CAAG II 294, 18-19: 'I?o? y?p xo 7t?,r|p(oua xfj? xexvti? xcov cd?e'dxOevxcdv vuuxp?ai) XE Kai vujjxpri? Kai yEvouiv v ev. /. . ./ 297, 5-6: Kai f|v?)6riGav rcavxE? ?v ?y?n-fi, x? acojia Kai
Kai fi \\fv%?\
x? Kvex)\ia Kai
{par. b o?koc) a(?)(iaxi 31 CAAG II 294,
Kai 5:
yEy?vaaw
Kai \\fv%r\ i?o?
ev. /. . ./ 297,
21-22:
Kai
?y?vovxo ev. /. . ./ 297, ?acppayiajj-?vov
exeXeig)6t| f| e?ko)v
juvE?jiaxi Kai
|H)axr|piov
7-8:
exe^eicoOti
xo
uD?xripiov Kai EOippayiaOn ? o?koc Kai ?cxaGn ?v?pi?? TiATipnc (pcoxo? Kai 0eoxt|xo?. 32The chemical lines of the signs added by the copyists in the margins and above the of the operations, but the descriptions given text, are a kind of help in the understanding and their interpretation here rely on the reading of many other texts of the Collection n. 13). some scholars of the above-mentioned (supra, by
RE_GINE CHARRON
446
be separated from itsbody (?Ycoga).But the remaining black mass, the ashes, is seen as the precious new prima materia corresponding to the primeval "chaos,"
towhich a new form,with new qualities, will be given. This dead
metallic body lies in "Hades,"
i.e., the bottom of the vase placed upon direct
fire. = thetreatment water 3.2 The resurrection withsulphur of thebody The dead, inertmetallic body is reanimated by absorbing the "divine" (sul phur) water, coming down from "heaven," which means apparatus.
In thiswater
from the topof the is hidden a colouring power: the "spirit of light."
This treatment chases away the "spirit of darkness," i.e., the dark colour of the "dead" metallic body, and its foul odour,33 and themetal new
life together with a brilliant white colour. The
then attains a
appearance
of the
"whiteness" is said to be the return of the "soul" into the body.
= the 3.3 The "bridal "oneness" of thenewmetal perfect mystegy" When
the new metallic body gets thewhite colour of silver, the phenome
non is described as the reunification and even the embrace of the bride and the bride (xvuX). The groom (cYCo&a)
effectof this union is then a new
change of colour, fromwhite to yellow, as themanifestation of the "spirit of gold," firsthidden in the divine (sulphur) water, but now filling the soul. The reanimation and regeneration of the body is thus described as a "bridal mystery," a mystical union, inwhich body, soul and spirit become "one for ever," for this union is not just a blending, but a uniting (iveoux5)of the ele ments. At the end of the whole process, the "male" copper-body and the "female"
silver-soul have been
totally united by the mediation
of the
"androgynous" mercury, the powerful "spirit of gold" hidden in the "divine water. 34
33The foul odour coming out is a necessary step in the process. Cf. e.g. Zosimos, CAAG II, 141, 24-25 (inMertens, op. cit., 31, 20-30 and n. 4). 34 or "quicksilver" not being really a nor a solid, Mercury, (gr. r\??p?pyupo?), liquid, to have two "natures" and thus is called "androgynous" is considered (x? ?poxvo?rj?A)); cf. e.g. Zosimus, Ilepi xou Oeiou u?axo? (CAAG II, 143, 19-144, 7) inM. Mertens, op. cit., 21, with notes
at
169-171. As
a most
between
volatile the male
element,
it plays and
"body" papyri, edited by R. Halleux both the feminine and the masculine article (cf. Pap. Leid., and 1. 71: i)?p. Pap. Holm., x?v). "pneumatic intermediary" ations. In the oldest chemical
the important role of the the female "soul" in the oper (n. 4), the word is used with lines 28-29, 59, 107, 185: xf|V
THE
APOCRFPHON OF JOHN (NHC
II,
1)
447
= theincorruptibility of thenewmetal 3.4 Theclothing withthedivine glogy The
action of the "divine"
(sulphur) water penetrating the metallic
sub
stance called the "body" has given to it not only a new life, of which
the
firstsignwas the appearance of whiteness, but most of all a "divine" nature, whereby eventually thewhite colour changes to the colour of gold. This
is
the true "garment of light," the sign of incorruptibility and "immortality." Thus
the dead black mass of the lead-copper alloy has been transformed
into a new, golden, incorruptible metal. No doubt, this allegorical description of an ordinary chemical process can appear
to be a strange phenomenon
to a reader unfamiliar with this kind
of literature,but one should be aware that the personification of metals and other substances is very common
in such texts. As another example, we
might mention the famous "visions" of Zosimos, likened to men Cleopatra
inwhich various metals are
undergoing painful experiences.35 But
is remarkable indeed, not only because
the discourse of
it is allegorical, but also
because of its truly "religious" connotations. The vision, through the glass vessel, of themysterious regenerative process by means of a continuous cir cular motion of the condensed waters falling down from the upper part of the vase and of the vapours going up again as well as their transforming action upon the "dead"
substance appear
to be a fascinating imitation of
what happens at the cosmic level.36As a regenerative process, it also calls for a mystical interpretation: "blessed" waters coming down from "heaven," bringing light and calling the dead body to a new, eternal life, redeeming it from darkness and corruption. To literature from Nag
Hammadi,
every reader familiarwith the Gnostic
Cleopatra's
discourse clearly evokes the
"pattern" of redemption by means of the repeated descent and ascent move ments of the redeemer figure, togetherwith a call to awakening addressed to the dead lying in Hades, which we find in one of themost famous trea tises: the Apocgyphonofjohn.
35
See See the critical edition by M. Mertens, op. cit., 35-47, with notes at 207-231. zu den Visionen des Zosimos," Eranos-Jahrbuch 5 also C. G. Jung, "Einige Bemerkungen (1937) 15-54 and F. Sherwood Taylor, The Alchemists, Founders ofModern Chemistry (New York 1949), 60-65. 36 rising from the earth, formation of clouds, rain falling down from heaven. Vapours
448
REGINE
CHARRON
4. A Related GnosticWritingfirom Nag Hammadi At the end of the longer recension of theApocyphon of John (NHC finds a
hymnic discourse
"Pronoia," whose world
is meant
by
a
transcendent
II),37 one
feminine figure, called
third and final descent from the heavenly to thematerial to bring light and redemption to the dead,
prison of darkness inHades. Here
lying in the
follows an excerpt of Pronoia's discourse:
"Still fora thirdtime I went I am the lightwhich exists in the light;I am the remembranceof Pronoia-that I mightenterintothemidstofdarkness and theinside of the completion of theiraeon. ofHades. And I filledmy facewith thelight And I entered into themidst of their prisonwhich is theprison thebody (oCoga).And I said, 'rou,who hear, getupfromthedeepsleep.' And he wept and shed tears.Bitter tearshe wiped fromhimselfand he said, 'Who is it thatcallsmy name, and fromwhere has thishope come tome, while I am in thechainsof theprison?' I am the thinkingof the vir And I said, 'I am thePronoia of thepure light, ginal Spirit(nvri?6a),who raisesyouup to the honored place. Arise and remem ber that it isyou who hearkened, and followyour root,which is I, themerciful one, and guard yourselfagainst the angels of povertyand thedemons of chaos and all thosewho ensnare you, and beware of thedeepsleepand theenclosure of theinsideofHades.' And I raisedhimup and sealed(mppocyiei;v) him in thelight of thewaterwith five seals (a(ppayi;), in order that deathmightnothavepoweroverhim from this time on."38
5. A textualcomparisonof the two texts It is obvious
that these two texts, the teaching of Cleopatra
and the dis
course of Pronoia, show similarities not only in the themes developed, but also in their terminology, as appears in the following chart: 37 See
the critical edition by M. Waldstein & F. Wisse: The Apocryphon ofJohn. Synopsis and Codices 11,1; 111,1; and IV, 1 with BG Hammadi 8502,2, Nag of Nag Hammadi Manichaean Studies 33 (London, New York, K?ln, 1995), and the interpretation of the "The Providence Monologue in the Apocryphon ofJohn and the passage by M. Waldstein: m Journal of Early Johannine Prologue," theme of the "descent of the redeemer"
Christian Studies 3, 4
the (1995), 369-402. On literature, see the most important Path to Enlightenment. The Ascent of
in Gnostic
"The Gnostic Threefold study by J. D. Turner: Mind and the Descent ofWisdom," 4 (1980) 324-351. Novum Testamentum XXII, 38NHC II 30:32-31:25. The translation is fromWaldstein & Wisse, op. cit., 80-81, but . . ." But in slightly modified at 31:5 where they translate "He who hears, let him get up. I consider the Coptic the given context, which is a dialogue, vocative: "You, who hear. ..." I also prefer the original name tors translate it by "Providence." ismine. Underlining
flCTCCDTA "Pronoia,"
as a normal where
the edi
THE
APOCRYPHON OF JOHN (NHC II,
Cleopatra's teaching (CAAG II, here 292, 18-297, 22)
1)
449
Pronoia Hymn (NHC II 30:13-31:25) WINOK HC HlOYOCIi
1cat?pxovtxl t&t6ata (292,18-19)
(30:33-34)39
2EICI CBON iNNHOYOCHi (30:23-24) IOYOEHIN AH.AOOY
e1it
pXeta6
qxipjiwov
ti5
29i3,
(293, 1-3) eia?px%Voaltra vFa CIxtcY iS&xtxdiaGpxoiva (293, 7) Ma ?VKOKco1
(var.
aicor)
ica' yv6(p
2EBCOH
?VT6
,oi "A&x (292, 20-293, 1)
(oV5; v?cKpoV5) nen?Vou; neptlKX1taotVat (293, 9-10)
?V tp
?2OYIN
(31:23-24)
(30:25; 30:36; 31:3)
2iK AHjK2JKE
YCO
9JIAApPC
(AHrCQTCKO)40 (31:10)
HCJiNOym
CEANTC (30:25-26; 30:36-31:1)
(292, 20) 'A6n
T&NCEC AJ C&dNiOYN (31:21-22) ui&ARTC ? CBON
?4 iSivou EYepOfivat(293, 2)
TCOYI
"EyFupaitF "A8ou
cf.HMK2JE &YW) HCUMi9Oyr tNCAtNTC (30:25-26; 30:36-31:1)
?KrouioV 6?4?7yFpOfl,r AKou;
(296, 17-18)
(296, 16) icake-t(i NxVuX)
(NiA) JICTAOYTC
avaOTNt lic?oK ti pou (296, 17) iq povi tfj; axaeGE (296, 19)
TOOYMIK
to lEveia4xb cYicKOtEtVOV (296, 9; 13)
RIR2
Ei7XipdOti agppayi*OQO OiK0o iKaxi pot6; (297, 7-8 cf. app.)4'
&tICCQp&vIaE 2iiiOyOcll
FII&KC
FitiErAOy (31:24-25)
39Cf. ?vMOK TG TJKHTpJKJK&OAJ?OYOeiN
40
Throughout
the hymn, JTCttfTGKO,
(cf. 30:19, 25, 36; 31:3-4). equivalents 41 Cf. i?oi) jiDGxrjpiov ?ocppayiaii?vov
'the prison,' (294, 5).
(31:5-6)
(31:8)
(31:14) IElTOYNOYC AAO3
liCCtp&UIC ?KOavatou ?i; 1wi'4v(297, 13-14)
ACtItIHB
(31:22)
(29:28) JAO(J AKHAOOY (31:23-24)
2NItC
QiQ3RdhA EfpO3
(30:15) and ITK&.KC,
'the darkness,'
are
RE GINE
450
The
numerous
CHARRON
liturgical terms and motifs shared by both
remarkable: the dead
lying in Hades
texts are
(in prison, in darkness), the spirit of
darkness, the sleep and call to awakening,42 the illuminating and vivifying water coming from above, the "raising up" or resurrection, the sealing and the gift of immortality. In both texts, it is a female figurewho
"calls" to
awakening: the soul (Psyche) in the alchemical writing, and Pronoia
in the
Apoc?yphonof John. It is also noteworthy that the goal of the successive descents of Pronoia The
into the lower world
is to accomplish her oiKovopixx.43
translation of the passage by the editors: "I was seeking (to accomplish)
my task" is quite correct, but the interpretation of this as "the task of rul ing her own household"44 certainly does not fit the context. It seems tome that in this context, itwould be more appropriate to translate theword by "plan of salvation," thereby giving it a clear theological significance.45The same word, oiKovogiua, is the precise technical term used by the alchemists46 for the whole
regeneration process. And
repeated movement apparatus
this occurs by means
of the
of descent and ascent of the "divine water"
in their
(i.e. the "sublimation" of a material element and the "condensa
tion" of the vapour or spiritual element), the final result of which was
the
enlightenment of the purified metallic "body."47 Finally, the achievement of this salvific oLKovog,Lain both texts is called a "sealing," with the "life-giv ingwater" associated with light from the divine realm.48 In addition to this series of common motifs, it is interesting to note those featureswhich give each text a distinctive character. We find, for example, three important topoi in Cleopatra's Hymn,
namely:
"clothing with glory."49Cleopatra,
42On U.
Bianchi
this theme,
(ed.), Le 1967) 496-507. _
discourse which are absent from the
the "medicine of life," the "bridal chamber,"
and
the
then, knows and uses not only the verbs
see G. MacRae, and Awakening in Gnostic in Texts," "Sleep 13-18 Aprile 1966 (Leiden origini dello gnosticismo. Colloquio diMessina.
