Dissertation Revision for Book more

THE MYSTERY OF THE ANOINTING: HIPPOLYTUS’ COMMENTARY ON THE SONG OF SONGS IN SOCIAL AND CRITICAL CONTEXTS by Yancy W. Smith PREFACE The commentary On the Song of Songs by Hippolytus is one of the earliest surviving works of pre-Constantinian Biblical exegesis. Hippolytus originally wrote in Greek. He intended the commentary as part of an introductory course of instruction for catechumens and the newly baptized Christians that apparently included the commentaries on the Solomonic Old Testament books. The commentaries on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes were part of catechetical training and the Song of Songs, a mystagogy. Time was not kind to Hippolytus’ commentary, nor did his approach to catechesis and mystagogy endure, though On the Song of Songs exerted some influence for a century, affecting the mystagogical tradition, particularly in the work of Ambrose of Milan and, to a lesser extent, that of Cyril of Jerusalem. On the Song of Songs itself only survives in fragmentary ancient translations, a few patristic quotations, and one seventh-century Greek epitome. This book presents the first translation in English of the Georgian text—the most complete version of On the Song of Songs. It also presents the first English translation of the Greek epitome and the surviving fragments in Paleo-Slavonic. The fragmentary Syriac and Latin quotations of the commentary have been previously translated into English, but I have gathered them here for the reader’s convenience. The extended introduction and annotations address general issues of interest concerning the commentary in the context of ancient church life and early Christian exegesis. Basic issues about Hippolytus and On the Song remain open including authorship, provenance, and rhetorical features, as well as the social setting, and hermeneutical approach of the commentary. I hope to contribute to the larger task of understanding the life and rhetoric of ancient Christians in their Greco-Roman context by situating this exegetical work of Hippolytus in its social, theological, and liturgical contexts. The habits of mind and shaped by religious traditions in American primitivism and Charismatic-Pentecostalism, were both a help and a hindrance. I found that I resonated with the Hippolytus’ emphasis constructing the Christian reality through the embodied, visceral and non-cognitive experience of liturgy through the mystery of the anointing of the Logos. Hippolytus’ related typological view of the world to religious instruction strangely familiar.1 On the other hand, I found it difficult to think my way into reading a commentary text liturgically, as I now think it should be read. Still, in the second and early third centuries, if local liturgical traditions were taking more defined shape, On the Song of Songs is a testimony to experimentation and openness to novelty, even if that novelty were inspired by “heretics” like the Valentinians. My starting point in social history is not controversial. For his commentary on the Song, Hippolytus drew upon Jewish and Christian oral traditions of interpretation during a time when the church was adapting Greco-Roman educational practices for Christian instruction. Writing commentaries on canonical texts for use in schools was one such Greco-Roman practice. The adoption of the commentary genre goes hand in hand with the transformation of many early house churches into churchschools2 along the general lines of synagogue practice that Philo, for example, had A typological approach to the Song has been the bread and butter of many Christian readings of this part of the Old Testament since before Hippolytus and is still quite common in the Chrismatic-Penteostal tradition. 1 concieved of as schools of virtue (Philo, Mos. 2.214–216). In terms of what is called “theology,”3 my starting-point is the equally uncontroversial assumption that Hippolytus’ On the Song of Songs can best be understood as a response to a number of issues in the commentator's world. My identification of those issues will be more controversial in the eyes of some. In a context in which some Marcionite Christians rejected the Old Testament, Valentinian Christians came to the aid of other Christian groups that refused to abandon the Jewish Scriptures. They offered alternative allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament that multiplied emanations from the eternal God.4 As is well known, Irenaeus learned much from Valentinus.5 The same is true of Hippolytus, his student. For the development of the church-school in Alexandria, see Annewies van den Hoek, “The ‘Catechetical’ School of Early Christian Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage,” HTE 90.1 (1997): 59-87. A somewhat parallel development in Rome of similar social organization is reasonable. 3 One may think of theology in many ways, my thinking gravitates toward two ways. Theology 1— an idealized, disembodied group of concepts related to God or the gods or ultimate concerns. Theology 2 is the set of beliefs and assumptions (even a world view) that can only be experienced and expressed through or in relation to embodied social rituals of ultimate concern or liturgies. As James K. A. Smith has written, these rituals “are formative for identity, ... inculcate particular visions of the good life, and do so in a way that means to triumph over other ritual formulations.” See idem, James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 35, 86. 4 Hippolytus shows his sensitivity to the charge that his doctrine of the Logos “being poured out” is akin to Valentinian emanation. See In Cant. 2.7: “Now the mystery has been poured among Israel and the Gentiles, having brought together those who believed it. For this reason this word [emanation] is to be avoided, for this reason it does not at all mean, “anointing oil emanated” but “anointing oil poured out.” [It happened] in various ways over many [people] through “outpourings” because what emanates is contemptible,! nevertheless what [was] poured out did not diminish what was in the vessel itself and it filled the ones (or things) nearby.” 5 John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (2 ed. Wiley- 2 Valentinians also wrote commentaries on Scripture, and operated in both the East and the West. Their exegetical practice was an important influence on both Irenaeus and Hippolytus, despite the fact that these were self-declared enemies of the Valentinians. The Valentinian system treated the text of Scripture as a coded allegory, a narrative of divine and spiritual realities in the which the historical events of Israel played no vital part. In contrast, Hippolytus’ commentary On the Song of Songs approaches the Old Testament text as a source of types and allegories and directly states Solomon originally wrote the Song to build up and encourage the church. These types tell a story: the narrative of the Logos. It proceeds from the Father as intermediary creator. It then initiates by stages, the creation of righteous Israel. In turn, Israel produces the physical body of Jesus, through which the Logos became perfect Son by virtue of the incarnation. The incarnation culminates in the cross. In this way the Logos’ return to the Father opens up the way for those who love the Logos to return to the Father as well. Hippolytus’ commentary is both influenced by and, at the same time, is a reaction to Valentinian interpretation and liturgical practice.6 Just as Valentinianism made use of Old Testament commentary to express their narrative of emanations, Blackwell, 2006), xv. 6 Segelberg argues convincingly that the author of the Valentinian Gospel of Truth (=EV) was originally a post-baptismal instruction on the anointing which some Valentinians practiced after baptism. See Eric Segelberg, “The Baptismal Rite according to some of the Coptic-Gnostic Texts of Nag Hammadi,” (F.L. Cross ed., Studia Patristica 5, Part III Liturgica, Monastica et Ascetica, TU 80; Berlin, 1962), 117-128. He stresses the centrality of anointing for both the EV (NHC 1,2), which he interprets rightly as a “confirmation homily” (120), and GPhil. See also Henry A. Green, “Ritual in Valentinian Gnosticism: A Sociological Interpretation,” JRH 12.2 (1982): 109-124, and Alastair H. B. Logan, “The Mystery of the Five Seals: Gnostic Initiation Reconsidered,” Vigiliae Christianae 51 (1997): 190. Hippolytus used commentary on the Old Testament as a platform to give expression to his distinctive narrative of the procession of the Logos and rise of the incarnation through Israel in Christ. He also connected the New and Old Testaments in one overarching spiritual narrative of the Logos involving developments in both the heavenly realm of the spirit and on earth in the flesh. Into this narrative Hippolytus mixed early Christian and Jewish oral traditions he considered as authoritative and canonical. One of those traditions was the early and wide-spread notion that the sisters of Lazarus, Martha and Mary, were the primary witnesses of the resurrection, not Mary Magdalene. Hippolytus also drew upon Greco-Roman folk-myth traditions and visual images from domestic art as rhetorical commonplaces for his interpretation of the Song. Using thinly veiled reinterpretations and Christianizations of popular polytheistic myths like Dionysus7 and Ariadne, the chariot of Helios and the zodiac, the Dioscuri Castor and Pollux, and Heracles and the Hesperides in the Garden of the West, Hippolytus provided familiar points of contact for his Greco-Roman audience with his Biblical theology. In so doing, he also gave new believers eyes to see Christ and a New Creation emerging from their own pagan world. Previous scholars have suggested that the author wrote On the Song for oral performance in the celebratory, convivial setting of baptismal celebrations leading up to a paschal banquet. I expand on this consensus arguing that the primary purpose of the commentary was to celebrate the mystery of post-baptismal anointing as a symbol of the new believer’s reception of the Logos through post-baptismal, Christic anointing. Such rites suggest a western provenance, where Passover baptism and The use of Dionysian themes in Hippolytus’ initiatory teaching provides interesting support for the supposed Greco-Roman background thought to inform Johannine Christology, since Hippolytus is a representative of a Johannine Christian trajectory. 7 post-baptismal anointing were more the norm than in the East. The provenance and authorship of Hippolytus’ commentaries is perhaps the most controversial issue in the study of Hippolytus. Some scholars argue that traditions within On the Song are from the East. To chart fully the issue of provenance and authorship of the Hippolytan corpus would require a separate treatment. The approach to the issue of provenance taken in this book is that Hippolytus was a culturally eastern writer in Rome. Several such eastern Greek-speaking writers from Paul to Valentinus and Irenaeus made lasting impressions upon Christianity in the West. Hippolytus is only remarkable for being one of the last Greek authors to do so. In the succeeding generations after Hippolytus, Latin would increasingly predominate as the language of church instruction in Rome and much of the Greek treasures of western Christianity would be preserved in the Greek east. Thus I accept the notion that one may fruitfully read On the Song of Songs in the context of the rivalry between the church-schools of Callistus and Hippolytus over moral issues and trinitarian theology. In Hippolytus’ eyes Callistus did not distinguish the person of God the Father and the Son enough. In turn Callistus accused those of the Hippolytan school of being “ditheist,”—of worshipping two gods. This was, in effect, a veiled accusation of Valentinianism. In this context On the Song of Songs provides an interpretation of the rite of post-baptismal anointing that sets new converts apart from other rival Christian groups. Such a function is natural for other post-baptismal homilies, as a comparison with GPhil, EV, and A Valentinian Exposition shows. This book is a revision of a doctoral dissertation written at Brite Divinity School during 2008 and 2009. My warm thanks go especially to Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch whose inspiring lectures opened up for their students the interpretive potential of the use of social models for understanding ancient Christianity. Balch’s interest in the conjunction of ancient domestic art and ancient Christian texts has been an inspiration to me. Christian art seems to have had its origins in homes decorated with murals and mosaics similar to those found in Pompeii, Ephesus, Antioch or Paphos. Hippolytus’ commentary is a particular example of how Christian texts reinterpreted, subverted, and appropriated this kind of art. It is thus a testimony to the local, embodied, liturgical process of re-constructing identity bricolage-fashion from the elements of all that involved life at the very basic level of the shared life of the domestic sphere. Hippolytus built that identity not only from Christian traditions of Scripture and teaching, but specially from the artistic expressions of the Roman imperial and mytholigical vision life found in richly decorated homes much like the Campanian domestic spaces found in Pompeii. Special thanks also goes to Jeff Childers whose teaching on oriental Christianities and languages laid the foundation of this work. His particular blend of patience and exacting, careful critique improved my translation of the Georgian text and saved me many an embarrassing gaffe. He labored over my translation nearly as much as I did. Of course any errors that remain are my own. Thanks also are due to Jost Gippert and the team at Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien, an on-line joint project of the Institute of Comparative Linguistics of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, the Ústav starého Predního východu of Charles University, Prague, the Institut or Almen og Anvendt Sprogvidenskab of the University of Kopenhagen and the Departamento de Filología Clásica y Románica (Filología Griega) de la Universidad de Oviedo. This repository of otherwise difficult-to-find texts and helps is an invaluable resource for students of eastern European and central Asian languages and texts. Also, I am grateful to the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures and the Summer Workshop in Slavic, East European and Central Asian Languages at Indiana University (SWSEEL) that provided a generous summer fellowship making possible an intensive study of the Georgian language. A travel grant from Brite Divinity School facilitated the time I spent in Bloomington at Indiana University, for which I am grateful as well. Eric Fellman, Dale Randolph and A. Brian McLemore, of World Bible Translation Center, provided encouragement, financial and moral support as well as office space during the research and writing phases of this project. Thanks also to Brendan McConvery, of St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth for helping me locate Ide M. Ní Ríain, translator of the nearly-impossible to-obtain English version of Ambrose’s Exposition on Psalm 118 (119), which allowed me to check the accuracy of my own translations of the Ambrose’s quotations of Hippolytus. Her kind letter arrived on St. Patrick’s Day, 2009. I am especially grateful to my friends and co-workers, John Andersen, Brian McLemore and my daughter Heather Guitar, who all provided keen copy editing skills. Thanks to my wonderful wife, Lanette Smith, who went the extra mile in the final stages of this project, reading every word out loud with me in an effort to untwist tortuous prose. The kinks that remain are on my shoulders. Finally, but by no means least, many kind thanks to Dr. Alistair C. Stewart who found a version of my dissertation on-line and took a particular interest in it, encouraging me in a very difficult time to forge ahead and submit it for publication. His kind remarks, clear criticisms and substantive suggestions helped shape the final form of the book for the better. Without the help of so many friends and colleagues, I would never have completed the project. From the beginning I took particular pleasure in inviting the Lord Jesus to sustain me in this study and direct my thoughts. Anything of good in it is from the inspiration of his sweet Spirit, Sophia. Her movements of grace channel all the glory, honor and praise to God the Father through Jesus Christ. CONTENTS THE MYSTERY OF THE ANOINTING: HIPPOLYTUS’ COMMENTARY ON THE SONG OF SONGS IN SOCIAL AND CRITICAL CONTEXTS THE MYSTERY OF THE ANOINTING: HIPPOLYTUS’ COMMENTARY ON THE SONG OF SONGS IN SOCIAL AND CRITICAL CONTEXTS ..........1 PREFACE ...................................................................................................1 CONTENTS .................................................................................................10 ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................xi 1 0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 The Mystagogical Sitz im Leben of the Commentary .............................2 Methodological Approach: Socio-Rhetorical, Liturgical and Visual .....17 The Issue of Authorship in the Hippolytan Corpus ................................26 Preview of Chapters ................................................................................28 Text and Translations of the Commentary On the Song of Songs ...........32 1 Hippolytus the Exegete and his Mystagogy On the Song of Songs ................39 The Commentary and Asiatic Rhetoric ...................................................41 The Commentaries and the so-called “Statue of Hippolytus” ................43 On the Song of Songs and the Hippolytus Question ................................47 2 Women in the Hippolytus’ Commentary On the Song of Songs: .....................1 The Issue of Translation: Ordination or Sub-ordination?........................11 The Mystagogical Context of the Commentary and Female Redemption 15 On the Song of Songs and Female Patronage .........................................19 Anti-Valentinian Polemic and the Competition for Female Patronage ...27 Women and the “Synagogue” in the Commentary .................................29 Hippolytus’ Attitude toward Women in On the Song of Songs ..............39 3 On the Song of Songs in the Social Context of “Heresies” .............................301 The Christian Love of Commentaries .....................................................304 Fighting Heretics in Hippolytus ..............................................................322 The Issue of Boundaries: a Relationship between On the Song of Songs and the Refutation of all Heresies? ................................................................334 4 The Commentary and Western Acculturations.................................................301 Western Practice of Easter Baptism, followed by Anointing and Hand Laying ......................................................................................................303 Transformation of the Apocalyptic Tradition..........................................308 Hippolytus’ Western Transformation of the Logos Tradition .................309 On the Song of Songs and the Iconography of East and West.................320 On the Song of Songs and the Severan Rhetoric of Empire ....................331 Conclusions .............................................................................................341 5 The Rhetorical Situation of the Commentary ..................................................132 Speaker and Audience in On the Song of Songs .....................................133 On the Song of Songs as a Banquet Speech.............................................164 Hippolytus’ Shadow Παιδεῖα.................................................................175 6 A Commentary for New Christians..................................................................175 Seasonal Constraints on the Interpretation of the Song ..........................175 The Speaker’s Choice of Genre...............................................................182 Summary of Contents and Themes of On the Song of Songs ..................187 Determining the Rhetorical Units and Arrangement ...............................192 On the Song of Songs a Paschal Homily of Mystagogical Instruction ....202 Conclusion ...............................................................................................234 7 The Commentary in its Celebratory Context ...................................................232 The Greco-Roman Banquet Tradition .....................................................236 The Roman Context.................................................................................250 The Refrigerium Meal .............................................................................253 The Agape Meal ......................................................................................258 Summary .................................................................................................262 8 Hippolytus’ Hermeneutical Approach to the Song of Songs............................301 Introduction .............................................................................................301 Invective, Community Boundaries, and the Inner Chamber ...................302 9 Hermeneutical-Theological Process: Typology, Mystery, and Divine Economy 357 Typology and the Mystery of the Divine Economy ................................362 The Divine Economy in On the Song of Songs ......................................363 Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of the Incarnate Word .........366 The World-wide Proselytizing Mission: the Grace of the Economy ......375 Divinization: the Goal of the Divine Economy .......................................377 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................383 10 Conclusions ....................................................................................................385 11 Annotated Translation ....................................................................................394 WORKS CITED .....................................................................................................520 Chart 1: Structural Outline Introduction to On the Song of Songs .......................194 Chart 2: Outline of On the Song of Songs .............................................................197 Picture 1: Mosaic in the vestibule of the Santa Sabina Church, Rome, 4th century (with 5th century restoration). Photos courtesy of L. Brink, O.S., Ecclesia Ciruncisione and Ecclesia ex Gentibus.......................................................................8 Picture 2: Detail from mosaic The Twelve Labors of Hercules, Valencia (Liria), Spain, early 3rd century. Courtesy of the Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid, Spain... . ..................................................................................................................327 Picture 3: Sarcophagus with Dionysus and Ariadne, Roman Imperial (190-200 AD) in Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, Maryland Photo courtesy of © Ad Meskens / Wikimedia Commons. ............................................................................................324 Picture 4: Mosaic: The Twelve Labors of Hercules, Valencia (Liria), Spain. Early 3rd century. Photo courtesy of Brandan and the Museo Arquelógico de Madrid. Used by permission...............................................................................................................337 Table 1: Major Textual Witnesses of On the Song of Songs by Hippolytus ............xv ABBREVIATIONS 1 AEG ADW AJA Antichr. APAW APL ASMA AYBRL Botte Abingdon Essential Guides Heinz Fähnrich and Zurab Sarjveladze, Altgeorgisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. Lexicographia orientalis 5, Hamburg: H. Buske Verlag, 1999 American Journal of Archaeology De antichristo Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Archivo de prehistoria levantina Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity Anchor Yale Biblical Reference Library Ben. Is. Jac. De benedictionibus Isaaci et Jacobi La tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte: essai de reconstitution, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen and Forschungen 39 Can. pasch. Canon paschalis In Cant. In Canticum canticorum Cant. Mos. In canticum Mosis Cat. Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem Chron. Chronicon, World Chronicle Chron. Pas. Chronicon Paschale, Comm. Dan. Commentarium in Danielem C.N., Noet. Contra Noetum or Contra haeresin Noeti CSAH Classical Studies and Ancient History DACL Diccionaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie EV Gospel of Truth All other abbreviations conform to the standard listing in The SBL Handbook of Style For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies eds. Patrick H. Alexander, John F. Kutsko, James D. Ernest, Shirley Decker-Lucke, and David L. Petersen. xi 1 xii FCNTEC FGNKAL Fr. Prov. Fr. Ps. Garitte Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christianity Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur Fragmenta in Proverbia Fragmenta in Psalmos Traités d’Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur l’Antéchrist, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalis; Scriptores Iberici 15/16 263/264 Bakar Gigineišvilma and Elguǯa Giunašvilma, eds. of the Šaṭberd ms Grazer theologische Studien Gospel of Philip Refutatio omnium haeresium (Philosophoumena) = Refutation of All Heresies In Helcanam et Annam Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences Itinerarium Egeriae, Egeria: Diary of a Pilgrimage Koptisch-gnostische Schriften Library of Biblical Studies Letteratura Christiana Antica Nuova Serie Lectures on the History of Religions New Series Martin Classical Lectures Mystagogical Catecheses Novum Testamentum iberice Apocalypsis Iohannis [The Old Georgian Version of St. John’s Apocalypsis]. On the basis of the edition by I. Imnaišvili, Iovanes gamocxadeba da misi targmaneba, Ʒveli kartuli versia, Tbilisi 1961 (Ʒveli kartuli enis ḳatedris šromebi, 7) edited by Jost Gippert and Vaxṭang Imnaišvili, Frankfurt a/M and Tbilisi, 1988-2000; TITUS version by Jost Gippert, Frankfurt a/M, 23.4.2000 / 1.6.2000 / 15.12.2002 / 20.3.2007 GG GTS GPhil Haer. Helc. Ann. HJBS Itin. Eger. KGS LBS LCA NS LHR NS MCL MC NTI John Ap xiii NTI Paul AB Novum Testamentum iberice Epistolae Beati Pauli Apostoli [The Old Georgian Version of St. Paul’s Epistles] (Redaction AB). ed. K. Ʒoc ̣eniʒe and Ḳ. Danelia, P ̣avles eṗisṭoleta kartuli versiebi / Gruzinskie versii poslanij Pavla, Tbilisi 1974 (Ʒveli kartuli enis ḳatedris šromebi, 16) ed. by Jost Gippert and Vaxṭang Imnaišvili, Frankfurt a/M and Tbilisi, 1988-1998; v.l. ed. by Sopiḳo Sarǯelaʒe and Dareǯan Tvaltvaʒe, Tbilisi, 2005; TITUS version by Jost Gippert, Frankfurt a/M, 14.10.1998 / 26.12.1999 / 1.6.2000 / 15.12.2002 / 16.10.2005 / 15.9.2007 NTI Paul CD Novum Testamentum iberice Epistolae Beati Pauli Apostoli [The Old Georgian Version of St. Paul’s Epistles] (Redaction CD), based on ed. K. Ʒoc ̣eniʒe and Ḳ. Danelia, P ̣avles eṗisṭoleta kartuli versiebi / Gruzinskie versii poslanij Pavla, Tbilisi 1974 (Ʒveli kartuli enis ḳatedris šromebi, 16) ed. by Jost Gippert, Vaxṭang Imnaišvili, Sopiḳo Sarǯelaʒe and Dareǯan Tvaltvaʒe, Frankfurt a/M and Tbilisi, 1988-2005; v.l. ed. by Sopiḳo Sarǯelaʒe and Dareǯan Tvaltvaʒe, Tbilisi, 2005; TITUS version by Jost Gippert, Frankfurt a/M, 14.10.1998 / 26.12.1999 / 1.6.2000 / 15.12.2002 / 3.11.2005 OCM Oxford Classical Monographs OHAS Oxford History of Art Series OTM Oxford Theological Monographs PF Papyrologica Florentina PHC A People’s History of Christianity praef. preface PPS Popular Patristics Series RendPontAcc Rendiconti della Pontifica Accademia Romana di Archeologia RHAW Richard Routledge History of the Ancient World Marcel Richard. “Une Paraphrase grecque résumée du Commentaire d’Hippolyte sure le Cantique des cantiques.” Le Muséon 77 (1964): 137-54 Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum Song of Songs Rabbah Studies of the New Testament and its World Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae SEA SoS Rab SNTW SupVC xiv TANZ TA TSHT Univ. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Traditio apostolica = The Apostolic Tradition Texts and Studies in the History of Theology; Edition Cicero De universo xv Major Textual Witnesses of On the Song of Songs by Hippolytus Witness Georgian mss Symbol Publication information Location, internet access, date, extent T Shatberd Manuscript. Bakar Gigineišvilma and Elguǯa Giunašvilma, Šaṭberdis ḳrebuli X sauḳunisa (Tbilisi, 1979), 249-67. Parchment. Unpublished, used in the edition of Gérard Garitte, ed. Traités d’Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur l’Antéchrist. CSCO; Scriptores Iberici 15 263. Louvain: Sécretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965. Tblisi, Institute of Manuscripts, codex S 1141. http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/ texte/etcs/cauc/ageo/satberd/satbe.htm. Chap. 1-27 on Song 1:1-3:7 Library of the Greek Patriarchate, Georgian codex 44, Jerusalem, Israel. Lacuna in text from 16.2-20.3. J Greek Greek Marcel Richard, “Une paraphrase CantPar Paraphrase grecque résumée du Commentaire d’Hippolyte sure le Cantique des cantiques,” Le Muséon 77 (1964): 137-54. Auct. T.2.5 (Misc. Greek codex 205, Bodleian Library, Oxford, England. VII century. Summary of chapters 1-27. xvi Paleo-Sla- PS vic florilegia Bonwetsch, G. Nathanael. “Hippolyts Kommentar zum Hohenlied auf Grund von Nikolai Marrs Ausgabe des Grusisinischen Textes.” Texte und Untersuchungen, NF 8.2c (1902): 1-108. Ms no. 579 of the Library of Zarsky; ms. no. 31 the countess Uwarow; ms no. 730 of the Troico-Sergiev Monastery;2 ms no. 548 of the Moscow Synodal Library; ms no. 673 of the Moscow Synodal Library 548 and 673 (XVII century) and ms no. 730 of the TroicoSergiev Monastery (XVI century).3 1 Syriac fragments A few Syriac fragments survive, published by I. Rucher, Florilegium Edessenum anonymum, (SBAW, PHA; Munich: C.H. Beck, 1933), 8; Pitra, Analecta sacra, iv. 36, 40 with an English translation on page 306, 310. J. B. F. Pitra, ed., Analecta sacra (Paris, 1876), ii, 232-5. Also published in Garitte, CSCO 266. Venetian Mechitarist Codex 202 (1637), fos. 392-4, and 228 (1847). Mechitarist Monastery, Venice. Armenian (28v—29r) (pages 256r—288v and 354v—360r) 3 As of 2008, the existence of these mss in the National Library in Moscow is unconfirmed. 2 1 Chapter 0 INTRODUCTION “You are the highway (πάροδός) of those who are being killed for God’s sake; you are fellow initiates (συµµύσται) of Paul, who was sanctified, who was approved, who is deservedly blessed—may I be found in his footsteps when I reach God!—who in every letter remembers you in Christ Jesus” (Ignatius, Eph. 12.2). The present study seeks to provide context for understanding the first complete English translation of the Georgian and Greek texts of Hippolytus’ commentary On the Song of Songs.1 The introductory chapters situate the commentary within the liturgical life of Hippolytus’ community in Rome at the beginning of the third century. Though some may regard the connection with Rome somewhat speculative, the more important aspect of this argument is the Sitz im Leben of the commentary as mystagogical instruction for new believers. As will become clear in the following chapters, the commentary is best understood as a set of mystagogical homilies. The ritual context of On the Song of Songs clarifies its understanding of the instruction on baptism, and especially the Christic anointing of the the Logos contained in the commentary. Such a reading more carefully nuances the understanding of its positive, inclusive attitude toward women and people of both high and low status. Further, such a reading helps present day readers of church history understand how the warnings about heretics and Jews and the oblique references to the imperial powers are part of an identity-forming project of Hippolytus’ community. The commentary creates solidarity for the Hippolytan in1 Hereafter, On the Song (in the text) or In Cant. (in short references). 1 2 group against deviants, outsiders and rival associations in the broader Greco-Roman culture. 0.1 The Mystagogical Sitz im Leben of the Commentary As early as the beginning decades of the second century, the letters of Ignatius show that Christians were expressing their identities in terms used by GrecoRoman groups often called “voluntary associations.” The Christians share in “mysteries” (Eph. 19.1; cf. Magn. 9.1; Tral. 2.3). They also take part in procession in honor of Jesus, their patron deity bearing a sacred “image” as groups (σύνοδοι) of “God-bearers” and “Christ-bearers” (θεοφόροι, χριστοφόροι Eph. 9.2, cf. the inscription of Smyr.).2 Honoring Jesus as the Logos who comes from one Father and returns to the one Father was in harmony with other world encompassing religious monarchies popular in the Roman empire of late antiquity including the cults of Isis, of Serapis, of King Helios or Sol Invictus.3 The insistence on the monarchy of God and the push within Rome (if it was Hippolytus’ milieu) toward ecclesial monarchy was an effective apologetic argument as well as an effective anti-heretical weapon.4 See Philip A. Harland, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians: Associations, Judeans, and Cultural Minorities (New York: Continuum, 2009), Kindle location 677, Kindle version. 3 Allen Brent, The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity Before the Age of Cyprian (SupVigiliae Christianae 45;Brill Academic Pub, 1999), 251-309. 4 Ibid, 8, 9, 2. In fact, as Brent argues, “Interpreted within a sociology of knowledge perspective, Gnostic metaphysics denies the goodness or rationality of the imperial ideal and opposes the subordination of the individual to the imperial whole.” (Emphasis YWS) 2 3 The Solomonic literature of the Old Testament provided Hippolytus the basetexts of both catechetical and mystagogical instruction in the “hidden grace” of the faith. The commentary alludes to catechetical instruction based upon Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. 1.3 He assigns for them5 [i.e. the books Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs] a kind of three-fold division (or economy), since these three books were expounded by the will of [the] Holy Spirit and through [his] blessed mouth it was declared by the Holy Spirit. For it is [the] Holy Spirit that would give utterance to [the] Trinity6 in order that the grace of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit might be spread abroad.7 1.4 Since with prophetic wisdom (or beforehand) [he] expressed Proverbs (lit. parables) through which the wonderful and hidden (or unrevealed) grace of the Father is expounded, and a church from the books,8 which he made known to us [through] obscure words9 the knowledge [of the one who] is from him, for he was the Son.10 A third [book, Song of Lit. “it/for it.” Cf. “With respect to the power, God is one; but with respect to the economy [i.e., the story of how this power expresses itself], the manifestation is triple” (Haer. 8.2). 7 Cp. CantPar 1.3, 5, 9. 8 Read, “the book of Ecclesiastes.” Or, “[they are to be] a gathering from [the] books.” See Garitte, CSCO 264.23. 9 The Georgian text has a nominative, as if modifying “dark things,” but it should be read as a dative. 10 Georgian mistranslated a reference to Ecclesiastes. The Greek Paraphrase CantPar 1.7 is closer to the original meaning. “1.7 Ecclesiastes refers to Christ the only begotten Son of God and as many enigmas as there are in the church, but he is put forward in a enigmatic and hidden way. And how he indicates the church of the Gentiles to those who do not read it in a trifling way and to whom the things of the World are ‘vanity of vanities, all is vanity,’ which Christ later, once he taught them in the gospel, makes evident.” For text and discussion see Marcel Richard, “Une Paraphrase grecque résumée du Commentaire d’Hippolyte sure le Cantique des cantiques,” Le Muséon 77 (1964): 137-54. 6 5 4 Songs] he composes with a certain unity11 of the Holy Spirit in praise of which the Holy Spirit taught many.12 The Greek paraphrase of the commentary alludes to the initiatory function of the three books. 1.8 The Song of Songs is the oracles of the Spirit so that it provides the song and the singing and the different gifts and how the church of the Gentiles, blackened as it was with transgressions, became clean and united with him and became brilliant with various gifts. 1.9 So Solomon composed these three books mysteriously (µυστηριωδῶς) with reference to the Holy Trinity. (And Hippolytus mentions the books). The commentary On the Song of Songs, then, is part of an extended spiritual narrative in three books: 1.16 Now the result of occurrence of13 these events [is] a series14 one after another [of books] as an ancient spiritual narrative, because those who are able must narrate by faith the ancient matters. Now the Spirit sings what has been Lit., “with-unity.” Garitte translates “una,” though he notes the literal reading. His use of the feminine suggests he sees a reference to the “una [ecclesia].” The coordination of ერთობით (dative) “with one” and რომლისა suggests that the text of Hippolytus may have read Τὸν δὲ τρίτον ἑνότητι πνεύµατος ἁγίου τινὶ συνέγραψεν αἰνέσι ῇ τό πνεῦµα ἅγιον ἐδίδασκεν πολλούς, “And the third [book] he composed in a certain unity of the Holy Spirit in praise of which the Spirit taught many.” The theme of unity is prominent in the On the Song of Songs. 12 Cp. CantPar 1.4 where the paraphraser suggests the mystagogical purpose of Hippolytus’ On the Song of Songs. “The issues and the style, the comparisons and the dark sayings, the [divine] inspirations and the mysteries—whatever worthy of note people find difficult to read in these three books, I propose to treat the strangest of these.” 13 Lit. “of these events fallen it lies.” 14 Lit. “a middle one.” 11 5 ordained in the church, since in various portions it15 reveals to us the economy in types16 which we must declare to those who are able to listen with faith. In the case of On the Song of Songs, the medium of impartation is the exposition of Scripture, giving instruction on the meaning of hidden mysteries of the faith, especially post-baptismal anointing. Historians of liturgy generally admit that during the early third century, Passover baptism seems to have been a western,17 rather than an eastern practice. In addition the general consensus has held that mystagogy is a fourth-century phenomenon. My designation of On the Song of Songs as a mystagogy implies that the history of mystagogy should be revised to include second and third century antecedents. Accordingly, a few preliminary comments are in order to support the notion of a pre-fourth-century development of mystagogy in ancient Christianity. Christians developed post-baptismal instruction very early, as the Paedagogus of Clement of Alexandria, securely dated to the second century, attests. The fact Clement did not address sacramental rites is of no concern. It was postbaptismal instruction. On the other hand, at least parts of the Valentinian Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Philip, and the Valentinian Exposition represent variations on baptismal mystagogy properly so-called.18 Irenaeus himself, in referring to the post- Georgian has no gender, nor are pronouns gendered, so Spirit may be thought of as “he, she, or it.” 16 Garitte, “formarum divisionem” (a reference to Heb. 1:1), but 2.2 he has “typus.” The განყოფა or “economy” is a central concept in Hippolytus. It stands for the narrative historical and Trinitarian plan of salvation. The Song is said to declare the economy in types. 17 See Maxwell E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (revised and expanded ed. Liturgical Press, 2007), 96. 18 Segelberg, “Baptismal Rite,” 117-128; Lubbertus K. van Os, “Baptism in the Bri- 15 6 baptismal instruction of certain Valentinians as “mystagogy” (Adv. haer. 1.21.3 ANF) allows us to understand how a non-Valentinian like himself understood the category of post-baptismal instruction. Furthermore, the Apostolic Tradition 21 refers to mystagogical instruction that is offered by the bishop out of earshot of the unbaptized as “the white stone” that has a name which “nobody knows except him who receives.” John Cerrato has recently and quite convincingly argued for the second- or third-century roots of mystagogy in Hippolytus’ teaching on the Antichrist.19 What may be observed for the moment is that early Christians developed special instruction divulging the mysterious meanings of the rites and sensitive, secret doctrines of the faith in a way that paralleled the secret doctrines, the disciplina arcana, of other religious and philosophical groups. More to the point, I argue that Hippolytus’ own mystagogical instruction developed, at least partially, as a reaction to Valentinian mystagogy. As van Os suggests, it is not out of the blue that mystagogies are published in the fourth century.20 Rather, the dramatic increase in conversions dal Chamber: The Gospel of Philip as a Valentinian Baptism Instruction” (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Groningen, 2007), 31-40. Herbert Schmid, Die Eucharistie Ist Jesus: Anfange Einer Theorie Des Sakraments Im Koptischen Philippusevangelium (Nhc II 3) (Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 44-46 cites Schenke and Isenberg against Segelberg allowing that one of the sources of GPhil is a “Sakramentskatechese,” that the author makes use of sacramental language without being itself being a Sakramentskatechese. 19 John A. Cerrato, “Hippolytus and Cyril of Jerusalem on the Antichrist: When Did an Antichrist Theology First Emerge in Early Christian Baptismal Catechesis?,” in Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity (ed. Robert Daly; Holy Cross Studies in Patristic Theology and History. Baker Academic, 2009), 157. He notices Antichr. praef. explicitly warns listeners to refrain from telling apistoi the doctrine of antichrist. 20 So, when a fellow teacher requests that Augustine give him a model for instructing new recruits (On the Catechising of the Uninstructed). Cyril’s Mystagogical Ca- 7 demanded newly contextualized instruction, but the fourth-century mystagogies could rely in some cases upon the earlier expressions like those of Hippolytus, if not the heretical mystagogies of others. 0.1.1 Christ, His Two Wives, and the Heretics: the Spiritual Narrative of the Commentary In building upon instruction based in other Solomonic Biblical books, On the Song of Songs developes the spiritual narrative of a love triangle between Christ, the synagogue, and the church of the Gentiles to which Hippolytus alludes in On Proverbs.21 In that commentary the Gentile church is typologically foreshadowed in the lusty woman servant girl who replaces her mistress, one of four things that shake the world. In On the Song of Songs, the beloved church of the Gentiles is threatened by the jealousy of the synagogue on the one hand and by the beguiling force of heretics on the other. The image of the beloved of the Song is complex indeed. Sometimes the beloved is Israel, sometimes the church of the Gentiles, sometimes the believing synagogue, sometimes the unbelieving synagogue. When the words of the beloved permit an interpretation of jealousy, the beloved represents Israel jilted by Christ for the Gentiles: “‘Tell me, you whom my soul has loved,’ [means], ‘tell me, Christ; respond, O Word, to me I beg you.’ ‘Where do you pasture, where do you rest at midday? You abandoned me and left me alone, you went away to the Gentiles. I remained behind as an orphan’” (In Cant. 6.1). Such a narrative construal of the Biblical text bears resemblance to popular Greek and Roman novels of the period. tacheses respond specifically to this need. 21 See below note 46 on page 196. 8 That Hippolytus would adopt a novelistic narrative scheme as an interpretive approach to the Song represents his attention to the needs of his audience. As Hägg observes, “the people who needed and welcomed the novel are the same as those who were attracted by the mystery religions and Christianity.”22 Picture 1: Church of the Circumcision and Church of the Gentiles. Mosaic in the vestibule of the Santa Sabina Church, Rome, 4th century (with 5th century restoration). Photos courtesy of L. Brink, O.S., Ecclesia Ciruncisione and Ecclesia ex Gentibus. The symbolism of two mates of Christ in On the Song of Songs also recalls the fourth- and fifth century Roman iconography of twin female figures representing the Church of the Gentiles and the Church of the Circumcision. To put a finer point 22 Tomas Haag, The Novel in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 90. 9 on it, Hippolytus’ bride of Christ—in reality two brides—anticipates later distinctly Roman iconography. The famous fifth century mosaic in the church of Santa Sabina is particularly important in this regard. The wall mosaic has the two matrons, the first of which holds a Bible written in Hebrew characters, the other holds one with Greek letters, on either side of the dedicatory inscription of the church. The inscriptions indicate how these figures are to be understood. The “two figures are distinguished plainly . . . by their dress: the woman representing the church of the Gentiles is dressed as a Roman matron . . . The books they hold are distinguished by the lettering as Hebrew and Greek, the Old Testament and the New.”23 Picture 2: The Synagogue and the Church crown Peter and Paul. Apsidal mosaic from the Church of Santa Pudenziana, 4th century, restored. Photo in the Public Domain. From Wikipedia Commons.This version was digitally enhanced. Two female figures (representing "Church" and "Synagogue") hold a wreath above the head of St. Peter and Paul. Above them the roofs and domes of heavenly Jerusalem (or, in another interpretation, the churches built by the emperor Constantine in Jerusalem) are depicted. Above Christ stands a large jewel encrusted cross on a hill (Golgotha), as a sign of the triumph of Christ, amidst the Christian symbols of the Four Evangelists. 23 See below, 195, with a discussion of the image and inscription. 10 The fourth-century (restored) mosaic in the church of Santa Pudenziana (see above representation) has two women placing garlands (coronae) upon the heads of Peter and Paul, representing the mission to the Jews and to the Gentiles (cp. In Cant. 8.8). The ornately carved door of Santa Sabina has a similar motif that mirrors the versatility of the woman/women—church/synagogue symbolism in Hippolytus. The door represents the una ecclesia sancta being crowned by Peter and Paul with one crown held in their two hands, while a staff descends to her from Christ. Picture 3: Peter and Paul Crowning the Church. Panel from the door of the Church of Santa Sabina, Rome (c. 430 AD). Both Paul and Peter are seen crowning the one, holy church. The door stands close to its original position in the narthex (porch). Over the centuries it has losts ten of its panels, and those remaining are probably not in their original order. Photo courtesy of Bill Storage. 0.1.2 The Place of Provenance Arguments in this Study I have largely limited to the first and second chapters (and scattered footnotes) arguments in favor of the claim that Hippolytus wrote his commentary for 11 a Christian community in Rome at the beginning of the third century. This is a somewhat speculative claim. Even the chief narrative fourth-century witnesses for third-century church history (Eusebius and Jerome both of whom were dependent upon earlier sources), seem to have been unsure of where Hippolytus might have lived when he wrote On the Song of Songs. Determining the provenance of On the Song of Songs, whether Asia Minor or Rome, while important, is not absolutely crucial. However, the current scholarly focus on local diversity within early Christianity forces the issue. In the environment of postmodernity after Lyotard24 in which metanarratives are suspect, scholars tend to valorize the theologies and liturgies of the early church as “always earthed in a context.”25 I favor the theory of a Roman provenance for On the Song of Songs because my close reading of the text has seemed to me to reveal features at home equally in eastern and western context. Such, I suggests, is evidence of acculturation. The western features are to me the tell-tale marks of a Roman milieu, while the eastern features are a powerful argument for the eastern provenance of the author.26 Perhaps this study will inspire others who read the text of On the Song of Songs in translation to propose a reading based upon an eastern contextualization and, perhaps, a pre-baptismal anointing. In either case, the translation of On the Song of Songs has a significant contribution to make to the social history of early Christianity, See Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Theory and History of Literature 10; U of MN Press, 1984), 66. 25 See the mantra by Frances M. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (New Testament Theology; Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1. 26 One single provenance for the corpus of Hippolytus’ commentaries is no more likely than one provenance for Paul’s letters or Origen’s works. 24 12 its theology, and its liturgical development. On the Song of Song may also be a source for students of early Jewish oral tradition, since Hippolytus seems to preserve earlier traces of Jewish Biblical interpretations that only surface in later written compilations of Haggadic material. The author of the Hippolytan exegetical writings has emerged for me as a human being living in the “dash” of Greco-Roman world during the Severan period. The Severan period was one of massive transition from a Rome-centrism, toward the embrace of citizenship for its far-flung and diverse peoples. This commentary contributes to the rising appeal of and active investigation of Christian history within this liminal, late antique period. I read Hippolytus as one of several leaders of house church networks, an oriental in a western context.27 I imagine him as one of several house-church bishops leading a shifting constituency of churches and acting between the the period in which these fractious groups of churches clung to old apostolic diversities in Rome on the way to a more catholic unity regulated by a single bishop. He and others may have desired or claimed to be sole bishop, but it would be anachronistic to read him as an antipope in Rome, because the papacy was yet to fully emerge in Rome at this time. His insistence that the sisters of Martha and Mary are the principal witness of the resurrection (In Cant. 24-25) is likely derived from Jerusalemite Easter liturgical traditions. Such traditions are attested in the fourth century Egeria: Diary of a Pilgrimage 29-38 but likely based on much older tradition linking in one episode the raising of Lazarus and the visit to the Lazarium on one Sunday with the resurrection of Jesus on the next. See Allie M. Ernst, Martha from the Margins: the Authority of Martha in Early Christian Tradition (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae Brill, 2009), 293-303. 27 13 0.1.3 The Easter Homiletic Connection of the Commentary Before the twentieth century, scholars suspected the extant fragments of Hippolytus’ commentary On the Song of Songs28 were part of a Pascal liturgy.29 The discovery of the complete Georgian commentary caused some, however, to doubt the earlier valuation.30 The Georgian text was neither as systematic nor well developed as one might expect a crafted homily to be. The lack of more careful rhetorical development led the German translator Bonwetsch to an essential ambiguity, “The commentary is not a homily in the strictest sense, but it does exhibit the character of an oral address like that of the Commentary on Daniel.”31 Nevertheless, the lack of full composition in On the Song of Songs is probably the result of the intention either of its author (or secretary) to produce a ὑπόµνηµα, an “aid for memory”—a set of speakers notes, rather than a commentary in the modern sense—meant for oral delivery.32 On the Song of Songs can be imagined as the more and less elaborate notes taken from oral performance, drawn up, perhaps, as a homiletic guide for conducting Hereafter, In Cant. The reader may want to forego some of the detailed discussion and proceed directly to the commentary itself after these brief introductory remarks before going on to read the critical study of the commentary in the following chapters. 29 Theodor Zahn, Der Evangeliencommentar des Theolphilus von Antiochien (FGNKAL; Erlangen: Deichert, 1883), 61. 30 See below 401. 31 G. Nathanael Bonwetsch, “Hippolyts Kommentar zum Hohenlied auf Grund von N. Marrs Ausgabe des Grusinischen Textes,” Texte und Untersuchungen, NF 8, 2c (1902) 90, “Ein Homilie in der strengen Sinne ist dieser Kommentar nicht, aber er besitzt doch noch ungleich mehr als In Danielem den Charakter einer Ansprache.” 32 E.g., Quintilian, Inst. 10.7.30. 28 14 the rites of Christian initiation for Passover, the season Hippolytus preferred for baptisms (Comm. Dan. 1.16). I argue that the less ambiguous scholarly impression before and after Bonwetsch was on the right track. More precisely, this book explores the implications of the suggestion that On the Song of Songs was intended for oral delivery in the liturgical context of an Easter celebration. 0.1.4 The Commentary as Mystagogical Homily The Commentary on the Song of Songs was a specific kind of liturgical composition: a mystagogy, a homily, or set of homilies, delivered by a teacher who imparts a shared mystical experience.33 For Christians, mystagogy is embodied, liturgical instruction for new converts that follows baptism, while catechism refers to instruction previous to baptism. Such specific instruction on “mysteries” reserved for the post-baptismal experience shares participates in the fundamentally non-cognitive, affective nature of humanity. The telos of these sorts of experiences is a the creation of a desirable picture or image of the future good life or joie de vivre. For the early church, the good life entails the telos of love (among other things) and liturgy construed a picture that convinced and moved early Christians toward that good life. Like many Jews, and unlike participants in polytheistic associations, like most other Christian teachers, Hippolytus viewed participation in exclusive terms. For that Philo in Vita Mosis early adapted the terminology of the plytheistic mystery religions to describe Moses as mystagogue, see A. D. Nock and Zeph Stewart, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 2:899. Τhe remarkable murals of Dura-Europos also represent Moses as mystagogue, initiating novices into the mysteries of God. The gospels of Mark and John cast Jesus in the role of mystagogue for his disciples, see Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup 14; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), 102. 33 15 reason, the liturgical identity it constructs is agonistic, constructe in opposition the appeal other possible association.34 Preparations for Passover baptism and follow-up practices and instruction may well have antecedents in Jewish practice, but on their own, Christians developed both pre- and post-baptismal practices including various kinds of anointing. What is relevant in these practices is that On the Song of Songs is delivered in a manner that evokes a resurrection-celebration and a banquet setting. (See page 210.) It is the evocation of the banquet context that locates the commentary as an oral event definitively after baptism, after Pascha. For prior to Pascha, in keeping with the Quartodeciman origins of Hippolytus’ community, the period up to Pascha was kept in fasting. In the passage of time, breaking the lenten fast at Pascha extended beyond Quartodeciman communities to the whole church.35 By the time of Hippolytus, baptism took place in the darkness of the night as the paschal day approached, and there are indications both in GPhil and in On the Song of Songs that this is the case in these third-century communities.36 For the early church, such rituals were rituals of ultimate concern. They themselves were formative for identity. They inculcate particular visions of the good life, but they did so in an agonistic way, intended to I deal with the agonistic motif of the commentary in Chapter 4 below. Given the Quartodeciman background of Hippolytus, the reading of Song of Songs 1-3:7 along with a passion account (John’s?) might have occupied the analogous place that Melito’s Peri Pascha occupied, with adjustments made for the baptism of catechumens. See Stewart, The Lamb’s High Feast, 190. My conclusion that On the Song of Songs consists of both homily and liturgy of anointing was formed independently. 36 Many thanks to Alistair C. Stewart for pointing out the connections in this paragraph to me. See Stewart, The Lamb’s High Feast, 164-66, 186-90. 35 34 16 trump other ritual formations.37 On the Song of Songs is instruction around post-baptismal anointing during Paschal baptism, which alone makes a translation and study of On the Song of Songs significant for the social history of early Christianity, its theology, and its liturgical development. On the Song of Song may also be a source for students of early Jewish Scripture interpretation, since Hippolytus seems to preserve earlier traces of Jewish interpretations that only surface in later written compilations of haggadic material. Determining the provenance of On the Song of Songs, whether Asia Minor or Rome, while important, is not absolutely crucial. However, the current scholarly attention being given to local diversity within early Christianity forces the issue. In the environment of postmodernity after Lyotard38 in which metanarratives are suspect, scholars have begun to appreciate that the theologies and liturgies of the early church were “always earthed in a context.”39 While that is true for fourth-century mystagogy, it is especially true before the Constantinian peace. During the pre-Constantinian period a variety of Christianities competed for dominance with no over-arching authority to establish or enforce uniformity. I favor a Roman provenance for On the Song of Songs because my close reading of the text has revealed features both eastern and western in character. The western features are to me the tell-tale marks of a Roman milieu, while the eastern Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 86. 38 See Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Theory and History of Literature 10; U of MN Press, 1984), 66. 39 See the mantra by Frances M. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (New Testament Theology; Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1. 37 17 features are a powerful argument for the eastern provenance of the author.40 Other readings contextualizing On the Song of Songs, for example, in Laodicea or Syria may well be possible. My interest in Hippolytus originated from research conducted in the course of Bible translation research on the Song of Songs. While participating on an international team of translators in the production of La Palabra de Dios para Todos,41 from 1998 to 2003, I was shocked when the leader of a very large denomination in El Salvador vehemently objected to our (mis)translation of a verb in Song of Songs 3:6, where our text read “viene allá del desierto” instead of “sube del desierto.”42 Our readers in San Salvador were part of a group that used the Song of Songs as a road map for spiritual perfection and the “directions” on that road taken by individual characters were extremely important to them! That was my introduction to the seriousness of the world of typological-allegorical interpretation and it spurred me to discover more of the roots of the history of the interpretation of the Song. The root system of allegorical interpretation continues, in some sense, to nourish the lives of many Christians.43 One single provenance for the corpus of Hippolytus’ commentaries is no more likely than one provenance for Paul’s letters or Origen’s works. 41 La Biblia: La Palabra de Dios para Todos (Fort Worth: World Bible Translation Center, 2005, 2008). 42 “He comes from there in the desert” instead of the more exact, “he comes up from the desert.” 43 E.g. Tolkien’s famous words, “I suppose it is impossible to write any ‘story’ that is not allegorical in proportion as it ‘comes to life’; since each of us is an allegory, embodying in a particular tale and clothed in the garments of time and place, universal truth and everlasting life.” J. R. R. Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (Boston: Mariner Books, 1981), 212. 40 18 Modern printed commentaries on the Song of Solomon make intriguing, yet sparse, references to Hippolytus. Locating the sources was extremely difficult. Since most scholars cannot access the Georgian, Armenian, and Syriac fragments, discussions of the history of the interpretation of the Song of Songs often omit Hippolytus and dwell on his younger, more radical and sophisticated contemporary, Origen.44 Some simply combine Hippolytus and Origen as if they used the same approach to the interpretation of the Song.45 Not knowing that I was pondering these issues, Carolyn Osiek suggested Hippolytus was an ancient Patristic figure in need of further research. That conversation led to a seminar paper that featured an annotated translation of Garitte’s Latin text of On the Song of Songs. When I wondered out loud if this could become the basis of a doctoral dissertation, Osiek warned me that if I wanted to pursue this further it would require me to “learn Georgian.” The summer term of 2005 was spent at the Summer Workshop in Slavic, East European and Central Asian Languages studying modern Georgian. With the help of Fähnrich’s grammar of Old Georgian,46 I slowly began to learn to read ancient Georgian. Meanwhile both John Cerrato’s, Hippolytus between East and West: the Commentaries and the Provenance of the Richard Norris, Song of Songs: Interpreted by Early Christian and Medieval Commentators (The Church’s Bible; Eerdmans, 2003) and J. Robert Wright and Thomas C. Oden, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament IX, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (InterVarsity Press, 2005) both bypass Hippolytus. 45 E. g., R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: a Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 251-2. 46 Heinz Fähnrich, Grammatik der altgeorgischen Sprache (Buske, 1994). 44 19 Corpus and Allen Brent’s Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension Before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop convinced me that the study of second- and third-century patristic writers could be an engaging, relevant, and delightful exercise. 0.2 Methodological Approach: Socio-Rhetorical, Liturgical and Visual I take a socio-rhetorical approach similar to the method of study advocated by Robbins and others.47 At the same time recent work on identity formation within the context of the late antique empire has informed my approach.48 As scholars have recognized, Christian identity formation took place within the context of the late Vernon K. Robbins, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology (New York: Routledge, 1996), 3, presents five points of view for sociorhetorical analysis: inner texture, intertexture, social and cultural texture, ideological texture and sacred texture. 48 Several recent studies in Christian identity [Denise K. Buell, “Race and Universalism in Early Christianity.” JECS 10.4 (2002): 439–68, and idem, Why this New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005) and Judith Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), Aaron P. Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), Harland, Dynamics of Identity (2009), and Judith Perkins, Roman Imperial Identities in the Early Christian Era. Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies (New York: Routledge, 2009)] recognize that Christian identity making developed in conjunction with contemporary identity developments during and before the Severan period of intense social, cultural, and political change. All these scholars explore the role that racial and ethnic models played in the conceptions of Christian identity, e.g. “So there are good reasons to consider certain early Christians within the context of ethnic identities and rivalries in antiquity, at least in the case of those that did adopt such discourses of identity construction,” Harland. Dynamics of Identity (Kindle Locations 310-311), Kindle Edition. 47 20 antique empire which shapes the discourse of identity in many ways.49 The commentary, as it were, constructs identity through differentiation. It constructs a rhetorical space which sets Hippolytan Christians apart from other types of Christians (“heretics”), Jews, and their polytheistic neighbors. It does so, however, by claiming and reinterpreting rhetorical common goods for which the act of interpretation was the method of competition with these groups. The particular case of the way Hippolytus speaks for the women of his church is perhaps a case in point. In Spivak’s, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”50 those who cannot speak often cannot because of those who speak for them. In the case of our sources, almost nothing survives of “subaltern” voices like the women to which Hippolytus refers. Despite Hippolytus speaking for Christian women (some of whom were likely patrons of the community) with uncommon sensitivity, as he sometimes is imagined, perhaps, it could be argued, that he ensured that they did not speak. Rather, it might be argued that the women are defended, managed and, in some ways, possessed. Yet, on the other hand, as Saba Mahmood has shown effectively, movements of women’s (or subaltern) piety may hold both to traditional assumptions of male hierarchy as well as initiate movements for social change. A modern, liberal anthropology of the subject may not be very enlightening for understanding such issue. It is difficult, therefore, to assess the contextual significance of Hippolytus’ “attitude toward women.” Hippolytus constructs identity by managing in similar fashion Scripture, esoteric doctrine and liturgy (or “mystery), honoring the God of the Israel and the Christians, the James C Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). 50 Pages 66-111 in Carry Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (eds.) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (London: Macmillian, 1988). 49 21 interpretation of domestic art, and the metanarratives of monarchy and empire. Thus I discuss the particular theological and hermeneutical developments of Hippolytus’ commentary within the social and rhetorical frames of the liturgical performance of his work of identity formation. 0.2.1 Acculturation and Antagonism Accordingly, I read the commentary with an eye to its way of negotiating life within the Roman imperial context that sought to lessen antagonism with imperial officials. At the same time an ideological antagonism remained strong. Hippolytus saw both the chronology of the empire’s rise as well as its method for consolidating power as evidence of Satan’s imitation of Jesus own methods: For as the Lord was born in the forty-second year of the emperor Augustus … and as the Lord also called all nations (ἔθνη) and tongues by means of the apostles and fashioned a people (ἔθνoς) of believing Christians, a people of the Lord and a new name, so all this was imitated (ἀντεµιµήσαντο) in every way by the empire (βασιλέια) that was ruling then through the work of Satan. For it also collected to itself the most high-born (γενναιοτάτους) from every nation (ἐθνῶν) and naming them “Romans” prepared them for battle (DanComm 4.9.1–2). As Perkins remarks about this passage, Hippolytus’ “observation that the group identity-making processes of Christianity and the imperial elite51 were related I adopt Saller’s historical-social typology and use the term elite to designate a groups across the empire composed of persons from different geographical locations and ethnic backgrounds, with power, status and wealth, Richard Saller, “Status and Patronage,” in The High Empire, A.D. 70-192 (The Cambridge Ancient History 11; ed. Alan K. Bowman et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 817-18; Garnsey, Peter. Social status and legal privilege in the Roman Empire. Clarendon, 1970. Perkins, Roman Imperial Idenities, astutely observes that elite is better thought of as an evolving, constructed identity. Including a number of elite Greek families had acquired immense wealth and power re-invented themselves as hereditary ordo of ho- 51 22 and intertwined deserves attention.” On the Song of Songs also provides information for inquiry along these lines. What Perkins says of On Daniel could also be said equally of On the Song of Songs: ... Hippolytus gives Jesus credit for devising the notion of collecting a multicultural diversity of peoples and forming them into a new cosmopolitan social unity or “cultural identity”: “the people of believing Christians.” The Lord’s idea was then co-opted by the Roman Empire, which gathered the highborn from every nation and called them “Romans.” Hippolytus positions these two dichotomized groups as strictly opposed to one another.52 In part because Christians in the late second and early third centuries, were adopting a posture of “mimicry” in their resistance to empire, basic elements of church life were taking a definitive shape that would determine centuries of Christian faith and practice for large numbers of believers.53 An increasing differentiation between the elite and the others in their social world was occurring in this period, and this dichotomy was in the process of being fixed in the Roman legal code through the juridical dichotomy between the humiliores and honestiores , the “more humble” and the “more honorable.”54 Humiliores was used to designate all those other free persons not included among the honestiores. In 212 CE, Caracalla extended Roman citizenship across the empire through the Constitutio Antoniniana, thereby increasing noratiores. In cooperation with the Roman imperial authority, they claimed status as repositories in the community of genos , arete and chremata (pedigree, virtue and money). 52 Perkins, Roman Imperial Identities, 17. 53 “Mimicry” as resistance from a post-colonial perspective is developed in Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (New York: Routledge, 1994), 85. 54 Perkins, Roman Imperial Identities, 23 the numbers of people falling within these categories.55 Hippolytus, by his comments, seems to self-identify with the elite while maintaining popular elements such as mythological tales, prophecy, healing, mysteries, pilgrimage, and effective ritual.56 One might well wonder whether competition for elite patronage created increasing competition for elite patronage that, in turn lead to greater pressure to define who was a “heretic” and who was not. Whether or not this was the case, increasingly sophisticated scholastic Scriptural exegesis was an aide to this process of identity transformation. One shouldn’t judge Hippolytus as a mere sycophant, however. Taking a clue from Bhabha and Brent, his mimicry also a mockery, in which the civilizing mission of Rome is confronted by the displacing gaze of its disciplinary double in the Church.57 The discursive process of Hippolytus commentary is marked by the ambivalence of mimicry. It would be fair to ask if the development of mystagogy is evidence of an appeal to the upper levels of the non-elite and the lower levels of the elite. If it is, the mystagogy inaugurated by Hippolytus shows that he is moving beyond original apocalyptic solution in which the certainty of the imminence of the second advent meant that there was no need for actions with political implications in this world.58 The pursuit of elite support is just one such action. His Christianity is similar to Rome, but not quite what empire claims to be. The colonialized Greek speaking Ibid, 62-89. 56 Luke Timothy Johnson, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (AYBRL; Yale University Press, 2009), 42-50. 57 Brent, Imperial Cult, 329 58 Allen Brent, Political History of Early Christianity (T&T Clark International, 2009), 55 24 Christians did not merely “rupture” the imperial discourse, rather, they introduced an uncertainty. From that place Hippolytus and others destabilized Rome from within the authoritative discourse of Rome itself. The success of Christian appropriation of the discourse of empire depended on a proliferation of inappropriate objects that foreshadow the Empire’s strategic failure, so that mimicry is at once resemblance and menace.59 0.2.2 The Gaze of the Text: A Visual-Rhetorical Approach In approaching Hippolytus’ On the Song of Songs as a liturgical performance rather than as a simple textual explication, I found that privileging an ancient nonChristian visual registry that includes images from the sphere of Roman domestic art along side Hipploytus’ text was fruitful for tracing his rhetoric. Attention to the gaze of the text reveals how Christianity made sense to its polytheistic adherents. Rather than sterilizing the primal religious polytheistic spirit, Hippolytus makes use of its power in the service of honoring the incarnated Logos of the one God. That Logos organized Israel for the production of the physical body of Christ which provided— quite literally—the matrix into which the Logos entered to die a sacrificial death and return to heaven. That Logos then became an intense source of longing for humans who may be joined through the mystery of Christic anointing to the Logos in hope of transformation and ultimately return to heaven. Attention to gaze, visual metaphor, tropes and typologies revealed that Hippolytus makes use of the rhetoric of “ekphrasis” to make his profoundly oriental 59 Bhabha, Location, 85. 25 Jewish text relevant to his formerly polytheist audience.60 The use of vivid, allusive expression was an important aspect of imperial age rhetoric. The art of lingering on details in lengthy digressions or in brief sketches to bring persons, times, or seasons clearly before the imagination of the hearers with clarity (σαφνεῖα) and vividness (ἐνάργεια) was a technique cultivated for its persuasive effect (see Hermogenes Prosgymasmata 10, 22-23).61 Hermogenes noted that ekphrasis worked more directly on the emotions (71) by turning listeners of written works into spectators (70). Nicolaus the Sophist mentioned that the use of ekphrasis in dwelling on the vivid details of festivals, meadows, harbors and pools were effective rhetorical commonplaces. Ruth Webb remarks on the value of considering its rhetorical use: the study of ekphrasis and enargeia provides important information about ancient habits of reading and deeply rooted attitudes towards texts, which are seen as inviting imaginative and emotional evolvement.62 Hellenistic writers like Dionysius of Halicarnassus described the well-known stylistic effect they observed in the court speeches of Lysias known as “vivid description” or ἐνάργεια. The speaker appeals to the senses of the listener and he describes attendant circumstances in such a way that the listener will be beguiled into Twentieth century use of “ekphrasis” narrowed it use exclusively to literary description of works of art. In the progymnasmata and rhetorical handbooks the term had a much broader meaning. See Jaś Elsner, “Viewing Ariadne: From Ekphrasis to Wall Painting in the Roman World,” Classical Philology 102 (2007): 20, and Ruth E. Webb, “Ekphrasis Ancient and Modern: The Invention of a Genre,” Word and Image 15 (1999): 15:7–11, 15–18. 61 George Alexander Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Writings from the Greco-Roman World; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 86-7, 62 Ruth Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice (Ashgate, 2009), 195. 60 26 thinking he or she has become an eyewitness.63 The listener identifies with the speaker, is persuaded, and transformed by that identification. Dionysius suggests that readers who cannot respond to a speech or text in this way are “clumsy, fastidious, and slow-witted.” Quintilian discusses effectual ἐνάργεια in Cicero’s Verrine Orations in which Cicero gave a brief sketch of Verres’ relationship with his mistress. He readily admits that his mind adds details that are not in the text; however, he also explains that such imaginative reading is, in fact, normative. He asks, “Is there anyone so incapable of forming images of things that he does not seem to see?”64 That is, Quintilian presents such reading and hearing as the kind of participation speakers and authors expect of their ideal audience.65 Quintilian thus associates ἐνάργεια with painting (Training of the Orator 8.3.61; 12.10.6), a quality of good oratory he admires and discusses at length (6.32; 6.2.34-36; 8.3.64-65).66 Jesus himself tells his disciples, “See what you hear” (Mk 4:24), and Paul declared that the effect of his preaching of the gospel in Galatia was that “before [their] eyes ... Jesus Christ was graphically portrayed as crucified!” (Gal 3:1).67 Graham Zanker, “Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 124 (1981): 297. 64 Emphasis mine, YWS. 65 Webb, Ekphrasis, 21. 66 Benediktson, Literature and the Visual Arts, 175-176. For application to New Testament texts see David L. Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches (WUNT 228; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008)., 86 and Yancy Smith, “Divine Nakedness and the Circumcision of Christ in Colossians 2:11,” in Text, image, and Christians in the Graeco-Roman world: a Festschrift in Honor of David Lee Balch (ed. Aliou Cissé Niang and Carolyn Osiek; Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 323-25. 67 Balch, Roman Domestic Art, 86. 63 27 In the aesthetic world of early Christianity visual communication was more important than textual.68 Adding an appreciation of relevant visual culture by emphasizing the gaze of the ancient reader as she listens to the text brings the text to life. With the appropriate visual dimension the gains a much needed perspective. The gaze valorizes the text’s response to its cultural context.69 Questions about the visual registry of reference in a text aides the modern reader to better approximate the profile of the ideal ancient reader authors crafted their texts to meet. Such an imaginative gaze may enhance one’s textual endeavors. Visual references (in both metaphor and in figured speech [Greek, ἔµφασις]) are a significant part of the relevant cognitive environment of the source text, even when the direct discussion of artifacts of visual culture, ekphrasis in the modern sense, is not the point of the text.70 Hippolytus used ἔµφασις—quite different from the English “emphasis.” The figure of ἔµφασις is speech that depends for its rhetorical power upon indirectness, avoiding explicit statements. Irony and indirectness may be difficult to assess and difficult to identify. A speaker or author using ἔµφασις speaks indirectly and may even appear to speak unwittingly using the rhetorical virtue of δεινότης, or 68 Most people could not read well or did not read at all and made their way through life by means of visual and oral cues. It was a “a remarkably ocular culture,” Elsner, “Viewing Ariadne,” CP, 21, and an “visual culture,” Balch, Roman Domestic Art, 109-136. 69 The problem is not only a pressing issue in translation studies, but is a live issue in ethnography. See Marcus Banks, “Visual Anthropology: Image, Object, and Interpretation,” in Image-Based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers (ed. Jon Prosser; Falmer Press, 1998)., 9-23, and Doug Harper, “An Argument for Visual Sociology,” in item, 24-41. 70 On ekphrasis, Aune, Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric, 143-145 follows the typical exclusive direct connection to demonstrable images. Webb, Ekphrasis, is much more nuanced. 28 “craftiness,” a virtue greatly admired and cultivated, if not always feared, in the ancient world. Demetrius (On Style 287) says: “That which is call “figured” in speech present day orators use for humorous effect. They combine it with vulgar and suggestive emphasis. But genuine figured speech has these two goals in mind: good taste and the [speaker’s] safety (ἀσφάλεια).”71 Demetrius saw two legitimate uses for ἔµφασις, the maintenance of good taste (in discussing delicate matters) and preserving the speaker’s safety in situations in which a speaker may offer critique of people that have the power to retaliate against him.72 Quintilian notes that ἔµφασις was used “a great deal” (Inst. Or. 9.2.65), and he adds a third use to Demetrius’ two uses of ἔµφασις. It is similar to a third (but non-“genuine”) use of ἔµφασις proposed by Demetrius, when ἔµφασις is adopted for pleasurable effect (9.2.66): ἔµφασις, then would be a way of speaking that depends on covert implicitness for its rhetorical effectiveness. The paraphraser’s reference (CantPar 2.3) to the “stiffening” effect ( ἵνα σκιρρώσῃ τὴν διὰ στόµατος ἀγάπην) of the commandments on love “from the mouth” mouth of Christ is just such a case of suggestive emphasis. It is difficult to tell whether it preserves the sense of the original. The Georgian text is nearly unintelligible at this point. 72 Not genuine, he says, is the ἔµφασις used by orators for humorous effect. 71 29 0.3 The Issue of Authorship in the Hippolytan Corpus The question of the authorship of the Hippolytan corpus is a fascinating topic to which a number of monographs have been dedicated.73 Many scholars consider the corpus of Hippolytan works to be the product of at least two distinct authors.74 It is beyond the scope of this book to argue the case of single or multiple authorship in the Hippolytan corpus. Hippolytan scholars today largely assume more than one author is responsible for these works. Nevertheless the evidence that emerges from a close reading of On the Song of Songs demonstrates a literary relationship between the commentaries and other Hippolytan works. However, it is still possible to affirm that more than one author is responsible for the literary works attributed to Hippolytus and trace a literary relationship between the various writings. Many scholars now distinguish between Hippolytus author of The Refutation of All Heresies and Hippolytus the exegete and author of the commentaries, including On the Song of Songs and The Antichrist.75 Some attribute The World Chronicle to the Josef Frickel, Das Dunkel um Hippolyt von Rom: ein Lösungsversuch; die Schriften Elenchos und Contra Noëtum (GTS 13; Graz: Institut für Ökumenische Theologie und Patrologie an der Universität Graz, 1988); Allen Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop (SupVC 31; Leiden; New York; Köln: E.J. Brill, 1995); John A. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus (OTS; Oxford: Blackwell, 2002). 74 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 204-365. 75 The convention adopted here is not meant to imply that, if there were two authors, both had the name Hippolytus. 73 30 heresiographer,76 while others argue that it belongs to the exegete.77 0.4 Preview of Chapters The first two chapters addresses issues of authorship and provenance, proposing that the author was Hippolytus a Roman Church leader mentioned in the Chronography of 354 at the beginning of the third century who contextualized eastern traditions for his largely immigrant audience. Chapter One discusses the issues of genre, provenance, general historical context in so far as it impacts the reading of the commentary. Chapter Two addresses the issue of provenance in relation to the “attitude” of Hippolytus toward women, which has been a recent topic of much speculation. Chapters Three through Seven concern the social and religious context of On the Song of Songs. The focus of these chapters is the rhetorical, social, and liturgical ambience of the commentary. Chapter Three argues that the commentary was in part Known as the Synagogue or Chronicon (=Chron.). Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 205, following Nautin, argued that the writer of Haer. the Chronicon, the paschal calendrical tables on the statue, is an unnamed predecessor of Hippolytus the exegete, who clashed with Callistus in Rome. He nuances the authorship by arguing the exegete edited the heresiographer’s work. 77 Osvalda Andrei, “Dalle Chronographiai di Giulio Africano di Giulo Africano alla Synagoge di 'Ippolito': Un debattio sulla scrittura cristiana del tempo,” in Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronik: Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik (ed. Martin Wallraff; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 113, argues for the identity of the author of Comm. Dan. and the Chron. whose provenance is eastern, along with Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era, 121, follows Andrei in arguing for the same author of these works. Such arguments, however, do not in the least disallow an eastern author living in the West. 76 31 anti-heretical and shares the anti-heretical program in ways that suggest a literary link to the Refutation. At the same time I argue that Hippolytus was inspired by the Valentinian use of the theme and symbolism of the sacred marriage and the Song of Songs in Valentinian initiation rites. Chapter Four demonstrates how Hippolytus transforms and contextualizes his eastern theological and liturgical traditions for his western context. Chapter Five situates On the Song of Songs in an early house-church in Rome, relating the audience, as Hippolytus imagined it, to this context. In this connection, the representative iconography popular in Greco-Roman households presents multiple resemblances to the imagery of On the Song of Songs. The visual representations available to Hippolytus’ audience on the walls of Greco-Roman homes intrude upon his interpretation of Scripture and provide avenues to discuss the erotic text of the Song in spiritual terms. The typological or allegorical method was useful in decoding the messages in such art forms. Murals and floor mosaics featuring representations of erotic polytheistic texts commonly appear in Greco-Roman homes from the first century AD to the third century AD. Churches took root in such homes, a fact with which scholars of early Christianity are just beginning to grapple. The earliest Christian house churches were in all likelihood decorated with such murals and mosaics, albeit reinterpreted as biblical images.78 Domestic art and rituals also extended to representations and practices associated with burial places found in Roman catacombs, which also influenced Hippolytus’ interpretation of the Song.79 Hippolytus made use of polytheistic imagery to subvert See David L. Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches (WUNT 228; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 168-94. 79 Carolyn Osiek, “Roman and Christian Burial Practices and the Patronage of Women,” in Commemorating the Dead: Texts and Artifacts in Context: Studies of Ro- 78 32 polytheistic ideology by means of the gospel, without, it would seem, advocating the white-washing of the imagery from their walls. Whitewashing took place in the mind. Chapter Six deals more specifically with the genre and rhetorical use of argumentative structure in the commentary. The genre of commentary suggests the author assumes the social role of teacher and hierophant, as a mystagogue leading his initiates into the deep understanding of the philosophy of Christ. In the structural features of the commentary, I discern three homilies that build to an over all peroration. Chapter Seven discusses the function of liturgy as the occasional context or setting of the commentary—the celebration of Christian initiatory rites that culminate in a festive Paschal banquet: i.e., On the Song of Songs as mystagogy. Chapters Eight and Nine explore the hermeneutical approach to and theological fruitfulness of Hippolytus’ intertextual development of selected theological themes. The themes chosen for consideration in these chapters are neither systematic nor exhaustive. They center on the boundaries of threat and the sources of tension in the community of Hippolytus the exegete: women, heretics, and the synagogue. These themes also elucidate the center of the theology of Hippolytus: his doctrine of the Logos, which provides a hermeneutical key to Hippolytus’ interpretation of the Song. His Logos doctrine shows him to be a legitimate heir of Irenaeus’ own Johannine theology which asserted the primacy of the Gospel of John among the Gospels for the development of Christian theology in a way that defined man, Jewish and Christian Burials (ed. Laurie Brink; Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 243-70; Janet H. Tulloch, “Women Leaders in Family Funerary Banquets,” in A Women’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (eds. Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Macdonald; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006)., 164-93; Nicola Denzey, The Bone Gatherers: The Lost Worlds of Early Christian Women (Beacon Press, 2008), 18, 36-7, 142 33 the limits of Christian fellowship only to those who could accept the doctrinal edifice of Logos theology erected upon the foundation of John. All these together represent, for the exegete Hippolytus, primary points of controversy in negotiating a Christian self-understanding within the third-century Roman Church. Chapter Ten gathers the insights of the introductory chapters and suggests some avenues for further research. The Chapter Eleven presents translations of the Georgian text and various fragments and patristic quotations of the commentary with notes to assist the reader. The commentary in all its forms has suffered greatly in transmission. Yet the Georgian translation, the Greek epitome, the Paleo-Slavonic florilegia, the Armenian and Syriac fragments, as well as quotations in various church fathers, when taken together, allow near approximations at many points to the contents of the original Greek commentary by Hippolytus the exegete. 34 0.5 Text and Translations of the Commentary On the Song of Songs The Georgian text of the commentary is the most complete version, translated before the ninth century from an earlier Armenian translation.80 However, according to Garitte, editor of the Georgian text, it is poorly translated. The unknown translator who, in the ninth century at the latest, translated the compositions of Hippolytus from Armenian into Georgian was far from being a talented interpreter; and his version is often unclear, inconsistent or incomprehensible, even making the omissions and corruptions that spoil both closely related extant copies, the result is that the Georgian version is often an unintelligent word for word and therefore often unintelligible [translation], that blindly reproduces the terms of his model . . . It is often necessary to guess at the Armenian substratum in order to understand the Georgian text, on which it rests.81 Fragments of Hippolytus’ commentary are also extant in Armenian, PaleoSlavonic, Greek, and Syriac. Apart from a reference in Jerome82 and several quotations preserved in Ambrose of Milan and others,83 the text of the commentary 80 81 Bonwetsch, “Hippolyts Kommentar,” 17. Garitte, CSCO 264.II: Le traducteur inconnu qui, au IXe siècle au plus tard, a fait passer de l'arménien en géorgien le traités d’Hippolyte était loin d'être un interprèt de talent; sa version est souvent obscure, incohérent, voire incompréhensible; même en faisant la part des omissions et des détérioration qui peuvent déparer les deux copies étroitement apparentés qui nous en sont conservées, il reste que la version géorgienne n'est souvent qu'un mot à mot inintelligent—et partant souvent inintelligible—, qui reproduit à l'aveugle les terme de son modèle ... Il est souvent nécessaire, pour comprendre le text géorgiene, de deviner le substrat arménien sur lequel il repose. De viribus illustribus 51, (PL 23:597-719). Another western author who shows familiarity with Hippolytus’ works is Gregory Baeticus (d. c. 392). 83 82 35 was completely unknown until the nineteenth century.84 A little over a century ago the situation abruptly changed with the publication of a longer Armenian fragment.85 A few years later the Russian scholar Nicolai Marr identified and translated into Russian the tenth-century manuscript in the library of the Šaṭberd monastery in Georgia. It contained a Georgian translation of seven of Hippolytus’ works including On the Song of Songs and fragments of the Chronicon Pascale.86 Gottlieb Nathanael Bonwetsch, a student of Adolf von Harnack, translated Marr’s work for the academic community in the West in Texte und Untersuchungen in 1902.87 A more recent copy of the same group of Hippolytan works in Georgian was discovered in the Greek Patriarchal Library of Jerusalem in 1924. The seventh-century Greek paraphrase of the commentary (=CantPar Greek) was discovered in the Bodleian library published in 1964 by Marcel Richard. The CantPar Greek follows the commentary closely, but is ineptly done with omissions and elaborations. Still, the paraphrase is important if These fragments were included in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca and were translated into English by the editors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. See Hippolytus PG 10:627– 30, Hippolytus: ‘Fragments,’ in ANF, 5:176. 85 J. B. Pitra, Analecta Sacro Spicilegio Solesmensi Parata, II Patres Antenicaeni (Frascati, 1884), 232–5. 86 Nikolai Marr, [Commentary on the Song, Georgian and Russian, 1901] Ippolit Tokolvanie piesni piesnei; gruzunkii tekst po ruskopisi X, viek: perevod s armianskago (s. odnoi paleografisheskoiu taletseiu) iszleidoval perevel i izadal N. Marr St. Petersburg: Tip. v. o. Kirschbauma, 1901). 87 Bonwetsch, Hippolyts Kommentar, included a collation of texts of the paleo-Slavic florilegia in German translation. This work was the culmination of Bonwetsch’s earlier studies on Hippolytus the exegete in Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolytus zum Büche Daniel und hohen Liede (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897) and in Bonwetsch and H. Achelis, Hippolytus Werke, (GCS 1.1; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1897), in which he discusses patristic references to On the Song of Songs as well as other fragments of the commentary. 84 36 for no other reason that it confirms that the commentary as preserved in the Georgian manuscripts was probably the entire work, for like the Georgian text, it ended comments at Song 3:7,88 even as do the extensive quotations of the fourth-century homilies of Ambrose of Milan in the Exposition of Psalm 118 (ca. 388-389 AD) and in De Isaac et anima. Though Ambrose quotes large sections of On the Song of Songs, these go no farther than the Song 3:7.89 Garitte used both Georgian manuscripts, the Armenian and Syriac fragments, Bonwetch’s collation of the PaleoSlavonic texts and German translation of the Paleo-Slavonic florilegia as well as evidence from the paraphrase for his critical edition of the text—with a Latin translation—for the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium series in 1965.90 The text and notes given in this book are based upon a comparison between Garitte’s collation of two Georgian exemplars91 belonging to the same manuscript lineage and the later collation of the same Georgian texts by B. Gigineišvili and E. Giunašvili. Although the electronic version of Šaṭberd was used as the basis of the Georgian text presented here, it was carefully compared with the text offered by Garitte, resulting in a few corrections to the electronic text.92 Marcel Richard, ed. “Une paraphrase grecque résumée du Commentaire d’Hippolyte sur le Cantique des cantiques,” Le Muséon 77 (1964): 137-54. 89 Ambrose’s intertextual use of the Song ends at chpater three as well. 90 Garitte, CSCO 263, 264. 91 The Tbilisi Text (=T), otherwise known as the Šaṭberd manuscript kept in the Institute of Manuscripts, Tblisi, Georgia: Tbilisi Codex S 1141, which dates from 973-976 AD and the Jerusalem Text (=J), in the library of the Greek Patriarchate, Jerusalem: Georgian Codex 44, from the 12-13th century, both belong to the same manuscript lineage. Facsimiles of these manuscripts have not been available for this study. The detailed notes of Garitte on each manuscript were used as a basis of the textual annotations for the Georgian text. See list of manuscripts on page xv. 88 37 0.5.1 Notes, Apparatus, and Text The florilegia and patristic quotations that survive attest to the continued use of On the Song of Songs into the fourth century and beyond. Some patristic quotations, particularly those of Ambrose, preserve important evidence for the original Greek text of the commentary. The state of the Georgian text complicates the effort to restore the extant text, since the Georgian version is preserved in two extant manuscripts (T and J) which preserve two different text-forms of the same translation, though the text forms of two manuscripts are closely related. Nevertheless, they are not related so closely as to be dependent either one upon the other or on an immediate common manuscript.93 Rather, they preserve two streams of the same text-type. This means that even when T and J are compared, the original of the Georgian text remains elusive, with little recourse for confident correction due to the lack of witnesses. Unfortunately, the condition of the Georgian text is discouraging.94 Where Jost Gippert at the Department of Comparative Linguistics (Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft) of the University of Frankfurt kindly responded to all my emails concerning corrections to the electronic text of On the Song of Songs of Hippolytus the exegete. The wealth of material available from the TITUS website (Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien) on the Georgian (and other) languages provided to scholars free of charge made this study possible. 93 Garitte, CSCO, 264.VI. 94 The textual proclivities of T and J’s Georgian text of Aphrahat’s Demonstrations 6 can be tested. Another Georgian ms. (=A) preserves a different text type with a more authentic form. This text can be verified against Syriac and Armenian texts. Such a comparison reveals a set of tendencies in the tradition of the translation behind T and J in which omitted, modified and corrupt passages appear when compared with A. In the case of Aphrahat, the deficiencies can be identified and corrected. No similar recourse is available for On the Song of Songs where T and J are the only witnesses. The result is a text “médiocre, altéré et mutilé,” Garitte, Traités d’Hippolyt 92 38 Greek fragments do exist with which to compare the Georgian translation, the poor quality of the Georgian translation is evident. Especially in the more abstract introduction to the commentary, the Georgian translator loses his footing and translates almost without understanding.95 For this reason one reads the commentary often as through a glass darkly, but, when the Georgian text has the support of the Greek paraphrase and a patristic citation or the reading of a florilegium, confidence in the authenticity or accuracy of the translation increases markedly. The Paleo-Slavonic florilegia represent a tradition independent of the Armenian and Georgian textual traditions. However, they are often only an adaptation of the original Greek text. Rather than simply provide a translation of the critical text, the translation is provided in side-by-side format along with the text of the edited Šaṭberd manuscript, the basis for the translation of the Georgian text.96 A third and sometimes a fourth or fifth column enrich the English translation of the Georgian text of On the Song of Songs with the English translation alongside (CantPar) the text of the seventhcentury Greek paraphrase (Greek CantPar) edited by Richard, a translation of the extensive paleo-Slavic florilegia, and the Armenian florilegia.97 The footnotes are CSCO 263, vii. 95 Garitte, CSCO 264.II. 96 Original page numbers of the Šaṭberd manuscript and the page numbering of the edition of Gigineišvili and Giunašvili are available in the on-line text. 97 Bonwetsch notes that Paleo-Slavonic (=PS) fragments include Ms no. 579 (28v— 29r) of the Library of Zarsky, Ms no. 31 the countess Uwarow, Ms no. 730 of the Troico-Sergiev Monastery (pages 256r—288v and 354v—360r, Ms, no. 548 of the Moscow Synodal Library, Ms, no. 673 of the Moscow Synodal Library 548 and 673 (seventeenth century) and ms no. 730 of The Troico-Sergiev Monastery (sixteenth century). All these texts have long since been transferred to the National Library in Moscow. Bonwetsch’s German has been used for comparison with the Georgian text. Armenian fragments include Codex Venetianus Mechitaristus 202 (1637), fos. 392-4 39 mostly of two types: notes on the text and notes on the translation. The notes on the translation also include the LXX version of the lemma cited in the Georgian text Hippolytus. Only textual problems deemed important enough to affect the translation are noted. 0.5.2 A Note on the Armenian Vorlage of the Georgian Text Scholars have long accepted that the Georgian text is best explained by recourse to an Armenian Vorlage.98 The notes in the following translation suggest that in some places the mistranslation may have occurred at the Armenian stage. Hellenophile Georgian scholars did translate some Greek texts into Georgian during the period in which On the Song of Songs was translated (between the seventh and ninth centuries AD), nevertheless, most works were translated from Armenian,99 since most direct Christian contacts were with Armenia100 in this early period of Georgian literary development. Garitte adduces several examples in support of this claim. The most telling and 228 (1847), published by J. B. F. Pitra, Analecta sacra (Paris 1876), 2.232-5 and Garitte, CSCO 263/264 (1965). A few short Syriac fragments survive, published by I. Rucher, Florilegium Edessenum anonymum (SBAW, PHA; Munich: C. H. Beck 1933), 8; Pitra, Analecta sacra 4:36, 40 with English translations 306, 310. German translation of the Armenian, Syriac and Paleo-Slavonic fragments are available in Bonwetsch, Werke, 1.1 (GCS 1), 341-74, Bonwetsch, “Hippolyt’s Kommentar” TU, also published translations of the fragments along with a translation of the Russian translation of the Georgian text provided by Marr. See note 86 on page 35. 98 Marr, Ippolit, XV-XVI, LII-LIX; M. Mercier, PO 27.1-2 (1954): 21-22. 99 J. Neville Birsall, “Georgian Paeleography,” in Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, vol. 1 The Kartvelian Languages (ed. Alice C. Harris; Delmar, NY: Caravan Books, 1991), 110-11. 100 Ibid. 40 example, however, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that an Armenian text lies behind the Georgian translation. When On the Song of Songs is comparable to Greek CantPar the word that represents µυστήριον or “mystery,” in the Georgian text is ზრახვაჲ, “zraxvai.” The Georgian term only has the deliberative meaning of “counsel,” “mind,” “thought,” or “plan.” For example, NTI Paul CD Rom 8:7: რაჲ არს ზრახვაჲ იგი სულისაჲ, “what is the mind/counsel of the Spirt.” Otherwise in Georgian ზრახვაჲ never has the meaning “mystery.” Garitte rightly translates this word as “mysterium,” because one must assume an Armenian Vorlage of On the Song of Songs. The Armenian Խորհուրդ, xorhurd has a semantic range that includes both “thought,” “intention,” “counsel,” or “mystery,” “symbol,” and “sacrament.”101 Whether the translation occurred in a monastery outside Georgia or within Georgian territory itself, the underlying text seems to have been an Armenian text. 101 See Garitte, CSCO 264.111. 41 Chapter 1 Hippolytus the Exegete and his Mystagogy On the Song of Songs Despite the unfortunate circumstance that Hippolytus’ exegetical works survive mostly in fragmentary form, the existing body of his works supports the valuation of him as among the more remarkable Christian writers before Origen (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.20.1-3, 22.1-2). This chapter will outline the complex issues of the authorship and provenance of the Hippolytan corpus only in so far as they affect a reading of the Commentary on the Song of Songs. It is perhaps the earliest102 surviving Christian commentary on Scripture.103 Theologische Realenzyklopädie (1986) 15: 381 (M. Marcovich). However, among the innovations in Christianity of creative Valentinians like Heracleon was the introduction of the commentary genre. Fragments of Heracleon’s commentary on John are preserved in Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John. The Comm. Dan. by Hippolytus the exegete is the other candidate for earliest surviving commentary. See Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 141; Jean Daniélou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (trans. John Austin; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), 253; McConvery, “Hippolytus’ Commentary,” 211.! 103 Therefore Hippolytus the exegete did not (pace Jean Daniélou) really “inaugurate the exegesis that follows the scriptural texts,” Message Evangélique et Culture Hellénistique au II et III siècle (Tournai: Desclee, 1961), 251. Valentinian Christian commentaries preceded Hippolytus the exegete and, given the anti-Valentinian program of Irenaeus, should be seen as providing an impetus for the adoption of the genre by Irenaeus’ “student.” Hippolytus in frag. In Mattheum explicitly refers to his anti-Valentinian thrust. The content of In Cant. suggests, compared with the Tripartate Tractatus and the Gospel of Philip and what is known of Valentinian initiatory rites (van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,”1-35), that Valentinian commentaries provided an impetus for this commentary, as they did for Origen’s Commentary on 102 42 The Severan age (193-235 AD) is the socio-historical context of the exegetical works of Hippolytus. They share the cultural tendency of the period for the consolidation of classical knowledge, including the production of commentaries on classical texts. The commentaries reveal a programmatic intention to make Jewish Old Testament Scriptures speak in terms relevant to Christians of Greco-Roman backgrounds.104 They also betray considerable influence from Judaism. The commentaries are similar to Palestinian Essene commentaries.105 They share a rigorist approach to moral issues (In Cant. 2.18-19, cf. Haer. 9.12.24).106 They provide a similar continuous reading of the Old Testament text as a typological forecast of community conflicts concurrent with the time of the author. Yet commentaries as a genre are representations of Greco-Roman educational models. Features of the Commentary On the Song of Songs such as the full introduction or schema isagogicum (In Cant. 1.1-18)107 suggest Hippolytus made use of a knowledge of Greco-Roman scholastic educational traditions of the commentary genre. It represents an adaptation of flexible Asiatic, or better, perhaps, Rhodian rhetoric which adapted eastern rhetorical traditional forms for use in Hellenistic contexts. As such, it was considered a bastardization of rhetoric by Attic purists of the Second Sophistic.108 By his elaborate introduction to On the Song of Songs, John. See Quispel, “Origen and the Valentinian Gnosis,” 29-42. 104 On the issue of Jewish influence on On the Song of Songs, see below 362ff. 105 See Glenn E. Hinson, “Essene Influence in Roman Christianity: A Look At the Second-Century Evidence,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 19 (1992): 407. 106 For Essenes that married, Josephus suggests that procreation alone was the purpose, Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.2 [121] and 8.13 [160]. 107 See below 274. 108 See Richard Leo Enos, “The Art of Rhetoric at Rhodes: An Eastern Rival to the 43 Hippolytus presents himself—without using the terms—as a γραµµατικός or a καθηγητῆς,109 or teacher of literature and letters similar to the easterner Origen.110 1.1 The Commentary and Asiatic Rhetoric Little work has been done on either the specific rhetorical features of the ancient commentary genre or the Sitz im Leben of the most ancient commentaries. Perhaps such neglect arises from the assumption that the early Christian commentaries served a scholastic, consultative function. However, the commentaries suggest an oral context and On the Song bears resemblance to Asian approaches to rhetoric. Though the category “Asiatic rhetoric”111 is sometimes applied to Athenian Representation of Classical Rhetoric,” in Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks (eds. Roberta Binkley and Carol S. Lipson; State University of New), 184. Among the favorite figures and tropes On the Song of Songs shares with this type of rhetoric are parison, antithesis, homoioteleuton, paranomasia, alliteration, comparison, hyperbole, oxymoron and ekphrasis. For a discussion of Christian participation in the Second Sophistic movement, see Laurence Broadhurst, “Melito of Sardis, the Second Sophistic, and ‘Israel’,” in Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities (ed. Willi Braun; Studies in Christianity and Judaism. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005), 57-8. 109 See Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge Classical Studies) (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 18, 28, 155; Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 51, 53; Robert Butterworth, Contra Noetum (HM 2; London: Heythrop College, University of London, 1977), 20-30. 110 Jaap Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author or a Text (Philosophia Antiqua 61; New York: E.J. Brill, 1994), 13. 111 Asian rhetoric emphasized pathos, “bombast and ostentation, . . . puffed up with a passion for a more vainglorious style of eloquence” (Quintillian Inst. or. 11.10.16-17; 6.1, 7; Cicero Orat. 2.28, 124). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On the An- 44 Hippolytus,112 it is a tag used to mean “deficient rhetoric” among Second Sophistic rhetoricians. But the blending of traditions of both East and West in Hippolytus points to a self-consciously cross-cultural rhetorical impulse similar to Rhodian rhetoric. The rhetorical tradition of Rhodes aimed at a poised expression useful in a cross-cultural, imperial milieu, an approach to persuasion that Cicero found quite useful for Romans who found themselves relating to a variety of eastern cultures through the medium of Greek. Through Rome, Rhodian rhetoric had enormous influence in the Late antique world, especially through Cicero whose translations and adaptations of Greek works into Latin for the Roman context may be seen as inspired by the Rhodian impulse. Hippolytus was no Attic revivalist,113 but sophistic teachers of Greek letters from the East like himself were in demand in the late ancient Roman world. However, the Asiatic114 background of Hippolytus, or even his deployment of eastern traditions, should neither occasion surprise nor prejudice the question of the provenance of the exegetical works ascribed to him. Rather, the question remains open. Hippolytus may well have adapted his eastern traditions to a western context. cient Orators 1-2 remarks critically against it from his Isocratean, Second Sophistic perspective. 112 Manlio Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: an Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis (trans. by John A. Hughes; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 31. Simonetti suggestes that exegetical work of Hippolytus the exegete may be considered an example of “the strengths and weaknesses of Asiatic exegesis,” though Hippolytus exhibits little training in the sophisticated rhetoric of the day. 113 Photius, Bibliotheca 121. 114 Manlio Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: an Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis (trans. by John A. Hughes; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 31. Simonetti suggests that exegetical work of Hippolytus the exegete may be considered an example of “the strengths and weaknesses of Asiatic exegesis,” though Hippolytus exhibits little training in the sophisticated rhetoric of the day. 45 1.2 The Commentaries and the so-called “Statue of Hippolytus” The discovery in 1551 in Rome of the third-century monumental statue by Pirro Ligorio (d. 1583) put the notion of an exclusively eastern Hippolytus to rest for several hundred years. Ligorio completely remade the statue as a male representation of Hippolytus seated on a throne. But both he and Fulvio Orsini (d. 1600), an archaeologist and collector, produced sketches demonstrating that the statue was originally a female body with one naked breast,115 a common mythological pose for the Queen of the Amazons, Hippolyta, the mother of the mythological Hippolytus of Euripidean fame. In some versions of the narrative, Hippolytus was the son of Hercles and Hippolyta. The ninth of the twelve labors of Heracles was taking Hippolyta’s belt. The descriptions of Christ in On the Song of Songs have multiple connections with popular versions of the narrative of Heracles. The imagery is fluid; both Heracles and the Amazon queen were a fashionable subjects representing Rome and its imperial reach through conquest from the first to the third centuries. They represented the power, comprehensiveness, wisdom and expansiveness of Rome’s grasp of the far reaches of the world. In their turn, the inscriptions on the statue plinth contained a list of Greek Christian literary works emphasizing the reach and expansiveness of the Christian wisdom of their authors. The paschal calendar and computational table on either side of the plinth attest to a developing Christian political ego whose divine alter ego, the Ligorio’s sketch: Neaples, Ms. XIII. B. 7, fol. 424. Orsini’s sketch: Ms. Vat. Lat. 3439, fol. 124a. The images may be seen in M. Guarducci, “La statua di ‘Sant Ippolito” in vaticano,” in Rendiconti della Pontifica Accademia Romana di Archeologia (1974f) 165–90, 168. See also Volp, “Hippolytus,” ExpT 120 (2009): 524. 115 46 Logos, embraces world chronography from creation to the end of the world.116 At least the paschal computation and calendar are Hippolytan. The Roman site of the statue’s discovery, as reported by Ligorio, turned out to be very near a cult center of Hippolytus not excavated until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.117 Clearly, third-century Christians inscribed a table calculating the dates of the Christian Passover on the side of the statue’s chair. Even skeptics of a connection between Hippolytus the exegete and Rome must admit that the statue inscription demonstrates “Hippolytan authorship, [or] influence, of the [paschal] tables.”118 The paschal tables on the statue match Eusebius’s description of the paschal table he attributed to Hippolytus. However, the character and sex of the figure represented on the statue is not of the bishop Hippolytus or any other bishop. As Margherita Guarducci argued convincingly,119 the figure was a representation of Wisdom See Osvalda Andrei, “Dalle Chronographiai di Giulio Africano di Giulo Africano alla Synagoge di 'Ippolito': Un debattio sulla scrittura cristiana del tempo,” in Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronik: Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik (ed. Martin Wallraff; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 113-145. 117 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 3. 118 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 103, “several . . . titles [on the statue] seem to correspond generally with Hippolytan titles, but the remainder are a mystery. The paschal inscriptions of the statue harmonize in part with the Eusebian description of a Hippolytan paschal computus (h.e. 6.22), suggestion Hippolytan authorship, or influence, of the tables.” Cerrato does not consider the strong indirect connections between the statue list and the author of Haer. 119 Margherita Guarducci, “La Statua di ‘Sant’ippolito,” Rendiconti della Pontifica Accademia Romana di Archeologia 47 (1974-1977): 163-90; eadem, “La Statua di ‘Sant’ippolito,” in Ricerche su Ippolito (SEA 13; Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1977), 17-30; eadem, “La ‘Statua di Sant Ippolito’ e la Sua Provenienza,” Nuove ricerche su Ippolito (SEA 30; Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1989), 61-74. 116 47 (Sophia) and, more specifically, perhaps originally a representation of the Epicurean philosopher Themista of Lampsacus.120 A group of Italian and French scholars exploited her analysis to strengthen the case against a Roman Hippolytus. Others, like Brent and Stewart, retained the Roman Hippolytus, but argued that the statue was a community icon representing the work of at least two Roman authors. Brent also argued that the notice of Hippolytus in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.22 associated the name of Hippolytus the exegete with some works of pseudo-Hippolytus (not named “Hippolytus,” according to Brent). He suggested that the two were successive leaders of a single church-school community in Rome and that the statue itself contains a list of works written by two distinct yet related figures.121 The first of these was the author of Refutation and the World Chronicle, the later work Brent claimed was edited by Hippolytus the exegete. The second, appropriately named Hippolytus, authored the commentaries and edited the works of his predecessor.122 However, Markus Vinzent later proposed an even more likely alternative about the statue on iconographical grounds, arguing that the original statue portrayed the queen of the Amazons, a fairly common representation of Roma, the personified divine virtue of the city of Rome, the wise ruler of the world.123 The name of the Amazon queen of Greco-Roman mythology was Hippolyta, whose son was named Hippolytus.124 Thus, Margherita Guarducci “La statua di ‘sant' Ippolito’,” Ricerche su Ippolito, 17–30. See Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 204-300. 122 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 1-197, 205; Alistair Stewart, ed., On the Apostolic Tradition (PPS; Chrestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), 1-25. 123 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 3-50. 124 Markus Vinzent, “Hippolyt von Rom und Seine Statue,” in Zur Zeit Oder Unzeit: Studien Zur Spatantiken Theologie-, Geistes- Und Kunstgeschichte Und Ihrer Nach121 120 48 skepticism concerning the exegete’s connection to Rome and the statue now appears less justified,125 but the authorship and provenance of the writings continues to be debated. The Commentary on Daniel, though not explicitly mentioned on the plinth list, seems to be the inspiration of several “according to Daniel” notations on the paschal computation.126 The calendar and Paschal computation scheme on the statue are themselves an adaptation in the West of an eastern tradition. It is most likely an adaptation of an earlier method of computing recurrent Passovers on a cycle of 8 years devised by Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria. The calendar of Hippolytus begins with the first year of Alexander Severus’ reign, 8 years after the beginning date of Demetrius’ calendar. The auspicious commemoration of the Roman emperor’s first regnal year marks it as a document of the church of Rome. Although it is written in Greek, it conforms to the Roman rules preserved by Victorius of Aquitania prescribing that Easter could not be observed before the sixteenth day of the moon nor after the twenty-second.127 It was strictly prohibited to observe Easter Sunday after 21 April, wirkung ; Hans Georg Thummel zu Ehren (ed. A. M. Ritter et al., TSHT 9; Mandelbachtal: Cicero, 2004); item, “Rome,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity (vol. 1, ed. Margarett Mitchell and Frances M. Young; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 397-413. 125 Alice Whealey, “Pseudo-Justin’s de Resurrectione: Athenagoras Or Hippolytus?,” VC 60 (2006): 420-21. 126 See the English translation of the Easter computational table in Alden A. Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 122. 127 Bruno Krusch, Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichen Chronologie: Die Entstehung unserer heutigen Zeitrechnung (APAW 1937. Phil.-hist. klasse. Nr. 8; Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1938), 19, and Mosshammer, The Easter Computus, 116. 49 according to a letter of Bishop Leo I.128 In a remarkable western adaptation of an eastern tradition, the paschal table of Hippolytus dutifully followed these prescriptions.129 In a similar way, On the Song of Songs appears to bring eastern and western traditions together by focusing on post-baptismal ceremonies (the anointing, the kiss and the laying on of hands for new Christians) in the context of a Paschal celebration. Such a ceremonial mix does not conclusively prove a western provenance for the commentary, but would not have been out of place in a Roman church with a Quartodeciman tradition. 1.3 On the Song of Songs and the Hippolytus Question130 Locating Hippolytus is still quite controversial. Various traditions have placed him in Rome, Portus, Antioch or Arabia.131 The last two suggestions arose from confusions that are easily understandable.132 Without mentioning his provenance, Eusebius places Hippolytus between mentions of the bishops of Bostra133 Leo to Marcian, Letter 121, PL 54. 1057; Bruno Krusch, “Die Einführung des griechischen Paschalritus im Abendlande,” Neues Archiv, 9 (1884): 99–169. 129 Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era, 116. 130 Lumper, Dissertatio (Migne, PG 10) 271-394. Deserves the credit for designating the complex tangle of issue surrounding the writings and identity of Hippolytus. See Ulrich Volp, “Hippolytus,” The Expository Times 120 (2009): 522. 131 Russel Meiggs, Roman Ostia. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 526. 132 Or Bosra in modern Syria, the capital of Roman Arabia in the second century AD. See G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 91. 133 In the medieval (post-seventh century) Armenian manuscript tradition, many of the works of Hippolytus the exegete were attributed to Hippolytus of Bostra, including a fragment of On the Song of Songs See Gérard Garitte, ed. Traités d’Hippolyte 128 50 and Gaius of Rome.134 For this reason the early tradition that attributes a provenance to him largely wavers between Arabia and Rome. The sixth book of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories—dedicated to the formative influences upon Origen— mentions “Hippolytus” three times in the course of the narrative. During the time of the emperor Caracalla (198–217), Eusebius mentions several remarkable church leaders (HE 6.20), one of whom was Hippolytus, “the president (προεστώς) of a church somewhere.” Eusebius knew of his letters and other writings kept in an Origenist library established at Aelia (the former Jerusalem) by bishop Alexander, the successor of Narcissus. The library also held letters and other compositions by Beryllus, bishop of Bostra. The word “likewise,” ὡσαύτως, connects Beryllus and Hippolytus, leading to the erroneous conclusion that Hippolytus was variously Arabian or Syrian. Without a clear connection to the first mention of Hippolytus, a few sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur l’Antéchrist (CSCO 266; Louvain: Sécretariat du CSCO, 1965), ix, and Gérard Garitte, “Une Nouvelle Source du ‘De Fide’ Géorgien Attribué à Hipplyte,” RHE 63, 3-4 (1968): 842 n. 3. The phenomenon of Hippolytus Bostrensis is best explained by Armenian scholars making the same mistake as Rufinus, who understood Eusebius’ ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Ἰππόλυτος as meaning that both Hippolytus the exegete and Beryllus were leaders of the church in Bostra. See Lumper, “Dissertatio,” PG 10: 274. It is possible that Rufinus’ Latin translation of Eusebius in the East during the medieval period led some Greek and Armenian scribes to attribute the works to Hippolytus of Bostra. As Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 72-75, cf. 82-85, himself admits, it is entirely possible that Gelasius’s attribution of Hippolytan works to a Hippolytus of Bostra influenced these scribes. A similar mistake arose in Photius, noted by Miroslav Marcovich, ed. Refutatio omnium haeresium (PTS, Bd. 25. ed. Miroslav Marcovich; Berlin; New York: W. De Gruyter, 1986), 9. Photius misreads Jerome’s misreading of Eusebius, which produced the anachronistic notion that Hippolytus the exegete followed Jerome’s example in his commentary writing! 134 Eusebius, Eccl. hist. 6.20 51 paragraphs later in the narrative, Eusebius lists the literary works of Hippolytus without mentioning his church office this time. Eusebius mentions Hippolytus a second time to show that Origen began writing commentaries on Scripture at roughly the same time or a little later than Hippolytus. The general assumption has been that the two mentions of Hippolytus refer to the same person.135 Included in the list of Hippolytan works attached to the second mention of Hippolytus is a commentary On the Song of Songs (Hist. eccl. 6.22). Among the works listed by Eusebius is a “paschal canon of sixteen years bringing the time down to the first year of Emperor Alexander” and “On the Hexæmeron, On the Works after the Hexæmeron, Against Marcion, On the Song of Songs, On Portions of Ezekiel, On the Passover, Against All the Heresies; and you can find many other works preserved by many.” The description of the sixteen year canon matches the sixteen year paschal canon discovered on the the headless statue136 of a seated figure discovered by Ligorio near Vincenzo Loi, “La Problematica Storico-Letteraria su Ippolito di Roma,” Ricerche su Ippolito (SEA 13 Rome, 1977): 31-45, constructed an argument that was to prove very influential: Eusebius was referring to two separate authors. For him, the contemporary of Beryllus was an eastern writer and authored several biblical commentaries, including the extant commentary on Daniel and, thus On the Song of Songs. Eusebius attributes the 16-year table and the Refutation of All Heresies to a second Hippolytus of Rome. Loi’s argument was modified and taken up by Allen Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church. He argued Eusebius confused two authors, one of whom was Hippolytus the presbyter of eastern provenance living in Rome, responsible for several exegetical works (including Comm. Dan. and In Cant.). He succeeded an unnamed author of the same church-school who was responsible for Haer. and Chron. John A. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, argues extensively for Loi’s point of view. 136 Ligorio “restored” the statue with an idealized head and arms. It now stands at the entrance of the Vatican Library. 135 52 the Church of San Lorenzo fuori le Mura, in the suburbs of Rome.137 The Roman community would have adapted the statue that represented Roma, virtus and Σοφία, Sophia, and then decided to inscribe on it the works of their venerated leader Hippolytus. On the plinth at the rear of the chair in Greek characters is inscribed a list of writings including: “On the Psalms,” “On John the Evangelist and the Apocalypse,” a “Chronicle (χρονικῶν [sc. βίβλια] ),” “Concerning [Spiritual] Gifts,” an “Apostolic Tradition,” “To the Greeks and Plato or Concerning the Universe,” “A Protreptic Discourse [dedicated] to Severina” a “Demonstrations of the Dates of Easter in Tabular Form,” “Odes on All the Scriptures,” “Concerning God and the Resurrection of the Flesh,” and “Concerning the Good and Where Evil Came from.” On the right side of the chair above a 16-year table of paschal full moons is an inscription which reads: In the first year of the Roman emperor Alexander Severus, the 14th of the paschal moon fell on Saturday, the Ides of April, during an embolismic month. For the succeeding years it will be as indicated in the table below. Events of the past were as noted. One must break the fast when Sunday comes.138 Another inscription on the left side of the chair lists the dates for a 112-year succession of Easter Sundays. The heading reads: “First year of Alexander Caesar: the Sundays of the Pascha year by year: points indicate the bissextum.” The inscriptions belong paleographically to the first half of the third century.139 The sixteen year cycle of full moons for locating the Passover on the inscription begin with the first year of Alexander (222 AD) and is with little doubt the same as the canon Eusebius attributes 137 138 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 3-50. Translation from Mosshammer, Easter Comuputus, 117. 139 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 3-5. 53 to Hippolytus.140 Except for the paschal calendar itself none of the titles of works on the statue exactly matches any titles in Eusebius’ list and the identity and provenance of the Hippolytus to whom Eusebius attributes the sixteen year list is the most important problem in the “Hippolytus Question.” Little scholarly consensus on the issue has taken hold; however, most scholars would agree that Hippolytus, the author of the commentaries is of eastern provenance. Nevertheless, debate continues concerning his connection to Rome. Both Eusebius and Jerome refer to a work of Hippolytus entitled, Refutation of All Heresies. An anti-heretical work of similar title does not appear on the statue list. In 1841 Minoides Mynas discovered at the monastery in Mt. Athos chapters 4-10 of a work called Refutation of All Heresies with a marginal note that erroneously read “Origen and his opinions.” Emmanuel Miller associated it with a previously known fragment (book 1) and published it as the Philosophoumena of Origen. The author of the work identifies himself as a member of the “high priesthood,” which may indicate he considered himself a bishop of the Roman church, since the details and characters of his disputes concern Zephyrinus (198-217) and Callistus (217-22). Many scholars doubt that this work was authored by the writer of the commentaries on the basis of differences in style, content, and theology. Nevertheless, connections between the work of the Refutation and the commentaries has suggested to some a close literary relationship between the two authors. It is unfortunate that only a few decades after his death, the identity, provenance and writings of Hippolytus the early third-century exegete and 140 Mosshammer, Easter Computus, 117. 54 heresiographer was largely forgotten.141 Perhaps part of the confusion arose from the popularity of the name. Eusebius has a third mention of the name Hippolytus (Hist. eccl. 6.46). Dionysius of Alexandria used a Hippolytus as a courier to deliver a letter to the Roman church. Eusebius does not reveal the contents of the letter but indicates that Dionysius wrote several letters on the subject of repentance for those who fell away from the church during the persecution that took place at that time. It seems impossible for all three instances to refer to the one person, though a strong case can be made for the identity of the first two. Jerome mentions Hippolytus as the author of On the Song of Songs as well but admits he had not been able to find out the name of the city were he was bishop (Vir. ill. 61).142 But the catalogue of works on the statue indicate a Roman church community connected with Hippolytus.143 Somehow the third century statue made its way to the vicinity of a cemetery on the Via Tiburtina in 1551 where the Chronography of 354 reports that the bones of a third century Hippolytus presbyter were laid to rest there early in the third century. That this occurred on the same day (August 13, 236 AD) on which bishop Pontian was buried in the cemetery of Callistus belies the accuracy of the anachronistic fourth-century inscription of Pope Damasus that attests that a “Novationist” Hippolytus was buried in the same cemetery and whom the poet Prudentius lauded as a Novationist bishop of See also Bardy, et al. eds., Hippolyte: Commentaire sur Daniel, 7. I am indebted to the important review article of Clemens Scholten, “Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus,” VC 59.1 (2005): 85-92, for the substance of many comments on the next few pages. 142 Jerome says, Hippolytus, cujusdam Ecclesiae episcopus nomen quippe urbis scire non potui (Vir. illus. 61). “Hippolytus, the bishop of a church the name of whose city I have not been able to find out.” 143 Judging from the “Hippolytan” paschal calendar on its plinth. 141 55 Portus, reconciled with the church before his death. If Hippolytus was in some way involved in a conflict between rival presbyter-bishops in the period before the Novationist schism, after the passing of a hundred years the memory of Hippolytus’ rigorist stance and the similarities between the schism of Novatus and the dispute at the time of Callistus would lead some to consider him anachronistically as a Novatianist.144 What can be rather confidently affirmed is that the author of the commentary On the Song of Songs is likely the author of the sixteen year canon mentioned in Eusebius, which is also found on the statue in Rome. If Vinzent is right about the statue, then some time after March of 222 AD when Alexander Severus became emperor of Rome145 the work of Hippolytus as pastor, teacher, and determiner of Passover dates was commemorated by a Greek speaking community in that city. The importance for the early Christian community for establishing the dates of Passover cannot be overstated, and it has direct bearing upon the interpretation of On the Song of Songs. Hippolytus read the text of the Song as a celebration of events of the Christian Passover connected to a universal time scheme based upon Biblical chronology with crucial results for Hippolytus’ Logos theology (cf. In Cant. 26-27).146 The universal Biblical time scheme itself is a Christian way of embracing an Allen Brent, “Was Hippolytus a Schismatic?,” VC 49 (1995): 215-19. Brent argues that Hippolytans were not execrated as were the Novatians because at the time of the dispute between the author of the Refutation and Callistus, multiple legitimate prebyter-bishops ruled the Roman church, each in charge of their own presbyters and churches, and no single bishop was yet recognized as Pope. 145 Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander 7. 1–2. 146 Andrei, “Dalle Chronographiai di Giulio Africano di Giulo Africano alla Synagoge di ‘Ippolito,’” 128, 132-3. 144 56 imperial, world-wide scope in search of legitimacy within the Roman empire, albeit from the stand-point of a counter-cultural group. It “Scripturizes” human existence.147 The traditional ambivalence of the ideology of early Christians like Hippolytus toward the Empire allowed for diverse patterns of resistance and accommodation.148 At the same time it differentiates Christian time with respect to contemporary Roman reality, it intellectually and socially legitimizes Christianity and attempts to authenticate the specific details of the Christian present in a Biblical, universal time structure. The World Chronicle and Easter computations of Hippolytus together represent a key moment in the construction of a notion of Christianized time. It demonstrates an interest in the Christianization of universal time through the stabilization of liturgical time and vice versa.149 The Commentary on the Song of Songs is a liturgical expression supporting and supported by this universal, temporal framework. The Biblical canon and canonical structures within (like the triad of Solomonic books Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs) relate the spiritual economy of God the Father who binds Ibid, 125. The development of these patterns may be seen in the way Christians connected their own dates of importance to pagan dates in the two generations following Hippolytus. See Salzman, On Roman Time, 193-231. 149 Andrei, “Dalle Chronographiai di Giulio Africano di Giulo Africano alla Synagoge di ‘Ippolito,’” 116. Andrei and Mosshammer discovered that the thrust of Hippolytus’ 5500 (+) year scheme involves a debate with Julius Africanus. Hippolytus hit upon the 5500 year scheme typologically and inscribed it in his Comm. Dan. around 204 AD. Julius Africanus developed it into a chronological scheme, which Hippolytus later revised in Chron. as he worked out the deeper theological, liturgical and chronological implication of the 6000 year scheme in conjunction with the 8-year cycle of Passover calculations made popular by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria for 43 years (180/90-233 AD) from the tenth year of Commodus (180-192). 148 147 57 himself to the cosmos by means of the Logos weaving divine life into universal time, space, and matter (In Cant. 1.3,4; Antichr. 4; cf. Antichr. 2.5.20-6.2; Noet. 12.17; cf Haer. 10.33 ). In alternative imagery, the Logos makes prophets of the patriarchs who desire God’s anointing by that was eventually Christ’s (In Cant. 2.5, 22-29; cf. Haer. 10.33). Hippolytus describes the book of Ecclesiastes as referring to the Earth as “a synagogue150 of darkness to be known through the Son and and the gloom of the world [was] comprehended151 [through him]” (In Cant. 1.5). Christ as the Logos incarnate is a remaking (ἀνάπλασις) of pre-fall Adam,152 an analogous development of the recapitulation of Adam in Christ (In Cant. 25.5; cf. Antichr. 26.2; Comm. Dan. 4.11, 5; fr. In 1 Reg., (on 1 King 2:5).153 The mention and listing of 60 patriarchs guarding the litter of Solomon (In Cant. 27.7), representing the 60,000 true saints of the Old Testament (In Cant. 27.8) is a typological ordering of history which conforms to the 6000 year scheme found elsewhere in Hippolytus.154 The flesh of the virgin Mary and the Christ was prepared through the creative and sustaining power of the Or gathering place, “შესაკრებელ,” is also used for “synagogue” (cf. 8.8; cp. 8.2) and likely represents συναγωγή in Hippolytus’ original text. Hippolytus also refers to his World Chronicle as a Synagogue of the times. 151 Ecclesiastes represents the Son’s action as agent of the Father in creation. This passage nicely reverses the failure of the darkness to “comprehend” the light (Jn 1:5) by affirming that the light has comprehended the darkness. 152 The incarnation as ἀνάπλασις in Hippolytus the exegete is only slightly differently styled by the hersiographer as a καινή πλάσις (Haer. 10.33.15), “a new creation.” 153 For Hippolytus that Adam-Christ recapitulation drives world history in chronological, not only in theological terms. It is the initiation of the 6000 years or week of creation, the Hexaemeron. The birth of Christ marked 5500 years of that history (Comm. Dan. 4.23.2-3). 154 Andrei, “Dalle Chronographiai di Giulio Africano di Giulo Africano alla Synagoge di ‘Ippolito,’” 132. 150 58 Logos to receive the Logos, which leapt from heaven to virginal womb (In Cant. 21.2). This kind of “Scripturizing” of world history emerges from previous Jewish retellings of Scripture and legitimized Christian history by ascribing to it Jewish antiquity. From its beginnings in the first century as a marginal Jewish movement of a few thousand Palestinian and Diaspora Jews, the various forms of Christianity that grew out of the Jesus movement in the first century became a multi-ethnic network of diverse urban communities by the third century. Centered primarily in domestic spaces, houses and tenements, throughout the Roman and Parthian empires, it grew to perhaps some two hundred thousand followers by that time.155 Rome was a microcosm of the cultural diversity of the empire. Rome was a magnet that drew Christians from all over the empire who then settled into cultural enclaves and negotiated their differences with western culture in various ways.156 But Christianity’s early connection to Judaism did not shield it from influence, interaction, and even accommodation to the Greco-Roman environment. By the late second century members of the imperial household and even of the senatorial class, especially women from the East,157 were attracted to the worship of Jesus. Educated leaders like Hippolytus158 were making efforts to strengthen the legitimacy of Christian teaching Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: a Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1996), 7. 156 See David Noy, Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 2000), 157-255. 157 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 118. 158 Jerome extolled the greatness of his philosophical acumen as notable even among secular scholars (Ep. ad Lucinus 71, Ep. ad Magnus 70), cited in P. Gottfried Lumper, Dissertatio de vita et scriptis Sancti Hippolyti (ed. Jacques-Paul Minge, PG 155 59 by giving it Jewish antiquity and imperial scope for a more demanding public and explicitly relate the Biblical Christian tradition to the Greco-Roman world of the sciences and art. The overall effort was to show that the Biblical Christian narrative was a truer narrative of the world than the pagan narrative and that Rome had an important, though transitory, part to play in the unfolding of that narrative. Part of this program was the creation of notebooks like On the Song of Songs for the instruction of new converts. 1.3.1 The Rise of the Two-Author corpus and the Eastern Hippolytus From as early as the fourth century patristic authors cite texts and refer to their author as “Hippolytus of Rome.” External evidence for the eastern provenance of the commentaries in ascriptions on manuscripts begins much later. The earliest ascription of a word of the exegete’s is the ascription of Against Noetus to Hippolytus bishop of Arabia by Gelasius in the fifth century.159 Apollinarius of Laodicea (c. 315-392), who reads Comm. Dan. as from “Hippolytus the most holy bishop of Rome.”160 Another ascription from the on the single manuscript of Against Noetus as from “Hippolytus the archbishop of Rome,” part of a florilegium collected by the monophysite bishop of Alexandria Timothy of Arles (d. 477 AD) indicates the existence of an early tradition of Hippolytus of 10; Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1857), 273 n. 14. 159 A ecclesiological reason may lie behind this ascription. Gelasius, if he had known of a tradition ascribing Noet. to Hippolytus bishop of Rome would have been happy to promote him to bishop of a whole province to remove him from being bishop of Rome. 160 Apollinarius of Laodicea, frag. Dan., Scritorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanus codicibus (ed. Angelo Mai 10 vols.; Rome: Burliaem, 1825-38), 1 (1825), 2.173. 60 Rome.161 From sixth century Leontius of Byzantium (c.550 AD) quotes from a book on the Oracle of Balaam by Hippolytus “bishop and martyr” (PG 86. 1312), which suggests identity with the presbyter Hippolytus venerated in Rome. John of Damascus (c.725 AD) quotes from a work On Christ and Anti-Christ by “Hippolytus bishop of Rome” (PG 96. 525). Several fragments of a commentary on the Book of Genesis are attributed to “St Hippolytus bishop of Rome.”162 The patriarch Photius, in his catalogue of the library at Constantinople in the ninth century, has two entries for Hippolytus (Bibl. cod. 121, 202). In the first, he says Hippolytus was a student of Irenaeus and a contemporary of Origen and was the author of a work Against the 32 Heresies. In the second, he says Hippolytus was a “bishop and martyr,” who wrote a commentary on Daniel and a book “On Christ and Antichrist.” Substantial portions of the commentary on Daniel have survived, attributed in the manuscripts to “Hippolytus bishop of Rome.” The two Georgian manuscripts of On the Song of Songs do not give a notice on provenance.163 The list of the early bishops of Rome preserved in the fourth century almanac known Codex-Chronography of 354 does not include any Hippolytus as bishop. Cerrato argues that this tradition was simply the invention of monophysite partisans. With no manuscript support, he follows Jean Michel Hanssens, La liturgie d'Hippolyte: ses documents, son titulaire, ses origines et son caractère (2nd ed., Orientalia Christiana analecta 155; Roma: Pontificum Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1965), in speculating that the ascription in Apollinarius was a scribal insertion. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 83-85. 162 Hans Achelis, ed. Hippolyt's kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften (GCS 1.2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897), fr. 1-4. 163 However, one Armenian fragment of On the Song of Songs follows other medieval Armenian manuscripts in assigning the provenance to Hippolytus of Bostra. See note 133 on page 50. 161 61 However, the list164 does connect a “Hippolytus presbyter” with bishop Pontian, who became bishop during the reign of Alexander Severus in the consulship of Pompeianus and Pelignianus (ad 231).165 The other presbyters in the list come into the list as rivals to the canonical bishop. Pontian and Hippolytus were deported to Sardinia, in the consulship of Severus and Quintianus (235 AD). Pontian died there 28 September of that year. The date of Hippolytus’ death is unknown, but a calendar of commemorative days for martyrs’ in the same work lists for 13 August “Hippolytus at the cemetery on the Via Tiburtina” and “Pontianus at the cemetery of Callistus.” This suggests that their burial possibly occurred at the same time. The picture is complicated by another group of Byzantine authors that make Hippolytus a bishop of the city of Portus, near Rome. A passage in the seventhcentury (c. 630 AD) Chronicon Paschale 12.22-13.1 quotes from a work Refutation of All Heresies and ascribes it to “Hippolytus the martyr, bishop of a place called Portus near Rome.” George Syncellus (d. 810) in the late eighth century gives a list of works similar to that of Eusebius to which he added commentaries on Daniel and Revelation (Syncellus Chron. 438.7-16) as authored by “Hippolytus the holy philosopher, bishop of Portus near Rome.” In another passage (Syncellus Chron. 381.23-4) he refers to “Hippolytus the holy martyr and apostle, archbishop of Rome” as one who dated the birth of Christ to the year 5500 or 5501 from creation. From around 1100 AD Zonaras Theodore Mommsen, Liber pontificalis (Monumenta Germaniae historica 1; Berlin: Gesta pontificum Romanorum, 1898), 5. 165 Theodor Mommsen, Chronica Minora (vol. 1, MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi, 9, 11, 13; Berlin: Weidmann, 1892); Michele Renee Salzman, On Roman Time: The Codex-calendar of 354 and the Rhythyms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. (Los Angeles: University of California Press,1990), 193-231. 164 62 (Epitome historiarum 3.123) knows Hippolytus as a learned man who wrote many commentaries and served as bishop of Portus when Urban was bishop of Rome. Nicephorus Callistus, around 1300 AD in his Ecclesiastical History 4.31 (PG 145.1052) also gives notice of “Hippolytus bishop of Portus at Rome” at the time of Alexander Severus. He gives a list of writings longer than Syncellus’. The tradition of connecting Hippolytus to Portus is attested indirectly by the Latin poet Prudentius in his Carmina (c. 400 AD). His encomium in Carmen 11 celebrates the death of Hippolytus and he says he visited the shrine of the saint on the Via Tiburtina. The poet does not directly mention Portus but reports that Hippolytus died a martyr at a place near the mouth of the Tiber (ostia per Tiberina). A church dedicated to Hippolytus was established in Portus in the fourth century.166 A third-century sarcophagus bearing a ninth-century inscription: hic requiescit beatus Ypolitus mar<tyr> was excavated by Testini.167 It is not likely that Hippolytus the writer was bishop of Portus,168 though another Hipplytus may have given the historical kernel of this tradition. When Ligorio recreated the “statue of Hippolytus” from the ruined statue found in Rome, he associated the saint with the port town: “Statua Hippolyti Portuensis episcopi ... ex urbis ruinis effosa.”169 Still, the entire Portus tradition lends Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 385-6. Pietro Testini in 1973 published the discovery of a third-century sarcophagus in the prebyterium under the Basilica of the Isola Sacra on the Via Fiuminica with a ninth century inscription (cited in Theologische Realenzyklopädie (1986) 15: 381 (M. Marcovich): “Here rests blessed Hippolytus, martyr,” see Theologische Realenzyklopädie (1986) 15: 381 (M. Marcovich). See also Testini, “Di alcune testimonianze relative a Ippolito,” SEA 13 (1977): 60-65. 168 Meiggs, Roman Ostia, 528. 169 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 43. 167 166 63 weight to the belief that Hippolytus was a Roman church leader. Before Ignaz von Döllinger in 1853, Hippolytus was accepted the martyred bishop of Portus Romanus in fellowship with Rome.170 That irenic picture changed when von Döllinger attributed Refutation of All Heresies171 to Hippolytus and reframed him as a schismatic Roman bishop.172 In that frame, a faction of the church in Rome in especially opposed to Callistus, and his successors Urbanus and Pontian, elected Hippolytus as bishop of Rome. He eventually reconciled with Pontian and died in exile in Sardinia in 236 after reconciliation with his fellow exile Pope Pontian. Though the great historian Mommsen seriously doubted the von Döllinger’s anti-pope theory, the view of Hippolytus as a schismatic bishop opposed to the legitimate Pope in the succession of Callistus became the new received orthodoxy for over one hundred years.173 The lack of clarity in the historical sources and more careful examination of the works ascribed to Hippolytus further tangled “the Hippolytus question” so that many scholars became skeptical that the works considered authentically Hippolytan by previous generations were from the same author. In 1947, Pierre Nautin floated a controversial theory: the Hippolytan corpus should be divided between Josippus or Joseph Barber Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (vol. 1; London and New York: Macmillan and Co, 1889), 427-34. 171 The Chronicon Paschale quotes a similarly titled work as by Hippolytus, “Bishop of Portus near Rome.” 172 Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus oder, Die Römische Kirche in der ersten Hälfte des dritten Jahrhunderts (Regensburg: G. J. Manz; tr. Alfred Plummer Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876). 173 Theodor Mommsen, Chronica Minora, (vol. 1, MGH, Auctores Antiquissimi, 9, 11, 13; Berlin: Weidmann), 85 n. 1. 170 64 Josephus of Rome, a Roman presbyter and later one of two opposing Roman bishops, and an eastern bishop named Hippolytus.174 The controversy focused on anti-heretical works, especially Against Noetus that seemed to be the key to this question. It is very difficult to reconcile this work with the thinking in the Refutation of All Heresies. Various works attributed to Hippolytus,175 not to mention the composite Apostolic Tradition, created the impression that more than one author was at work in the corpus. Several Italian and French scholars followed Pierre Nautin in dividing the writings of Hippolytus between an eastern and western writer.176 In 1977 Vincenzo Loi attributed these writings and the Chron. to the Roman presbyter and heresiologist Hippolytus. On the other hand he argued Against Noetus was written by an oriental bishop. This modification of Nautin was accepted more widely, and during the thirty intervening years the Roman hypothesis began to be less staunchly defended. Loi’s attribution of the Antichrist, On the Song of Songs, On David and Goliath, On the Blessing of Jacob, The Song of Moses, fragments from On Isaiah, and the Commentary on Daniel to this otherwise unknown bishop provoked more opposition. Following Nautin and Loi, John A. Cerrato considered the exegetical writings more carefully in his 1996 Oxford doctoral thesis. Cerrato attempted to prove the eastern provenance of the Pierre Nautin, Hippolyte et Josipe contribution a L'histoire de la Litterature Chretienne du Troisieme Siecle. (Les Editions du Cerf, 1947). 175 For example, De universo and the Homilia in Psalmos, fr. in Pr (fr. 1-29, 54) seem to be from author(s) other than the exegete. See Bernard Botte, “Note sur l’auteur du De universo, attribué à Saint Hippolyte,” RTAM 18 (1951): 5-18 and Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 336-9. 176 Loi, “La Problematica Storico-Letteraria su Ippolito di Roma,” Ricerche su Ippolito, 31-45; Manlio Simonetti, “Aggiornamento Su Ippolito,” Nuove Ricerche su Ippolito (SEA 30; Rome, 1989); Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 140-4; 172-200. 174 65 commentaries authored by an eastern bishop Hippolytus, a resident of Asia Minor. He gathered external historical evidence regarding the provenance of the commentaries. For example, that of Gelasius of Rome and the copyists of some medieval manuscripts. He then argued that commentary writing itself is an eastern phenomenon not adopted in Rome until the fourth century, and, on the basis of this a priori reasoning, he concluded that Hippolytus must be an eastern writer. Finally, he suggested Hippolytus the exegete must be “eastern” because of the presence of “eastern” traditions and thought informing his commentaries, an argument that seems to confuse cultural provenance with physical locality.177 At any rate, the commentary On the Song of Songs appears in the list of Hippolytan works in Eusebius and Jerome, but does not appear on the list of works inscribed on the statue. The Easter calculation table is the only Hippolytan work that clearly appears in all three lists, leading to the twin conclusions that some connection exists between Hippolytus and the statue, but that not all the writings on the statue are necessarily from the same author. Nevertheless, the thread of connection between Hippolytus and the statue simply refuses to break.178 Scholars who followed Nautin and Loi led historians of the early church to reconsider von Döllinger’s synthesis of the third-century context of Hippolytus’ writings. They applied to some of the texts of Hippolytus the techniques of redaction The eastern formation of the author does not in any way preclude his living in Rome. See Graham Gould, “Review of Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus,” JTS 54 (2003): 313. See also Allen Brent, “Review of: Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus,” JEH 55 (2004): 342. 178 177 See note 118 on page 46 below. 66 and tradition criticism learned from biblical scholars to tease out new insights. The mediating position of Brent and Stewart,179 accepts the conclusion that at least two authors, both successors in a Roman church-school, were responsible for the corpus of Hippolytus’ writings.180 Hippolytus the exegete was of eastern provenance, but became a resident at some time in Rome; however, he not the author of the Refutation. The unnamed heresiologist was the bishop of a rival Roman Christian community opposed to Callistus. The exegete Hippolytus later was later part of a movement of reconciliation some time after the hersiologist’s death and before his own took his place as a presbyter under Pontian. Though this is a plausible reconstruction, some scholars still consider any skepticism concerning the Hippolytan authorship of the Refutation as well as the Roman provenance of the commentaries and other works unwarranted.181 Thus no general consensus has been achieved on basic questions concerning Hippolytus’ person and works, nor does it appear one is likely.182 179 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church; Stewart, ed., On the Apostolic Tradition. 180 For the character of some early churches as church-schools on the model of a philosophical school to the fractionalized Roman community see Edwin A. Judge, “The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community I,” in JRH 1 (1960): 4-15, and item, “The Early Christians as a Scholastic Community II,” in JRH 2 (1961): 125-137. Republished as item, “The First Christians as a Scholastic Community,” in The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan & New Testament Essays (ed. James R Harison, WUNTt 229; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 526-552. See also Brent, “Diogenes Laertius and the Apostolic Succession,” in JEH 44,3 (1993): 367-389. 181 See Whealey, “Pseudo-Justin’s de Resurrectione: Athenagoras or Hippolytus,” VC 60: 420-21. 182 Ronald Heine, “Hippolytus, Ps.-Hippolytus and the Early Canons,” in The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature (vol. 1, ed., Frances Young et al., Cambridge University Press, 2004), 148. 67 Most recently Osvalda Andrei argued against the common scholarly opinion183 that the same author was responsible for the Commentary on Daniel, the World Chronicle, the paschal table of Hippolytus in Eusebius, as well as the paschal table found on the so-called “statue of Hippolyts.”184 The author was of eastern provenance, different from the author of the Refutation of All Heresies.185 The close connection between Comm. Dan. and the paschal computus make Andrei’s argument crucial for the authorship and provenance of On the Song of Songs as well. Various narratives might account for how the paschal calendar and computus found its way to a Greek Christian community in Rome that was adapting eastern traditions to a western context. It is clear, however, that Hippolytus had significant influence among Greek speaking Christians there. It seems plausible that the exegete was also the Hippolytus mentioned in the Chronography of 354, whose status as a presbyter-bishop was posthumously obscured or forgotten by the transition to a single Roman monarch-bishop after the death of Pontian in 236 AD. Mosshammer, Easter Computus, 117, follows Andrei’s reconstruction. The Comm. Dan. is attested by the multiple calculations on the Easter calculus marked “according to Daniel.” Ibid, 118-20. 185 Andrei, “Dalle Chronographiai di Giulio Africano di Giulo Africano alla Synagoge di ‘Ippolito,’ 113, 144, “Although the work was traditionally attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (von Döllinger), the most recent findings of the “quaestio hippolytea” assign it to the author of the Refutatio omnium haeresium. This latter author should be distinguished from the real Hippolytus (oriental, exegete). The present writer believes, however, that the Synagoge,either as a “chronographia” or as a world chronical composed shortly after the Chronographiae of Julius Africanus (221 A.D.), cannot be understood properly if its close relationship with the intellectual milieu of Hippolytus the exegete is not taken into account. This Hippolytus should therfore be considered the author of the work in addition to the paschal computation of 222 A.D.” 184 183 68 1.3.2 Two Authors in a Roman Church-School Context During the second and third centuries it proved difficult if not impossible for one bishop to organize the large, diverse Roman Christian community under one leader. It is better to think in terms of a variety of Christianities in Rome. Both the vastness and cultural diversity of the city itself were formidable obstacles to unity. Perhaps for this reason alone, the monepiscopate was late coming to Rome.186 Rome was not effectively united under one bishop until a few years before187 or after the deaths of Hippolytus and Pontian188 paved the way for two important rival factions in the Roman church to reconcile under one bishop. In other words, both before and after Pontian, the Roman churches represented various constituencies throughout the empire and indeed various Christianities. Multiple presbyter-bishops lead a mozaic of churches variously affiliated, in and out of communion with one another. It is reasonable that the recollection in oral history that Hippolytus was an ἐπίσκοπος, Early in the twentieth century George La Piana, “The Roman Church at the End of the Second Century,” HTR 18.3 (1925): 201-77 and Gustave Bardy, “Le écoles romaines du second siècle,” RHE 28(1932): 501-532 argued persuasively that the monoepiscopate was late coming to Rome. He was not the first to do so. In his Church History Eusebius distinguished the period of the apostolic mission in Rome from that of the Roman episcopate and states that Linus established the episcopal hierarchy in Rome (Hist. eccl. 3.2; 5.6.1-3) twenty years after that of Jerusalem founded by James (2.1) and also years after that of Alexandria founded by Mark (2.16), but around the same time as Antioch founded by Euodius (3.22). See Charles Pietri, Roma Christiana. Rescherches sur l’église de Rome son organization, sa politique et son idéologie de Militiade a Sixte III (311-440), (Bibliothèques des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 224; Rome, 1976), 393-396; Salzman, On Roman Time, 49. 187 Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (trans. by Michael Steinhauser; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 299-308. 188 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 368-535. 186 69 “bishop,” led to confusion about Hippolytus’ location. The gradual transformation of the structure of the Roman Church at the end of the second and beginning of the third century accompanied a change in previous understandings of the meaning of ἐπίσκοπος. Before the middle of the third century the term “bishop” was roughly equivalent to πρεσβύτερος, “presbyter.” Εach of several churches in Rome was organized with its group of presbyters led by a single “bishop” who was also a presbyter. The various presbyter-bishops in the city were loosely related and at times chose a representative in charge of correspondence and the work of beneficence for the benefit of churches of other cities. No single Pope ruled the church in Rome, though part of the conflicts of the second and early third centuries was the idea that the Roman churches should be ruled by one bishop. By the middle of the third century, however, the churches in Rome defined the boundaries of communion more precisely. They ceased to be so loosely organized and had adopted an eastern church structure in which one bishop reigned as bishop over most of the other Roman congregations, each of which were led each by their presbyter, or priest.189 Accordingly, within such a changed ecclesiastical context, the options available for understanding the figure of Hippolytus were limited. Fourth century patristic evidence suggested only two: a single western author, Hippolytus bishop of Rome (or nearby Portus) or a single eastern bishop Hippolytus in various locations. The difficulty of harmonizing all the writings attributed to one figure eventually led to theories of multiple authorship of the corpus, either centered in Rome or in both Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 430-2. Nevertheless, heretical factions like the Novationists and others continued as a challenge of the authority of the bishop. 189 70 Rome and “the East.”190 External evidence for the eastern provenance of the commentaries in ascriptions on manuscripts begins much later. The earliest ascription of a word of the exegete’s is the ascription of Against Noetus to Hippolytus bishop of Arabia by Gelasius in the fifth century. Gelasius, if he had known of a tradition ascribing Against Noetus to Hippolytus bishop of Rome, would likely have been happy to promote him to bishop of the whole province of Arabia to remove him from being bishop of Rome. 1.3.3 The State of the Issue The muddle Eusebius or his source created by the three unconnected mentions of Hippolytus has confused the identity of Hippolytus the exegete to this day. Scholars contest every external reference to the provenance of Hippolytus in later patristic writers. Every manuscript attribution is also contested. The case for provenance, therefore, must be based upon inductive and indirect evidence. Returning for the moment to the two or three Hippolyti mentioned in The three major views are represented by Frickel, Das Dunkel um Hippolyt von Rom; Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church; and Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West . These works represent a re-assessment of the Hippolytus question as a result of the work of Nautin, Hippolyte et Josipe, largely responsible for deconstructing the older consensus inspired by the work of von Döllinger, which solidified the view that Hippolytus, the writer and bishop, was the first antipope and revered as a martyr. Two major symposia held in Rome at the Instituto Patristico “Augustianum,” the acts of which were published as Manlio Simonetti, ed. Ricerche su Ippolito (SEA 13, Rome: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum,” 1977), and Pasquale Testini, ed. Nuove ricerche su Ippolito (SEA 30. Roma: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum,” 1989), were largely a vindication of some of the views of Nautin. 190 71 Eusebius, most scholars accept that Hippolytus the writer of commentaries and church leader must be responsible for at least some of the works listed on the statue discovered by Ligorio in 1551, since the On the Pascha and Against all the Heresies are found on the statute and in Eusebius 6.22. Furthermore, at least some of these writings are Scripture commentaries likely written and used in Rome.191 That this statue represents the group at one time involved in a dispute with the church of bishop Callistus (218–22 AD) as recorded in Refutation all the Heresies 9.12 is entirely plausible. The issue concerning writings not found on the statue list is still open, but the references to Daniel on the Easter computus strongly suggest Hippolytus, the writer of Comm. Dan. and the Easter computation was respected and revered by the community. A careful reading of On the Song of Songs also suggests similar theological concern to link the narrative of the Logos, the physical lineage of the patriarchs and the celebration of Passover. More important for On the Song of Songs, Cerrato conducted a partial survey of the contents of the commentaries themselves and found “eastern” traditions that he used to argue for an eastern author. One of his principal exhibits was the tradition of the myrrhophores Martha and Mary In Cant. 24-25. Cerrato’s supposes that his reading of On the Song of Songs 24-25 exclusively supports an eastern provenance for the commentary. That evidence may be summarized as (1) Hippolytus’ attitude toward women in ministry supports a milieu in which Montanism was influencing his church, this points to a provenance in Asia; (2) the theological traditions in On the Song of Songs are eastern; (3) literary traditions in On the Song of Songs point to the Vinzent, “Hippolyt von Rom und Seine Statue,” in Zur Zeit Oder Unzeit, 125. The substantial body of literature about the statue is impressive. 191 72 East. However, a more careful reading of the Georgian text of the entire commentary In Cant. suggests Cerrato’s skepticism toward a western provenance of the commentary is not warranted. 1.3.4 The Date, Setting, and Influence of the Commentary A date for On the Song of Songs before 235 AD seems reasonable for the commentary. In that year Maximinus Thrax deposed Alexander, wiped out his family, and also put to death “rulers of the churches” in Rome and elsewhere, the same year the Roman presbyter Hippolytus was taken prisoner along with bishop Pontian according to the Codex-Chronography of 354. The latest date mentioned in The Chronicle of World History ascribed to Hippolytus is the thirteenth year of Alexander (234-35 AD), a remarkable coincidence if the Hippolytus of the Codex-Chronography were not the author of this work. Eusebius hints that Maximinus perceived the “many believers” in the imperial household of Alexander Severus as a threat to the new administration (Hist. eccl. 6.28). Pontian (and likely the prebyter Hippolytus) both died in the same year.192 Both were buried on a celebrated pagan and patriotic Roman festival of concord and the healing of divisions, on August 13.193 Though Hippolytus 192 The catalogue of bishops known as the Liberian catalogue preserves an accurate 3rd century tradition: Pontianus [was bishop] 5 years, 2 months, 7 days. He was in the time of Alexander, from the consulate of Pomeianus and Peignianus [231AD]. In that time the exiled bishop Pontianus and the presbyter Hippolytus were deported to Sardinia on the island of Vocina [or nociva], Severus and Quintianus being consuls [235 AD]. On the same island he died on 4th day before the kalends of October and in his place Antheros was ordained on the 11th day before the kalends of December, the emperors being consuls [235 AD]. Chronography of 354, Commemoration of the Martyrs, “Ypoliti in Tiburtina et Pontiani in Callisti.” Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 380 argues persuasi193 73 was buried in the cemetery on the Via Tiburtina, his remains suffered the same fate of translation to a site deemed more worthy of their saintliness. Scholars generally date On the Song of Songs among the earliest exegetical writings of Hippolytus the exegete, followed by the The Demonstration of the Christ and the Antichrist (=Antichr. ca. 200 AD) and The Commentary on Daniel (=Comm. Dan. ca. 204 AD) during the outbreak of persecution that arose during the reign of Septimius Severus.194 The very latest was the World Chronicle (234-35). Based on the chronology of Eusebius, On the Song of Songs could have been composed anytime between 198 and 235 AD.195 On the Song of Songs itself contains little indication of a more precise date, but what it does contain is crucial. The value of the denarius in the late second and early third century fluctuated wildly. At the time of the composition of On the Song of Songs, Hippolytus considered a price of thirty denarii accessible to the poor (In Cant. 2.30). The idea that such a sum might be “easily accessible” to the poor betrays vely for the symbolic significance of the date August 13. The date was the patriotic feast in honor of Diana protectress of Rome. It was also a festival commemorating the incorporation of the Italian allied cities into the Roman Federation. “This date, with pagan, festive associations for the healing of division ... unity and concord” symbolized the healing of divisions between Pontian the bishop and Hippolytus the presbyter. 194 The evidence for this early date, however, is slim, and the criteria for an early dating are not clear. Brent’s suggestion of a date for the Comm. Dan. after 222 AD is just as plausible, Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 276-9. Andrei’s suggestion, however seems best. Around 204 AD, Comm. Dan. suggested the 5500 year chronology from creation to the birth of Christ taken up by Julius Africanus. Hippolytus later revised the scheme in the Easter computus on the statue (222 AD) and the World Chronicle to 5502 to take into account the Easter computation of epacts of Demetrius of Alexandria, Mosshammer, 114-16. 195 See above page 74. 74 Hippolytus the exegete’s elite bias. Still, inflation and debasement may have made such a sum “more accesible.” The period from Commodus to Diocletian is a sad chapter in the history of the denarius. From 180 to 274 AD debasement of the currency led to inflation and eventually financial collapse.196 Debasement under Commodus triggered an abrupt doubling of prices (190-191 AD). Septimius Severus reversed such monetary policies; however, by the reign of Caracalla (211-217 AD) dramatic and sustained debasement probably brought serious inflation in denarii. Though direct evidence of price fluctuations is rare,197 the introduction during that period of a parallel denarius, the Antonianus, suggests as much. It is likely Hippolytus composed On the Song of Songs in this time period (211-217 AD) or slightly later, and that the reference here constitutes evidence of a high rate of inflation. An argument for composition much earlier than this date will need to take this reference into consideration. At the beginning of the third century, prices were at about two to three times the prices at the beginning of the second century. Changes were such that the public maintained, in general, confidence in the value of its coins until the crisis of 235 AD, when serious stress on values from debasement began to affect public confidence in coinage.198 Kenneth W. Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B. C. to A. D. 700 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 90-95; 270-289. 197 Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy, 280. 198 196 Ibid. 125-128. 75 1.3.4.1 Early Influence of On the Song of Songs Patristic quotations of On the Song of Songs in the footnotes of the translation demonstrate that the commentary had considerable influence on later Christian writers, though nothing like that of Origen’s commentary and homilies.199 Direct quotations and allusions to Hippolytus’ In Cant. in subsequent patristic writings200 abound. Origen’s own Commentary on the Song of Songs overshadowed Hippolytus’ work in many ways, and both writers established basic commonplaces in the early development of a Christian interpretation of the Song, though taking distinct perspectives of interpretation. Origen’s commentary on the Song lays heavy emphasis on the individual soul and God and seems to imbibe more deeply the middle Platonism of his age. Hippolytus’ interpretation draws upon the tradition of the preexisting Church as a spiritual reality inscribed in the Song and lived out through the Christ event and subsequent church history. For this reason Origen and Hippolytus appear to have held opposite views about the proper use of the Song for the instruction of the faithful. In his mid-third-century commentary Origen appears to react to the type of application of the Song found in Hippolytus. For Hippolytus the exegete, two Beloveds—Israel, the Church of the Circumcision and the Gentile One cannot be certain that Origen made use of Hippolytus. He composed the first part of his Commentary on the Song in 240 AD and his homilies around 244 AD!. If Origen did use Hippolytus’ commentary, the details of his exegesis do not show it. However, Origen does seem to react to the kind of use Hippolytus made of the Song. See R. P. Lawson, ed. Origen, the Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies (ACW 26, Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957), 4, 17. 200 Collected in Nathanael Bonwetsch, Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolytus zum Büche Daniel und hohen Liede (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897). 199 76 Church—vie for the lover, Christ. The Song is the ideal vehicle to describe the relationship of intense love for Christ the newly baptized share within the confines of the churches. He writes his commentary for new Christians, mere novices in the spiritual life who are receiving the post-baptismal anointing oil. In his commentary Origen took the opposite view of the Song’s usefulness for new Christians: the Song was for the spiritual elite who had already been trained to ingest “strong meat.” Indeed, he argued that “to those . . . who are being nourished with milk in Christ, not with strong meat, and are only beginning to ‘desire the rational milk without guile’— it is not given to grasp the meaning of these sayings.”201 Origen suggests that the study of the Song early in one’s spiritual life is dangerous: “this book of the Song of Songs should be reserved for last.” The numerous quotations Hippolytus’ commentary in Ambrose’s Exposition of Psalm 118 (119),202 and On Isaac and the Soul indicate the influence of On the Song of Songs on Ambrose in the West and the enduring appeal of his use of the Song Origen, In Cant. praef., (Lawson, ACW), 26:22. Ambrose’ homiletical purpose was the instruction of new believers in the basics of the ethical life. See Finbarr G. Clancy, “Book Reviews: Commentary of St Ambrose on Psalm 118. By Ide Ni Riain” ITQ 65 (2000): 81-2. At the same time, he relates that instruction to a text appropriate for new believers in Milan: Hippolytus’ In Cant. The mention of the feast days of St. Gervasius and St. Protasius (Expos. Ps. 6.16) and St. Sebastian (20.44) suggests that Ambrose delivered these sermons between June 388 and January 389. That is, almost immediately after the Passover season that year. In Ambrose’s church catechumens enrolled for baptism at Epiphany and during the subsequent weeks received instruction in “right living” until Passover. In his follow-up teaching for the rest of the year in 388, he continued the same theme from Psalm 118 (119). See Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 635. Ambrose quotes long sections of Hippolytus’ In Cant. without attribution and only includes references to the first three chapters of the Song, as does Hippolytus. 