43NHC II 30:26-27eefKCOTG NCavT?vO?KOHO.A\?ov
44M. . . "The Providence Monologue Waldstein, .," 45 See G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 46 See CAAG 11, 291, 13 (Cleopatra's discourse) and 98, 4; 102, 15; 215, 12. 47On this, see A. J. Hopkins, op. cit., 107-114 and F. 48 and CAAG II 297, 7. See NHC II, 31:23-24 49 To "medicine of life" (x? (p?puaKov Cleopatra's "medicine of immortality" (x? cp?puecKov xfj? ?Oavaaia?) Clement
of Alexandria.,
Protr. X,
106, 2. On
377. Oxford, 19785, 941b. also e.g. 64, 6; 73, 9-10; Sherwood
Taylor,
74, 6-7;
op. cit., 56-57.
the xfj? ?co^?), we can compare in Ignatius, Ad Ephes. 20, 2 and see Th. this matter, "Zur Schermann,
THE
APOCRYPHON OF JOHN (NHC
II,
1)
451
(p0ti4nlv and appap4y?v, twomost important terms referring to baptism in early Christian literature,50but also the image of baptism as a mystical union5l and the doctrine of the "glorified body," the spiritual, incorruptible body of resurrection.52According
to her teaching, the spiritual body would
already be "activated" with the reception of the "pneumatic" divine water. Moreover,
seed in the
the absence of "Gnostic" elements in Cleopatra's
discourse should be noted, even when she uses the Gnostic lence:the "call to awakening."53When
theme par excel
the soul "awakens" the body and calls
"him" back to life, there is no mention of "remembering" his divine orig ine or "root," as is the case in the Pronoia Hymn. Cleopatra's
concern has
little to do with the deliverance of the soul from the "prison of the body." To
be sure, her teaching deals with the returnof the soul and the spirit to
the dead body, once it has been purified, for these three cannot endure separation and rejoice at their being united again, filledwith light and glory.54And
place"
state, as in the Pronoia Hymn,
der
Erkl?rung
Stelle
epist. Ad
Ephes.
ofAntioch, (Fortress Press, Philadelphia juxkov in CAAG, see e.g. II 32, 22; 47,
218, 22; 313, 17.
1985)
texts, but the glory of
von Antiocheia: (papuxxKov Ignatius 6-19 W. R. Schoedel, and Ignatius (1910)
2 des
k.x.?,.," Theologische Quartalschrift 92
?Oavaaia?
this glory is not a restored original
and most Gnostic
20,
in a new "dwelling
97-98.
For
7; 51, 7; 52, 22;
other occurrences 103, 4;
114, 7; 196,
of the cp?p 11; 214,
13;
50 CAAG II, 296, 14-15: cpcoxi?exai x? Gcojia; 296, 16: x? acouxx x? Tcecpcoxiouivov; 297, 7-8: eocppayiaOn 6 o?ko? Kai ?TcA,rjpco6r|(pcoxo?.On these technical terms, see J. Ysebaert, and 170-175 cit., op. passim. 51The in baptismal context is to be found in Eph 5:25-32 and origin of thismetaphor see the many and references in the theme, 2 Cor 11:2. On examples given M.
Hom?lies pascales (cinq hom?lies in?dites), (Sources Chr?tiennes 187, Paris 1972) "Le bapt?me, and J. Lemari?, La manifestation du Seigneur (Paris 1957) 361-378: the "mystery of the bridal chamber" was the nuptial." For the "Valentinians,"
Aubineau:
264-265,
myst?re name given
to the rite itself, a kind of initiation following baptism. On this, see the lemma in Lexikon f?r Theologie und Kirche, (dritte Auflage, 1993), Band 2, p. 662 Le Mus?on selon Philippe," 87 63; J.-M. Sevrin, "Les noces spirituelles dans l'Evangile in D. in Gnosticism and Later Platonism. 143-193 "Ritual Gnosticism," Turner, (1974), andj. "Brautgemach"
SBL Symposium Series 12 Themes, Figures and Texts (ed. J. D. Turner & R. Majercik), (Atlanta 2000), 83-139 (here 111-118) and the literature cited. 52 1 Cor See esp. Rom 15:42-49; 2 Cor 3:18; Phil 3:21. 6:3-9; 8:18-21; 53 to G. MacRae (loc. cit., 506) the oldest attestation of the use of this theme According itmust borrow from "some kind of Gnostic liturgical homily or hymn." ?v xco ocouxxxi.. ./Kai x? y?p tce?uxx nakxv etxppa?vexai 296, 20-22: . . .; 297, 1: Kai xco 5-6: Kai ?v o?kco a?xo 297, Evc?Orjaav tccxvxe? ?v %a?pexai ?aTca?Exai Kai x? tcve?u?:, Kai yEy?vaow ?v. ?yaTcn, x? acoua Kai r\ \\fv%r\ is Eph 54
5:
CAAG
14 and II,
REGINE
452
the resurrected body, a glory
CHARRON
as the text specifies
that the body never
possessedbefore.55 6. The Sitz im Leben of the two texts Cleopatra's
exposition of the "mystery" of regeneration is received with rev
erence, as shown by the enthusiastic exclamation gaKapta yap I)R(cp%?i EG a
you"), which R. Reitzenstein was the Gospel
of Luke
of the philosophers:
("Blessed is thewomb 6caXaxVKOLXt1a
that bore
the first to understand as an allusion to
(11, 27).56 In fact, since he was also the firstcommen
tator of this alchemical writing, it is appropriate to refer to him in this con text: "I know of no text thatwould have a closer lexical affinitywith the mystical passages in Paul than these parabolic discourses of a text of which I have given a few examples here, a textwhich unfortunately is in substance incomprehensible tome, but which certainly is purely pagan."57 One not but admit with him that Cleopatra's or at least undeniably
can
vocabulary
is thoroughly Pauline,
reminiscent of the Pauline
baptismal motifs and
terminology.58 For my part, I accept neither that this text is "incomprehensible," that it is "purely pagan" of
in character. Cleopatra
this "mystery" comes
Comarius,59 and
doesn't appear elsewhere in the alchemical matic figure.6'How
claims that her knowledge
from studying with her master
from God.60 This master
nor
and
father
in "the mystical philosophy" literature and remains an enig
are we to explain then the numerous Pauline motifs in
55
CAAG II, 297, 14-15: 0??av ?o^av x? 7ipiv. See TcvEDjiaxncriv, f^v o?k eve?ugkovxo also 298, 16-17: ev?ugodow ?o?av ?yvcoaxov. 56 . . CAAG II, 298, 12. See R. Reitzenstein, "Zur Geschichte .," 20. 57 R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions. Their Basic Ideas and Significance, Pittsburgh, transi, by J. E. Steely, from Die Hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Mach Ihren 1978, 399-400, 1966 (reprint from 1927), 315. Grundgedanken und Wirkungen, Darmstadt, 58 the call to awakening; the reception Some of which are: darkness before baptism; a of the seal of the spirit and the light; dying and regeneration; mortal body becoming or glorious, resurrected body; mystery of the 'union' with Christ; the wearing donning of Christ;
the ressurected
a body as dwelling-place
(cf.Rom
6:2-14;
8:9-15,
23;
13:11;
1Cor
4:1; 15:35-53;2 Cor 1:22; 3:18; 5:1-10; Eph 1:13;4:30; 5:8-14, 23-32 Phil 3:21Heb 6:4; 10:32). 59 We find Komerios in the oldest and 60 Her God being the Creator God: ?nuio'upyo?); 298, 23 ek xo?> ?r|uio\)pyo\) 61 Cf. CAAG II, 290, 11-15: sitting on the four elements.
best manuscript (M). cf. CAAG II 298, 8 ek 0eou; Kai ?eotcoxoi) xcov ?rc?vxcov. a throne, he is teaching
about
II, 296,
11 ek xou
the "monad"
and
THE
APOCRFPHON OF JOHN (NHC
the discourse of Cleopatra? Gentile-Christian, Paul
Could
II,
1)
the author be a Jewish-Christian, or a
a learned Egyptian woman
adhering to the teaching of
(cf.Eph 3:1-9) and maybe newly baptised?62While
bility, a simpler explanation
453
is at hand. Cleopatra
this is one possi
appears in this text not
only to be an accomplished alchemist, but also an eloquent teacher. In her exposition of the "mystery" of regeneration, she therefore expresses herself in a language acceptable
to her audience, and the strong cluster of Pauline
elements thatwe find here must indicate the presence of Christians among her listeners.Her
successful demonstration of how a mere metallic "body"
can be regenerated and appear as "glorified" with themeans of water, fire and spirit, is certainly playing up to Christian sensibilities. And no doubt, those listenerswho believe in the doctrine of the resurrection of the human body announced by the "Gospel" would be pleased by her discourse and would confidently come back to hear her again. It is of crucial importance to note thatCleopatra's bles the theories and practices attested in what Maria
the Jewess,63 the most famous Alexandrian
entire doctrine resem
remains of the works of alchemist, who presum
ably lived in the firstcentury. Consequently, we must infer that Cleopatra had close contacts with members of theAlexandrian Jewish milieu, sharing philosophical and esoteric speculations with outsiders, including disciples of Hermes
like her.64As regards the Pronoia Hymn, scholars also point to the
late Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom Moreover,
speculations as the original Sitz im Leben.65
in both texts, themotifs of the call toawakening,the raisingup and
water appears to be more than literary cliches, sug the sealingwith enlightening gesting an actual rite, a baptism or a kind of initiation.66The
alchemical
62 There in the text to her being the 'queen' Cleopatra; is no mention pace . . 398, and Reitzeinstein, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions. I, 240. Festugi?re, RHT 63On see: F. Sherwood "The Origins of Greek the school of Maria, Taylor, "Maria Ambix 1 (1937) 39-42; R. Patai, the Jewess: Founding Mother of Alchemy," Alchemy," Ambix 29, 3 (1982) 177-187. 64A paper will consider subsequent
the question of the link between the "wise" a (cf. CAAG II, 290, 7 and 10) and Maria, Cleopatra question which cannot be addressed in the limits of the present paper. 65 Cf. Path . . .," 342, n. 11: "Jewish wisdom "The Gnostic Threefold J. D. Turner, . . ." and literature forms the pre-gnostic prototype for the descent motif of Apocryjn
text rooted in is a non-Christian (n. 37) 371: "The Providence Monologue recasts in wisdom which it Gnostic fashion." Hellenistic-Jewish speculations recognizably 66 For see G. MacRae, loc. cit., 502: "The most satisfactory expla the Pronoia Hymn, nation seems to me to be that it is a liturgical fragment probably recited at a ceremony or hymn;" in the manner of initiation much of a Christian baptismal homily
M. Waldstein
REiGINE
454
background,
CHARRON
then,may also explain "the five seals," an enigmatic expres
sion used by the so-called Sethians in a liturgical context.67The gold-mak ing process, described previously, is presented by Cleopatra,
and still later
by Zosimos, as a "five-step" process.68 Even if the alchemical writings do not offer a word forword match
for the expression "mystery of the five seals"
found in the Sethian literature, a link between the two groups is nonethe less conceivable. We
have to consider the followings: 1) the alchemists per
form a five-step "mystery;" 2) the last and fifh operation achievement
is the signifier of
enlightenment and immortality ultimately being conferred,
their gold being "sealed," a kind of "baptised gold;"69 3) thefifthoperation is achieved by means of the thrice distilled "divine water," produced by three successive
operations
in which
waters
"descend"
and
vapours
in the apparatus.70 It isworth noting that a similar "pattern" of
"ascend"
salvation in the rituals of the two groups exists, i.e., the "redeemer" figure descends and ascends
threetimes and there are five sealings or operations.
The Hymn of Pronoia
then, in its current state, seems to have circulated in
a community related to theHermetic milieu. This would not be surprising, considering the presence of original Hermetic material
in the Nag Ham
madi Codex VI and the presence, at the end of the third century C.E., of an active community of alchemists in this area.7' loe. cit., 386: "Behind this mythical ritual, in which Providence herself par raises and seals the paradigmatic stands an actual listener, there probably adigmatically rite" and 389: "a liturgical fragment consisting of a call of awakening and its sacramen . . ." See also sur la sacra Le tal consummation. Sevrin: dossier s?thien. ?tudes J.-M. baptismal
M. Waldstein,
mentaire gnostique, Biblioth?que
copte de Nag Hammadi,
Section
??tudes?
2 (Qu?bec
1986)
35-37. 67On
this practice, see in particular J.-M. Sevrin, "Le dossier baptismal s?thien . . .," loc. cit., (n. 51), 87-97, and A. H. B. Logan, "The 70-75, 114-15; John D. Turner, Initiation Reconsidered," Vigiliae Christianae 51 (1997) Mystery of the Five Seals: Gnostic loc. cit., 502. 188-206. See also G. MacRae, 68 see Mertens, See e.g. CAAG II, 291, 19-20 (Cleopatra); II, 113, 5-6 (Zosimos), 31-37,
loc. cit., 41-42; II, 220, 4-5. 69 Cf. Zosimos (CAAG II, 216, 2: ?v xco ?aTcxo|jivcp %puacp.). Cleopatra's sealing (supra, to the fifth operation. The number "five" in this context may also refer p. 10) corresponds to the state of perfect "oneness" achieved by the transformation of each of the four ele ments and
into a higher
air
(= spirit).
to fire (= gold and light), through water (= blackness) occurs tradition too a five-step process (see Theo rerummathematicarum 14, 18-16, 2 Hiller).
state: from earth In
the Platonic
Smyrnaeus, Expositio 70 CAAG 11, 142, 12-14 (Mertens, op. cit., 31-32; Supra, pp. 12-13 and 16; cf. Zosimos: 204-205, n. 7-9); CAAG II, 113, 6-7 (Mertens, 41-42). 71 see G. Fowden, On this community near Nag Hammadi, op. cit. (supra, n. 7), 170-174;
THE
APOCRFPHON OF JOHN (NHC
II,
1)
455
Conclusion In conclusion, it seems evident that the question of the relationship between alchemical writings and Gnosticism
the Graeco-Egyptian revisited. The
considerable
Alchemists and the Gnostics were
number have
of
deserves to be
items that both
in common makes
groups-the
it clear that they
in close contact with each other, and that borrowing was mutual the two groups. F. M.
between
Valentinianism,
noted
M.
Sagnard,
in his seminal study on
the use by the Valentinians
of many
technical,
alchemical terms.72But we know also from thewritings of Irenaeus and Ps. Hippolytus
that the Gnostics
towhom
they referred as "Valentinians" and
"Sethians" were interested in chemical experiments, and in the art of sepa clear reference to the practice of alchemy.73
rating bronze from gold-a No doubt, the alchemical
literature and the alchemical context may prove
the Apocryphon of John offers a good of the example and of the Gnostics of Nag Hammadi: Zosimos to the mythological account archons of his works of jealous
202-203.
Another
passage
contacts
between
the alchemists
Panopolis
refers in one
of
and enslaving Ph?s, the primordial "emprisonning" spiritual Human, by clothing him from the four elements. His exposition of the with the material body of Adam, made of myth, which he knows from the books of the Jews and from the "Sacred Books" Hermes,
to what we find in the Apocryphon ofJohn (cf.NHC II, 19: 32-20:9; "On the Letter Omega," op. cit. (n. 2), ? 8-11, in H. M.Jackson, to Jackson op. cit., 5-6. According (40, n. 4; 49, n. 50), the source a Gnostic Jewish-Christian be the lost Apocalypse of Nikotheos, (?),
is very close
21:4-13). See Zosimos, 28-30 and M. Mertens, of Zosimos mentioned
could
by Porphyry
in his Life ofPlotinus, 16. On
this, see also M.
Mertens,
op. cit.,
55-57. 72La
Gnose valentinienne et le t?moignagede Saint Ir?n?e (Paris 1947) 243-44 and 614. See also H. J. Sheppard, and Alchemy" "Gnosticism could go further and (n. 6), 93-94. One for ex. the following two passages of Cleopatra's discourse, CAAG II, 294, 18 compare 19: 18o\) y?p x? 7tA,r|pco[a,axfj? xExvn? x v gd?euxOevxcov vuuxp?oi) xe Kai v?uxpric Kai Kai tcveujiocti, Kai yEvouivcov ev. and 297, 21-22: Kai EXE^Ei?Ori r\ e?kwv goouxxxi Kai \\fx>%\\ Theodotos ?yEVOVxo ev, with the most important axiom attributed to the Valentinian by of Alex. (Exc. Theod. 32, 1 and Strom. IV, 13, 90, 2): "As the Unity (?voxnxo?) in the Pleroma, each of the aeons has its own pleroma (nXr\p(?\ia), being a cou is a pleroma, (xf|V Gi)?i)yiav). Everything coming from a couple everything coming
Clement resides
ple from only one,
is an image" (?Ga ek GuCuyiac 7tpo?p%?xai, 7c^npco(xax? egxiv, ?oa ?? arco to Sagnard himself could be ev?c, e?kove?.) According (op. cit. 138 and 358), Valentinus the author of this doctrine. 73On loc. cit., 21-23 with a list of examples this, see C. A. Wilson, (e.g. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1, 21, 3-5; Ps.-Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Haer. 5, 21, 1-5).
REGINE
456
CHARRON
useful in elucidating certain obscure passages
in theNag Hammadi
Library,
thereby contributing to a better understanding of its esoteric aspects.74 Faculte de Theologie
et de sciences religieuses,
Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada,
74 See
GIK
now R.
Significance
7P4
Charron
&
of a Puzzling Motif
Mus?on 114 (2001) 41-50.
L.
Painchaud, in the Coptic
'"God Gospel
is a dyer'. The Background and to Philip (CG II, 5)," Le According
REVIEWS
James N. Rhodes,
The Epistle of Barnabas and theDeuteronomicTradition.
Polemics,Paraenesis, and theLegacy of theGolden-Calf Incident(WUNT Tubingen: Mohr
James N. Rhodes'
II. 188),
261+ xii S., ? 54.
Siebeck 2004, ISBN 3-16-1483377-4,
im Jahr 2003 an der Catholic University of America
angenommene Dissertationnimmtdie heilsgeschichtliche Auslegungvon Ex 32, der Erzahlung
vom "Goldenen Kalb"
im Barnabasbrief
als Aus
gangspunkt. Stellen wie Barn. 4,6-8 oder 14,1-4 lieB3endaran denken, dass der Autor des Barnabasbriefes
(im Folgenden: Barnabas)
davon ausgehe,
dass Israel seinen Status als Bundesvolk bereits am Sinai fur immer verloren habe. Von daher sei immerwieder gefolgertworden, dass der Barnabasbrief
kein heilsgeschichtliches Konzept kenne.Fur Rhodes sprechenmehrere Punkte gegen diese Annahme: de spateren Geschichte
die Tatsache, dass Barnabas
Lesung verschiedener Passagen Barnabas
auch Autoritaten
Israels zitiert, seine allegorische bzw. typologische des Alten Testaments, die Tatsache,
dass
offensichtlich eine Israel-Mission kennt, sowie seine Aussage, dass
erst die Zuriickweisung Jesu die Sunden
Israels vollstandig gemacht habe.
All diese Punkte sprachen dafur, dass das Verhaltnis
zwischen Gott und
Israel auch nach dem Ereignis um das "Goldene Kalb" lichen Versagens
auf Seiten Israels in gewisser Weise
trotz kontinuier
intakt geblieben sei.
In der Forschungsgeschichte seien ciese Probleme haufigmit der Inkonsistenz des Autors
oder auch
nebeneinander
seiner editorischen Aktivitat, die Unvereinbares
stehen gelassen habe, erkldartworden. Rhodes
lehnt diese
Antwort genauso ab wie die Losung, dass der Autor einfach eine zeitlose christliche Bedeutung des Alten Testaments voraussetze. Als nicht erklarbar empfindet er den Punkt, dass an eine verworfene Nation prophetische Ermahnungen Moglichkeit
ergingen. Von
daher schlagt Rhodes
in Betracht zu ziehen, dass die Aussagen
Verlust des Bundesstatus Ubertreibungen
noch weitere vor, die
des Autors zu Israels
am Sinai als bewusste und provokativ gemeinte
aufzufassen seien. Barnabas
sei nicht daran interessiert ge
wesen, die Geschichte des Bundesvolkes Israel vollig abzuleugnen. Vielmehr sei es ihm darum gegangen, sie als ein gescheitertes Kapitel
von Heilsge
schichte darzustellen. Der Abfall des Volks am Sinai und die Zuruckweisung ? KoninklijkeBrillNV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
59, 457-459 IigiliaeChristianae
REVIEWS
458
was sich im ersten
Jesu bildeten die Pole dieses gescheiterten Verhaltnisses sich fur Barnabas
Ereignis angekundigt habe, habe
im zweiten endgultig
entschieden. Im Hinblick auf das Geschichtsbild des Barnabasbriefs
ergebe
sich damit Folgendes: "Barnabas seems to presuppose a radicalized Christian version of theDeuteronomistic
view of history.Writing after the destruction
of the second temple, Barnabas failure to live up
to God's
sees Israel's legacy indelibly marked by a
covenant. This
explicit reference to the rejection of God's brought Israel's sins to fullmeasure.
view Son
This
is Christianized
by its
as the final straw that
'Christian Deuteronomism'
is
further radicalized by the conclusion that the nation's failure has ultimately brought about itsabandonment" zwar seine Versprechen
(S. 31). Gott habe in der Sicht des Barnabas
an die Patriarchen gehalten, erst ein neues Volk
aber habe von ihnen profitiert; furBarnabas ursprungliche Versagen
habe Israel dagegen nie das
am Sinai uberwunden.
konne aufgrund der Kontinuitat der Versprechen
Trotz
dieser Negativitat
an die Patriarchen, wegen
des andauernden Zeugnisses der Propheten wie auch der weiter gehenden Offenbarungen
an Israel von einer "heilsgeschichtlichen Vorstellung"
Barnabasbriefes gesprochen werden. Damit Kapitel Bandes Das
die entscheidenden Thesen
des
hat der Autor bereits im ersten
seiner Arbeit vorgelegt -
im Rest des
bearbeitet er einzelne Aspekte dieser Gedanken. auf3erst ausfuhrliche Kapitel
Zerstorung des Tempels
2 beschaftigt sich mit der Rolle
in der Argumentation
Rhodes naturlich zugeben, dass dieses Thema
des Barnabas.
Dabei
der muss
keineswegs das gesamte Werk
von Anfang bis zum Schluss dominiert. In einem Durchgang
durch die
Kapitel
1-17 aber arbeitet er das doch deutliche Interesse des Barnabas
Tempel
und Opferkult heraus. In seiner Interpretation von Barn.
kommt Rhodes
zu dem plausiblen
den) Schluss, dass hier auf Hadrians
(m.E. aber nicht unbedingt zwingen Beschluss,
tempel zu errichten, angespielt sei: Die
in Jerusalem einen Jupiter
Entstehung des Barnabasbriefes
sei damit kurz nach der gescheiterten Bar-Kochba-Revolte Kapitel
an
16,3-4
3 stellt die Frage, ob sich der Barnabasbrief
anzusetzen.
anhand von Struktur,
Stil und Sprache wie auch in seiner Kritik an Israel als "christlich deutero nomistisches Schreiben" qualifizieren lasse - Rhodes bestatigt und wiederholt hier erneut seine bereits eingangs vorgetragenen Thesen. Das
Argumen
tationsgebaude scheint nun zu stehen, in zwei weiteren Kapiteln
aber sucht
Rhodes
in literarischen Parallelen der Zeit seine Gedanken
noch weiter zu
stutzen. Er trennt dabei zwischen juidischen (Ps-Philo, LAB; 4Esra; 2Bar) und christlichen Texten das Matthausevangelium;
2,14-16; die Stephanusrede Apg 7,2-53; 5Esra) - sicherlich zu Recht, da "deuterono
(IThess
REVIEWS
459
mistische" Argumentationsstrukturen aus einer Innenperspektive sich doch sehr von denen unterscheiden, die aus einer AuBenperspektive vorgenommen werden. Allerdings steilt sich die Frage, ob man hier nicht sehr viel knapper argumentieren und vielleicht auf die Beantwortung mancher Einleitungsfrage hatte verzichten konnen, als dies hier geschieht. Am Ende zeigen sich natur lichmanche Parallelen, die das Profil des Barnabasbriefes noch starker her vortreten lassen; letztlich ist aber nur die Lebendigkeit und Differenziertheit
moglicher"deuteronomistischer Tradition(en)"in fruhjudischer und -christ licher Literatur gezeigt. Kapitel
6 bietet eine erneute Zusammenfassung der
bereits bekannten Ergebnisse. Etwas ungewohnlich
ist sicherlich, dass hier
noch einmal eine Auseinandersetzung mit wichtigen alteren Arbeiten zum Thema Mehr
(J.Weiss; J.A. Robinson, R. Kraft, P. Prigent, A. Oepke)
erfolgt.
als 50 Seiten Bibliographie und Index schlieB3enden Band ab.
Was
bleibt als Fazit? Die
lenWiederholungen
etwas kreisende Argumentation mit ihren vie
stellt den Leser vor die Frage, ob man nicht manches
noch deutlich strafferhatte darstellen konnen. Manches
Mal
konnte ich
mich (vielleichtauch wegen des Aufbaus der Arbeit) nicht ganz des Eindrucks erwehren, dass die These Fragen
der Arbeit von Anfang an feststand und alles
sich nur noch auf ihre Bestatigung
entwickelt eine in vielen Punkten plausible Gedanken
des Barnabasbriefs,
richtete. Trotzdem:
Rhodes
Interpretation entscheidender
seine Exegesen
sind immer hart am Text
orientiert und berucksichtigen regelmaBig mit kluger Argumentation
die
vielfaltigen Fragen der Uberlieferung, die den Interpreten ja vor somanches Problem
ich weiterhin zogern, von einem heils
stellen. Allerdings wurde
zu sprechen, der Begriff "Heilsgeschichte" muss dann doch in einem sehr weiten Sinne gebraucht
geschichtlichen
Konzept
des Barnabasbriefs
werden. Auch der Begriff eines "christlichen Deuteronomismus"
erscheint
mir als durchaus problematisch. In den angesprochenen Texten mag lich in unterschiedlicher Weise sein, die als "deuteronomistisch" net werden konnen. Macht
sicher
an Argumentationsstrukturen angeknupft (wiederum im weitesten Sinne) bezeich
aber nicht schon der Wechsel
von der judi
schen Innenperspektive zur (triumphierenden) christlichenAuBenperspektive auf die nun als endgultig erachtete Zerstorung des Tempels liche Anderung
der Argumentation
eine so deut
aus, dass nun eigentlich etwas ganz
Neues vorliegt? Radboud
Universiteit, Afijmegen
TOBIAS NIcKLAs
[email protected]
REVIEWS
460
Michael
J. Hollerich, Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah. Christian
The Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford Exegesis in theAge of Constantine, University Press, Oxford
1999, 230 pp., ISBN 0-19-826368-6,
Hollerich devotes his study to Eusebius of Caesarea's
Michael
(
40.00.