202 201 77 for the instruction of new converts.203 His use of the Song of Songs in his mystagogical instruction On the Sacraments and On the Mysteries also suggests Hippolytus’ approach to the use of the Song for the instruction of new believers had enduring influence into the fourth century. Even in the third century Origen saw fit to respond to the demands that he provide instruction for novices who desired guidance and teaching on the Song in his Homilies on the Song of Songs. 1.3.4.2 The Severan Context of On the Song of Songs Between the end of the second and the beginning of the third century the relations between the church and the Roman Empire were anticipating, in some respects, the so-called “Constantinian shift.”204 Eusebius regarded Severus Alexander as a friend of the church, as he did all the “good” emperors.205 The emperors that Eusebius considered “good” were those who did not persecute the church and paved the way for a new status quo finally inaugurated under Constantine. In particular it appears that a “Severan tolerance” of sorts permitted the church in Rome to better define its structure, especially the authority of one bishop over most Roman churches In the majority of his works, however his valuation of the Song followed the exegetical orientation of Origen, with the identification of the soul as the beloved in the Song. See Pietro Meloni, “L’iflusso del Commento al Cantico di Ippolito sull’Expositio Psalmi CXVII di Ambrogio,” in Letterature Comparate: Problemi e Metodo. Studi in onore di Ettore Paratore (Bologna: Pàtron Editore, 1981), 865. 204 This trend is further seen in the generation after Hippolytus when the Christians of Antioch appealed to emperor Aurelian to intervene in an internal church dispute over the control of church property during the dispute with monarchian bishop Paul of Samosata (272 AD). 205 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 82. 203 78 and the relation between clergy and laity.206 Christians during the later Severan period also began to seek and gain consideration and patronage from members of the noble class and, sometimes, members of the imperial household. For example, the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus III (n. 412) fragment of Julius Africanus’s Κῆστοι bears a dedication to the Emperor. And Alexander Severus, the son of the Empress Julia Avita Mamaea,207 “who considered it very important to be honored by the visit” of Origen (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.21.3), preferred the Christian Julius Africanus for the construction of a library in the area near the Pantheon, close to the baths that the Emperor Alexander completed in 227. The mitigated rhetoric of opposition to the Roman empire in the Commentary on Daniel and On the Song of Songs is consistent with the attitude illustrated by Origen and Julius Africanus and the inscriptions displayed on the so called “statue of Hippolytus.” According to Eusebius, the imperial household of Alexander contained “many believers” and he suggests this is one of the reasons Maximinus commanded that “the rulers of the churches should be put to death, as responsible for the Gospel teaching” (Hist. eccl. 6.28) in the aftermath of the coup against Alexander. It appears that the Severan policy itself “was generally one of persuasion and comprehension, despite Septimius’ prohibition of conversions [to Though Brent rightly criticizes an over exuberant attitude about the “Severan tolerance,” nevertheless his narrative of an early third-century Roman Church moving toward mono-episcopacy supports the thesis of both Enrico dal Cavolo, “I Severi e il cristianesimo: un decenio di ricerche (1989-1996),” Aug 8 (1999): 44, and Manlio Simonetti, “Una nuova proposta su Ippolito,” Aug 36 (1996): 13-46, that the closer relationship between some sectors of the church and the Roman elite as well as the relative tolerance to Christianity at this time led to a consolidation of power structures in the church. 207 Dietma Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990), 180. 206 79 Christianity], and isolated local judicial processes.”208 The court of Alexander displayed an intense interest in religious matters. Of course, the positive portrayal of the Severans had apologetic value for Eusebius in his own time, and Severan interest in Christian wise men likely served the imperial purpose of consolidating power.209 Nevertheless, an important article by Paul McKechnie demonstrates the veracity of the impression given by Eusebius. During the Severan period Christians enjoyed a modicum of favor, especially in Rome, where some elite members of the imperial court even began placing inscriptions announcing their adherence to the Christian faith.210 Among third-century members of the imperial service in Rome, Christianity was attracting attention that was not completely negative.211 For its part, On the Song of Songs displays an interest in the extension of Christianity among multiple strata of the society and exhibits the dynamic tensions that arise from a group gaining converts from both elite and stratified non-elite sectors in the society. Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 88. See Karen Jo TorJesen, “Social and Historical Setting: Christianity as Culture Critique,” in Social and Historical Setting: Christianity as Culture Critique (ed. Frances Young et al.; Cambridge University Press, 2004), 184-85. The extension of citizenship beyond the cities to villages and towns throughout the Roman Empire under Caracalla was intended to expand the reach of the patronage of the imperial household and cult, among other things. It was a means of deepening a religious sense of sacramental unity with the Emperor as the “Lord of the world.” The treatment of the cities of the empire as if they were part of the city of Rome was an innovation that, under Decius, when all citizens were required to offer sacrifices to the civic gods as proof of loyalty to Rome, would eventually lead to empire-wide persecution 210 Paul McKechnie, “Christian Grave-Inscriptions From the Familia Caesaris,” JEH 50 (2000): 427-41. 211 Ibid. 209 208 80 1.3.4.3 On the Song of Songs Between East and West The preceding discussion has suggested that the provenance of Hippolytus should be distinguished from the provenance of the various writings attributed to him. Whatever provenance scholars assign to individual writings, scholars must reckon with the evidence eastern traditions adapted to a western context. Eastern or western provenance is a false dichotomy. Methodologically it is sound not to assume the identity of Hippolytus the exegete and the heresiographer. Ultimately the issue of provenance will hinge on whether the contents of the commentaries fit what is known of the thrid-century eastern and western contexts. The immigrant make up of the church in Rome, largely a church of Greek speakers of eastern heritage, during the first three centuries complicates the picture. Since the deep differences between East and West that were later to emerge with the rise of the Latin church are not applicable to the Greek church in Rome, theories of provenance must be carefully nuanced. The traditional corpus of Hippolytan writings contains a mixture of eastern and western traditions. This is particularly true of On the Song of Songs Two prime examples demonstrate this diversity. Hippolytus’ conserves a tradition of Martha as the both the primary anointer of Jesus (In Cant. 2.29) and the primary witness of the resurrection (In Cant. 25). This tradition appears to depend upon liturgical Passover traditions celebrated by Christians in Jerusalem in the mid second century.212 At the same time, Hippolytus’ praise of the anointing itself for believers seems to require that it be a post-baptismal anointing, as practiced in the West. What accounts for this blending of East and West? 212 Ernst, Martha from the Margins, 297. 81 One way of resolving the problem of eastern and western traditions by dividing the corpus between two authors, one eastern and one western. Cerrato’s own work on Hippolytus the exegete follows this path with a closely argued case supporting Nautin, Loi, and Simonetti’s theory of the eastern provenance of the commentary corpus. Cerrato’s survey of the history of the commentary genre is particularly helpful. He presents a case for the eastern provenance of some of the traditions in On the Song of Songs, particularly those shared with the Epistle of the Apostles. Concerning On the Song of Songs he argues that Hippolytus shows the effects of a close relationship with the New Prophecy, which, for him indicates an Asian Milieu.213 For him, the doctrinal and textual traditions of the commentaries, in particular the Commentary on Daniel and On the Song of Songs are eastern traditions, the commentaries must have been written in the East.214 The problem with this line of argument is, of course that it shows confusion concerning cultural formation and geographical location.215 Furthermore, it simply neglects western features in these works like the western ekphrastic methodology of Hippolytus and liturgical evidence that shows him to draw from both East and West. On the other side, Brent and Stewart, do not directly address the authorship or provenance of On the Song of Songs For the rest of the corpus, Brent combines redaction critical insights with keen social contextualization and argue that multiple authorship of the Hippolytan corpus fits with a succession of leadership in the same Cerrato, “Hippolytus’ on the Song of Songs and the New Prophecy,” StPatr 31 (1997): 271. 214 The eastern textual traditions are overdone. See note 75 on page 117. 215 Allen Brent, “St. Hippolytus, Biblical Exegete, Roman Bishop, and Martyr,” StVTQ 48.2-3 (2004): 210. 213 82 church-school of Rome. They argue that the eastern provenance of certain traditions in Hippolytus the exegete does not necessarily indicate an origin in the East for all his writings. The available evidence does not rule out the West for at least some of the works of Hippolytus the exegete. Andrei, for her part, simply affirms the eastern provenance of the author, but says nothing about the writings and offers no explanation as to why Hippolytus’ Easter computus shows up on a Roman statue. 1.3.4.4 Is On the Song of Songs an “Eastern” or a “Western” Writing? In Eusebius and Jerome, Hippolytus emerges as a writer of several commentaries (ὑποµνήµατα). On the Song of Songs is included in their lists. Hippolytus’ time period is generally the Severan period, during the first period in its history Rome was de facto governed by a woman.216 This unique era in Roman social history appears to have left its mark on some of the works of Hippolytus,217 though scholars have not often recognized the link between the prominent role of women in the social history of the early third century and the rhetoric about women in After the death of Septimius Severus (211 AD), a period famous for localized persecution against some Christians, !four women of Syrian origin came to prominence in the Roman Empire: the “Severan Julias.” Julia Domna, the second wife of Septimius Severus, bore him two sons that became emperors: Geta (211 AD) and Caracalla (211-217 AD). Septimius honored her with the title, “mother of the camp and the senate and the country.” Her sister was Julia Maesa and her two daughters also each produced sons who were to be emperors. Julia Soaemias was the mother of Elagabulus (218-222 AD) and was assassinated along with him. Alexander was the youngest man till that time acclaimed Emperor of Rome. Despite his youth, Alexander’s reign (222-235 AD) must have held out promise for a brighter future, after the insanity of Elagabulus’ administration. The death of his powerful grandmother left Rome under the control of the Empress Mamaea. 217 See Antichr. 3; Comm. Dan. 1.22; In Cant. 24-25. 216 83 Christianity in some of Hippolytus the exegete’s works.218 For his part Cerrato attempted to show, “the view of women in the life of the community” of Hippolytus in the commentaries and allied doctrinal works is “distinctly different from that of the communities of Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and other patristic sources of the period.”219 According to Cerrato, Hippolytus the exegete shows a proclivity to attempt to elevate the status of women, though the commentaries are not exempt from the influence of their patriarchal context. In contrast, the view of women in Haer. and TA, sometimes attributed to Hippolytus, is much more in line with the previous patristic literary tradition.220 Before the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, what little that is known about the social location of women in the church may be gleaned from Hermas and apocryphal writings. See Carolyn Osiek et al., A Woman’s Place, 136-41, 144-63; see also J. A. Woodhall, “The Socio-Religious Role of Women According to Hippolytus in the Light of the Early Christian Fathers” (Ph.D. Fordham University, 1980), 82, who based his study on the disputed TA and Haer., which he assumes are the product of the same author. He concludes that Hippolytus’ attitudes to women are largely traditional and restrictive. Cp. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 200, 206-11, attributes Hippolytus the exegete’s more open view to a shared milieu with Montanism. Cerrato does not consider the possible effect of female patronage in the mainstream church or the sociopolitical climate in which women from the East rule the Roman Empire. 219 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 211. 220 On the question of the relation of TA, to the Hippolytan corpus see Paul F. Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition: a Commentary (Heremeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002); Stewart, ed. Apostolic Tradition, 22-50 ; idem, “Re-dating the Apostolic Tradition: Some Preliminary Steps,” in Rule of Prayer, Rule of Faith: Essays in Honor of Aidan Kavanagh, OSB (ed. John Baldovin, and Nathan Michell; Collegvile, MN: Pueblo Liturgical Press, 1996), 3-17; idem, “Traditio Apostolica, the Liturgy of Third-Century Rome and the Hippolytean School or Quomodo Historia Liturgica Conscribenda Sit,” StVTQ 48 (2004): 233-48; Allen Brent, “St. Hippolytus,” 207-31. 218 84 It is beyond the scope of this introduction to On the Song of Songs to deal thoroughly with a book as detailed and broad in scope as Cerrato’s Hippolytus between East and West. As concerns On the Song of Songs, however, a rebuttal may be outlined as follows. It is intriguing that Cerrato acknowledges the existence of Carroll Osburn’s work on the proclivities of the text of Hippolytus’ commentaries and other exegetical works without comment. The New Testament text of Paul’s letters in Hippolytus’ commentaries is more consistent with a provenance in Rome that in Asia Minor, where one would expect his text to have more “Byzantine” influence. This bit of information only indirectly concerns On the Song of Songs Osburn’s conclusions, however, on the basis of a careful examination of the undisputed Greek writings of the corpus of Hippolytus the exegete is that the author produced: a text demonstrating peculiarly ‘Western’ readings throughout [in agreement with the ‘Western’ bilinguals], while incorporating certain readings of distinctly Egyptian character especially in Romans and 1 Corinthians, but not significantly influenced by readings characteristic of Byzantine manuscripts.221 The idea that Greek speaking Christians did not write commentaries in the West is simply unsustainable. What type of literature are the titles with the names of biblical books on the plinth of the so-called statue of Hippolytus supposed to represent? This is a major weakness of Cerrato’s argument. Cerrato’s arguments about On the Song of Songs concerns only a small Carroll D. Osburn, “The Text of the Pauline Epistles in Hippolytus of Rome,” SCent 2 (1982): 124, a study of the text of the New Testament used in the commentaries and Antichr. Given its fluid textual tradition, specific textual proclivities of the biblical quotes in On the Song of Songs have not been addressed by scholars. 221 85 portion of Garitte’s Latin translation of the commentary. Accordingly, simply does not consider enough evidence in commentary as a whole. The rest of the book and its Georgian text need to enter the picture. Cerrato’s stark contrast on Hippolytus’ attitude toward women with that of the heresiographer of the Refutation is overdrawn and based upon a misunderstanding of the Latin translation of the Georgian text. The attitude of Hippolytus the exegete toward “women in ministry” is entirely consistent with a Roman setting. Cerrato did not consider the iconographical references in the commentary at all. Some of the iconographical references are appropriate to the Roman context. To be sure, Hippolytus draws upon literary traditions that are eastern. Hippolytus, however, drew on at least one non biblical literary tradition that is western. The iconography of On the Song of Songs is discussed later. Cerrato did not consider the implications of the liturgical setting of the commentary. The commentary refers to liturgical practices of Easter baptism and post-baptismal anointing. Such liturgical practice was, at the time characteristically western. The liturgical context of In Cant. will be considered in Chapter Three. Cerrato dismissed the possibility that Hippolytus was culturally eastern but geographically western. Could not Hippolytus adapt eastern theology and practice to a western context. If attention is paid to the transformation of eastern theology and practice, Hippolytus might emerge as an easterner acculturating to a western context. This possibility will be considered in Chapter Two, Three, and Seven and Eight. Indeed, Hippolytus does make use of doctrinal and theological categories that are both eastern and western. Cerrato’s assessment of the theological opponents is rather vague, as is his 86 suggestion that Hippolytus was from somewhere in Asia Minor. But is it possible to be more specific? Did the teachings and practices of Valentinus influence Hippolytus’ interpretation of the Song in the In Cant.? It is good to remember that what Irenaeus pointed out, “Κανὼν τῆς αληθείας ... ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσµατος εἴληφεν , “the canon of the truth ... which has been received in baptism” (AH 1.9.4). Irenaeus opposed the rule of faith that was received in baptism to heresy in the context of a discussion of Valentinian reading of Scripture. Those who are baptized in this manner, says Irenaeus, are able properly to understand the Scriptures. Against this heretical misreading of the Scriptures, then, is set the rule of faith, which is then stated.222 In the mystagogical instruction On the Song of Songs, Hippolytus uses the Song to emphasize to the newly baptized the significance of their confession of Christ and their relationship with him in the context of the church. One may see the commentary, then, as a sermonic affirmation of the Christ-centered monotheism of the creed received in baptism as well as instruction guarding against those perceived as antagonists of this faith. And, while one should be wary of assuming that all catechetical material is to be found repeated in the baptismal rite,223 nevertheless, On the Song of Songs gives an indication of the type of instruction that might have happened in other venues in the third-century church. Valentinus left a lasting impression on the churches in Rome because he lived and ministered there for up to three decades. The interpretation of baptism as a nuptial From a yet to be published paper by Stewart, “Κανὼν τῆς αληθείας ... ὃν διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσµατος εἴληφεν (AH 1.9.4): Catechesis, Ritual and Exegesis in Irenaeus’ Gaul,” 1. 223 Paul F. Bradshaw, “The profession of faith in early Christian baptism” Ecclesia orans 23 (2006), 337-355, at 337-338. 222 87 rite like that of Valentinus followed by anointing and culminating in a banquet may well have been widespread in the second and early third centuries, but was certainly practiced in the West. The evidence, however, is problematic and a post baptismal anointing may well have been practiced in the churches of Asia Minor. Post-baptismal anointing is a rite known from TA, but TA cannot be relied upon to support an exclusively western rite, as is well known. In fact the TA has two post-baptismal anointings. On the other hand Africa has a tradition of post-baptismal anointing but apart from the east Syrian pattern of pre-baptismal anointing little is known about what went on in this period, until post-baptismal anointing appears in Antiochene sources.224 Evidence for a clear picture that might differentiate eastern practices from one another or from those in the West is lacking. As it is, On the Song of Songs appartently features a post-baptismal “overshadowing” or laying on of hands, and such a rite would be consistent with a western rite (See In Cant. 15.2, 3; Dan. Com. 1.16; cp. Tertullian, Res. 8.2.3; see below page 401.) Hippolytus speaks of the “overshadowing” of the beloved (and the audience) in the commentary, referring to the liturgical act of hand-laying in baptism which, along with anointing, signals the giving of the Christic anointing (In Cant. 11.1; 15.2; cf 17:3) as well as the sealing of the sign of the cross on the forehead (In Cant. 19.3). The anointing is Christic since it represents the fragrance of the name of Christ, a participation in Christ’s anointing (In Cant. 2.1) and is repeatedly described as the divine Logos (In Cant. 2.4).225 For Winkler, Worship, 52.1, 24-45; Serra, Worship, 79, 328-41, seen in the fourthcentury evolution of the rites of Antioch and Jerusalem under John Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem respectively. 225 Alistair C. Stewart, “Ἀπεκυήσις Λόγῳ Ἀληθείας: Paraenesis and Baptism in Matthew, James and the Didache,” Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings (ed. Jürgen Zangenberg, SBL Sympo224 88 Hippolytus the exegete, the believer receives the Spirit in baptism, in preparation for receiving the Christic anointing after baptism. “But now what is the fragrant anointing oil of Christ, [except the Word]? For the Word is rightly esteemed to be greater than any incense. For, just as mixtures of incense give off an aroma, so also the Word once it goes forth from the Father gladdens those who hear it” (2.4). Hippolytus specifically opposes the Christic anointing to heretical, Valentinian teaching on emanations. [The Spirit] was sent down over the waters and it purified the waters. It was poured out to the Gentiles, and it congregated the Gentiles. [It was poured out over Israel, nevertheless those who were disobedient did not accept the aroma. Now the mystery has been poured among Israel and the Gentiles brought together those who believed it. For this reason this word is to be avoided, for this reason it does not at all mean, “anointing oil emanated” but “anointing oil poured out.”] [It happened] in various ways over many through outpourings because what emanates is contemptible, nevertheless what [was] poured out did not diminish from the vessel itself and it filled the ones (or things) nearby. Such is the nature of this anointing oil. O beloved, it is the well-spring of the gospel and it constantly goes forth (or is sent forth) and does not wane. The anointing ritual as assumed in On the Song of Songs has a decidedly antiheretical function. I suggest that Hippolytus’ use of the Valentinian notion of the προβολή of the Λόγος shows the influence of a decidedly western theological trajectory from Justin to Tertullian and on to Novatian, Lactancius and Hilarius.226 Cerrato does not consider the problem of any specific heresy addressed in the commentary beyond a general consideration of “anti-gnostic” tendencies as an indicator of provenance. Whatever the merits of the designation “gnostic,” the case sium; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 341-60. 226 Antonio Orbe, Hacia la primera teologia de la procesion del Verbo (Estudios Valentinianos 1; Rome: Universitas Gregoriana, 1958), 515-616. 89 calls for a more specific analysis. I will take up this matter in Chapters Three and Eight. 1.3.5 Chapter Summary: The Life and Times of Hippolytus the Exegete and Mystagogue Various issues of provenance and authorship shape the narrative of Hippolytus’ life and the reading of On the Song of Songs. Depending on what part of the data are included or excluded, a different narrative profile of the author emerges. Each view also has various possible permutations. As some have argued, Hippolytus was the martyred bishop of Portus Romanus in fellowship with Rome.227 Or, rejecting this irenic picture, others have argued he is a schismatic Roman bishop in opposition to Callistus (especially), Urbanus and Pontian, who died in exile in Sardinia in 236 after reconciliation with his fellow exile Pope Pontian.228 He was the last great Greekspeaking Church Father active in Rome, possibly an immigrant from the east to Rome. For a minority of scholars that divide the corpus of Hippolytan works between East and West, the writer of the exegetical works is a bishop in an unknown church in the East, possibly in Asia Minor or in Palestine. He exercised some sort of influence on a Greek-speaking community in Rome. On this view it is best to try and forget any connection between the list of works on the so-called “statue of Hippolytus” and the list of works found in Eusebius and Jerome. The eastern bishop and the writer of the commentaries lived in the mid second century at the time of the Joseph Barber Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (vol. 1; London and New York: Macmillan and Co, 1889), 427-34. 228 von Döllinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus. 227 90 emergence of Montanism. One who takes this approach would likely read On the Song of Songs as emerging from a church culture influenced by Montanism. They will search for other “eastern” traditions in the commentary. Another minority of scholars admit the corpus of Hippolytan writings are too diverse to be from one author, but argue that they are too similar to be from separate “schools.” On this view, the “statue of Hippolytus” is a community icon and the list of works on it and in Eusebius represent the works of more than one author. Eusebius attributes the entire corpus to the latter of the two authors, who were successive leaders of a church-school in Rome during the time of Callistus, Urbanus and Pontian. The conflict between the church-schools of Callistus and his successors with that of Hippolytus came to an end with the deaths of Pontian and Hippolytus. Any who read On the Song of Songs as the product of a Roman author will be impressed at the blend of eastern and western factors in the commentary. Chapter 2 Women in Hippolytus’ Commentary On the Song of Songs: What is the attitude toward women that Hippolytus displays in the commentary? This chapter addresses this important issue in relation to the debate on the provenance of the commentary. Key passages in On the Song of Songs mention women in a positive way. Nevertheless, mention of women is quite different from an acknowledgment of their significant contributions to the life of the church.1 Thus it is difficult is to assess Hippolytus’ attitude toward women and the role of females in the ministry of the church.2 The theology of the myrrhophores Martha and Mary in the On the Song of Songs 24-25 is clearly idiosyncratic—and a repeated theme the author injects into his interpretation of at least one other text (In Exodum).3 The odd (but erroneous) reference to the “mystery of Martha” (In Cant. 25.3)4 as well as the Gerard F. Baumbach, personal correspondence, 2-26-2010. See below, 230-239. 3 Sebastian Brock, “Some New Syriac Texts Attributed to Hippolytus,” Le Museon 94 (1987): 177-200. While Brock doubts the attribution to Hippolytus the exegete, John A. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West,180 is correct to assert that the mention shared with the In Cant. that Mary and Martha were primary witnesses of the resurrection is a strong indicator of authenticity. 4 Cerrato’s reading of In Cant. 25.3 must be amended, following Garitte, to read “mystery of righteousness” rather than “counsel of Martha.” Garitte corrects the “mystery/counsel of Martha” to the “mystery of righteousness” by emending the Georgian martayssa (of Martha) to martalsa (of righteousness). The parallel Armenian and Paleo-Slavic texts both read “righteous mystery” (‘das gerechte Geheimnis,’ Bonwetsch, “Kommentar,” 64; “justum mysterium” Garitte, CSCO 264: 46). The 89 2 1 90 reference to Martha in Hippolytus’ In Exodum are eucharistic texts. Whatever other associations this passage may generate, Hippolytus applies the resurrection narrative with the two women to the “synagogue” and the church (In Cant. 25.10), a motif of both On the Song of Songs and the commentary on Proverbs.5 Hippolytus praises Martha of Bethany—a role-model for believers—as the woman who anointed Christ, while he scorns Judas for hating the anointing (In Cant. 2.29).6 The Shunammite comes in for praise for preparing the couch, a type of Christ, for the prophet, because from that couch she received her son back from the dead (In Cant. 27.2). Hippolytus even praises “blessed Tamar,” who made herself appear as a phrase “great mystery” and “righteous mystery” appear elsewhere (In Cant. 2.29; 2.32; 8.1; 17.2; 26.3). See also Ernst, “Martha From the Margins, 160. See below page 401. 5 See note 46 on page 196. 6 Similarly, Cyril of Jerusalem contrasted the women favored to be witnesses of the resurrection with the chief priests who remained ignorant of Christ’s resurrection (Cat. 14.14). 91 harlot in order to take hold of the anointing (In Cant. 2.18). Martha and Mary are the myrrhophores who seek for and find Christ; he identified them as the women whom Jesus met and who took hold of his feet (Mat 28:9). Christ commissioned them as “apostles to the apostles” (In Cant. 24.2; 25.1, 3; cf. Mat 28:10).7 The apostolic ministry of Martha and Mary recapitulates8—or brings under the headship of Christ— the disaster caused by Eve in the Garden, thus redeeming women for legitimate service to males. Eve, representative of women, now makes a new offering of obedience to her husband, Adam. Hippolytus’ On the Song of Songs has sparked understandable interest and varied interpretations because of his supposed advocacy of early Christian female ordination and apostleship. The views of the exegete on Martha and Mary do indeed represent an idiosyncratic theology of the role of Martha and Mary in salvation history that raises important issues. In later Christian theology the salvific role of the myrrhophores is absorbed by the virgin Mary and to some extent by Mary Magdalene. Hippolytus ignores the canonical, evangelical role of Mary Magdalene as the prime witness to the resurrection in favor of Martha and Mary, whom he likely considers to be the sisters Hippolytus’ reading of the resurrection does not follow any one Gospel account, but depends upon a harmonistic reading. Only on such a reading does Matthew 28:9-10 raise the question of the separate identity of these women. Hippolytus’ readings of the gospel may indicate he used Justin’s written harmonization of the Matthew, Mark, and Luke that formed the basis of Tatian’s Diatessaron. See Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity, (2nd ed. Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 2:344. Hippolytus may have known Tatian’s work. An early third-century fragment of the Diatessaron was found near the Christian building in Dura Europos, see Carl H. Kraeling, A Greek Fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron from Dura (SD 3 London: Christophers, 1935). 8 “Recapitulates” in the sense of “restores its head.” 7 92 of Bethany. But does Hippolytus also advocate an idiosyncratic view of the role of women in the leadership of the church-school?9 Or are the figures of Martha and Mary in Hippolytus a symbol of the apostolic ministry of the church as a whole?10 What are the antecedents of the Martha and Mary tradition in Hippolytus? Does the tradition depend upon historical remembrances of Martha and Mary as a figures of apostolic authority in the Johannine community?11 Some scholars have begun to accept Cerrato’s view that Hippolytus’ teaching on women is an indicator of provenance. Simply stated, the argument runs as follows: the commentaries of Hippolytus On the Song of Songs and On the Exodus both exhibit a view of the role of women which is more positive than other known patristic literature in the second and third century. When compared with Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria both commentaries and On the Antichrist make quite positive mentions of women without making prescriptions about women’s social and domestic roles. The commentary on the Song speaks of Eve as an apostle, expressing a open attitude toward women as church leaders. The New Prophecy was centered in Phrygia near Asia Minor and other “eastern” traditions in the commentary indicate an eastern provenance. He concluded that Asian Christianity, influenced by Montanism, is the context for the commentary On the Song of Songs. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 209. Maja Weyermann, “The Typologies of Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary, and Their Relationship to One Another,” ATR 84 (2002): 622-23, citing Constantina Peppa, Die Töchter der Kirche Christi und die Frohe Botschaft des Sohnes Gottes: eine Studie über die Aktive Präsenz der Frauen Un Ihre Besonderen Dienste in Frühchristentum und Gemeinden der Ungeteilten Alten Kirchen, (Athens: Epektasi, 1998): 69-76. 11 Ernst, “Martha from the Margins,” 409. 10 9 93 Picture 4: Martha an Mary—sisters of Lazarus—entreat Jesus on behalf of their brother. The conflation of events celebrated at the Lazarium and at the tomb of Jesus were conflated to produce the tradition of Martha and Mary as the myrophores as in Hippolytus. Early fifth century carved panel on the door of the Church of S. Sabina, Rome. Photo used by permission. Cerrato’s literary analysis of the episode of the myrrhophores in the commentary is sound.12 Furthermore, unless further evidence should surface to establish the original Greek text, his interpretation of the text (In Cant. 2.29; 24.2; 25.1) seems quite correct.13 Scholars unfamiliar with the textual tradition of On the Song of Songs earlier rejected the reading “Martha” in these texts, led astray by a commitment to the canonical figure of Mary Magdalene, as “the apostle to the apostles.”14 The pair Martha and Mary occur more than once in the commentary, in all Ibid., 184. The following outline is adapted from Cerrato. Ibid., 179-83. 14 Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” 56 n. 80 suggested that here Hippolytus’ text is corrupt because neither Mat 28:1 nor any other canonical gospel names Martha among the women at the tomb, rather “Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary.” Rosemarie 13 12 94 versions (Georgian, Armenian, Paleo-Slavonic) and they also occur as witnesses of the resurrection in a Syriac fragment of Hippolytus’ In Exodum.15 Nevertheless, Cerrato’s reading of In Cant. 25.3 must be emended, following Garitte, to read “mystery of righteousness” rather than “counsel of Martha.”16 He notes that Hippolytus quotes nearly the entire text of Song 3:1-4 in In Cant. 24-25.17 Hippolytus’ exposition may be analyzed in three parts. I expand here on Cerrato’s analysis to better represent the flow of thought, clarifying several contextual details along the way for a more accurate understanding of the text:18 • Martha and Mary represent the synagogue-church in search of the body of Christ and meet with angels at the tomb. Nurnberg, “Apostolae Apostolorum: Die Fraen am Grab Als Erste Zeuinnen Der Auferstehung in Der Väterexegese,” in Stimuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum; Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann (eds. G. Schöllgen et al.; JAC 23; Münster: Aschendorff, 1996), 228, and Susan Haskins, Mary Magdalen : Myth and Metaphor (HarperCollins, 1994), 63 argue that Hippolytus has either fused or mixed the identities of the women. The fact that Mary Magdalene has become such an important figure in current feminist research should inspire caution in reading her into a text where she is not once named. See Ernst, “Martha from the Margins,” 153. 15 Sebastian Brock, “Some New Syriac Texts Attributed to Hippolytus,” Museon 94.1-2 (1981): 199: “the angels to both Mary and Martha gave the news that the Bread had been sent from the resurrection.” 16 Garitte corrects the “mystery/counsel of Martha” to the “mystery of righteousness” by ammending the Georgian martayssa (of Martha) to martalsa (of righteousness). This is a likely emendation, since the parallel Armenian and Paleo-Slavic texts both read “righteous mystery” (‘das gerechte Geheimnis,’ Bonwetsch, “Kommentar,” 64; “justum mysterium,” Garitte, CSCO 264: 46). The phrase “great mystery” and “righteous mystery” appear elsewhere (In Cant. 2.29; 2.32; 8.1; 17.2; 26.3). See also Ernst, “Martha from the Margins,” 160. 17 One important omission, noted by Cerrato, is the phrase “on my bed” from Song 3:1, Ἐπὶ κοίτην ἐν νυξίν ὅν ἠγάπησεν . . . 18 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West., 185. 95 • The women encounter the risen Christ at the tomb. ◦ The women try to delay the ascension by clinging to his feet. ◦ The women beg for Christ to allow spiritual union with him and to be taken to heaven with him. ◦ Martha warrants their request by asking Christ to present Eve as a new sacrifice. ■ Eve is now purified of deception (represented by the fig-leaf), and she is clothed with an incorruptible garment through the Holy Spirit. □ Christ, the New Adam, was also dressed in his resurrection with peace and incorruptibility. □ He was not naked. □ The synagogue makes its confession through the women. ■ The women cry out for spiritual union with Christ as his body, “Mix this my body with your body, drink it as wine”; “Accept Eve.” • Rather than take them to heaven, Christ gives the women a mission as “apostles to the apostles.” ◦ The apostles initially reject the news by the women. ◦ Christ appears in order to establish the testimony of the women/Eve to the resurrection. ◦ The disciples/Adam receive spiritual nourishment from the tree of life from the women/Eve, thus reversing the curse of Eden. 96 ◦ Once again Eve becomes a helper to her husband. Once again Adam leads Eve. ◦ This is why the women announced the Gospel to the disciples. ◦ Conclusion: it is clear from these things that Christ brings peace to the synagogue and the church is glorified. ◦ On the Song of Songs 25.4b uses the eucharistic symbol of the wine mixed by Christ and the diffusion of his life to humanity as a symbol of the relational unity between human flesh and the resurrected Christ who ascends to heaven. Martha, on that basis, begs to be taken with Christ to heaven: In Cant. 25.4 Georgian In Cant. PSflor 25.4 Paleo-Slavic 25.4 For this reason she says: “When I withdrew a little ... I found him, the one whom my soul loves” (Song 3:4). Receive, O my heart! Be mixed with the Spirit, strengthen it, perfect it, so that it also may be able to join with the heavenly body. Mix this my body with [the] heavenly body. Drink it as wine, taken it, make it go up to heaven then a newly mixed cup,” that [the woman] may follow the one she desires and not go astray, no longer with a bruised heel nor having touched the wood19 of knowledge (cf. Gen 3:15). But from now on [she is] victor20 over the tree through death. 25.4 And for that reason she calls out: “When I went on a little further, I found the one whom my soul loves.” The soul expects that it would connect with the Spirit that by virtue of the Spirit the body would be mixed with it! “Mix my body like wine! Receive it, carry [it] upwards into heaven! Mix once more a new cup,” [and] a woman saved and seduced no more nor one bitten in the heel, neither touching the tree of knowledge, the tree that is able to put to death! 19 Or “tree,” not collective. 20 Lit. “having conquered” or “one who has conquered.” 97 In the Syriac fragment of In Exodum21 commenting on the “quails and manna” of Exodus 16, Hippolytus says that the angel gave the news to both Mary and Martha that the Bread, that is Jesus, had been sent from the resurrection (In Ex 3.19). That section of the commentary ends with an encouragement about receiving the bread at the Eucharist: “Recognize this bread when you take it, O faithful, as the heavenly [bread].” Cerrato is correct to suggest that, “The commentary is homiletical in character and may well have been composed for use in the course of the liturgy of the Eucharist.”22 Hippolytus indeed establishes a theological basis for praising the myrrhophores as examples of the apostolicity of women in recapitulating the disastrous effects of Eve’s deception of Adam.23 However, Garitte’s Latin translation of the Georgian text In Cant. 25.524 misled Cerrato and others to assume Hippolytus intended to provide theological warrant not only for female redemption but for the practice of ordaining women to ministry.25 For Cerrato, the commentaries of Hippolytus display an attitude, on this particular point, quite distinct from Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and other patristic sources, who did not seek to elevate Brock, “Some New Syriac Texts,” 199. 22 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 181, n. 21 23 Ibid., 184. 24 Excipe abhinc Evam in-ordinationem ambulantem, Garitte, CSCO 264. 25 According to Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 193, n. 21, the expression “counsel of Martha” elevates Martha as the central figure of female redemption ([In] Cant. 25.3). The redemption of woman transpires in the post-resurrection events as divine and pre-planned “counsel” (cf. “the economy of Martha”), actualized through the obedience of Martha and Mary and their vocation as “apostles to the apostles” ([In] Cant. 25.3). 21 98 women.26 The reach of Cerrato’s belief in Hippolytus’ vision of women exceeds justification. He avers that “[w]hile the commentaries are not exempt from the culture in which they were composed, signs of an attempt to transcend elements of patriarchy appear.”27 Thus he over reaches in supposing the mention in Comm. Dan. 1.26 of both men and “women and virgins” is anything other than descriptive.28 Indeed, Hippolytus’ positive view of male and female “equality” in relation to the Logos (Antichr. 3) seems to typical of early Christian catechesis. Part of the appeal Christian teaching was this ethical appeal to people of all social stations. All have equal access to the Logos. However, one must view with skepticism the suggestion that Hippolytus’ view of the status of women in the mission of the church truly sets the commentaries apart from their environment. After all, Christianity shared with other religious and philosophical groups like the Epicureans an appeal for the participation of women in their groups. On the Song of Songs in its Georgian version, affirms the apostolicity of the myrrhophores (In Cant. 24-25), but one should ask: what is the rhetorical function of this claim?29 One must regard as dubious Cerrato’s claim that the commentary elevates the status of women in a way that accords well with the milieu of Montanism and therefore Asia Minor. The suggestion that Phrygian Montanism lies behind Hippolytus’ views rests on the basis of the fourth century report of Epiphanius that Ibid., 210. Ibid. 28 Ibid. Cerrato does not note that here women are seen as the particular prey of heretics. 29 Ibid. 27 26 99 the Montanists esteemed Eve and ordained women (Pan. 49.2).30 Epiphanius described that Montanists χάριν διδόντες τῇ Εὔᾳ, ὅτι πρώτη βέβρωκεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς φρονήσεως, “grant grace to Eve because she first ate of the tree of knowledge” (Pan. 49.2).31 A little further on Epiphanius adds, κἄν τε γὰρ γυναῖκες παρ' αὐτοῖς εἰς ἐπισκοπὴν καὶ πρεσβυτέριον καθίστανται διὰ τὴν Εὔαν, ἀκούσωσι τοῦ κυρίου λέγοντος «πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἡ ἀποστροφή σου καὶ αὐτός σου κυριεύσει», “even if women among them are appointed to the office of bishop and presbyter because of Eve, they hear the Lord saying, ‘Your resort shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.’” The resemblance to In Cant. 25.5-6 is stunning. However, Epiphanius is not a reliable guide for early Montanism. So, Cerrato is correct to question whether the influence is from Montanism to Hippolytus or from Hippolytus to Montanism. His earlier suggestion, “that the Montanists of the fourth century used this Hippolytan text, or other earlier sources like it, to develop their Eve ordination argument” is surely more correct.32 Therefore, “the commentary predates the development of the [Montanist] argument for the ordination of women.”33 If this is the case, then the evidence of Epiphanius is useless as an indicator of the Asian provenance of On the Song of Songs. It is possible, however, that Epiphanius gives an indication of the Asian reception of Hippolytus’ commentary in Montanist circles in the fourth century at roughly the same time that Ambrose in the West and Cyril of Ibid., 208. Ronald E. Heine, The Montanist Oracles and Testimonia (PMS 14; Macon, GA: Mercer/Peeters, 1989), 135. 32 Compare Cerrato, “Hippolytus’ on the Song of Songs and the New Prophecy,” 271 with item, Hippolytus between East and West, 208. 33 Ernst, “Martha from the Margins,” 167. 31 30 100 Jerusalem in the East were also making use of the On the Song of Songs in their catechetical writings. In many respects, Cerrato’s argument appears impressive. It is remarkable and ground breaking. However, its application to the provenance of On the Song of Songs is weakened because Cerrato fails to integrate the episode of the myrrhophores into the rhetorical and theological framework of the commentary as a whole and to the situation in which the commentary was likely used, which, Cerrato rightly surmises, is the setting involving the Eucharist in the context of Passover initiatory rites. The formal and material weaknesses of the argument should give pause. A closer look at the commentary will not support this reading. Rather, the views expressed in the commentary are consistent with a church setting in which competition for the patronage of élite women shaped a positive characterization of women within a traditionally androcentric church. So, the positive characterization of women in On the Song of Songs may be entirely consistent with a third century Roman setting. Furthermore, it is not likely Hippolytus himself was influenced by the New Prophecy; nothing in his exegetical writings supports such a claim. 2.1 The Issue of Translation: Ordination or Sub-ordination? Most unfortunate is that Hippolytus’ supposed support for female ordination is based upon a faulty translation of the Georgian text. When properly understood, Hippolytus’ support for women’s ordination evaporates entirely.34 The Latin John A. Cerrato, “Hippolytus’ on the Song of Songs and the New Prophecy,” StPatr 31 (1997): 268-73. Some streams of the New Prophecy as early as the second and early third century may have supported the ordination of women as presbyters. 34 101 translation upon which Cerrato based his interpretation has misrepresented the meaning of the Georgian text that reads: შეიწყნარე ამიერითგან ევჰა, წესიერებით მავალ, მიიღე და იცან ესე ძღუენი, რომელ მიპყრობილ მამისა, ახლად შეწირე, არღარა განშიშულებულად ევა, არღარა ფურცელი ლეღჳსაჲ მისა სამოსელ. From now on receive Eve who now walks in proper order. Receive her and know this offering which has been provided to the Father. Make Eve a new offering, no longer is she naked, no longer clothed with the fig leaf. (In Cant. 25.5) This translation may be compared with the reading of the Paleo-Slavic tradition: Receive Eve once more, the one living firmly (“strongly”) and henceforth not naked and clothed with fig leaves.35 Cerrato interpreted Garitte’s “Excipe abhinc Evam in-ordinationem36 ambu- See Frederick C. Klawiter, “The Role of Martyrdom and Persecution in Developing the Priestly Authority of Women in Early Christianity: A Case Study of Montanism,” CH 49 (1980): 251-61. 35 The Armenian adaptation does not represent this text and rewrites it or summarizes rather completely. 36 Cerrato’s argument seems to presuppose a particular view of ordination. However, the language of ordination in ancient Christianity is difficult to pin down. All the language has to do with ascribed honor. The difficulty of the issue of when official, sacramental ordination arises out of the diversity of Christian thought and practice is illustrated by the scholarly understanding of χειροτονεία. On this issue, see Madigan and Osiek, Ordained Women in the Early Church, 5, 10, who note that Charles H. Turner, “Cheirotoneia, cheirothesia, cheirōn (and the Accompanying Verbs,” JTS 24 (1922/23): 496-504, argues that χειροτονεία was a general word for appointment, while χειρῶθεσία was more specific, while Cipriano Vagaggini, “L’ordinazione delle diaconesse nella tradizione greca e bizantina,” Orientalia christiana periodica 40 (1974): 146-89, argues the opposite case. See also Tertullian, Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage: To his Wife, An Exhortation to Chastity, Monogamy (tr. by Le Saint, 102 lantem” to mean “Receive Eve who from now on walks in ordination.”37 To support this translation, Cerrato cites the text that follows several lines below, “O new consolations! Eve has been called an apostle!” Against this translation is the consideration that the word translated in-ordinationem (წესიერებით, c ̣’esierebit) has the usual semantic range: “orderliness, propriety, decorum, lawfulness.”38 A comparison with the Paleo-Slavic tradition further weakens the translation “ordinationem” as “ordination,” especially since the material that follows immediately in both Georgian and Paleo-Slavic versions is as much about erasing shame as conferring honor by clothing of the naked Eve with a beautiful garment of incorruption by the Holy Spirit. Looking more closely at the lexical issue, the Georgian text of 1 Tim 2.9 (NTI Paul AB) translates ἐν καταστολῇ as წესიერებისა, W. P. Westminster, Md: Newman Press, 1951), 122. Tertullian used appointment language and speaks of “ordination” of widows “cum uiduam adlegi in ordinem nisi uniuiram non concedit” (Ad. ux. 1.7) but the honor of their selection or recognition was not a rite conferring grace and office. Conversely, TA 11.1-5 speak of “widow” being “appointed [but] not ordained (χειροτονεῖν) but she shall be chosen by name . . . Let the widow be instituted by word only . . . But she shall not be ordained, because she does not offer the oblation nor has she a liturgical ministry (λειτουργία). But ordination is for the clergy on account of their liturgical ministry. But the widow is appointed for prayer, and this is a function of all Christians.” Similarly, the confessor is said to not have need of “having hands laid” upon him in order to be either deacon or presbyter. The case of Callistus himself, in Haer. 9.7, conforms to this tradition. When released from Sardinia, he ceases to be a slave and passed directly into freed status and became a salaried deacon for Zephyrinus, a steward of one of his residences and then later, under Victor, director of the cemetery. 37 This translation is perhaps a misunderstanding of Garitte’s Latin translation may also mean “in regulation.” Note that McConvery, “Hippolytus’ Commentary,” 219, corrects this translation to “walks in order.” 38 See note 66 on page 379. 103 c ̣’esierebisa = “appropriate” referring to the modesty of the woman’s dress.39 So, a text that also speaks of man-woman relations in terms of Adam-Eve typology used the same Georgian word, but with no hint of “ordination.” If anything, both texts speak of subordination. The Georgian text of Hippolytus speaks of Eve’s full restoration to her status as a lawful, non-deceptive helper of her husband, Adam. Martha and Mary are called “apostles to the apostles,” but this title is not connected with the “in-ordinatione” of this passage in the way Cerrato imagined. The combination of in-ordinatione ... munus in Garitte’s translation led to the idea Hippolytus was speaking of female ordination. Thus the notion of ordination implied in Cerrato’s argument appears to be anachronistic and inappropriate—ordination to what office? Surely we are not to imagine ordination to female apostleship was, in Hippolytus’ church a social fact, are we? Furthermore, Hippolytus’ text concerns witness to the resurrection— evangelism—and not Montanist concerns like prophecy. Hippolytus is concerned about recapitulation, the correction of the misdeeds of the fall. He is also concerned to provide female converts to Christianity with laudable moral examples and a sense of mission within the context of their families. Influence from the New Prophecy is out of the question.40 I am indebted to Dr. Jeff Childers for alerting me to this reference. McConvery, “Hippolytus’ Commentary,” 222, makes an appropriate comment at this juncture. To say that the Montanists “developed a high view of the ecclesiastical status of women, as presbyters, bishops and ministers of other ranks, runs the risk of making them just a little too modern!” Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 212, suggested that the members of the movement were “bookish, composing and publishing literature” and that “they appear to have been concerned with the interpretation of Scripture, perhaps including exegetical commentary,” but little evidence suggests this. 40 39 104 2.2 The Mystagogical Context of the Commentary and Female Redemption Whatever provenance “eastern” traditions in On the Song of Songs may indicate, a simpler and more elegant explanation for Hippolytus’ positive statements on women is available. Both On the Song of Songs and in On the Antichrist are an integral part of Hippolytus’ program of instruction for new Christians. Positive statements about women together with the doctrine of the Antichrist, are a hallmark of his catechetical instruction and, indeed, later catechesis like that of Cyril of Jerusalem.41 Candidates for baptism presented themselves naked (In Cant. 7.3; 25.5), symbolizing their equality before God the radical death-and-birth nature of the baptismal rite.42 John Chrysostom’s famous words on “the abundance” of God’s goodness in his first instruction for people awaiting baptism recall what seems to have been a topos in Christian catechetical instruction going all the way back to Hippolytus: Come to me all, not only rulers but also their subjects, not only the rich but also the poor, not only the free but also slaves, not only men but women, not only the young but also the old, not only those of sound body but also the maimed and those with mutilated limbs, all of you, He says, come! For such are the Master's gifts; He knows no distinction of slave and free, nor of rich and poor but all such inequality is cast aside. Come, He says, all you who labor and are burdened.43 Chrysostom used rhetorically balanced couplets: the typically accepted group/ Cerrato, “Hippolytus and Cyril of Jerusalem on the Antichrist,” 154-9. 42 See Laurie Guy, “Naked Baptism in the Early Church: The Rhetoric and the Reality,” JRH 27.2 (2003):133-43. 43 John Chrysostom Baptismal Instructions 1:27 (Harkin, 1963, 33). Cf. In Cant. 2.9; 4.1; 6.2; 19.1; 23.1; 27.1ff. 41 105 identity, followed by the group/identity of some who may be disparaged and suffer rejection. Within cultural settings of the era, one group/identity is ordinarily deemed superior to another.44 The gospel ostensibly changes all of that. A comparison of this text to the famous text on equality in The Antichrist reveals a similar, if not completely balanced, paring. [The Word] does not esteem the rich man more highly than the poor, nor does He despise the poor man for his poverty. He does not disdain the barbarian, nor does He set the eunuch aside as no man. He does not hate the female on account of the woman's act of disobedience in the beginning, nor does He reject the male on account of the man's transgression. But He seeks all, and desires to save all, wishing to make all the children of God, and calling all the saints unto one perfect man. For there is also one Son (θεοῦ παῖς) of God, by whom we too, receiving the regeneration through the Holy Spirit, desire to come all unto one perfect and heavenly man (Antichr. 1.3=TLG 3.20). The conclusion is difficult to avoid that such comparisons in the context of the open invitation to baptismal initiation were common place in Christian catechetical and mystagogical instruction even a century before the Edict of Milan. In his Catechetical Lectures Cyril seems to have been partly dependent upon Hippolytus. Like Hippolytus, he introduced the doctrine of the Antichrist to his hearers (Cat. 15.11 et passim) and took a similar approach in his treatment of women.45 Cyril explicitly mentions that both men and women are in his audience (Cat. 4.33). Like Hippolytus, Cyril teaches that both life and death come from a Baumbach, personal communication, 2-26-2010. Whether or not Ambrose may have known Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures. See Edward J. Yarnold, “The Ceremonies of Initiation in the De Sacramentis and De Mysteriis of St. Ambrose,” StPatr 10 (1970): 453-463; item, “Did St. Ambrose know the Mystagogic Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem?” StPatr 12 (1975): 184-189. It is certain Ambrose knew Hippolytus’ On the Song of Songs. 45 44 106 woman (Cat. 12.15, 2, Eve and Mary). Women receive the crown of the faithful (Cat. 12.34). Jesus was pierced in the side specifically for the redemption of women (Cat. 13.22). Cyril believed that the woman, as represented by Eve was weaker than man and thus was susceptible to the temptation of the serpent (Cat. 12.5). Hippolytus appears to hold the same opinion, since Martha begs to be taken to heaven so that she will no longer be susceptible to straying, as was Eve (In Cant. 25.3). Hippolytus likely believed, as did Tertullian and Cyril, that the souls of males and females are equal, but different respect to “person,” πρόσωπον or “status” (Cat. 4.20, 21; Tert. De bapt. 18). During exorcisms, or times of waiting, during the period of catechetical instruction men and women are to occupy themselves, the men reading something, women praying or singing silently, though the women were to pray silently in order to avoid speak in the church (1 Cor 14:34; Procat. 14; cp. Ambrose De sacr. 17). Cyril, like Hippolytus, places a high value upon confession of sin. Rahab is an example of sinners to whom salvation is available through repentance. Perhaps even among the women someone will say: “I have committed fornication and adultery. I have defiled my body with every excess. Can there be salvation for me?” Fix your eyes, woman, upon Rahab, and look for salvation for yourself too. For if she who openly and publicly practiced fornication was saved through repentance, will not she whose fornication preceded the gift of grace be saved by repentance and fasting (Procat. 2.9). The prophetic word concerning Jesus death and Passover concern equally the consolation of Apostles and women (Cat. 13.25). Men and women are part of the story of the resurrection so that both men and women may see themselves in the story (Cat. 13.39). Hippolytus is surely the source of Cyril’s allusion to Song 3:2 as “the women who sought him and found him not and afterwards found him and rejoiced” 107 (Cat. 14.2). Unlike Hippolytus, Cyril follows the gospel accounts that report Mary was the primary witness of the resurrection (Cat. 14.12) but, like Hippolytus, he sees the events of the resurrection predicted in the Song 3:1-5. Rather than ascribe them status of apostles to the apostles, Cyril suggests that God favored the women at the sepulcher above the male Chief Priests, who lacked understanding (Cat. 14.14). Women were equal to the Apostles as witnesses of the resurrection (Cat. 14.22), but women are especially susceptible to heretical influence (Cat. 16.8). During the time of Hippolytus the appeal of Christianity to women, especially elite women, was on the increase. Furthermore, if a date early in the third century On the Song of Songs is correct, it was written during the years of the Severan dynasty in which women ruled the Empire. Thus, strong social reasons led Hippolytus to exhibit a positive attitude toward women, particularly if he were writing this commentary in Rome. A healthy dose of skepticism should be directed against too easily arguing from Hippolytus’ glorification of Martha and Mary and a historical argument that he supported women’s ordination. Methodologically, it is perilous to derive the historical reality from theological categories. Theology is often a difficult to correlate with social reality. The rhetorical function of Hippolytus’ exempla in On the Song of Songs should put the reader on alert to his persuasive purposes. One who uses Hippolytus’ exempla for historical reconstruction must proceed with caution and attend to the rhetorical situation of the commentary. The meaning of the exegete’s comments must constantly be sought in their concrete application to his audience: the church-school gathered to welcome new converts and initiate them into the mysteries of their new faith. 108 2.3 On the Song of Songs and Female Patronage What is language about the apostleship of Martha and Mary? Cerrato entertains the idea that the early traditions of Martha are more ancient memories of local female patronage.46 However, female patronage in the late second and early third century church may be more to the point. Martha and Mary may symbolize female patrons (or matrons) of the church so that behind the prominence of women in On the Song of Songs in general and in chapters 24-25 in particular is a tension in the community between Hippolytus and female patrons of the community.47 Peter Brown and Charles Bobertz pointed to tensions between official, male clergy and patrons of the community. These “patrons” of the community were, according to Brown, often female. Women as heads of household in such a position of influence represented a danger and possible threat to the male leaders in the Christian community.48 Bobertz traced tension between clergy and patrons as part of the motivation in the Apostolic Tradition for regulating meal celebrations of patrons and matrons involved in Or, “matronal loyalty,” see ibid., 200. See Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (LHR NS 13; New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 140-59. 48 For example Irenaeus reports (Adv. haer. 1.25.6) that Marcellina, a female teacher with some relation to Carpocrates, went to Rome during the time of the presbyter-bishop Anicetus (155-160 AD). She and her followers apparently used images, including images of Christ, and gave them honor. Images were completely unremarkable in Greco-Roman culture. As the so-called “statue of Hippolytus” suggests, the use of images by Christians may not have been as rare as is often thought in the early church. 47 46 109 distributing needed relief among the poor through the practice of celebratory meals.49 Osiek points out that many of the cemeteries that eventually became the property of the Roman church may have begun as private cemeteries in which some Christians were allowed to bury their dead. Many of the early cemeteries in Rome bear the names of women and indicate significant Christian dependence upon female patronage in the early third century.50 During the late second and early third centuries, as much as male church-school leaders might have wished to snub the protectresses of the community, patronesses were necessary for the survival of the house churches.51 Some christian women became powerful through their connection to powerful men, like Commodus’ concubine Marcia, who was a Christian sympathizer if not a Christian. Others, through inheriting an estate from a wealthy husband or father, were vitally important for churches dependent upon family networks.52 The encouragement that such women (as well as men) received to remain celibate after the death of a spouse not only ensured the house churches of a pool of vital wealth for the support of its poor, it also blurred the spiritual status between the official male leaders and matrons and patrons of the community. That the official church-school leaders were willing to accept gifts from more well-to-do members is one central economic factor that accounts for the slow rise of the developing mainstream church Charles A. Bobertz, “The Role of Patron in the Cena Dominica of Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition,” JTS 44.1 (1993): 170-84. 50 Osiek, “Roman and Christian Burial Practices and the Patronage of Women,” Commemorating the Dead, 257-260. 51 Brown, Body and Society, 146. 52 Jewish synagogues also depended upon and honored their patronesses, see Bernadette J. Brooten, Women leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional evidence and Background Issues (BJS 36; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). 49 110 at the expense of churches with more radical attitudes toward wealth and marriage. Such groups had “no possibility of accumulating resources for the church and of producing generations of children reared in Christian families.”53 What made the history of the Christian church notably different from that of other religious groups was the constant anxiety of its clergy to define their own position against the principal benefactors of the Christian community. Early Christians came to expect that their leaders should possess recognizable and perpetual tokens of superiority to the laity: they might be expected to give evidence of a charismatic calling; they were encouraged, if possible, to practice perpetual continence; even when both these criteria were lacking, only they had received due ordination through the “laying on of hands.” This in turn, gave them an exclusive role in the celebration of the Eucharist that was the central rite of the Christian community. By these precautions, the clergy ensured that leadership of the church would not gravitate unthinkingly into the hands of its wealthiest and most powerful lay benefactors.54 The dismissive attitude exhibited in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 2:12-15) was no longer possible by the year 200 AD, when the inheritance of wealthy women could serve to support the clergy, the poor and the widows of the church. Therefore, it is not “debates over the participation of women in church leadership in Asia Minor in the second and third century, specifically in the context of the New Prophecy”55 that are the background of Hippolytus’ teaching about women. Rather fusses about celibacy, patronage and worries about the suceptibility of women to heretical teaching hover in the background of the teaching about women in On the Song of Songs. Perhaps this Brown, Body and Society, 144. Ibid. 55 Ernst, “Martha from the Margins,” 166, follows Ceratto, stating: “[The statements about the ordaining of Eve and Martha and Mary as apostles to the apostles] need to be heard in the context of the debates over the participation of women in church leadership in Asia Minor in the second and third century, specifically in the context of the New Prophecy.” 54 53 111 explains why the commentary does not condemn the sexual activity of Tamar, it extols the continence of Joseph (2.18, 19). It is therefore appropriate to assume that Martha and Mary—whose husbands receive no mention and who beg to be united to Christ (25.3)—likely represent women patronesses of the community. Such women who were also independently wealthy could edge closer to the status of clergy, if they remained celibate, than many men who were sexually active with female partners.56 By the mid-third century, the Roman Church supported 1,500 widows and destitute persons (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.43.11). Not all widows, however, were of low status, and such women were often mobile, active, and the sometimes the only lay persons who were able to accumulate all the respected attributes of holy, clerical status.57 They were often the most active members of the church, and, according to the references in On the Song of Songs 24-25 and Comm. Dan. 1.26 they were sometimes the most willing to learn from and give support to a teacher. In the list of works found on the side of the throne of the so-called “statue of Hippolytus” is one work dedicated to a woman. In On the Song of Songs 24-25, Eve is given the soteriological-typological distinction of “apostle” because of the “apostolic service” of Mary and Martha to the apostles. Eve, in this way, is an apostle to her husband Adam. Is it possible to transfer this symbolic category to life in Hippolytus’ church-school? Or is it possible, from language and within the mental horizon of Hippolytus, to infer a official ecclesiastical status conferred on particular women in Hippolytus’ church-school? 56 Ibid., 146. 57 Ibid. 112 The text actually says nothing more than esteemed service to the apostles.58 Should we see ordination to church office—like that practiced later among Montanists—shining like a star, glimmering in the horizon of the commentary?59 For his part, Cerrato gives free rein to speculation about the connections between Hippolytus’ Martha tradition to other possible sources. Thus, for Cerrato, Hippolytus the exegete’s preference of Martha as a resurrection witness has to come from the knowledge of a tradition found in the Epistula Apostolorum.60 In his summary, the Epistle of the Apostles, which he asserts could only have been composed in the East61 is Hippolytus the exegete’s source of the Martha story. At the same time Cerrato affirms that the promotion of Martha in On the Song of Songs must be a polemical rejection of the gnostic Christian preference of Mary Magdalene as a resurrection witness.62 In addition, Cerrato sees connections in the commentary with Ibid., 200. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 208. See Scholten, “John A. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West,” 89, who righlt observes that unfortunately no early sources support the official activity of women in early Montanism. Nor do any early anti-Monanist authors indicate female ordination among them. Only the fictitious testimony of Epiphanius in the fourth century supports this claim. Cerrato dutifully reports the fact that the epigraphic evidence of early Montanism is barely preserved (Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 206); however, he again raises the dubious inscriptions as if they were accurate historical documents (Ibid., 207). Moreover, his emphasis is on female office bearers and not female prophets, which does not fit the profile of Montanism. 60 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 198. See Scholten, “John A. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West,” 89. 61 Ibid., 257. 62 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 196-8; Scholten, “John A. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West,” 89. Ernst, Martha from the Margins, 293-303, has shown that the celebration of the resurrection of Lazarus the week before Easter in the liturgical traditions of Jerusalem and early reports of pilgrimage offer a better 59 58 113 with specific “gnostic” texts (2 ApcJac [NHC V, 3 and V, 4] and 1 ApcJac), from Syrian Jewish Christianity. For Cerrato, a close neighbor to Asia Minor in the East! Methodologically it is important to remember “theology is always earthed in a context”63 and that a context affect local theology in complex, multiple ways. It will not do to reconstruct the context of On the Song of Songs from a brief passage in his commentary (In Cant. 24-24). Nor is the context of the commentary a few theological ideas, gnostic texts and Montanist practices. Rather, scholars must always come back to earth to social realities in houses-churches, baptismal initiation during the Passover season, audience and teacher relations, and to the purpose of the commentary in context, that is to the rhetorical situation. Like the modern crime scene investigator, scholars need to look for signs of transfer between text and context that help build up a pattern of evidence for provenance. Hippolytus directed his commentary to the newly baptized in a situation in which women, both elite and non-elite, in larger numbers than men, were coming to the Christian faith.64 Some of them may have been widows seeking the comfort of community and the promise of significance and belonging in the church. The point of the interpretation of Song of Songs 3:1-7 for Hippolytus is to commend Eve, symbolizing women, for full participation in the community, because she has been transformed through a reversal brought about by Martha and Mary. Now Eve is restored as a helper to her husband, Adam. Now she can truly satisfy him with life-giving food (the gospel) and she can be clothed with a explanation for the spread of the tradition of Martha and Mary as witnesses of the resurrection. 63 Frances Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1. 64 Ibid. 114 “garment of virtue,” which she and they have recovered to replace temporary fig leaves. The ordination to apostleship which Hippolytus gives to women in In Cant. 25 is not the high honor of hierarchy, but the “ordination” given to women who are active in the church, sometimes patronesses with or without influential husbands, some of whom are not believers. These women, then, are commended in the crucial role played by Martha and Mary. They honor the dead through appropriate liturgy, the “offer” the gospel to their husbands, on behalf of the church, or they consult with the clergy, the “apostles.” If we desire to draw a historical detail from this teaching, it is the that Hippolytus may have in mind the apostolic succession in the leaders of his church. Yet in On the Song of Songs, the men do well to remain wary and look to confirmation for themselves from Christ alone. In this way the evil effects of the fall are reversed by the recapitulation wrought through the woman: Eve. In other words, the evil initiated by Eve is reversed through Eve’s representatives, Martha and Mary. In terms of social realities in the church, however, little need change. Hippolytus the exegete’s point does not, after all, go far beyond the exhortation of 1 Peter 3:1-6. And yet, Hippolytus’ emphasis provides a much more positive interpretation of what is essentially the teaching represented in 1 Tim 2:11-15 and the other household codes of Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter 3, and 1 Cor 14:34-35. In order to understand Hippolytus the exegete’s statements on women, an ideological critique informed by a poststructuralist perspective is useful.65 Using theory, or “any standpoint from which we might challenge a text’s self understanding,”66 helps fill in Elizabeth A. Clark, History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 176-81. 66 Paul Strohm, Theory and the Premodern Text (Medieval Cultures 26; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), xiv. 65 115 gaps left by the social-historic approach in this book and to contextualize the surprising but ultimately conventional statements of Hippolytus (In Cant. 25-27). Feminist approaches to the history of ancient Christianity provide needed perspective that prevents easy assumptions that the rhetorical equating of women and Eve is anything other than condescension. In this passage Hippolytus makes use of a topos of Christian preaching, the universalizing and naturalizing concept of “woman.” Patristic authors saw woman’s subjection to man as “natural,” and the amalgamation of all women with Eve is a prime example of this topos.67 In the same way as 1 Tim 2:11-15 blames Eve for limitations placed upon women’s activities and authority, Hippolytus “appeal[s] to the identification of women with Eve as a justification for their submission to men,”68 and ultimately it has nothing to do with office in the church. Indeed, it would serve, by way of compensation, as a justification for woman’s “exclusion from priesthood and public teaching office.”69 There is no “ordination” of women In Cant. 25. So the question arises whether Hippolytus truly contrasts with the tone other church fathers, Tertullian in particular: You are the Devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first foresaker of that divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the Devil was not brave enough to approach; you so lightly crushed the image of Elizabeth Clark, ed. Ascetic Piety and Women’s Faith: Essays on Late Ancient Christianity (Studies in Women and Religion 20, Lewiston, NY: Mellon Press, 1986), 31-2. 68 “The Church’s ever-increasing need for funds opened an avenue for women to gain importance in Christian circles despite their decisive exclusion from positions of ecclesiastical leadership,” Elizabeth Clark, “Patrons, Not Priests: Gender and Power in Late Ancient Christianity,” Gender & History 2 (1990): 253-74; eadem, “Ideology, History, and the Construction of ‘Woman,’” in Late Ancient Christianity (PHC 2, ed. Virginia Burrus; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 177. 69 Ibid. 67 116 God, the man Adam; because of your punishment, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die. And you think to adorn yourself beyond your “tunics of skins” (Gen 3.21)? (Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.1, 2; CCL 1.343) Tertullian’s famous “gateway” passage (quoted in Simone de Beauvior’s The Second Sex70) may not be as far from Hippolytus the exegete’s treatment of women as one might like to think.71 What Hippolytus gives with one hand during catechetical instruction to beginner, he could easily have taken back with the other hand during a controversy with women he considered unruly or too demanding. 2.4 Anti-Valentinian Polemic and the Competition for Female Patronage Cerrato argues that the episode of On the Song of Songs should be understood as representing anti-gnostic critique.72 As has been argued, a specific anti-Valentinian thrust is discernible, taken over as a way of thinking from Irenaeus.73 The suggestion that Hippolytus polemically replaces the revealer Mary with Martha against the tradition of The Gospel of Mary74 is tantalizing, but no real evidence exists. Cerrato also suggests a very close correspondence between On the Song of Songs and the First and Second Apocalypse of James. These links have been shown to be non- Simone de Beauvoir and H. M. Parshley, The Second Sex (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1953), 167. 71 On Tertullian’s gateway passage, see F. Forrester Church, “Sex and Salvation in Tertullian,” HTR 68.2 (1975): 83-101. 72 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 194-200. 73 See page 160. 74 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 196. See James M. Robinson, ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3rd completely rev. ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 487 70 117 existent, however.75 What then may be said about Hippolytus the exegete’s attitude toward women? On the Song of Songs simply does not support the weight of the proposition advanced by Cerrato, that Hippolytus sympathized with the New Prophecy on the issue of the status of women or that he differed at all in his attitude from pseudoHippolytus in Haer. 8.19.1; 10.25.1, where the author was critical of women leaders among the Montanists. Given the right set of circumstances, the author of On the Song of Songs could have been just as critical. He assumes that Martha is part of the text, but this is very doubtful. See HansMartin Schenke et al., Nag Hammadi deutsch (2nd ed., GCS 8, KGS 2; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), 417, n. 36, cited in Scholten, “Hippolytus between East and West” VC 59.1: 106. Further, “offering” in 1 Apoc. Jas. 40, 6 is speaking of burnt offerings, not “self-offering,” 1 Apoc. Jas. 40, 15 refers to the conversion of femaleness to maleness, and Cerrato uses this passage to assert, paradoxically, that Hippolytus the exegete is “resisting” such a conversion. However, it is not even clear that such an image is operative in the text or as a subtext. Concerning 2 Apoc. Jas., Cerrato simply asserts that Hippolytus the exegete knew the doctrines of this tractate, if not the text itself. He argues that Christ is portrayed as “he who stripped himself and went about naked” (NHC V, 4:46, 15); as “the first who will strip himself” (NHC V, 4, 56, 11) and “naked, and there was no garment clothing him” (NHC V, 4:58, 21-22). Cerrato passes by 2 Apoc. Jas. 56, 6-14 where “stripping” is done by James and has nothing to do with Christ at all, “Stripping” does not refer to clothing, rather it is a metaphor for ascending to the Pleroma (NHC V, 4, 4610-20), or, conversely, descending from the Pleroma (NHC V, 4:58, 21-22). It is, apparently, a metaphor for the non-physical nature of Christ. In contrast, the metaphor in In Cant. is about the recovery of the state of paradise enjoyed by Adam and Eve: in the beginning they wore, although nude, a “garment of virtue” which they recovered, instead of the transient fig leaves through Christ. As far as the resurrected Christ is concerned, he did not lie naked in the grave. Nakedness/stripping/fig leaves appear in In Cant. as part of the state of the sinful people, stripping in 2 Apoc. Jas. is either putting on or removing the physical body. If any connection exists between In Cant. and 1 and 2 Apoc. Jas., it is very tenuous. 75 118 2.5 Women and the “Synagogue” in the Commentary A rehearsal of the content of On the Song of Songs like that discussed previously,76 while important, cannot depict the originality and creativity of the interpretation of “the new divine economy77” of the Spirit developed by Hippolytus. On the Song of Songs begins with an introduction that conforms to the expectations of readers or hearers approaching a text deemed important enough and difficult enough to merit treatment in a commentary.78 Spiritually interpreted, the Spirit sings in the Song of Songs the economy that was later to become ordained in the churches (In Cant. 1.16), and that economy is the recapitulation of creation under the headship of Christ. Hippolytus, as a mystagogue, teaches new converts to participate in the new creation by means of faith and repentance, love and hope, ritual and mystery. Hippolytus develops this theme in remarkable ways, especially as regards women. The Spirit’s song reveals the “new economy” to the teachers of the community (“us”). Behind all Hippolytus the exegete’s instruction is the established hierarchy of the teachers of the community. Such teaching is given by developing intricate typologies corresponding to the connections he sees between the Old Testament Scriptures and their fulfillment in the new economy of Christ, the explanation of which believing See above on page 278. The economy of salvation is a central theme of the commentary, signifying especially the relationship between the Old Testament “church” or Israel and the New Testament church and the change of relationship between them both and God as a result of the incarnation of the Logos. See Bonwetsch, “Kommentar zum Hohenlied,” 81. 78 This form, the schema isagogicum, is discussed in Chapter 2. See page 274. 77 76 119 teachers must give believing listeners.79 The claim about the Montanist milieu is difficult to assess, since Montanists were to be found in Rome and in North Africa as well as other places besides Asia Minor during the second and third centuries. The claim, however, about the status of women in On the Song of Songs can be either confirmed or disproven. In the discussion above in Chapter Two on the probable audience of the commentary,80 it was argued that women of varying status are held up for comment by Hippolytus as a way of helping his audience (which included men and women) connect with his exposition of the biblical text. Female characters in the exposition are quite numerous: Wisdom (though Sophia-Logos ought to be seen as strictly androgynous), the Beloved, the mother of the Beloved, Tamar, the midwife, the virgin Mary, Martha (who anoints Jesus in On the Song of Songs), young girls (“the congregations” who are said to love the Lover), Martha and Mary (the myrrhophores), the Shunamite woman, the widow, and the woman with the issue of blood. The differing status of these women accords well with the assumption that Hippolytus had in mind a mixed audience of women and men of varying status. Nothing particularly negative about women is stated in these cases. Nor is anything said which indicates Hippolytus was attempting to elevate women or transcend the historical horizon of his time in any way beyond what was common in Christian groups. Again, the assumed context is a eucharistic meal and such meals responded in some ways to the general practice of banqueting in the ancient world. Topics for Bonwetsch, “Kommentar zum Hohenlied,” 81. This same idea is developed in Antichr. 2. 80 See page 230 ff. above. 79 120 discussion at meal time often included women, whether virtuous or not,81 and occasions for giving an encomium of women in general or a woman in particular might present themselves during funerary banquets, wedding banquets, or when men discussed the topic of love, which was a banquet topos as well.82 On the Song of Songs quite naturally and easily moves to this topic. Eve and the Myrrhophores, Martha and Mary Two major objections, then, may be directed against Cerrato’s application of his otherwise sound interpretation of the episode of the myrrhophores. One is a translation issue. The second is historical. The kind of ordination to high office that Cerrato imagines may well be anachronistic. Clearly, women as patronesses of the church in Rome and elsewhere from time to time functioned in the roles of deacon or presbyter for the churches meeting in their private homes. Such may be especially true as long as the over-all organizational structure of the Roman church remained more or less an informal communion of house-church schools. The Roman church order the Apostolic Tradition, however, makes a clear distinction between the office of presbyter and bishop. The various strata in that composite document of church order likely represents both earlier and later formulations.83 The kind of ordination that Cerrato assumes, that is, to professional clergy status, even for men, may well be See Athanaeus, Deipn. 13; Livy 1.57.8. For the evidence from Philo see above page 225; Katherine Dunbabin, “Ut Graeco More Beberetur: Greeks and Romans on the Dining Couch,” in Meals in a Social Context, 81-101; eadem, The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality (Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 117-118. 83 See Stewart, Apostolic Tradition, 1-25; Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition, 1-50; Metzger, “Nouveles Perspectives,” 242-259. 82 81 121 anachronistic for the early third century Rome.84 Ordination to a professional presbytery as occurred later in North Africa seems out of the question. Then, how can the myrrhophores become apostles to the apsotles? What sort of apostleship did they possess and what is the implication of this teaching for the role of woment in Hippoytus’ understanding? It is something highly unlikely during this period.85 Nevertheless, the text does speak of an appointment to a return to good order. The myrrhophores fulfill their function as “apostles to the apostles.” Hippolytus is quick to glorify and exalt the role of the women as bearers of the truth, rather than bearers of falsehood and deception.86 They are said to have “been sent by Christ, reveal to us a beautiful testimony,” and “become apostles of Christ” that they might complete through obedience the failure of old Eve (In Cant. 25.6). Because the women accepted the truth and chose to bear it to the male apostles, a reversal of Eve’s sin has taken place. First for herself, for From now on [she understood] the one she saw from that moment she hated and considered as an enemy who seduced her through desire. From now on that tree of seduction would not seduce her. Behold, from now on she is made happy through the tree of life and through the confession. From that tree, she tasted Christ. She has been made worthy of the good and [her] heart desired its nourishment. (In Cant. 25.7) As the myrrhophores believed in and begged for spiritual union with Christ, Eve, through them, “tasted,” in their participation in Christ, of the tree of life. The See Stewart, “Ordination rites and patronage systems” VC, 115-130. 