Commentay
on Isaiah, the oldest extant exegetical work on Isaiah, written around time of the Council
of Nicaea
the
(325-328). Eusebius' work deals mainly with
the notion of "godly polity" which
is central to Eusebius'
commentary, as
well as with Christianity's roots in Judaism. H.'s
book is undeniably an important monograph,
not only because
the
Commentagyon Isaiah had not previously been given close scrutiny, but also because Eusebius' work as a commentator has been neglected or even scorned by modern
scholarship. There
are several possible reasons for this
neglect. First, no translation of the Commentagyon Isaiah exists, which has probably discouraged many scholars from studying the text.Second, Eusebius' work as an historian, or rather, as a collector of excerpts, and as a pan egyrist, as H.
explains, has monopolized
the attention of scholars. Third,
theology and exegesis have often been considered
Eusebius'
dependent on Origen, a thesis thatH.
as slavishly
disproves. Therefore, this is in sev
eral respects a pioneering work, one that familiarizes us with Eusebius an exegete. H.'s
as
study has other merits as well. Before considering them,
let us first turn to the content of his study. The Eusebius
introduction (1-18) is a useful account of modern and offers a clear presentation of H.'s
lyzes the interpretive techniques used by Eusebius also places
scholarship on
purposes. He mainly ana in his commentary. He
the commentary in the context of Eusebius'
thought and work
as a whole and situates it in the political and religious context of the period. The
chapter ends with an assessment of the edition of the Commentagyon in the GCS-series.
Isaiah by J. Ziegler
In the second chapter (19-66) H.
examines the questions of the date and
He reviews the interpretationof Isaiah by Eusebius' purpose of the Commentagy. predecessors and Eusebius' interpretation of Isaiah in his works other than the Commentagy. H. also discusses the theological ideas of thiswork. In Ch. III (67-102) H. deals with Eusebius' interpretivemethods, notably by focusing on Eusebius' H.
use of the expressions kata lexinand kata dianoian.
aims to show the importance of the quest for an historical and literal
meaning of the text "in the framework ... of the history of the godly polity (that is theChurch) in the light of prophecy" method
(94). He
also situates Eusebius'
in early Christian exegesis.
C KoninklijkeBrillNV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChrastianae 59, 460-462
REVIEWS In Ch.
IV, H.
to Eusebius
461
thoroughly examines the so-called godly polity according
and its political context by analyzing closely the words politeia
and politeuma.Both terms are used by Eusebius H.
to refer to the godly polity.
effectivelyanalyzes their use in theGraeco-Roman
world, in theNT,
world, in the Jewish
in the Greek Christian world, in Eusebius' writings, and
most specifically in the Proof of theGospel and the Commentagyon Isaiah. Ch. V (131-164) is concerned with Eusebius' view of Judaism and how Judaism relates, in his eyes, to Christianity. Finally, Ch. VI
(165-204)
tackles the place of the church in Eusebius'
Commentay, that is, its status as the new godly polity. After general con siderations on this topic, H.
studies themanner
in which
the church and
the heavenly Jerusalem are articulated in the Commentagy. He also delves into the question of the status of the clergy, which is given a prominent place. He
reviews the presentation of the Roman
and investigates Eusebius'
Empire within the polity
eschatology.
H.'s work on Eusebius' Commentayon Isaiah is important inmany respects, not only because he points out elements in the commentary that oppose the usual portrayal of Eusebius, but also because
he finds other features
that confirm previous interpretations. For instance, whereas Caesarea's
the bishop of
exegesis is usually considered fully dependent on Origen's, H.
convincingly proves
that Eusebius
displayed some originality, notably in
commenting on parts of Isaiah which had not been dealt with by Origen (See Ch. Ruhbach's
III). However,
in Ch. VI, H. points out that his study confirms
thesis according towhich the ecclesiastical orientation is a dom
inant theme in Eusebius.' Likewise, H.
offers an important discussion of Eusebius'
interpretive
methods and demonstrates that, despite his admiration for and the influence of Origen, Eusebius
cannot be truly considered part of the Alexandrian
school from an interpretivepoint of view (nor is he part of theAntiochene school to come). H.'s
book deserves our full attention because
Eusebius'
it provides a fresh look at
view of Judaism and its relation to Christianity.2 H. makes
important point when he stresses that in the CommentayEusebius
1G. Rubach,
'Die politische
Theologie
des Eusebs
von Caesarea',
an
finds a
in: Rubach
(ed.),
Die K-irche derKonstantinischen angesichts Wende,Darmstadt 1976, 236-258. 2The book was published at the same timeas J. Ulrich, Euseb unddieJuden,Studien desEusebiusvonCaesarea(Patristische zurRolle derJudeninderTheologie Texte und Studien 49), Berlin 1999.
REVIEWS
462
particularly suitable strategyby including pre-Christian Judaism in the godly polity (Ch. V).
In thisway, he was able to avoid fighting the Jews for a
claim to the richness of the book of Isaiah. According
to the same rea
soning, the Christians had not stolen the Jewish scriptures, since biblical Judaism once belonged
to the godly polity now embodied
Although one may argue thatH.'s
in the Church.
bibliography is not always up-to-date
(for instance, he does not mention M.
Simonetti, 'Esegesi e ideologia nel
commento a Isaia di Eusebio', Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 19, 1983, 3-44) or that a general conclusion would have been desirable, it is definitely a much needed
study.
H.'s monograph
provides the reader with important insights into a too
often overlooked part of thewritings of the 'father of the Church History'. This
study illuminates both Eusebius'
work as an exegete, and his per
ception and articulation of Judaism and Christianity. Moreover, new light on the bishop's political ideas, which have been
it sheds
so farmainly
studied from the perspective of the Constantinian writings. Any scholar in Patristics and Late Antiquity will find something of interest in this engag ing book.
Belgian-American EducationalFoundationFellow,
SABRINA INOWLOCKI
Harvard Divinity School, [email protected]
Andrew James Carriker, The Libragy of Eusebius of Caesarea, Supplements Brill, Leiden 2003, 358 pp., ISSN 0920
to Vigiliae Christianae LXVII,
623X, ISBN 90-04-13132-9. With
his monograph
on the Library of Eusebius
of Caesarea,
Andrew
J. Carriker
fills an important gap in scholarly literature. Indeed, scholars
have been
intrigued for decades with the contents of the library, which
seems to have been rich not only in biblical and Christian
literature but
also in secular philosophical
library stood
and historical works. Eusebius'
apparently at the crossroads of history, philology, philosophy and theology. In his firstchapter C.
includes a history of the library from its origins
as Origen's private library, through its institutionaldevelopment at Caesarea, to its gradual dispersion following theArab
conquest (1-29). He
also deals
with the location and the size of the library (30-36).
C KoninklijkeBrillNV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae 59, 462-465
REVIEWS
The
463
second chapter (37-74) is a discussion of Eusebius'
use of sources,
beginning with an account of his life and works, followed by an analysis of his first-handuse of sources, and the sources outside Caesarea, towhich he might have had recourse. The
largest part of the book, Chapters
III-VIII
(75-298), consists of a
careful and detailed analysis of the contents of the library. C. bases him self primarily on theworks that Eusebius
cites or discusses in his Praeparatio
evangelica,Historia ecclesiasticaand Chronicon.C.'s a catalogue,
analysis takes the form of
in which authors are classified in each chapter in alphabeti
cal order. Ch.
III (75-130) deals with the philosophical works, including
sections on the Presocratics, "other authors", and philosophical works used by Origen Ch.
thatmay have been available
in the library in Eusebius'
IV (131-138) deals with poetry and oratory; Ch. V
torical works; Ch. VI with Christian
time.
(139-154) with his
(155-178) with Jewish literature; Ch. VII
(179-278)
literature and documents; and, finally,Ch. VIII
(279-298)
examines contemporary documents. It is divided into two groups: first,the official documents
from the Historia ecclesiastica,and second, the materials
used in the Vita Constantini. At the end of his book (Ch. IX, 299-316), C. provides the reader with a most useful list, inwhich he summarizes the contents of Eusebius' This
library.
summary follows the arrangement of the chapters: philosophers, his
torians etc. are also displayed in an alphabetical order. He a final synthesis of what Eusebius'
then supplies
the contents of the library teaches us regarding
literary knowledge, distinguishing the materials
that the bishop
studied in his early education (e.g. poetry, rhetoric) from those he pos sessed and read in his Caesarean library. The main quality of this book is its usefulness for checking authors and works in the library of Caesarea.
As a tool, it is user-friendly and com
plete. Interestingly, the book is, as itwere, a library in itself,where order and clarity reign. Another
important quality of C.'s work
once and for all, Eusebius
lies in the fact that he frees,
from his image of being a mere compiler depen
dent on second-hand sources. This is not only made C.'s
insightful critique of Grant's
and Gustafsson's
clear in Ch. II through assumptions but also
throughout the book (see especially the passage on Plato). Particularly useful is his discussion of the expression logos (kat)echei.This expression is used on many been
occasions
in the Historia ecclesiasticaand has
interpreted since the beginning of the 20th century as referring to
REVIEWS
464
written documents. C., however, is able to show that this long-held assump tion is incorrect. His new view of the expression is important for any his torian working with material
from the Historia. book is helpful in explaining Eusebius'
form, C.'s
its catalogue
Despite
works and intellectual environment. It not only sheds light on Eusebius' writings but also helps the reader to understand the fate of a great num ber of other works; how books fared from their redaction in the Classical world
to their reception in the Christian world, and
in the thought of
in particular. This makes C.'s work an invaluable tool not only
Eusebius
for scholars focusing on Christianity and Patristics but also for scholars in Classics
and Ancient History.
The methodology
used by the author seems, on the whole,
consistent
and appropriate: C. has not only carefully analyzed all the citations in and references to works in Eusebius' needed,
in Eusebius'
of Origen andJerome. The manuscripts
Praeparatio,Historia, Chronicon,and, when
other writings, but he has also investigated the works subscriptions found in late antique and medieval
that can be traced back to Caesarea
are also studied in order
to give a reconstruction of the library as complete as possible. Obviously, as C. points out (p. 45), the difficulty is to decide whether a book has been used first-handor not. Moreover, C.'s because
the fact that Eusebius
task ismade
even more difficult
cites a text does not mean
that he possessed
it; likewise, the fact that he does not cite a text does not mean that he did not possess it. From this point of view, I wonder ifC. does not include some works mentioned
in Eusebius'
library too easily: that is, whenever
in his writings. Perhaps
polemic agenda
the weight of Eusebius'
is not sufficiently taken into consideration when
to deciding what was
in the library. For instance, David
a work
is
apologetic and Runia
it comes has sug
gested that Eusebius might have conflated his list of Philonic works with titles of books he did not possess
in order to increase the prestige and
authority of thisJewish author. But this suggestion is not taken into account by C. Likewise, one should bear in mind
that Eusebius' writings are not
library catalogues but historical and apologetic works, aiming to show (at least as far as the Praeparatio is concerned)
that Christianity is not a blind
but a sophisticated religion or philosophy of ancient faith adopted by illiterati descent. In other words,
the more
references, the better.
It also seems regrettable that C. does not discuss more
extensively the
expressions eis hemas eleuthenor eis gnosin eleuthen,which are used on many occasions
in theHE with regards to books. The
question should be posed
REVIEWS whether
the same meaning
they have
465
and really indicate that Eusebius
the book.
actually possessed
As for the bibliography: although it is extensive and complete, the author would
have benefited from reading E. Carotenuto,
Tradizione e innovazione
nellaHistoria Ecclesiastica di Eusebius di Cesarea, Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici (ilMulino),
Naples,
discusses the issue of the
2001. Likewise, C.
of the Olson's recenttreatment withoutmentioning Flavianum Testimonium question, which
is the author of the TEF
supports the view that Eusebius
'Eusebius and the Testimonium
(K.A. Olson,
Flavianum',
CBQ61,
1999,
305-322). Finally, one also regrets the absence of A. van den Hoek, and Origen: a Descriptive Catalogue
'Philo
of Their Relationship', SPhA 12, 2000,
44-121, which may have been useful with regard to Philo as well as that ofJ.-Cl. Fredouille, Ph. Hoffmann, P. Petitmengin, M.-O. S. Deleani,
et
Goulet-Caze,
antiques,Actes du col Titres et articulationsdu textedans les ieuvres
de Chantilly 13-15 dcembre 1994, Paris 1997, which could loque international have been used in order to deal with the issues of titles, table of contents, and citations in Antiquity that are ignored by C. Despite
these minor
flaws, C.'s
graph that will become
book
is definitely an important mono
a reference for any scholar working on ancient
literature. INOWLOCKI SABRINA
EducationalFoundationFellow Belgian-American Harvard Divinity School,
[email protected]
J.G. Cook,
of theOld Testament in Greco-RomanPaganism The Interpretation
(Studien und Texte Siebeck 2004, XIV
23), Tubingen, Mohr
zu Antike und Christentum + 399 pp., ISBN 3-16-148474-6,
E 64,-.
of the published his book The Interpretation New Testament in Greco-RomanPaganism (as vol. 3 in the same series STAC), In 2000 John Granger Cook
a very valuable
introduction to and survey of the criticisms leveled against
the Christian part of the Bible by the early anti-Christian polemicists. In thatwork, he already occasionally pointed to both similaritiesand differences between what
the opponents of the early Christians said about
the New
Testament on the one hand and their criticisms of the Old Testament the other. In this second book, however, the OT
? KoninklijkeBrillNV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
on
as dealt with by these
VigiliaeChristianae 59, 465-467
REVIEWS
466
polemicists is the sole focus of his investigation. The books
structure of the two
is very similar, but there are dissimilarities as well. The
backbone
and pzece de resastance of both books is formed by three large chapters on Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian the Apostate. Differences are, interalia, that in the firstbook there is a separate chapter (and rightly so) on the unnamed opponent inMacarius Magnes'
Apokritikos,of which we now have an excel
lent new edition by R. Goulet
(see my review in VC 58 (2004) 332-341),
but such a chapter is lacking in the second book, without a reason being stated, but undoubtedly because Macarius' than upon
the NT
the OT.