85 On the early history of ordination, see Maier, Social Setting of the Ministry, 199-201. 86 The hyperbolic nature of the honor given the women seems to be more of a consolation than a recognition of special status and liturgical function. 84 122 intensity demonstrated in the act of clutching the feet of Christ, the prayer for spiritual union, the cry to be taken up to heaven with Christ represents a reversal of the distance between God and Old Eve, here consorting with the serpent and falling into sin. The image in On the Song of Songs gives a glimpse into the kind of warmth and intensity that early Christian adoration of Christ entailed. The relationship depicted is anything but mundane. Something of the depth of that emotion is captured by the sense that their cry unites them in Christ with primordial depths. Hippolytus blesses this intensity by saying that Eve, through the women, at long last, makes her approach to Christ. Still, the language of intercession in prayer here does not go beyond the restriction on the honor (of ordination) given to women in TA 11.5 to the honor that is a “a function of all Christians.” Eve, in the person of the myrrhophores, takes the fruit of the tree of life and gives it to the male disciples, who represent Adam. From now on she will no longer either crave or proffer to men food that corrupts; she has received incorruptibility; from now on she is in unity and [is] a helper, for Adam leads Eve. O good helper, with the gospel offering (or sacrificing) [it] to her husband! This is why the women evangelized the Disciples. (In Cant. 25.8) Hippolytus is at once keen to justify the skeptical response of the apostles. Even the doubt of the disciples fulfills a typological function in the recapitulation of the fall in Eden. And because of this they regarded them as deceived, because they doubted. But the reason was that it was the custom of Eve to report deception and not truth. (In Cant. 25.9) Adam’s gullibility is now replaced by apostolic skepticism. But all is as it should be, for Christ appears to confirm the testimony of the women. 123 What is this new announcement of the resurrection, O women? This is why they reckoned and (i.e. even) them as deceived. But in order that they might not appear as deceivers, but as speaking the truth, Christ was displayed to them at that time and said to them: “Peace be with you,” (Jn 20:15) by this he taught that, “It was my desire, I who appeared to these women, to send them also as apostles to you.” The conclusion of the episode of the myrrhophores takes an odd turn. It suggests the notion that the manner in which Hippolytus applies this narrative concerns the issue of the relation between the synagogue and the church and the risen Christ and not, ultimately, the issue of the relationship between men and women in the church. The synagogue-church relationship sits obscurely in this episode, as Cerrato notes more than once,87 and appeared to him to have the character of a redactional, Hippolytan addition, to a earlier tradition. It is, however, an important theme in the commentary as a whole. The world is said to be a “synagogue” or “gathering place” of “darkness comprehended through the proclamation of the Son” (In Cant. 1.5). The churches are described as the young virgins who love Christ and are dressed or adorned by order of Christ (In Cant. 2.32-34). The myrrhophores going to the tomb represent the “synagogue” who walk in the night, or darkness to the tomb, because they did not recognize that the Christ was alive. Song 3.1b applies to them, then, as a description of their unbelief, “By night I was seeking the one whom my soul loves” (In Cant. 24.2). The failure, then, of the women to find the resurrected one (In Cant. 24.3) is attributed to unbelief, which the angel who appears to the myrrhophores rebukes in a series of sharp questions: “I was seeking him and did not find him.” “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” And nothing of his was found there, for the tomb was not his 87 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 188, 191. 124 inheritance, but heaven. Why do you seek on earth the one who sits exalted upon a throne? Why do you seek the most glorious one in a inglorious tomb? Why do you search for the perfected in a grave? Behold, the stone has been rolled away. Why do you seek the perfected one in the tomb? Behold, the stone is rolled away; why do you seek the righteous one who, behold in the heavens [has] obtained grace? Why do you seek the One who has been set free, as one who is yet bound there as one who is trapped in a prison? (In Cant. 24.3) The story of the myrrhophores is the mystery of conversion. On the Song of Songs shows the synagogue is sharply contrasted with the church. One is the “Old Eve” while the other is the “New Eve.” Maja Weyermann, taking her cue from Constantina Peppa, gives the most cogent interpretation of this passage in Hippolytus.88 The mystagogue interprets Song 3.1-4 in the light of the Easter message of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and the double image of the synagogue versus the church are two who seek Christ “in the dark.”89 The synagogue approaches the tomb in the persons of Martha and Mary as representatives of the Old Eve and the world, the “gathering place” or “synagogue” of darkness. The women who go in search of the resurrected Christ, whom they think is dead, are a type of the Old Eve (Song 3.1); the women who encounter the risen Christ are the New Eve (Song 3.4), now filled with the knowledge of the mystery of the resurrection.90 Together they represent the church and renewed synagogue as witnesses of the resurrection. The apostles, for their part, also represent the synagogue before coming to faith. Through the now believing women, they experience the resurrected Christ as well. These are hopeful, upbeat images. They present a positive attitude toward the hopes embodied in the Maja Weyermann, “The Typologies of Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary,” 622-23, citing Peppa, “Die Töchter der Kirche Christi,” 69-76. 89 Weyermann, “Typologies of Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary,” 622-23. 90 Ibid. 623 88 125 unbelieving synagogue that encounters the message of the resurrection. The consolation of Israel or the synagogue in this incident is that the myrrhophores (as representatives of the synagogue), then, are indeed enabled to find the resurrected Christ by only going “a little further” (In Cant. 25.1) and finding grace. The implication is that the Jews of the synagogue walk in darkness, seeking the Messiah. They are not vilified in On the Song of Songs for their condition, only encouraged to go a little further to meet the resurrected Christ. Hippolytus’ hearers would have been quick to sense the honor given to them as those who were in the very process of going a little further in baptism, anointing, and communing with the saints. Thus the essential message of the episode, as redacted or adapted by Hippolytus has to do, on one level, with the recapitulation of all humanity under the New Eve-New Adam typology. The women cling to the “tree of life” (made present through the resurrected Christ). In this way Hippolytus allows his audience to look in on the moment in time in which the New Eve, now the church, takes the place of the Old Eve, the synagogue.91 The episode functions in a more restricted way to recapitulate the synagogue under the headship of Christ and the apostles. Thus, it is over-interpretation to consider Eve in this passage as “symbolic of womankind”92 or that Martha and Mary are “agents of female salvation.”93 Such an idea demands too much of the mental horizon of Hippolytus and, at any rate, Hippolytus does not apply the image in this way.94 Therefore, the women do become “apostles to the apostles,” and they, in their turn, experience a similar re-orientation 91 92 Ibid. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 190, 209. 93 Ibid., 193. 94 See Scholten, “John A. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West,” 85-92. 126 from Old Eve to the New Adam and the myrrhophores become types of the New Eve through their proclamation to the disciples. The women reverse the actions of Old Eve by their obedience. By bearing the truth, the New Eve becomes a helper, restored to appropriate subordination, that is to the leadership of the New Adam (represented by Christ and the male apostles). They announce the truth of the resurrection instead of deception, error, and death. Hippolytus, in this way, draws a sharp contrast between the negative role of “woman” in the law and the positive role of “woman” in the gospel.95 Hippolytus describes Martha and Mary of In Cant. 24-25 as indeed primary witnesses of the resurrection. It is best to understand that Hippolytus sees them, as Cerrato argued, as the sisters of Bethany. Elsewhere in On the Song of Songs 2.29, Martha anoints Jesus. As seen above, Hippolytus used the same tradition of Martha and Mary as witnesses of the resurrection as found in the In Exodum. This is enough to assert that Hippolytus was making use of a tradition, either written or oral, that, for him at least, supplemented the tradition of the four gospels, which he reverences in On the Song of Songs96 Hippolytus on several occasions argues from the basis of non- Similarly, Maja Weyermann, “The Typologies of Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary,” 263. 96 See In Cant. 8, 7; 24, 3. An extra-canonical tradition of Martha and Mary Magdalene as apostles to the apostles appears in the Ep. ap. 9-12, and another related tradition, connected perhaps with a Gospel of Bartholmeaum cited by Jerome, is found in a seventh century coptic fragment, “the book of the resurrection of a Mary and another Mary in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Schneemelcher and Wilson, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, 1:555; Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 652-3. These witnesses point to the existence and persistence of popular, extra-canonical traditions Hippolytus the exegete used and interpreted for his audience in conjunction with the explanation of the text of the Song. Whether this tradition was completely oral or derived from a written source such as the Logia of the Lord by Papias, it functioned on 95 127 canonical traditions for the believability of canonical traditions.97 The presence of Martha in this tradition is striking. She filled a more significant role in early Christian tradition than has been recognized before.98 Hippolytus is at home in the world of popular tradition and, evidently, sees these traditions as a matrix surrounding and even revising the written, canonical documents, in much the same way as Papias of Hierapolis (Hist. eccl. 3.39) was inclined to trust the living voice of the elders and apostles rather than the written gospels. the level of canonical Scripture and provided a basis considered sufficient to effectively re-write the scriptural tradition of the four canonical gospels. 97 Hippolytus the exegete made use of either the Acts of Paul and Thecla or oral traditions that were later collected into that work to substantiate the plausibility of the canonical story of the supernatural preservation of Daniel in the Lion’s den, Comm. Dan. 3, 29, “When therefore the angel appeared in the pit, the ferocious beasts were appeased, and manifested their joy to him by wagging their tails as if they wished to submit to a New Adam. They licked the holy feet of Daniel, they rolled in his footprints, desiring to be trampled by him. If we believe that, when Paul was condemned to the beasts, the lion that was released against him prostrated himself at his feet and licked him, why they would we not believe such a miracle with Daniel?” (trans., YWS). See Schneemelcher and Wilson, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, 2.215. It is logical to assume that Hippolytus the exegete know the entire APl and did not repudiate it. 98 Ernst, “Martha from the Margins,” vii-ix, and passim, discusses numerous artistic and textual references to Martha as a witness to the resurrection in the Ep. ap., In Cant., the Ambrosian Missal and the Syrian Fenqitho to show that Martha as a witness to the resurrection is both early and widespread and could even be contemporary with the writing of the Gospel of John. Unfortunately, I became aware of her dissertation too late to incorporate her findings into my work as fully as I would have liked. 128 2.6 Hippolytus’ Attitude toward Women in On the Song of Songs In order to understand Hippolytus the exegete’s statements on women it is necessary to employ a certain amount of ideological critique informed by a poststructuralist theoretical perspective.99 This use of theory, or “any standpoint from which we might challenge a text’s self understanding”100 fills in gaps left by a general historical-social approach and to contextualize the surprising, daring, but ultimately conventional statements of Hippolytus (In Cant. 25-27). One must recall the banquet setting for the discussion of the text of the Song and the conventional role of the praise of women in such contexts. In that context, Hippolytus makes use of a topos of Christian preaching and the universalizing and naturalizing concept of “woman.” Ironically Martha and Mary qua women (for they are also a symbol of the synagogue) lose composure and grasp the feet of Jesus, asking him for spiritual union and a passage straight to heaven. This conforms to a stereotypical view of women as hysterical. The male apostles respond to the witness of the women as stereotypical males in the Greco-Roman world would: with unbelief—and Hippolytus defends them for it! It is precisely their stereotypical posture that leads to the recapitulation of humanity under the New Eve (the church) and the New Adam (Christ). Thus, Hippolytus saw woman’s subjection to man as natural and the amalgamation of all women with Eve is a prime example of this topos.101 Just as 1 Tim. 2:11-15 blames Elizabeth A. Clark, History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 176-81. 100 Paul Strohm, Theory and the Premodern Text (Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota, 2000), xiv. 101 Clark, “Ideology, History, and the Construction of ‘Woman’,” 155-84; eadem, ed. 99 129 Eve for limitations placed upon women’s activities and authority, the patristic writers “appeal to the identification of women with Eve as a justification for their submission to men and exclusion from priesthood and public teaching office.”102 For all his praising of women in On the Song of Songs ultimately this attitude also characterizes Hippolytus. It is true, that his statement about Eve contrasts with Tertullian: You [woman] are the Devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first forsaker of that divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the Devil was not brave enough to approach; you so easily crushed the image of God, the man Adam; because of your punishment, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die. And you think to adorn yourself beyond your “tunics of skins” (Gen 3.21)?103 Both Tertullian and Hippolytus the exegete produce texts that must be nuanced with an appropriate application of rhetoric and socio-historical contextualization. What they give with one hand, they are capable of taking with the other. Ascetic Piety, 31-2; Weyermann, “The Typologies of Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary,” 623. 102 Clark, History, Theory, Text, 177. 103 Cult. fem. 1.1.2, in ANF, 4.14. Chapter 3 On the Song of Songs in the Social Context of “Heresies” There are no wise few. Every aristocracy that has ever existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob. —G. K. Chesterton, Heretics Hippolytus wrote his commentaries in part to combat those he considered heretics (In Cant. 20.1; 25.9; 27:12). However, even a heretic fighter must meet his opponents on their own ground in order to take it back. Hippolytus’ rhetorical strategy shows the influence of second-century issue theory (or stasis theory), which had its own chapter in the history of the rhetoric of the Second Sophistic.1 The specific type of issue theory that Hippolytus may have used is not important here. However, it is important to note that as the author strengthens the commitment of his audience to shared values in an epideictic mode, he also calls them to reject common enemies. The protreptic rhetorical purpose of On the Song of Songs includes holding up these opponents to scorn, especially Jews and heretics. Hippolytus turns out to be one of several Greek Christian writers in the West that wrote commentaries. What led him to use this genre of discourse? As Ireanaeus Malcomb Heath, “The substructure of stasis-theory from Hermagoras to Hermogenes,” Classical Quarterly 44 (1994) 114-29. 129 1 130 pointed out, Valentinians used commentaries in persuading and instructing psychic Christians to join them as spiritual Christians. Did earlier Valentinian commentary writing help shape Hippolytus’ own commentary writing? Does On the Song of Songs itself show that Hippolytus adapted a practice that other easterners like Valentinus brought to Rome? I will argue that On the Song of Songs suggests that Hippolytus not only adopted Valentinian literary forms but transformed the Quartodeciman Logos theology and the luturgical legacy received from the East in the process. The adaptability of Hippolytus may be seen in his focus on the liturgical practice of anointing newly baptized believers as an antidote to the sort of emphasis away from water baptism toward a second baptism, anointing and the bride chamber experience in Valentinianism.2 In this connection it is instructive to compare the emphasis on anointing in On the Song of Songs with the abundant teaching on the anointing (likely as a post-baptismal event) especially in the EV and the bride chamber experience in GPhil.3 It would be a big leap to say that Valentinians originated post-baptismal anointing. That is not the point of noting the similarities and contrasts with Valentinian practice and theology in this chapter and in chapters seven and eight. Rather Valentinian teaching and practice in Rome during the mid second century most likely formed a strong impetus for Hippolytus’ own teaching. Along with baptism, other liturgical acts woven into the interpretation of the Song include the kiss, anointing, the signing in the form of a cross and This conclusion is corroborated in Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 278-290. 3 Segelberg, “Coptic-Gnostic Baptismal Rite,” 122. 2 131 “overshadowing” of the beloved on her couch as post-baptismal laying on of hands. All these suggest a common liturgical context with the kind of rites described in TA 22 in which the bishop laid his hands on each newly baptised person, prayed that he or she be filled with the Holy Spirit, anointed the forehead, and kissed him or her. In TA they then prayed together with the community and exchanged the kiss of peace in anticipation of the eucharistic meal. The EV refers to similar rites: undressing, baptism in water, anointing the newly clothed baptizand with holy oil (probably by sealing in the sign of the cross), along with other rites.4 (See above page 87.) The similarity of liturgical practice to which On the Song of Songs alludes to those described in the TA and EV proves that Hippolytus, TA and the Valentinians inhabit the same realm of liturgical practice, and that, given Hippolytus’ rejection of emanation language in On the Song of Songs 2.8, they inhabit a common realm of theological discourse. The anti-heretical aspect of the mystagogical teaching in On the Song of Songs raises the issue of the similarities and differences between Hippolytus’ approach and that of Irenaeus and pseudo-Hippolytus of the Refutation to the to the challenge of Valentinianism. As a corollary to these questions about the relationship to Valentinianism, it is helpful to inquire about the literary relationship between the Refutation and On the Song of Songs. Such a literary relationship would suggest a higher probability of a Roman milieu for the commentary. The development of these arguments will clarify the social function of the commentary in defining the developing relationship between the community of Hippolytus and other Christian groups in its context. Till now such a study of On the 4 Ibid., 123. 132 Song of Songs has been hampered by the inaccessibility of the texts as well as the dubiousness of blinkered theories of provenance. A closer reading of the exegetical writings in terms of their liturgical and social function will repay the effort.5 The next two chapters will consider such arguments as they pertain to On the Song of Songs. 3.1 The Christian Love of Commentaries Commentary writing was, to a large degree, a feature of the second- and third century Greco-Roman educational milieu.6 Christians both eastern and western wrote “commentaries,” just as their non-Christian counterparts who were interested in codifying and reinterpreting classical knowledge.7 In the West, written commentaries on Scripture were apparently introduced by Valentinians and perhaps by Ireneaus of Lyon8 in response to the Valentinian threat. These Christians likely inherited the See Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 326. About the baptismal practice in Comm. Dan. he notes “[t]his information is consistent with what we know of general Christian baptismal practice and specifically of western practice at the beginning of the third century according to Tertullian ...” 6 Michael Trapp, “Philosophy, Scholarship, and the World of Learning in the Severan Period,” in Severan Culture (eds. Simon Swain et al.; Cambridge University Press, 2007), 484-88. 7 Ibid. 8 Like later Christian commentaries on the Song, On the Song of Songs may in fact depend on an earlier commentary of Irenaeus On the Song of Songs (a Syriac fragment in Harvey, 2:455). The use of Irenaeus’ commentary is difficult to demonstrate. Irenaeus’ commentary is no longer extant. William W. Harvey, ed. Sancti Irenaei, episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros quinque adversus haereses (Cantabrigiae: Typis Academicis, 1857), 2:455, cited in Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 231. For English translation, see Alexander Roberts et al., The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (ANF 1; Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmanns, 1976). 5 133 practice of sustained oral and written commentary on Scripture from Jewish antecedents. From before the Severan period (193-235 AD), Christian leaders were increasingly adopting the Hellenistic ethos of sophisticated teachers. The corollary of this is the spread of the use of the commentary genre from Hellenistic philosophical models used in schools to give expression to Christian interpretations of Jewish as well as Christian holy books. Justin (Apology 1.67.3-6) attests to the weekly reading in the eucharistic assembly of the Old Testament along with a reading of the Gospels, perhaps an adaptation of earlier Torah and Haftarah reading practices attested as early as Luke, Philo, and Josephus.9 Some Jews (elites and people with free time) may also have participated in similar midweek meetings for a more rigorous daily reading schedule.10 It appears that, from the earliest times, some Christians adopted similar practices, meeting during weekdays in non-eucharistic gatherings. Judging from the early third-century cycle of readings that Origen in Palestine produced for his daily homilies and the prominence of Old Testament material in the lists of Hippolytan works, Old Testament texts figured prominently in inter-week or daily Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 136-43. 10 Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 62 (also 139), “By the first century, a weekly ceremony featuring communal readings and study of holy texts had become a universal Jewish practice.” Apparently, however, great variety marked the communal reading and interpretive practices. The evidence does not support the notion of a set threeyear or one-year practice among Jews or Christians. Philo, Prob., 81-83, refers to an Essene Sabbath service with Torah reading presumably in the towns of Judea (Hypoth. 11.1), whereas a more rigorous schedule seems to have been the rule among the covenanters at Qumran (Josephus, B. J. 2.129-31), who met together daily at noon for a meal and the reading of holy texts. 9 134 meetings.11 The list of works on the so-called “statue of Hippolytus” also attests similar cycles of instruction centering on Old Testament interpretation in Rome. In other words, Christians of Greek background were writing commentaries and this activity likely indicates an vibrant culture of systematic Christian appropriation of the Jewish Scripture in group settings. While Greeks in the West perpetuated cultural patterns of education in their expatriate context, it was Latin speaking Christians who lagged behind in the production of commentaries. Commentary writing among Christians may have spread from East to West, as Cerrato says, but this observation is irrelevant in Rome by the time of Hippolytus. The list of works on the “statue of Hippolytus” is itself evidence that a Greek speaking Christian in Rome used and wrote commentaries. 3.1.1 Philobiblism and Literacy Philobiblism in the Roman church of the second and early third centuries is a strong prima facie argument in support of the production and use of commentaries by Manlio Simonetti, Origene esegeta e la sua tradizione (LCA NS 2 Brecia: Morcelliana, 2004), 75: . . . è dificile immaginare che queste serie organiche di omelie possano essere state predicate con cadenza soltanto settimanale in occasione della celebrazione eucaristica nella dies dominica, l’uzanza di tenere in chiesa riunioni infrasettimanali dedicate esclusivamente alla spegazione del testo sacro, che vedremo attestata per la Cesarea di Palestina del tempo di Origine. . . . it is difficult to imagine that this [the sermonic, exegetical writings of Hippolytus the exegete] organized series of homilies could have been preached only with the rythym of the weekly meeting with the eucharistic celebration held on Sunday. The practice of having church meetings during the week dedicated exclusively to the explanation of the sacred text, we will see is attested by in Caesarea of Palestine from the time of Origen. 11 135 at least some in the Roman church. Of course, literacy was not widespread in the ancient Greco-Roman world.12 Harry Gamble remarks that the available evidence offer[s] no reason to think that the extent of literacy of any kind among Christians was greater than in society at large. If anything, it was more limited. This means that not only the writing of Christian literature, but also the ability to read, criticize, and interpret it belonged to a small number of Christians in the first several centuries, ordinarily not more than [ten] percent . . .13And yet the educational system and curriculum which supported the acquisition of literacy was a means of inculcating the elite values of the Empire,14 which co-opted Hellenism as a means of creating a diverse, but loyal citizenry. The production of commentaries on classical texts was an essential part of this system. By the end of the second century, the Christian movement was only beginning to reach its literary stride in this area. Greco-Roman mystical religious groups tended to pass on ritual lore and teaching orally. Christians and Jews differed from that pattern and trusted in texts not only to record and preserve teaching,15 but to provide it with the underpinnings of authority and antiquity. They borrowed informal speech forms of philosophical circles commonly used for pastoral or psychagogical purposes on a popular level.16 The See William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 222-5. 13 Harry Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (Yale University Press, 1997), 2-7. 14 Yun Lee Too, “The Walking Library: The Performance of Cultural Memories,” in Athenaeus and His World (D. Braund and J. Wilkins; Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000), 120-23. 15 There are exceptions, viz., the inscription of the Iobacki in Athens, Johannes Kirchner, ed. Decrees and Sacred Laws (2nd ed; Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis Anno Posteriores, 3; Berlin: 1913), 644; Benjamin D. Meritt, “Greek Inscriptions,” Hesperia 11.3 (1942): 282-5. 16 Note, for example, the popular uses of consolatory speech forms in the papyri, Juan Chapa, Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri (PF 29 Florence: Edizione Gonnelli, 1998). 12 136 abundance of commentaries in philosophical circles indicates that in this respect Christians followed the example of philosophical groups, not the mysteries.17 3.1.2 Christian Walking Libraries Though Christians had already produced a fair amount of literature, Origen understated that “None of the saints has produced numerous compositions and set out his understanding in many books.”18 Both Hippolytus and Origen are representatives of the figure of a Christian “walking library.”19 They are emblems of textual mobility in persons who free the Greco-Roman library from strict geographical location and discharge a service in the midst of a generally uncomprehending and unlearned world.20 Along with the “walking library,” the production of books, commentaries, and other kinds of compositions was a well-worn path to legitimacy among the elite for various schools of philosophy. Hippolytus was himself a representative of a growing bookishness among the elite oriented leaders in the early church at the beginning of the third century. By the Hans Theodor Anton von Prott and Ludwig Ziehen, Leges Graecorum sacrae e titulis collectae, (ed. Ioannis de Prott, Ludovicus Ziehen 2; Lipsiae: Teubner, 1896), 95-100, no. 51; also Kirchner, ed. Decrees and Sacred Laws 3:1368.1-160. Translation and discussion in Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 11-131; Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 145-6. 18 Origen, Comm. Jo. 5.3, Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13-32 (FC 89; trans. Ronald E. Heine; Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1993). 19 Eunapius (346-ca.414), Lives of the Sophists, 456, describes the later conemprary of Hippolytus, Longinus (233-ca.301) as a βιβλιοθήκη . . . ἔµψυχος and a περιπατοῦν µουσεῖον, “a breathing . . . library” and “a walking museum.” 20 Too, “The Walking Library,” 116. 17 137 fourth century, the works of Hippolytus, as well as other Roman authors, figured prominently in the library of Alexander, an admirer of Origen, in Aelia Capitolina consulted by Eusebius (including both works from both Hippolytus and the Roman Gaius). 3.1.3 Christian Readers? In terms of social status, what sort of author and reader can be imagined for the writer of the documents commonly accepted by scholars as from Hippolytus? One may well imagine Hippolytus himself as one who had sufficient wealth at his disposal to produce and store books in a library.21 Hippolytus refers to baptism taking place in a garden, suggesting that the author was at home in a peristyle type house (Comm. Dan. 1.16). Libraries also adorned gardens in Roman elite houses and villas.22 Plutarch’s Life of Lucullus congratulates the Roman dignitary for establishing library in the peristyle enclosure of his villa which he made available to his friends. Plutarch remarks that it was a particular joy to the expatriate Greeks who went there “as to an hostelry of the Muses, and spent the day with one another, in glad escape from their other occupations” (Lucullus 42). But libraries were not necessarily only for the elite. The upper and middling levels in a church could pool resources for the production of little libraries (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.28.10). The works attributed to Hippolytus bear the stamp of the Christian philobiblism of the late second and early third century. This period not only seems to On domestic collections of books see Plutarch, Lucullus 39-42. On libraries in domestic gardens or peristyles see Eleanor W. Leach, The Social Life of Painting in Ancient Rome and on the Bay of Naples (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 37-39, 49, 110. 22 21 138 have afforded economic and social conditions that encouraged the production of substantial quantities of books, but also of the stocking of libraries of increasing size, as may be seen in the fragment of a work associated with Hippolytus the heresiographyer, author of the Refutation in Rome. What [the followers of Theodotus the Cobbler] said might perhaps be plausible if in the first place the divine Scriptures were not opposed to them and there are also writings of certain Christians, older than the time of Victor, which they wrote to the Gentiles on behalf of the truth and against the heresies of their own time. I mean the words of Justin and Miltiades and Tatian and Clement and many others in all of which Christ is treated as God. For who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and Melito and the others who announced Christ as God and man? And all the Psalms and hymns which were written by faithful Christians who from the beginning sing of the Christ as the Logos of God and treat him as God. How is it possible that after the mind of the Church had been announced for so many years that the generation before Victor can have preached as these say?23 The depth and reach of early Christian literature implied by the author of this fragment indicates the existence of considerable collections of Christian books.24 TA 41.4 (Stewart, 164) hints at the power of books for Christian readers. It suggests that reading a “holy book” was considered an appropriate substitute for a regular meeting Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.28, ἦν δ' ἂν τυχὸν πιθανὸν τὸ λεγόµενον, εἰ µὴ πρῶτον µὲν ἀντέπιπτον αὐτοῖς αἱ θεῖαι γραφαί· καὶ ἀδελφῶν δέ τινων ἔστιν γράµµατα, πρεσβύτερα τῶν Βίκτορος χρόνων, ἃ ἐκεῖνοι καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ πρὸς τὰς τότε αἱρέσεις ἔγραψαν, λέγω δὲ Ἰουστίνου καὶ Μιλτιάδουκαὶ Τατιανοῦ καὶ Κλήµεντος καὶ ἑτέρων πλειόνων, ἐν οἷς ἅπασιν θεολογεῖται ὁ Χριστός, τὰ γὰρ Εἰρηναίου τε καὶ Μελίτωνος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τίς ἀγνοεῖ βιβλία, θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγέλλοντα τὸν Χριστόν, ψαλµοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ ᾠδαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὑµνοῦσιν θεολογοῦντες; πῶς οὖν ἐκ τοσούτων ἐτῶν καταγγελλοµένου τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ φρονήµατος, ἐνδέχεται τοὺς µέχρι Βίκτορος οὕτως ὡς οὗτοι λέγουσιν κεκηρυχέναι. 24 Vinzent, “‘Philobiblie’ im Frühen Christentum,” 115-17. 23 139 “on a day there is no instruction.” Few people, however, owned books.25 Lampe’s historical description of the transformation of some house-churches into house-schools, as exemplified by Justin and his house-church school, is also applicable to Hippolytus and his community in Rome.26 Though Justin renounced honoraria for his services as teacher (Justin Dial. 58.1; cp. Tatian Or. 32.2), how were his books published?27 If Paul’s letter to the Romans might have cost, in time, materials, and scribal expertise upward of two thousand dollars28 on some estimates,29 what would have been the production costs of the first and second Apologies or any other of Justin’s lengthy compositions? On the Song of Songs, would have cost the equivalent of 200-500 dollars to copy.30 Total production costs—including the Epictetus gives book prices that may be compared, more or less, with those in the early third century. He states that a book by the Stoic Chrysippus sold for five denarii or twenty sesterces (Epictetus, Discourses, 1.4.16). Martial, Epigrams, 1.117.17 suggests that five denarii was the price of his first book of epigrams. These prices represent about five days wages. The value of the denarius in the late second and early third century fluctuated wildly so that, at the time Hippolytus wrote In Cant., 30 denarii was considered a price accessible to a poor person. 26 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 279-84. 27 Publication was more a means of attracting students and patrons and not a major source of revenue for the author, see Harry Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (Yale University Press, 1997), 82-143, especially 83. 28 The value is calculated in 2003 U.S. dollars. 29 The writer of PLond. Inv. 2110 from the early third century paid to have copies made of two books. He mentions paying two rates, 28 drachmas and 20.6 drachmas per 10,000 lines of text. An imperial edict of Diocletian in 301 AD confirms this rate structure. Gamble, Books and Readers, 275, n. 11. See also E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 167-9. 30 Based on a rough estimate of one drachma to U.S. 38.00 (2006), around 2000 to 2100 lines of text. 25 140 services of a secretary—would have been considerably higher. The production of books demanded a level of wealth or access to patronage.31 When Galen was in Rome at the end of the second century, his impression was that groups of Christians seemed to resemble a philosophical school, albeit, in his opinion, a second or third rate school.32 Galen’s not completely negative attitude toward Christians is unique among recorded early Greco-Roman opinions of nonChristians. In fact, Theodotus the cobbler, excommunicated by Victor and his church, was himself enthusiastic about Galen (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.28).33 This particular church-school is depicted as industrious in the production of books, copies of Scriptures, and studies (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.28.10). 3.1.4 The Church as the Fair School of Grace Hippolytus the exegete himself, or one of his school, described the church as “the fair school of grace” (τὸ καλὸν τῆς χάριτος διδασκαλεῖον).34 Simlarly the exegete Ibid. Theodotus is mentioned in the unattributed fragment in Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.28, possibly from the author of Haer. or from Hippolytus, if these are not the same person. See Robert L. Wilken, “Early Christian Chiliasm, Jewish Messianism, and the Idea of the Holy Land,” HTR 79 (1986): 276; Robert Wilken, “Collegia, Philosophical Schools, and Theology,” in The Catacombs and the Colosseum (ed. Stephen Benko, and John J. O’Rourke; Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1971), 276-91, and the relevant texts cited in Richard Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 10-16. 33 On the anti-heretical treatise, called the Little Labyrinth, referred to in Haer. see R. H. Connolly, “Eusebius H. E. V, 28,” JTS 49 (1948). See also Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, 122-23. 34 Fragmenta de Psalmis: Χριστὸς δὲ λέγει «Ὅτι <ἀπεκάλυψας νηπίοις θηλάζουσι»>, Προφήταις λέγει, οἳ µέτοχοι πνεύµατος ἁγίου, ὡς νήπιοι κακίας τε πόρρω ὑπάρχοντες, τὸ καλὸν τῆς χάριτος διδασκαλεῖον ᾠκοδόµησαν, ὑπὲρ ὧν 32 31 141 refers to the church (In Cant. 8.3) as the flock of God gathered into corrals or pens to be cared for while they are “learning Christ.” Nevertheless, he seems to have preferred to use the term διδασκαλεῖον to refer to a heretical house-church such as the group led by Noetus (Noet. 1.8), as did pseudo-Hippolytus who, apart from his reference to Hellenistic schools of philosophy (1.18, 2; 5.24, 3), used the term to refer to groups he considered heretical, especially the “διδασκαλεῖον of Zephyrinus and Callistus” (Haer. 9.7.3; 9.12.20, 21, 26 ). The large body of works attributed to Hippolytus, over forty in total, as well as the evidence of the so-called “statue of Hippolytus,” supports the notion that such house-churches would likely have been viewed by outsiders as a school. Such house-church schools, with their love of books would have had recourse to scribal helpers like those used by Origen, Hippolytus the exegete’s younger contemporary. These groups would have required the significant help of patrons and patronesses with disposable income.35 If, as Brent and Stewart have proposed, two or three capable authors graced the community of Hippolytus, then the community would have appeared to have a scholastic orientation.36 Such industriousness was expended for some gain, and that gain was likely connected the gathering of converts, maintaining the interest and support of the patrons and patronesses of the community, and keeping the members of the church from drifting ἐψάλλε πάλιν δικαίως Δαυίδ. Cited in Pierre Nautin, Lettres et écrivains chrétiens des II et III siècles (Patristica 2 Paris: Cerf, 1961), 52, and idem, Le dossier d'Hippolyte et de Méliton dans les florilèges dogmatiques et chez les historiens modernes (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1953), 102-7. The cited text is from TLG. According to Brent, On the Psalms was from a third writer in the Hippolytan school. See Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 338-9. 35 Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church, 122. 36 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 339; Stewart, Apostolic Tradition, 31. 142 away to other teachers. 3.1.5 Valentinian Influence on Christian Commentary Writing Commentaries and exegesis were also a prime method used by Valentinian teachers (eastern and western) to reinterpret the “ecclesiastic” faith of psychic believers. Irenaeus claims Valentinians made use of written commentaries in their pursuit of converts from other Christian groups and he claims to have read some of them (Adv. haer. I, praef.).37 Irenaeus was immediately concerned with Valentinian activity in the West. A concrete example of this type activity is Ptolemy, author of the famous Letter to Flora, who draws upon a commentary tradition of Old Testament exegesis in his explanations to his student. Irenaeus is the most significant source of information about the career of Valentinus himself. However, Epiphanius had from oral tradition that Valentinus (Ὀυαλεντίνος) went to Rome from after having taught in Egypt where he was also educated at Alexandria (Epiph. Haer. 31.2). Valentinus went to Rome “in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus” (Adv. Haer.. 3.4.3). This means that he was a resident in the city from c. 136-65 AD.38 And known as a significant voice in the life of the Roman churches, since he had ties to no less that Paul himself.39 Thus he was positioned at a crucial time to leave a significant impact This reference, mitigates the argument that Scripture commentary writing was an activity only known in the East before the time of Hippolytus. One is puzzled why Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 14, places the activity of gnostic commentary writing exclusively in the East. 38 The later constituted list of popes evidenced in Eusebius had Hyginus, Pius and Anicetus as successive “bishops of Rome.” 39 According to Clement of Alexandria, Valentinus was a disciple of Theudas, who 37 143 on Christian faith and practice in Rome, since during his time Marcion also came to Rome and began to agitate to form a canonical list of accepted and rejected books, free of the Jewish law and much of what later became known as the New Testament writings. He was, then a rival to Marcion as a reformer of the church in Rome. Judging from his embrace of both Old and New Testament books, he was a champion of a much broader canon that Marcion’s. Tertullian says that Valentinus became indignant when he was not appointed bishop and after that became heretical (Adv. Valent. 4). Epiphanius read in the (now lost Suntagma) of Hippolytus, that Valentinus, once in communion with the orthodox church, because of pride became apostate while in residence in Cyprus (Philaster, Haer. 38).40 That is, he was never considered a heretic during his ministry in Rome. In other words, Valentinus was accepted into the Roman church and was a significant force for renewal, delight, liturgical innovation and creativity. Furthermore, as a house church leader, or leader of a group of house churches, the Valentinians were already present, but indistinguishable from the other Christian groups. They were part of the accepted diversity of Christianity at that time. However, Valentinus eventually became too deviant (or not popular enough or without the right connections to others in power) to be accepted when he sought to unify the church under his leadership. Since Valentinus himself was present for two or three decades in Rome, it is was supposed to have been a disciple of Paul (Strom. 7.17). 40 “Valentinus was the first to adapt the heresy called ‘Gnostic’ to the peculiar character of his own school” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.11.1), by which he means that he was the first to systematize generally circulating Gnostic thinking into a consistent doctrinal system. That is, using polytheistic thought as the framework for interpreting the Christ (and Biblical) tradition. 144 likely that Valentinian use of the commentary genre influenced the production of commentaries in Rome, though we have little direct evidence of such commentaries. The Letter to Flora, however, gives a good indication of the direction such commentaries might take. Valentinus, however, was deeply involved in the interpretive traditions in evidence at Rome (and elsewhere) during the mid-second century. For example, the nuptial interpretation of baptism is evidenced in the gnostic Christian Commentary on John by Heracleon.41 Valentinian inscriptional evidence in Rome and passages in the GPhil (§31;§59; §87; §122; also attest to this interpretation of baptism that predated Hippolytus.42 For example, the tradition of baptism as illumination was an important symbolic stuff taken up by both Valentinians and non-Valentinians. Van Os43 suggests that those waiting for baptism could see their reflections in See below page 413. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 286, suggests that the order in GPhil of stripping, baptism, chrism and eucharist reflects western, not Syrian, practice.The wall paintings in the bapstistery at Dura-Europos may also attest to the adaptation of nuptial imagery in baptism as practiced in Syria, but the spacial configuration suggests pre-baptismal anointing. See Dominic Serra, “The Baptistery at Dura-Europos: The Wall Paintings in the Context of Syrian Baptismal Theology,” Ephemerides Liturgicae 120 (2006): 67-78. 43 Here in following van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber” and Wesley William Isenberg, “The Coptic Gospel According to Phillip” (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago), 45 and in some ways Segelberg, “Baptismal Rite,” 122-3, I nonetheless note that Schmidt, Die Eucharistie is Jesus, and Hans-Martin Schenke, “Das Evangelium nach Phillipus: Ein Evangelium der Valentinianer aus dem Funde von Nag Hammadi,” ThLZ 84 (1959): 1-26 (reprinted in Leipoldt Johannes und HansMartin Schenke, Koptisch-gnostische Schriften aus den Papyrus-Codices von NagHamadi (Theologische Forschung, Wissenschafliche Beiträge zur Kirchliich-Evangelischen Lehre 20; Hamburg: Hamburg, Herbert Reich Evangelischer Verlag, 1960), 31-63, 81-82 would understand the Sakramentskatachese as a source of GPhil. 42 41 145 the water because oil lamps were brought near to illuminate the place of baptism (GPhil §75), in accordance with the Valentinian inscription on the Via Latina, which mentions “celebration with torches.”44 Thus, those who awaited baptism could literally be seen, in the reflection of the water and shining torches, as “illuminated.” Van Os resolves the contradiction that arises in GPhil §122, which states that the spiritual marriage takes place in the light and during the day. He notes, however, that GPhil §126 and 127 indicate the light/day should be understood metaphorically,45 since the light is received in the bridal chamber, even as Justin, Apol. 1:24-25 speaks of those who are baptized as “those illuminated.”46 Van Os argues convincingly that the entire GPhil is a combined manual of catechesis for instructing those preparing to be baptized combined with mystagogy following baptism, giving instruction after baptism about the anointing and Christian living. In the same vein as the Didache, a final pre-baptismal instruction given just prior to baptism, the GPhil offers 7 units of instruction.47 The fourth century Cyril of Jerusalem will offer 21 units of instruction.48 He points to GPhil § 6-8 and § 109 as indicating a preferred time of year for baptism, which is symbolized as the transition from winter to summer, i.e., spring. He points out that GPhil contains many This mention also is in line with the Lucernarium eucharistic meal in TA van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 129. 46 If the waters themselves were anointed with oil, as seems to have been a practice of some Valentinians (See below note 125 on page 408.) and of Hippolytus himself (In Cant. 2.8 n. a) the lights of the lamps would have flashed brilliantly in the darkness. 47 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 129. 48 During the forty days prior to Easter, van Os suggests this might correspond to an instruction period of a week. 45 44 146 references to the crucifixion, the cross, and one to the paschal lamb. While this does not require Easter baptism, the discourse fits the Easter time-frame better than any other. The first reference is not as clear as the second, since it speaks indirectly and metaphorically: §6 In the days that we were Hebrews,49 we were orphans, having our mother. But when we became Christians50 we received father and mother. §7 Those who sow in the winter, harvest in the summer. The winter is the cosmos; the summer is the other aeon. Let us sow in the cosmos, so that we shall harvest in the summer. Therefore it is necessary for us not to pray in the winter. Out of the winter the summer (comes forth). And if someone harvests in the winter, he will not harvest but he will pluck out, §8 like that sort that will not yield fruit [to him]. Not only does it come out [in the winter], but in the other sabbath, [his field] is without fruit. The second is more obvious. §109 As Jesus fulfilled the water of baptism, so he has poured out death. Therefore, we indeed go down into the water, but we do not go down into death, so that we are not emptied in the spirit of the cosmos. When he blows, it becomes winter. When the Holy Spirit blows, it becomes summer.51 The nuptial language, reminiscent of the Song of Songs is a remarkable feature of Valentinian initiation that indicates that Hippolytus and the charismatic, influential earlier leader in the early church shared much in common. For Hippolytus is also a purveyor of post-baptismal experiences! Whether or not Valentinus is the originator of nuptial language is no matter. Rather, his use of nuptial language not for Christian baptism itself but for the post-baptismal anointing is the signifcant feature 49 50 I.e., unenlightened, baptized, psychic Christians (!). I.e., Fully initiated into the nuptial rites, i.e. enlightened by Valentinian teaching. 51 Van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 88. 147 two which Hippolytus is reacting in On the Song of Songs. That he was later called a “little fox” by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.31.4; and perhaps by Hippolytus cf. In Cant. 20.1, 2) may indicate that the Song of Songs was itself an important text for Valentinians in their post-baptismal initiation rites. By calling him a little fox, Irenaeus references the very text used by Valentinians to support their liturgical practice. A further reference in GPhil that seems to reflect a ritual elaboration of the Song of Songs is the interpretation of the kiss of believers given in the context of the Eucharist, GPhil 31: For the perfect conceive through a kiss and give birth. Therefore, we too kiss one another, receiving conception from the grace that is within one another.” The kiss in GPhil is quite similar to the instruction about the kiss given by Hippolytus (In Cant. 2.1): In Cant. 2.1 Now come and let us see this proposition of it [him/the book], in which he says. “Kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, because your breasts are lovelier than wine, and [the] aroma of your anointing oil greater than all incense, and as aroma of anointing oil poured out is your name.” 2.2 What is the will of the Spirit, for what [is its] force, or what might be the interpretation (lit. indication, sign) of this mystery? We must proclaim to those who will hear, for it is the representation (lit. type) of the people that entreats the heavenly Word to kiss them, because [the people] wish to join [together] mouth to mouth. For [the people] wishes to join the power of the Spirit to itself. CantPar 2.1 But we pass on to proposition of the book. Let him kiss me from the kiss of his mouth (And in these matters the great Hippolytus celebrates God to the greatest extent). Because your breasts are above wine and the scent of your anointing oil is above all aromatic spices, your name is anointing oil poured out. For this reason the young women loved you. The Valentinian writer of commentaries, Heracleon, was considered by pseudo-Hippolytus to be a representative of Italian Valentinianism (Haer. 6.30.3-7) 148 and may have been from Sicily,52 perhaps spending time with his teacher in Rome before moving eastward. What is important here is that Valentinian tradition connects the second baptism and anointing of the psychic believer with a heavenly experience of Christ in the bride chamber. That interpretation of the anointing in effect up-staged baptism as known in Hippolytus’ community and in the greater church in Rome, placing that baptism at a considerable disadvantage. (See below 308.) In his On the Song of Songs Hippolytus draws attention to the significance of anointing and encourages the newly converted in their passionate search for Christ as the bridegroom and longing for the bride chamber, “my mother’s house” and “[the king’s] inner chambers” and “treasuries” (In Cant. 3:1; 24.1ff). In the commentary these chambers represent a heavenly experience of the ascended savior that is not fully open to Martha and Mary who represent believing Jews and Gentiles in search of the resurrected Savior. In this way Hippolytus is able to counter Valentinian theological and liturgical claims of the experience of the bride chamber in connection with baptism and anointing. Rather than nuptials, Hippolytus defined anointing as preparatory to nuptials to be experienced in the eschatological future. A valuation of the relative importance of anointing and the bridal chamber experience compared with Christian baptism is clearly expressed in GPhil: §95 The chrism is lord over baptism. For because of the chrism we are called ‘Christians’, not because of baptism. Also Christ was called (thus) because of the chrism. For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, Anonymous, Praedestinatus 16, (PL 53:592b) Hic in partibus Siciliae inchoavit docere. “He began to teach in the the regions of Sicily.” Heracleon was later a teacher in Alexandria. 52 149 and the apostles anointed us. He who is anointed has the all. He has the resurrection, the light, the cross. §96 As to the Holy Spirit, the Father gave him this in the bridal chamber (and) he received (him). The Father came to be in the Son, and the Son in the Father. This is thekingdom of heavens. This hierarchy of rites is continued in the discussion of Eucharist: §98 This way too it is with the bread and the cup and the oil, even though there is something else superior to these. ... §100 The cup of prayer contains wine (and) it contains water, for it serves instituted as the type of his blood, over which eucharist is said, and which fills up with the Holy Spirit, and it is that of the wholly perfect Man. When we drink it we receive the perfect man. ... §76 There were three houses where to offer sacrifice in Jerusalem. The one opening to the west was called the ‘Holy’. The other one, opening to the south, was called the ‘Holy of the Holy’. The third one, opening to the east, was called the ‘Holy of the Holies’, the place where only the high priest goes into. Baptism is the Holy house. Redemption is the Holy of the Holy. The Holy of the Holies is the bridal chamber. Baptism has the resurrection in the redemption, being the redemption in the bridal chamber, and the bridal chamber in that which is above [it, to which we belong]. You will find nothing like it. [Those who receive it] are those who pray [in spirit and truth. They do not pray in] Jerusalem. [There are some in] Jerusalem [indeed praying in] Jerusalem, [but] waiting [for the mysteries] that are called the Holy of the Holies. [This is that (house) whose] veil was rented. [Our] bridal room [is nothing else] but the image [of the bridal chamber that is] above. Because of this, its veil was rent from above to below. For it was necessary for some from below to go to the above. §77 Those who are clothed with the perfect light, the powers do not see, and they are not able to seize them. One will clothe himself in this light in the mystery in the union. As known from Irenaeus, Valentinian initiatory practice varied but in general assumed more broadly used patterns for its variations. The EV and GPhil have already been mentioned in various contexts. Another example of this variation is 150 found in codex XI of the Nag Hammadi collection. An untitled, badly damaged text now known as A Valentinian Exposition presents a collection of catechetical and mystagocal instructions. Pagels suggests it is “a catechism for initiates ‘into gnosis,’ that concludes with prayers related to rites of initiation, baptism and eucharist.”53 Thomassen and Mayer suggest the title A Valentinian Exposition with Liturgical Readings.54 The speaker explains the mystery (22.15) to people who have experienced initiatiation or will soon experience it (22.18). He discusses the Son (23.18 and 24.18) and the revelation that the candidates will enter (23.34). The only-begotten son is the high priest who may enter the Holy of Holies (25.35). He also discusses the crucifixion (33.19). Then follows a lengthy discussion of the problem of creation. The unification of Sophia and Jesus, and that of the angels with the “seeds,” restores the πλήρωµα or fullness of God. Five supplementary texts mention the water of baptism, the anointing, and the Eucharist. Some parts are clearly prayers, others contain explanations. Their close connection to the preceding exposition supports the assumption that the fragments were suggestions for liturgical pronouncements in preparation for and during rites that included exorcism, anointing, baptism and the Eucharist. Elaine Pages in the introductory comments in James M. Robinson, ed. The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices (Brill Academic Publishers, 2000), 5:25-39. 54 Marvin Meyer and James M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts Complete in One Volume (HarperOne, 2009), 663. 53 151 3.2 Fighting Heretics in Hippolytus Valentinus had visited Rome sometime in the third decade of the second century. According to Irenaeus’ information, the founder of “Valentinianism” remained in the imperial capital as an accepted church leader for two or three decades.55 By 155-160 AD Justin was also living in Rome. The one mention he gives “the Valentinians” in his Dialogue with Trypho (35.6) is, then, of doubtful authenticity,56 since Justin does not in any other place mention the name of Valentinus, does not describe any of his offending teachings, nor does he even use the term “gnostic.”57 Such additions are most likely later pious adjustments. Justin does describe the martyrdom of a Christian teacher Ptolemaeus, as “a lover of truth, and not of a deceitful or false disposition [who] confessed himself to be a Christian (Apol. 2.2).” Very likely this Ptolemy was the disciple of Valentinus of the famous Letter to Flora.58 This evidence, and the evidence in Irenaeus, suggests that the diverse groups of Christians in Rome were united with “Valentinians” in opposition to the Marcionites and that the Valentinians were thus in complete fellowship with the rest Irenaeus, Haer. 3.4.3. The period of time for Valentinus’ ministry in Rome may be calculated from dates for the three “episcopates” mentioned by Irenaeus, given in Adolf von Harnack, The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (trans. and ed. James Moffatt; Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 1904), 241-2. The idea of a succession of Roman bishops at this time is probably an anachronistic fiction. See also, e.g., Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 404–6. Dates for Valentinus, therefore, may be taken only as a rough indication. See Thomassen, “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Second-Century Rome,” HTR 97.3: 241. 56 Pagels, “Hermeneutics and Ritual,” VC 56 (2002): 345. 57 Justin uses neither the term “gnostic,” nor mentions the name Valentinus. 58 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 239. 55 152 of the Roman Church, at least until the time of Victor.59 Clearly, then, Valentinian ritual practice had ample opportunity to affect the ritual practice of non-Valentinian groups. 3.2.1 Ireneaus’ Opposition to Valentinian Initiatory Rites Like Irenaeus before him, Hippolytus the exegete’s made use of biblical exposition, as in On the Song of Songs in order to establish a boundary in the church. Either the “heretics” would be driven beyond the boundary or he would win them away from their teachers.60 His Against Heresies was not written until the 180s. Hippolytus received from Irenaeus’ a disdain for the Valentinians, who feared that Valentinian rituals fostered division within the catholic church61 because they used a close study of biblical texts to re-educate Christians as a preparation for a spiritual experience of “redemption” or “second baptism.” It was the set of initiation rituals of Valentinians, sometimes called a “second baptism,” that had such a powerful effect on its participants that they constituted distinct groups, i.e., spiritual versus psychic, within Christian congregations. This two-tiered Christianity was a glaring road-block in the way of Irenaeus’ project of “recapitulating” the diversity of early Christianity as the expression of one, world-wide faith. The imposition of such unity was likely part of a need felt that whose intensity would only increase during the Severan period (193 Ibid., 391. Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons, 154. Irenaeus declares that his motive is love, that he loves the heretics better than they love themselves (Adv. haer. 3.25.7). 61 For the social basis of Irenaeus’ rejection of Valentinianism, see Elaine Pagels, “Irenaeus, the ‘Canon of Truth,’ and the ‘Gospel of John’: ‘Making a Difference’ Through Hermeneutics and Ritual,” VC 56 (2002): 349. Contra Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons, 154.” 60 59 153 to 235 AD) to unify religious expression in an imperial-type unity for apologetic purposes.62 It is of a piece with other identity-constructing projects during this period that depended upon unity imposed on a previous diversities for their power. Valentinus taught a dualistic version of Christianity valuing spirit over body and considered the physical creation the result of a malfunction in the world of the spirit.63 Still, for some time Valentinus and his followers remained faithful to the Brent, Imperial Cult, 250, 311-38, argues that gnostic Christianity was largely anarchic, that the larger church accepted the basic proposal of imperial style unity as a counter-cultural movement. Perkins, Roman Imperial Identities, 250, astutely observes: ... the Christian Church provided an alternative power base in imperial communities. By breaking the elite’s monopoly, Christianity splintered the ideological consensus that erased the non-elite from cultural consciousness. [other have noted] “fragmentation of the traditional upper class” in the later Empire. As members of the elite became Christian leaders, the divergent perspectives of Christian and civic leadership, with their competing priorities, fragmented any easy alliance of elite interests. So, as Rome achieved a consensus on its right to rule, based on their self-interest and the shared agenda of Rome upon which the elite relied upon across the empire, Christianity spintered and defracted the ideal of elite self-interest. 63 Diversity certainly existed in Valentinian ranks, though the specific characterizations built upon Clement of Alexandria, pseudo-Hippolytus, and Tertullian about a split between “Italian” and “Eastern” Valentinianism on the nature of the body of the Savior may no longer tenable, Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the “Valentinians” (NHS 60; 2006), 28 n. 3 and refs. there; Joel Kalvesmaki, “Italian versus Eastern Valentinianism?,” VC 62.1 (2008): 79-89. For Hippolytus the exegete in On the Song of Songs the Christ is the Wisdom/Logos embodied in such a way that when he suffers on the cross, the fragrant Christic anointing is released upon the world (1.8; 13.2-3). Salvation encompasses the flesh through divinization, “For a dew was brought out from fruit and descended from on high, that terrestrial creatures might be sealed for life which is this: the Word descended that men might be able to ascend to heaven” (13.4). 62 154 church as reformers from within.64 They taught a reformulated version of traditional Christian doctrines and based their teaching upon an interpretation of Christian Scriptures. In Justin’s time followers of Valentinus were probably still considered in the mainstream of the Christian movement.65 By the time of Irenaeus, other groups of Christians began to isolate “Valentinian” teaching as categorically distinctive from the “true doctrine” of the apostolic church. Irenaeus saw an insidious threat to Christian unity coming from the “advanced” exegetical instruction that culminated in various forms of initiation that Valentinus’ followers called ἀπολύτρωσις.66 In the opening book of Against Heresies, against the Valentinian interpretation of Scripture Irenaeus posits the rule of truth as the hermeneutical key to understanding the Scriptures. It is the rule of faith he identifies as something received in baptism (AH 1.9.4). In this manner he comes to concentrate on the role of Jesus as incarnate Word and Saviour.67 So when he presents the rule of truth he supplements it with a christological confession derived from his baptismal rite.68 The reason for its being appended is the earlier discussion, concentrating on Christ as the true meaning of the Scriptures, as Christ is the Word delivered to the candidate within the baptismal ritual and so confessed. This is the same statement that is made more fully and explicitly in Epideixis 7, again a statement relating directly to a repetition of the rule Pagels, “Hermeneutics and Ritual,” VC 56: 344. In the famous passage in Justin where the term “Valentinian” does occur (Dialogue with Trypho 3.5.6), he lists certain religious people who “confess themselves to be Christians,” but who, according to him, are false Christians. They should rather be called by the names of their philosopher-mentors. 66 Pagels, “Hermeneutics and Ritual,” VC 56: 343. 67 AH 1.9.3. 68 Stewart, “Catechesis, ritual and exegesis in Irenaeus’ Gaul,” 10. 65 64 155 of faith. For Irenaeus is through the baptismal water that we receive the Spirit, and the Spirit leads us to understanding of the Word, Jesus Christ, enfleshed and spoken in the narrative of the Scriptures.69 The harshness of Irenaeus’ critique of Valentinian initiatory rites (Adv. haer. 1.21) suggests that they had broad appeal. According to these “gnostic” Christians, though Jesus himself received the baptism of John he also said, “I have another baptism with which to be baptized” (Mark 10:38). This they took as a reference to spiritual baptism, which conveys τελειώσις. Further, “. . . they say that Paul, too, often has explicitly mentioned ‘the ἀπολύτρωσις which is in Christ Jesus.’” Thus, “the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection” (Adv. haer. 1.21.2). Accordingly, the followers of Ptolemy taught (Adv. haer. 2, praef.) that the initiation of their baptized “ecclesiastical” brothers and sisters was inadequate to free them from subjection to cosmic powers bound up in the created, material order. Such Valentinians cultivated a sense of mission to alleviate the ignorance and suffering of their less-illuminated friends through a second baptism or sacrament (µυστήριον) of “redemption,” ἀπολύτρωσις (connoting release from captivity, or manumission from slavery).70 Irenaeus,who did not consider materiality as in itself antithetical to a relationship with God and the spiritual world, charged the Valentinians with deception (Adv. haer. 3.15.2), accusing them of attracting simple believers into private meetings where their faith was shaken and questions were raised about the validity of their 69 For the thoughts of the predecing paragraph I am endebted to Stewart, ibid. 70 Pagels, “Hermeneutics and Ritual,” VC 56: 353. 156 former redemption:71 For this is the subterfuge of false persons, evil seducers, and hypocrites, as they act who are from Valentinus. These men discourse to the multitude about those who belong to the church, whom they do themselves term “vulgar,” and “ecclesiastic.” By these words they entrap the more simple, and entice them, imitating our phraseology, that these [dupes] may listen to them the oftener; and then these are asked regarding us, how it is, that when they hold doctrines similar to ours, we, without cause, keep ourselves aloof from their company; and [how it is, that] when they say the same things, and hold the same doctrine, we call them heretics? When they have thus, by means of questions, overthrown the faith of any, and rendered them non-contradicting hearers of their own, they describe to them in private the unspeakable mystery of their Pleroma. But they are altogether deceived, who imagine that they may learn from the Scriptural texts adduced by heretics, that [doctrine] which their words plausibly teach. (Irenaeus Adv. haer. 3.15.2 ANF) After the preparatory training, the prospective candidate is ready for true “redemption”: It happens that their tradition (παράδοσις) respecting redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) is invisible and incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of “redemption” as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. (Adv. haer. 1.21.1 ANF) Valentinians did not practice only one form of initiation, but developed various methods of ritual ceremonial initiation more or less consistent with the philosophical bent of their teaching. Irenaeus reports: 71 Ibid., 353-4. 157 . . . some of them prepare a nuptial couch, and perform a sort of mystic rite (µυσταγωγίαν ἐπιτελοῦσθαι)(pronouncing certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, and affirm that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the conjunctions above. Others, again, lead them to a place where water is, and baptize them, with the utterance of these words, “Into the name of the unknown Father of the universe—into truth, the mother of all things—into Him who descended on Jesus—into union, and redemption, and communion with the powers’ sweet odor which is above all things.” (Adv. haer. 1.21.3 ANF) Irenaeus’ description of the rites as “mystagogy” is telling. It entails an enhancement of the experience of initiation by associations with emotionally intense experiences of liminal crossing. The initiates were encouraged to participate in one or the other of two experiences: spiritual marriage and participation in the baptism of the Spirit which Jesus had experienced: “into Him who descended on Jesus,” “and communion with the powers’ sweet odor which is above all things,” probably a reference to the significance of anointing with fragrant balsam. Irenaeus claims other Valentinians “repeat certain Hebrew words,” and he gives their supposed interpretations, which do not truly represent Hebrew or Aramaic phrases. Rather, they seem either like glossolalic utterances or made up phrases—made up either by Irenaeus or by the Valentinian teachers themselves. The strange utterances are followed by declarations and responses which the new initiates learn to recite for the redemption ceremony.72 The use of difficult, dark, and mystifying language in sources used for such ceremonies is not surprising. Nearly a century later than Hippolytus, Iamblichus (300 AD) notes that Pythagorean philosophical teachers made use of deliberately obscure The word συγγράµατα here is specifically referring to the “commentaries” or “memoranda” mentioned before and after. 72 158 utterances in their commentaries or “memoranda” and notes for initiates. And in their dialogues and talks with one another, their memoranda (συγγράµατα = ὑποµνήµατα)73 and notes, and further their treatises and all their publications, of which the greater number are preserved until our own times, they did not make readily intelligible to their audience . . . But in accord with the “silence” legislated for them by Pythagoras, they engaged in divine mysteries and methods of instruction forbidden to the uninitiated, and through symbols, they protected their talks with one another and their treatises. And if someone, after singling out the actual symbols, does not explicate them and comprehend them with an interpretation free from mockery, the things said will appear laughable and trivial to ordinary persons, full of nonsense and rambling. When, however, these utterances are explicated in accord with the manner of these symbols, they become splendid and sacred instead of obscure to the many. . . . And they reveal marvelous thought, and produce divine inspiration in those scholars who have grasped their meaning. (Iamblichus, On the Pythagorean Way of Life 23)74 Irenaeus, then, shows how, after mysterious liturgical declarations and responses the initiate is baptized, the bystanders all together pronounce the liturgical “peace,” and the initiate is anointed with fragrant oil.75 In all cases given in Adv. haer. 1.21.3 (not 1.21.4) “redemption” takes place during the initiation ceremony. Some decorate the initiation room as a bridal chamber, a few reject all physical rituals. The three ritual variants in Adv. haer. 1.21.3 all involve baptism in the name of the “trinity.” He says: The use of ὑποµνήµατα (commentaries) for initiates is a regular feature of this philosophical school. On the uses and contents of commentaries, see Vit. Pyth. 19.94; 29.157; 31.199; 35.253). 74 Translation: John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell, Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Way of Life (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 127-9. See van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 34. 75 Pagels, “Hermeneutics and Ritual,” VC 56: 354 and van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 128-30. 73 159 But there are some of them who assert that it is superfluous to bring persons to the water, but mixing oil and water together, they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated, with the use of some such expressions as we have already mentioned. And this they maintain to be the redemption. They, too, are accustomed to anoint with balsam. Others, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power ought not to be performed by visible and corruptible76 creatures, nor should that of those [beings] who are inconceivable, and incorporeal, and beyond the reach of sense, [be performed] by such as are the objects of sense, and possessed of a body. These hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption. (Adv. haer. 1.21.4 ANF) Irenaeus’ description of the Valentinian rites seems to be based upon good research, as a comparison with documents discovered at Nag Hammadi shows.77 During the second century, baptismal practice in Christianity seems to have been diverse.78 The Valentinians, however, seem to have even been rather more creative in their practice. Nevertheless, the practice of the redemption nuptial is confirmed for Rome.79 GPhil refers often and in several ways to a rite (mysterion) called nymphios or a spiritual marriage.80 When Valentinians and other early Christians drew a parallel between the ritual complex of initiation (baptism, anointing and a festive meal) and On some believers refusing to participate in ritual, because it is visible and corruptible, see already Ignatius, Smyr. 8.1. 77 This topic is beyond the scope of this book. See Pagels, “Hermeneutics and Ritual,” VC 56: 355. 78 Paul F. Bradshaw, Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). 79 See page 413. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 298-312. 80 Because scholars have generally misunderstood the nature of the GPhil, they have differed on the nature of this rite. Van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” has shown that the document is a collection of notes comprising a manual for pre- and post-baptismal instruction (catechesis and mystagogy). This approach makes the best sense of GPhil and sheds light on western baptismal practices. 76 160 the celebration of nuptials, they were drawing upon a core of cultural symbols linking meals and marriage or even meals and sex. The Christian transformation of these symbols into holy symbols involves not only a transformation of the initiate, but the creation of a new symbolic world out of these core cultural symbols. In the words of Paul, “if anyone in is Christ behold—a new creation!” The Valentinian ritual understanding is a spiritual interpretation of celebratory initiation rites that included, along with the second baptism, a festive meal. 3.2.2 Hippolytus and Irenaeus’ Opposition to Valentinian Initiation The Hippolytan commentaries themselves on many points oppose those he calls “gnostics,” especially the Valentinians. The fragment of the commentary In Mattheum, for example is quite explicit: From the distribution of the talents: “If someone gets close to the heterodox they would make a statement nearly overthrowing him. For they might say Christ was a mere human in life, thus they deny the ‘talent’ of his divinity. Conversely, they confess God, rejecting the human being. They teach that the things seen by those who beheld him were hallucinations. He did not go about as a human being, but appeared as a kind of ghostly form. For when both Marcion and Valentinus along with the rest of the gnostics, separate the Word from the flesh, they cast away the one talent, the incarnation. (Hippolytus, frag. in Mat.)81 H. Achelis, Fragmentum in Matthaeum Fragmentum de distributione talentorum (Mat. 25.24). “Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften” (GCS 1.2 Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897): ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ εἰς τὴν τῶν ταλάντων διανοµήν. Τούτους δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἑτεροδόξους φήσειεν ἄν τις γειτνιᾶν, σφαλλοµένους παραπλησίως. καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖνοι ἤτοι ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον ὁµολογοῦσι πεφηνέναι τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸν βίον, τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ τὸ τάλαντον ἀρνούµενοι· ἤτοι τὸν θεὸν ὁµολογοῦντες, ἀναίνονται πάλιν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, πεφαντασιωκέναι διδάσκοντες τὰς ὄψεις αὐτῶν τῶν θεωµένων, ὡς ἄνθρωπον οὐ φορέσαντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ δόκησίν τινα φασµατώδη µᾶλλον γεγονέναι, οἷον ὥσπερ Μαρκίων καὶ Οὐαλεντῖνος καὶ οἱ 81 161 The fragments of the commentary De Apocalypsi are concerned with the bodily resurrection of Christ, the genuineness of the virgin birth, and the advent of the antichrist. From the beginning of the Antichr., Hippolytus states that he writes to refute the gnostic interpretation of the doctrine of the antichrist (Antichr. 1).82 In On the Song of Songs, Hippolytus appears to have borrowed a tactic from Irenaeus to refute heretics: take their theme, a text on which they base that theme, and show the faithful the error of the heretics by a counter usage of the very texts and themes they themselves employ. The Valentinians’ use of “commentaries” for prebaptismal instruction suggested the genre, the setting, and the theme of On the Song of Songs.83 The commentary not only takes the Song of Songs, a major source of the nuptial language of Valentinian initiatory rites, but also uses it for the purpose of instructing the believers positively on the mysteries of initiation. However, it does so in a way that refutes what Hippolytus views as an over-realized eschatology and a Valentinian denigration of the flesh. It proposes a counter hermeneutic, but does more than simply oppose heretics. In the same way that Irenaeus used his counterValentinian exegesis of John to transform the creed and the tradition of the four-fold Gospel with the Gospel of John at the head, Hippolytus enlivens and enriches the γνωστικοί, τῆς σαρκὸς ἀποδιασπῶντες τὸν λόγον, τὸ ἓν τάλαντον ἀποβάλλονται, τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 18. Of course [Justin/Athenagoras] On the Resurrection, attributed by Alice Whealey, “Pseudo-Justin’s De Resurrectione: Athenagoras Or Hippolytus?,” VC 60 (2006): 420-30 to Hippolytus, refutes the objections to the bodily resurrection that are based upon non-Christian philosophical commitments. 83 A direction for further research would be a careful parallel reading of On the Song of Songs and the GPhil. 82 162 baptismal celebration of his church by placing the Song of Songs at the center of the interpretation of the rites of initiation. In terms of function, Origen’s own interpretation of the Song, as a means of contemplative illumination for the spiritually perfect and mature, is more like the nuptial “second” baptism of the Valentinians minus the rituals. Hippolytus saw the value of using the Song as a ritual text to preempt the attractiveness of heretical (Valentinian) initiations. All who participate in such rituals experience the excitement of the mystery and, so to speak, re-experience their own initiation each time they are present for that of others. In using the Song for initiates Hippolytus the exegete is deeply affected by Valentinus. Indeed, one may read against the grain in On the Song of Songs and hear Valentinian exhortations behind their Hippolytan transformations. 3.3 The Issue of Boundaries: a Relationship between On the Song of Songs and the Refutation of all Heresies? For Hippolytus the “little foxes” of Song 2:15 are also the foxes Samson captured, tied together and lit with torches (Jg 15:4-5). They are also Herod the “fox” (Lk 13:32) and are “false prophets” (Ez 13:4 LXX ἀλώπεκες for “jackals”), and thus, the heretics. Samson is apparently a figure of Christ or the representative of Christ; Samson’s wife is the church, and the foxes are the various heretics who are destined for the fire of judgment. Just as Samson joined the foxes tail to tail, so the representative of Christ gathers the foxes to tie them together. The purpose of that joining together is that “he might make a demonstration of the[ir] dissimilarity and contrariness, for they also are enem[ies] to one another in word (or with respect to 163 Logos)” (In Cant. 20.3). Both Iranaeus (Adv. Haer. 1.1-9; 1.11.1) and pseudoHippolytus (Haer. 4.35.5-7) argue against the Valentinianism as “a” false doctrine that was essentially multiform and contradictory. It is reasonable that in On the Song of Songs “making a demonstration” refers to the apodictic rhetorical form of refutation (ἔλεγχος), used against heresies used from the time of Justin. If this is so, then here Hippolytus the exegete refers either to his own work of refutation, perhaps the lost Suntagma composed against heretics or that of another person in his churchschool. This does not necessarily mean that Hippolytus refers directly to the Refutation, nevertheless, it invites a closer look at the literary relationship between On the Song of Songs and the Refutation. 3.3.1 The Issue of Boundary (Ὅρος) Both pseudo-Hippolytus, a Greek author of eastern formation living in Rome and Hippolytus the exegete in On the Song of Songs share the primary concern of Haer. 9. That is, the intra-church dispute over defining the boundary or ὅρος of the church. While defining the boundary of the church was not an exclusively Roman concern, the issues addressed in On the Song of Songs match specific issues raised by the author of Haer. 9 in a way that strongly suggests a literary relationship if not common authorship. The Roman Church of the third century was extremely diverse. Patrons, presbyters and presbyter-bishops competed for recognition as leaders of the Christian movement.84 Such social conditions also prevailed in the smaller cities of This arrangement had roots in the church’s origins in the synagogue. On the early history, see Harry O. Maier, The Social Setting of the Ministry as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas, Clement and Ignatius (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier, 1991), 199-201. In Rome and Asia, a system of household churches based on patronage developed. The 84 164 Asia Minor, though the bishops in Asian cities consolidated their power earlier than appears to have occurred in Rome.85 In Rome, presbyter-bishops controlled both single house churches and networks of household groups that functioned as churches in their own right or as patron-client networks with quasi-church functions.86 The heresiographer’s comments on the reasons for his conflict with Callistus reveal the social structure of the Church in Rome at the beginning of the third century: And many persons were gratified with the boundary he [laid down for the church] . . . Many of those he received had been rejected by numerous heretical groups. Others I had condemned and they had, accordingly, had been thrown out of the Church. People such as these went over to Callistus, and inflating the numbers of Callistian school. Callistus decreed, that, if a bishop was guilty of any sin, even if it were a mortal sin, he should not to be removed from his position of leadership. About that time, they began to appoint as clergy bishops, priests, and deacons, who had been married twice or even three times. But if any one who was already a member of the clergy got married, Callistus permitted such a person to continue in as clergy as if he had not sinned. To support this decision, he suggested that what the apostle had spoken about such people when he said: “Who are you to judge another man’s household servant?” He also declared that in the same way the parable of the tares had been uttered in reference such people: “Let the tares grow along with the wheat;” or, in other words, let those members of the church who are guilty of sin remain in the church. Furthermore he affirmed that Noah’s Ark was made as a symbol of the offices of bishop and presbyter was not strictly distinguished. Leadership was held by heads of households in a position to give patronage to the church. For the contrast with North Africa during this period, see Alastair Stewart, “Ordination Rites and Patronage Systems in Third Century Africa” VC 56.2 (2002):115-130. 85 Current scholarship emphasizes the diversity in the origin and development of the monoepiscopate from region to region. For north Africa, see Ibid., 115. For Asia, see Maier, Social Setting of the Ministry, 182-87; for Rome, see Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 397-408. 86 This reconstruction only varies slightly from that of Ibid., 400-408, by stressing that presbyter-bishops could oversee networks of house churches, or quasi-churches. 165 church. In it were dogs, wolves, ravens—every sort of clean and unclean thing. For that reason he gave the opinion that the church was analogous to the Ark. And he interpreted similarly as many passages of Scripture as he could collect that had some connection on this view of the subject. (Haer. 9.12.22-23 trans. by YWS).87 Brent, Lampe and Thomassen provide the basic outline of a probable reconstruction of the history of late second- and early third-century Roman Christianity into which Hippolytus fits.88 The historical diversity of the Roman church led to pressure to define its boundary or “ὅρος.” The key to successful control of the church in Rome was to define its ὅρος in such a way that it excluded the wrong people and included the right ones, leaving a group vibrant enough to thrive and cohesive enough to be controlled. The evidence suggests that a series of reformers attempted, but failed, to theologically define, unify or gain control of the socially fragmented Roman churches. These included Theodotus, Marcion, Valentinus, 87 οὗ τῷ ὅρῳ ἀρεσκόµενοι πολλοὶ . . . ἅµα τε καὶ <οἱ> ὑπὸ πολλῶν αἱρέσεων ἀποβληθέντες, τινὲς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ καταγνώσει ἔκβλητοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας ὑφ' ἡµῶν γενόµενοι, προσχωρήσαντες αὐτῷ ἐπλήθυναν τὸ διδασκαλεῖον αὐτοῦ. Οὗτος ἐδογµάτισεν ὅπως, εἰ ἐπίσκοπ(ο)ς ἁµάρτοι τι, εἰ καὶ πρὸς θάνατον, µὴ δέῃ κατατίθεσθαι. ἐπὶ τούτου <οὖν> ἤρξαντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διάκονοι δίγαµοι καὶ τρίγαµοι καθίστασθαι εἰς κλήρους. εἰ δὲ καί τις ἐν κλήρῳ ὢν γαµοίη, µένειν <δεῖν ἔφη> τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ ὡς µὴ ἡµαρτηκότα, ἐπὶ τ(ού)τῳ φάσκων εἰρῆσθαι τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ῥηθέν· «σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην;» ἀλλὰ καὶ <τὴν> παραβολὴν τῶν ζιζανίων πρὸς τοῦτο ἔφη <λε>λέχθαι·»ἄφετε τὰ ζιζάνια συναύξειν τῷ σίτῳ», τουτέστιν <µένειν> ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοὺς ἁµαρτάνοντας. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ Νῶε εἰς ὁµοίωµα <τῆς> ἐ(κ)κλησίας ἔφη γεγονέναι, ἐν ᾗ <ἦσαν> καὶ κύνες καὶ λύκοι καὶ κόρα(κ)ες (καὶ) πάντα τὰ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκάθαρτα, οὕτω φάσκων δεῖν εἶναι <καὶ> ἐν <τῇ> ἐκκλησίᾳ. ὁµοίως <δὲ> καὶ ὅσα πρὸς τοῦτο δυνατὸς ἦν συνάγειν, οὕτως ἡρµήνευσεν. (Text from Marcovich, PTS 25 TLG) Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 453-535, et passim; Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 385-408; Einar Thomassen, “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Second-Century Rome,” 241-56. 88 166 pseudo-Hippolytus, Sabellius and Callistus. The heresiographer and Hippolytus the exegete, successive leaders of the same “church-school” in conflict with the churchschool of Callistus as well as other rival factions of the church over this issue. After the passing of Callistus and pseudo-Hippolytus, the leaders in the succession of both groups, Hippolytus the exegete and Pontianus, eventually made peace with one another, excluding other groups like the gnostic Valentinians and the thorough-going anti-gnostic Monarchians like Sabellius and Noetus.89 Even after the martyrdom of both Pontianus and Hippolytus the exegete, Novatian and others continued to dispute the right of the bishops to secure monarchal authority over the churches. In the mean time, the groups who represented the failed attempts at unity and reform were ironically branded as “heretics.” On the Song of Songs should be read in the context of the permeable and semi-permeable boundaries between such groups. Gifted reformist leaders such as Valentinus significantly impacted the other churches in Rome in the period before a single bishop successfully gained control of most of the Roman Church.90 Hippolytus the exegete was influenced by and reacted to both Monarchian and Valentinian91 89 The monarchian Christology of Noetus condemned by Hippolytus represents an earlier polemical anti-gnostic (sc. anti-Cerenthian and anti-Valentinian) Asiatic, Johannine Christology shared by Montanists, the Epistula Apostolorum 17 and Melito of Sardis (fr. 15). See A. Stewart, “The Asian Context of the New Prophecy and of Epistula Apostolorum,” VC 51.4 (1997): 432. Hippolytus’ own Logos theology represents another type, a further development of anti-gnostic Johannine Christology which shows more Valentinian influence. 90 Thomassen, “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Second-Century Rome,” 241-56. 91 Until late in the 2nd century Valentinians were an accepted part of the diverse Roman Church. See Gilles Quispel, “Origen and the Valentinian Gnosis,” VC 28.1 (1974): 29-42; Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 385-96, especially 385: “hardly any Roman Christian group excluded another . . . from the communion of the faithful.” 167 forms of Christianity.92 Furthermore, his own Logos theology is an attempt to accommodate and oppose aspects of both forms of Christian teaching. 3.3.2 The Issue of Marriage between Social Classes As an introduction for the newly baptized, Hippolytus the exegete is particularly concerned with marriage. “Hippolytus” the heresiographer is concerned as much for clergy marriage (as in the above passage) as with the marriage of noble class Christian women (αἱ ἐν ἀξίᾳ) without Christian husbands. Social disapproval and even at times legal sanctions against marriage between a patrona and her libertus discouraged the practice, but such liasons sometimes took place.93 For example, T. Claudius Hermes in Rome celebrated his freeborn wife, Claudia, as patrona optima and coniux fidelissima (CIL 15106). Callistus also permitted women to “consider their [slave, or freedman] partner to be their husband without a legal marriage,” (9.12.24) which in some cases potentially might threaten their elite status. The result, pseudo-Hippolytus argues, was that wealthy Christian women were resorting to abortion to avoid having children and publicizing the affair. Accordingly the exegete in On the Song of Songs 2.18-19 addresses the issue of sexual relations between members of differing class as well. In such a context, the terms “orthodox” and “heretic” resist objective definition. All the major forms of Christianity (gnostic, monarchian, Logos, adoptionist, Monatanist) present in Rome would later have been branded as “heretical” in terms of subsequent doctrinal formulations of orthodoxy. 93 CIL 6.14014; 14462; 15148; 16445; 21657; 25515; 35975, cited in Carolyn Osiek, “Patronage of Women in Early Christianity,” in Feminist Companion to Patristic Literature (eds. Amy-Jill Levine and Maria Mayo Robbins; FCNTEC. T & T Clark International, 2008), 180. 92 168 Though he commended Tamar for “appearing like a prostitute” because she desired the anointing, he commended Joseph for not entering into a sexual liaison with his noble class patroness. “By the anointing he did not wish to steal [anything], nor did he give himself to the lady [of his house] so that he would not be tainted with corruption” (In Cant. 2.19). The issue raised from this text by Hippolytus is not adultery, but inter-class liason and, thereby, forbidden marriage. This is precisely the issue addressed by Haer. 9.12.24, but from the side of the male household slave. Hippolytus links this passage immediately with the dangerous and liminal place of the strange woman. “Blessed Phineas sought to avenge [the anointing], and with a spear he sought to pierce the prostitute and Zambri” (In Cant. 2.21). Callistus’ own decision about the proper ὅρος in such cases illustrates the variety of positions available in the early church on these issues. That On the Song of Songs is in such close agreement with Haer. argues strongly for a close relationship between the commentary of Hippolytus the exegete and the Refutation. 3.3.3 Conclusions Hippolytus was an illustrious example of the Christian leaders who developed an appeal to the literate elite of the Roman empire. Pursuing the elite, he was self-consciously mimicing the imperial policy of unifying the elite behind the imperial program of unity against the interests of the non-elite. Hippolytus defended this practice by arguing that the empire had instead imitate the methods of Jesus Christ since the time of Augustus. However, Hippolytus’ teaching refracts and splinters the self-interest of the elite in favor of generosity (χάρις) shared within the church, the fair school of grace. The production of books collected into libraries 169 played an important role in such development. Increased numbers of higher status non-elite members and the newer influx of elite members of society led to competition for patronage among the diverse types of Christian groups. The focus on post-baptismal anointing drawn from his exegesis of the Song in the commentary shows that Hippolytus joined battle especially with the Valentinian and less with monarchian Christians, but only implicitly with Marcionite Christians. If On the Song of Songs was composed for the benefit of new Hippolytan Christians, it functioned as part of a liturgical practices to construct an identity separate from, especially, Valentinian heretics. The extent of the “fit” between Hippolytus’ commentary and Valentinian practice is impressive, but the distinctions are equally impressive. Since the emphasis is shifted in Valentinian circles away from water baptism, and on, especially, to the bridal chamber, the nub of the debate between them becomes clear. According to Hippolytus, Valentinians are guilty of an over realized eschatology. On the Song of Songs ensures that the newly baptized understand the relative significance of what has happened to them. Against the Valentinians the commentary affirms that they are not yet in the bridechamber, but the Song and the experience of anointing and feasting during Passover paints a powerful picture of the good life in service of the mission of Christ to the world who awaits them at the eschaton as bridegroom nonetheless. At the same time, the commentary addresses issues that were topics of debate between the Hippolytan community and other forms of Christianity. It socializes and sensitizes the Hippolytan community toward elite values refracted through a gospel that makes room for the non-elite. The important issues of the boundaries of theological fellowship with other types of Christians, especially, I surmise, those 170 represented by the leaders criticized by the author of the Refutation. Chapter 4 Embodied Logos, Domestic Art and the Acculturation in the Commentary “We go to Europe to be Americanized.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson Recent study of international migration and its affects on the self and the migrant community shows that immigrants continuously and significantly reorganize the delicate structure of their various social identities.1 Acculturation is a complex process. In the case of Hippolytus, his identities related in part to membership in the host culture, while others reflected a continued but changing attachment to the heritage culture (the Greek East). At the solid core of the Christian identity proclaimed by Hippolytus is the incarnation of the Logos. For the Hippolytan community the incarnation was experienced not only as an idea, but through embodied rituals and liturgies that made it an effective touch point for embodied living. Such an emphasis on embodiment struck a discordant note in the philosophical systems that buttressed educational identity formation projects in the Roman empire in one way or another. As Long has noted, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic and even Epicurean philosophers shared certain common ground: Armando M. Padilla and William Perez, “Acculturation, Social Identity, and Social Cognition: A New Perspective,” HJBS 25.1 (2003): 50. 170 1 171 “All of them accept the legitimacy of making a distinction between body and soul such that the soul is the cause of intelligent life occurring within that part of space which is bounded by the normal human body …. What today would be called mental and moral attributes are universally regarded as attributes of the psyche as distinct from the body associated with the psyche.”2 (Long 1982: 226– 7). All the philosophic systems contemporary with Hippolytus subordinated the material, physical human body to something other than the body. Even the Stoics and Epicureans, who proposed a corporeal soul, nevertheless held that the human body was made of a different and lesser stuff.3 These systems formed part of the over all project of identity formation in the empire which attuned the elite to their role as agents or brokers of imperial power. Newcomers to Rome, as some in his group likely were, formed perceptions about the expectations of the dominant culture. Those perceptions affected the process of defining their identity and whether and to what extent they choose acculturation and membership in the host culture. Incarnation became a symbol actualized through liturgy that placed a limit on such acculturation by way of valorizing embodied existence as worthy of divine blessing, love, regeneration, an ultimately resurrection.4 Eastern émigrés brought their culture and educational methods with them,5 yet they also experienced the acculturation natural to those who must adapt to a new A. A. Long, “Soul and Body in Stoicism,” Phronesis 27 (1982): 34–57. As Perkins, Roman Imperial Identities, 133, argues for Trimalchio in Petronius’ Satyricon, is true in turn for Hippolytus. 4 Ibid., 90-106; 144-59. 5 See David Noy, Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers (Cardiff: Classical Press of Wales, 2000). The list includes historians like Cassius Dio, Herodian, Philostratus, as well as the physician and commentator Galen. 3 2 172 social environment.6 The church in Rome can be characterized, well into the third century, as an immigrant church.7 Eastern traditions in On the Song of Songs would represent part of the immigrant legacy. A more nuanced approach than merely tallying “eastern” and “western” traditions is necessary, one that inquires concerning the patterns of possible acculturation in such immigrant communities. The intricacy of acculturation and accommodation in the setting of a countercultural group such as a Christian church in a large city resists facile statements about cultural profile and identity.8 Second- and third-century Rome was home to generations of Greek speakers from the diaspora of Magna Grecia in the south of Italy. It was also home to recent immigrants from the East. Immigrant groups held fiercely to their traditions while both elite and non-elite among them might defend their identity as Romans. Tensions and contradictions abound in such groups and might find variable expression in time and place.9 Ibid. However, the presence of even a small number of western provenance indicators would suggest a provenance for the commentary in the West. See Markus Vinzent, “Rome,” 401. 8 For an overview of recent acculturation studies see Padilla and Perez, “Acculturation,” 35-55. 9 The opposite case, that Hippolytus was a purveyor of certain western customs but living in the East, has not been heretofore suggested by scholars. 7 6 173 4.1 Easter Baptism, followed by Anointing and Hand Laying On the Song of Songs features an extended peroration on baptismal anointing (In Cant. 2.1-35) that is post-baptismal.10 The conferring, not of the Spirit, but of the anointing of the Logos upon the newly baptized is particularly associated with postbaptismal anointing (In Cant. 2.2, 5).11 In effect, such a practice domesticates baptism, originally practiced by unmarried male ascetics like John the Baptist in the desert of the eastern empire, by bringing it into the interpretive framework of the celebratory household meal. Such a clearly domestic, embodied pattern is already clearly discernible in Acts 16:25-34. Baptism and anointing thus become preparations for entry into the circle of those who commune at table: like the normal routine of women and men who prepare themselves for a banquet. As anointing rituals developed, eastern pre-baptismal anointing was not at first for the purpose of exorcism. It appears to have been See Johnson, Rites of Christian Initiation, 86-88. For North Africa, Tertullian, Bapt. 8. With this may be contrasted the early eastern practice, the history of which has been elaborated in Sebastian P. Brock, “Studies in the Early History of the Syrian Orthodox Baptismal Liturgy,” JTS 23 (1972): 16-64; idem, The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition (Gorgias Press Studies 4; Piscataway, NJ: 1979); Gabriele Winkler, “The Original Meaning of the Prebaptismal Anointing an Its Implications,” in Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation (ed. Maxwell E. Johnson; Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1995), 58-81; Dominic E. Serra, “Syrian Prebaptismal Anointing and Western Postbaptismal Chrismation,” Worship 79 (2005): 328-41; Paul F. Bradshaw, “‘Diem Baptismo Sollemniorem’: Initiation and Easter in Christian Antiquity,” in Eulogêma: Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, S. J. (ed. E. Carr et al.; Rome: 1993), 41-51; Kilian McDonnell and George T. Montague, Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries (Michael Glazier Books, 1990), 263-6. 11 Johnson, Rites of Christian Initiation, 87. 10 174 Christic, growing out of an imitation of the royal anointing of Jesus by the Holy Spirit as King and Son of God, with no necessary connection to a meal time.12 Egyptian prebaptismal anointing was exorcistic from the beginning.13 Didache 9.5 shows how quickly the institution of the meal domesticated royal baptism.14 In On the Song of Songs 2.8, Hippolytus indicates that Jesus’ reception of the Spirit in his baptism purified the waters of baptism and gathered the Church. “[The Spirit] was sent down over the waters and it purified the waters.15 It was poured out to the Gentiles, and it Ibid. “In comparison with the Syrian (and possibly Egyptian) tradition comes the most obvious distinction in rite and interpretation between early Eastern and Western Christianity. While in the Syrian East . . . the Holy Spirit was associated with the prebaptismal anointing as the great rushma or “sign” of one’s baptismal assimilation by the Spirit to the Messiah-Christ, . . . in North Africa the prebaptismal and baptismal rites themselves are viewed as rites of purification and cleansing in preparation for the postbaptismal blessing or gift of the Holy Spirit.” 13 Michael Zheltov, “The Anaphora and the Thanksgiving Prayer From the Barcelona Papyrus: An Underestimated Testimony to the Anaphoral History in the Fourth Century,” VC 62 (2008): 467-504. See the convincing arguments on this in the recent work on the Barcelona papyrus in Alistair C. Stewart, ed. Two early Egyptian liturgical papyri : the Deir Balyzeh papyrus and the Barcelona papyrus with appendices containing comparative material (Joint Liturgical Series: Hymns Ancient and Modern 70. Norwich, UK: Alcuin Club, 2010), 1-58. 14 Μηδεὶς δὲ φαγέτω µηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ὑµῶν, ἀλλ’ οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνοµα κυρίους καὶ γὰρ περὶ τούτου εἴρηκεν ὁ κύριος Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί (Did. 9.5). “Let no one eat nor drink from your Eucharist[ic] feast, except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For indeed concerning this the Lord has spoken, ‘Do not give what is holy to the dogs.’” 15 The reference to the Spirit descending over the water to purify possibly echoes the variant reading represented in the Gos. Eb. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαµψε τὸν τόπον φῶς µέγα, “and immediately a great light shone around the place” (according to Epiphanius, Pan. 30.13), also known to Justin (Dial. Tryph. 88.3) καὶ πῦρ άνήθη ἐν Ἰορδάνῃ, “and a fire was kindled in the Jordan.” Witnesses to the Diatessaron also preserve a similar reading. Cf. the Old Latin tradition, viz., a, g1 (6th century), et cum baptizaretur [Iesus], lumen magnum fulgebat de aqua, ita ut timerant omnes qui congregati erant. “And when Jesus was being baptized a great light flashed from the water, so that all who had gathered there were afraid.” See, William L. Petersen, Tatian's Diates- 12 175 congregated the Gentiles. “It was poured out over Israel, nevertheless those who were disobedient did not accept the aroma. Now the mystery has been poured among Israel and the Gentiles came together who believed it” (On the Song 2.7). So for Hippolytus baptism itself brought the believer into the experience of the Spirit through the water. However, the Christic anointing after baptism was an anointing with the Logos and it brought the believer into the embodied experience of sharing the Logos incarnated through very physical media: the fragrances of spices, the kisses, the sensations and the banqueting associated with receiving the Logos. The powerful liturgy and rituals instigated by Hippolytus did not emerge out of thin air. Rather, such a Christic anointing represents first a transfer of eastern Christic pre-baptism anointing to a post-baptismal anointing. These rituals secondly appear to represent a counter to nuptial liturgies competing with baptism among certain Valentinian groups. One hundred sixty years later Ambrose of Milan made use of the Song in his mystagogical teaching perpetuating earlier western traditions16 and Cyril of Jerusalem adapted the same for his eastern audience, also making use of the Song of Songs in baptismal instruction. In the West, Ambrose clearly used Hippolytus the exegete’s On the Song of Songs as an important source for his Commentary on Psalm 118, a series of sermons on the Christian ethical life for recent converts. The nuptial theme in GPhil17 and other Valentinian sources testifies to an saron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (SupVC 25; Brill Academic Publishers, 1997), 14-6. More likely it refers to anointing oil poured on the water, as in Cyril, Procatechesis, 15 the waters of baptism ὑδάτων χριστοφόρων ἐχόντων εὐωδίαν. Cf. idem, Mystagogical Lectures 3.1.9-10 Κἀκεῖνος µὲν ἐν Ἰορδάνῃ λουσάµενος ποταµῷ καὶ τῶν χρωτῶν τῆς θεότητος µεταδοὺς τοῖς ὕδασιν. 16 Ambrose, De Sacr., 5.5, 6 (Botte 122). 17 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber” 113-66, presents a wealth of material 176 outline of baptismal practice with a remarkable homogeneity, despite rich doctrinal diversity in the West.18 Christian baptismal practice reflected in Tertullian and the Apostolic Tradition (=TA) also bears witness to a generally received outline of baptismal practice.19 Irenaeus indicates that the specific way Valentinians blended a nuptial liturgy and post-baptismal anointing was a novelty to him. However, a nuptial interpretation of baptism is not likely to have been a novelty in itself. The nuptial interpretation of baptism is perhaps found in Paul (Eph 5). The Shepherd of Hermas (148 AD) uses nuptial imagery in describing the church.20 In the early homily 2 Clement, the nuptial theme becomes theologically central, because it represents the notion of a pre-existent marriage between Christ and the church, very much reminiscent of one of the eternal pairs or “syzygies” of Valentinian Christianity. Now I imagine that you are not ignorant that the living ‘Church is the body of Christ’ (τὸ ἄρσεν ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, τὸ θῆλυ ἡ ἐκκλησία). And moreover the books and the Apostles declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but has existed from the beginning; for she was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, but he was made manifest in the last days that he might save us; and the Church, which is spiritual, was made manifest in the flesh of Christ (ἡ ἐκκλησία δὲ πνευµατικὴ οὖσα ἐφανερώθη ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ Χριστοῦ) showing us that if any guard her in the flesh without corruption, he shall receive her back again in the Holy Spirit (2 Clem. 14.2–3 (Loeb 24. 150–1). The Bodmer Papyrus 12 preserves a baptismal hymn incorrectly attributed to on the background of pre-baptismal instruction. 18 The terminology is from van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 29. 19 See Johnson, Rites of Christian Initiation, 111. 20 For further discussion of nuptial imagery in the Shepherd, see Claude Chavasse, The Bride of Christ: An Enquiry into the Nuptial Element in Early Christianity (Faber & Faber, 1940), 110–15. 177 Melito of Sardis21 inviting the newly initiated to exult as “brides and bridegrooms” who have found their “bridegroom, Christ” and enjoy “wine” at a nuptial banquet. Sing, O Saints, in celebration of the Father Sing a hymn to your Mother, O virgins We sing and exult greatly, O saints! Exult, O brides and bridegrooms, Because you have found your bridegroom: Christ. To wine, drink, O brides and bridegrooms!22 The hymn is remarkable for its identification of the newly baptized with the “brides and bridegrooms,” suggesting the image of Church as bride is individualized for both males and females. In contrast to this hymn fragment, Syriac and other sources, Hippolytus does not refer to the Holy Spirit as “Mother,”23 but he does offer the cryptic symbol of the “house of [the] mother” (Song 3:4; 8:2; In Cant. 24.1; 25.2). Later interpreters of Hippolytus connect the reference to “house of [the] mother” either to Israel (Ambrose, Is. et an. or. 5.43) or to the “synagogue” of the apostles before they they fully believed in the resurrection (Cyril of Alexandria, Frag. in Cant., PG 69: 1285.33-46). It seems likely that the exegete Hippolytus’ use of the Song of Songs as a 21 See Thomas Scott Caulley, “A Fragment of an Early Christian Hymn (Papyrus Bodmer 12): Some Observations,” ZAC 13 (2009): 406. I am endebted to Alistair Stewart for this reference. 22 Ὑµνήσατε τὸν πατέρα οἱ ἅγιοι,//ἅσατε τῇ µητρὶ παρθένοι.//Ὑµνοῦµεν, ὑπερυψοῦµεν, ἅγιοι.//Ὑψώθητη, νύµφαι καὶ νυµφίοι,//ὅτι ηὕρατε τὸν νυµφίον ὑµῶν Χριστόν.//Εἰς οἶνον, πίετε, νύµφαι καὶ νυµφίοι. The phrase “to wine” is best explained as a mistranslation of the Syriac text underlying the Greek text. Caulley, “Bodmer 12,” 412. 23 Caulley, “Bodmer 12,” 412. 178 post-baptismal homily received its more immediate impetus from the creative genius of Valentinus. On the Song of Songs yields a liturgical framework of pre-baptismal instruction, baptism, post-baptismal anointing and sealing/signing and post baptismal hand-laying in conjuction with a celebratory feast. If Irenaeus and the Quartodeciman Asia Minor are the matrix of Hippolytus’ baptismal thought, Hippolytus own thoughts and practice transformed those of his teacher and Quartodeciman tradition. In his milieu it became necessary for Hippolytus to favor the celebration of baptisms with the addition of the Logos anointing in conjuction with feasting on Easter Sunday. 4.2 Hippolytus’ Western Transformation of the Logos Tradition The impetus to fit within his western context may have also extended to the heart of Hippolytus’ Logos theology. Hippolytus the exegete’s own formulation of Irenaeus’ Logos theology is, according to Brent, a betrayal of it.24 However, a close reading of On the Song of Songs and its Logos theology reveals considerable flexibility in Hippolytus’ formulations of his doctrine. Hippolytus, rather than betraying his theological roots, adapts and adjusts his formulations in a sophistic manner, depending on his audience. As a mystagogy, On the Song of Songs addresses the distinctives of the Hippolytuan church and reveals its mysteries. It is insider language. Irenaeus, arguing against the Valentinians to recapture the Gospel of John “It is . . . difficult to see how the author of the El. [=Haer.], had he lived to see the treatment of his work by C. N., would have concluded anything other than a betrayal of his original position by conceding too much to his original Monarchian opponents.” See Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 221-2, 335. 24 179 from the Valentinians, reformulated the ancient creedal symbol of faith under the heading of John as the primary Gospel of the church. He asserts that “in the beginning . . . the Word was with God” means that there was: One God all powerful and one Christ Jesus, “through whom all things came into being” (1:3), he says, the same one “Son of God” (1:14); the same one “only begotten” (1:14; 1:18); the same one “Maker of all things” (1:3); the same one “true light enlightening everyone” (1:9); the same one “Creator of all things” (1:3); the same one “coming to his own” (1.11) the same one that “became flesh, and dwelt among us” (1:14).” (Adv. haer. 1.9.2-3, ANF) In the milieu of the monarchian Roman Church, a formulation such as the above was problematic if proponents of Logos theology were to avoid the charge of ditheism (a veiled accusation of Valentinianism). Indeed the author of On the Song of Songs would not have been able to avoid such an accusation. Since with prophetic wisdom (or beforehand) [he] expressed Proverbs (lit. parables) through which the wonderful and hidden (or unrevealed) grace of the Father is expounded, and a church from the books,25 which he made known to us [through] obscure words26 the knowledge [of the one who] is from him, for he was the Son. (In Cant. 1.4a) Based on the close literary relationship yet subtle theological differences between the Refutation and the works of Hippolytus the exegete, Brent argued that Hippolytus the exegete was the editor and corrector of the works of pseudoHippolytus. For Brent, the writer of Scriptural commentaries appeared as a biblical conservative, condemning the φλυαρία of the Valentinians, their senseless multiplicity Read, “the book of Ecclesiastes.” Or, “[they are to be] a gathering from [the] books.” See Garitte, CSCO 264.23. 26 The Georgian text has a nominative, as if modifying “dark things,” but it should be read as a dative. 25 180 of emanations. (Noet. 11.3). Nevertheless, he accommodated fundamental aspects of the theology of Valentinus.27 As seen in the previous chapter, this accommodation extended to Valentinian practice as well in Hippolytus’ strong focus on post-baptismal anointing in his mystagogical instruction. The Logos theology of On the Song of Songs does not easily fit the picture of the accomodation suggested by Brent. In chapter one, Hippolytus continues in the Georgian text: Because the Word, who was himself Wisdom, was crying out through [Solomon], and was also revealing to us what the Father desired to give to the prophets, [who] were made by the Word. [He] was [not] left without the evidence of wisdom, but he himself was not Wisdom. [Solomon] was experienced with Wisdom, so he said, “I existed before all the mountains were brought forth.”28 Now Wisdom was brought forth by the Father before all the mountains, by means of this Wisdom the beauty of his world was arranged. 1.7 So therefore Wisdom by means of the manifold grace of the Father was making manifest to us the adornment [of the world] by the command of the Father(In Cant. 1.6b-7a) For Hippolytus, of course, the Logos is Wisdom brought forth by the Father and cocreator of the world. This formulation fits classical Logos theology, Haer. and the Against Noetus. However, Hippolytus goes on to quite unambiguously and very closely identify Christ and the Son with the preincarnate Logos in precisely the way Irenaeus does, “Now this Wisdom was certainly none other than Christ; and Christ is the Son. Since this is so, Paul the apostle bears witness and says: ‘But we preach Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God.’” (In Cant. 1.8). To be sure, On the Song of Songs recognizes that with the incarnation, 27 Ibid., 366. 28 Cp. Prov 8:25 πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη ἑδρασθῆναι πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾷ µε. 181 something new was revealed, but it does not locate that something new in the transformation of the Logos from potential to perfect Son as in the Commentary on Daniel and Against Noetus. Rather, the transformation concerns the economy of salvation: For, just as a vessel in which there is anointing oil, [which] has been guarded safely and sealed up, does not emit an aroma, nevertheless it continues to contain [the aroma], that is the potential, but when they release it, it emits its aroma both nearby to it and places far [are] filled [with it], so also the Word was in the heart of the Father, and so long as it had not gone forth, no one rejoiced in it at all, but when the Father sent forth the Spirit of the aroma, the Word spread joy abroad to all. (In Cant. 2.5b) Frickel’s suggestion is surely correct, that scholars must attend to the differing audiences with which Hippolytus had to deal.29 Therefore, one should admit that subtle differences in theological formulations may well be attributable to the way Hippolytus speaks in differing ways to insiders and outsiders. It is reasonable to assume that Hippolytus, the Logos theologian, regarded his rivals as spiritual inferiors to whom he must speak in a manner which accommodated their misgivings of his teaching. Such subtlety suggests that the development of a disciplina arcani can be observed in Hippoltyus’ writings precisely in his formulations of the Logos doctrine, the doctrine which gave him the greatest grief with rival groups.30 Thus one may surmise that Logos Christians like Hippolytus had similar attitudes toward other Josef Frickel, “Ippolito di Roma, Scrittore e Martire,” Nuove ricerche su Ippolito SEA 30 (1989): 39. 30 By the time of Cyril of Jerusalem 100 year later the disciplina arcani was common place, Catechetical Lectures 12, Diary of Egeria 47. See Cerrato, “Hippolytus and Cyril of Jerusalem on the Antichrist,” 157. On the general question of the disciplina arcani, see Vincenzo Recchia, “Disciplina Arcani” in EECh 1:242; Everett Ferguson, “Catechesis, Catechumenate,” in EEC, 236. 29 182 Christians like the Monarchians. So, even as Valentinians regarded out-group Christians as their spiritual inferiors, the outsiders for the Hippolytan Christians included the greater Roman church and its leaders, addressed in the Against Noetus. If this is true the use of a consistent Logos theology cannot be a sufficient criterion for determining the limits of the Hippolytan corpus. As a church leader, Hippolytus is quite like former non-Romans such as Marcion and Valentinus who attempted to reform or gain control over the fractious Roman church as a self proposed leader from the outside. As such, he also attenuated or even at times obfuscated the very real differences between his group and that of the Monarchians. As for On the Song of Songs, Hippolytus wrote it for insiders, new converts to Hippolytus’ group. Accordingly, Hippolytus unveils his Logos doctrine directly and unambiguously as one of the mysteries. And he expressed it liturgically in his version of the Christic anointing ceremony as the mystery of the anointing. Accordingly, it is only partly true that Hippolytus, writer of the commentaries and Against Noetus, radically compromised the Logos Christology he had inherited in order to avoid the charge of ditheism. The contrasting evidence in the commentary On the Song of Songs suggests that Hippolytus may have seen fit, in some circumstances, to appear to accommodate his theology to Monarchianism. In such a way he may have paved the way toward a rapprochement with the larger church following the succession of Callistus. Brent’s argument, however, that the commentary writer made use of a gnostic (either Valentinian or Naassene) understanding of the procession of the Logos to downplay the personality of the pre-creation and the pre-incarnate Logos is sound for some of the works of Hippolytus the exegete and not for others. The argument, 183 however, that the theological differences between pseudo-Hippolytus and Hippolytus the exegete are so great that the two sets of works could not possibly have come from the same mind needs to be reconsidered in the light of the sophistic bent of the author. Because the works attributed to Hippolytus are so closely related, Brent must argue, due to the very close relationship between the works attributed to pseudo-Hippolytus and the rest of the Hippolytan corpus, that Hippolytus the exegete was the editor and corrector of most of the corpus. That is, the two groups of works must be from different authors, but their extremely close relationship reveals a common redactor. We have traced within the [Hippolytan] corpus the movements of Christological conflict that involved a paradox. On the one hand there was a rapprochement with the conservative, Monarchian insistence on the unity of the Judeo-Christian God in the school of Callistus. On the other hand that rapprochement itself involved a radical incorporation of the requirements of the emanation of the λόγος from the Godhead that had their origins in the metaphysical assumptions of Hellenistic paganism. The editor and corrector of the El. [=Refutation of All Heresies] block, Hippolytus, author of C.N. [Noet.] therefore, paradoxically appeared as the conservative scriptural commentator, condemning the φλθαρία of the Valentinians (C.N. 11.3) while accommodating fundamental parts of their theology.31 One should give consideration to the notion that the idiosyncratic Christology of both Hippolytus and the heresiographer may well have been the result of a sophistic obscuring of the mystery revealed in the secrets of the anointing ceremony unveiled in On the Song of Songs. For example, Haer. implicitly affirms that the preincarnate Logos is παῖς Θεοῦ without affirming he is Ὑιός Θεοῦ.32 Thus not two Gods Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 366, cf. 72. A similar confusion exists in Irenaeus, yet no one argues for two different authors of the Adv. haer. and the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (=Epid.). Irenaeus argues two different, contradictory notions about the effect that the anointing of the Spirit had upon the nature of Jesus as the Word made flesh and Son of God. See 32 31 184 but two faces of God, πρόσωπα (Ben. Jac. 16; Noet. 10; 16.6). The Commentary on Daniel, Antichrist., Against Noetus, and On the Song of Songs never refer to the preincarnate Logos as παῖς Θεοῦ and the Against Noetus explicitly denies the Logos is τέλειος Ὑιός before the incarnation (Noet. 4.10, 11 cf. Antichr. 3.1). Brent argues that the exegetical writings make the pre-incarnate Logos non-personal, while the writer of Haer. still adheres to a personal, pre-incarnate Logos. Ι suspect that Brent makes too much of this difference. Indeed the παῖς Θεοῦ and οὐ τέλειος Ὑιός may have essentially the same meaning. The phrase παῖς Θεοῦ, then, may simply mask the author’s true intentions. In other words, both pseudo-Hippolytus and the exegete at times only appear to de-emphasize the personality of the Logos. In Hippolytus the exegete, however, the tendency is more marked than his predecssor. Hippolytus the exegete may not in reality have abandoned the “personality” of the pre-incarnate Logos altogether in Against Noetus, though he may have desired to appear to do so. Rhetorical considerations complicate both the theological picture and the chronology proposed by Brent, for an author may feint, parry, retreat, and counter-attack in a manner that defies historical reconstruction after the fact. The script may change with each situation, but in every case the insider script is the one to trust. So at times both exegete and heresiographer seem to agree at the pre-creation stage that the Logos is Daniel A. Smith, “Irenaeus and the Baptism of Jesus,” TS 58.4 (1997): 627; Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 133-4. Irenaeus argues two different positions. One is that Christ was already in possession of the Spirit and was Christ in virtue of the incarnation. That is why he could exercise supernatural judgment (Epid. 60). The second is that Jesus became anointed with the spirit at his baptism, the Logos made flesh in Jesus became Jesus Christ at his baptism and that Jesus the human being was graced with the gifts of the Holy Spirit from that point on (Adv. haer. 3.9.3). 185 neither personal (Haer. 10.33; cf. Noet. 10.3, 1) nor separate from the mind of God. In On the Song of Songs Hippolytus does not need to use the concept of παῖς at all. Given the exegete’s particular interest in the revealing the mystery of anointing and in the economy of the Logos from Old Testament to New in On the Song of Songs it should not be surprising that the pre-existent Logos is directly equated with the Son. The polemical Against Noetus has theological ontology as its proper subject, where it is useful to Hippolytus the exegete as a boundary issue for excluding some or defending himself against others. One may, accordingly, see his odd theological ontology a fighting doctrine. In the Against Noetus and the Refutation Νοῦς Θεοῦ in itself contained the Logos and the universe. Therefore, when Hippolytus the exegete abandoned the term παῖς as a designation of the pre-existent Logos it was a clever rhetorical strategem. The heresiographer has declared himself openly, exposing himself to the charge of ditheism by using the term παῖς. Callistus, himself a former slave, would have had no compunction about pressing the full personality of Hippolytus’ παῖς against him, if Hippolytus was thinking of the παῖς as an extension of the Father, even Aristotle considered the slave an animate tool. Thus a “hidden transcript” about the personality of slaves lies beneath the conflict in Haer., in which the heresiographer adopts a severely critical attitude toward Callistus. The heresiographer sneers at Callistus for his former slave status (Haer. 9.12.1 Οἰκέτης ἐτύγχανε). Yet the The Antichrist 3.13 contains a very generous passage about the availability of the Logos to all, including slaves: οὐδένα γὰρ ἀποβάλλεται τῶν ἑαυτοῦ δούλων. Pseudo-Hippolytus’ own elite proclivities and bitterly critical attitude toward Callistus may have tripped him up, leading him to affirm the Logos as παῖς Θεοῦ without suspecting Callistus would make use of it to 186 criticize him as a “ditheist.” If the commentaries, The Antichrist, and Against Noetus were written subsequent to Refutation, then Hippolytus the exegete drops the term entirely when speaking of the pre-incarnate Logos when speaking to insiders. Conversely, if the commentaries and allied writings were written previous to Haer., then the harshness against Callistus may represent the hardening and retrenchment of a previous posture. So, in the historical puzzle of the Hippolytan writings is the movement toward rapprochement or retrenchment? It is impossible to tell. Hippolytus only wished to appear in some contexts to have accommodated his own views of the nature of the Logos (or those of a predecessor) to the more popular monarchian views of the larger church-school community in Rome. If so, the real theological differences between Haer. and the group of writings associated with pseudo-Hippolytus on the one hand, and the commentaries, Antichrist and Against Noetus associated with Hippolytus the exegete on the other, may not be so great as to necessarily preclude common authorship.33 The attempt to determine the order in which these works were written has not led to unanimous results. One may view the Refutation as a hardening of a previously conciliatory attitude in the other works. Or, as Brent argued, the work may represent an earlier hard attitude followed by a more conciliatory attitude toward Monarchianism in the commentaries and Against Noetus. Either reconstruction is possible. Whether written after or before Refutation,34 the Commentary on Daniel and The earlier consensus that Haer. is the work of Hippolytus, also writer of the commentaries ascribed to him in Eusebius Hist. eccl. 6.22 and Jerome Vir. illus. 61, that formed after the work of von Döllinger, Hippolytus and Callistus, can no longer be assumed, and is staunchly argued in Marcovich, Refutatio. 34 See Nautin, Hippolyte et Josipe, 58-62; Simonetti, Contro Noeto, 54. Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 301-45 follows Nautin, who argued that Hippolytus 33 187 the Antichrist fit well with Against Noetus, as a part of a project of accommodation or an attempt at rapprochement between the Logos Christology of the Refutation and the modalist Monarchian tendencies in the larger faction of the Roman Church in the succession of Zephyrinus. In On the Song of Songs, however, Hippolytus has no compunction about naming the pre-incarnate Logos either Son or Christ, while the Commentary on Daniel and The Antichrist consistently maintain the distinct Christology of Against Noetus35 in a way that does exhibit certain minor differences with the Refutation. In part, these exegetical and doctrinal documents show Hippolytus the exegete’s sensitivity toward the accusation of ditheism leveled at him by Callistus and the Monarchians (Haer. 9.12.16). On this reading the indiosyncratic view of Hippolytus the exegete concerning the personality of the Logos is a feature of his accommodation to a western context. According to the first chapter of Against Noetus, the modalistic monarchianism of Noetus was condemned in Asia Minor, in favor of more traditional Logos theology that held to the personality of the pre-incarnate Logos. That is, there are δύο πρώσοπα in God before the incarnation, but one πρώσοπον is not τέλειος ὑιός until the incarnation. Thus a paradox of provenance confronts us in the Christology of both the heresiographer and Hippolytus the exegete. The heresiographer is clearly western, but appears more eastern in Christology, as does On the Song of Songs. On the other in other writings Hippolytus the exegete plays down the personality of the Logos, the exegete, author of the commentaries, Noet,. and Antichr. had read the Haer. Simonetti, however, argues that pseudo-Hippolytus, author of Haer., had read Hippolytus the exegete’s works. 35 Meloni, “Cantico dei Cantici,” SEA 13: 97-120, and Antonio Zani, La cristologia di Ippolito (Richerche di Scienze Teologiche 22 Brixiae: Morcelliana, 1984). 188 studiously avoiding the word παῖς to refer to the pre-encarnate Logos. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Hippolytus the exegete accommodates the powerfully ensconced force of western monarchianism in Rome. In the East, particularly in Asia Minor, there was no reason to be so accommodating of monarchianism. The heresiographer of the Refutation, assumed by all scholars to be western, is true to the eastern Logos tradition and blithely uses the term παῖς while rejecting the charge of ditheism. One might be forgiven for sympathizing with Marcovich and Whealey, who do not see the differences between pseudo-Hippolytus and Hippolytus the exegete as too great to preclude common authorsip. Earlier Orbe had argued, citing texts from Refutation, Against Noetus, and the Commentary on Daniel that both Against Noetus (Hippolytus the exegete) and Refutation (pseudo-Hippolytus) exhibited the same tendency to appropriate a form of the Valentinian doctrine of emission or emanation of the Logos on the basis of the divine will in the development of a doctrine of the Logos, while at the same time rejecting the teaching of Valentinus.36 Brent perhaps emphasized too much the similarities between pseudo-Hippolytus and the Logos tradition of the apologists. He admits that pseudo-Hippolytus shows a sensitivity to the charge of ditheism (i.e. closet Valentinianism). Perhaps pseudo-Hippolytus is pulling away from ascribing full Sonship to the Logos by declaring the pre-incarnate Antonio Orbe, Hacia la primera teologia de la procesion del Verbo, Estudios Valentinianos, (vol. 1; Rome: Universitas Gregoriana, 1958), 616. Citing Haer. 10.33.1, he argues, “Por lo que hace a la probole, el autor del Elenchos no se detiene a canonizar el término valentiniano; peor, acepta la analogía fundamental de la prolación oral, y las especies de emisión tertulianea, como medio de legitimar la distinción personal entre el Hijo y el Padre.” One might add, however, that this move also affirms the unity of God prior to creation. 36 189 Logos the παῖς θεοῦ. Nevertheless, Orbe shows that the author of the Refutation also demonstrated a willingness to bend concepts traditional within the Asian Logos theology of Irenaeus and some of the apologists nearly to the breaking point.37 Hippolytus the exegete also emerges as a biblicist with a strong sophistic bent for accommodation (or acculturation). As Brent observes: Though Hippolytus, author of the Noet. block, is a biblical exegete, the theology in terms of which he interprets Scripture is far more radical than that of the author of [Haer.] Furthermore, by the term “more radical” ... I mean “far more in accommodation with contemporary Graeco-Roman paganism.” I have emphasized more than once that the theology of [pseudo-Hippolytus] represents a far greater coherence with the patristic tradition of Justin. Theophilus, Irenaeus and others than does the radical departure of Noet. from that tradition. Moreover, [pseudo-Hippolytus] may have knowledge of systems of Greek philosophy, and of heretical thought, but these are held at arm’s length, as secular knowledge allows him mainly to detect the putative origins of what should not be believed rather than to illuminate what should be believed. [Hippolytus the exegete in] Noet. on the other hand, in his doctrine of the λόγος and in his use of heretical texts, is far more prone to use such secular knowledge positively in order to unravel the meaning of the sacred texts.38 Whether the two blocks of writings are from two distinct writers or the result of one writer who adjusts his views over time is of less concern than the common social milieu and the shared elements of the social profile of pseudo-Hippolytus and Hippolytus the exegete. Hippolytus the exegete accommodated earlier views, some from his enemies’ views, some from his Logos tradition, and at times his own. His willingness to accommodate strategically is an important aspect of his literary and social profile. 37 Orbe, Hacia la primera teologia de la procesion del Verbo, 611-16. 38 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 355. 190 4.3 Transformation of the Apocalyptic Tradition Hippoltyus’ apocalyptic chiliasm may also bear the marks of westen accommodation. His eschatology appears to be more like the urbane accommodation of empire by Julius Africanus than the apocalypticism of the New Prophecy. Cerrato notes, but does not make a deep inquiry into the implications of Hippolytus’ “mild” chiliasm. He merely assumes that Hippolytus the exegete’s eschatology, expressed in The Antichrist and the Commentary on Daniel, is a milder form of Asian chiliasm, and concludes that it must, therefore, be Asian. However, the weakening of an otherwise more strident chiliasm may be another result of Hippolytus’ acculturation to a more Roman way of viewing things. In terms of eschatology, Hippolytus the exegete blends both accommodation and critique of the Roman Empire. However, the exegete clearly teaches in The Antichrist and the Commentary on Daniel that the Roman Emperor, for all his evil as a servant of Satan, is not the antichrist of prophecy. If Hippolytus the exegete were a Greek living in Rome, how would he, the disciple of Irenaeus, have regarded the world of Rome in which he lived? Irenaeus himself provided him with a model of accomodation. Irenaeus’ own thought comes out of the fires of persecution in the church in Gaul. It is a pacified response, of a Christian elite sensibilities determined to appear as co-operative as possible with the ruling power while maintaining a strident faith in Christ. He argues that, as the Israelites despoiled the Egyptians so “we may keep the property which we once acquired from the mammon of unrighteousness” (Adv. haer. 4.30.1). Yet, there is a difference: Irenaeus argues that the Hebrews owed the Egyptians nothing, but “we do 191 owe the Romans the benefits of peace” (Adv. haer. 4.30.3). Indeed the earthly rule of the Roman Empire under which Christians lived, as Irenaeus argued, had been appointed by God and not by the devil. Earthly governors “arouse fear, which restrains the savage strife of human beings with them; without such fear, people would devour one another like voracious fishes” (Adv. haer. 5.24.2).39 Hippolytus reflects the same ambiguity toward Rome that his teacher, Irenaeus projected. He refracts Christian apocalyptic fear and anger and redirects it to a rival group, the Jews. For Hippolytus the dishonor of the title “Antichrist” belongs, not to the emperor, but to a future Jewish leader to emerge from the future breakdown of the Roman Empire in which “democratic” (i.e., anti-imperial) regimes will lead to the manifestation of the evil Jewish Antichirst’s regime (Comm. Dan. 2.12.7; 4.49.5; Antichr. 25). Identification of the antichrist regime with Jews is a clear case of scapegoating and deflection born out of intra-empire rivalry. Less ambivalent social critics might have been more stridently anti-Roman. Hippolytus shows himself a social critic with conservative, elite tendencies in searching out a Jewish scapegoat as Antichrist. Yet, his scapegoating maneuver conceals a hidden anti-imperialism. He predicts that Roman imperial control had reached a point of crisis and would not continue whole for long, and the very diversity of peoples would be the seed-bed from which dissention would arise. See Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Port Chester, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2002.), 150. 39 192 4.4 On the Song of Songs and the Iconography of East and West The rich symbolism of On the Song of Songs correlates at several points with images that turn up on the walls or floors of Greco-Roman homes, in Christian catacombs, or in synagogues either as paintings or mosaics. Some of the metaphorical images Hippolytus injects into his interpretation seem to be refer to decorative representational motifs found in later Roman churches. It might seem precarious to reconstruct the physical setting of a third-century written composition from such references. However, the ubiquity of such images in the representations found in homes, on floors and walls, would necessitate that Hippolytus address the iconography that surrounded his audiences as they heard the Christian mysteries in the images of the Song. Thus, it is worthwhile to hazard speculation in this regard. The widespread phenomenon of more or less elaborate mythological representational art in homes of varying social levels is striking to modern visitors to places like Pompeii and Herculaneum. Few commentators have addressed the interface of ancient Greco-Roman domestic art and Christian texts in the interpretation of these texts.40 Mythological and allegorical themes predominate in the domestic sphere.41 The abruptness of Hippolytus’ manner of inserting the iconographic references into his interpretation of the Song suggests that such images were so well known and their associations with given symbols so inevitable, it was unthinkable he would not allow See Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, 62. See Gilles Sauron, La peinture allégorique à Pompéi: Le regard de Cicéron (Editions A&J Picard, 2007). 41 40 193 the representations in the domestic space of his audience to impact his interpretation of the Song and vice versa. Or, in some cases, the iconographic representaions may have been part of the physical surroundings in which the interpretation was originally performed. Balch has drawn attention in his survey of 194 domestic dining rooms in Pompeii to: the visualization in Pompeian triclinia of Roman imperial ideology, of the divine will for human obedience, of the Isis cult, of Roman fascination with classical Greek theater, portraits . . . and the visual representation of banquet scenes, which are among the themes that would have been discussed by friends during the symposia/convivia that were enjoyed in those domestic spaces.42 Balch adduces abundant textual evidence for the interplay of text, art and dining in the ancient world. One quote he provides from Lucian in the second century well illustrates the convergence of text, performance, audience, art and meal: To me, at least, it seems that a splendid hall (οἶκος, house, decorated room) excites the speaker’s fantasy and stirs it to speech, as if he were somehow prompted by what he sees . . . Then are we to believe that the passion for speech is not enhanced by beautiful surroundings? . . . Certainly, then, the beauty of this hall has the power to rouse a man to speech . . . Next to this picture is portrayed another righteous deed, from which the painter derived his model, I suppose from Euripides or Sophocles, inasmuch as they portrayed the subject in the same way. (Lucian, De Domo [Περὶ τοῦ οἶκου] 4.13.23 Loeb.) It is beyond the scope of this book to thoroughly discuss the iconographical references of On the Song of Songs and their impact on Hippolytus’ mystagogical hermeneutic.43 At this point suggestive mention can only be made of the ekphrastic references to iconographic representations in Hippolytus’ text. Several more pertinent 42 Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, 41. 43 Chapter eight will discuss some of the more important iconographic references. 194 themes could be plucked from On the Song of Songs, but the following eight will suffice for the main point here. Some of these will be discussed in Chapter Four: Hippolytus describes Christ in androgynous terms as Sophia-Logos with breasts to nourish believers with his milk that is better than wine (In Cant. 1.7, 8; 2.1-3). Such a representation could have various sources, but, the narrative of On the Song of Songs suggests that Hippolytus related his Old Testament text to Christ in the figure of the well-known god Dionysus, often represented in androgynous ways.44 Two male figures interpreted as Peter and Paul (In Cant. 8.8) suggest that Hippolytus links the apostles to the popular image of Castor and Pollux, who were often related to Dionysus in iconography. While representations of Castor and Pollux are ubiquitous as figures in Greco-Roman figural art, the interpretation as Peter and Paul would be distinctly Roman. The commentary features a scene of Christ leaving the beloved and going “to the Gentiles” (In Cant. 6.2). A favorite theme of Greek poetry and of domestic decoration of the Roman Empire was Dionysus’ return from conquest from the far East.45 In another Dionysiac images, vines ripe with fruit and the symbolic harvesting of grapes and the production of wine (In Cant. 13.1-4) are interpreted as the crucifixion of Christ and the release of the blessings of the Spirit on all human kind. A further image of the world mission of Christ appears in On the Song of Songs 8 with a See below page 367, 393-401. In Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, nine of the images he surveys are scenes of Dionysus and Ariadne. See the accompanying CD ROM, especially image # 246, cf. # 88, # 127, # 203, # 207, # 207a, # 222, # 252a, # 257. 45 Katherine M. D. Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World (Cambridge University Press, 2001), 227-29. 44 195 scene of his chariot, with multiple resonance with images found in domestic representations and later synagogal representations of the god Helios or Sol Invictus riding his Chariot. Hippolytus described Christ as racing through the world in a quadriga, a chariot pulled by the four creatures representing the four Evangelists along with the twelve apostles. This image suggests that Hippolytus has in mind a Christian image found in a third-century Roman catacomb and in Jewish synagogues from the fourth century in Palestine: the chariot of Helios drawn by four horses and surrounded by the twelve signs of the zodiac. (In Cant. 8.1-7). In On the Song of Songs, two women are interpreted as representing the synagogue or church of the Circumcision and the church of the Gentiles. Hippolytus playfully comments upon the darkness of their skin color. One is dark but beautiful; the other does not admit her darkness and is called upon to repent (In Cant. 4.1-2; 7:1-2). Such a description matches a scene in Ovid’s Fasti, for March 8 which is the entry date for celebrating the myth of Ariadne and Dionysus. The teaching of Hippolytus on this dramatic image of the Song seems to draw from interpretations of similar domestic artistic representations. Surprisingly, “the church of the Circumcision” and “the church of the Gentiles,” as two women appear in the text of On the Song of Songs46as a precursor to Συναγωγή is the Jewish people as a rival mate of Jesus opposite the church of the Gentiles. According to the LXX, this is one of things that shakes the world. Commenting on Prov. 30:21, Καὶ παιδίσκη ἐὰν ἐκβάλῃ τὴν ἑαυτῆς κυρίαν καὶ γυνὴ µισητὴ ἐὰν τύχῃ ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ, “a female domestic if she throws out her mistress, and a hateful woman if she finds a good husband.” Hippolytus comments: “Lord murdering [Jewish] synagogue that crucified the flesh of Christ outside the gate” is the παιδίσκη that cast out her mistress, the σάρξ of Christ (In Prov. 54.31), while “the hateful (or lusty) woman that finds a good man” is the church of the Gentiles who belong to Christ. Again, the same theme appears “the church of the gentiles, who thought she 46 196 the artistic representation in fourth- and fifth century Roman iconography of twin female figures representing the church of the Gentiles and the church of the Circumcision. Hippolytus’ bride of Christ—in reality two brides— seems to anticipate later distinctly Roman iconography. A fifth century mosaic in the church of Santa Sabina has the two women, the first of which holds a Bible written in Greek characters, the other holds one with Hebrew letters, on either side of the dedicatory inscription of the church.47 The inscriptions indicate how these figures are to be understood. The “two figures are distinguished plainly . . . by their dress: the woman representing the church of the Gentiles is dressed as a Roman matron . . . The books they hold are distinguished by the lettering as Hebrew and Greek, the Old Testament and the New.”48 A fourth-century (restored) mosaic in S. Pudenziana has two women was a slave girl and a stranger to the promises ‘cast out’ the matron and lady of the house and became the lady of the house and bride of Christ”(In Prov. 26:10; cp. 62.1-2 where the µεσίτης “hated” woman becomes the Jewish synagogue; cf. Dem. adv. Jud. 19:31). 47 CVLMEN APOSTOLICVM CVM CAELISTINUS HABERET PRIMUS ET IN TOTO FVLGERET EPISCOPVS ORBE HAEC QVAE MIRARIS FVNDAVIT PRESBYTER VRBIS ILLRYICA DE GENTE PETRVS VIR NOMINE TANTO DIGNVS AB EXORTV CHRISTI NVTRITVS IN AVLA PAVPERIBVS LOCVPLES SIBI PAVPER QVI BONA VITAEPRAESENTIS FVGIENS MERVIT SPERARE FVTVRVM. “When Celestinus held the highest apostolic throne and shone forth gloriously as the foremost bishop of the whole world, a presbyter of the city, Illyrian by brith, named Peter and worthy of that great name, established this building at which you look in wonder. From his earliest years he was brought up in the hall of Christ— rich to the poor, poor to himself, one who shunned the good things of life on earth and deserved to hope for the life to come. (trans. from Unknown, “Dedication Mosaic (Detail),” (2008): Cited 03-01-2009. Online: http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/rome-santa-sabina-photos/slides/xti_9514pa80.htm..) 48 See description in Walter Lowrie, Art in the Early Church (New York: Pantheon Books:1947), 68, 146. 197 placing garlands (coronae) upon the heads of Peter and Paul, representing the mission to the Jews and to the Gentiles (cp. In Cant. 8.8).49 The ornately carved door at Sta. Sabina has a similar motif, the una sancta, represented by a woman, is crowned by both Peter and Paul at the same time. Hippolytus’ text was clearly known in Milan in the fourth century, as attested by the quotations in Ambrose. Accordingly, one might think that Hippolytus should be credited as one who inspired this distinctly Roman iconography. While it is possible that Hippolytus’ text was the origin of the representation, it seems more likely that On the Song of Songs bears witness to Christian iconography that already existed in the third century and of which the murals of S. Sabina and S. Pudenziana are developments. Thus iconography referenced in Hippolytus’ text of the third century was then perpetuated through the fourth and fifth centuries and memorialized in the history that the “one holy church” was composed of two churches that once had been in conflict with one another. The figures of Peter and Paul (prominent in Hippolytus’ text as well) also represented these divergent tendencies in fractionalized Roman Church. It should also be remembered that Hippolytus previously mentions the Aquedat Isaac in traditional Jewish terms, “The blessed Isaac became desirous of [the anointing] and he wished to sacrifice himself for the sake of the world” (In Cant. 2.15). Afterward he describes the crucifixion of Christ as the representation of the “henna bunch” (Song 1.14; In Cant. 13.1), as a representation of the death of Jesus in terms that suggest contact with the Jewish interpretation of that passage of the Song in terms of the Aquedat.50 49 See image in Spier, Picturing the Bible, figure 81, 113. 50 See below page 365. 198 The commentary contains a second, more clearly defined scene of women and Christ. This time a triad intrudes upon an interpretation of the beloved in search of the lover by night. As Hippolytus explains, Martha and Mary together representing the beloved approach the tomb of Jesus as myrrhophores to anoint the body of Christ. Along with Eve, Christ/Adam, the serpent, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil—all make an appearance as well (In Cant. 24-25). Why this cast of characters? One might be tempted to say they are simply a function of theological imagination. However, something else appears to be happening in the text. The scene as described by Hippolytus has a nymphic quality and bears a striking resemblance to a widely known Hellenistic visual representation.51 Mosaics from the Severan period depict Heracles52 taking the apples of the famous Hesperides, the three nymphs who guard the trees of the apples of immortality of their garden in the West. These maidens, with the serpent Ladon, Jennifer Larson, Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore (Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, 2001). 7, 46. 52 For the symbolic textual image of Christ as Hercules/Heracles as a conflict of gods in the early third century, see David E. Aune, “Heracles and Christ: Heracles Imagery in the Christology of Early Christianity,” in Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 3-19. 51 199 Picture 5: Hercules in the Garden of the Hesperides. Detail from mosaic The Twelve Labors of Hercules, Valencia (Liria), Spain, early 3rd century. Courtesy of the Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid, Spain. were the guardians of a tree of golden apples, located in the famous garden of the Hesperides at the western border of the river Okeanos, given to Hera as a wedding gift.53 Aune showed that the figure of Heracles was a battle ground between Ibid., 7. See the mosaic from the early third century AD unearthed in Liria (Valencia, Spain). For the image, see http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/HesperidesMosaicLiria.html. Accessed 03-27-2009. Discussed by Alberto Balil, “El mosaico de los ‘Trabajos de Hércules’ hallado en Liria (Valencia),” APL 15, (1978), 265-275, fig. 15 is an photo the entire representation of the twelve athloi with drunken Hercules in the central panel. It is on display in the National Archaeological Museum of Spain (Madrid). Another image from Cártama (Málaga), Spain is discussed in Balil, “Mosaico con Representaciones de los Trabajos de Hércules Hallado en Cártama,” Revista Jábega 20 (1977): 27-34. The scene is Hadean and Hercules is surrounded by mythological chthonic beings along with the scene of the Garden of Hesperides and 53 200 apologists and detractors of late second- and third-century Christianity.54 In On the Song of Songs 24-25 Hippolytus also joins this battle by re-interpreting the imagery of Heracles and the Hesperides (and perhaps other common domestic images such as the apotheosis of Heracles) in terms of the defeat of Satan in a post-crucifixion scene of Christ’s resurrection and ascension to heaven. Finally, the commentary closes with a banquet scene of couches (In Cant. 27.1-10) represents the saints of both Old and New Testaments. The artistic representation of banquet scenes in Roman domestic spaces and visualizations of joy and conviviality that the hosts desired to project for their guests are common. The theme of the banquet and the banquet ethos in connection with On the Song of Songs will be discussed in chapter 6. Hercules as part of the train of Dionysus. Other well known representations are in Pompei, one in the triclinium of the House of the Priest Amandus, a third style panel painting of Heracles in the Garden of the Hesperides. For the image see http:/ /www.sitesandphotos.com/catalog/actions-show/id-265054.html Hesperides (RAP10654), accessed on 03-09-2009. The image is well known and ancient, a vase in the Brittish museum, Dioscuri and Heracles BM E224, Artist/Maker Meidias Painter (eponym vase) shows in the upper register the Rape of the Leucippids by the Dioscuri; in the bottom register appears Heracles in the Garden of Hesperides accompagnied by a group of Athenian tribal heroes (bottom). Attic red-figured hydria, ca. 420/400 BC. http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/DioscuriAndHeraclesBME224.html, accessed 03-09-2009. For drawings of the vase registers, see http:/ /www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Mythology/HesperidesGallery.html, accessed on 03-09-2009. 54 See David Edward Aune, “Heracles and Christ: Heracles Image in the Christology of Early Christianity,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (eds. David L. Balch et al.; Fortress Press, 1991), 3-19. 201 Picture 6: Philosophical banquet. Vatican inv. 31526. A philosopher reads from or comments on a scroll with a female orant nearby. Four loaves of bread and a fish are shown. Copyright 2007 by William Storage and Laura Maish. The individual literary images are themselves striking. They intrude as foreign material in the interpretation of the Song. Why did Hippolytus bring up these images and not others? One wonders how Hippolytus proceeds from text to interpretation. Even more impressive is the array of images. Can one imagine a Christian group in the early third century worshipping in a house decorated with Dionysiac representations on the walls or floors? It does not require much imagination to picture such a house. At the very least, such repertoires would have been part of the imperial ideology painted on the walls of the homes of new believers. The androgynous Dionysus with Ariadne is found in Pompeii. The famous late second century55 House of Dionysus in Nea Paphos on the island of Cyprus contains mosaics that, arguably, could have been interpreted by Christians in such a way. The mosaics draw mainly upon Italian models, but images derived from Antiochene models also are also present. In one entrance to the house is a mosaic of Scylla and Glaucus.56 In another one of Narcissus gazing into a pool of water. In another room Date argued in Christine Kondoleon, Domestic and Divine: Roman Mosaics in the House of Dionysos (Cornell University Press, 1995), 8-9. 56 It measures 1.32 m. x 1.22 m. It is estimated that it was found at the beginning of 55 202 Phaedra and Hippolytus also make an appearance. The largest and most important space in the house is a room that measures 11.50 m. x 8.50 m, enough room for over one hundred people at a time. Its floor depicts the triumph of Dionysus with a vine carpet with scenes from the harvesting of grapes, and the Dioscuri, the mythical twins Castor and Pollux. Other houses with similar themes decorated in both mosaic and murals could have been chosen from Pompei. A room or suite with a medley of images such as these in the house church house of Hippolytus’ is not at all beyond possibility. In particular, the link between Dionysus and the Dioscuri (see the image below, page 384, the Dioscuri appearing at a banquet!) is a tenacious one.57 “Faced by a set of images in one room, or suite, viewers are always challenged to explore ways of reading them together—to divise links, to follow up contrasts, to see what makes for a rewarding story.”58 Christian art was only perhaps beginning to be distinguishable from polytheistic art by the third century, not because Christian homes did not have art, but because, for the most part, Christians were simply reinterpreting the polytheistic art of their time.59 The imagery the 3rd century BC. This mosaic was removed from some other location and was placed in the entrance to the House of Dionysus. The material used for its construction is not similar to that of the other mosaic constructions, as the pebbles used were unprocessed. Detailed descriptions in Ibid., 10-15. 57 The relationship between these is not obvious either from literary or visual sources. Kondoleon, however, argues that the Calibri—overseers of grape harvest— we worshipped along with Dionysus and confused with the Dioscuri. Thus, the Dioscuri are seen in a the Paphian mosaic overseeing a great vine harvest. See, Kondoleon, Domestic and Divine, 227. 58 See the discussion in Mary Beard and John Henderson, Classical Art: From Greece to Rome (OHAS; Oxford University Press, USA, 2001), 45. 59 See Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (Mercer University Press, 2003); Balch, Roman Domestic Art and 203 of the commentary suggests that Hipplytus was using domestic art in the house he imagined as the setting for the performace of his mystagogical homiles. Art interprets Scripture and the Scripture, art. At the same time, Hippolytus superimposed a Christian narrative on polytheistic images, subverting them and taking them captive for the Kingdom of God. It is a powerful tool for mystagogy, for it does not invite the hearers to white-wash walls. Rather, it disarms the principalities and powers and places their powerful images in the service of Christ. It takes some of the most powerful, daily, domestic liturgical formants of polytheistic Roman identity captive to Christ. Historians of early Christianity must now come to terms with the idea that some early house-churches may have been decorated with reinterpreted pagan images. Hippolytus’ commentary suggests how baptism, instruction, worship and feasts would have been conducted in view of such images. 4.5 On the Song of Songs and the Severan Rhetoric of Empire Hippolytus re-interprets the images of popular Roman domestic artistic representations, an act of accomodation to life in the empire. Nevertheless, the commentary calls for solidarity on the part of believers against “the proud,” the “vanity of the world,” “the Gentiles,” and the “seducer.” It refers to the world itself as a “synagogue,” “the gathering place of darkness” (In Cant. 1.5). Such a use of the word “synagogue” does not seem to have any anti-Jewish connotations at all. In On the Song of Songs Hippolytus also uses the term “synagogue” in a complex metaphor for the Jewish community, some of whom reject but potentially could believe in Early House Churches, 168-194. 204 Christ and others of whom believe in Christ. The diatribe with Jews is a central feature of the second part of the commentary, the principal narrative of the argument (In Cant. 3-19). Further, the commentary, to a lesser extent but with greater stridence, calls for solidarity against “heretics.” By differentiating, addressed in various ways, represent differing attempts among Christians to establish identity and negotiate status and life within the context of the Roman Empire. Negotiation with imperial society in Hippolytus was complex including strategies for survival, engaging in forms of protest and accommodation, at times including imagined violent judgment against the Roman Empire in the future.60 Christians struggled to keep the faith and maintain good relations with their neighbors, sometimes in creative ways.61 To strengthen the resolve of the faithful, Hippolytus used some images in On the Song of Songs which function as “hidden transcripts.” One of Hippolytus’ principle “hidden transcripts” was mimicry,62 which Hippolytus explicitly regarded as laying claim to a truth of Christ which Roman imperial theology had co-opted for darkness and falsehood. For example the biblical figure of Solomon represents an idealized ancient philosopher king imagined to have taught the truth of the Christian trinity. Solomon typifies the royal function of Christ, the Wisdom and Logos ruling over creation in the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Such symbols are not representations of Christian doctrine in a vacuum, but also present a critique of the role of emperor as well as its practices and Warren Carter, The Roman Empire and the New Testament: an Essential Guide (AEG; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), 4. 61 Origen, Contra Celsum 8.13-25, admits, in a veiled way, that some Christians under duress might offer sacrifice to the emperor. 62 See above page 21 and Commentary on Daniel 4.9.1–2. 60 205 its doctrines of imperial theology. From the time of Augustus the dominant ethos of the Roman Empire was expressed in part by its claim to be the legitimate caretaker of the ancient and respected culture of the Greeks. By mimicry of the previous world empire of Alexander the Great Rome legitimated its claim to world domination. The Greeks, from the time of Alexander the Great defended their divinely given right to rule the world. The Romans were the new Greeks. Such claims were supported by massive architecture, Roman copies of Greek art, the names chosen by emperors and, often, by scholarly Greeks of the period like Cassius Dio. The imperial administration of Alexander Severus especially touted Alexander as the new Alexander the Great.63 Diogenes Laertius, probably of the Severan period as well,64 argued that human beings and wisdom itself were the products of the Greeks.65 They were the oldest and best human culture.66 Both before and during the Severan period Christians and Jews busied themselves in an effort to resist these claims.67 Christians had to develop their claims indirectly, as did the Romans through the Greeks, by relying on their supposed right to co-opt the heritage of another people, the Jews, to lay claim to their own antiquity. An emphasis on Alexander the Great by Roman emperors is a recurrent theme. See Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, 117, 141, 196, 207, with bibliography and images. 64 Simon Swain, “Introduction,” in Severan Culture (ed. Simon Swain et al., New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Tim Whitmarsh, “Prose Literature and the Severan Dynasty,” in item, 38. 65 Diog. Laert. 1.1-3. 66 Swain, “Introduction,” Severan Culture, 2. 67 The Jew Josephus is a well known proponent of this type of apologetic. 63 206 Antiquity and wisdom were still keys to respectability and legitimacy in the Roman Empire during the Severan period. The chronographies attributed to Hippolytus and Julius Africanus attest to the strong motivation to forge a distinctly Christian ownership of both the past and the future, against Greco-Roman claims.68 Hippolytus the exegete’s On the Song of Songs fits well as a demonstration of this Christian ethos. In the introduction to the commentary, Hippolytus draws special attention to the spiritual narrative of the trinitarian economy in three Solomonic works: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs (In Cant. 1.1-3). The figure of the Solomonic author, inspired by Wisdom, serves implicitly69 as a counter-mimicry to Roman Emperors who were encouraged to see themselves as the incarnation of Logos.70 If Solomon was the greatest and wisest of kings with the closest relationship See George Ogg, “Hippolytus and the Introduction of the Christian Era,” VC 16 (1962): 12. The discussion of the relationship between Comm. Dan. the Chronicon and the On the Pascua is attributed to Hippolytus. The chronological interest in Comm. Dan. 4 is largely pastoral: “The end of the world is not yet at hand. It is to endure in all for 6000 years, and so recently as in the reign of Augustus, when Christ was born in Bethlehem, it was but 5500 years old.” 69 The Georgian text at 1.12 is defective, and the Greek paraphrase adds, “The result was that in many cases they were carried on in the philosophical issues of those who are outside. For even in Plato and in Aristotle and the school of philosophy belonging to him were stolen not a few of the things of both the proverbs and issues of this man. But many things the divine evangelists brought to mind in a hidden way of the things rightly spoken by this man.” For the same view, see Haer. 10.27, “But, it does not seem irrational to prove that these nations that had their attention engrossed with the speculations of philosophy are of more modern date than those that had habitually worshipped the true God . . .” See Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 46, though no other works of Hippolytus express this idea, common enough in both Jewish and Christian apologetics, the addition in CanPar at the very least confirms that the use of the figure of Solomon has apologetic overtones. 70 See Erwin R. Goodenough, “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,” Yale Classical Studies 1 (1928): passim; Bruno Blumenfield, “Classical and Hellenis- 68 207 to Logos-Wisdom of any earthly king (cf. In Cant. 2.24) then, by implication, no other king could lay greater claim to be the expression of Logos. “Solomon,” says Hippolytus, “had wisdom, he was, however, not Wisdom himself; he had wisdom from God as a grace; but he was not the grace itself, he was the son of David, but he was not himself the Christ” (In Cant. 1.3, cf. 1.6). The Wisdom that had been given to Solomon, that is the possession of the church, was also the means by which the world was created. Now having been made worthy by grace through the Holy Spirit,71 he said: “He is the one who created all this72” (Wis 9:1; cf. Eccl 8:9). For he was not himself this [Wisdom], but he was listening and was taught by him “everything [that was] in him” (Jn 1:3). Because the Word, who was himself Wisdom, was crying out through him, and was also revealing to us what the Father desired to give to the prophets. [who] were made by the Word. [He] was [not] left without the evidence of wisdom, but he himself was not Wisdom. [Solomon] was experienced with Wisdom, so he said, “I existed before all the mountains were brought forth.” Now Wisdom was brought forth by the Father before all the mountains, by means of this Wisdom the beauty of his world was arranged. (In Cant. 1.3) Solomon himself became the ideal figure of an earthly king, surrounded by wise counselors, producing wisdom, literature, scientific knowledge of nature by means of the divine Wisdom given him (In Cant. 1.10). For Hippolytus, Solomon provides a vision of the world that fuses the physical, the spiritual, and human history into one organic whole. Thus, the “beauty of this world” was arranged by Wisdom, tic Sources for a Political Paul” (Ph. D. diss. Columbia University, 1997), 314-20. For the widespread notion that the king was the Living Logos (ἔµψυχος λόγος) and the embodiment of law (νόµος ἔµψυχος), see Glenn F. Chesnut, “The Ruler and the Logos in Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic and Late Stoic Political Philosophy,” ANRW 16.2 (1978): 1323, 1327. 71 Lit. “by the hand of the Holy Spirit.” 72 That is, τὰ πάντα=the universe. 208 who is Christ. Solomon and his court had been responsible for producing a prodigious legacy of learning (In Cant. 1.9, 10); however, in light of the immense flowering of Greco-Roman learning, the scriptural resources of the church would have appeared paltry. Therefore, the question arises of what happened to Solomon’s legacy (In Cant. 1.11). The answer is that in Scripture we have the representation of the best that the Logos revealed to the greatest King (In Can. 1.11-14). Hezekiah and the wise leaders of his court later made a selection of the literary production of Solomon in order to provide material that was fit for the edification of the church (In Cant. 1.14, 15). The Scriptures themselves, then, distill the most ancient and best of knowledge and science. They support the legitimacy of the church as well and give it a claim on a past far more ancient than Rome and a future far greater than Rome can imagine. On the Song of Songs also portrays “hidden transcripts” that express a indirect and refracted but negative view of the world ruled by the Roman Empire. The world is a “gathering place (synagogue) of darkness” (1.5; 22.2), but the world is not named as Roman. The words of On the Song of Songs here call to mind the prophetic “light” statements of Matthew 4:15-16 and Luke 2:32. In these passages the image of light is applied to the first appearance of Christ in Galilee. Hippolytus also applies the image to the ascent of Christ to heaven. In Hippolytus, the image encompasses the resurrection as well: Consider the courses of righteousness, it descended into the underworld and hurried to heaven, for [it] was not retained in the shadows of this earth, but appearing as a light, it ascended to heaven, and flying forth from there also, shining as a great, brilliant star and the appearance of the sun of righteousness (Mal 4:2), on the Father’s throne he is glorified. (In Cant. 22.2) The similarity of this statement to monumental images and coins of the apotheosis of 209 Roman Emperors, which the hearers could have seen on a daily basis73 would not have been missed by the audience.74 The apotheosis of deceased emperors was a regular feature of Roman celebrations of the transition of power from the one emperor to his successor. With the exception of Commodus,75 the emperors from Marcus Aurelius to the time of Alexander Severus were divinized upon there deaths and thus were celebrated by apothesosis:76 The connection of apotheosis and the Easter celebration would have been particularly relevant to believers. In the final peroratio (In Cant. 26.1-27.10), Hippolytus provides an elaborate interpretation of the couch of Solomon, as a symbol of the resurrection power of Christ manifested at various points throughout the Images of apotheosis on Roman wall paintings projected imperial ideology. The apotheosis of Hercules was present in Nero’s Domus Transitoria. It also circulated before 79 AD in Pompeii in narrative art sequences of the Trojan war, e.g. the House of Octavius Quartio. See the color image of the apotheosis in the Collegium of the Augustales in Herculaneum in Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, 203, CD 266a. 74 For images of a Gold aureas with an early third century of the consecratio (apotheosis) of Septimius Severus, see »http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/ highlight_image.aspx?image=k146051.jpg&retpage=17343« Accessed on 03-01-2009. 75 Commodus’ case is complicated. After the death of Marcus Aurelius (180 AD), he had himself declared a god in life, ordered many busts of himself as Hercules, refounded Rome with the name Colonia Commodiana, renamed all twelve months of the year after his titles, and named the army’s legions Commodianae after himself. Within a year, however, he was murdered and the senate declared him an enemy of the people (i.e. de facto damnatio memoriae). Nevertheless, the army loved him and susbsequent rulers (like Septimius Severus) had to restore his good name. See M. P. Speidel, “Commodus the God-Emperor and the Army” JRS 83 (1993): 109-114. 76 John Edwin Sandys and Sidney George Campbell, Latin Epigraphy an Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions (2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1927). 