Even
focuses more
opponent
upon
so, he had deserved somewhat more
attention. Further, unlike in the firstbook, in the new one C. could include a long introductory chapter on possible traces of the Septuagint's reception in pre-Christianpagan writings, fromHecataeus and the Hermetica.
ofAbdera down toNumenius
It is a pity that in the section on Tacitus, C. did not
vomJudentum (Stuttgart (couldnot yet?)use R.S. Bloch,AntikeVorstellungen 2002) on this author's 'Judenexkurs', and that in the discussion of themag ical papyri he overlooked Morton Elements
in theMagical
Papyri'
Smith's
seminal paper
'The Jewish
in his Studies in theCult of rahweh, vol. 2
(Leiden 1996) 242-255. The
three chapters on Celsus, Porphyry, andJulian,
100 pages, offer an excellent and detailed
each of them some
treatment of their critique of
the OT. Dozens of topics pass review: the philosophical absurdity of the creation account, the stupidity of the Paradise story, the problematic nature of the Flood, objectionable
the irrationality of many of the biblical view of a god who
emotions such as wrath, etcetera. Extensive coverage given to Porphyry's critical and Daniel
laws, the morally
favours a specific nation (Israel) or has (some 60 pages)
intelligent commentary
is
to the book of
that has partly survived due toJerome's attempt to refutePorphyry's
views. C.
places most of the topics discussed clearly into the context of
ancient philosophical debates. He
also shows the differences in the extent
of the three opponents' knowledge of the biblical text,with an ascending line from the relatively distant acquaintance
in Celsus'
knowledge of Julian. Another difference between Celsus
has a more
case to the intimate
the three critics is that
negative stance over against Judaism
than Porphyry
and Julian, but that for the latter two the attack on Christianity is so in extricably intertwinedwith that on the LXX the Jewish Bible. These
that they, too, heavily criticize
polemicists' attack on the LXX
was an attack on
the foundations of Christianity (it is revealing that in some of his early writings, when Porphyry was not yet interested in attacking Christianity,
REVIEWS
he is much more
467
positive in several references to the LXX).
somewhat staccato style of writing which does not always make follow his argument. Sometimes
C.
has a
it easy to
there are signs of haste, e.g., when
at
p. 15 a typo (nomois instead of nomos) induces him to say that Alexander Polyhistor called the Pentateuch
'Laws' (instead of 'the Law'),
and when
he says that Celsus does not make a point of the expression 'sons of God' in Gen.
6:2 but categorizes the beings concerned as 'angels' (91), where
he overlooks that,whereas editions of the LXX,
'sons of God'
iswhat one finds in all modern
the majority of the mss. have the reading 'angels'.
But in spite of such quibbles
this is a very welcome work that I recom
mend unreservedly to all scholars who are interested in theworld of Antike
undChristentum. UtrechtUniversity
P.W. VANDERHORST [email protected]
BOOKS RECEIVED Augustinus: SanctusAugustinus, Manichaeum. Introduction, Acta contraFortunatum texte &
traduction, notes complementaires et bibliographies
Francois Decret;
Biblical References,
Series Latina, Vol.
Manichaeorum,
+ 124 pp., ISBN
selectives par
Indices &
by Johannes van Oort
Terms and Concepts
Manichaean VIII
Bibliography,
Index of
(Corpus Fontium
II), Turnhout: Brepols Publishers 2004,
2-503-51324-7,
E 65 (cloth). New
volume
in the
rapidly expanding CFM-series, with special emphasis on the determination Terms and Concepts
ofManichaean
the formerManichaean
handed over by both Fortunatus and
Augustine.
Tome Avit de Vienne, Histoire spirituelle, texte critique, Chretiennes 07925-1,
II (Chants IV-V). Introduction,
traduction et notes par Nicole
Hecquet-Noti
(Sources
492), Paris: Les Editions du Cerf 2005, 254 p., ISBN
E 27 (broche).
2-204
Edition etc. de l'epopete biblique De spiritalishis
toriaegestis, en cinq chants, inspires de la Genese (chants 1-4) et de l'Exode (chant 5), de Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus, eveque de Vienne
entre 490 et 518.
'Cette geste christique originale, qui associe la poesie epique classique, l'in spiration de la Bible, la connaissance des ecrits patristiques et des poetes chretiens, est l'une des illustrations les plus reussies de l'osmose de la cul ture antique et de la spiritualite chretienne'. Barnett, Paul, The Birth of Christianity.The First Twenty rears (AfterJesus, / Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Volume 1), Grand Rapids, Michigan Eerdmans US$
Publishing Company
15 /
7 9.95
(pb).
2005, x + 230 pp., ISBN 0-8028-2781-0,
'Contrary to several popular works of Christian
scholarship, historian Paul Barnett (formerAnglican bishop ofNorth Sydney, Australia) maintains
that the first two decades
of Christian
history are
hardly "lost years".' Becker, Eve-Marie
(Hrsg.), Die
antikeHistoriographie und die Anfdnge der
zurZeitschrift furdie neutestamentliche christlichen (Beihefte Geschichtsschreibung der alteren Kirche, Band
Wissenschaft
und die Kunde
York: Walter
de Gruyter 2005, XIII
129), Berlin-New
+ 308 S., ISBN 3-11-018208-4,
E 88
(Leinen). Vierzehn Beitrage hervorgegangen aus einem Forschungskolloquium der Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg, mit Hauptgewicht
auf das Verhaltnis
Historiographieforschung und Evangelienforschung. Speziell die beiden let zten Beitrage gehoren zum patristischen Bereich: Wolfgang Wischmeyer, (? KoninklijkeBrillNV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae 59, 468-482
BOOKS
von Geschichte
Wahrnehmungen
Lukas und Eusebius:
als Kirchengeschichtsschreiber
(277-287).
Histoire eccPsiastiquedu peuple anglais (Historia ecclesias
le Venerable,
ticagentisAnglorum),Tome Crepin,
in der christlichen Literatur zwischen
die chronographische Form der Bischofslisten (263
276); Jorg Ulrich, Eusebius Bede
469
RECEIVED
I (Livres I-II). Introduction et notes par Andre
texte critique par Michael
traduction par Pierre Monat
Lapidge,
(Sources Chretiennes 489), Paris: Les Editions du Cerf
et Philippe Robin
2005, 433 p., ISBN
2-204-07849-2,
e 33 (broche).
'La presente edition
(en trois volumes) offre pour la premiere fois aux francophones le texte du manuscrit de Saint-Petersbourg, tres pr6che de l'original de Bede. La tra duction francaise se veut aussi proche du texte latin que possible. Les notes, tout en signalant sources et travaux, sont assez explicites pour satisfaire les eventuelles interrogations; elles font souvent reference a la traduction en vieil-anglais, du IXe siecle'. Colish, Marcia of Notre Dame
Man, University L., Ambrose'sPatriarchs.Ethicsfor theCommon Press: Notre Dame,
0-268-02365-4, US$ Ambrose's
Indiana 2005, viii + 193 pp., ISBN
15 (pb). Masterly
and cristal-clear written study of
treatisesDe Abraham,De Isaac, De Jacob,and De Ioseph.According
to Colish, famous for her two volume study The Stoic TraditionfromAntiquity to theEarly Middle Ages and hence keenly attentive to the Stoic groundwork of Ambrose's
ethical thought, the treatises ofMilan's
bishop are not advo
cating asceticism and promoting a Platonic view of human nature. Instead they are aimed
(as itwas observed by the CSEL-editor
Karl
Schenkl in
1897, but seems to have been forgotten since) at lay people who did not have special callings in the church, but who
led active lives in the world
as spouses, parents, heads of households, professionals, and citizens. Thus these tractates, produced first as sermons delivered to catechumens and only later redrafted as treatises, reveal a different side of Ambrose and show that he developed an ethics of moderation based on a Aristotelian and Stoic anthropology, which he modified and St. Paul's
in the light of biblical ethics
view of human nature. This groundbreaking and, as one
may expect, epoch-making study on the first(cf. e.g. pp. 3 and 157) patris tic development of ethics for the comman man seems to contain no
is very carefully edited: it
'typo's', has an excellent bibliography of primary
sources and relevant studies in an appropriate array of modern and is concluded by an excellent Index. Notable price of the paperback
edition (cloth US$
languages,
as well is the very affordable
35.00).
Cologne Mani Codex: De KeulseMani-Codex. Vertaald, ingeleid en toegelicht Amsterdam: In de Pelikaan
door Johannes van Oort & Gilles Quispel,
470
BOOKS
RECEIVED
2005, 247 pp., incl. several full colour illustrations, ISBN 90-71608-16-6, e 35 (cloth). Dutch
translation of the CMC, with extensive Introduction
and Commentary. Dunn, James: Graham C. Barton
N. Stanton, Bruce W.
Longenecker & Stephen
(eds.), The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins. Essays in Honor of / Cambridge, U.K.:
James D.G. Dunn, Grand Rapids, Michigan B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company
2822-1, US$
50 /
J 29.95
William
2004, xxii + 381 pp., ISBN
(hardcover with jacket).
An
lection of twenty-seven original essays ranging widely
0-8028
impressive col
through Scripture
and Early Church history and including, among others, several discussions of the enduring and already in the Early Church pretumRom. Man'
7 (e.g. David
of Romans
Is She
7, and Why
The Contrite Wrongdoer
-Condemned
so important crux inter
and Where
Catchpole, Who
Is the "Wretched
'Wretched', 168-180; Peder Borgen, or Set Free by the Spirit? Romans
the exemplary edited (though without an Index
7:7-8:4, 181-192). Besides,
of texts) and finely published book contains some more contributions: Anthony C. Thiselton, The Holy Exegesis and Reception History
specific Patristic
Spirit in 1 Corinthians:
in the Patristic Era, 207-228;
I. Howard
Marshall, The Holy Spirit in the Pastoral Episdes and theApostolic Fathers, 257-269; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Holy Spirit in the Ascension of Isaiah, 308-320; Graham N. Stanton, The Spirit in theWritings of JustinMartyr, 321-334; J. Lionel North, The Transformation Texts in Fourth- and Fifth-Century Disputes
of Some New Testament about Pneuma: Disputando
Inclarescet 335-348. Veritas, Garcia Martinez,
Florentino & Gerard
P. Luttikhuizen
(eds.), Jerusalem,
Alexandria, Rome: Studies inAncient Cultural InteractioninHonour ofA. Hilhorst (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 82), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2003, XIV
+ 389 pp., ISBN 90-04-13584-7,
bound with jacket). scholar who
Royal
interalia acted as Secretary
Judaism and as Chairman
e 115 / US$
143 (cloth
and classical Festschrift for the Groningen
of theDutch
to Brill's Journalfor theStudy of
Society forEarly Christian Studies:
Preface (IX-XII); Abbreviations
(XIII-XIV);
in Early Christian and Medieval
Texts: Church and Illiteracy (1-12); Antoon
A.R. Bastiaensen, of Hippo
GerardJ.M.
Bartelink, Illiteratus
"He must Grow, I must Diminish' John 3:30): Augustine
Preaching
on John the Baptist
rerumconditor: Ambrose's Poem about "Time" repay Evil with Evil": Ethical
(13-26); Jan den Boeft, Aeterne (27-40); J'anos Bolyki, "Never
Interaction between
Novel Josephand Aseneth, theNew Testament
the Joseph Story, the
and theApocryphal Acts (41
53); Jan N. Bremmer, The Vision of Saturus in the Passio Perpetuae (55-73);
BOOKS
John J. Collins,
Life after Death
RECEIVED
471
in Pseudo-Phocylides
(75-86);
Istvan
Czachesz, The Eagle on the Tree: A Homeric Motif inJewish and Christian Literature (87-99); Boudewijn Dehandschutter, The Text of theMartyrdom of PolycarpAgain (With a Note on the Greek Text of Polycarp, ad Phil.) (101-106); Natalio Fernandez Marcos, Theodoret's the Language
of the Septuagint
Greek Loanwords Between Old
Philological Remarks on
(107-118); Florentino Garcia Martinez,
in the CopperScroll (119-145); Anders Klostergaard Petersen,
and New: The Problem of Acculturation
Early Christian Usage
of the Phoenix Motif
Illustrated by the A. Knibb,
(147-164); Michael
The Use of Scripture in 1 Enoch 17-19 (165-178); Arie van der Kooij, The Interpretation ofMetaphorical (179-185); Gerard
Language:
A Characteristic of LXX-Isaiah in
P. Luttikhuizen, The Critical Rewriting of Genesis
the Gnostic Apocryphonof John (187-200); Martin McNamara,
The
Irish
Legend of Antichrist (201-219); Ed Noort, Bethabara: Remarks about Storied Places at the Jordan, John the Baptist and theMadaba 241); Monika
Imperfectum inMatthaeum (243-253); Miekske Erasmus' Note
on Gal
Eden
(221
to the Opus
L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk,
4:25: The Connection
Jerusalem (255-262); Jacques T.A.G.M. Gen
Mosaic Map
Pesthy, The Three Nets of Belial fromQumran between Mount
van Ruiten, The
Sinai and
Four Rivers of
in the Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli): The Intertextual Relationship of 2:10-14 and the Apocalypse of Paul 23 (263-283); Gunther Stemberger,
"Moses received Torah
. . ." (m.Avot 1:1): Rabbinic Conceptions of Revelation
(285-299); Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The White Dress of the Essenes and the Pythagoreans (301-321); Johannes Tromp, Origen on theAssumptionofMoses (323-340); Marc Van Uytfanghe, La saveur biblique du latinmerovingien: l'exemple de la Vie de Sainte Rusticule,Abbesse ahArles (Vile siecle) (341 357); A Bibliography of A. Hilhorst (359-370), References
toAncient Texts
(371-389). Geest, P. van & J. van Oort
(eds.), Augustiniana JNeerlandica. Aspecten van
Augustinus' spiritualiteiten haar doorwerking, Leuven-Paris Uitgeverij Peeters 2005, VII
Dudley, MA:
+ 539 pp. (incl. illustr.), ISBN 90-429-1627
3, e 45 (clothbound with jacket).
Volume
to commemorate Augustine's
1650th birthday and comprising thirty-one studies on Augustine's ality written by 'Netherlandic'
(Dutch, Flemish, Afrikaans)
spiritu
specialists in
their native language: Part I: Apologv, Introspection, Mystagogy,and Hermeneutics: The Period 386-400 Mani
and its Background:Hans
to the Catholica
van Oort, From Vergil
and
(11-29, focussing on conf.and c. Fort.);Rein Ferwerda,
Augustine
and Scepticism
(31-44; on c. Acad.); Peter Flaton,
'Apud sese
habitare':
(Knowledge of) the Self in De ordine (45-54); Marcel
Poorthuis,
BOOKS
472
Mani,
RECEIVED
Augustine and the Kabbala
71); Sjaak van den Berg, Who
on Food
(55
sermo 12 (73-85);
(87-102; on Ps. c. Don.); Ineke Sluiter,
Vincent Hunink, Augustinus poeta Reading
and Sex: a Comparison
can see God? Augustine's
as a Life Journey (103-111;
on doctr. chr. I-II); Thijs Rutten,
Augustine and the Spirituality of the Psalms: the Confessionsas a Role Play deducted
from the Psalms
(113-129); Hans
(131-147;
focussing on conf); Annemare Kotze,
Confessiones13: Augustine,
and the Creation Narrative
theManichaeans,
a Mystic?
Geybels, Augustine
(149-161); Part II: Sermons,
Tractates,Biblical Commentaries,and Theology:The Period c. 400-420: Tarsicius and Spirituality in Augustine's De Trinitate (165-185);
van Bavel, Theology
of Augustine's
Paul van Geest, De adulterinisconiugiisand laterDevelopments (187-207); Joost van Neer, Augustine
Spirituality ofMarriage
(209-224: analysis of s. 223F); Helene
as a Teacher
A Suggestion for a Spiritual Reading on the Psalms
Leijendekkers, Idithun.
of some of Augustine's Commentaries
on en. in Ps. 38, 61 &
(225-238;
and Augustine on Peter's Denial
Ambrose
the Preacher
76); Hans
van Reisen,
(239-253; focussing on Io. eu. tr.
113); Gert Partoens, Augustine on Ephesians
3,13-18: A Reading
of sermo
165 (255-273); Toon Bastiaensen, The Suffering of theMartyrs as 'Perfect Spirituality of Martyrdom
Justice' (iustitiaperfecta):Augustine's Martijn
Schrama,
'As you did it to one of the least of these, you did it
to me': Augustine on Matthew on Pride and Greed
25 (289-307); Bernard Bruning, Augustine
versusGrace
Predestination and Free Will:
(309-322);
Part III: Histogy and Grace, Jan den Boeft, 'Moral
The Period 410-430:
Corruption with the Speed of a Mountain Witness
(275-288);
Torrent': Sallust as Augustine's
a charge(325-340; on ciu. I-III); Amie van Wyk, Christian Identity:
Augustine on Faith, Hope,
and Love
(341-354; on ench.);Anthony Dupont, A Reading
'Pelagius: Just an Ethicist or also a Theologian? Commentary
on Romans
and the Representation
adu. Iud.); Part IV:
ten Boom,
the Jews, and Neoplatonism
'Blind
(395-409; e.g. on
'TremendousShadows on Europe'? Aspects of theReception of
Augustine: Christoph
Burger, The
Grace: Gregory of Rimini, Hugolin 1518) (413-425); Wim
Reception
of Augustine's
Doctrine
of
of Orvieto, Erasmus, and Luther (until
FranSois, Johannes Driedo's
et dogmatibus(1533) on Scripture, Augustine, Augustine
focussing on c. Iul. imp.);
(381-394; focussing on c. Iul. imp.);Wessel
Singers of God': Augustine,
(427-466);
Smalbrugge, Predestination
(365-379;
'Nobody believes against hisWill': Augustine on Grace
Mathijs Lamberigts, and Free Will
(355-363); Matthias of the Person
of Pelagius'
Pieta van Beek, Anna Maria (467-461); Fred Verstappen,
and
De
ecclesiasticisscripturis Tradition
the Catholic
van Schurman The Vision
(1607-1678)
on
of Ostia Represented
BOOKS
RECEIVED
473
by Ary Scheffer (1795-1858) (463-471); Gilles Quispel, Augustine in Paris (1954) (475-479); Bert Blans, Martin Heidegger, Martha Nussbaum & Hannah
Arendt as Readers
of Augustine
(481-496). Bibliography;
Indices;
Personalia(499-539). Imagesof theDivine. The Theologyof Icons at theSeventh
Giakalis, Ambrosios,
Ecumenical Council(Studiesin theHistoryof ChristianTraditi-ons CXXII), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2005, frontispice+ XV+ e 99 / US$
142 (hardback).
Revised
161 pp., ISBN 90-04-14328-9,
and updated
edition of SHCT
54
(1994), with the original Foreword by Henry Chadwick. Gulacsi, Zsuzsanna, Mediaeval Manichaean Book Art. A CodicologicalStudy of
BookFragments IranianandTurkicIlluminated from8th-ilthCentugy East Central
Asia
and Manichaean
(Nag Hammadi
2005, XVI
+ 240 pp.
Studies 57), Leiden-Boston:
(oblong format; including a map,
Brill
numerous b/w
plates, computer drawings, figures, tables etc., and eight series of full-colour the pp. 58-59), ISBN
plates between (hardback).
Pivotal publication
90-04-13994-X,
e
139 / US$
by an eminent specialist
199
(cf. e.g. her
Manichaean Art inBerlinCollections, Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum,Series Archaeologica
et Iconographica, Volume
impressive book
I, Turnhout: Brepols 2001). An
like this one will inspire other scholars to further deter
mine how and why theGnostic-Manichaean Jewish Christian Mani,
world religion initiated by the
hailed as 'the Painter', produced
its singular and
stillmoving art.
Haar, Stephen,Simon Magus: 7he FirstGnostic? (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde Band
119), Berlin-New York: Walter
der alteren Kirche,
de Gruyter 2003, xxiii + 385 pp.,
ISBN 3-11-017689-0, e 98 (Leinen).
Originally PhD-dissertation University
of Queensland
Lattke), designed
Walter
(supervisor Michael
de Gruyter in an exemplary way. Main
and published
by
and final conclusion of the
author: 'From the viewpoint of "Simon", or at least from the evidence of his reconstructed teachings, there are reasons to conclude he was a charis matic
figure adept in the traditions of theMagoi,
who
exercised consid
erable ability, authority, and inTluence. A self-proclaimed expert in divine things, Simon would
not have rejected the notion of being a "Gnostic";
at least not in the original classical sense of theword. He
taught a source
of truth and salvation that differed frommainstream Jewish thought and practice; he claimed the preeminent role of "Standing One" him the "firstGod',
he enjoyed public favour and widespread
(306-307).
some called
Christians viewed him as a "Christ pretender" respect from Samaria
and
to Rome'
BOOKS
474
RECEIVED
Peter, Perpetua und derAgypteroderBilder des Bosen imfrdhen Christentum. Ein Versuchzur Passio sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis Afti*anischen (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Habermehl,
140), Berlin-New York: Walter 3-11-018184-3,
+ 341 S., ISBN
de Gruyter 2004, VII
Zweite, uberarbeitete Auflage einer inzwi
e 98 (Leinen).
schen klassischen Studie. Henze, Matthias
at Qumran (Studies in theDead (ed.), Biblical Interpretation
Sea Scrolls and Related Literature), Grand Rapids, Michigan U.K.:
William
B. Eerdmans
ISBN 0-8028-3937-1-1, US$
Publishing Company 25 / f
15.90 (pb).
/ Cambridge,
2005, xiii + 214 pp., Collection of nine essays
demonstrating that the Scriptures were pluriform and dynamically inter pretated at the origins of Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. Hevelone-Harper, Jenifer, Disciples of theDesert.Monks, Laity, and Spiritual Gaza, Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins Authoriy in Sixth-Centugy University Press 2005, xii + 211 pp. (incl. 1map), ISBN 0-8018-8110-2, US$
39.95 (hardcover with jacket).
supervisor Peter Brown) John of Gaza,
Lucidly written dissertation (Princeton:
focussing on the discourses of Barsanuphius
and
hence mainly based on the recentlypublished Correspondance
of these two desert fathers in the Sources Chretiennes
series (1997-2002),
and now further disclosing the distinctive spiritual world of these leaders from the monastery of Tawatha
and
the wide-ranging
community they
served: Ch. I: Gaza: Crossroads in theDesert, II: Tawatha: Lookingfor God in theDesert, III: Dorotheos [the best known disciple of B. & J.]: FromNovice toSpiritualDirector, IV: Lay Disciples: Social Obligations and Spiritual Concerns; V: Bishops and Civil Authorities: Rulers of Church and Empire;VI: Aelianos: Leader for theNext Generation.Conclusion, Notes, Bibliography, and Index. Hilhorst, Anthony & George H. van Kooten
(eds.), The Wisdom of Egypt.
Jewish, Early Christian and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity / Arbeiten
zur Geschichte
Antiken Judentums und des Christentums 59), Leiden-Boston 557 pp. (incl. some plates), ISBN 90-04-14425-0, back).-Impressive
collection of essays, edited with meticulous
like the FS forHilhorst
158 (hard care and
(see above)- testifyingto both the remarkably high
standard and level of Groningen Part One:
e 117 / US$
des
2005, xii +
research and alignment: Preface (ix-xii);
& Egypt:Ed Noort, The Disgrace Jfudaism
of Egypt: Joshua 5.9a
and Its Context (3-19); Florentino Garcia Martinez, La Genese d'Alexandrie, les Rabbins of Moses
et Qumran
(21-41); Jacques T.A.G.M.
in Egypt According
Rob Kugler, Hearing
van Ruiten, The Birth
to the Book of Jfubilees(Jub 47.1-9)
the Story of Moses
(43-65);
in Ptolemaic Egypt: Artapanus
BOOKS
the Tradition
Accommodates
the King
of Egypt': A Short Note
from Hosea Was
Called My
Son':
11.1 inMatthew
JJ.Menken,
'And Moses
(Acts 7.22) (153-176);
in the Plains of Macedonia':
Thessalonians, and Ancient Historical Writings (177-215); Herman Looking at the Condemning Heart of 1John 3.18-20 Egyptian
'Out
on the Quotation
in the Egyptian SibyllineOracles (Book 5), 2
Expectations of Nero's Return
an Ancient
to the
'The God Who
(143-152); Ton Hilhorst, of the Egyptians'
'Wrath Will Drip
van Kooten,
(97-114); Jan Rival
on an Exorcistic Formula
EgyptMaarten
Some Observations
2.15
Instructed in All theWisdom
George H.
Sophia
van der Horst,
(115-134); Pieter W.
(135-139); Part Two: Early Christianity & of Egypt I Have
(81-96); Bert Jan Lietaert
the Gnostic
in Josephus: From Herod's
Cleopatra
Wise Ruler's Opposite Drowned
or Deliberate?
Wisdom of Solomon and
van Henten,
Willem
475
(67-80); Janos Bolyki, Egypt as the Setting
for jtosephand Aseneth:Accidental Peerbolte, The
RECEIVED
(217-225);
Huub
teVelde,
through the Eyes of
van de Sandt, The
Egyptian
Background of the 'Ointment' Prayer in the Eucharistic Rite of theDidache (10.8)
(227-245); Janni Loman,
The
Letter of Barnabas in Early Second
Century Egypt (247-265); Riemer Roukema,
Paul's Rapture
in
to Paradise
Early Christian Literature (267-283); John Herrmann & Annewies van den Hoek,
The
Clement Apion
Sphinx: Sculpture as a Theological
and Anoubion
Potamiaena: Alexandria Women
Symbol
in Plutarch and
(285-310); Jan N. Bremmer, Foolish Egyptians:
of Alexandria
in the Pseudo-Clementines(311-329); Henk
Some Observations About Martyrdom (331-350); Monika
and Gender
Bakker, inAncient
Pesthy, 'Mulier est Instrumentum Diaboli':
and the Desert Fathers (351-362); Part Three: Gnosticism&
Egvpt
AttilaJakab, Le Gnosticisme Alexandrin aux Premiers Temps du Christianisme (365-379); Albert L.A. Hogeterp, The Jesus: The Case
of Eschatology
Alexandria: Matthias
in Hippolytus'
Dijk, Early Christian Apocrypha (419-428); Eibert Tigchelaar,
Refutatio (397-418); Jacobus van
and the Secret Books of Ancient Egypt
Baraies
on Mani's
Rapture,
and Recollection, Deficiency and Perfection: Human (443-459); Jurgen Tubach, Reisewege (461-483);
Paul, and
the
(429-441); F. Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta, Devolution
Recovery of the Primal Condition According Hammadi
P. Bos, Basilides of
(Matthew) and Aristotle as the Sources of Inspiration
for His Gnostic Theology
Antediluvian Apostles
Gospel of Thomas and the Historical
(381-396); Abraham
Istvan Czachesz,
der Apostel The
Degradation
and the
to Some Early Christian Texts in den Acta Petri aus Nag
Identity of Lithargoel
Acts of Peter and the Twelve (485-502); Marvin Meyer,
in the
Gnosis, Mageia, and
The Holy Book of theGreat InvisibleSpirit (503-517); Jacques van der Vliet,
BOOKS
476
Fate, Magic
RECEIVED
and Astrology in Pistis Sophia, chaps 15-21 (519-536). Bibliography
of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen (537-543); List of Contributors (545-547); Index of Subjects and Names (552-556);
(549-551);
Index of Ancient Authors and Writings
(selective) Index of Hebrew, Greek, and Coptic Words
with special contributions by various Christianity, II: XIV
669 pp., Volume
scholars (The Bible
Brill 2004, Volume
Ancient Christianity I), Leiden-Boston: 339 (hardback).