73 210 historical economy of salvation (In Cant. 27.3). Beyond resonances with banquet practice, the “couch” and “couches” of In Cant. 27 function as a symbol of resurrection, not only that of Christ, but also the resurrection of all those who trust in him. As Hippolytus, following Irenaeus, says, “For nectar was brought out from the fruit and descended from on high, that terrestrial creatures might be sealed for life which is this: the Word descended that men might be able to ascend to heaven” (In Cant. 13.4). The resurrection power of the Son of God previously prefigured in the history of salvation, now is made available to all, “By righteousness the Word became the interpreter of the revealed mystery . . . from Adam until Christ was raised and the mystery of the truth was clearly made known [i.e., was made public in the incarnation of the Word]. So the couch of Solomon revealed him.” It is a couch which brings rest to the weary, resurrection to the dead and healing to the sick. It constitutes a democratization of apotheosis in which the death of Christ, by the resurrection, brings hope of glory to all. As such, the interpretation in In Cant. 26-27 would have resonated unmistakably with current practices celebrating apotheosis, the divine honors awarded to dead imperial elites. Herodian explains unique aspects of the Roman customs to his Greek audience when he relates the death of Septimius Severus (211 AD): It is the custom of the Romans to deify those of their emperors who die, leaving successors; and this rite they call ἀποθεῶσις. On this occasion a semblance of mourning, combined with festival and religious observances, is visible throughout the city. The body of the dead they honor after human fashion, with a splendid funeral; and making a waxen image in all respects resembling him, they expose it to view in the vestibule of the palace, on a lofty ivory couch of great size, spread with cloth of gold. The figure is made pallid, like a sick man. During most of the day senators sit round the bed on the left side, clothed in 211 black; and noble women on the right, clothed in plain white garments, like mourners, wearing no gold or necklaces. These ceremonies continue for seven days; and the physicians severally approach the couch, and looking on the sick man, say that he grows worse and worse. And when they have made believe that he is dead, the noblest of the equestrian and chosen youths of the senatorial orders take up the couch, and bear it along the Via Sacra, and expose it in the old forum. Platforms like steps are built upon each side; on one of which stands a chorus of noble youths, and on the opposite, a chorus of women of high rank, who sing hymns and songs of praise to the deceased, modulated in a solemn and mournful strain. Afterwards they bear the couch through the city to the Campus Martius, in the broadest part of which a square pile is constructed entirely of logs of timber of the largest size, in the shape of a chamber, filled with faggots, and on the outside adorned with hangings interwoven with gold and ivory images and pictures. Upon this, a similar but smaller chamber is built, with open doors and windows, and above it, a third and fourth, still diminishing to the top, so that one might compare it to the light-houses which are called Phari. In the second story they place a bed, and collect all sorts of aromatics and incense, and every sort of fragrant fruit or herb or juice; for all cities, and nations, and persons of eminence emulate each other in contributing these last gifts in honor of the emperor. And when a vast heap of aromatics is collected, there is a procession of horsemen and of chariots round the pile, with the drivers clothed in robes of office, and wearing masks made to resemble the most distinguished Roman generals and emperors. When all of this is done, the others set fire to it on every side, which easily catches hold of the faggots and aromatics; and from the highest and smallest story, as from a pinnacle, an eagle is let loose to mount into the sky as the fire ascends, which is believed by the Romans to carry the soul of the emperor from earth to heaven; and from that time he is worshipped with the other gods. (Herodian Hist. 4.2)77 In Cant. 26.1-27.10, while celebrating the power of the resurrection of Christ, also presents a parody of the “vanity of the [customs of the Roman] world” (27.1) contrasting it with the effective power of the Word. On such a reading, then, the Herodian, History of the Roman Empire : From the Death of Marcus Aurelius to the Accession of Gordian III [first on-line edition by Roger Pearse from »http:/ /www.turtullian.org«, with notes by Jona Lendring](trans. and ed. Edward C. Echols; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961, accessed 11-05-2008), available from »http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodian/hre000.html«. 77 212 “seducer” against whom the sixty patriarchs guard is the devil who leads the (Roman) world astray (27.12). In their life subsumed in darkness, the “Gentiles” (read: peoples of the Roman world) were desolate toward God (26.1), but have become fruitful toward God through the Word. The elites of the Roman Empire are “the proud” (21.2) who reject God’s Word. But Hippolytus holds them up for scorn in the light of Easter. Thus, by the use of mimicry, parody and indirect critique, On the Song of Songs encourages, or “consoles” its audience in its struggle against the seduction of the ever present imperial power and theology. As a “consolation,” the Song provides relief from the pain of loss, hope to cope with loss, or preparation to endure loss. Christians were subjected to repeated loss and pressure to conform to the multitude of patriotic shows of piety toward civic gods, including the dead and often the living emperors, who were seen as the embodiment of Logos, or reason. In this way Rome’s rule was validated as by divinity and the thinking of all the elite, fair-minded people. The Logos theology of the second and third centuries, despite its headiness, was useful to consolidate the conversion of the elite who were coming to faith. It held the promise of a counter-reason, a counter to the pervasive, total power of the imperial majesty. Part of the consolation and excitement of the Song was to invite the audience to discover the Word (the Logos) in the Song and to plumb its mysteries as a description of the working out of Christian salvation in the context of history. Salvation would eventually lead to the overthrow of the evil empire and the renewal of human life free from sin and oppression. Hippolytus reads the erotic Song as a script for the dramatic relationship between church, Israel, and God that brings Christ, the real Emperor, who is near to his beloved people (In Cant. 1.5). Christ comes with royal, kingly power (In Cant. 213 11.1), yet the relationship of following Christ’s commands is described in terms of the sweetest intimacy (In Cant. 1.1-3 et passim). The envoys of Christ, the apostles, are not like the envoys of Rome, they reject violence and build the church with peace, not with the sword (In Cant. 8.5); their preaching brings about the edification of the world and constructs a peace in stark contrast to the pax Romana (In Cant.8.7). In the legitimate succession of her leaders, the apostles remain with the church (In Cant. 16.2). The suffering of Christ on the cross is, ironically, how the powerful, royal word, the “good news” of Christ, conquers or “goes forth” into the world (In Cant. 13.4). Just as Rome’s theology and εὐαγγέλιον is universal, so also the gospel has universal reach (In Cant. 8.7). 4.6 Conclusions This chapter has examined several liturgical, doctrinal, and ideological expressions in On the Song of Songs that, when patiently read, suggest acculturations of a form of easter Christianity to social, liturgical, and theological realities of the West. Acculturation is a complex process of overlapping layers of assumptions in tension with one another. At times the tension of acculturation may threaten to tear the integrity of community identity and individual thought. One observes such tension in Hippolytus, the Quartodeciman who advocates Easter Sunday baptism. It appears in the emphasis on the mystery of post-baptismal anointing as a response to the Valentinian shift in emphasis on the baptism of “psychic” Christians. Hippolytus tempers his Asianist chiliasm in such a way as to accommodate the authority of the empire, while predicting its demise and critiquing its errors indirectly. The same tension is evident in the careful rhetorical nuancing observed in the corpus of the 214 author as he adapts his Logos theology to various audiences. A similar tension may be observed in the use of ekphrastic representational themes popular in Italian domestic iconography for the purpose of contextualizing his mystagogy. Finally, the Christology and the development of the ideologically motivated character of Solomon in On the Song of Songs represents a powerful counter-cultural and counter-imperial ideology that is also appropriately discrete and respectful by its indirection. While such acculturations do not prove a western provenance for the commentary, nonetheless they make sense as western acculturations of eastern emphases. I will leave it to others to argue the other way round. Chapter 5 The Rhetorical Situation of the Commentary What I shall have to say here is neither is neither difficult nor contentious; the only merit I should like to claim for it is that of being true, at least in parts. J. L. Austin, How to do Things with Words The classical statement on “the rhetorical situation” by Bitzer is a helpful heuristic tool for imagining On the Song of Songs as Hippolytus delivered it.1 Understanding the rhetorical situation of the commentary involves recognizing and delimiting the audience.2 Furthermore, it is a recognition of the problem or exigence3 that called forth the particular expression the speaker imagined could be improved somehow by his speech. Finally, it involves an appreciation of relevant context or constraints4 that may affect the outcome of the speech. One “constraint,” naturally, in every rhetorical situation is the choice of genre by the speaker. The choice of genre responds to social expectations that the author reshapes or to which he conform in the precess of delivery. Accordingly, this chapter presents a definition of the genre along Lloyd Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1-14. Ibid., i. e., “those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change.” 3 Ibid., “An imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be.” 4 Ibid., “made up of persons, events, objects and relations which are parts of the situation because they have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence.” 212 2 1 213 with a reconstruction of the situation of the audience in its liturgical setting. The following chapter will focus on the specific problem addressed in the commentary, that is, the exigence in the rhetorical situation. 5.1 Speaker and Audience in On the Song of Songs Hippolytus appears to mimic expressions of Greco-Roman culture, its ways of argumentation, presentation, and persuasion in discourse, or “rhetoric.” Thus an appreciation of the use of ancient methods of speech creation, elaboration, and delivery set the stage for a careful reading of the commentary. The adoption of the commentary form shows that for Hippolytus, part of the project of constructing Christian identity was, in essence, to use his skill to co-opt the imperial elite value of education, παιδεῖα,or “training for moral excellence,” especially beyond the grammar school, centered on rhetoric.5 Perkins has argued that For the ancient world the existence of commentaries on a given text shows that text was used in teaching.6 Interestingly, it seems to be an almost universal constituent of the rhetoric of commentaries to portray this activity [teaching] as no more than the logical extension to what the author of the source text was doing. The commentator thereby becomes part of a living didactic tradition originating in the source text, and he benefits from the social significance attached to tradition. True culture and erudition was believed to be based on auctoritas . . . The commentator can pursue contemporary interests and ask contemporary, possibly anachronistic questions of the texts he is teaching. His work is Raffaella Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 143. 6 Ineke Sluiter, “Commentaries and the Didactic Tradition,” in Aporemata: Kritiche Studien Zur Philologie: Commentaries—Kommentare (ed. Glenn Most Aporemata: Kritiche Studien Zur Philologie, Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 173. 5 214 anchored in those texts, but there is no closure, no natural limit to creative interpretation.7 In effect, a commentary regularly uses the source text as if it were directed by the original author’s own idea of the teaching task. Accordingly, on a macro level Hippolytus makes use of a commonplace in teaching rhetoric, the τρόπος τῆς διδασκαλίας. On the Song of Songs, in particular, is a good example of this method. For example, Solomon “composes third [book], in communion with the Holy Spirit, a work in which the Holy Spirit instructed (ასწავებდა = κατηχέω?) many people for praise (=ἐγκωµίῳ [?]),” (1.5; cf. 1.14; 13.1; 15.3; 20.1; 23.2; 24.2; 27.9 cp. 2.3 [x2]). Thus, Hippolytus is not merely teaching a lesson in the commentary. Rather, he is artfully building a reputation and solidifying his status as well. At the same time, he characterizes the audience and prescribes roles for his hearers as well in the course of his interpretation. Both of these moves are powerful arguments from ethos, alluding to the culturally defined role of initiate-hierophant. The commentary functioned as an aide to memory. Teachers often made use of extensive notes in lecturing their students. Hierophants also depended on extensive notes for initiation rites, since the proper execution of rites was critical, at least in popular imagination, for the efficacy of the rites.8 These “commentarii” or Sluiter, “Commentaries and the Didactic Tradition,” Aporemata, 173. 8 The socio-religious role of “hierophant” is well known in the Mar Saba manuscript known as the embattled Letter of Clement of Alexandria to Theodore 16-21: As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a 7 215 “ὑποµνήµατα”9 were also produced by students who desired to remember instruction offered by their teachers. The teachings of Epictetus, for example, appear to be taken from notes taken down during the philosopher’s lectures. And Quintillian introduced his Institutio oratoria with a caveat emptor against two other versions of his teaching that were circulating in writing. Since they were not of the quality that he would have liked and had been produced “in a way much as their pen could follow,” he produced more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries. ὁ γοῦν Μάρκον; Κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Πέτρου ἐν Ῥώµῃ διατριβήν; Ἀνέγραψε τὰς µυστικὰς ὑποσηµαίνων· ἀλλ’ ἐκλεγόµενος ἅς χρησιµωτάτας ἐνόµισε πρὸς αὔξησιν τῆς τῶν κατηχουµένων πίστεως· τοῦ δε Πέτρου µαρτυρησάντος· παρῆλθεν είς Ἀλεξανδρεῖαν ὁ Μάρκος· κοµίζων καὶ τἀταυτοῦ καὶ τὰ τοῦ Πέτρου ὑποµνήµατα· ἐξ ὧν µεταφέρων εἰς τὸ πρώτον αὐτοῦ βίβλιον τἀ τοῖς προκοπτοῦσι περὶ τὴν γνῶσιν καταλληλά· συνέταξε πνευµατικώτερον εὐαγγέλιον εἰς τὴν τῶν τελειουµένων χρῆσιν· οὐδέπω ὅµως αὐτὰ τὰ ἀπορῥήτα ἐξωρχήσατο· οὐδὲ κατέγραψε τὴν ἱεροφαντικὴν διδασκαλίαν τοῦ κυρίου· ἀλλὰ ταῖς προγεγραµµέναις πράξεσιν ἐπιθεὶς καὶ ἄλλας· ἔτι προσεπήγαγε λόγια τίνα ὧν ἠπίστατο τὴν έξήγησι µυσταγωγήσειν τοὺς ἀκροατὰς εἰς τὸ ἀδύτον τῆς ἑπτάκις κεκαλυµµένης ἀληθείας· οὑτως συνπροπαρεσεύασεν· οὐ φθονερὼς οὐδ’ ἀποφυλάκτως· ὥς ἐγὼ οἶµαι· καὶ ἀποθῄσκων κατέλιπε τὸ αὐτοῦ σύγγραµµα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ἐν Ἀλεξανδρίᾳ· ὅπου εισέτι νῦν ἀσφαλὠς εὖ µάλα τηρεῖται· ἀναγινωσκόµενον πρὀς αὐτοὺς µόνους τοὺς µυοµένους τὰ µεγάλα µυστήρια·Translation from Morton Smith, http://wwwuser.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/letter-engl.html. Last accessed, 21/2/2011. Greek Text from http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/secmark-greek.html. Last accessed, 21/2/2011. 9 See page 160. 216 his own work.10 No reason suggests the situation was any different among Christians.11 Augustine suggested that teachers prepare well and, if possible, compose notes. Those who compose well are encouraged to take what they compose and commit it to memory and only then deliver it.12 The delivery should always be responsive to the listeners and as interactive as possible. The use of rhetorical analysis of ancient texts that takes into account rhetorical assumptions of ancient writers and audiences is a means of access to a major aspect of the ancient context.13 Robbins advocates a similar approach,14 blending rhetorical criticism with attention to ancient social realities and ideologies, a supplement to more traditional historical criticism used by a number of scholars.15 The analytical framework of rhetorical criticism ideally derives from works on rhetoric by Greco-Roman authors. Kennedy suggests four recursive phases of analysis: 1) Determine the rhetorical unit. The unit generally has a minimum a beginning or “proem,” a middle, or “body,” and an end, “epilogue.” 2) Determine the rhetorical situation. Who are the actors, what are their Quintillian did not often write down his own lessons, but preferred to use looseleaf “commentarii” or notebooks (Ins. or. 10.7.30). 11 Van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 33. 12 Ibid., and Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 4.29(63); NPNF 1.2.596. 13 George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984),10, 32-38. 14 Robbins, Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse, 3. 15 David B. Fowler et al., eds., Fabrics of Discourse: Essays in Honor of Vernon K. Robbins (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003). 10 217 relationships and relative status, what response does the speaker wish from the audience? What problem is the communication designed to remedy? 3) Determine the issue, the “species” and “stasis.” The type or species of rhetoric predominant in the communication helps determine the issue: a. Deliberative rhetoric advises a course of action for the future. The issue is 16 determining the advisability of a future course of action. b. Epideictic rhetoric uses praise, blame or invective to strengthen the audience’s adherence to shared values either as an end in itself or as the basis for some policy of action.17 The issue is either strengthening the experience of adhesion to community and or enhancing the honor of the performer(s). Epideictic is often the least understood, but includes sub-genres such as paranesis and protreptic.18 c. Judicial rhetoric pleads a judgment, condemnation, acquittal, or redefinition of an issue concerning a past occurrence. 4) Observe the arrangement of the material. What are the subdivisions, what are their persuasive effects, and how do they work together to carry out the rhetorical strategy in the given rhetorical situation? The judicial and deliberative types of speech were the primary focus of Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 39-72. Ibid., 74 Kennedy remarks that epideictic style “tends to amplification and is fond of ornament and tolerant of description and digression.” 18 Pace Tim Sensing, “Towards a Definition of Paranesis” RQ 38.3 (1996): 145-58. More germane is Sensing’s recognition that paranesis entails community enhancement through “adherence to [or resistance to]... a tradition.” This is the essence of epideictic rhetoric. 17 16 218 ancient rhetorical handbooks.19 On the other hand, most homilies tend to be epideictic in nature, with the aim of strengthening adhesion to community values through deepening Christian group identity and beliefs. Only when the preacher advocates a particular course of action is it considered deliberative. Homilies may be judicial, but are not properly considered judicial unless the audience has the power to implement a judgment. When a preacher presents arguments against a group or an individual, and the audience has no power to act, then the preacher is practicing invective, the negative form of epideictic.20 The relationship between Christian oratory and classical rhetoric is ambivalent. Christian orators both denounced and used elements of classical rhetoric.21 Scholars have sometimes remarked that Hippolytus is untouched by rhetorical art. This impression may reflect the state of various stages of completion in different compositions by Hippolytus. The Against Noetus appears to be more carefully elaborated and corrected.22 And, while it is clear that Christian rhetoric, especially the sermon or homily, was “a phenomenon which made its way gradually In the context of classical rhetoric, those who practiced judicial rhetoric sought a determination (through the available means of persuasion) from those considered competent to judge about the guilt or innocence connected with past actions in order to apply community standards to such actions. Those practicing deliberative rhetoric (such as politicians) sought secure support for or consideration of courses of action in the future. Those practicing epideictic rhetoric sought to affirm community values in various contexts including ritual ones. 20 Ibid., 74. In On the Song of Songs Hippolytus the exegete weaves invective in and out of his presentation in his treatment of heretics and Jews. 21 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 76. 22 For this reason Butterworth, Contra Noetum, was able to present a cogent argument for Noet.’s rhetorical art. 19 219 into ancient culture from its fringes,”23 these forms participated in the popular rhetorical culture of the time. Classical sources represent, for the most part, the elite and are not “popular” rhetoric. Christians, however, preserved many examples of sermons that exhibit a broad range of ability and conformity to more formal types of rhetoric, as described in the handbooks and parallel examples of the rhetorical art of the elite. Some are more or less finished products and they come from a broad range of circumstances. Accordingly, Cunningham and Allen discuss topics emerging from a recent collection of studies in early Christian homilies: 1) What stage of preparation or performance does the text represent? Stages range from preparation, helps for oral delivery, to editting and redaction, purely textual transmission? Translation occurrs at any stage along the way. 2) In what sort of context should the text be understood? What is the identity of the speaker, the composition of the audience, the type of location, and the liturgical circumstances? 3) How may the text be classified? What is the genre, style, and what are its means of persuasion? 4) What are the contents of the homily? What is the biblical or traditional subject matter and the means of interpretation?24 Of these aspects #4 will be discussed in Chapter Four, the current Chapter is Folker Siegert, “Rhetoric in Practice: Homily and Panegyrical Sermon,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B. C. -A. D. 400 (ed. Stanley Porter; Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997), 421. 24 Mary B. Cunningham and Pauline Allen, Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics (New History of the Sermon 1; Leiden Boston: Brill, 1998), 1-20. 23 220 focused on #3, while #2 is divided between Chapter One and the present Chapter. Kennedy’s classical rhetorical analysis does not consider aspect #1. The text of On the Song of Songs does not appear to be a polished product, but is rather a series of notes, with a full introduction. The exposition of the text covers most of the text of Song 1:1-3:7, but omits any special treatment of verses 2:4–7; 2:11–13, 16–17; 3:2, 5. Along with the introduction the three perorations (see below page 278 ff.) use the figure of anaphora to amplify aspects in the text that are particularly important for the speaker/author. The rest of the “commentary” represents various stages of completion. Whether Hippolytus planned to cover all the Song is unlikely; his commentaries all deal with portions of texts rather than systematically working through entire books. On the Song of Songs may be compared with the GPhil, which, as van Os has argued, was a series of notes designed for baptismal instruction among Valentinians.25 In Cant. is a closer reading of a continuous biblical text than any of the textual comments based on biblical texts discussed in the GPhil. However, it is not as well elaborated as Hippolytus the exegete’s Comm. Dan. which does not seem to be as tied to “the preoccupations of preaching.”26 5.1.1 The Household Context of Baptism and Anointing Passover baptism and post-baptismal anointing are commonly understood as features of western Christianity.27 As suggested implicitly by In Cant. 2.7-9 and explicitly in the Commentary on Daniel (=Comm. Dan.) 1.16, Hippolytus the exegete Van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 80-1. Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 216. 27 Bradshaw, “‘Diem Baptismo Sollemniorem’,” in Eulogêma, 41-51; Serra, “Syrian Prebaptismal Anointing and Western Postbaptismal Chrismation,” 328-341. 26 25 221 preferred Passover baptism in conjunction with a post-baptismal anointing.28 The household context of these rites provides the stage for the meaningfulness of these rites, for early liturgy is also earthed in a context. As will be seen in this section, Hippolytus’ biblical interpretation in a house-church setting bears the imprint of that setting. In Comm. Dan. it is imagined as taking place in a παράδεισος, “enclosure” or “garden.” The symbolism of time, place, and celebratory elements of the rites of initiation are crucial and the nuptial interpretation of baptism, unmistakable. The language also suggests connections to Eden and the Jordan River.29 What more “appropriate day” than the day of the Passover? In which the bath is prepared in a garden for those destined to the flames and the church is washed as was Susanna and presented as a pure bride to God. And Faith and Love are as the two slave-maids who prepare [for the celebration] oil and unguents for those who are being washed.30 (Comm. Dan. 1.16) The references to garden bathing, slaves, and unguents helps to locate Hippolytus as a member of the class of men and women who lived or moved comfortably in a wealthy peristyle home in a home that imitated the styles of the wealthy.31 He imagines such a context as the regular location for Christian baptism. Note the purification of “the waters” of baptism at In Cant. 2.7, 8 mentioned with a post-baptismal anointing. 29 Similar evocations of the holy waters of the Nile dominate the garden peristyles of devotees of Isis in Pompeii and Herculaneum, see Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, 29-34. 30 Ποίαν «εὔθετον <ἡµέραν>» ἀλλ' ἢ τὴν τοῦ πάσχα; ἐν ᾗ τὸ λουτρὸν ἐν παραδείσῳ τοῖς καυσοµένοις ἑτοιµάζεται καὶ <ἡ ἐκκλησία ὡς> Σωσάννα ἀπολουοµένη καθαρὰ νύµφη θεῷ παρίσταται; <καὶ> ὡς <αἱ δύο παιδίσκαιαἱ αὐτῇ παρακολουθοῦσαι> πίστις καὶ ἀγάπη, <αἱ παρακολουθοῦσαι> τὸ ἔλαιον καὶ τὰ σµήγµατα τοῖς λουοµένοις ἑτοιµάζουσιν. Text from Hippolyte. Commentaire sur Daniel (ed. Maurice Lefèvre et al., SChr 14; Paris: Cerf, 1947). 31 Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, 44-47. 28 222 This does not mean that he was of upper class, since similar type houses in Pompeii and Herculaneaum have been shown to be the property of wealthy freedmen.32 In terms of physical reality, the text refers to a pool for outdoor bathing or recreation. Some houses had deep swimming pools, others fish ponds also deep enough for immersion, and typically located in a garden, that is, in a peristyle within a house or a villa.33 Wallace-Hadrill describes a domus and insula neighborhood complex in which the peristyle garden of the domus abuts a public bath and both poor and wealthy lived in community.34 The more private corollary, a decorated indoor baptistery as at Dura-Europos is surrounded by painted garden scenery.35 Ibid., 46. See page 285 below. Decorative and symbolic functions of murals with lush garden scenes painted on walls, even on the walls of peristyle gardens is discussed in Roger Ling, Roman Painting (New York: CUP, 1991), 149-153. Walls painted with shrubs and orchards gave the illusion that space and vegetation were more expansive than reality. Paintings such as the were also suggestive of a mysterious world of divine myth, and allegory beyond the walls. See Gilles Sauron, La peinture allégorique à Pompéi: Le regard de Cicéron (Editions A&J Picard, 2007). Christians who met in homes that were not so well appointed to have a pool deep enough for immersions of initiates could have made use of the public baths (θέρµαι), which also had pools, see Ann O. Koloski-Ostrow, “The City Baths in Pompeii and Herculaneum,” in The World of Pompeii (ed. Pedar W. Foss and John J. Dobbins; New York: Routledge Press, 2007), 224-256. 34 Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “Domus and Insulae in Rome: Families and Households” in Early Christian Families in Context: an Interdisciplinary Dialogue (David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 3-18. 35 In this domus ecclesiae, the baptistry is decorated with images, many of which also are found in On the Song of Songs: Adam and Eve, the Good Shepherd, images of healing. Another Durene image found in other works of Hippolytus is David and Goliath. Neither the Ten Virgins (often understood, however, as the Women at the Tomb), the healing of the paralytic, nor Peter walking on water (images on the baptistery wall) are mentioned in On the Song of Songs The baptismal nuptial theme is clearly represented and may indicate Valentinian influence at Dura-Europa, see Serra, 33 32 223 From early in the second century, at least in the West, baptisms were celebrated along with eucharistic meals.36 As in all Christian churches, the context for these activities was the house-church. Thus On the Song of Songs provides a rare window into a particular Christian interpretation of initiatory banqueting practices and their regulation.37 Such practices shared many specific features with those of nonChristian associations and with the Greco-Roman institution of the celebratory meal in general.38 The festive, household-centered39 occasion of the context40 envisioned by Hippolytus for baptism fits the commentary well,41 with baptism, anointing and “The Baptistery At Dura-Europos,” 67-78. On Valentinianism and gnostics in Mesopotamia, see Kraeling, The Christian Building, 119-126. 36 Tertullian, Cor. 3; Justin Apol. 1.65-67; [pseudo-Hippolytus], Apostolic Tradition (=TA) 21-26. See Alistair Stewart, ed., On the Apostolic Tradition (PPS; St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002), 110-47. 37 See White, “Regulating Fellowship in the Communal Meal,” 180-1. On the Greco-Roman background of Christian banqueting practice, Katherine Dunbabin, The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003); also the work of New Testament scholars Dennis Edwin Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: the Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 1-72, and Matthias Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern (TANZ 13; Tübingen Basel: Francke Verlag, 1996). 38 On water in a Roman city, see Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, 213. 40 Passover baptism of catechumens appears to have been preferred by sectors of the western church in the second century. According to Bradshaw, “‘Diem Baptismo Sollemniorem’,” in Eulogêma, 41-51, the preference for Passover baptism was limited largely to Rome and North Africa for a brief period of about fifty years. See also Raniero Cantalamessa, L’omelia In Sanctum Pascha dello pseudo-Ippolito di Roma (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 1967), 285-7. 41 That In Cant. represent a “baptismal liturgy in an Easter vigil service” is assumed without further reflection Cerrato who argues for an eastern provenance for the com- 39 224 handlaying as blessing brought into the orbit of the Roman banquet as rituals appropriate for celebrating the joining of initiates to the community.42 Elite Romans were accustomed to going to a bath (terme) before the evening convivium and Christian baptism easily fits this pattern, though the significance of Christian baptism goes far beyond the common cultural pattern and transforms it into a rite of initiation to a community. One may speculate that non-elite Romans would not often be invited to the convivia of the elite and that the Christian practice represents a democratization of this pattern.43 What is true in regard to domestic decoration is also true in regard to domestic rituals, This phenomenon is not simply one of mimicry (“aping one’s betters”); the sheer insecurity of the freedman or the novus homo in the social structure drove him to affirm and legitimate his social standing by drawing on the cultural language of the dominant class.44 Though the initiation into Christianity may have had real social disadvantages, it also mentary corpus: Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 142; 197, who advances the theories developed by Pierre Nautin, Hippolyte et Josipe. Contribution a l’histoire de la litterature chretienne du troisieme siecle (Paris: Cerf, 1947); Vincenzo Loi, “La Problematica Storico-Letteraria su Ippolito di Roma,” Ricerche su Ippolito (SEA 13; Rome, 1977); Manlio Simonetti, “Aggiornamento su Ippolito,” Nuove ricerche su Ippolito (SEA 30; Rome, 1989): 75-130. 42 Marcel Metzger, History of the Liturgy: The Major Stages (Liturgical Press, 1997), 53, remarks concerning anointing, “We probably have here the effect of the customs of antiquity, where baths were ordinarily followed by massages of with oil. If this is so, the baptismal anointings would have to be seen as the Christianization of cultural customs (inculturation). Christians transformed these commonplace customs into expressive gestures visually showing the effects of the baptismal mystery.” 43 Balch, private communication, 11-19-2008. 44 Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 14. 225 had corresponding advantages. In Cant. may be seen as a Christian example of the θεολογία, or sermon, similar to analogous speeches delivered during the celebratory symposia of certain Greco-Roman religious associations.45 However, an even closer parallel to Hippolytus’ commentary in On the Song of Songs is found in Philo’s description of the banquets of the Therapeutae.46 Philo does not describe initiation rites. Rather he For the notion of a θεολογία or sermon in a religious banqueting association, see Franciszek Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1969), 95-100, no. 51; Benjamin D. Meritt, “Greek Inscriptions,” Hesperia 11.3 (1942): 283-7, no. 50. Part of the second-century ritual elaboration of the yearly springtime Anthesteria of the Iobakchoi (worshippers of Bacchus) was a “sermon” that Neikomachus “began to make during his priesthood in order to distinguish himself.” 46 The literature on Philo’s Therapeutae is considerable. Unresolved is the issue of the group’s relation to the Essenes. Joan E. Taylor and Philip R. Davies, “The So-Called Therapeutaie of De Vita Contemplativa: Identity and Character,” HTR 91.1 (1992): 24, argue that the group of Vit. cont. came from educated, hellenized, elite Jewish circles in Alexandria and were a tiny and distinctive philosophical group, most likely unrelated to the sect of Essenes in Judaea. Other scholars link the two groups. See Marcel Simon, Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus (1960. J. H. Farley, trans.; reprinted Philadelphia- Fortress, 1967) 120-30. Geza Vermes and Martin Goodman, eds, The Essenes according to the Classical Sources (Sheffield. JSOT, 1989) 76; and Roland Bergmeier, Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus Quellenstudien zu den Essenertexten un Werk des judischen Histonographen (Kampen Kok Pharos, 1993): 41-47 For a survey of those who link the Therapeutae with the Essenes, see Jean Riaud “Les Thérapeutes d’Alexandrie dans la tradition et dans la recherche critique jusqu'aux découvertes de Qumran,” ANRW 2 20 2 (1987) 1189-1295, esp. 1241-64. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa as a Philosopher’s Dream,” JSJ 30 (1999): 40-64, revives the old proposal that the group is purely an ideal, constructed by Philo for the purposes of his ongoing debate with the Greco-Roman philosophers, or otherwise fictive (Richaud, op. cit., 1202-10). For an excellent argument for the historicity of the group on the basis of what is missing and included in Philo’s rhetoric, see David M Hay, “Things Philo Said and Did Not Say about the Therapeutae,” SBL 1992 Seminar Papers (Atlanta Scholars Press, 1992) 673-83. Peter Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 45 226 describes a idealized way of life practiced among a group of Jewish monks and nuns. One of their practices was to regularly observe a philosophical banquet complete with sermon on sacred texts using an allegorical method. The meal exhibits the harmony and unity of the Therapeutae with one another and with God. The lives of those who pursue union with the divine are viewed as a corollary to a sacrificial meal (Vita. cont. 81-82). The sermon leads finally to the platonic union of male and female in dance and song in a climactic union of the community with God (Vita. cont. 83-90). The sermon delivered in the context of the philosophical symposium of the Therapuetae gives way to an ascetic meal with “sacred food” (Vit. cont. 81), The meal and symposium are themselves held in a “refractory” or συµπόσιον (Vit. cont. 83).47 Philo’s banquet represents a special occasion, a recurring gathering taking place after a period the members of the community had spent seven weeks mostly in solitude. Philo notes that “love” (ἐρως) is typical of discourse at both philosophical and common banquets. A central theme of Philo’s description of the Therapeutae is the unity of the group who pursue heavenly love by which they are carried away [ὑπ’ ἔρωτος ἁρπασθέντες οὐρανίου] (Vit. cont. 13).48 They drink in as if it were wine what is beloved of God [σπάσαντες τοῦ θεοφιλοῦς] (Vit. cont. 85). The goodness of their practice procures for them love (φιλίαν) from God in return as their reward (Vit. cont. 2004), 151-164, presents convincing arguments that ruins in Kelia near Lake Meraotis was the site of the community of Therapeutae described in Philo’s Vit. cont. 47 Philo apparently used the word συµπόσιον both for the dining/drinking hall of the communitυ (Vit. cont. 71?, 83) and the after-meal dessert and entertainment at a banquet (40, 41, 44, 48, 57, 58, 64). See Peter Richardson, Building Jewish in the Roman East (Waco, TΧ: Baylor University Press, 2004), 160. 48 Translation from C. D. Yonge, The Works of Philo Judaeus: the Contemporary of Josephus (vol. 4; Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2006), 18. 227 90). The sermon given by the president, προεδρώς, (Vit. cont. 79) of the banquet concerns contemplative truths and the practice of virtues for the good of the community extracted from a sacred text. The message of the sermon supports the Philo’s overall theme of love for God in the Vit. cont. Philo describes the method of discourse used in the sermon in the following manner: And these explanations of the sacred Scriptures are delivered by mystic expressions in allegories, for the whole of the law appears to these men to resemble a living animal, and its express commandments seem to be the body, and the invisible meaning concealed under and lying beneath the plain words resembles the soul, in which the rational soul begins most excellently to contemplate what belongs to itself, as in a mirror, beholding in these very words the exceeding beauty of the sentiments, and unfolding and explaining the symbols, and bringing the secret meaning naked to the light to all who are able by the light of a slight intimation to perceive what is unseen by what is visible.49 Philo gives two different descriptions of the Therapeutae’s banquets (symposia or convivia Vit. cont. 28ff. and 64ff.). In the latter description an elder makes a discourse, discusses questions arising in holy Scripture (Vit. cont. 75), gives an exposition of Scripture (Vit. cont. 77), an allegory, in which the words of Scripture are mirrors (Vit. cont. 77-78). Here is a symposium where themes of discussion come from a text, holy Scripture, as in Hippolytus. Philo does not use the Song of Songs, but in Vit. cont. he narrates about a discourse on males and females becoming in as they dance and sing in antiphonal choruses. This description is quite unusual in either a Jewish or Christian worship of God. As will be made abundantly clear, On the Song of Songs shares with the Vit. cont. the theme of love (ἔρως and φιλία), oral commentary on mystic expressions in sacred texts, the banquet context involving holy 49 Ibid. 228 food, and the ideal union of male and female in Christ as well as the presentation of representatives of the human community as a sacrifice. Both Hippolytus and Philo also compare their symbolic interpretation of holy Scripture as looking into a mirror (cf. In Cant. 4.4-5).50 Thus for Philo and Hippolytus, and in the New Testament the apostle Paul, interpreting oral and/or written sacred stories is compared to seeing in a mirror. The interpretation of sacred texts (oral or written) takes place in conjuntion with a meal. The topic of discussion concerns love, especially love for God, and unity in the groups represented. These points of contact lead to the twin conclusions that the commentary fits well as a symposium speech or the notes from which such a speech could be extemporized, and that Paul, Philo, and Hippolytus share in common cultural patterns from which they draw the elements of their feasts. It is also quite possible that Philo’s account in Vit. cont. has directly influenced Hippolytus.51 So, On the Song of Songs is “earthed in the context” of the house-church. It also is very likely to have a strong connection to a banquet context. But what is the likelihood that a specific link can be made to celebrations in the context of Passover? It has already been seen that Hippolytus has a preference for Passover baptisms. A clue to this particular use of the commentary is given in the Armenian fragments In Cant. 25.10: He is interpreting 2 Cor 3:18, but Paul uses a similar figure of the interpretive process involving prophecies in 1 Cor 13:12. My thanks to David Balch for pointing this striking parallel out to me. 51 For the use of Vit. cont. by patristic authors of both the East and West including Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Cyprian, see Fred C. Coneybear, ed. Philo about the Contemplative Life: or the Fourth Book of the Treatise Concerning Virtues (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895), 318, 202, 349, 212, 256, etc. 50 229 Now, since these things happened, O beloved, behold, he makes peace, causing the synagogue of the Jews to cease and glorifies the mystery of the resurrection. We are those who worship every day in so far as we are making very glorious the holy festival, rejoicing with the angels. These lines are missing from both the Georgian and the Paleo-Slavonic texts of the commentary. So they may be safely considered a scribal addition or an adaptation of the commentary. Nevertheless, the lines point the reception of the commentary, used during the “holy festival,” most likely Easter. The commentary itself contains a call to receive post-baptismal chrismation (In Cant. 2.6) and emphasizes Passover gospel events of the death (In Cant. 13.1-4) and resurrection (In Cant. 24-25) of Christ. Finally, the commentary seems particularly appropriate as a springtime text, which, again points either to Easter (or Pentecost), as appropriate times for baptismal and mystagogical instruction. The frequent celebration of household meals was an important feature of early Christianity. Among other functions, the meal setting represented a crucial context for interchange between wealthy patrons and clients who were less well-off. Tensions were bound to arise between church members who were not formally recognized in official roles as leaders of the church and yet were needed by the leaders to make significant material contributions for the benefit of the community. In other words, the leaders were patrons, but not all patrons were recognized as official church leaders. The controversies in the literature, as well as documents like the socalled Apostolic Tradition, reflect a social context of transition from networks of loosely-governed, house-church groups often in tension or outright conflict with one another to a more regulated and centralized vision of church life. The agonistic life of the raucous Roman house churches replete with outbursts of strife is consistent with 230 its Greco-Roman context. Such disturbances continued in Rome right through the third and fourth centuries punctuated occasionally by violent clashes.52 5.1.2 The Audience in On the Song of Songs The text of In Cant. itself does not directly specify the type of audience the speaker had in mind; however, the text does give indirect clues. One may assume that the audience was mixed in terms of status, sex, and ethnic background.53 The first reason, which will be explored more fully below in connection with the ritual context of the commentary, is that the likely social context of the commentary was part of the celebration of a Christian Passover banquet. At such an event, people of various status levels could be present at the same time (some as guests and some as servants).54 The second reason emerges from the examples of men and women chosen from biblical heroes by Hippolytus as examples for his audience. He appears to have selected them to hold up a mirror in the biblical text to reflect the audience.55 Hippolytus used both examples of men and women, of slave, freed-slave, and freeborn, of matron-patron A particularly violent example was that between the followers of Pope Damasus and Pope Ursinus in 366 that resulted in the deaths of as many as 200 supporters of Ursinus when the domus ecclesiae in which they were sheltered was torched. See Nicola Denzey, The Bone Gatherers, 160. 53 Inscriptional and documentary evidence for this assertion and its implications will be discussed below. See 2.1.4. 54 The culmination of the commentary (In Cant. 26-27) describes the κλίνη of Christ and the κλίναι of the ideal participants at the banquet who include both heroes of the biblical past as well as those who have come to Christ for rest, healing and salvation in the present. 55 On the use of sacred scriptural stories as a mirror, see In Cant. 4.4-5; Vit. cont. 75, cf. 1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 3:18. See above, page 228. 52 231 status, and of varying occupations as objects of praise and blame in his perorations. For example, the multiple list of men and women who “desired the anointing (myron),” (2.9-34) suggests such an audience on the assumption that Hippolytus chose his biblical figures to help his audience identify with his interpretation of the Song. The figure of the beloved-bride is dynamic. She is described as “dark,” which suggests a sinful past; yet she presents the idyllic figure of a shepherdess who is also a woman of noble birth (5.1; 9.2). The figures of Martha and Mary also suggest freeborn women of matronly status. (25.1-10) Martha becomes the woman who anointed Christ (2.29), contrary to the explicit statement of the Gospel of John 12:1-8.56 The final peroration of heroes (the biblical, human lineage of the Logos) who participate in the κλίνη of Christ include the prophets and the nobel men of Christ’s lineage. These men, in Hippolytus the exegete’s typological understanding, are symbolized in the Song by the “sixty mighty men” in the retinue of the king. The Logos is said to issue from their loins while at the same time they were created by the Logos. Men form the core of the list; however, women, slaves and freedmen are included in the litany. The range of status differential would likely have been present in Hippolytus the exegete’s audience (27.2-5), gathered for a Passover banquet. However, only one woman is mentioned as actually reclining on a couch, the “leader’s daughter who was twelve years old” (27.4). She appears, possibly, as a Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 184-200, suggests that the re-writing of this passage in John and the post-resurrection scene gives prominence to Martha is a result of (1) anti-gnostic polemic and (2) veneration of a matronal figure in the oral tradition known to Hippolytus the exegete. 56 232 representative of a higher class of persons in Hippolytus the exegete’s potential audience. Three women are also included as attendant, though “blessed,” figures. One (a widow) prepares a couch (for Elijah) providing matronly support for his ministry as a prophet. Her son rests on a couch. Another is the impoverished woman healed of her issue of blood while Jesus is on the way to heal the ruler’s son. She is represented as hurrying to the couch (representing Jesus himself) and grasping the hem of “his garment” (27.2-5). Women preface and conclude the list emphasizing a conscious inclusion of women in the mirror image of community that Hippolytus holds up for his readers in the text. The inclusion of women in the lineage of those who produced the Logos attests to the importance of women who exercised matronly functions in the community and provided important financial resource for the leaders. However, their inclusion in an otherwise exclusively male list as adjuncts to the list (except for the virgin Mary) indicates, perhaps an ambivalence in the attitude of Hippolytus toward the matronly figures with whom he must deal. The opening of the final peroration seems also to highlight a desire on Hippolytus the exegete’s part to include representative slaves and laborers when he addressed those “exhausted, from many cares, [who] recuperate on a couch, so that the weariness of [their] labor may pass from [them], in the same way we who [have been] converted from the vanity of the world, remove our heavy load of sin, which had been placed on our shoulders. Falling on our knees before Christ, we have found a place of rest like a couch” (27.1). Of the commended examples Hippolytus used the figure of Joseph to represent three different types of individual: a freeborn person, a slave, and a freedman who became a “divine consultant”57 in the service of the royal 57 The practitioners of similar professions are excluded from church membership ac- 233 (or the imperial) household.58 As a male slave, Joseph is commended for upholding to his hurt the sexual mores of the community. Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob seem to represent free men with pedigree and honor. Abraham and Jacob explicitly represent immigrants. Moses, Aaron, and Phineas (mentioned together) may represent people of priestly class. Joshua, David, and Solomon, mentioned together, may represent ideal types of ruling class individuals. Daniel, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael represent confessors, an important social role ascribed considerable status in the early church. Evidence analyzed by Lampe suggests that women likely outnumbered men in the ancient church-school in Rome at the beginning of the third century, yet there is a tendency in the literature to diminish their influence.59 Such seems to be the case with the relative lack of female representation in this list. Still, the women in Hippolytus the exegete’s list of the first peroration, though fewer than the men, exhibit similar status differential. Tamar represents the slave class, while Mary the mother of Jesus and Martha represent freeborn women. Hippolytus, in In Cant. 2.18 congratulates Tamar, who “desired greatly to take hold of [the anointing], and made herself look like a prostitute toward Judah [to obtain it].” However, the cording to TA 16.14, but the commendation of Joseph (and commendation of Daniel in the Comm. Dan.) suggests that perhaps such rules could have been applied flexibly. Exceptions might be made for “divine counselors” with the right credentials, placement, and relationship to church leaders. 58 McKechnie, “Christian Grave-Inscriptions,” 427-41, gathers inscriptional evidence suggesting that a significant number of imperial slaves in the service of the emperor felt free enough to openly publish their allegiance to Christ during the later Severan period. The figure of Joseph would have appeal to such people. 59 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 48. 234 commendation of Tamar is counter-balanced with the commendation of “Blessed Joseph loved this [the anointing of myron], and he suffered, by being sold he went down to Egypt. In as much as he did not wish to steal [anything], nor did he give himself to the lady of his house so that he would not be tainted with corruption” (2.19). Judah gives Tamar to his son Er as a wife (Gen 38:6). The language implies that she is of slave class. And, since Judah himself married a Canaanite woman, it is likely that Tamar was also a foreign woman.60 The ambiguity of the place of the slave-class woman, who out of “desire for the anointing” makes herself “look like a prostitute” to obtain it is underscored by and placed in deliberate contrast with the commendation of Phineas for the holy murder of Zambri and the prostitute also “out of zeal for [the anointing]” (2.21). A more stark expression of ambivalence is not possible. The commendation of Tamar points to what must have been the situation of many women in early Christianity forced to endure ambiguous moral situations, who nevertheless were able to take advantage of connections with powerful men. The author of Haer., for example, honorably mentions Marcia, the concubine of Commodus, who was well-placed to obtain the release of Christians deported to the mines in Sardinia (9.12.10). The TA 16.15-16 also recognizes the acceptability of the concubine who is faithful to her husband, though TA rejects both the concubine who is sexually unfaithful to her master and the man who cohabits with a woman without proper marriage.61 Apparently, the concubine of a man who wished to be Christian Gary H. Oller, “Tamar,” ABD 5: 315. Prohibitions against unfaithful concubines and men with concubines do not occur outside TA or literature derived from it. This passage of In Cant. strikes a remarkable harmonic note with TA, See Bradshaw et. al., Apostolic Tradition, 94; Peter Brown, 61 60 235 would have been in an extremely tenuous position. On the other hand Hippolytus the exegete’s commendation of Joseph who “did [not] give himself to the lady of his house” illustrates the importance of the issue of sexual relations (and, by extension, marriage) between freeborn women and household male slaves. This issue was a particular point of contention between pseudo-Hippolytus, author of Haer. and the διαδοχή of Callistus (Haer. 9.12.24), exacerbated by the differential in numbers between women and men of higher status who converted to Christianity. Since women of higher status outnumbered their male counterparts,62 in order to marry Christians, they would have to resort to men of lower status. Sometimes those lower status men were slaves (as exemplified by Joseph). The author of Haer. writes: When women from the noble class (αἱ ἐν ἀξίᾳ), who were unmarried and in the heat of their youthful passion desired to marry, and yet were unwilling to give up their class (ἑαυτῶν ἀξίαν) through a legal marriage (διὰ τοῦ νοµίµως γαµηθῆναι), he [Callistus] allowed to choose a partner, whether slave or free (οἰκέτην εἴτε ἐλεύθερον), and to consider the partner to be their husband without a legal marriage. From that time on the alleged believing women began to resort to contraceptive methods and to corset themselves in order to cause abortions, because, on account of their lineage and their enormous wealth (διὰ τὴν The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (Lectures on the History of Religions NS 13; New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 29, 147, 151, 390, 393. 62 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 119, gives as corroborating evidence Tertullian’s awareness of a similar problem in North Africa (Ad uxor. 2.8.3 ff.): “To a Christian believer it is irksome to wed a believer inferior to herself in estate, destined as she will be to have her wealth augmented in the person of a poor husband!” He gives four third century inscriptions in Rome of Christian women of senatorial class who were united to men of lower class. 236 συγγἐνειαν καὶ ὑπέρογκον οὐσίαν), they did not wish to have a child from a slave or from a commoner.63 (Haer. 9.12.24 trans. YWS) According to In Cant. 2.18-19, a Christian slave woman was sexually available to her master, but a Christian man who was a slave must avoid such relations, as did Joseph in Potiphar’s house. This accords well with Haer. 9.12.24 and represents exactly the same posture: a Christian male slave was forbidden to “marry” his female mistress. Before this time, no evidence exists for Christian discussion of the status of concubines whether in Christian or in non-Christian homes; however, evidence that male concubinage did in fact occur among other Christian groups (e.g., followers of Callistus) in Rome is attested by Haer. and the Christian funeral inscription ILCV 2807.64 The inscription, decorated with a fish and an anchor, is in the Cemetery of Hermes at Rome, and dated 234 AD The daughter of the couple was given the name of the mother, which suggests that the husband had formerly been of slave class.65 Οὗ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ ἡσθέντες τοῖς δόγµα<σι> διαµένουσιν ἐµπαίζοντες ἑαυτοῖς τε καὶ πολλοῖς. ὧν τῷ διδασκαλείῳ συρρέουσιν ὄχλοι· διὸ καὶ πληθύνονται, γαυριώµενοι ἐπὶ ὄχλοις <συρρέουσι> διὰ τὰς ἡδονάς, ἃς οὐ συνεχώρησεν ὁ Χριστός. οὗ καταφρονήσαντες οὐδέν<α> ἁµαρτεῖν κωλύουσι, φάσκοντες αὐτὸν ἀφιέναι τοῖς εὐδοκοῦσι. καὶ γὰρ καὶ γυναιξὶν ἐπέτρεψεν, εἰ ἄνανδροι εἶεν καὶ ἡλικίᾳ γε [τε] <εἰς ἄνδρα ἐκ>καίο<ι>ντο, <αἱ> ἐν ἀξίᾳ, εἰ <τὴν> ἑαυτῶν ἀξίαν [ἣν] µὴ βούλοιντο καθαιρεῖν διὰ τοῦ νοµίµως γαµηθῆναι, ἔχει<ν> ἕνα, ὃν ἂν αἱρήσωνται, σύγκοιτον, εἴτε οἰκέτην εἴτε ἐλεύθερον, καὶ τοῦτον κρίνειν ἀντὶ ἀνδρὸς <τὴν> µὴ νόµῳ γεγαµηµένην. ἔνθεν ἤρξα<ν>το ἐπιχειρεῖν <αἱ> πισταὶ λεγόµεναι ἀτοκίοις φαρµάκοις καὶ <τῷ> περιδεσµεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸ τὰ συλλαµβανόµενα καταβάλλειν, διὰ τὸ µήτε ἐκ δούλου βούλεσθαι ἔχειν τέκνον, µήτε ἐξ εὐτελοῦς, διὰ τὴν <αὐτῶν> εὐγένειαν καὶ ὑπέρογκον οὐσίαν. (Marcovich, PST 25 TLG) 64 Ibid., 24, 36, 120, 339; McKechnie, “Christian Grave-Inscriptions,” 430, 437, 441. 65 Ibid, 120, n. 10. 63 237 Ti. Cl. Marcianus et Cornelia Hilaritas Corneliae Paulae par(entes) fecr. quae vix. ann. X. dieb. VIII. dec. X kal. Aug. Max. et Urb. cos. [piscis, ancora] δecesit Serotina priδe kal. Martias <m>. <X>. δier. XX Δioc<l. ϛ> (cons. ).66 Titus Claudius Marcianus and Cornelia Hilaritas parents of Corneliae Paulae made (this) for her who lived 10 years 8 days. Died on the 10th calends of August while Maximus and Urbanus were consuls [image of fish and anchor] she died before the bloom [of life]. On the calends of March . . . on the 20th day of the consulship of Diocletian (they set it up). The couple would have become parents of Cornelia Paula about two years after the death of Callistus (222 AD), since the girl died in 234 AD. Titus Claudius, as Lampe suggests, could have been a freedman of the imperial Claudian family. He also speculates that Cornelia Hilaritas might have been a member of the Cornelian family, members of which were consuls in 199 AD and 216.67 The intersection of the evidence of Haer., ILCV 2807, and In Cant. presents a known social problem in the church-schools of Rome in the early third century from three different optics: antheretical, inscriptional, biblical interpretation for new converts. Here is strong evidence for a western provenance of On the Song of Songs and a connection to the Refutation. Ernst Diehl et al., eds., Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres (Berolini: Apud Weidmannos, 1925); Ernst Diehl et al., Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres Supplement (Berolini: Apud Weidmannos, 1967). Available on the Greek Documentary Texts (CD-ROM #3 Packard Humanities Institute, 1991-2006) 1. Inscriptions (Cornell, Ohio State, et al.), Christian Inscriptions, Late Antique Latin, Diehl, Iscr. Lat. Chr. Vet. I-II. 67 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 120. 66 238 The Virgin Mary (In Cant. 2.28), who became the mother of the Word, and Martha, who carried the oil of anointing, or myron, to pour over Christ (In Cant. 2.29), “with all intercession and consolation,” frame the life of the savior of the world in On the Song of Songs Hippolytus (In Cant. 26-27) puts great stress on the passionate pursuit of the risen Christ by Martha and Mary. Along with these key references to women, the very framework of the narrative relationship between the lover (Christ) and the beloved highlights a theme that gives prominence to feminine characters. The prominence of female characters may indicate the presence of important women in the community. Such a community profile fits the so-called “statue of Hippolytus,” which was also a feminine figure. In the list of Hippolytan works on the statue one work is addressed to a woman, Severina, perhaps a wellplaced patroness of Hippolytus and his group. Hippolytus the exegete also gives attention to varying status levels that might have been present at the Passover celebration banquet during the reading of his commentary. The price of thirty denarii (In Cant. 2.31) offered to Judas for betraying Christ is transformed, strangely, into a representation of the accessibility of Christ, “It is found that in the passion he was sold for thirty denarii. For he was worth such in truth that for an easy price he was sold and that the poor also easily could attain him. So it was, beloved.” By the third century inflation had, apparently, reduced the value, and thus altered the symbolic meaning of the price for Jesus’ betrayal. The synagogue is directly addressed in various places in the text. The poverty or relative disadvantage of certain Jews appears to be a topic of the commentary (In Cant. 6.2)68 It is possible that some of the converts that Hippolytus the exegete hoped 68 Jewish poverty is especially clear in the CantPar 6.2. The Jewish community 239 would be present at the Christian gathering where In Cant. was recited would be of Jewish origin and, perhaps, poor.69 5.1.3 Rhetorical Features of the Early Christian Instruction of New Converts Siegert discussed the early Christian homily and panegyric against the background of Hellenistic rhetoric,70 concluding that the homily in a church-school, similar to homilies in synagogues, was an informal treatment of sacred texts or doctrine unique in the ancient world. According to Siegert, in the non-Christian world the interpretation of sacred texts was not a subject of public speaking. For this reason the homily form was of no concern to polytheistic teachers of rhetoric. It is true that much of early Christian literature classed as homiletic does not exhibit profound influence from polytheistic schools of rhetoric, and that the exegetical sermons of Christians and Jews may have been “unique”71 in the specific literature they treated. Yet Siegert’s statement lacks nuance. Several Christian authors anticipated Gregory of Nyssa’s passing from the school room to notoriety in Christian writing.72 In the West would have enjoyed varying levels of wealth. The Christian message and patronage could have been attractive to poor Jews (just as the reverse was also the case). 69 See Stark, Cities of God, 138-9. 70 Folker Siegert, “Rhetoric in Practice: Homily and Panegyrical Sermon,” Handbook of Classical Rhetoric, 421-44. 71 This is, however, a uniqueness shared by all other commentators of whatever sort. See the comments on uniqueness in Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: on the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of late Antiquity (JLCR 14; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). 72 See Michael Winterbottom, “Cyprian’s Ad Donatum,” in Severan Culture, 190. These three “provide almost the only light on literary Latin during the Severan period.” 240 Tertullian, Minuicius Feix, and Cyprian all draw attention from classicists because of the evidence they provide for schooling in rhetoric among Christians.73 The reference in the third-century Loginus On the Sublime, that used portions of biblical texts as an illustration of the sublime style, indicates a somewhat begrudging recognition of Christian and Jewish rhetorical culture by some in the ancient world. Hippolytus may have had contacts with the Severan household.74 The Severans themselves certainlyhad contact with Origen (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.21.4; 28.1). Men of letters among polytheists were already taking careful note of Christianity (Lucian, Celsus, Galen). The lack of mention of Christianity by intellectuals of the Severan period does not come from ignorance. Indeed, it has been argued that Diogenes Laertius’ polemical statements about the antiquity of Greek culture “only make sense against a background of Christian apologetic claims that Christians, through the Jews, were the oldest philosophy.”75 See Jonathan Powell, “Unfair to Caecilius? Ciceronian Dialogue Techniques in Minucius Felix,” Severan Culture, 177-89; Catherine Conybeare, “Tertullian on Flesh, Spirit, and Wives,” in item, 430-9. 74 See Hans Achelis, Hippolytstudien (TU 16.4, NF, 1.4; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897); Marcel Richard, “Quelques Nouveaux Fragment de Pères,” in Opera Minora (1 Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), 5. The fragment published by Richard is from a letter to the Empress Mamaea referring to the age of the world from creation to the birth of Christ as 5,500 years based on the dimensions of the ark of Noah. The same idea is found in CommPsalm cited by Theodoret (PG 83; 85D-88A). This figure corresponds to the math that can be derived from the chronological tables (ἀποδείξις) on the socalled “statue of Hippolytus,” which, along with the Chronicon, also often attributed to Hippolytus the exegete. However, the original text of Hippolytus the exegete of Comm. Dan. 4.24.3-6 appears to revise this figure to 5,502 years. Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 274-79, sees this as evidence that Hippolytus the exegete revised the chronology of his predecessor, the author of Haer. and the Chronicon, as well as altering some dates on the statue with the notation “according to Daniel.” 75 Simon Swain, Severan Culture, 26-27; Tim Whitmarsh, “Prose Literature and the 73 241 Therefore, it may be said that Siegert’s conclusion is not entirely warranted. In adopting the commentary genre, Christians were participating in the general rhetorical movement of the period. The momentous changes created by the proclamation of citizenship for all under Caracalla irrevocably transformed the intellectual and spiritual landscape of the Roman Empire. One of the effects was a perceived need to “gather and define the traditional Greek experience” through the intense literary output of compendia and commentaries on earlier works perceived to be canonical in their various fields.76 The essential Christian quality of the homily seems to have been in its subject matter and its intimate connection between theology and morality, not so much its distinctiveness of form or style. Van Os points to other reasons that might lend a nonstandard rhetorical form to the homily. For example, the sense of familiarity between the pastor and the congregation within the context of liturgy, along with the use of traditional sources of authority like Scripture and credal symbol contribute to a sense of uniqueness. In these settings the context often precluded the need for some formal rhetorical features used to establish ethos.77 Hippolytus maintains this sense of familiarity, despite the formality of interpreting a text in a meal-time context, by his constant direct address to the hearers and his references to them as “beloved.” The type of instruction used for teaching candidates for baptism and the Severan Dynasty,” item, 38-39. By the fourth century, rhetoric was becoming more strongly represented in circles of Christian leadership. Augustine’s pursuit of Ambrose because of his rhetorical skill indicates a shift in the center of gravity in rhetorical culture from polytheistic circles to Christian circles. 76 Swain, Severan Culture, 26. 77 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 76. 242 recently baptized is a specific type of epideictic rhetoric. It has features of protreptic speech, that is, speech designed to call a someone to commitment or conversion. But protreptic in mystagogy and catechesis is used as supporting material for the more pervasive aim of strengthening commitment to Christian values—epideictic paranesis. Initiatory instruction seeks to go beyond protreptic to provide the conditions to support a deeper transformation of identity. Clement of Alexandria, ca. 200 C. E., commented on this type of Christian rhetoric in the Instructor. He characterized instruction for the new convert using the terms hortatory (ὁ προτρεπτικὸς), suggestive (ὁ ὑποθετικός), and consolatory (ὁ παραµυθητικός) forms of discourse. The first is intended to modify and redirect ingrained habits, the second is focused on specific practices, and the third is directed toward healing the affections or passions. Nothing in this characterization is exclusively Christian. Christian pedagogy for initiates was primarily practical and not theoretical and its purpose was to improve or train the soul in the life of virtue, rather than to teach or to comment on an intellectual life per se. The description that follows in the Instructor (1.2.2), characterizing parenetic, or counseling, discourse that heals through the condemnation of bad examples and the commendation of the good certainly would have been recognizable to anyone versed in ancient rhetoric as one form of the epideictic species of rhetoric. Clement considered that the healing of the soul through such instruction could potentially lead to more speculative knowledge, but the primary need of the new convert or the sick at heart was healing and not knowledge, “The Word first exhorts, then trains, and finally teaches” (Paed. 1.3.3). The redirecting, healing function is perhaps one of the reasons Hippolytus 243 has abundant references to well known pagan mythical images.78 Such images were in the homes of his new converts. The option of repainting homes with Christian images was not practicable. Part of the power of On the Song of Songs is to use the occasion of the teaching afforded by the Song to reprogram the converts’ responses to their world of myth, which was painted on their walls! This healing of passions, described by Clement as psychagogy or therapy, was a major element of Hellenistic philosophy as it was popularly practiced. As Nussbaum shows: The Hellenistic philosophical schools in Greece and Rome—Epicureans, Skeptics, and Stoics—all conceived of philosophy as a way of addressing the most painful problems of human life. They saw the philosopher as a compassionate physician whose arts could heal many pervasive types of human suffering. They practiced philosophy not as a detached intellectual technique dedicated to the display of cleverness but as an immersed and wholly worldly art of grappling with human misery. They focused their attention, in consequence, on issues of daily and urgent human significance—the fear of death, love, sexuality, anger and aggression.79 Christian initiation also focused on worldly, daily issues but blended these common themes with other-worldly, apocalyptic themes and with absolute trust in the God of Jesus Christ, Scriptures,80 and God’s earthly representatives, who included approved See above, pages #-#. Martha C. Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (MCL, NS 2 Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 3. 80 See TA 41.4, on days “when there is no instruction and each one is in his own house, he should take a holy book and read in it as much as seems profitable.” The reading of holy books, as a substitute for the Christian gathering, would require the existence of libraries in the domus ecclesiae. The many other references to instruction (both daily and weekly occasions points to a scholastic orientation in the house churches described in the TA such as the orientation of the church of On the Song of Songs 79 78 244 teachers and other community patrons. It is this particular substructure of authority that sets the rhetoric of Christian initiation apart from similar non-Christian rhetoric, not necessarily the mode of argumentation or presentation.81 The characterization of at least some of the Roman house-churches as schools for the learning of virtue is confirmed by Galen’s testimony.82 The picture of church-school life in TA 35.39.41 with frequent references to instruction, including that of catechumens,83 accords with the comments of Galen.84 5.2 On the Song of Songs as a Banquet Speech What evidence supports the notion that the commentary On the Song of Songs was originally a paschal homily, as argued by Chappuzeau and accepted by Cerrato against Bonwetsch85? One Armenian fragment contains an allusion to the celebration of the feast of Easter as the context of the commentary: “We are those Contra van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 76-80, and others, who see a distinct mode of rhetoric among Christians. I would argue Christian distinctiveness in rhetoric is more difficult to prove than to assert. 82 See Richard Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 57, 65, who provides the text of pertinent extracts from Galen plus a very thorough commentary on their social and philosophical setting. 83 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber”, 178. 84 Origen’s own function in Alexandria as teacher in a “catechetical school” exemplifies a house-church oriented in a similar way towards daily instruction of catechumens.! He was also later made presbyter and teacher by the bishop of Caesarea in another church who wanted Origen to fulfill a similar position there. See Stewart, Apostolic Tradition, 162. 85 Bonwetsch, “Kommentar zum Hohenlied,” 90, considers this suggestion by Zahn unconfirmed. 81 245 who worship every day even as we gloriously keep the holy festival, rejoicing with the angels” (25.10). The reference to a “holy feast” and “rejoicing with the angels” likely refers to paschal celebration. Cerrato affirmed Chappuzeau’s suggestion, and made use of some of the commentary’s paschal themes in his treatment of the eastern sources of the commentary; nevertheless, he ignored the importance of ritual function as a consideration of provenance.86 Still, as Bonwetsch pointed out, direct evidence is slim for an original Easter context for the commentary. Some indirect lines of evidence may be developed to support Chappuzeau’s suggestion. First, the emphasis in the commentary on the events surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (In Cant. 25-27) suggest, prima facie, a connection to the Passover.87 Second, a later tradition in both Ambrose88 and Cyril of Jerusalem linking springtime baptismal catechism and mystagogy to the Song of Songs recalls89 the commentary by Hippolytus. Cyril of Jerusalem, for example, in Catecheses 14.10, quoting Song of Songs says: “‘The winter is past . . .’, it is already spring. And this is Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 140-4, 172-200. The resolution of the Quartodeciman controversy in the late second century tended to paschalize the regular Sunday celebration in a way that was not necessarily part of its previous regular function. See Alistair Stewart, “Mimesis and Typology and the Institution Narrative: Some Observations on Traditio Apostolica 4 and its Afterlife,” in Wilderness: Essays in Honour of Frances Young (ed. Frances M. Young, and R. S. Sugirtharajah; JSNTsup 295; London; New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2005), 106-19. 88 For Ambrose, see Pietro Meloni, “L'influsso del Commento al Cantico di Ippolito sull'Expositio Psalmi CXVIII di Abmrogio,” in Letterature Comparate, Problemi E Metodo: Studi in Onore Di Ettore Paratore (Bologna: Pàtron, 1981), 864-6. 89 Jean Daniélou, The Bible and the Liturgy (Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956), 192. 87 86 246 the season, the first month with the Hebrews, in which occurs the festival of the Passover. . .” The roots of this tradition may lie in a common past with Judaism,90 but more likely in the common third-century Christian tradition attested in Tertullian, Hippolytus, and GPhil in which baptismal catechesis, imagery from the Song of Songs and Passover are linked. Third, the content of the commentary strongly suggests that it originally functioned as part of the teaching surrounding baptism. Hippolytus elsewhere states that Passover is the preferred season for baptism (Comm. Dan.16). Tertullian also directly states that Passover was the best time for baptism (Tertullian, Bapt. 19), and he (as well as Clement of Alexandria) makes use of bride and groom symbolism to describe baptism.91 GPhil 7; 109, a liturgy of baptism for Valentinians that characterized mainstream Christians as the “Hebrews,” 92 associates its baptismal ritual of initiation with the transition from winter to summer, the crucifixion, the cross, and the (Passover) lamb. Such metaphors are, as van Os says, “remarkable for a Gnostic Christian writing,”93 because of their ties to the “apostolic” church-school. Some have argued that these traditions may depend upon earlier Jewish traditions of Ibid. Unfortunately, no direct evidence of the use of the Song during Passover is available for this period. The Wisdom of Solomon, however, was apparently a Passover meditation arising from a period of intense social pressure against the Jewish community in Alexandria. One could reason that the Wisdom of Solomon would have been a fitting substitute for the Song of Songs as a reflection centering on the Passover festival in a dark time in which the Song of Solomon would not have seemed appropriate. See note 103 on page 251. 91 Daniélou, Bible and the Liturgy, 191-2; Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 152-60. 92 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 126-9, 157. 93 Ibid., 129. 90 247 reading the Megillah of the Song of Songs during the Passover festival.94 Hippolytus’ and Tertullian’s preference for Passover season for baptism as well as the linkage of baptism to the bride and groom imagery of Song of Songs, suggests a possible previous Jewish link between proselyte baptism, the reading of the Song of Songs Megillah, and Passover. The comments of Heracleon and GPhil on the linkage between the Song and nuptial baptism, and those in Origen from the scholia on Song of Songs 3:6 further confirms that an early patristic linkage between the Song of Songs and Passover may depend upon Jewish tradition.95 On this point it is worth considering if a text from the fourth century may For the suggestion of Jewish origin of the Passover-Song of Song connection, see Daniélou, Bible and the Liturgy, 191-2. 95 Origen, Scholia in Canticum canticorum (PG 17:280.16), ἠβουλήθη τοίνυν ἡ νύµφη καταβᾶσα εἰς τὸν κῆπον τῆς καρύας, τουτέστιν ἐκπεσοῦσα τὰ παραδείσου πρὸς τὴν ἐπίµοχθον ταύτην ζωὴν, ἰδεῖν παράδοξόν τι γέννηµα τοῦ χειµῶνος ῥέοντος µαύρου ποταµοῦ· ἢ, κατὰ Σύµµαχον, κατέβη µαθεῖν εἰ ἡ φάρυγξ τοῦ βίου ὀπώρας ἔχει· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἰδεῖν εἰ ἤνθησεν ἡ ἄµπελος, διαφεύγουσα τὸν χειµῶνα· καὶ τὸ ἔαρ φθάσασα, τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ Πάσχα καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀζύµων ἑορτῆς· τότε γὰρ φιλεῖ ἀνθεῖν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἡ ἄµπελος· καὶ εἰ ἤνθησαν αἱ ῥόαι, ὧν ὁ καρπὸς πολὺς, καὶ τάξει περιειληµµένος ὑπὸ τοῦ λέπους· ᾧ ὡµοίωται τὸ µῆλον τῆς νύµφης· ἐκεῖ δὲ, φησὶ, δώσω σοι τοὺς µαστούς µου, τουτέστι τὸ ἡγεµονικόν· For the bride wished to descend into the garden of nut trees, that is, once she fell in respect to the things of paradise to the toilsomeness with respect to this life, she went down to see a certain paradoxical product of the winter which flows with a dark river or, as a companion in battle, she went down not just to learn if the breath/throat of life has a temperate time but also to see if the vineyard had bloomed, fleeing the winter and arriving at spring, the time of the Passover and of the feast of unleavened bread then for in Judea the vine loves to bloom and when the pomegranate blooms, which bears abundant fruit there and it is surrounded by a husk that makes it look like an apple of the bride, but there, she says, I will give you my breasts, which is to say, the leading part [of my soul]). The evidence here is indirect, but it is significant that the time for the soul “to give its leading part” to the Lord is during the Passover season. 94 248 shed light on the paschal context in which On the Song of Songs was used. The Apostolic Constitutions, a Syrian compilation of texts which reworks traditions in the Didascalia, and TA, centers on church-school order. It says of the Passover celebration:96 For this reason we advise that you also fast these days, just as we fasted during the time he was taken from us, until the evening. And for the rest of the days before [Good] Friday at the ninth hour or in the evening, let each one eat, or as one has the ability, but from the evening of the fifth day until the cock-crow [of Sunday] we eat nothing until the beginning of the dawn of the first day of the week, which is the Lord’s day, continue the vigil, after the evening until cockcrow, and, when gathered in the assembly, continue the vigil, praying all the while and invoking God during your vigil, reading the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms until the cock crows; once you have baptized your catechumens, read the Gospel with fear and trembling, and announce salvation/deliverance to the people, bring your mourning to an end and pray to God that he may convert Israel and that to them may be given an occasion of conversion and pardon for their impiety for the judge, who was a stranger, “washed his hands, and said, ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just person: you must see to it.’ But Israel cried out, ‘His blood be on us, and on our children.’” (Const. ap. 5.19.3 trans. ANF 7, 446-7 with modifications)97 Note, In Cant. 3.3, a tradition cited as from the “apostle,” finds its way into the Const. ap. 8.44 at a later date. 97 Emphasis YWS. Text in Marcel Metzger, Les constitutions apostoliques (SC 320, 329, 336 Paris: Cerf, 1985), 271-3. Διὸ παραινοῦµεν καὶ ὑµῖν νηστεύειν ταύτας, ὡς καὶ ἡµεῖς ἐνηστεύσαµεν ἐν τῷ ληφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἀφ' ἡµῶν, ἄχρις ἑσπέρας, Ἐν δὲ ταῖς λοιπαῖς ταῖς πρὸ τῆς παρασκευῆς ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἢ ἑσπέρᾳ ἕκαστος ἐσθιέτω, ἢ ὅπως ἄν τις δύνηται, ἀπὸ δὲ ἑσπέρας πέµπτης µέχρις ἀλεκτοροφωνίας ἀπονηστιζόµενοι, Ἐπιφωσκούσης µιᾶς σαββάτων, ἥτις ἐστὶ κυριακή, ἀπὸ ἑσπέρας ἕως ἀλεκτοροφωνίας ἀγρυπνοῦντες καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ συναθροιζόµενοι γρηγορεῖτε, προσευχόµενοι καὶ δεόµενοι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ διανυκτερεύσει ὑµῶν, ἀναγινώσκοντες τὸν Νόµον, τοὺς Προφήτας, τοὺς Ψαλµοὺς µέχρις ἀλεκτρυόνων κραυγῆς· καὶ βαπτίσαντες ὑµῶν τοὺς κατηχουµένους καὶ ἀναγνόντες τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἐν τρόµῳ καὶ προσλαλήσαντες τῷ λαῷ τὰ πρὸς σωτηρίαν, παύσασθε τοῦ πένθους ὑµῶν καὶ δεήθητε τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιστραφῆναι τὸν Ἰσραὴλ καὶ λαβεῖν αὐτὸν τόπον µετανοίας 96 249 This text is from fourth-century Syria. However, it bears witness to the migration of a western practice to the East (paschal baptism). As such it also bears witness to the much earlier practice (witnessed in Justin Apol. 1.65-67 and Tertullian Res. 8.2.3) of baptism as a preparation for participation in a feast. The Const. ap. continues, after rehearsing gospel events of the passion: For this reason do you also, now [that] the Lord is risen, offer your sacrifice, concerning which He made a constitution by us, saying, “Do this for a remembrance of me;” and thenceforward leave off your fasting, and rejoice, and celebrate a feast, because Jesus Christ, the pledge of our resurrection, is risen from the dead. And let this be an everlasting ordinance till the consummation of the world, until the Lord come. For to Jews the Lord is still dead, but to Christians He is risen: to the former, by their unbelief; to the latter, by their full assurance of faith. For the hope in Him is immortal and eternal life.98 (Const. ap. 5.19.3 trans. ANF 7, 446-7 with modifications) A feast is then declared for the evening. The baptism of catechumens presupposed in this passage apparently represents a diffusion of the practice of paschal baptism from Rome and North Africa in the second and third centuries. Because these are developments from earlier practices,99 despite its late date, this outline of events helps clarify the structure100 and give contextual cues in On the Song of Songs. For example, in the introduction to the commentary Hippolytus suggests that the Song is useful for “consolation.” The Passover context clarifies this reference to Song of Songs as consolation. Consolatio from bishop for pilgrims in the events recorded by the fourth-century Egeria is a topos of the celebrations Holy Week (Itin. καὶ τῆς ἀσεβείας ἄφεσιν· 98 Emphasis by YWS. 99 The Eucharist and the feast appear to be quite distinct, which does not appear to have been the case, judging from the traditions in TA 100 See page 278. 250 Eger. 36), not least because of the gruelling schedule of readings, prayers, vigils, and pilgrimages to holy sites in the area of Jerusalem. The same consolation theme is found in the second century Ep. ap. 8-9. It is likely that Christian paschal celebrations Rome in the third century would have had similar features of mourning, consolations, and joy. The setting of the consolatory event of the Passover banquet would have been particularly appropriate for the epideictic mode of protreptic speech geared toward the healing of the soul.101 The Const. ap. and further information from the second-century Ep. ap. makes the connection clear. During the buildup to the feast of the Passover, the community re-enacts the stress, trauma, and mourning of Holy Week. Daily fasting and vigil heighten the awareness of the remembered events and provide a common base of bodily experience. The recitation of the gospel events by the congregation along with the newly baptized who anticipate dying with Christ in baptism also remind the more experienced believers of their own “first blush of faith” (In Cant. 9.1). Egeria reports in the diary of her pilgrimage to the Holy Land (ca. 381–384) of the outpouring of mourning at the Good Friday service in Jerusalem: At each reading and at every prayer, it is astonishing how much emotion and groaning there is from all the people. there is no one, young of old, who on this day does not sob more than can be imagined for the whole three hours because the Lord suffered all this for us. (Itin. Eger. 37 trans. Gringas, ACW). Both Const. ap. and Ep. ap. also point to the experience of mourning and the end of mourning (παύσασθε τοῦ πένθους ὑµῶν) in connection with the celebration of Easter. That the end of mourning is brought about by consolation is a topos in the popular practice of ancient consolatory psychagogy.102 101 102 See page 241. On consolation theory (a true cottage industry) and practice in the ancient world, 251 Finally, for ancient Jews the figure of Solomon himself may have had an appeal as a topic of celebration and conversation during the Passover banquet. It was possible for certain Jews to interpret the figure of Solomon so that he became a counterpoint to the domination of the Jews by their Romans overlords. The commemoration of Solomon evoked an idealized past of Jewish freedom. Such a use of the figure of Solomon appears by the first century in the Wisdom of Solomon, which likely had a connection to Passover celebrations in Alexandria.103 The tradition of using Solomon as a point of reference to bolster Jewish confidence in the face of their Roman rulers continued in Josephus (Ant. Iud. 8.42-49).104 Around the time of Hippolytus, the same kind of comparisons were used by Rabbi Levi who synchronized the date of the founding of Rome with the date when King Solomon married the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh Neco.105 This sort of comparison see Paul A. Holloway, Consolation in Philippians (SNTMS 112; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Robert C. Gregg, Consolation Philosophy (PMS 3; Cambridge, MA: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975); Arnold Führer, Tod, Trauer und Trost in Ciceros Tusculanischen Schriften und Malebranches Schrift Entretiens sur la mort: eine phänomenologische Untersuchung (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2002); Horst-Theodor Johann, Trauer und Trost eine quellen- und strukturanalytische Untersuchung der philosophischen Trostschriften über den Tod (München: W. Fink, 1968); J. H. D. Scourfield, Consoling Heliodorus: a Commentary on Jerome, Letter 60 (OCM; New York: Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, 1993); Chapa, Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri. 103 Baruch M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder: the Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 22. 