(557).
Charles, Handbook of PatristicExegesis. The Bible inAncient
Kannengiesser,
I: XXXIV
+ 826 pp., ISBN 90-04-09815-1,
+
e 295 / US$
impressive tomi,beautifully designed by Brill and for
Two
the greatest part written by an eminent specialist, but with many shortcomings. On
in
thisHandbook, a VC-review
serious
article will be published soon.
Loader, William, Sexuali_yand theJesus Tradition,Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 2005, viii + 288 pp., ISBN 0-8028-2862-0, Gospels
30 / /
US$
and Paul on issues of sexuality
ual passion, marriage, occasional
18.99 (pb).
A study of the
particularly concerned with sex from some
adultery, divorce, and celibacy. Apart
remarks on Christian writings after the NT,
pp. 199-207 dis
cuss Gos. Thom. 22:1-4, Gos. Eg. (Clement, Strom. 3.92), and 2 Clem. 12:2-6. McLeod,
Frederick G.,
The Roles of Christ'sHumaniy
from TheodoreofMopsuestia, Washington,
D.C.:
in Salvation. Insights
The Catholic University of
America Press 2005, xvi + 278 pp., ISBN 0-8132-1396-7, US$ back with jacket).
After the Introduction given in Ch.
69.95 (hard
I,McLeod
(author
of the books 7TheSoteriolog)ofNarsai, 1973, and The Image of God inAntiochene Tradition, 1999, among others) firstestablishes the principal influences that shaped Theodore's
exegetical
Interpreting Scripture). He Human Ch.
outlook
(Ch.
2: Theodore's
then (Ch. 3: The Role
Method
of Christ's
of
'Body' in
Salvation; Ch. 4: Christ's Salvific Role as theBond of theUniverse;
5: Christ's Salfivic Role
ogy that Theodore
exploring three major all human
as God's
Perfect Image) draws out the typol
sees present between Adam's
and Christ's humanity,
roles that Christ's humanity plays as the head of
immortal existence, the bond of the universe, and the perfect
image of God. Next (Ch. 6: The Salvific Role of Christ's 'Common Prosdpon'; Ch. 7: The Word's
'Indwelling of Good
Theodore's
customary word
understood
in a functional way. The
Pleasure')
for Christ's
and further poposes
to be
book concludes by applying these
insights to the 71 excerpts that were used Second Council of Constantinople
the author shows how
'person' (pros6pon) ought to condemn Theodore
at the
(Ch. 8: The Charges Against Theodore)
that these passages can be interpreted in a different,
non-heretical way (Ch. 9: A Reassessment of theCharges Against Theodore).
RECEIVED
BOOKS
In Ch.
10 ('Conclusion') McLeod
with modern
477
interalia compares Theodore's
Christology
interpretations (like the one proposed by J.A.T. Robinson)
and near the end he notes: 'It is a tragedy, therefore, that history has cast as one of the most prominent Christian heretics. His
Theodore
tireless
effort to defend the traditional role played by the full humanity of Christ in its union with theWord's
divine nature and in salvation deserves a bet
ter fate, perhaps at least along the lines of the esteem inwhich most schol (266). An
ars today hold Origin...'
impressive book, beautifully designed
and with an useful (though partial, in theword's duplicate sense)
by CUAP,
Index. Band 11, Personen A-E, bearbeitet von Heinz Melanchthons Brieftvechsel, Scheible unter Mitwirkung von Corinna Schneider, Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: frommann-holzboog 2003, 426 S., ISBN Melanchthons Briefivechsel,Band
3-7728-2257-6,
12, Personen
e 274 (Leinen);
F-K, bearbeitet von Heinz
Scheible unterMitwirkung von Corinna Schneider, Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: frommann-holzboog 2005, 479 S., ISBN 3-7728-2258-4, e 274 (Leinen). Extensive and really superb Indices, which
interalia indicate the Praeceptor
singular knowledge of Patristic sources.
Germaniae's
Patricio de, Pablo de Samosatay sus adversarios.Estudio hist6rico
Navascues,
del cristanismo antioquenoen el s. III (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum teologico Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum
87), Roma: 88-7961-006-6
(pb).-Tesis
de doctorado
2004, 498 pp., ISBN
(2002), direcci6n M.
Simonetti,
Instituto Patristico'Augustinianum'. Petrus Chrysologus: Translated
by William
Translation, Volume
St. Peter Chrysologus, Selected Sermons,Volume B. Palardy
3.
(The Fathers of the Church. A New
110), Washington
DC:
The
Catholic University of
America Press 2005, xviii + 372 pp., ISBN 0-8132-0110-1,
$ 39.95 (cloth
bound with jacket). Studies in Greek and Byzantine Texts PresentedtoJacquesNoret Philomathestatos. Birthday / Etudes de patristiquegrecque et textesbyzantinsofferts for his Sixty-Fifth a Jacques Noret a l'occasion de ses soixante-cinqans, edited by B. Janssens, B. Roosen & P. Van Deun
(Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
137), Leuven
Paris-Dudley, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters & Departement Oosterse Studies 2004, XXXVI
+ 753 pp. (+ photo page + several ill. in the text), ISBN 90-429
1459-9, e 85 (clothbound with jacket).-Impressive of the Louvain
scholar Noret: Peter Van Deun
(XI-XV); Guy Philippart, A de Jacques Noret XXXIII);
Festschrift in honour
& Bram Roosen,
Preface
l'ouvrage ?selon la verite>>. Pseudo-Encomion
(XVII-XXVIII);
Publications of Jacques Noret
Abbreviations (XXXV-XXXVI);
(XXIX Michael Bibikov, Die vergleichende
BOOKS
478
Textologie
von Anastasius
einiger Werke
Handschriften
RECEIVEFD
Sinaites
nach
den altesten
(Mosquensis,Museum Historicum, olim Bibliotheca Synodalis 265
(1-9); [Vladimir 197] und Guelferbytanus,Gudianus gr. 53) und Ausgaben le Confesseur &tait-il Constantinopolitain? Christian Boudignon, Maxime (11-43; en conclusion
'Maxime n'etait donc
(43):
tres probablement
pas
constantinopolitain, mais bien palestinien'); Paul Canart, Les palimpsestes des fonds grecs de la Bibliotheque Vaticane. Une precisions
(45-55); Willy
Clarysse, On
liste sommaire et quelques
the Early History
of the Verb
AIIOMENQ (57-61); Carmelo Giuseppe Conticello, Theophylacte de Bulgarie, (Catena aurea in Ioannem) (63-75); Vassa Conticello,
source de Thomas d'Aquin Un
florilege sur leGrand Careme
attribu%eAJean Damasce'ne.
Authenticite,
sources, nouveaux fragments de Seve're d'Antioche (77-104; conclusion (104): 'Le florilege sur le Grand Car&me une
ceuvre de Jean Damascene.
inclus dans le De sacrisjejuniis n'est pas
I1 a e't realise de fa,on coherente par un
seul compilateur, dans le cadre d'une querelle interne A l'Eglise dejJerusalem sur le maintien ou non de la semaine des laitages, dans les annees 735 745 environ. I1 a ete communique reponse A son sujet dans
a Jean Damascene,
qui a donne une
l'Epistula ad Cometam'); Jose Declerck,
opuscules Sur lafabricationdes imagesattribue's a Nicephore
Les
sept
de Constantinople
(105-164, y compris la premiere edition du texte grec des Op., munie d'une traduction fran?aise); Kristoffel Demoen, Saint Panteleemon. Text, Genre De
John Geometres'
and Metaphrastic
Smet, Les Epitres du propagandiste
druze Baha'
aux empereurs de Byzance. Un eipisodemeconnu
Iambic Life of
Style (165-184); Daniel ad-Din
al-Muqtana
des relations arabo-byzan
sur les Eklogai propIetiquesd'Eusebe (203-224); Rifaat Y. Ebied & Lionel R. Wickham, A Collection
tines (185-202); Gilles Dorival, Remarques de Cesaree
of Syriac Short Stories about Early Church Fathers (225-237, with edition of a Syriac text from theJohn Rylands Library, Manchester, translation); Michael Leipzig Manuscript
Featherstone, Court Orthography:
and an English Spelling
flamand lit la Bibliothique de Photius. Contribution
a l'etude des notes de
Carolus Langius dans lems. Brux. 744-755 (249-267); Hans Hauben, versus Apollo
in Early Byzantine Kourion? With
'Panayia Aphroditissa' Vincent
in the
of De Cerimoniis(239-247); Steven Gysens, Un humaniste
de Saragosse
in Paphos dans
Christ
a note on the so-called
(269-284); Andre Jacob, Le culte de Saint
la Terre
d'Otrante
byzantine et le Sermon
inedit du Vaticanus,Barberinianusgr. 456 (BHG 1867e) (285-296); Bart Janssens & Peter Van Deun, George Amiroutzes and his Poetical Oeuvre
(297-324,
incl. edition of seven Greeks poems); Patricia Karlin-Hayter, Notes on the Acta Davidis, Symeoniset Georgii (BHG 494)
(325-350); Michael
Kohlbacher,
RECEIVED
BOOKS
479
Ein Ubersehenes Bekenntnis des Gregorios von Nazianz?
(351-357; Auskunft
(357): 'Eindeutig is nun, dass das "Bekenntnis des Gregorios von Nazianz" [cf.Ausgabe
in: A. Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115, Washington D.C.
1996, 304] als Phantomtext keine weitere Bedeutung hat. Allerdings sollte in einer Fortschreibung der Clavis unter CPG 6885 ein Hinweis fir die Rezeptionsgeschichte
bemerkenswerten Zeugen
Spuria Gregorii sollte ein Querverweis Carl Laga, La ponctuation ponctuation
auf CPG 6885
auf diesen
erfolgen; unter den eingefuhrt werden');
(dont on ne doit pas se soucier) (359-375:
[sc. par un editeur des manuscits]
est d'une
sive, quand
il s'agit de montrer au
texte'; Laga
illustre cette opinion par des exemples de l'ceuvre de Dionysius
Thrax, de Gregorius Nazianzenus La
et de Maximus
l'editeura compris le
Confessor); Caroline Mace,
tradition indirecte grecque ancienne de Gregoire
citations chez
les historiens Socrate
The Dynastic Role Life, and Death
dans
A. Munitiz,
de Nazianze:
Martinakia,
(867-1056)
Dynasty. Birth,
(389-414: on Eudokia
Zoe Karbonopsina,
Helene
and Theodora);
le Vaticanus graecus 504
Deux
(377-388); Nele Maes,
of the Empresses of theMacedonian
the 'porphyrogenite' sisters Zoe
Evagriana
et Sozomene
of an Imperial Lineage
Ingerina, Theophano and
lecteurcomment
'la
importance deci
Lekapene,
Basile Markesinis,
et ailleurs
(415-434);
In the Steps of Anastasius of Sinai: Later Traces
Joseph
of his Erota
pokriseis(435-454); Bronwen Neil, The Introduction of Old Church Slavonic to the First Bulgarian Empire: the r6le of SS Cyril and Methodius (455 473); John W. Nesbitt, Some Observations theMonk's
Alexander
on Jakob Gretser's Edition of
De inventione sanctae crucis (BHG 410; CPG 7398) (475
La question de la survivance avare: les sources grec ques et latines de l'histoire des Avars au IXe siecle (487-501); Marcel Pirard, 486); Therese Olajos,
La souscription du Vaticanus,Reginensisgr. 23 (503-507); Gerhard Podskalsky, Der
Tod
des Judas
Iskariot in der byzantinischen
Exegese
(509-514);
Christoph Riedweg, Towards a better understanding of Cyril of Alexandria's Against _ulian.Case studies in textual criticism I (515-521); Bram Roosen, The Three Flyleaves of Vaticanus,Palatinus graecus 15. A contribution to the manuscript
tradition primarily of the RelatioMotionis [CPG 7736], but also
of two vitae [BHG 955 and 482] biens"
(Luc. 12, 33): Remarques
(523-534); Jacques Schamp,
"Vendez vos
sur le Julien de Photios et la date de
confiposition de la Bibliotheque (535-554); Jan Scharpe, Le Pantocrator de Vologda
(1654) et plusieurs Bogorodicy: Deux
lors d'epidemies
de la peste en Russie
types d'ic6nes miraculeuses
(555-565); Douwe
FrancisJ. Thomson, A Critical Greek Edition of Question Anastasian
EPQTAHOKPIXEIX
together with
Tj. Sieswerda & 23 of the Pseudo
the Editio Princeps of its Old
BOOKS
480
Bulgarian
Translation
RECEIVED
associated with Tsar
Symeon
(567-589); Marek
Quo vadis? (590-601); Carlos Steel, Au-dela
Starowieyski, L'episode
de tout
nom. Parmnenide142A3-4 dans l'interpretation de Proclus et de Denys 624); Anne Tihon, Le calcul de la date de Paques (625-646); Jan M.F.
Van
Reeth, Vie
(603
de Stephanos-Heraclius
et geste de Saint-Georges.
Legende
et histoire (647-670); Joseph Verheyden, The Greek Legend of theAscension of Isaiah
(671-700);
Sever J. Voicu,
<
Un'ipotesi
sulla nascita del corpus pseudocrisostomico
>>.
(701-711; Conclusione
(707): 'In definitiva, tutto sembra indicare che il partito dei cosiddetti gio vanniti [sc. Socrates, HE VI, 18,15; Sozomeno, HE
VIII,21.4]
ten
abbia
tato di costituire un corpus delle opere di Crisostomo, nel quale per6 sono state inserite anche
le omilie di altri autori, che probabilmente
vano confuse con le sue per un motivo molto Ugo Zanetti, Le roman de Bakheos
si trova
semplice: erano despote')
sur les Trois jeunes saints de Babylone.
Fragments coptes sahidiques (713-747, avec edition des frgg. coptes et tra duction francaise); List of the Contributors
(749-751).
Schneider, Hans-Michael, Lobpreis im rechtenGlauben. Die Theologie der Hymnen an denFestenderMenschwerdungder altenJerusalemer Liturgie imGeorgischen Udzvelesi Jadgari(Hereditas: Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte Borengasser
+ 383 S., ISBN
2004, XIV
38,50 (Ausland) / sFr 67, Tubingen
(Geb.).
3-923946-65-1,
23), Bonn:
E 37,50
(D) / E
Dissertation Eberhard-Karls-Universitat
(Doktorvater: HermannJoseph
Vogt; andere Gutachter: Gabriele
Winkler & Bernd Jochen Hilberath). Schurig, Sebastian, Die Theologiedes Kreuzes beimfi/hen Cyrill vonAlexandria. Dargestellt an seinerSchrfft"De adorationeet cultu in spiritu et veritate"(Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 29), Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005, VIII
+ 361 S., ISBN
3-16-148659-5
(kart.), ? 64 (pb).
Vom Verlag
klas
sisch und schon ausgestattete, und vom Autor klar und sorgfaltig ausgear beitete Untersuchung,
in der-ausgehend
von De adorationeet cultu in spiritu
et veritate insbesondere Cyrill's Rede von der Kenosis und Christi Gehorsam bis zum Kreuz Beachtung
findet.Ursprunglich Dissertation UniversitatJena
(Promotor Christoph Markschies). Socrate de Constantinople, Grec de l'edition G.C. Hansen et Pierre Maraval.
Notes
Histoire Ecclesiastique,Livres II et III. Texte (GCS). Traduction
par Pierre Maraval
par Pierre Perichon
(Sources Chretiennes
(t)
493),
Paris: Les Editions du Cerf 2005, 366 p., ISBN 2-204-07866-2, ? 30 (broche). Uthemann, Karl-Heinz,
Christus,Kosmos, Diatribe. Themen derfrihenKirche
als Beitrage zu einerhistorischen Theologie (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte Berlin-New York: Walter
de Gruyter 2005, XIII
+ 665 S., ISBN
93), 3-1 1
BOOKS
& 148 (Leinen).
018428-1,
Eine
RECEIVED
481
eindrucksvolle, schon ausgestattete und
(nichtzuletztfurdieDogmen-undTheologiegeschichte) bleibendwertvolle Sammlung
von Studien: Zur Rezeption
Chalkedon Dogmas
(1-36); Definitionen
von Chalkedon
anthropologische Modell pologische Modell 206); Der
des Tomus
und Paradigmen
bis in die Zeit Kaiser
Neuchalkedonismus
in und nach des
Justinians (37-102); Das
der hypostatischen Union
der hypostatischen Union
Leonis
in der Rezeption (103-196); Das
bei Maximus
als Vorbereitung
anthro
Confessor (197
des Monotheletismus
(207-255);Kaiser Justinianals Kirchenpolitiker und Theologe (257-331); Christusbild versus Christologie (333-366); Sprache und Sein bei Anastasios Sinaites: Eine Semantik imDienst der Kontroverstheologie (367-379); Formen in den Homilien
der Kommunikation zur Rezeption
der Diatribe
der Theologie des Eunomius
Severians von Gabala:
als Darstellungsmethode
nach Eunomius
von Cyzicus
Ein Beitrag
(381-419); Die Sprache
(421-456); Die
von Kyzikos und Severianos von Gabala
Spachtheorie
(457-466); Bemer
kungen zu Augustins Auffassung der Predigt: Signal einer kulturellenWende (467-496); Kosmas
Indikopleustes, Leben
und Werk: Eine Ubersicht
(497
561); Liste der Veroffentlichungen des Autors (563-570); Register (571-665: Wortregister:
Index verborum graecorum,
Index verborum
latinorum;
Personenregister; Sachregister). Van
Nuffelen, Peter, Un heritagede paix et de piete. Etude sur les histoires
ecclesiastiquesde Socrate et de Sozomene (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta MA:
Leuven-Paris-Dudley, with jacket).
Uitgeverij
+ 583 p., ISBN
Studies 2004, LXXX
Peeters & Departement 90-429-1541-2,
142),
Oosterse
E 70 (clothbound
Etude extensive et profonde sur les deux historiens de l'Eglise,
originellement these de doctorat en histoire ancienne a l'UniversiteCatholique de Leuven P. Maraval),
(membres du jury G.
Schepens,
P. Van
Deun, W.
et soigneusement publiee par Peeters. L'Appendice
'Un apercu des sources de Socrate et de Sozomene'
V
Kinzig, fournit
(455-497).
Vaught, Carl G., Access to God inAugustine'sConfessions. Books X-XIII, Albany NY:
State University of New York Press 2005, xi + 280 pp., ISBN
0-7914-6409-1, US$
65 (hardback).
The final volume in 'a groundbreaking
trilogy',but in actual fact this loquacious book
like its two predecessors
iswithout scientificvalue and, most regrettable of all, published by a 'Uni versity Press' and consequently e.g. accessible via Amazon university libraries as
and in many
'the newest scholarly stuff' on a classic of world
literature. on Soteriologv New Testament.Perspectives Watt, Jan G. van der, Salvation in the (Supplements toNovum Testamentum
121), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2005, xiii
BOOKS
482
+ 529 pp., ISBN 90-04-14297-5,
RECEIVED
E 125 / US$
169 (hardback).
Collection
of essays focussing on the different images and metaphors used to express the event and moment
of salvation (rather than its results in ethics or
behaviour). A remarkable book resulting from a conference at the Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria, and Research Unit With
inspired by its Director
for the Study of the New Testament
occasional
Prof. Van
of the
der Watt.
hints at (early) Patristic sources.
Weckwerth, Andreas, Das
ersteKonzil von Toledo. Philologischerund kirchen
historischer Kommentar zur Constitutio Christentum, Erganzungsband,
Concilii
Kleine
(Jahrbuch
Reihe
fur Antike und
1), Munster:
Aschendorff
Verlag 2004, XI + 260 S., ISBN 3-402-08191-1,
? 40 (geb.).
'Am Beispiel
der Kanones
des ersten Toletanums
wird ein Einblick
fruhe Genese
des westlichen Kirchenrechts
kirchlichen Lebens
(...)
gegeben.
(400) (...)
und in verschiedene Bereiche
Im ersten Teil werden die Kanones
die altchristliche Rechtsgeschichte und die Kirchengeschichte geordnet. (.. .) Der Kommentar,
in die
der Hauptteil
in
Spaniens ein
der Arbeit, widmet sich der
historisch-philologischen Analyse der Constitutio(... .), die aus einem Prolog, 20 Kanones und Unterschriftenliste besteht. An die Ubersetzung schlieBt sich die Klarung
syntaktischer und semantischer Probleme
erfolgt nach Darlegung Einordnung
der Grundintention
an. Daraufhin
des jeweiligen Kanons
in den rechtshistorischen Kontext'.
dessen
Von Aschendorff schon
verlegte und vom Autor sorgfaltig ausgearbeitete Studie, ursprunglich eine Dissertation an der Katholisch-Theologischen (Promotor Georg Einband
Schollgen). Man
beachte
Fakultat der Universitat Bonn nur, daB der Titel auf dem
lautet: Ein philologischer und historischer Kommentar
zur Constitutio
Concilii. Winter, Bruce W.: David
Pj. Williams, Andrew D. Clarke, Peter M. Head, Instone-Brewer (eds.), The New Testament in Its First CentugySetting.
Essays on Contextand Background inHonour ofB. W. Winter onHis 65th Birthday, Grand Rapids, Michigan lishing Company ?J 29.95 NT
/ Cambridge, U.K.: William
B. Eerdmans Pub
2004, xxxii + 335 pp., ISBN 0-8028-2834-5, US$
(hardcover with jacket).-Essays
meant
50 /
'to better understand the
by illuminating its context and setting'. J. VAN OORT
[email protected]
ARBEITSTAGUNG DER PROJEKTGRUPPE TESTAMENTUM
(NTP) VOM
PATRISTICUM"
,,NOVUM 2.-3. JUNI
2005
IN REGENSBURG Das
Novum
Testamentum
Patristicum
Auslegung des Neuen Testamentes dokumentiert und Werken
im Unterschied
zu vergleichbaren
- aus den jeweiligen Kontexten
Kurt Niederwimmer
ist ein Kommentar,
der die
in der altkirchlichen Literatur umfassend erklart. Das
katenenartigen
Projekt wurde von
initiiertund wird nun von Gerhard May, Basil Studer
und Andreas Merkt geleitet. Auf der Tagung
in Regensburg
haben
sich die Mitarbeiter
und Mitar
beiterinnen getroffen,um vor dem Erscheinen der ersten Bande abschlieBend formale und konzeptionelle Fragen zu klaren. Es zeichnet sich ab, dass in den kommenden beiden Jahren beim Verlag Vandenhoeck die ersten Bande
zur Apostelgeschichte
& Rupprecht
1-8, zum Galaterbrief und zum 1.
Petrusbrief erscheinen werden. Die Redaktion angesiedelt. Nahere
ist am Lehrstuhl furHistorische Theologie
inRegensburg
Informationen finden sich unter www.uni-regensburg.de/
Fakultaeten/Theologie/alte-kg/ntp/. Anfragenkonnengerichtet werdenan [email protected].
C KoninklijkeBrillNV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl
VigiliaeChristianae 59, 483
a 3 S
g
a
a
a
g
3
A
ga
I
a
Asian Studies: publishedmonth African Studies: publishedbi-m Ancient Near East & Egypt: p B
Biology & LifeSciences:published quarterly Classical Studies: publishedmonthly InternationalLaw (MartinusNijhoffPublisher
published monthly
Jewish Studies:published bi-monthly Materials Sciences & Chemical Engineering ( publishedquarterly Mathematics & Computer Sciences (VSP): .published.quarterly. Medieval & Early Modern Studies: published Middle East & Islamic Studies: publishedmon
Physics & Engineering (VSP):published quart e electronicnewsletterscontain information on:
-recently published orforthcoming titles
- news on journals such as special issues -generalnews aboutyourarea of interest, confer authorsand catalogues - special.offers. - andmuch more ase visit ourwebsitewww.brill.nl and click on th
-Newsletters" orclickonhttp://www.brillnl/ne a frilloverviewand subscribeto thee?newsletter
oice. E ? 4? L?Ii
Please visit our website
www.bril.nl
INSTRUCTIONS
TO AUTHORS
(1) Contributionsshouldbe submittedin duplicate and be accompanied by a disk.BothWordPerfect and Microsoft Word are accepted word-processing programs. ASCII-formatted disks are also accepted. Contributions submitted should not have been published elsewhere. (2)Manuscripts should be printedwith a wide margin and double space between the lines.Please use one side of the paper only. The firstpage should have ample space at the top around the title. (3) Titles should be as short as possible. (4) Italics should be used sparingly (but see below nrs. 6 and 7). (5) Latin quotations should be underlined to be printed in italics. Syriac, Hebrew and Coptic quotations should be transcribed. (6) References should be given in footnoteswith continuous numbering. Titles of books and of journals (not of papers in journals) should be in italics to be printed in italics.For example: of theChurchFathers 1 (Cambridge,Mass. 41964) 106-111. H.A. Wolfson, The Philosophy L.W. Barnard, "The Antecedents of Arius," VigiliaeChristianae24 (1970) 172-188. Gregory of Nyssa, De hom.opjf 24 (PG 44,212D) - Greg.Nyss. Hom. opif 24 (PG 44,212D). Tertullian, Adv.Marc.4,28,1 - Tert. Adv.Marc. 4,28,1. (7) Correction. Authors are requested to check theirmanuscripts, and especially theirquotations, most carefully,and to type out all Greek, as later corrections in the proof stage are expensive and time-consuming.Corrections by which the original text is alteredwill be charged. (8) Offprints.Contributorswill receive 15 offprintsfreeof charge forarticles and 3 freeoffprints for reviews.
?
BrillNV, Leiden,TheNetherlands Copyright 2005 byKoninkljjke
All rightsreserved. may be reproduced, translated, storedin a retrieval system, No part of thispublication or transmitted in anyformor by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without recording permission of thepublisher. priorwritten tophotocopy items for internal personaluse isgrantedbyBrill providedthattheappropriate Authorization fees arepaid directlytoCopyright ClearanceCenter,222 RosewoodDrive, Suite 910, Danvers,MA 01923, USA. Fees are subjectto change.
ISSN 0042-6032 ISSN 1570-0720
This journal is printed on acid-free paper.
(print version) (online version)
CONTENTS P. GAVRILYUK, Melito's Constitutions
C.
8.12
of Apostolic
the Anaphora ......................................
355
Seele hat der Embryo? Johannes
SCHOLTEN,Welche Philoponos und
Influence upon
...............
die
Antike
.................
.....................
Embryologie
377
A. CAIN, Miracles, Martyrs, and Arians: Gregory of Tours' Sources
for his Account
of the Vandal
Kingdom
R. CHARRON, The ApocgyphonofJohn (NHC Egyptian
Reviews
Books
Alchemical
Literature
..........
.......... 412
II, 1) and the Graeco 438
.....................................................
.....................................................
received
Announcement Patristicum"
457
.....................................................
about (NTP)
.
the Projektgruppe
468
,,Novum Testamentum
.....................................................
483