104 Josephus boasts that Solomon surpassed all the ancients (including the Egyptians) in wisdom. Then he compares Solomon’s powers of exorcism favorably with Vespasian’s power of healing and exorcism. 105 Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 103. 252 functioned apologetically by showing how Israel was more ancient than Rome; however, it also may have had a consolatory function, enhancing Jewish self image vis-a-vis the Romans by affirming similarities in the world-wide scope of their cultural visions while at the same time differentiating Jews from their Roman masters.106 The figure of Solomon functioned as an idealized king parallel, yet superior, to the ancient kings of Rome.107 Political resonances of engagement and distance with Rome in the Passover, the celebration of liberation from Egypt (Ex 11-15), and the idealization of God’s kingship of the world were significant aspects of the banquet from the earliest times. Josephus attests to Jewish awareness at the end of the first century that festival celebrations like Passover provided incentive and opportunity for revolt (B. J. 1.88; 5.244; 2.224; Ant. 20.106). In an influential article, Stein drew numerous parallels between the Greco-Roman banqueting practices and the development of the Passover Seder that highlighted its political aspects. He compared the blessings in praise of God as king said over the cups to the practice of giving epideictic speeches at banquets in honor of the emperor.108 The blessing of God over the cup is significant since, from the time of Augustus the practice of saying a blessing for the emperor Warren Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008), 160. 107 According to Ashkenazic tradition, the Song of Songs is read on the Sabbath of Passover week, though Sephardic tradition recommends the reading of the Song of Solomon on each Friday evening. Nevertheless, no early direct evidence exists to confirm the antiquity of these traditions, so little or nothing can be said about whether Hippolytus the exegete was influenced by Jewish practice or, for that matter, whether the influence went the other way. 108 S. Stein, “The Influence of Symposia Literature on the Literary Form of the Pesah Haggadah,” JJS 8 (1957): 26-7. 106 253 became a part of banquet ideology. Augustus decreed that a libation be offered to the emperor at all banquets, public and private (Dio of Prusa, Or. 51.19.17; Horace, Od. 4.5.31-40).109 Petronius parodies this custom when his dinner guests shout out, “Blessed be Augustus, father of his country” at the spectacle of elaborately filled cakes (Petronius, Sat. 60.7). The “blessing in song” of the Passover that praised God as king of the universe contrasted with the culturally appropriate praise of the emperor. No direct evidence exists as early as the third century that the figure of Solomon and the Song of Songs were part of the celebration at the Jewish Passover banquet,110 and so the question of whether Christians (Hippolytus) first adapted the Song for Passover use or whether Jewish practice was the precedent for the Christian use remains open. Hippolytus, on the other hand, apparently led the way for a the fullfledged use of the Song for Passover celebrations among Christians. It is important to note that the Christian rhetoric of initiation is meant to foster a change of allegiance from any rival divinity to Jesus Christ. The emperor was one of these rival divinities. On the Song of Songs contains an extended introduction, an allegoricaltypological interpretation of the text whose topic is heterosexual love symbolizing spiritual love for God. As mentioned above, Philo’s Vit. cont. contains two accounts of a meal and symposium of a group characterized by ἔρως for God. It made use of Blake Leyerle, “Meal Customs in the Greco-Roman World,” in Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times (ed. Paul F. Bradshaw and Lawrence A. Hoffman 5; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame), 38. 110 For the liturgical reading of the megilloth (Song of Songs at Passover, Ruth at the Feast of Weeks, Lamentations of the 9 of Ab, Ecclesiastes at the Feast of Tabernacles, and Ester at Purim), the earliest direct reference is post-Talmudic (Soferim 14:3). See Emil Schürer et al., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C. -A. D. 135) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973), 2:452. 109 254 the allegorical interpretation of holy Scripture accompanied by singing and dancing.111 On the Song of Songs contains encomiua on rituals of a post-baptismal kiss, the anointing with fragrant oil, and the celebration of Passover (κλίνη Χριστοῦ)112 These activities accord well as preparations for a ritual banquet. The remarkable parallels with Philo’s Vit. cont. also have similar contours with 1 Cor in which Paul’s language reflects a similar symposium context for the reading of the letter complete with drinking and discussion of the Corinthian worship practices. Chapters 8 and 10 discuss polytheistic meals. Chapter 11 contrasts the Christian eucharistic meal. Following this are chapters 12 and 14 on speaking in worship. Paul’s teaching includes “love” (1 Cor 13) though the topic is agape, not eros, of course. Given the parallel to Philo, at whose symposium there is both a critique of Plato’s view of love and an alternative proposal, do we not have two examples, Philo and 1 Cor 8-14, where “love” is a sympotic theme? The treatment of the Song of Songs as a love song about King Jesus and his beloved. This relationship reinterpreted as a treatise concerning community boundaries and moral regulation is an appropriate symposium topic113 for a churchschool which, in part, views itself as a philosophical school in the process of constantly negotiating its relationship with the Roman Empire. A rhetorical and social analysis of the author-audience relationship, in conjunction with available See page 228. The κλίνη of Christ to which In Cant. 26-27 alludes draws upon common banquet ethos prevalent in ancient symposium practice. See Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 2-46. The themes of rest, healing, resurrection, and salvation invite a comparison to Jewish practice on the one hand and polytheistic practice on the other (cp. the κλἰνη of Sarapis). 113 According to Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 49. 112 111 255 inscriptional evidence from Rome at the beginning of the third century, provides important context for the commentary. 5.3 Hippolytus’ Shadow Παιδεῖα The ritual expectations of the liturgical setting at a banquet and the implicit rules and social relationships prescribed by the banquet/Passover setting guided Hippolytus the exegete’s ethos and the audience’s interpretation of the commentary.114 The remarkably uniform and conservative Greco-Roman education system socialized young elite to take up roles in the empire in which they were expected to practiced an ideal of moral excellence, or παιδεῖα, which was appropriately deferential to imperial authority. In this system commentaries on Homer and other authors provided the template for moral instruction that forged a common culture of deference to such authority. Christians mimiced variety of practices from the Greco-Roman schools that often conducted their business in private homes. Christian churches, therefore, made use of social spaces also used by schools. Schools were conducted for groups of both males and females and of mixed social status, including both slave and free children of various families. Church-schools developed an informal shadow educational system with different (monotheistic, exclusivist) theology, curriculum, and religious authoritative texts, in ambiguous resistance to the educational system that supported Similarly it today may strike one as odd to read that John Wesley felt his heart “strangely warmed” as someone read from the introduction to Luther’s Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, yet more understandable if we imagine the small group context of the Christian “society on Aldersgate-street.” See Herbert W. Mansfield, “A Society in Aldersgate Street,” Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 19 (1934): 77-80. 114 256 imperial theology and a polytheistic world view. For example, in the list of proscribed occupations teachers of young children are discouraged from becoming catechumens (TA 16.5), because they used the literature of mythology for their lessons and must necessarily commend what they teach (Tertullian, Idol. 10). In eastern versions of the TA 16.5 a concession is made for teachers who have no other livelihood. However, the Canons of Hippolytus and the Testamentum Domini allowed teachers to continue in their professions if “at all times to those whom he teaches and confesses that what the Gentiles call gods are demons, and says before them everyday there is no divinity except the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”115 Reading was itself a more social, oral activity than an activity of private study for which commentaries are mostly used today. 115 Bradshaw, et al., Apostolic Tradition, 94. Chapter 6 A Commentary for New Christians 6.1 Seasonal Constraints on the Interpretation of the Song The need which On the Song of Songs addressed was nothing less than the construction of a identity with the Hippolytan Christian group as distinct, especially from rival Christian groups. However, the mystagogical mode for Hippolytus is calculated to create fascination with the mysteries connected with baptism and to invite a deep, emotional connection with the events of the Jesus’ final Passover. The connection of the rites surrounding baptism, especially holy anointing, serve to galvanize identity around a shared, communal memory. In order to address clarify this need, the I outline the homiletic structure of the commentary to consider its aptness as a mystagogy for the newly baptized. Gertrude Chappuzeau was not the first to suggest that that the original function of On the Song of Songs was a baptismal instruction, or homily1 for Passover performance.2 Building on earlier suggestions about the commentary’s function, she drew attention Johannes Quasten, Initiation aux pères de l’église (Paris: Cerf, 1955), 207. Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 91, “Bei dem Kommentar Hippolyts handelt es sich zweifellos um einen Predigttext, wahrscheinlich um eine Osterpredigt.” 257 2 1 258 on Jewish interpretive precedents, taking a more rigorously historical approach to the Rabbinic material than had Riedel.3 In suggesting a Passover context for the original homily, she built upon the foundation of Zahn’s opinion based upon knowledge of the small Armenian fragment available at that time.4 The Georgian text had not in Zahn’s era been discovered. Riedel challenged Zahn, alleging that such a connection must await further corroborating evidence, for “the reference in the Armenian fragment could indeed be the product of a later convention.”5 The discovery of the Georgian text proved Riedel correct in one way. Zahn had placed too much weight on a text that turned out to be no part of the original, judging from a comparison of the Georgian and the Paleo-Slavonic texts. When Bonwetsch published his version of Marr’s Russian translation of On the Song of Songs along with the Paleo-Slavic florilegia, he considered Zahn’s theory still “unconfirmed” as far as the commentary as a whole, though he admitted In Cant. 3.1-5 was likely part of a paschal homily.6 The connection, however, with Passover should be accepted for the following reasons: ■ The use of the gospel narrative of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ as the hermeneutical key to the Song of Songs suggests a Passover Wilhelm Riedel, Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes in der Jüdischen Gemeinde und der griechischen Kirche (Leipzig: Deicher, 1898). 4 Zahn, Evangeliencommentar, 61; Johannes Quasten, Initiation aux pères de l’église (Paris: Cerf, 1955), 207. 5 Riedel, Auslegung des Hohenliedes, 52. 6 Cp.Bonwetsch, “Hippolyts Kommentar,” 90-1; with Theodor Zahn, Evangeliencommentar, Forschungen, 61 See also Anne-Marie Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques: de l’enigme du sens aux figures du lecteur (AnBib Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990), 219. 3 259 connection. ■ Hippolytus states explicitly that the function of the Song is consolation (1.5), and the consolatory function—bringing an end to a period of ritual mourning for the death of Jesus Christ—is appropriate for the context of Passover.7 ■ On the Song of Songs is a mystagogy focused on the anointing of new converts. It is appropriate for the Passover season since Hippolytus favors baptism and anointing at Passover.8 ■ Discussion of the Song is appropriate to the Passover context as a springtime holiday.9 Some of the narrative images of love early in On the Song of Songs, (chapters 3-7) are drawn from the well-known myth of Dionysus and Ariadne, celebrated in Rome on March 8, in a form found in Ovid’s Fasti.10 A corollary to the Ariadne-Dionysus myth is the group of narrative images occurring late in On the Song of Songs (24-26) drawn from the myth of Heracles’ taking of the apple of eternal life from garden of the West, attended by the Hesperides See page 249. This does not preclude its use at other times. A preference for Passover baptism is strongly attested in both Rome and North Africa in the late second and early third century, but not in other places at that time. See page 284. 9 See note 95 on page 247. 10 On the use of the Dionysus/Ariadne motif, see page 367. This point supports the notion argued by John Heeren, “Another View of Easter and Passover,” ASR 49 (1984): against Eviatar Zerubavel, “Easter and Passover: On Calendars and Group Identity,” ASR 47 (1982): 581-2, that early adoption of Christian paschal celebrations away from 14 Nisan served as much the function of inclusion of a constituency of polytheists as much as it served the separation of Christian observance from dependence upon Jewish decisions. On the early Quartodeciman controversy see Cyril C. Richardson, “The Quartodecimans and the Synoptic Chronology,” HTR 33.3 (1940): 177-90. 8 7 260 nymphs. ■ Finally, the Armenian text of In Cant. 25.10, while having no claim to originality, should be seen as a notation concerning the ancient reception of On the Song of Songs that preserves authentic data about its traditional use. Little is known about either Christian Easter celebrations or Jewish Passover traditions before the third century, such a study becomes somewhat complicated. While Jewish and Christian Passover and Easter celebrations did experience some mutual cross-pollination,11 great local diversity in practice among both Jews and Christians render the extent and the precise traces of that complicated relationship often impossible to trace with certainty.12 According to the fragment of an otherwise lost letter of Irenaeus to Victor, Rome did not keep any form of Pascha/Easter except for the Asian Quartodeciman communities. This is why he refers to “those who keep” and those “who do not keep” Israel J. Yubal, “Easter and Passover as Early Jewish-Christian Dialogue,” in Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times (ed. Paul F. Bradshaw, and Lawrence A Hoffman; 5; Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 103-4, remarks: The Jewish view that sees Judaism as always influencing Christianity, but never the other way around, is theologically grounded, based on the assumption that Judaism is the mother-religion of Christianity. But early Christianity and Tannaitic Judaism are two sister religions that took shape during the same period and under the same conditions of oppression and destruction. There is no reason not to assume a parallel and mutual development of both religions, during which sometimes Judaism internalized ideas of its rival rather than the other way around. During the second and third centuries there were all kinds of Jews and all kinds of Christians, all struggling against pagan Rome and all sharing the centrality of the messianic idea and the ritual of Passover. Paul F. Bradshaw, “Jewish Influence on Early Christian Liturgy: A Reappraisal,” (2008): n.p. Cited 07-01. Online: »http://jcrelations.net/en/?area=Articles«. 12 11 261 Eucharist. Referring to the practice of fasting forty days previous to the Passover and ending the fast with the Passover feast (Hist. Eccl., 5.24; in NPNF2 v. 1), he said: Ἀλλ' αὐτοὶ µὴ τηροῦντες οἱ πρὸ σοῦ πρεσβύτεροι τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροικιῶν τηροῦσιν ἔπεµπον εὐχαριστίαν. (“But the bishops before you themselves, though they did not keep the Eucharistic Passover celebration would send the salutation of peace to those expatriates [of Asia] who keep the feast.”) The groups who kept the fast, known as the Quartodecimans, adopted from the earliest time a Christianized version of the Jewish Passover celebration early on, while other groups did not begin celebrating Easter until much later as a Saturday-Sunday celebration with a focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ with relatively little influence from Jewish practice. Among the Asian groups present in Rome was Hippolytus’ community, a Quartodeciman group whose presence distressed the Roman bishop Victor. The sources are confusing because Hippolytus himself wrote against Quartodecimans, though Hippolytus was himself Quartodeciman.13 During the late second century, bishop Victor attempted to standardize the Christian practice of Passover celebrations among the churches of Rome. Hippolytus siezed upon a slight difference of interpretation among Quartodeciman Christians, and criticized those who defended their practice based upon the Matthean order of the events and celebrated a paschal meal on 14 of Nisan in honor of the last supper of the Lord and affirmed that the Lord was crucified on the 15th. In essence Hippolytus criticized these as following a Jewish feast, rather than a Christian one. Of course this is all verbal deflection and scapegoating. But in defending his own community’s practice, Hippolytus is likely defending eastern traditions because of a problem within the western milieu. Judging 13 Alistair C. Stewart, private communication. 262 from the paschal table inscribed on the so-called “statue of Hippolytus,” they affirmed that Christ died on the 14 Nisan, following the Johannine order of events, as did most Quartodecimans, and had celebrated a non-paschal meal the night before. The fact that the meal was interpreted as a non-paschal meal made it possible for the community to conceptually free the celebration from Jewish Passover practice and celebrate Easter on the following Sunday. Thus the Hippolytan community endeavored to maintain the Quartodeciman interpretation of the death of Jesus on the 14 Nisan while adapting the Quartodeciman Passover to the non-Jewish practice of the Roman “great church” (Haer. 8.18.1-2).14 Thus they did not entirely break with Victor. Thus as the Hippolytean school joins the Roman great church, a compromise developed. Quartodeciman observance was abandoned, but the wider Roman community began to keep an annual festival on a Sunday calculated with reference to the Jewish Pascha. This is the rapprochement to which the paschal tables bear witness. The Quartodecimans of Asia did not baptize at Pascha. However, once the See also the citation of a work by Hippolytus the exegete, Refutation of All Heresies (not that of pseudo-Hippolytus) in the Chron. Pas. in Hans Achelis, ed. Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften (GCS 1.2, Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897), 270; Raniero Cantalamessa et al., eds., Easter in the Early Church: an Anthology of Jewish and Early Christian Texts (Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1993), #45, #46, #49, #156-7. As does Haer., Hippolytus the exegete argues that if Christ celebrated the supper that instituted the Eucharist on 13-14 of Nisan, it could not have been a Jewish Passover meal. In this way Hippolytus the exegete agrees completely with Haer., with Clement of Alexandria, On the Pascha, frg. 28 (text in Ludovicus Dindorfius, ed. Chronicon Paschale (CSHB 1, 1832), 1:13-14, (=PG 92.81), and with Apollinaris of Hierapolis. Apollinaris is a Quartodeciman and agrees with Hippolytus the exegete on the date of Christ’s death (i.e., the Johannine date). Apollinaris argues that, since Christ is the true Passover sacrifice, the Pascha should be celebrated on 14 Nisan. 14 263 Quartodeciman Passover becomes Easter transferred to Sunday, then baptism can find a ready way in. This is why a Quartodeciman like Hippolytus favors baptism during Passover, as he does in the Com. Dan. 1.17. The need felt by the same group to compile their own tables to predict the date of Easter each year, rather than face the embarrassment of having to approach the synagogue to ask when Passover would fall, is an indication of a continuing struggle among some Christians in Rome to establish their own independent identity and to weaken the connection to Jewish customs.15 The community that made use of the socalled “Hippolytus statue” jealously sought to distinguish themselves by means of a dating of Easter independent of Rabbinic calculations.16 Hippolytus sided with Victor. Jewish and Christian Passover celebrations in form, ideology, and literary description developed as part of the common Greco-Roman social institution of the Symposium.17 For western Christians, the Passover season worked well as a time to incorporate new converts into the church.18 As rites developed, different groups experimented with new forms to enter into the festive time and make it more productive as a time for newcomers.19 In Cant. should be seen as an aide for the celebration of baptism during Passover. It provides a point of entry into the dynamic Bradshaw, “Jewish Influence on Early Christian Liturgy,” n.p. internet source. 16 See T. C. G. Thornton, “Problematical Passovers, Difficulties for Diaspora Jews and Early Christians in Determining Passover Dates during the First Three Centuries A. D.,” SP 20 (1989), 402-8; Anscar Chupungco, Shaping the Easter Feast (Washington, DC 1992), 43 ff.; 61 ff. 17 See Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 193-214. 18 Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 47-65; Bradley, “The Roman Family At Dinner,” in Meals in a Social Context, 35-48. 19 Note the reference to purification of “the waters” of baptism at In Cant. 2.8 mentioned in the context of a post-baptismal anointing of consecration by the Holy Spirit. 15 264 traditions of initiation among Christians.20 It also testifies to the rich practice of western, post-baptismal anointing. In Cant. provides a window into Christian banquet practice and regulation;21 it is perhaps best seen as a Christian example of θεολογία or a “sermon” analogous to a speech delivered during the celebratory symposia of religious associations marking their own springtime rituals.22 6.2 The Speaker’s Choice of Genre Hippolytus, like others with a modicum of Greek rhetorical training in the ancient world, would have thought in terms of genres or species of rhetoric, as discussed by Cicero, in the Orator. In the case of epideictic speeches like On the Song of Songs, a specific problem is almost impossible to define, because an epideictic speech has the general purpose of affirming community values and Bradshaw, “‘Diem Baptismo,’” has argued convincingly that the preference for Passover baptism was limited largely to Rome and North Africa for a very brief period of about 50 years. See also Raniero Cantalamessa, L’omelia In S. Pascha dello pseudo-Ippolito di Roma, Ricerche sulla teologia dell’Asia Minore nella seconda metà del II secolo (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1967), 285-7. 21 L. Michael White, “Regulating Fellowship in the Communal Meal: Early Jewish and Christian Evidence,” in Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (ed. Inge Nielsen and Hanne Nielsen; ASMA 1. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998), 180-1. 22 On the practice of pronouncing a θεολογία, a “sermon,” in some religious banqueting associations, see Franciszek Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1969), 95-100, n. 51. Part of the second-century ritual elaboration of the yearly springtime banquet of the Iobakchoi (worshippers of Bacchus) was a “sermon” that, according to the inscription, Neikomachus “began to make during his priesthood in order to distinguish himself.” 20 265 identity.23 Cicero remarks that this kind of rhetoric “unconnected with the battles of public life” and its “ornamentation is done of set purpose . . . words correspond to words as if measured of equal phrases, frequently things inconsistent are placed side by side, and things contrasted are paired; clauses are made to end in the same way and with similar sound” (Orator 37 LCL trans.). On the Song of Songs reads like a text-book case of epideictic rhetoric. On the Song of Songs differs greatly in rhetorical approach from modern commentaries meant to be consumed by single individuals reading in quiet contemplation. Intended to be performed as a celebration by a presbyter-bishop, On the Song of Songs establishes a hierarchical relationship between speaker and audience from the start. “We must proclaim to those who will hear, for it is the representation (lit. type) of the people that entreats the heavenly Word to kiss them, because [the people] wish to join [together] mouth to mouth. For [the people] wishes to join the power of the Spirit to itself.” (In Cant. 2.2).24 The social context involves a See David Edward Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 162. Quoting L. G. Perleman, The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Applications (Boston: Reidel, 1979), “[The] epideictic gener is not only important but essential from an educational point of view, since it too has an effective and distinctive part to play—that, namely of bringing about a consensu in the minds of the audience regarding the values that re celebrated in the speech.” 24 The kiss refers to a special boundary marker separating the baptized from the unbaptized, cf. GPhil §31 (trans. van Os, 52): “For the perfect conceive through a kiss and give birth. Therefore, we too kiss one another, receiving conception from the grace that is within one another.” Cf. TA 21.22-25 (trans. Stewart, 112): “And after [baptism and prayer], pouring the sanctified oil from his hand and putting it on his head he shall say: ‘I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.” And signing him on the forehead he shall give him the kiss and say: ‘The Lord be with you.’ And he who has been signed shall say, “And with 23 266 stylized set of relationships which allows Hippolytus to establish a rhetorical stance based upon his authority and status in the community as the mystagogue, or interpreter of mysteries. Like some earlier (GPhil) and later mystagogical compositions (Ambrose De Mysteriis, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Instructions), it was composed as a notebook, an aid for memory in extemporaneous delivery. It is thus a ὑπόµνηµα in a double sense of the word. While On the Song of Songs provides the audience with questions concerning the meaning and application of the text Song of Songs 1:1-3:8 for the purpose of creating a deeper understanding of the rites of Christian initiation and preserves many of the characteristics of an original oral performance.25 The reinforcement of community values and identity is achieved by a two part strategy: (1) Hippolytus praises the wondrous mysteries of the “inner chamber” (In Cant. 3.1; 25.2) of the Christian life, and (2) he defines the periphery and your spirit,” And thus he shall do to each. And thenceforth they shall say prayers with all the people; they shall not pray with the people until they have performed all these things. And after they have prayed they should give the kiss of peace.” 25 This is evidenced in the frequent form of address to the audience as “beloved” and “O beloved” (x 12), but also “synagogue” (x 1) and then exclamations such as “O man” (4), “O people” (5), “O people (that is, Israel),” “O blessed children,” “O David, righteous person,” “O women (Martha and Mary at the grave of Jesus),” “O new resurrection,” “O courage,” “O great mysteries,” “O economy of the new grace,” “O longed for voice,” “O truth,” etc. This characteristic Hippolytan trope for initiating a exclamatory praise is also found in Philostratus, Letter to Loginus, printed in Simon Swain et al., eds. Severan Culture (Cambridge University Press, 2007), xix. Even more frequently the author switches from third person, to the second person, singular or plural, when the Song provides a motive (x 23). On the other hand the use of the first person plural, indicating the exegete in contrast to the audience is more rare (x 6). (The first singular is completely absent.). At several places Hippolytus uses a rhetorical question (x 17). In longer interpretations, the verse is repeated at the end of the discussion to form an oral inclusio. See Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 46. 267 boundaries (In Cant. 1.4 “sound dogma”; 2.7 the “ordinance” of anointing; 8.2, the “just ordinance”) of the church beyond which lie heresy and the danger of judgment (In Cant. 20.3). The establishment of identity through an impressive, shared experience of Christ and boundary markers is strengthened by invective or casting blame on the enemies of the community, the heretics and the synagogue. The image of Solomon’s sixty men who wear the sword at their hip is an image of the protective boundary of the church that keeps the pure church separate from the pollution of unbelief. The sixty men who wear a sword at their side “who expel the seductor, that he might not be able to come near” (In Cant. 27.12) likely represent the presbyterbishops of the wider Christian community. Controversies in the Roman Church during the second century may have provided part of the impetus for using the Song as a baptismal homily.26 From the beginning of the Christian movement, the Old Testament,27 inherited from the syngagogue, was the most trusted of its Scriptures. It was a source rich in symbolic representation, puzzles for endless discussion, prophecies, and moral training, not to mention debate and conflict. Those Greco-Roman polytheists who were baptized into Christ were also baptized into a world of Biblical images that provided a rich source for reinterpreting the images of their own world: those on coins, walls, books, home For a description of these rites in conjunction with an in depth study of GPhil, see van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 127-35. 27 An interest in a symbolic representation of the church as a woman, the bride of God goes back to ancient Israel (Hos; Jer 2), to the New Testament (2 Cor 11.1, 2; Eph 5:21-32; Rev 21:1ff) and the second-century Hermas, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. Valentinians developed a nuptial understanding of baptism and by the midsecond century Irenaeus could comment upon their preparation of a nuptial couch and feast in conjunction with baptism. 26 268 utensils, mosaics and monumental art. The setting in time and the space (both social and physical) imagined for the speaker and audience is also critical for an understanding of the commentary. Several features of the commentary indicate it had a ritual role in the context of a worship feast.28 Recent research on the importance of the context and development of the social history of the community meal in early Christianity helps to shed light on On the Song of Songs and the interpretive methods of Hippolytus the exegete.29 Thus part of the relevant contextual constraints of the rhetorical situation of On the Song of Songs in its liturgical context which fits within the larger Greco-Roman Banquet tradition. The regulation of drinking wine (In Cant. 2.4), the imagery of anointing (2.8ff), the imagery of grapes harvest (13.1ff), the abundant eucharistic imagery (24-25), the imagery of encomium, or speech in praise, of the κλίνη of Christ (26-27). 29 Matthias Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern (Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 13 Tübingen Basel: Francke Verlag, 1996), 494-22; Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist; Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997), 192-222; Nielsen and Nielsen, Meals in a Social Context; Blake Leyerle, “Meal Customs in the Greco-Roman World,” in Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times (ed. Paul F. Bradshaw, and Lawrence A. Hoffman; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999); Hal Taussig, “Greco-Roman Meals and Performance of Identity: A Ritual Analysis,” Unpublished Seminar paper in Society of Biblical Literature, Meals in the Greco-Roman World (2004): Cited 6-6. Online: »http://www.philipharland.com/meals/GrecoRomanMealsSeminar.htm«; Peter Lampe, “The Eucharist: Identifying With Christ on the Cross,” Int 48 (1994): 36-49; Peter Lampe, “Das Korinthische Herrenmahl Im Schnittpunkt HellenistischRoemischer Mahlpraxis und Paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1 Kor 11, 17-34),” ZNW 82 (1991): 36-49. 28 269 6.3 Summary of Contents and Themes of On the Song of Songs The commentary contains an extended introduction, an allegoricaltypological interpretation of Song of Songs that develops a spiritual narrative of conversion and unity in the context of the celebration of rites of Christian initiation. Like the approach to Scripture interpretation in Philo’s On the Contemplative Life, Hippolytus’ interpreation might be characterized as a contemplative study.30 Its highly stylized introduction (In Cant. 1) gives the listeners what, from the speaker’s point of view, the audience should know before understanding the true meaning of the Song. According to Hippolytus the exegete, that meaning is an expression of God the Father’s redemption of sinful human beings subsumed in the darkness of the world. In the Georgian text, the synagogue is introduced in In Cant. 1 as a symbol of the darkness of the world (In Cant. 1.5). The redemption process is effected by the generation of the “Trinity,”31 the expression of the Father’s heart of love for the See In Cant. 1.13 and notes. A close reading of Philo alongside On the Song of Songs provides numerous helpful clues as to how Hippolytus viewed his interpretive method, e.g. “And the interval between morning and evening is by them devoted wholly to meditation on and to practice of virtue, for they take up the sacred scriptures and philosophize concerning them, investigating the allegories of their national philosophy, since they look upon their literal expressions as symbols of some secret meaning of nature, intended to be conveyed in those figurative expressions ... they do not occupy themselves solely in contemplation (οὐ θεωροῦσι μόνον), but they likewise compose psalms and hymns to God in every kind of metre and melody imaginable ...” (Philo, vit. cont. 28) Nevertheless, the essential distinction is Hippolytus’ Christological focus. 31 Hippolytus explicitly rejects the term “emanation” (against Valentinus and the gnostics) in favor of “out pouring”: For this reason this word is to be avoided, for this reason [the text] does not at 30 270 world. Thus, for Hippolytus the exegete, the Trinity is supremely a doctrine of salvation and not truly a doctrine of original divine ontology. Father, Logos-SophiaSon, and Spirit bind God to flesh to transform the flesh of sinful people into deified humans. This theology of salvation is worked out in the creation, the choice of Israel, the incarnation of the Logos (taking place progressively throughout the life of the Savior), the release and sending of the Spirit as a result of Christ’s death on the cross, and the redemption of the synagogue and the Gentile church, now separate entities through unbelief, but with the prospect of glorious unity in Christ. The interpretation of the Song is designed to enhance the role of the teacher by prescribing for the church a hermeneutical pathway for interpreting biblical symbols of salvation. It also enriches the practices of initiation with a wealth of nuptial symbols, as well as biblical and mythical allusions. Hippolytus the exegete constructs his interpretation mindful of rhetorical devices and structures designed to persuade and impress. Besides the formal, didactic introduction, or schema isagogicum (In Cant. 1), he develops an exordium (In Cant. 2), which opens in the mode of praise celebrating those who wish to join in intimacy with God through the Logos and the Holy Spirit. The commentary then celebrates the anointing of believers by the Logos-Spirit. It uses the figure of anaphora, one rhetorical form of amplification, and develops it into a full peroration32 on the initiatory rite of anointing all mean, “anointing oil emanated” but “anointing oil poured out.”}! [It happened] in various ways over many through outpourings because what emanates is contemptible,! nevertheless what [was] poured out did not diminish from the vessel itself (lit. even) and it filled the surroundings. It would be anachronistic, however, to assume the word “Trinity” entails the full Nicene concept for Hippolytus. 32 For the meaning of these Latin terms (and their Greek equivalents) along with ancient references and examples, see David E. Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of 271 with fragrant oil as a central rite separating those who choose a life of obedience to God from those who hate and despise him.33 The image of anointing oil diffused by the name of God symbolizes the beautiful fragrance of the Logos poured out from the Father.34 On the Song of Songs celebrates the transforming power of the grace of Father, Logos, and Spirit. Hippolytus the exegete then develops a complex narrative of conversion (In Cant. 3.1-19.3) by means of images of the Song that he weaves together with exhortations to repentance directed toward the church and past the church to the Jewish synagogue. Woven into the fabric of the interpretation are moments important in Hippolytus the exegete’s theological time (the generation and incarnation of the Logos), gospel events surrounding the baptism, crucifixion of the Christ, and the world-wide proselytizing mission launched by Christ and the apostles. The synagogue represents the world that does not know Christ, the “gathering place of darkness” (In Cant. 1.5). It also represents the Jewish people in a complex way: the faithful of Israel who participated in the incarnation of the Logos (In Cant. 26), as New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003). 33 In Cant. 26-27 uses the image of the “couch of Solomon” to symbolize a celebration or gathering of couches (thus the odd use of the plural κλίνη Σολοµῶν, Χριστοῦ and κλίναι) that appear to represent the physical gathered people of God in the 60 generations of elect from Adam to Christ. The generations are said to produce the flesh of the incarnate Logos. This complex image in turn signals a lived reality, a well-appointed baptismal feast at which the gathered community reclines. It is preceded by In Cant. 24-25, which has a strong eucharistic theme similar to that of the story of the travelers to Emmaus in Luke 24. The connection of rest, healing, resurrection, and salvation in In Cant. 26-27 has reminiscences of the meals celebrated in honor of other healing deities and demigods (viz., the κλἰνη of Sarapis, feasts in the temples of Aesclepius). 34 The κλίνη of Christ (In Cant. 26-27) is a complex image representing a banquet scene. 272 well as the unbelieving Jews who rejected Christ, and the Jewish people who accept him. The Gentile church and the synagogue as they are represented in Hippolytus were also celebrated in Roman iconography.35 In the commentary they are rivals in a complex love triangle with Christ (In Cant. 3-7) that is resolved only through an encounter with the resurrected Christ in which Eve is redeemed. Thus the commentary celebrates an encounter with the resurrected Christ who ascends to heaven which transformations synagogue and church:“from these things that he pacifies36 the synagogue and the church is glorified” (In Cant. 25.10). The commentary concludes (In Cant. 26-27) with a second peroration that celebrates the rest, healing and celebration of the couch of Solomon/couches of Christ, which Hippolytus the exegete interprets as a symbol of a great banquet of past and present saints. The interpretation weaves canonical and non-canonical together with polytheistic mythical themes. In addition, Hippolytus the exegete makes use of themes and devices, especially the nuptial-baptism theme that appear to have been developed previously by groups like the Valentinians. The unique weaving of elements reveals a Hippolytus the exegete willing to experiment with diverse material Cf. the Roman iconography of two female figures representing two churches. A mosaic of the fifth century in S. Sabina uses two female figures to distinguish “the church from among the Gentiles” and “the church from the Circumcision.” A similar fourth century (restored) mosaic in S. Pudenziana, has two women placing garlands (coronae) upon the heads of Peter and Paul, representing the mission to the Jews and to the Gentiles (cp. In Cant. 8.8). 36 The “pacification” of the synagogue is a rhetorically ambivalent way of speaking of the transformation brought to Jewish communities by the proclamation of the Gospel. See Allie M. Ernst, “Martha from the Margins: An Examination of Early Christian Traditions about Martha” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Queensland, 2006), 164. 35 273 taken from Jewish, polytheistic, and rival church circles in an effort to consolidate his vision of the faithful and draw more carefully the lines that separate the faithful Christian from unbelieving Jews, and dangerous “heretics.”37 Hippolytus the exegete interprets the Song of Songs as a love song about King Jesus and his beloved(s). Such a topic is appropriate for a symposium38 in a church that views itself as a philosophical school in the process of an ongoing competitive negotiation for identity as the people of the Biblical God with synagogue and Christians of rival groups in the context of the Roman Empire. An analysis of the rhetorical structure and social context of the commentary shows that Hippolytus the exegete’s relationship with women, who provided informal leadership in his community as patronesses, was fraught with tension. The development of these issues in conjunction with the translation of On the Song of Songs will be seen to support a For the second and third centuries, the use of “mainstream” versus “non-mainstream” of the various streams of Christianity is not possible (contra Lubbertus K. van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber: The Gospel of Philip as a Valentinian Baptism Instruction” [University of Gronningen, 2007], 4, n. 21, 5, n. 23). The stream metaphor is useful, since at the end of the second and beginning of the third century, the Jesus movement has very deep social cleavages. As Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (trans. Robert Kraft, Gerhard A. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), describes, what in some places would later become recognized as heresy as sometimes the first form of Christianity that appeared. In Rome Quartodeciman, Valentinian, Callistan, Marcionite, Monarchian-Sabellian, Hippolytan, Theodotan, Carpocratian and other streams of Christianity existed in uneasy tension. Nevertheless, the literature of some of these groups (Valentinian, Hippolytan) is selfconscious of differences in essence and marginal in numbers as compared with other groups (i.e. Callistan) in the Christian movement. See van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 5. See also Rodney Stark, Cities of God: the Real Story of how Christianity Became an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome (San Francisco: Harper, 2006), 141-81. 38 According to Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 49. 37 274 western provenance for the commentary. 6.4 Determining the Rhetorical Units and Arrangement 6.4.1 Use of the Schema Isagogicum The introduction to the commentary and the perorations that frame the largest part of the composition (2.1-35; 26-27) show that Hippolytus likely conceived of the commentary as a whole, complete where it left off.39 If this is so, it implies that the author conceived of the work as a unity, for a single purpose. The first chapter has the putative purpose of introducing audience to the author, Solomon; however, the divine author is the real subject of the introduction. It is God in the form of Wisdom, the Logos or the Holy Spirit. Hippolytus also introduces the reader to the typological interpretation of the Song of Songs using a typical introductory form that provides an important contribution to understanding the structure and rhetoric of the commentary. As is well known, ancient philosophical Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle habitually began their interpretation of Aristotelian works according to a defined schema isagogicum.40 The questions typically discussed were: 1) the aim, theme, purpose, or intent (sometimes considered separately) of the work (πρόθεσις, σκόπος); Against Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 218. While is possible, however, that Hippolytus intended to use the Song as an extended mystagogy beyond Song 3:7, but no evidence either in the manuscript tradition or in patristic quotations suggest this. All sources seem to stop where the Georgian text stops. 40 Jaap Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author or a Text (Philosophia antiqua, 61 Leiden New York: E. J. Brill, 1994), 10-11. The following list is derived from Mansfield. 39 275 2) the position of the work in the particular corpus or canon; 3) the utility (χρήσιµον) of the work; 4) the authenticity (γνήσιον), especially if the authenticity had been doubted for any reason; 5) the explanation of the title (αἴτιον τῆς ἐπιγραφῆς) if the title itself was difficult to understand or raised some question; 6) the division of the work into parts, chapters, or sections (διάρεσις, τοµή εἰς κεφάλαια or τµήµατα or µἐρη); 7) to what part or division of philosophy (ὑπὸ ποῖον µέρος, ἀνάγεται). Hadot and Neuschäfer discovered independently of one another that Origen, in the mid-third century, used four of these preliminary questions in his Commentary on the Song of Songs.41 Mansfield, in his detailed study of ancient prolegomena, demonstrates that Origen actually discussed five of these issues in his prologue as well as an issue important in Proclus’ discussion of Plato’s dialogue, the issue of the dramatis personae.42 Hippolytus mentioned or discussed all the issues in his prologue in In Cant. 1 and in the course of In Cant. 2 touches directly on the issue of the dramatis personae. An outline of In Cant. 1 demonstrates that Hippolytus structures the introduction according to the questions typical of the schema isagogica in as Mansfeld notes the independent discoveries of Ilsetraut Hadot, Simplicius: Commentaire sur les catégories (Philosophia Antiqua 50-51; New York: E, J, Brill, 1989), 36-40; Bernhard Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe (SBA 18 Basel: F. Reinhardt, 1987), 1:77, emphasizes the philosophical coloring of Origen’s prologue under the heading, “die Topik des Canticumkommentar prologs,”1:77; Christoph Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese (Köln: P. Hanstein, 1974). Mansfeld notes the use of additional members of the schema isagogica in Origen and other early Christian commentary writers. 42 Mansfeld, Prolegomena, 12. 41 276 complete a fashion as does Proclus, including a reference to the question of the authenticity of the Song. So, once agagin, Hippolytus shows a sensitivity to the genre expectations of his audience and projects the ethos of a serious teacher. The introduction provided by Hippolytus raises and answers the question of what the reader or hearer must know to understand the Song and the commentator’s purpose in making use of the Song. An overview of the introduction below reveals that the schema isagogicum is, in fact, the central organizing feature of the introduction. Chart 1: Structural Outline Introduction to On the Song of Songs 1. Disclaimer about the authors, divine (Wisdom) and human (Solomon) though royal not to be confused with divinity—Solomon had the gift of wisdom, he was not Wisdom (his life is separate from Wisdom) (1:1-2a) 2. Place in canon of Scripture, specifically the Solomonic canon (1.2b-3) a.) Three books exhibit the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit 1.) Proverbs, the secret of the Father 2.) Ecclesiastes, the Son of God in riddles 3.) Song of Songs, composed in communion with the Holy Spirit for praise (of the love of Christ and the church) 3. Purpose of the three books of Solomon: though three, the books express a unity, representing the Trinity 1.3b-5 a.) Song of Songs, in praise of the unity of the Holy Spirit b.) Proverbs, the Father as source of wonderful wisdom c.) Ecclesiastes, the darkness of the world overcome through the Son 4. Utility of the Song of Songs: give consolation, knowledge of God (1.6-10) a.) Bioi of Solomon and Wisdom contrasted 1.) Wisdom or Logos Wis 9:1 was with God before creation 2.) Solomon as a prophet to the Logos spoke to us 3.) Wisdom (Logos) brought forth before the mountains, the beauty 277 of this world arranged by the Logos 4.) Throughout history Wisdom or Logos is making known in various ways the economy of salvation and continues to speak to the faithful through the knowledge of the Father’s will given to them. 5.) The Wisdom or Logos is Christ 6.) 1 Cor 1:23—Christ the Wisdom of God b.) Solomon spoke by the Holy Spirit 1.) A new praise (encomium) [of the love between Christ and the church] 2.) The new praise foreshadows a mystery of revelation (i.e., of Christ and the church) 3.) Wrote by speaking “before a scribe transcribes them” 4.) The legendary wisdom of Solomon 5. The issue of authenticity and the loss of the majority of Solomon’s works (1.11) 6. Divisions of the Song of Songs (1.12) a.) 1.12 Books lost, explanation of title, but of each type of writing the best was preserved by Hezekiah and his court. 7. Explanation of title “Song of Songs” (1.13-15) a.) 1.14 Notice from Prov 25:1 shows that the selection process was guided by the Spirit, for the edification of the church b.) 1.15 The most unique and noteworthy examples were chosen 8. Reiteration of purpose, believers, place in the canon, P-E-SoS together form an “ancient spiritual narrative” of the Trinity, which the Spirit now sings to the faithful Proclus’ complete introductions (from the fifth century) clearly depend upon earlier widely diffused pedagogical tradition, as the evidence in both Origen and now here from Hippolytus shows. Mansfeld explains that Origen must have made a living as a professional grammatikos, teaching both literary and philosophical treatises of 278 Plato and possibly Aristotle that were furnished with such introductions.43 A similar statement may also be true for Hippolytus and, whether or not Hippolytus was a grammatikos before becoming a Christian teacher, his choice of the schema isagogicum (more complete, but less elaborate than Origen’s) exhibits his intention to portray himself as a teacher of philosophy, familiar with the expectations of an educated audience that sets out to study a canonical text that required comment. 6.4.2 Overall Structure of the Commentary Apart from the introduction, the structure of the rest of the commentary is not entirely clear. The author does not follow structural units of the text of Song itself, but seems to adapt his comments to his didactic purpose. Hippolytus makes use, however, of several features including introduction formulae, inclusio, exordium, anaphora, peroration, direct questions to interlocutors, cross referencing, and summaries which all determine the rhetorical units of the commentary. The structural outline offered below views the text as offering an introduction and three homiletical units. Such a structure is suggested in the introduction of the commentary, “the Song of Songs, which is hardly more than three songs (praises) composed of 300 lines” (In Cant. 1.11b).44 Song of Songs is an unruly text. At every turn Hippolytus must dominate and forestall other possible meanings to legitimate his typological interpretation. In offering the text as a sort of introduction to the Christian life for new believers, the text often escapes him. It leads the reader away from the point he wishes to establish. 43 Mansfeld, Prolegomena, 56. 44 On the textual problem, see the annotated translation at 1.11. 279 The interpretation is therefore in constant danger of breaking down. Nevertheless, typological and allegorical readings of difficult ancient texts was a well- worn path taken often by the grammaticus and teacher of rhetoric, so Hippolytus was in familiar territory. Chart 2: Outline of On the Song of Songs A. Introduction 1.1-15 following the typical schema isagogicum current in philosophical school commentaries during the second and third centuries: what the reader/hearer must know to understand the Song B. Homily #1 on the anointing with myron, a symbol of receiving Christ and the Spirit 2.1-35; texts: Song 1:1.2, 3, 4a. Introduction formula: “Now come, let us see what lies ahead” (In Cant. 2.1-4a) 1. Exordium:45 Kiss and the myron of the name: “It has been given to us to administer these things” a.) Symbolic approach to the dramatis personae: A symbol of the people who desire to join with the Spirit (as did Solomon) b.) Definition of terms: Kiss, breasts of Christ (law and gospel), sweeter than wine is the milk of commandments—love of God 2. Exhortation to the newly baptized: draw out milk from these breasts to be a witness “built up and perfected” and to receive the anointing and understand its significance (2.4b-8) a.) Myron symbolizes the Logos that went forth from the Father (In Cant. 2.4, 5) b.) Myron symbolizes of the incarnation of the Logos that brings joy c.) Consolation of protherapeia: the anointing with myron (Logos, Spirit) brings rejection from outsiders d.) The mystery of the incarnation is a narrative poured out from the Father, yet did not diminish in force 3. First peroration, Hippolytus exhorts audience to receive anointing (2.9-30): a.) Provides examples of righteous men and women who loved or hated the 45 Meloni, “Cantico dei Cantici,” Aug 13: 100-1. 280 anointing (the Logos) 1.) Judas betrayed Christ (hated the anointing) negative example; 2.) Noah versus Ham (2.10) 3.) Eber loved anointing versus Nimrod who hated it (2.11-13) 4.) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob versus Esau 2.14-16 5.) Joseph loved anointing despite being sold into slavery (2.17) 6.) Tamar loved anointing and made herself look like a prostitute, led to godly offspring (2.18) 7.) Joseph, opposed to stealing and sexual activity with owner’s wife, loved anointing (2.19) 8.) Moses zealous of the anointing, he is avenger of Israel (2.20) 9.) Aaron loved it (he was anointed priest) (2.21) 10.) Phineas loved it; Zambri did not; with zeal for the anointing, Phineas killed Zambri and his prostitute (2.21) 11.) Joshua loved it and circumcised the people with a stone (2.22) 12.) David loved the anointing and is a symbol of the anointed one; came from the heart of the Father; his lineage gave human life (flesh) to the Word made flesh (2.23) 13.) Solomon longed for the anointing and received Wisdom (2.24) 14.) Daniel and his three friends loved the anointing and received a visit from the Logos while in the fiery furnace (2.25, 26) 15.) Joseph loved the anointing and became a divine consultant of a king (2.27) 16.) Mary loved it and became mother of the Logos (2.28) i.) A new mystery: Martha carried the anointing and poured it on Christ “with all intercession and consolation” this one is also for those truly just and to whom it is revealed (2.29) ii.) Judas hated the anointing (2.31-31) α.) He tried to rob the poor (2.30) β.) The anointing, however, is made available to the poor (2.31) iii.) The churches are like the young virgins who love Christ, they are 281 dressed by order of Christ, they have been attracted to Christ (2.32-34) 4. Summary exhortation: follow Christ to be bound to the “greatest things” in order to hold desire for carnal things in check (2.35) C. Homily #2 Topic: Repentance or Conversion with a diatribe on the conversion of the Jews (3.1-22.10) 1. The king who brings the beloved into his chambers is Christ (3.1-5.3) a. The beloved is black but beautiful (sinful but beloved) b. She must overcome her former identity as a sinner and a shepherdess c. She neglected her own vine. 2. Christ is also a Shepherd, especially for those (especially Jews?) who will be bold enough to reveal their love for him (6.1-7.2) a.) “Follow me barefoot” (be willing to give up everything (7.3) b.) Israel is no longer as a flock for you (7.4) c.) Go to the Gentiles, you will be glorious if you repent (7.5-8.1). 3. Transition on repentance: Christ compares the faithful of the church-school to a mare among the chariots of Pharaoh; he gives a blessing on those who repent (8.1-3) a.) The mare was from the people, which reminds Hippolytus of the apostles symbolized by the steeds of Helios (not mentioned by name) (8.2, 3) b.) The four Evangelists represented by the four steeds (8.4-7) 4. The four Evangelists are four steeds united in harmony with a driver (8.8) who stirred up the nations (Zodiac symbol of Helios with chariot and four horses found in ancient synagogues and in ancient Christian funerary art) 5. The consolation of significance (recompense for loss and exclusion): “that you may leave an impression on the world” (8.8, 9) a.) The (Jewish) synagogue also called to repentance/conversion (8.8) b.) Repetition of opening theme from heading in 8.1 (8.9a) 6. Promise of honor for those that repent 8.9b-12.1 a.) Beauty and honor (9.1) b.) The inheritance of the gospel exceeds the “gold and silver” of the Jewish law (10.1) 282 c.) Until Christ comes in kingly power, the Spirit is the chrism of grace for the conversion of both Gentile and Jew (11.1) d.) Transition to heading on the crucifixion. Christ is bound to the flesh by love and because of this love that “bound” him to the flesh, he was able to be “crushed” like grapes, i.e., incarnation is an expression of love, making salvation of the flesh (creation) possible 7. The figure of the “bound one” represents atonement (building on the aqedat Isaac) a.) The interpretation of the lover, like a sack of “nard of kyprou” between the beloved’s breasts interpreted as Christ crucified and raised (12.2; 13.1a) b.) Wounded, he gives off his aroma, his transforming presence (13.1b) c.) Like the harvesting of nard and as the Father had to open his mouth, the Son had to be cut open to reveal his power (13.2, 3a) d.) Because he was great, he appeared abased, rich made poor for us. He humbled himself and arose to spread his transforming power (13.3b) e.) The Word glorified himself on earth, hurried to heaven, and descended so that people might ascend (13.4) f.) Transition: because of this development, the beloved is beautiful (14.1) 8. The beauty of the beloved (14.2-19.3) a.) She is forgiven (14.2b) b.) Encouragement of the newly converted, who received wisdom (15.1) c.) Her love is toward Christ (15.2a) d.) Grace from the Spirit for those who flee to Christ (15.2b-3) e.) Cypress dwelling of beloved and lover, patriarchs and apostles (16.1, 2) f.) She carries the lover’s fragrance, praises her own beauty (17.1, 2) g.) Beloved and lover praise one another, return to the myron theme (19.1) from Homily #1 (18.1-19.1) h.) Exhortation to bold witness in professing Christianity, “with a seal on the forehead” (19:2-3) 9. Peroration on the leaping Word (incarnation and resurrection) (20.1-22.10) D. Homily #3 Hippolytus praises the incarnation, resurrection, and the passionate 283 pursuit of Christ with an encomium on the women (myrrhophores) who cling to Christ (22.10-27.10) 1. Encomium of the women who reverse the effects of sin brought into the world through Eve: Martha, Mary as apostles to the apostles. They represent Eve who now walks in order, and is received as an offering to Christ46 (23.1-25.10) 2. Peroration on the κλίνη of Christ, a festive symbol of resurrection 26.1-27.10 A perusal of the above outline will reveal the use of an introductory formula (invitation) opening the homily (In Cant. 2.1) and a peroration (2.9-34) and summary exhortation (2.35) that appears to close the first speech comprised of the combination of the Introduction and Homily #1. The topic of this peroration is an encomium on zeal for obtaining and love for the anointing of fragrant myron (oil) that symbolizes the Word present in the Holy Spirit. No special formula opens the next section marked Homily #2; however, the end of Homily #2 (only about five percent longer than the Introduction and Homily #1 combined) is clearly marked by a return to the anointing theme of the end of the Homily #1 (19.1-3). The fact that Homily #2 returns to the theme of anointing at the end may indicate something about its nature. The theme, repeated often throughout Homily #2 is Repentance or Conversion; however, the Jewish synagogue is directly addressed as an interlocutor throughout Homily #2 and urged to repent. The attentive reader may recall that fictitious dialogue with an absent interlocutor is an element of diatribe, similar to Paul’s use of diatribe in Romans or Galatians. Addressing Jews seems to have been a common theme in ancient paschal homily, as the example of Melito’s De Pascha shows. Thus the repeated direct address to Jews does not indicate that Jews were expected to be Note that the language about receiving Eve as an offering is likely baptismal. Cp. Comm. Dan. 1.16 where those who are being prepared for baptism are called “On that day bath is made ready for those ‘that fire would consume.’” 46 284 members of Hippolytus the exegete’s audience, though it is possible some Jews could have been converting to Christianity and vice-versa at this time. Rather, the second Homily may well function as a digression, using the power of an indirect approach to convince the audience of the strength of the identity and values shared with the speaker. The synagogue presents a counter example in the author’s praise of the love between Christ and the church. It was a common didactic element in the tool box of a teacher in the ancient world. The second homily closes with the second peroration, 22.1-22.10, which focuses on the Gospel of the Logos’ descent to earth and return to heaven opening up the path of salvation. Homily #3 is marked by a short peroration on the leaping Word and a much longer peroration on the κλίνη of Christ (26.1-27.10). The long peroration marks Homily #3 as a climactic moment in the entire series. 6.5 On the Song of Songs a Paschal Homily of Mystagogical Instruction The sources for liturgical history in the second and third centuries are scarce. A preference for Passover baptism does not seem to have been widespread in the second century and may have only been a temporary experiment that soon faded away.47 Bradshaw has argued48 that the absence of references to paschal baptism outside of North Africa and Rome prior to the fourth century makes it clear that Easter baptism was “never the normative practice in Christian antiquity.” The Bradshaw and Hoffman, Passover and Easter: the Symbolic Structuring of Sacred Seasons (Two Liturgical Traditions 6; Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 36, 42-3, 45-6, 49-50, 51 n. 6, 52 n. 15, 54 n. 48, 55, 65, 201. 48 Bradshaw, ”‘Diem Baptismo,’” 51. 47 285 Quartodeciman paschal celebration in Sardis as evidenced in Melito’s Peri Pascha does not appear to have included baptism.49 Post baptism anointing for receiving the Holy Spirit appears in Antioch and further east later than the third century.50 Then it would seem that the confluence of Passover celebration, baptism, and post-baptismal anointing represented in Comm. Dan. 1.16 strongly suggest a western social milieu for the mystagogical instruction of On the Song of Songs.51 Hippolytus does not necessarily exclude other times or places as suitable for baptism. He also shows that baptism in his church-school included post-baptismal anointing (with fragrant oil, or µύρον) associated with the Holy Spirit. Tertullian, in Bapt. 19 also shows a similar predilection for Passover baptism: The Passover affords a more than usually solemn day for baptism; when, withal, the Lord’s passion, into which we are baptized, was completed. Nor will it be incongruous to interpret figuratively the fact that, when the Lord was about to celebrate the last Passover, he said to the disciples who were sent to make Alistair Stewart, The Lamb’s High Feast: Melito, Peri Pascha, and the Quartodeciman Paschal Liturgy at Sardis (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 42; Boston: Brill, 1998), xii, 176-182; contra Raniero Cantalamessa, L'omelia In S. Pascha dello pseudo-Ippolito di Roma. Ricerche sulla teologia dell'Asia Minore nella seconda metà del II secolo (Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1967), 282-328, and others read into Peri Pascha of Bishop Melito the practice of baptism; however, nothing in the text supports it. Apparently, however, Passover baptism was not practiced among Quartodecimans in Asia Minor in the second century.. 50 On this see especially Winkler, “The history of the Syriac pre-baptismal anointing in the light of the earliest Armenian sources,” II Symposium Syriacum (OCA 205, 1978), 317-24, and “Original meaning,” 24-45; also Brock “The Syriac Baptismal Ordines with Special Reference to the Anointings,” Studia Liturgica 12 (1977), 177-83, and “The transition to a post-baptismal anointing in the Antiochene rite,” in The Sacrifice of Praise: Studies in honour of A.H. Couratin (ed. B. Spinks; Ephemerides Liturgicae, Subsidia 19, 1981), 215-25. 51 Of course, it might be possible that Hippolytus is a purveyor of western rites in the East. 49 286 preparation, “You will meet a man carrying water.” He points out the place for celebrating the Passover by the sign of water. After that, Pentecost is a most joyous space for conferring baptisms; wherein, too, the resurrection of the Lord was repeatedly proved among the disciples, and the hope of the advent of the Lord indirectly pointed to, in that, at that time, when He had been received back into the heavens, the angels told the apostles that “He would so come, as He had withal ascended into the heavens;” at Pentecost, of course. But, moreover, when Jeremiah says, “And I will gather them together from the extremities of the land in the ‘feast-day,’” he signifies the day of the Passover and of Pentecost, which is properly a “feast-day.” However, every day is the Lord’s; every hour, every time, is apt for baptism: if there is a difference in the solemnity, there is no distinction in the grace. (trans. Thelwall, ANF) From references to rites of Christian initiation scattered throughout the other writings of Tertullian, Bradshaw pulls together52 the sketch of an order of initiatory rites known by Tertullian around 200 AD. They were: • Preparation, “with frequent prayers, fastings, bendings of the knee, and all night vigils, along with the confession of all their sins” (Bapt. 20); • • • Prayer over the water, invoking the Holy Spirit to sanctify it (Bapt. 4); Renunciation of the devil (Cor. 3.2; Spec. 4); Threefold interrogation about the Christian faith “in the words of the rule [of faith]” and triple immersion (Cor. 3.2; se also Mart. 3.1; Prax. 26; Bapt. 6; Praescr. 36; Pud. 9.16; Spec. 4); • Anointing (Bapt. 7.1; Res. 8.3); – And signing with the cross, “the flesh is signed that the soul may be protected” (Res. 8.2, 3)?53 Bradshaw, Search 156. But see Alistair Stewart, “Manumission and Baptism in Tertullian’s Africa: A Search for the Origin of Confirmation,” SL 31 (2001): 129-49; item, “Ordination Rites and Patronage Systems in Third Century Africa,” VC 56.2 (2002): 125, who argues that shown that Res. 8.2, 3 has been misinterpreted and that there is no consi53 52 287 • • • Imposition of hands (Bapt. 8.1; Res. 8.3); Prayer for the first time with other Christians (Bapt. 20.5); Eucharist, including partaking of milk and honey (Cor. 3.2). The sequence from baptism, anointing, imposition of hands, and Eucharist is used by Tertullian as an illustration that “the flesh is, in fact, the hinge of salvation” (Res. 8.2). The passage marked by initiation is from old Adamic flesh to the new substance of humanity in Christ, generated by pure water and clean spirit. If Stewart is correct and Tertullian intends no consignation with the sign of the cross. Tertullian elaborates the passage in a way that unites the movement from baptism to eucharistic feast in organic fashion, and the feast welcomes the new converts as newly adopted children of the family of Christ. Since the soul, in consequence of its salvation, is chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed with the cross, that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is overshadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.54 Hippolytus, in On the Song of Songs, read with Comm. Dan. 1.16 and the list constructed from Tertullian in mind, has similarities and differences with the list drawn from Tertullian. Indirect and cryptic refernces to baptismal rites are to be expected in a mystagogical instruction.55 The possible references to the elements or an gnation in Tertullian’s rite. 54 Tertullian, Res. 8.2.3. 55 Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue, 55-57, discusses the character of Cyril’s mystagogy in contrast to his catechetical teaching, “The interest of the mystagogue is 288 order of baptismal events are, of course open to interpretation, since they are more or less indirect and allusive. • Preparation for baptism: a previous fast may be implied in In Cant.: 25.7b Behold, from now on she is made happy through the tree of life and through the confession. From that tree, she tasted Christ. She has been made worthy of the good and [her] heart desired its nourishment. 25.8 From now on she will no longer either crave or proffer to men food that corrupts; she has received incorruptibility; from now on she is in unity and [is] a helper, for Adam leads Eve. O good helper, with the gospel offering (or sacrificing) [it] to her husband!56 This is why the women evangelized the disciples. (25.7b, 8 Georgian text) • The sanctification of the water: “The aroma of the fragrance [is] your name spread abroad;” see the aroma of the myron which is spread abroad. It was poured out into the belly and created a newly begotten man. It was sent down over the waters and the waters were purified. It was spread abroad to the peoples, and it gathered the peoples. (In Cant. 2.8 Georgian text) • The renunciation of Satan: 25.7 O new consolations! Eve is being called an apostle! Behold from now on the fraud of the serpent is understood and [Eve] no longer goes astray. From now on [she understood] the one she saw from that moment she hated and considered as an enemy who seduced her through desire. From now on that tree of seduction would not seduce her. (In Cant. 25.7a Georgian text) • The threefold interrogation and confession is not mentioned directly; however, in the introduction the discussion of the relation of the three Solomonic books now to draw attention to the rites in a more contemplative than discursive way. . . . The mystagogue stays very close to the actions and images of the rites and enhances the experiential dimension by the regular use of typology and imaginative examples.” 56 Lit. “with the gospel to husband an offering (or with offerings).” 289 (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) is structured to correspond to the threefold confession and interrogation (In Cant. 1.1-10). The profession of faith is mentioned (In Cant. 19:3). • The anointing with fragrant oil (In Cant. 2.1-34, especially 2.9) is a central component of On the Song of Songs and probably refers to the post-baptismal anointing (cp. Comm. Dan. 1.16). 2.9 Receive the vessel, O man, and come and draw near, that you may be able to be filled by means of the anointing oil. Receive this precious anointing oil. Do not sell it for three hundred denarii, but be freely anointed. Do not act like Judas so that you become grieved, but put on57 Christ with faith, that you may be a fellow-heir (John 12:5; Gal 3:26-27). • The “overshadowing of the laying on of hands” to bestow the Spirit appears to be mentioned allusively (In Cant. 15.2): 15.2 “Behold you are handsome, my nephew, and also handsome, casting a shadow on my couch.”58 What does he mean to say concerning his residence59? For, “upon the couch you are casting a good shadow” teaches us the grace of the Spirit, that overshadows all who will encounter burning heat.60 (In Cant. 15.2, 3; Dan. Com. 1.16; cp. Tertullian, Res. 8.2.3) • • Signing with a seal on the forehead is mentioned (In Cant. 19:3). Prayer for the first time with Christians not mentioned. Eucharistic celebration is implied in the description of the wedding feast (27.6, the κλίνη of Christ). The feast is also a central component of the last part of On Or, following Garitte, depone super caput (tuum) “put upon [your] head” (Garitte). 58 Song 1:16 ἰδοὺ εἶ καλός ὁ ἀδελφιδός µου καί γε ὡραῖος πρὸς κλίνη ἡµῶν σύσκιος. 59 Or “inheritance, dominion.” 60 CantPar 15.2 πᾶσι τοῖς καυσουµένοις. Cp. Dan. Com. 1.16, “those destined for the flames” are baptized and anointed with fragrant oil by Faith and Love. 57 290 the Song of Songs corresponding to the anointing in 2.1-34. It should also be noted that Hippolytus mentions wine (In Cant. 2.1-3; cp. 27.6) but not bread. Christ, however, is mentioned as food (In Cant. 25.7, the fruit of the tree of life). Milk is used as a symbol of the commandments (In Cant. 2.3). Given these references and the probability, in accordance with the suggestion of Zahn, Chappuzeau, and Cerrato, that On the Song of Songs is part of an initiation ceremony, it is appropriate to ask whether the commentary was intended for a prebaptismal or post-baptismal. The fact that the “purification of the waters” gets only a passing reference and the anointing of the hearers is heavily emphasized favors a post-baptismal setting for the commentary (In Cant. 2:1-34). Yet the long teaching does not entirely seem appropriate to be delivered in one chunk. Rather, as suggested in the structural analysis above, On the Song of Songs may represent stages of teaching during a pre-baptismal vigil culminating in the eucharistic celebration referenced in 27.1 ff. Even so, viewing On the Song of Songs as a part of the vigil, a teaching orienting the newly baptized to their new life in Christ, aids in understanding Hippolytus the exegete’s commentary, and in particular helps clarify the language concerning the participation of women in the community. (See In Cant. 25-26.) 6.5.1 The Mystery of the Passover The rich associations connected with springtime Passover made it particularly appropriate as a high celebration for early Christians in Rome and around the empire. During the second-century Christianity was transformed from a movement among Jews and God-fearers into a Greco-Roman cult whose constituents 291 were largely non-Jewish.61 Christian groups proliferated and became entrenched mostly in the larger urban areas around the Mediterranean Sea, in areas serviced by cults such as those of Isis, Dionysus, and Demeter.62 They put down roots, used their homes for cult activities, such as the one discovered in Dura-Europos, and eventually remolded them for cult use. Christians celebrated like most other groups, using the institution of communal meals and baptisms that reminded those who participated in them of celebrations of other mystery groups they knew. For this reason Justin Martyr was compelled to make the claim that mystery groups such as those who worshipped Mithras copied their ceremonies from ancient prophecies about Christianity!63 Initiates in these cults practiced ritual cleansing before “sacred” meals.64 Cult meals often imitated patterns like that dedicated to Demeter and practiced in Eleusis.65 Practices—not the cult itself, which was not exportable—experienced there were adapted and exported to home-grown cults-groups around the Mediterranean like those of Isis and Dionysus.66 Initiation typically takes place at night when people are See Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: a Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), and Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985); idem, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), for overviews. 62 Stark, Cities of God, 101-17; van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 51. 63 Justin Martyr, Dial, 70; Apol, 1.24; see van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 51. 64 Almost any type participated in the “sacred.” See Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 67-85. 65 Burkert, Greek Religion, 78, 80, 285-6. 66 See Reinhold Merkelbach, Isis Regina, Zeus Sarapis: die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1995), 137-85. On Dionysus, see Klauck, Religious Context of Early Christianity, 106-17. 61 292 hungry and tired. Ritual fasting intensified the experience which was also retold and explained by the mystagogue.67 Prayers, rituals, and simple representative objects were used to make the myth capable of being ritually experienced by the initiate. Cult leaders insisted on secrecy so that the experience would not be spoiled for those initiated later. Christianity lived, moved, and breathed in this atmosphere. Partially for this reason, Easter and also Pentecost became preferred dates for baptism in some sectors of the church. These dates favor reenactment, since they are connected to the crucifixion, the resurrection and the giving of the Spirit.68 These practices are in line with the recommendations for baptism given in TA 17-23, though Passover season is not specifically mentioned for baptism in the TA Many Romans were eager to adopt oriental religious practices that promised avenues to modulate fate. The practices and the explanations that accompanied them (compensators69 in sociology of religion terms) promised enjoyment in an afterlife and maintained appeal throughout the Greco-Roman period. The banquet practices of such groups also provided arenas for the enjoyment of life in the here and now.70 Christians were no different in this regard and shared mealtimes filled with ritual significance which were part of the complex mix of real rewards and compensators van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 51. Tertullian, Bapt. 19; Hippolytus the exegete, Comm. Dan. 1.16. 69 The language of Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, A Theory of Religion (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996), 326. Compensators are “postulations of reward according to explanations that are not readily susceptible to unambiguous evaluation.” 70 Or “rewards,” which, according to Stark and Bainbridge, Theory of Religion, 325, are “anything humans will incur costs to obtain.” 68 67 293 offered by early Christians. For example, Tertullian describes the ideal life of a Christian couple, replete with the pleasures of “the banquet of God.” What kind of yoke is that of two believers, sharing one hope, one desire, one discipline, one and the same service? They are brother [and sister in Christ], both fellow servants, there is no difference [between them] either of spirit or of flesh; no, they are truly “two in one flesh.”71 For, where the flesh is one, the spirit is one as well. Together they pray, together prostrate themselves, together perform their fasts; mutually teaching, mutually exhorting, mutually sustaining. They are equally together in the church of God; equally they are at the banquet of God;72 equally in difficult situations, in persecutions, in receiving refreshment. Neither hides anything from the other; neither shuns the other; neither is troublesome to the other. With a feeling of freedom, they visit the sick, they relieve the indigent. Alms are given without the fear that one will torment the other for it; sacrifices are made without second guesses; each one carries out daily duties without one making life difficult for the other: there is no stealthy making of the sign [of the cross], no trembling greeting, no muttered blessings. Between the two echo psalms and hymns; and they mutually challenge each other concerning which shall better sing to their Lord. When Christ sees and hears such things, he rejoices. To these He sends His own peace. Where two are, there Christ is with them. Where He is, there the Evil One is not. (Tertullian, Ad ux. 2.8)73 These words call to mind the Hellenistic ideal of friendship in addition to Gen 1:16 ff. See Diogenes Laertius, Aristotle, 11, the topos of friendship is a fitting allusive characterization of the ethos of the banquet in the ancient world. On friendship dynamics see John T. Fitzgerald, “The Function of Friendship Language in Philippians 4:10-20” in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament (SupNT 82; New York: E. J. Brill, 1996), 105-24. 72 No reason exists to imagine the convivio Dei to which Tertulian refers as anything other than a full meal called in honor of Christ. The cena was not as elaborate, though it could be formal. The convivium was more elaborate and entertainment (including the reading or reciting of texts) was expected. See Bradley, “The Roman Family At Dinner,” Meals in a Social Context, 37. As such, whether or not the meal was eucharistic is beside the point. Shared meals were a regular part of the ancient Christian life. 73 Adapted from ANF 4:48. 71 294 During the period of the Roman Empire before the Constantinian turn, the market in which religious products were offered was a fairly open market. The principal competitors in the ancient market of religious rewards (including annual festivals and community meals) and services were mystery religion groups, philosophical schools, the Jewish synagogue, and various breakaway Christian groups. Christians were dependent slaves in non-Christian households, as well as freedmen who were clients of their former masters, or freeborn in client-patronage relationships. Constituents such as these felt the push and the pull to take part in festivals that featured polytheistic ritual. Several factors made these festivals attractive. Dining with friends was a favorite pastime and if meat was involved, all the more fun. Foreign, especially eastern cults, and especially the cults of Isis and Serapis, were wildly popular and had important cult centers scattered in almost every port city of the Mediterranean. Christian churches were more likely to be represented in cities with temples to Isis and/or Serapis than in cities that did not have this cult, thus they developed an ethos of competition with such cults. As numbers of adherents grew and more well-to-do individuals joined a cult, the quality of the observances was likely to improve and both attractiveness and pressure within patron-client groups would increase participation in banquets. In addition, the pervasive religious influence of imperial ideology and theology was expressed in gratitude for imperial patronage in religious processions, sponsored banquets, games, trade and work guilds. Believers felt constant pressure leading to various kinds of accommodation, negotiation, and renegotiation of their relationship with empire. Christian practice and theology developed in continual interaction with these forces as believers struggled to gain 295 adherents as well as to secure and maintain allegiance to group values and practices. In such an atmosphere, Christians naturally developed rituals that competed with other mysteries and served to transmit group values, consolidate adherence to group identity, provide opportunities for new adherents and converts to be incorporated into the group, and provide avenues of catharsis and pride for saints to transform the negative aspects of adherence to Christ into sources of strength. Hellenistic Jewish Passover practices underscored the note of freedom and liberation from oppression. Religion and politics in the ancient world were embedded in the household.74 The household Passover also had a political dimension. For nonJewish Christians, the gospel narrative gave the entryway for the ancient observance of Passover. Yet components of the Jewish festival provided an interpretive matrix for the repetition of the gospel narrative. Paul says: “Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch, as you really are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:7-8). The oldest testimony to the observance of the Jewish Passover as a meal among Christians is found in the Gospel of the Ebionites.75 Quotations in Epiphanius suggest that Ebionite Christians avoided meat on the Passover, and Origen suggests they “celebrate the Passover with unleavened bread and water, once a year.”76 K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts (Fortress Press, 2008), 5-6. 75 Dominique Gonnet, “La Pâque de Pères de L'église,” La Maison-Dieu 240. (2004): 34. 76 Cantalamessa et al., eds., Easter in the Early Church, #12. 74 296 The Asian77 Ep. ap., which may be dated to the second half of the second century, between 160 and 170 AD,78 has Jesus command the celebration of Passover as a commemoration: [The Lord said,] “And you therefore celebrate the remembrance of my death which is the Passover; then will one of you who stands beside me be thrown in prison for my name’s sake, and he will be very grieved and sorrowful, for while you celebrate the passover he who is in custody did not celebrate it with you. And I will send my power in the form of my angel, and the door of the prison will open, and he will come out and come to you to watch with you and to rest. And when you complete my Agape and my remembrance at the crowing of the cock, he will again be taken and thrown in prison for a testimony, until he comes out to preach, as I have commanded you.” And we said to him, “O Lord, have you then not completed the drinking of the passover? Must we, then, do it again? And he said to us, “Yes, until I come from the Father with my wounds.”79 The allusion to Peter’s prison escape story in Acts is unmistakable, but told as part of an assumed Passover celebration. If Hippolytus drew directly from it Ep. ap., as Cerrato suggests, its focus on paschal celebration suggests that On the Song of Songs made use of its traditions because of appropriateness to the paschal theme. It is valuable as a point of comparison because not only does it describe the celebration of the Passover, as it was likely celebrated in North Africa, it also alludes to the vigilfast that continued until the “cock-crow,” which was then followed by “the memorial/ remembrance that [the apostles should] celebrate” as well as the familial “Agape ” Ep ap. is an Asian document assigned independently by Stewart in “The Epistula Apostolorum: An Asian Tract from the Time of Polycarp” JECS 7 (1999): 1-53 and by Charles Hill, "The Asian Context of the New Prophecy and of Epistula Apostolorum." VC 51 (1997): 416-438. 78 Wilhelm Schneemelcher and R. McL. Wilson, eds., New Testament Apocrypha (Louisville, KY: Clarke & Co./Westminster John Knox Press, 1991), 1.251. 79 Ibid., 1.257-8. 77 297 meal. The reference to “drinking” an allusion to the “cup” (Luke 22:17-18), echoes the Eucharist. These tentative references reveal a schema followed by churches in North Africa (and Rome). The schema included a fast, an all night vigil, readings of the Old Testament Scriptures and the breaking of the fast at the third hour of the morning with an Agape meal as the eucharistic meal.80 During this time baptism was also probably administered,81 since as a bath it logically formed part of the progression toward a meal. Baptismal instruction in the TA is not specifically tied to Easter. Rather, it describes (TA 16.1-8) how an adult who desired to “hear the word for the first time” was taken to “the teachers” and interviewed to see if the person was a suitable candidate for conversion.82 Then the catechumen should “hear the word for three It is unclear in the Ep. ap. 15 whether the eucharistic meal takes place at cockcrow or later in the day. Also the relationship between the Agape and the eucharistic meal is unclear. The Ethiopic text strangely places the Agape and the Eucharist “at the crowing of the cock,” while the Coptic text can be read as leaving a considerable gap between the end of the vigil and the (logical) evening celebration of the eucharistic/ Agape meal. Conversely, it may be read as stating that a Eucharist remembrance was held in the morning and that (logically) an Agape was held later on in the day. A comparison with this text and the order of events for baptismal celebration in the TA 17-21 and baptismal passover celebration in Ap. Const. 5.19 suggests that the end of the vigil in the morning was a time for baptism, which is not mentioned due to the narrative constraints of the Ep. ap. See above page 248. 81 Othmar Perler, ed. Meliton de Sardes: Sur la Pâque et fragments (SC 123; Paris: Cerf, 1966), 25 is a bit too specific on some of the details “on peut reconstituer le schéma suivant: ‘Pendant la vigile du 14 au 15 nisan, on lisait et on commentait le douzième chapitre de l’Exode. Au chant du coq, vers 3 heures du matin, le jeûne était rompu par une Agape suivie de l’eucharistie. Entre la lecture commentée et l’Agape suivie de l’eucharistie, on a dû administrer le baptême.’” 82 The evidence from the TA, according to most scholars, can credibly be traced to the third century and most would localize the origin of the work in Rome. This, however, is debated. 80 298 years” (TA17.1). Such a period is comparable to the length of time the Disciples spent in training with Jesus, according to the Gospel of John. It was also known to the Hippolytan community as the probationary period for a new member wishing to join the Essenes, or the time spent preparing for entry into some philosophical schools.83 After the three-year period, the catechumen was to “hear the Gospel” (TA 20.2). Apparently, then, the period before “hearing the Gospel” would have entailed hearing interpretations of selected Old Testament Scriptures.84 Like the Passover celebration mentioned above, the TA establishes a baptismal pattern of Friday fasting and Saturday baptism and anointing with oil (TA 20-22), though it does not explicitly tie this typical order to Passover.85 After the commonplaces of the introduction to On the Song of Songs, the first homily briefly mentions baptism in the context of a homiletic development on the topic of anointing (In Cant. 2.1-34). The following homily (In Cant. 3-19) again and again returns to the twin themes of the salvation of the gentile church and the conversion of the Jews as Const. ap. prescribes. The final homily reiterates the theme of salvation that has come through the Jews by means of the incarnation of the Word and the resurrection (In Cant. 20.1-27.10). Particularly noteworthy is that the commentary, rather than feature baptism See, however, Bradshaw, et al., Apostolic Tradition, 96-8, who is skeptical that a set three-year period of catechumenate can be established for the third century. 84 Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 214. Such practices could account for the focus on Old Testament Scriptures in Hippolytus the exegete’s commentaries that emerged in strength in the aftermath of the struggle against Marcion in the midsecond century.! 85 TA may be illustrative of the rites of some churches in Rome during the third century AD. 83 299 prominently, instead features the anointing of myron (In Cant. 2.9-2.34; 19:3). A brief reference to baptism does appear, in conjunction with the anointing, “ See the aroma of anointing oil poured out; it was taken into the womb and created a new[ly] begotten human [The Spirit] was sent down over the waters and it purified the waters. It was poured out to the Gentiles, and it congregated the Gentiles. It was poured out over Israel, nevertheless those who were disobedient did not accept the aroma. Now the mystery has been poured among Israel and the Gentiles came together who believed it. (In Cant. 2.8) The Holy Spirit that descended on the water at the baptism of Jesus is more prominent than the allusion to baptism, because the anointing of water is seen as purifying. This likely means that Hippolytus thought of baptism itself as purifying in preparation for receiving the Christic anointing. In liturgical time, the reference to baptism has already taken place. For this reason, the anointing referred to in In Cant. 2.9-34 must be a post-baptismal chrismation, a sealing with the Spirit, (according to TA, with the oil of thanksgiving) and not an exorcistic anointing.86 Post-baptismal anointing was a feature of western, not eastern Christian initiatory practice. Given the limitations of the evidence the aim is not to deal with precise ritual details and liturgical formulae but to draw attention to connections that provide some constants in late antique descriptions of central rituals. At the same time, writers both earlier and later than Hippolytus accessed the Song of Songs to describe Christian initiation. Ambrose, in the fourth century, made extensive use of Hippolytus the exegete’s commentary, so a trajectory of interpretation may be charted that allows for additional insight for the history of interpretation and reception of Hippolytus the exegete’s interpretations. Cf. Serra, “Syrian Prebaptismal Anointing and Western Postbaptismal Chrismation,” 328. 86 300 Material from late antique initiation into mystery cults and initiation practices in philosophical schools are quite illuminating. “Gnostic” Christian baptismal rituals also help shed light on Hippolytan Christian baptismal practice. Certain Christian and Jewish paschal practices also provide context for an understanding of On the Song of Songs. During the first four centuries of the Christian movement there developed a remarkably structured set of instructions and rituals that richly added to Christian initiation rites that were regularly practiced. This tradition gave rise to baptismal catechisms to which the Song of Songs is closely related.87 For example, Cyril of Jerusalem,quoting Song of Songs in Catecheses 14.10, says: “‘The winter is past . . .’, it is already spring. And this is the season, the first month with the Hebrews, in which occurs the festival of the Passover. . .” The roots of this tradition likely lie in the common past with Judaism, and point, perhaps, to a traditional reading of Song of Songs during the Passover festival among Jews.88 The GPhil §7 and §109, is a gnostic Christian liturgy of baptism for Valentinians, that characterize mainstream Christians as the “Hebrews.” It associates the baptism ritual of initiation with the transition from winter to summer, the crucifixion, the cross, and the (passover) lamb. Such metaphors are as van Os says, “remarkable for a Gnostic Christian writing,”89 because of their ties to the “apostolic” church. The use of symbols from the Song of Songs during Passover for the instruction of catechumens is attested in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and in the 87 88 Daniélou, Bible and the Liturgy, 192. Ibid. 89 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 129. 301 Valentinian GPhil90 and, as some have ventured to guess, may depend upon earlier Jewish traditions of reading the Megillah of the Song during the Passover festival.91 The figure of Solomon was an appropriate bridge for conversation between both Jews and Romans in the second and third centuries.92 For example, the third-century Rabbi Levi synchronized the date of the founding of Rome with the date when King Solomon married the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh Neco.93 This kind of comparison shows how Jews were eager to enhance their image with Romans by affirming their similarities and the world-wide scope of their cultural visions.94 Both Ambrose of Milan and Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century, attest to the widespread use of the Song for orienting new converts toward Passover baptism.95 The Procatechesis of Cyril opens with unmistakable references to the Song: Already there is a fragrance of blessedness upon you. O you who are soon to be enlightened: already you are gathering the spiritual flowers, to weave heavenly crowns: already the fragrance of the Holy Spirit has breathed upon you: already you have gathered round the vestibule of the King’s palace; may you be led in Daniélou, Bible and the Liturgy, 191-2; van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 126, 127, 129, 157; Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 152-160. 91 For the suggestion of Jewish origin of the Passover-Song of Songs connection, see Daniélou, Bible and the Liturgy, 191-2. 92 Viz., a Greek and a Scythian compare the relative value of friendship and use the figure of the king as a typical exemplum, Toxaris, LCL trans. 63-67. 93 Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 103. 94 One might compare Solomon marrying daughter of Egyptian Pharaoh Neco with Alexander the Great marrying Roxane (327 BC), visually represented in the triclinium (20) of the Casa del Bracciale d’oro in Pompeii. See Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches 207. 95 Procatechesis 13.25-27; 14.5-7 appear to depend upon In Cant. 24-25. 90 302 also by the King! For blossoms now have appeared upon the trees; now may the fruit ripen! (Procat. 1.1)96 Cyril has left a condensed report of his baptismal instructions given annually at Easter. The pilgrim’s diary of Egeria (Itin. Eger. 29-38) which began with Lazarus Sunday and concluded with the Easter vigil shows that such instructions in the fourth century Jerusalem church could take several hours. The liturgy allowed sufficient time for prayer, exorcism, anointing, singing, reading of Scripture, instruction or homily and discussion and meals at home. In the East, Cyril was a purveyor of western initiation practices,97 which he blended with eastern practice. He structured the twenty-one-day period of instruction carefully.98 After an introductory Procatechesis were another seventeen Catechetical Lectures, roughly following the order of the traditional Jerusalem credo. Five Mystagogical Instructions were delivered in the days following baptism. Only the initiated could attend. Although no text is extant, in 351 AD a final exhortation was foreseen, as is announced in the last Catechesis program summary: “. . . and at the end of all, how for the time to come you must behave yourselves worthily of this grace both in words and deeds, that you may all be enabled to enjoy the life everlasting.” Jewish holidays, particularly Passover, were attractive to some non-Jews.99 A Talmudic passage mentions discussions between Hillel and Shammai on admission of 96 97 Procatechesis, NPNF, Ser. II, vol. 7, with modifications (=PG 33.333A). Daniélou, Bible and the Liturgy, 192. 98 See van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 29. 99 Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World Attitudes, 356, 376. See also the body of evidence gathered by Stein, “The Influence of Symposia Literature on the Literary Form of the Pesah Haggadah,” 13-44. 303 proselytes before Passover for the Passover meal (Pesahim 87A; 92B). If early evidence pointed to a use of Song of Songs during the Passover, then it would seem a natural development in Christianity that the newly baptized should be instructed in their new faith using elements of the Song of Songs. Any direct connection awaits furher research. That Martha and Mary, likely understood as the sisters of Bethany, appear in On the Song of Songs as witnesses of the resurrection seems to have a connection to traditional liturgical practice in Jerusalem.100 A fraction of a Hippolytan sermon on the raising of Lazarus is extant, and the Martha and Mary pair appear elsewhere in the Hippolytan corpus as resurrection witnesses. About one hundred fifty years after Hippolytus, the diary of Egeria shows that Christians in Jerusalem begin Holy Week celebrations with Lazarus Sunday, a visit to a stational church commemorating Lazarus’ tomb. Apparently an association (a liturgical one?) of the raising of Lazarus with the resurrection of Christ was already part of the Johannine Gospel tradition and the presence of the sisters from Bethany at the empty tomb of Jesus would have been a natural development of oral tradition. Ernst discusses the early and geographically Ep. ap. 9; Itin. Eger. 29. The western Ambrosian Missal (earliest mss are from the 10th or 11th centuries, ) contains a transitory in the Mass of the Friday of the week after Easter that has “Mary and Martha” visiting the tomb. A possible explanation of this material is that Ambrose used On the Song of Songs for some of his liturgical material as evidenced in De Isaac et Anima and the Exposition of Psalm 118 (119). A tradition derived from Hippolytus’ works known in Milan would have received powerful reinforcement from pigrims visiting Jerusalem. Anton Baumstark, “Hippolytos und die außerkanonische Evangelienquelle des äthiopischen Galiläa-Testaments,” ZNW 15 (1914): 332-35, disputes this connection and instead argues that the tradition comes from the lost Gospel of the Egytians. Baumstark’s suggestion seems unnecessarily complicated. For a fuller discussion, see Ernst, “Martha From the Margins,” 175-8. 100 304 wide-spread traditions linking Mary and Martha to the story of the empty tomb of Jesus and argues they are oral traditions within the Johannine community that are as ancient as the written traditions inscribed in the Gospel. She suggests that Martha was an early figure of apostolic authority in the Johannine community.101 The appearance of Mary and Martha were an early commonplace of Easter celebration. As witnesses of the resurrection, they suggest an Easter-Passover context for On the Song of Songs. Along with the Easter imagery (see In Cant. 25-27), the assumption that the commentary was intended for use as sermonic material in a paschal context is supported by the Jerusalem manuscript of the commentary that bears the title “Sermon of the blessed Father Hippolytus on the Song of Songs.”102 Homiletic features abound in the direct address to the listeners.103 Furthermore, the entire commentary concludes with a short, liturgical doxology “glorifying God to whom is glory and power for ever and ever” (27.12).104 Pelletier contrasts the more oral, homiletic nature of the commentary with the more literary Comm. Dan. by Hippolytus.105 Nevertheless, she suggests that In Cant. is still a reworking of previous homiletic material into the written form of a commentary, preserving the sermonic elements captured by a tachygraphist.106 The connection felt by Chappuzeau with baptismal instruction, still, has not received the attention it deserves. Such a liturgical, Ernst, “Martha from the Margins,” 409. 102 The Tbilisi manuscript bears the title, “Interpretation of the Song of Songs spoken by the blessed Hippolytus,” Garitte, CSCO 266: 22. 103 Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 46, notes the abundant use of second person direct address as well as other features. 104 McConvery, “Hippolytus’ Commentary,” 214. 105 Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 216. 106 Ibid., 222. 101 305 paschal, and baptismal (or rather, mystagogical) context for the commentary connects it with the use of the Song of Songs in other ancient baptismal instruction for catechumens and the recently baptized. For a time during the fourth century an effort appears to have been made to standardize paschal baptism along with the prominent use of the Song of Songs. Such a movement is confirmed by Cyril of Jerusalem, who was a purveyor of western traditions. This move was not universal, but depends upon late second and early thirdcentury baptismal practice, as Hippolytus and Tertullian confirm, at least for North Africa and Rome. The celebration of baptism as nuptials appears to have been a development of that cannot be trace to either eastern or western Christianity. While Tertullian writes that “Passover affords a more than usually solemn day for baptism” (Bapt. 19)—Passover is, in fact, the best day for baptism, with Pentecost in second place107—he also writes of baptism as the nuptials of the believer. He says, “When the soul comes to the faith, it is received by the Holy Spirit. The flesh accompanies the soul in this wedding with the Spirit. O blessed marriage, if it allows no adultery” (An. 41.4; cf. Res. 63). Origen in the East has a similar idea as well, “Christ is called the bridegroom of the soul, whom the soul espouses when she comes to the faith” (Hom. Gen. 10.4).108 Though the theme of baptism as nuptials derives from biblical 107 Cheslyn Jones et al., ed., The Study of Liturgy (rev. ed. London: SPCK, 1978), 121. Daniélou, Bible and the Liturgy, 192, notes that in Tertullian the spouse is the Holy Spirit, while in Origen he is Christ. Hippolytus the exegete, however, appears to use both notions at the same time: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, because your breasts are much better than wine, and as an aroma of myron your name has been spread abroad . . . this is a symbol of the people that entreat the Word from heaven to kiss them, because [the people] wish to join [with him] mouth to mouth. For [the people] greatly desire to join with the Spirit himself” (In Cant. 2.1). 108 306 precedents,109 the exquisite development of the theme as a metaphor for initiation has antecedents in the Valentinian interpretations of baptism as early as the mid-second century.110 Groups such as the Valentinians and Marcionites do not seem to have deviated greatly with respect to the actual rites associated with baptism in the second century.111 For example, when GPhil speaks of baptism, it does not seem to have in mind any novel ritual, but, so far as one may tell, the kind of rite generally referred to in sources as diverse as the Didache, Justin’s Apology 1, and TA The sparse and varied evidence available clearly does not support a uniform baptismal practice among second and third-century Christians. The practice of baptism reflected in GPhil very similar to that described in Tertullian and Hippolyuts. The GPhil mentions removal of clothing (75.20-26), descent into water (64.24; 72.30-73.1; 77.10-15), and It may point to a previous use of the Song in connection with initiation, Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 152; however, many other precedents exist. See Robert M. Grant, “The Mystery of Marriage in the Gospel of Philip,” VC 15 (1961): 129-37. It seems that Valentinus greatly extended the use of nuptial imagery for initiation. 110 See Robert M. Grant, “Mystery of Marriage,” VC: 138; van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 91, see especially 93-6. Note, however, that Tertullian did not criticize Valentinians for innovating rituals when he ridiculed the Valentinian teaching of the brotherly nuptials of the σύζυγοι in the πλήρωµα (Tertullian, Contra Valentinos, 7.32). Marcion set up his own “church” in the mid-second century to purge it of Jewish elements. Valentinus attempted to remain within the mainstream church, maintaining both Scriptures and rituals, with different interpretations. For both, the ritual starting point were practices current in the Roman Church or conscious adaptations, op. cit., 127. 111 Elaine Pagels, “Ritual in the Gospel of Philip,” in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (ed. John D. Turner, Anne McGuire; NHMS 44; Leiden: 1997), 281. See also eadem, “The ‘Mystery of Marriage’ in the Gospel of Philip,” in The Allure of Gnosticism: The Gnostic Experience in Jungian Psychology and Contemporary Culture (ed. Robert A. Segal et al.; Chicago: Open Court, 1995). 109 307 immersion with the threefold name (“Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”) pronounced over the person to be baptized (67.20-22). Apparently baptism was also followed by anointing with oil (69.5-14; 67.4-9) and the kiss of peace (59.1-6) and was concluded by participation in the Eucharist. There also appears to have been a preference for celebrating these rites in the context of Passover (§7 and §109).112 In accordance with the Valentinian of rites beyond baptism, GPhil places baptism in a hierarchy of rituals, favoring anointing and the bridal chamber as more important than the traditional practices connected with baptism. Thus the valuation of the anointing in On the Song of Songs by Hippolytus parallels the emphasis in GPhil. The chrism is superior to baptism, for it is from the word “Chrism” that we have been called “Christians,” certainly not because of the word “baptism.” And it is because of the chrism that “the Christ” has his name. For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed possesses everything. He possesses the resurrection, the light, the cross, the Holy Spirit. The Father gave him this in the bridal chamber; he merely accepted (the gift). The Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father. This is the Kingdom of Heaven. ... “The Holy of the Holies” is the bridal chamber. Baptism includes the resurrection and the redemption; the redemption (takes place) in the bridal chamber. But the bridal chamber is in that which is superior to [...] you will not find [...] are those who pray [...] Jerusalem who [...] Jerusalem, [...] those called the “Holy of the Holies” [...] the veil was rent, [...] bridal chamber except the image [...] above. Because of this, its veil was rent from top to bottom. For it was fitting for some from below to go upward. In support of Chappuzeau’s suggestion that On the Song of Songs fits the context of Christian initiatory rites around the Passover celebration, and presupposes 112 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 105. . 308 rituals similar to those in Tertullian and the GPhil. On the Song of Songs makes uses of themes connected to the Christian celebration of Passover in both the East and the West, namely: the initiation of the newly baptized, a call for the repentance of Israel (see both GPhil and Melito’s On Pascha), the death and resurrection of Christ, boldness in witness in the face of persecution, and allegiance to Christ as king. 6.5.2 On the Song of Songs as Mystagogy The commentary is a mystagogical instruction with a focus on the western practice of Passover baptismal practices including post-baptismal anointing.113 Mystagogy is instruction that takes place immediately after baptism. It concerns the rites of Christian initiation and the deeper meaning of these rites. This is certainly a major thrust in On the Song of Songs, which may be fruitfully compared with later mystagogical instruction especially that of Ambrose of Milan whose De Mysteriis may depend, in part, on Hippolytus’ use of the Song. It is well-known that Ambrose made use of On the Song of Songs in his other works.114 Thus, Hippolytus pre-dates by over 150 years the rise of mystagogy at the end of the fourth century in the homilies of Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. See Enrico Mazza, Mystagogy: A Theology of Liturgy in the Patristic Age (Pueblo Pub Co, 1989), x. For comparative description of rites, see Hugh M. Riley, Christian Initiation; a Comparative Study of the Interpretation of the Baptismal Liturgy in the Mystagogical writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ambrose of Milan (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1974). 114 See the abundant footnotes with quotations of Ambrose in Chapter Three. Another fruitful set of comparisons may be made with the Catechetical Lectures and Mystagogical Instruction by Cyril of Jerusalem. By the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis and mystagogy became considerably more developed than during Hippolytus’ time. The creed then formed the basic text of the cycle of instruction, Jan W. Drijvers, 113 309 Extensive teaching surrounding baptism in Christianity probably depends upon Jewish models of proselyte instruction. Proselytes were given teaching in the commandments and the meaning of conversion before receiving proselyte baptism (b. Yebam. 47a-b). The teaching of the two ways in the Didache 1-7 and the Epistle of Barnabas 18-20 appear to be dependent upon Jewish models of basic teaching like the Rule of the Community from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Justin Martyr attests to the use of pre-baptismal instruction and reception of the newly baptized for prayer in Rome as early as the second century: “As many as are persuaded and believe that the things taught and said by us are true and promise to be able to live accordingly” are led to the water (Apology 1.61). Recently Van Os has argued convincingly that the secondcentury GPhil is a Valentinian instruction manual comprising both catechesis and, in part, mystagogy.115 Irenaeus’ Proof of the Apostolic Teaching116 or his source may have been a manual for catechetical instruction.117 Clement of Alexandria wrote The Paedagogue as an instruction manual for the newly baptized The Apostolic Tradition 16-20, often attributed to Hippolytus, suggests that catechetical instruction included teaching on Scripture, doctrine, and morals.118 The emphasis in On the Song of Songs on mysteries may be taken as the early evidence of the beginning of a movement Cyril Of Jerusalem: Bishop And City (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae; Brill Academic Publishers, 2004), 53-63. However, it is likely that older catechetical and mystagogical practices, influenced Cyril. This is an area for further research. 115 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 31-40. 116 See Everett Ferguson, “Irenaeus’ Proof of the Apostolic Preaching and Early Christian Catechesis,” SP 18.3 (1989): 119-140. 117 Joseph P. Smith, St. Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (ACW 16; Paulist Press, 1978), 14-18. 118 See Everett Ferguson, “Catechesis, Catechumenate,” EEC, 223-26. 310 toward a disciplina arcani, or secret teachings and experiences for for the newly baptized. Origen, a younger contemporary of Hippolytus was employed as an instructor of catechesis by the Bishop of Alexandria (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.3). In Origen’s own commentary On the Song of Songs he suggests that the study of the Song should be reserved for the spiritually mature,119 and not for recent converts. This suggests that perhaps others such as Hippolytus used the Song as a starting point for the instruction for new converts. Origen himself noted that the topic of the Song is reminiscent of the kind of topic frequently discussed at banquets. Among the Greeks, indeed, many of the sages desiring to pursue the search for truth in regard to the nature of love, produced a great variety of writings in dialogue form, the object of which was to show that the power of love is none other than that which leads the soul from earth to lofty heights of heaven, and the highest beatitude can only be attained under the stimulus of love’s desire. Moreover, the disputations on this subject are represented as taking place at meals, between persons whose banquet consists of words and not of meats. And others also have left us written accounts of certain arts, by which this love might be generated and augmented in the soul. But carnal men have perverted these arts to foster vicious longings and the secrets of sinful love. (Origen, On the Song, praef. (Lawson, ACW 26:23-24). Apparently there was sufficient demand, however, for sermonic treatments on the Song so that Origen himself could not keep from sermonizing on the Song for an audience of “babes and sucklings in every day speech.”120 Origen’s spiritual, allegorical interpretation traces in the Song the love of God in the individual soul. By For the contrast between Origen and Hippolytus on this point, see above page 75. Origen, Homilies on the Song, praef. translated by Jerome (Lawson, ACW 26:265). In the homilies, however, he offers not “meat” but only a “taste” of the interpretation of the Song, Lawson, ACW 26:18. 120 119 311 contrast, Hippolytus the exegete interprets the Song as a treatment Christ and the Christian community. The church is personified as the church of the Gentiles and the church of the Circumcision, celebrating baptism, anointing, and the Eucharistic banquet. For Hippolytus the Song exhorts the Jewish synagogue to repentance, and warns faithful Christians against heretics. In contrast to Origen, Hippolytus seems to have urged new Christians to immerse themselves in the imagery and interpretation of the Song as soon as they emerged from the baptismal font. From indications in On the Song of Songs itself, it appears that the context Hippolytus the exegete imagined for that discussion was the Christian banquet. Both Ambrose’s De Mysteriis and Cyril’s Mystagogical Instructions (385 AD)121 appear to be speaker’s notes to aid other priests in the instruction of new converts.122 On the Song of Songs is a similar style as speaker’s notes, comparable also to the Gospel of Philip.123 However, it is important at this stage to understand the commentary as a part of a larger whole of catechesis and mystagogy. Hippolytus uses the diverse symbols of the Song to explain the meaning of the rites of initiation124 and to glorify the unity of the church with Christ, the unity of the church in bringing Jew and Gentile together, and the unity of the church against heretics. Perhaps the central theme is the “unity of the Holy Spirit” (In Cant. 1.4) as symbolized by the rite of anointing with the fragrant anointing oil known as myron (2.3-35).125 For Cyril’s authorship of the Mystagogical Lectures, see Alexis James Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue : the Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses (PMS 17; Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 2001). 122 Van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 33-35. 123 Ibid., 80-1. 124 See below 274-284. 125 The Georgian term საცხებელი, sacxebeli, “anointing oil,” is matched in the Greek 121 312 6.5.3 Mystagogy and the Praise of Emperors Hippolytus expressly characterizes the Song commentary as “praise” inspired by the Holy Spirit, and his commentary itself conforms to this imagined genre of “praise.”126 Christian preaching very often centered upon the praise of God and Jesus Christ. What were the social functions of such praise? Praising a god in a gathering such as a church-school or association brought honor to the object of the praise and to the one delivering the praise (see, for example IG III2 1368.111-117, especially ὁ ἱερεὺς δὲ ἐπιτελείτω, θεολογίαν, ἐκ φιλοτειµίας). Praising the god strengthed adhesion to group values by giving honor to the group.127 Hippolytus, in like manner, honors Jesus Christ in On the Song of Songs as King, Logos, Wisdom, the Helios-like driver of the chariot with four horses, crucified by Rome, resurrected in defiance of Rome and taken up into glory. Such praise has important implications for political paraphrase by µῦρον (In Cant 2.1; Greek CantPar 2.1 et passim) and the Latin unguentum in Ambrose’s quotations of On the Song of Songs (see In Cant. 13.2, n. 2). Hippolytus invites his audience to receive anointing after the only reference in the commentary to the waters of baptism (In Cant. 2.7, 9), suggesting that the anointing concerned is post-baptismal. Hippolytus says the Spirit descended over the waters to purify them (2.8)! in such a way that leaves no place for pre-baptismal anointing to receive the Holy Spirit, as was the early practice in the East. See Bradshaw, “‘Diem Baptismo Sollemniorem,’” in Eulogêma, 41-51; Gabrielle Winkler, “Original Meaning of the Prebaptismal Anointing and Its Implications,” Worship 52.1 (1978): 24-45; Serra, “Syrian Prebaptismal Anointing and Western Postbaptismal Chrismation,” 328-341; idem, “The Baptistery At Dura-Europos,” 67-78. 126 According to the evidence in Jerome, Vir. ill. 61, this type of rhetorical form was apparently exploited by Hippolytus the exegete in similar contexts. 127 Text excerpt: ὁ ἱερεὺς δὲ ἐπιτελείτω τὰς ἐθίµους λιτουργίας στιβάδος καὶ ἀµφιετηρίδος εὐπρεπῶς καὶ τιθέτω τὴν τῶν καταγωγίων σπονδὴν στιβάδι µίαν καὶ θεολογίαν, ἣν ἤρξατο ἐκ φιλοτειµίας ποιεῖν ὁ ἱερασάµενος Νεικόµαχος. 313 theology.128 The type of encomium of Jesus Christ that Hippolytus develops in the Song of Songs bears similarities with the λόγος βασιλικός. The λόγος βασιλικός was one of the more common epideictic topics of symposia. The “imperial/kingly praise” was a special kind of genus laudativum, or ἐγκώµιον.129 As Menander Rhetor describes this type of speech, it focuses on the good qualities of the king or emperor and amplifies them. The speaker of this kind of encomium must affect personal inadequacy for the task of lauding the emperor (cf. In Cant. 2.2, “may I be worthy!”). Since this rhetorical task was quite common, to describe it, Menander gathered features from such speeches dating from the fourth century BC. Patterns of this type were modified and copied at least until the fifth century AD.130 The genre of praise was already a common symposium topic. Singing a hymn to divinity (Bacchus or Zeus) was the typical way to open and close a philosophical symposium (Plato, Symp.176a; Plut, Quest. conv. 615b; [Plut.] Mus. 1c).131 Menander, in his influential description of an encomium on behalf of the emperor, recommends a long, full-blown panegyric complete with closing prayer. This form seems also to have been adopted by Jews observing the Passover as well. See Warren Carter, John and Empire, 19-49. It should be noted that Song of Songs is described In Cant. by Hippolytus the exegete as composed “in communion with the Holy Spirit, a work in which the Holy Spirit instructed many people for praise” (In Cant. 1.4), and “praise to give [forth] the joy of the Holy Spirit and to give the delight of consolation, and [thereby] the knowledge of God is made manifest to many” (1.5). 130 Stein, “The Influence of Symposia Literature on the Literary Form of the Pesah Haggadah,” 13-44. 131 See also Plut, Sept. sap. conv. 146d, describing a dinner in honor of the Goddess Aphrodite. The meal both began and ended with repeated words of praise to the goddess (150d and 164d). 129 128 314 In such contexts, the blending of the discussion and use of Jewish and Christian texts, also a feature of Jewish meal-time discussions, easily became texts for the praise of God or Jesus as king in the banquet context. Christian initiation during Passover time and as preparation toward full participation in the Eucharist may be seen as protracted preparation designed to orient the new convert to the praise of a spiritual emperor. Participation in a meal conducted by the religious-philosophical school advocating this conversion would have been a natural ocurrrence. Philosophical schools, associations, synagogues, and churches were groups in which meals, liturgy, and speeches or the discussion of literature define the group’s identity. Particularly in philosophical schools, canonical lists and the succession of approved teachers and authors (διαδοχή) could be rehearsed, read, and their works discussed in commentary style. A similar discussion format in less formal settings is in evidence as well, e.g., Attic Nights (2.22.1; 2.27; 3.19)132 as well as in Suetonius, Terrence.133 The discussion of literature, albeit pictured as long quotations from memory from “walking libraries” in a “λογοδεῖπνον” is integral to the presentation of the banquet in Athanaeus’ Deipnosophists.134 Philo’s On the Contemplative Life 132 Aulus Gellius, The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (LCL, 195 200 212 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960),182-83. This reference in Klinghardt, Mahlfeiern, 61, was kindly called to my attention by Dr. David Balch. 133 Keith Bradley, “The Roman Family at Dinner,” in Meals in a Social Context, 39, citing Suetonius, Terrence 2 (LCL, Rolfe; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), 454-7. 134 See various articles in David Braund and John Wilkins, eds. Athenaeus And His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire (CSAH; University of Exeter Press, 2000). Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 201, refers to Lucian, Symp. 17, where a disorderly banquet has one man making a speech while another reads from a book out loud and everyone is drunk. The meal would not have to be disorderly for someone to read from a book and comment upon it. 315 provides a prime example of meal-time biblical interpretation.135 Thus commentaries fit the context of an Christian meal context in the same way audio visual presentations or before and after dinner speeches fit the banquet context today. It should be remembered that Christian instruction took place mostly in homes, and that, furthermore, homes were often the context in which “schools” were held. Besides the performance and status enhancement of the speaker, the principal function of the praising and blaming associated with epideictic rhetoric was the affirmation of community values. Encomia achieved this aim through its principal devices of comment, amplification through allegorization, and exhortation, as well as praising expressions of values considered good by the group and blaming examples and values the group was encouraged to reject. On the Song of Songs shares numerous features with the type of speech given in praise of the emperor; however, it is not a praise of the Roman Emperor and Solomon is only superficially the object of the praise. Rather, Christ the king (In Cant. 3.1) is the true object of praise throughout the commentary. From the beginning, Hippolytus clarifies that Solomon was visited by Wisdom and enabled to speak marvelous mysteries concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for the edification of the church-school. Yet, Solomon is in no way divine, and Hippolytus uses amplification in the proem to give Solomon a good measure of praise as a sort of prophetic king (In Cant. 1.1-15). Wisdom, the Logos, brought forth before the world was created and incarnated in Christ, is the king praised in the work. When Hippolytus begins to speak of this mystery he affects inadequacy, as the third-century Menander Rhetor stipulates (In Cant. 2.2). Quintilian also says of this type of praise, 135 See above 225. 316 “In praising the gods our first step will be to express our veneration of the majesty in general terms, next we shall proceed to praise the special power of the individual god and the discoveries whereby he has benefited the human race” (Inst. or. 3.7.6). 6.6 Conclusion On the Song of Songs was originally a mystagogical homily for Paschal baptisms. The extent and structure of the commentary suggests that it was likely intended to be more that one homily. In effect, it would have provided a kind of educational entertainment for the festive occasion. Hippolytus intended the reading of the homilies to create an emotionally powerful, shared memory of the Jesus’ final Passover as a mythopoetic entry point for new Christians to be received into the community of the Church. Gathering insights from the previous chapter, one can say that author addresses the need to affirm the values and limits of the Christian community in relation to the praise of central figure of the Christian tradition: Jesus Christ. Hippolytus directs great attention to an encomium of the benefits acruing to the community from Jesus and his anoiting. At the same time he draws attention to the dangers of drifting away from adherence to the values of the community through worldliness or by falling prey to the guile of heretics. Chapter 7 The Commentary in its Celebratory Context For neither is a mere place able to be a called the Church, nor a house which is built with stone and clay, nor a man himself able to call himself the Church. For a house is destroyed and a man dies. And so, what is the Church? The community of saints participating in truth. ~Hippolytus Comm. Dan. 1.18.5-6 In the previous chapters it has been argued that Hippolytus intended On the Song of Songs as a set of homilies to be pronounced around the event of community dining. From the themes of the commentary it is possible to inquire about the sort of meal the author might have had in mind. This chapter raises the issue of the community meal and its relation to the incorporation of the newly baptized as this process is imagined in the commentary. The church began in private homes and eventually these were remodeled for exclusive church use as the domus ecclesiae in Dura-Europos. However, the possession of a large domus ecclesiae would not itself have precluded other housechurch meetings taking place in patrons’ homes. Neither would a domus ecclesiae like the one in Dura-Europos necessarily preclude the celebration of large feasts of seated or reclining participants at meals.1 In addition to church activities in homes, Christians continued traditional cult activities at the graves of family members and 1 Against White, “Regulating Fellowship,” Meals in a Social Context, 193. 317 318 martyrs.2 Cult activities in such places as catacombs became a source of religious innovation on a popular level where non-official leadership might emerge among Christians.3 At issue for the third century was the ritual and structural boundary that defines a church from a non-church ritual event. The definition of what did and did not constitute officially recognized church ritual and who could and could not conduct rituals was at the heart of the struggle over church leadership and control. To the extent that such matters resisted definition, “church” and “Christianity” remained a more or less loosely defined expression of popular Greco-Roman religion with contested centers and boundaries. Though one presbyter-bishop might gain a greater following and control over church polity and ritual for a time, in Rome none was entirely successful in establishing authority over the others until the deaths of Hippolytus and Pontianus (235 AD) as recorded in the Codex-Chronography of 354. At the same time, the churches in Rome had a significant history of cooperation, banding together to send financial aid to churches outside of Rome and maintaining written correspondence with these groups. Even in the case of a church that used a domus ecclesiae like that of DuraEuropos, the church could still have been composed of various households that in some cases continued to function as quasi-churches. Churches were then networks of households including patrons, clients, and brokers.4 For various reasons, women often Osiek, “Roman and Christian Burial Practices and the Patronage of Women,” 243-70; Tulloch, “Women Leaders in Family Funerary Banquets,” in A Women’s Place, 164-93; Denzey, The Bone Gatherers, 18, 36-7, 142. 3 Tolluch, “Women Leaders,” in A Woman’s Place, 170. 4 For this terminology and the system of status it implies, see Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (3rd ed.; Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 96-100; Stephen Joubert, “One Form of Social Exchange Or 2 319 became the patrons of their household networks.5 On the Song of Songs appears to exhibit a tension between speaker and audience that fits such a reconstruction. Hippolytus the exegete insists that the Song of Songs contains profound counsels or mysteries6 that require the benefit of expert interpretation to facilitate the joining of initiates to the group of Christians. The kiss is a means of sharing in the power of the Spirit, shared in the presence of the leader who represents Christ to them: What is the will of the Spirit, for what [is its] force, or what might be the interpretation (lit. indication, sign) of this mystery? We must proclaim to those who will hear, for it is the representation (lit. type) of the people that entreats the heavenly Word to kiss them, because [the people] wish to join [together] mouth to mouth. For [the people] wishes to join the power of the Spirit to itself.” (In Cant. 2.4) At the same time, Hippolytus the exegete gives particular emphasis to several Two? ‘Euergetism,’ Patronage, and Testament Studies - Roman and Greek Ideas of Patronage,” BTB 30.1 (2001): 17-25. Cited 03-29. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_m0LAL/is_1_31/ai_94331628 5 For a discussion of the role of women within the house churches of early Christianity, see Carolyn Osiek et al., A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006). The nature of household space as woman’s space provided a context in which, in some cases, women functioned in the roles usually thought to have been occupied by men. See Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, Ordained Women in the Early Church: a Documentary History (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005). 6 It has long been recognized that Georgian In Cant. is a translation from and Armenian Vorlage. Many places cannot be understood apart from this assumption. The Georgian word ზრახვაჲ or “counsel,” for example, is used in many cases in the commentary where the meaning requires “mystery, ” where in the original the Greek word µυστήριον appears, as can be deduced from a comparison between CantPar 1.9 and In Cant. 1.9. However, the Georgian term has to do exlusively with deliberative processes. The most likely reason the Georgian translator chose this term is that he misunderstood the Armenian word in his Vorlage. 320 female biblical characters and holds them up for special praise. Indeed, he is prepared to rewrite scriptural traditions for this purpose. For example, Martha becomes the woman who anoints the Christ: O new mystery and those truly just to whom it was revealed! With desire Martha carried this anointing oil, which she sprinkled on Christ with all intercession and giving of consolation. (In Cant. 2.29) This trend of rewriting the Gospel narratives culminates in chapters 24-25, where two matronal figures, Martha and Mary, are described as “apostles to the apostles,” bearing the news of the resurrection of Christ to the original disciples. By their action they represent the reversal of the curse unleashed by Eve because of her disobedience to God and her dishonorable deception of Adam. It will be important to ask whether Hippolytus the exegete’s simultaneous focus on the figures of Martha and Mary and insistence upon his own (or his deputies’) role as interpreter(s) of biblical mysteries and initiatory rites is an expression of tensions felt between official leaders and the matrons-patrons of the church community in which Hippolytus the exegete operated as a leader. Particular attention must be paid to the rhetoric of the praise of women in On the Song of Songs. What it offers with one hand may be easily withdrawn by the other. Perhaps the key questions are, does Hippolytus honor the figures of women as a way of honoring patronesses of the community in hopes of continued patronage? Or, as others have suggested, is Hippolytus’ language a reminiscence of females in authorative roles in the tradition of the community? Or, is Hippolytus’ language a theology for female ordination to ministry in the community? 321 7.1 The Greco-Roman Banquet Tradition The commentary also participates in thematic aspects that accord with the broader, typical practice of the Greco-Roman festive meal. The rituals marked in the commentary (baptism, anointing, and finally reclining at “couch” in In Cant. 2.27) follow the basic outline of preparations for a meal.7 Indeed, baptism and the anointing with myrrh or fragrant oils is brought into the orbit of the meal and therefore redefined as preparations for the festival (or “mystery” 2.2, 23; 24.4; 25.10 [Arm, ]; 26.3). On the Song of Songs also directly addresses the topic of drinking to excess in a way that would be appropriate to a festive meal imagined as the context of the reading of the commentary. “I have loved your breasts more than wine.” Not however [referring to] that wine which is mixed by Christ, but to the wine which in the past made Noah slow-witted by intoxication, and which deceived Lot, “we love your sources of milk more than this wine,” for the breasts through Christ were the two commandments. It makes one joyful, but does not wish to make one slow witted. For this very reason also the apostle says, “Do not be drinking too much wine to During the second century in the East, anointing representing the Spirit was followed by baptism. In Cant. follows a “western” order of baptism and post-baptism anointing representing the Holy Spirit. 7 322 the point of intoxication.”83.4 Now for this reason, beloved, it says, “I have loved your breasts more than wine.” (In Cant. 3.3-4) Wine diluted with water was the normal table beverage in the ancient world.9 Justin also refers to the practice of drinking “water and mixture” (ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράµατος, Apol. 1.65.3; οἶνος καὶ ὕδωρ Apol. 1.67.4). The reference in In Cant. 2.3 casts Christ as the symposiarch,10 who is in charge of determining the proper ratio of water to wine for the purposes of the symposium (see Plato, Symp. 176E, 177D, 213E; Plutarch, Quaes. conv. 620A).11 In addition, Hippolytus also recommends the commandments12 of the law as “eternal nourishment,” (In Cant. 2.3) as in Philo (Vit. cont. 75), other Jewish sources,13 and Tertullian (Apol. 1.39) The spiritual The reading of Eph 5:18 in the Georgian NT textual tradition closely follows the Greek, καὶ µὴ µεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ. But, In Cant. resembles more closely Clement of Alexandria, Paed., 2.2.28 Μὴ πίνετε οἶνον ἐπὶ µέθῃ; Const. ap. 8:44, Μὴ πίνειν οἰνον είς µέθην and Tobit 4:15, οἶνον εἰς µέθην µὴ πίῃς, than Eph 5:18 in either Gk, or Georgian text traditions. Ambrose, depending upon In Cant., has a similar text at Exp. Ps. 118.2.7: diligamus ubera tua super uinum, sic tamen bibens, ut non absorberetur uino, sed gratia eius laetituam cordis hauiret, non corporis ebrietate titubaret. “‘We love your breasts better than wine,’ nevertheless it means drinking in such a way as not to guzzle wine, but that by his grace one might imbibe joy of heart, and not drink to drunkenness of the body.” Text in Ambrose, Expositio psalmi CXVIII: Pars V (VÖAW), 23.14-17. 9 See Everett Ferguson, “Justin Martyr and the Liturgy,” ResQ 36 (1994): 274; idem, “Wine as a Table-Drink in the Ancient World,” ResQ 13.3 (1970): 141-53. 10 Conversely, the symposiarch of the Christian feast would naturally be thought of as fulfilling a role representing Christ. 11 References in Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 33-4. 12 The twin breasts of Christ are the commandments of the new and old law that nourish the faithful. 13 Ben Sira (39:8; 9:15-16) also suggests that, among the activities of greatest importance that take place at the meal of scholars is the discussion about the law. See Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 139. The covenanters at Qumran also studied the law 8 323 nourishment of those who discuss topics of the divine Scriptures is their after-dinner conversation at a feast. Picture 7: Christians gather for a Christian banquet (an Agape?). Fresco from the Catacomb of St. Callistos, Rome, third century. Photo in the public domain. Origen mentions in the introduction to his commentary on the Song that its topic of carnal love was a topos of sympotic literature, “the disputations on this subject are represented as taking place at meals, between persons whose banquet consists of words and not of meats.”14 His statement that “many of the sages desiring to pursue the search for truth in regard to the nature of love, produced a great variety of writings in dialogue form, the object of which was to show that the power of love is none other than that which leads the soul from earth to lofty heights of heaven” recalls Plato’s Symposium. It also warrants the argument that Hippolytus In Cant. itself fits the context of the banquet.15 On the Song of Songs also shows numerous together during the evening meal (1QS 6:6-8). Second and third-century Mishnaic references to rabbinic meals also feature discussion of the law as part of the regular “table talk” (t. Ber.4.8.98; cf. the descriptions of the Passover meal, m. Pesach 10.1-9). 14 Origen, In Cant. praef. See earlier in this Chapter, 310. 15 One may speculate that Origen’s In Cant. was written as a response to the practice 324 points of contact with sympotic literature. In the course of Hippolytus the exegete’s comments on the Song, he draws in numerous figures from both the Old and the New Testaments. As seen above (page 230), many of these characters were chosen in order to present examples with which the audience can identify. Also, characterization of these figures is their connection to themes of symposium literature. The characterization of incidental and central figures of On the Song of Songs that Hippolytus selects for comment fits the sympotic context and shapes his “ancient spiritual narrative” (In Cant. 1.16) in terms of the symposium. The genre of symposium literature provides a rich range of stock characters pertinent both to the characters found On the Song of Songs16 as well as the ethos constructed for both speaker and audience in the speech: the host, the whiner, the uninvited guest, the physician, the late-arriving guest, the insulted guest, the heavy drinker, and the pair of lovers, the prostitute, the seducer. All either make make cameo appearances or are referenced in one way or another in the commentary. Heretics play the role of seducer (another sympotic stock character) who, as the uninvited guest, must be threatened (20.2) and defended against (27.12). Noah represents the heavy drinker (2.3), who is held up for momentary scorn, and Hippolytus encourages the audience to practice moderation, though not abstinence, for this would upset the value of joyousness in the Greco-Roman (and Hippolytan) ideal (cp. In Cant. 2.6, 7; 3.2): “the wine that is mixed by Christ makes one joyful, but does not wish to make one slow witted” (In Cant. 2.5). In the commentary Jesus exemplified by Hippolytus’ In Cant. of using the Song as a text for the initiation of new converts. 16 Josef Martin, Symposion, die Geschichte einer literarischen Form (Paderborn, D.R.: F. Schöningh, 1931), from the reference in Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 49. 325 also plays the role of physician (another stock figure in the banquet literary tradition), bringing rest and healing to the banquet participants. Of the typical stock characters, only the jester, and the late-arriving guest make no appearance, though, as will be seen in the next Chapter, the apostles in the resurrection scene may perhaps be understood as the late-arriving guests (after Martha and Mary) to the miracle of Easter (In Cant. 25-26). A triad of characters plays a central role in shaping the development of On the Song of Songs’s narrative. The speaker-interpreter plays the role of host, but also casts Christ in the role of host, as the one who mixes the wine for the feast (In Cant. 2.3).17 The church of the Gentiles and the Lord are the pair of lovers. The synagogue plays the part of an insulted guest and whiner, though through repentance she may become one with the church as the church from the Circumcision. As Smith remarks concerning the array of motifs in Greco-Roman Symposium literature, “among the stock motifs was the use of the quarrel or contest as a topos on which to build [the] narrative [about the symposium].”18 The lover’s quarrel among Christ, the synagogue, and the host is a recurrent theme in the commentary. Though Martin’s presentation largely concerns the narrative format of the symposium literature, these motifs occur outside the genre, as may be seen in the way Hippolytus develops certain characters in accordance with symposium topoi, “That is to say, the symposium narrative became embedded in the culture and profoundly influenced meal practices as well as Therefore, he introduces the speech (chapt. 1), defines the dual law of Moses and Christ as spiritual nourishment, and offers an appropriate comment on limiting the drinking of wine (2.3) that is mixed by Christ. 18 Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 49. 17 326 literary descriptions through the [Greco-Roman] period.”19 Analysis of these themes could be extended. Hippolytus makes significant use of symposium themes and images in On the Song of Songs and the sympotic themes shape the ethos, the narrative, and the themes of the commentary raising the sympotic references to the level of a central motif. Do these themes and symbols amount to evidence that On the Song of Songs was intended to be read or performed at a banquet or whether themes and images of the symposium find their way into the commentary written to be read at any time? It will be argued below that the sympotic motif also deeply shapes Hippolytus the exegete’s characterization of his audience. If this assertion is true, then the likelihood is that Hippolytus indeed wrote the commentary in part at least for banquet performance. Its first peroration ended with a rousing rehearsal of biblical characters who desired the anointing, followed by the invitation to receive the anointing (2:1-35). Thus In Cant. 1-2 is appropriate for a post-baptism homily.20 If one imagines a response from the audience, it becomes necessary to imagine the commentary is composed of more than one homily to be delivered at different points during the Passover celebration which culminated in a feast. This is important for three reasons. First, provides an immediate payoff for the understanding and enjoyment of the commentary. Second, if On the Song of Songs Ibid. One may ask why would they need to be exhorted in this way? Surely anointing just follows on automatically from baptism. It could be that Hippolytus exhorts not a real audience but a fictive one, a common enough practice in Christian and other rhetoric (Melito On the Pascha 103. for example, invites the nations to come to baptism, as does ps-Hippolytus Theophania 8). However, if Hippolytus’ purpose is to glorify the mystery of the anointing against a Valentinian parallel emphasis on anointing, the exhortation forms part of the glorification of the rite. In GPhil that the chrism is exalted above the water, and the bridechamber above both. 20 19 327 can be shown to have been written for use both in the celebration of baptism and a Christian banquet, its potential as a source for the social history of church and liturgy at the beginning of the third century is enhanced. Some scholars have argued, either on the basis of archaeological evidence or the reading of texts, that the practice of full scale eucharistic banquets was in the process of disappearing by the third century, and that indications suggest that by the beginning of the second century the use of the full-scale banquet (whether for the Eucharist or the “Agape feast”) were quickly being abandoned.21 While the practice of banqueting together may have been on the wane, it may be expected that the practice died a slow death, particularly in connection with certain holidays like Passover. Moreover, the fact that the commentary appears to unify the baptismal celebration and, presumably, the celebration of the Eucharist and the Agape feast that follows, one may see in the very writing of the commentary the impulse to bring all these events under the control of one leader. This same tendency has been noted for the TA22 The third reason that a connection between On the Song of Songs and a full-scale celebratory meal may be important is that On the Song of Songs may then show how the ideology of the banquet gives birth to theology.23 Without a doubt, meals were a hub of the house-church life during the first two centuries (see, for example, 1 Cor 11: 17 34; cf. Pliny Ep. 10.97.7, Ignatius Smyrn. 8.1-2 Jude 12, Justin, Apol. 1:65-67; Clement of Alexandria Paed, ii.1; Minucius Felix, Octavius, XXXI, Tertullian, Apol. 1.99. The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas, 5). Osiek and Balch trace at least three types of important meals during 21 22 White, “Regulating Fellowship,” Meals in a Social Context, 181. Ibid. 23 See Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 279-87; Klinghardt, Mahlfeiern, 493-518. 328 this period, the Eucharist, the refrigerium, and the Agape feast.24 The relationships between these meals are difficult to establish. Nevertheless, all these meals share a typology; they represent variations on the Greco-Roman banquet and they share in the practice, ethos, and ideals that Mediterranean peoples characteristically express through common banquet practices. Thus, even though one may agree with Chappuzeau and Cerrato that On the Song of Songs is part of an Easter celebration, yet much can be learned by setting it in the context of the Greco-Roman banquet. Easter celebrations, in the West and in Asia Minor, at least, were an epicenter of great religious and theological controversy, and the Easter celebration was a high holy day, central to the celebratory calendar of religious feasts.25 In Rome as well as in North Africa, baptisms on Easter, incorporated a baptismal fast and vigil culminating in a feast. A connection between a biblical commentary and a drinking party may not be immediately obvious. Flexibility within the institution of the Greco-Roman festive meal allowed for variation in the adaptation of the meal and symposium by groups of friends, philosophical schools, associations of various sorts, as well as cultic groups. Joyous celebration (εὐφροσύνη) was serious business in the ancient world, the chief element of the ethos of the banquet and, as Dennis Smith has shown, filled with serious, religious implications. Contributing to the sense of pleasure and joyousness at meal were various forms of ritual entertainment that could including songs, speeches, the discussion of texts, songs, prayers and dialogues on a variety of philosophical subjects. Plutarch observed that: 24 Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 210-14. 25 Cantalamessa et al., eds., Easter in the Early Church, 1-23. 329 the most truly godlike seasoning at the dining table is the presence of a friend, an intimate and well-known companion—not merely because he feasts and drinks with us, but because he participates in the give and take of conversation, at least if there is something profitable and reasonable in what is said. Wherefore it is right that discourse, no less than friends, should be welcomed to the dinner only of proven quality. (Quaest. conv. 697C-E) Along with traditions and rituals generally practiced by celebrants at a festive dinner, a rich literary tradition developed describing festive occasions on the basis of idealized practice either through representations of best practices at banquets or by means of social critique and comic satire of banquets that, for one reason or another, often did not conform to the ideal. Philsophical texts such as the two homonymous works called Symposium by Plato and Xenophon, Plutarch’s Table-Talk, and the Dinner of the Seven Wise Men give evidence of the idealized picture entertained by students of philosophical schools. Lucian lampoons banqueting practices current in his day in his Symposium (also called The Carousal, or the Lapiths), and his Saturnalia work because the idealized vision of the banquet still exerted influence, though actual practice fell woefully short of the ideal. Petronius’s Satyricon pokes fun at the pretentiousness of the banquets offered by the wealthy non-elite and their clients, but lurking behind his satire are the real banquets of the elite. Philo’s On the Contemplative Life builds an idealized version of the banqueting practices of a group of Egyptian Jewish monks and nuns, the Therapeutae, who resemble the Essenes. The entire treatise is a critique of Greco-Roman banqueting practice (especially 40-63).26 Thus the literary banquet tradition was both derived from practice and influenced practice. The influence of banquet literature included discussion of the nature of the Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 194. The structure and ideas of this paragraph are taken from Osiek and Balch. 26 330 banquet, appropriate discussion topics, and proper table manners that continually make the past present by perpetuating rituals handed down from previous generations. Festive meals had discernible contours that expressed the social relationships of the participants. Diners generally reclined at meals, though some sources also describe people seated at table. Reclining was a sign of elite status often emulated by others of lower status. In preparations for a meal, guests would visit a local bath since they anticipated participating in a meal in which personal space could be quite close.27 Christian baptism before taking the Eucharist, fits this general cultural patern, but transforms it. Guests who walked along dirty streets to the dinner would at the very least require that the guest recline with washed feet.28 Slaves usually performed such tasks (Plato, Symp. 175A; Petronius, Satyr. 31; Lk 7:44; Jn 13:1-11), and at some point either before or during the meal, fragrant oil (sometimes mixed with myrrh, Dio Or. 62.6.4) might be distributed to allow the guests to freshen up. Christian postbaptismal anointing conforms to this general pattern and transforms it into part of the initiation rites for entry into the community. Guests would be shown by servants to their respective places at table, and generally assigned by status.29 Jews, Greeks, and Romans all had earlier traditions of sitting for meals on stools or chairs. They all, Jérôme Carcopino et al. Daily Life in Ancient Rome: the People and the City at the Height of the Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 245-55; W. A Becker and Karl Friedrich Hermann, Charikles, Bilder altgriechischer Sitte, zur genaueren Kenntniss der griechischen Privatlebens (Leipzig: F. Fleischer, 1854), 318-20. 28 This is particularly noted in sources for Greek banquets, viz., the refrain in Plato, Symposium 175A “So the attendant washed him and made him ready for reclining.” 29 J. H. D’Arms, “Slaves At Roman Convivia,” in Dining in a Classical Context (ed. William J. Slater Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 171-83; Leyerle, “Meal Customs in the Greco-Roman World,” 40. 27 331 however, adopted the posture of reclining for meals, which meant that those who reclined needed slaves to serve food and wine.30 Baptism, post-baptismal anointing, and reclining at a celebratory meal all form a part of the common cultural pattern of elite convivial practice. One may speculate that such initiatory practices represented a democratization of elite practice. As Wallace-Hadrill has argued with regard to domestic engineering and decoration would also be true in regard to domestic ritual. Baptism, anointing and reclining at an initiation celebration in a Eucharistic convivium would have been a democratization of a general elite practice. Christian initiation would have made a way for slaves, freedmen, and others to affirm and legitimate social standing by drawing upon the cultural language of the dominant class.31 Scholars have often believed that the earliest traditions concerning women and children indicate that they would only attend banquets held among family members,32 and that women would normally be seated, exhibiting the way meals display the hierarchical order of the dominance of the paterfamilias. This picture is derived from funerary decorations that depict women seated in the company of dining men, and literary references such as Valerius Maximus (early first century AD), who remarks that the traditional Roman way of dining is for women to be seated next to their husbands’ couches. He suggests disdainfully that the newer custom is for women to recline with their husbands at banquet (2.1.2).33 The second-century AD Lucian Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 194. 31 See Wallace-Hadrill, Houses and Society, 14. 32 See the treatment in Osiek et al., A Woman’s Place, 160-3. 33 Feminae cum uiris cubantibus sedentes cenitabant. quae consuetudo ex hominum conuictu ad diuina penetrauit: nam Iouis epulo ipse in lectulum, Iuno et Minerua in 30 332 tells of Alcidamus, the Cynic, who arrived too late for a couch and preferred to mill about the room or recline on the floor rather than sit at a stool, since “it is womanish and weak to sit on a chair or on a stool” (Lucian, Symp. 13-14). Dining customs varied in the East and West. Many years earlier than Valerius Maximus, Cornelius Nepos34 gave as a reason for Roman supremacy over the Greeks the fact that Roman women felt no shame about appearing in public and dined at banquets with their husbands (Vir. illus. praef. 6-7). For example, Livia shows that women could have it either way: she dined with her husband, Augustus, in public but also celebrated banquets separately (Dio Cassius, Roman History 48.44.3; 55.2.4; 57.12.5). This evidence is taken to mean that married women were dining with men in public banquets, either seated or reclining. Customs in the East, however, were still generally more strict, with a tendency for women to dine separately. Yet, side by side dining rooms in some house floor plans in Pompeii might indicate sexually separate dining practices even in Italy.35 Thus, the traditional understanding of the evidence is sellas ad cenam inuitabantur. quod genus seueritatis aetas nostra diligentius in Capitolio quam in suis domibus conseruat, uidelicet quia magis ad rem pertinet dearum quam mulierum disciplinam contineri. Women used to sit with their husbands when they dined. This human banqueting custom affected even the divine sphere: for instance when Jove himself reclined on his couch, Juno and Minerva were invited to sit in chairs at the meal. In our age this strict custom our age is rather more carefully observed in religious gatherings that in private dwellings, clearly because keeping such discipline pertains more to goddesses than to women. (trans. YWS). Text from: Valerius Maximus. Facta et Dicta Memorabilia ( ed. C. Kempf; Valerii Maximi Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium Libri Novem cum Iulii Paridis et Ianuarii Nepotiani Epitomis, 1888), PHI CD-ROM. Version 5.3, 1991. 34 100-24 BC, see Cornelius Nepos, Cornelii Nepotis Vitae: the Lives of Cornelius Nepos (LCL; trans. by John C. Rolfe, 3d ed; Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1894). 35 See Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 16, 228 n. 29, who 333 that the custom of women dining, and especially reclining with their husbands was a Roman innovation from the West, arising in imperial times. Matthew Roller has recently36 questioned this traditional understanding of the evidence. He argues that actual practice did not conform to the conservative picture in either the literature or the art of the period. Rather, women actually did dine and recline with their husbands in public from an early period and this practice exhibited their licit sexual connection.37 Thus, symbolic representations, literary or artistic, say more about social ideals than actual practice. In the case of On the Song of Songs, the depiction of the heroes of the faith as reclining on couches has both men and women reclining, presumably, together (In Cant. 27). With the celebration of Passover, one should imagine high festive occasion with both men and women present. It is important to note, however, that simply because some Christians may have reclined for the Passover celebration (as did the Jews), does not mean that in all Eucharistic meals such was still the practice. Often, as tools of the master of the house, slaves would observe and reinforce the status distinctions of the guests not only in the order of reclining arrangements, but also in the size and quality of portions of food and drink. Those most favored by the host would be given more and higher-quality portions, while those least favored would be given less and poorer quality rations (Pliny, N. H. 14.14.91; Pliny Ep. 2.6.2-5; Martial Epig. 9.2; Juvenal Sat. 5.125-7; Lucian Merc. cond. 14.26.27).38 The include the prime example of the famous House of the Vettii. 36 Matthew Roller, “Horizontal Women: Posture and Sex in the Roman Convivium,” AJP 124.3 (2003): 377-422. 37 Roller, “Horizontal Women,” 399. 38 Leyerle, “Meal Customs in the Greco-Roman World,” 40. 334 meal itself (δεῖπνον, cena) might consist of several courses accompanied by wine mixed with water including appetizers, and a main course accompanied with bread. At some point during the meal, a transition took place. The tables were cleared and the table set or an entirely new a new table or brought in for dessert and the main drinking party (συµπόσιον, convivium). Anyone might be chosen as the designated mixer of wine for the after dinner table-talk time for which entertainment was provided either by the guests themselves or by the host. A bit of wine was poured out as an offering to the host god. The symposium was then underway. Though the drinking party was often only attended by men (or by women who were sexually available). Christians developed a banqueting tradition in which both men and women participated, which, if Roller is correct, was not out of the ordinary, especially in the West. Tertullian speaks of an ideal marriage as one in which husband and wife are friends who “are equally together in the church of God; equally they are at the banquet (convivium) of God” (Ad. ux. 2.8). If the “church” and the “convivium Dei” are thought of as separate occasions, as is possible,39 one of the ways Christians maintained and regulated the party was to require the host to secure the blessing of an officially recognized leader of the church.40 It is likely that both eucharistic and non- See White, “Regulating Fellowship,” Meals in a Social Context, 180. The “church” would be the larger community gathered for the Eucharist. The convivium Dei would perhaps be the Agape or private banquet held celebrated at home with the blessing of the bishop-presbyter. 40 Lampe, “Das Korinthische Herrenmahl im Schnittpunkt Hellenistisch-Roemischer Mahlpraxis und Paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1 Kor 11, 17-34),” ZNW 82 (1991): 184, n. 4. In English, idem, “The Corinthian Eucharistic Dinner Party: Exegesis of a Cultural Context (I Cor, 12:17-34),” Affirmation 4 (1991): 1-16, especially 1-6. Lampe builds upon and corrects his source: Dennis E. Smith, “Social Obligation in the Context of the Communal Meals: A Study of the Christian Meal in 1 Corin- 39 335 eucharistic meals were part of the tradition of the church that grew together from an original local diversity of practices. As Klinghardt has argued, there is no need to assume a linear development of the distinct meal practices for which evidence is available in the early documents. The various meals-types functioned to build community solidarity, differentiate Christian identity from out-groups, and provide a means of expressing patron-client relationships within the community. It is also likely that the feasts practiced by Christians produced a significant attraction for outsiders who might see in the solidarity of the community a place to belong and flourish. Other groups such as Epicureans, also practiced regular banquet times for the purpose of building group cohesion and exemplifying the virtues of the group in such a way that included women.41 7.2 The Roman Context The size and diversity of the city of Rome was a major factor contributing to the deep diversity of the Christian movement. Sub-cultural enclaves were transplanted from all parts of the Roman Empire while still representing, perpetuating, and adapting in varying degrees the interests of their regional and ethnic constituencies. The sheer size of the population and its diversity encouraged the formation of a fragmented mosaic of churches more or less loosely related to one another with no strong central authority.42 While many eastern Christian communities thians in Comparison with Graeco-Roman Communal Meals,” unpublished Th.D. diss., Harvard University, 1980. 41 Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 58-62. 42 From the social theoretical perspective of Stark, Cities of God, 91, “in the absence 336 had such an authority in their bishops, Rome came late to this arrangement.43 Rather, it appears that only by the late second or early third century did Rome develop a true mono-episcopacy. A similar type of organization seems to have been the case in the Jewish community in Rome. As Harry Leon argued, “no good evidence exists for a body exercising supervision over Roman Jewry as a whole or for an officer holding authority over the religious activities of the group.”44 Rather, each congregation had its archisynagogus who had control over the religious activities of the group, and he had the help of at least one assistant. Other affairs of the congregation appear to have been under the supervision of a group of elders, a gerusia under the leadership of a gerusiarch. The Roman synagogues also developed other honorary offices for both men and women. As a comparison of synagogue architecture and church architecture in DuraEuropos indicates, Christian architectural development lagged behind Synagogal of an external standard, [subgroups set off by social cleavages of greater or lesser depth] would lead to the multiplication of different religious explanations.” 43 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, describes in detail the history of the effects of social cleavage in the networks of the “fractionalized” church of Rome, following the research of La Piana, “The Roman Church At the End of the Second Century,” HTR 18:201-77; Brent, “St. Hippolytus,” 207-31, provides a useful correction of these previous views, arguing that consolidation of the mono-episcopate did not occur in Rome until the first half of the third century. Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 398-457, pushes the full adoption of the mono-episcopate a generation later than either La Piana or Lampe. His principal reason is that the Codex Chronography of 354 does not establish true regnal dates for bishops until the time of Pontianus (d. 235). 44 Harry J. Leon, with an introduction by Carolyn Osiek, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 194. 337 architecture, but represented some similar trends.45 churches developed from house hold groups and their growth depended upon face-to-face social networks that interacted in homes. It is logical to assume that, even when Christians converted homes for exclusive religious activities, that the Christian use of non-converted homes continued to be an important space for the interaction of Christian and non Christian social networks and that a tension between these centers (official and unofficial) was an ongoing problem for leaders who wished to consolidate control of religious and social functions. At an early stage in Rome, as in other cities, the Christian movement developed multiple house-churches that were more or less related; however, the social cleavage between subgroups represented citizens of Rome, Italians, and groups from every corner of the Roman Empire. Groups naturally divided culturally, linguistically, and economically which encouraged a multiplicity of household centers to remain rather independent from one another. At the same time, parallel development of increasing immigrant acculturation in Rome led to the consolidation of networks of house churches through patron-client loyalty. The household of the presbyter-bishop included the networks of house churches led by presbyters supported by the households of deacons, teachers, exorcists, and assorted functionaries and non-titled persons. Patron-client relations commonly defined the status of the various households and exhibited the practices of reciprocity expressed in part through banquets and feasts.46 In such conditions the line between private meal and church- Michael, “Regulating Fellowship in the Communal Meal,” Meals in a Social Context, 177-205. 46 Bobertz, “The Role of Patron in the Cena Dominica of Hippolytus,” 170-84. 45 338 school banquet was blurry, leading to potential conflict. Such a living community practiced devotion to Jesus Christ in religious activities centered in households and especially in fellowship around food and table in the dining room.47 As Christian groups spread across the port cities of the Mediterranean and beyond, their groups grew both in numbers and complexity, and the center of gravity for religious activities shifted from home and dining room to houses remodeled in such a way as to accommodate larger numbers of participants (domus ecclesiae). Various types of meals that expressed traditional relationships of reciprocity and patronage persisted in the context of individual homes, but the power to regulate the community shifted to those designated as deacons, presbyters, and especially the bishop. Nevertheless, older patterns persisted in new forms. 7.3 The Refrigerium Meal At the burial of an individual Roman, the mourners celebrated a refrigerium. Typically, friends of the family of the deceased would visit the bereaved for the sake of consolation and bring food, or would send a food offering along with a letter of condolence.48 Care of one’s ancestors was an important family and moral duty (pietas). Though the care of one’s ancestors was usually a private duty, so friends See Andrew Brian McGowan, “Food, Ritual, and Power,” in Late Ancient Christianity (A People’s History of Christianity ed. Virginia Burrus; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005); Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 193-214. 48 Chapa, Letters of Condolence, passim. Several of the letters of condolence mention the food-gift. Though this practice is attested in Egypt, it was likely practiced in Rome as well. 47 339 could be expected to help.49 For example, the theme of the papyri letters of condolence is, “Bear this bravely!” Thus the refrigerium provided an occasion for solidarity, consolation and reciprocal expressions of friendship. Private funerary societies or collegia existed and, with the help of a wealthy patron, assisted members of the collegium with the expenses connected with the funerary banquets (refrigerium) held at the site of the tomb for family members and close friends.50 Christian refrigeria were practiced as occasions of joy. And the note of cynicism and bitterness prevalent in many polytheistic funerary inscriptions was absent.51 As was typical in Roman culture at the anniversary of the death of a family member, meals were also celebrated. By the third century, the church-school, functioning as a fictive extended family, celebrated in the same way the anniversary of the death of martyrs and other important members of the church-school. The Easter celebrations enshrined the anniversary of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The refrigerium, as practiced by Christians, was concerned not only with the celebration of the memory of the deceased, but especially with the hope of the resurrection. In this sense they participated in the ethos of celebrations of Easter. Perhaps for this reason On the Song of Songs is described by the author as being a “consolation of the Holy Spirit” (In Cant. 1.5) and consolation appears to have been an important theme of celebrations of Easter (Const. ap. 5.19.3; Itin. Eger. 77). The death of popular public figures was an exception to the rule. An important new analysis and synthesis of Christian funerary practices in the Roman context is by Janet H. Tulloch, “Women Leaders in Family Funerary Banquets,” in Women Leaders in Family Funerary Banquets (eds. Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Macdonald; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006), 164-93. See also Nicola Denzey, The Bone Gatherers. 51 Jeff Childers, “Funerary Practices,” EEC 443-44. 50 49 340 On the Song of Songs has an important connection to the refrigerium tradition that suggests that popular, Christian funerary practice had an effect upon the eucharistic celebration of Easter. Scholars have often debated the significance of early Christian funerary art that depicts women lifting a cup.52 Especially important are the paintings in the catacomb known as SS. Marcelino e Pietro. The frescoes depict eight banquet scenes with painted inscriptions from the late third- or early-fouth-century for the burial chambers of wealthy Roman Christians.53 Janet Tolluch discusses the importance of these frescoes, implements of celebrations such as tables, plates, cups, amphorae and bowls, as well as the symbolism of the use of wine in the celebration of the dead as an act that affirms and strengthens the deceased family member’s new status as a divine being.54 Christians were instructed that wine was appropriately consumed in celebrations of the dead, “otherwise it would be reproach of what God made for cheerfulness.” Christians, however, were not to drink to excess, since that lead to “sorrow,” “unease,” and “babbling” (Const. ap. 8.44).55 The private, family nature of rites for the dead did not require the presence of a priest. According to Tolluch, “Since there were no institutionalized rites for death that would require the presence of a priest, the path was clear for women to act as leaders in funerary ceremonies and the commemoration rites after burial.”56 Tolluch’s analysis includes a selection of banquets scenes whose gestures and inscriptions suggest the representation of women offering words of benediction over 52 53 Tolluch, “Family Funerary Banquets,” 165, 166. Ibid., 164. 54 Ibid., 172. 55 The language of this passages is also used in On the Song of Songs 3.3. 56 Tolluch, “Family Funerary Banquets,” 172. 341 the meal and toasts over the wine. On that basis, she is able to reconstruct a toast dialogue between the guest and the host in the case two of the paintings. Guest 1: Misce nobis (Mix wine for us . . .) Host 1 Agape (Love and Affection!) Guest 2: [P]org[e] c[a]lda (Offer warm water . . .) Host 2: Irene (Peace!) Guest 1: [Po]orge calda Host 1: Agape Guest 2: Misce Host 2 Irene (Offer warm water . . .) (Love and affection!) (Mix [wine] . . .) (Peace!) On the Song of Songs 25 has a similar dialogical scene in between the resurrected Christ and the two myrrhophores who desire to be taken up to heaven rather than be left to their fate on the earth. The passage does not replicate a dialogue, but seems to be based upon some such dialogue as reconstructed by Tolluch: O blessed woman, who did not wish to be separated from Christ. 25.4 For this reason she says: “When I withdrew a little ... I found him, the one whom my soul loves” (Song 3:4) Receive, O my heart! Mix it with the Spirit, strengthen it, perfect it, so that it also may be able to join with the heavenly body. Mix this my body with [the] heavenly body. Drink it as wine, taken it, make it go up to heaven then a newly mixed cup, that [the woman] may follow the one she desires and not go astray, no longer with a bruised heel nor having touched the tree of knowledge (Cf. Gen 3:15). But from now on [she is] victor over the tree through death. 25.5 Receive Eve, that no longer gives birth with sighs, for pain has been driven out, as well as sighing and distress (Is 35:10). From now on receive Eve who now walks in proper order,57 receive her and know this offering which has been provided to the Father. Make a new offering, no longer is she naked, no longer clothed with the fig leaf. No, but clothed through the Holy Spirit, she has put on a beautiful garment, of which there is no corruption. ... 57 See note on the English translation in Chapter Three ad. loc. 342 25.8 From now on she will no longer either crave or proffer to men food that corrupts; she has received incorruptibility; from now on she is in unity and [is] a helper, for Adam leads Eve. O good helper, with the gospel offering (or sacrificing) [it] to her husband! This is why the women evangelized the Disciples. ... 25.10 Now, beloved, it is clear from these things that he pacifies (or brings peace) the Synagogue and the church is glorified. This text perhaps indicates a certain tension between the speaker in On the Song of Songs and practices prevalent in his audience. Hippolytus the exegete here reads back and forth between the Song and the gospel accounts of Matthew, Luke, and John. The scene at the tomb allows a reading of the gospel scene in terms of the funerary practices from his own time. Also intruding on the scene is an episode of the redemption of Adam and Eve accompanied by Martha and Mary. The snake and the tree of deception of Gen 3 also appears in Hippolytus’ interpretation. How does this cast of characters make there appearance in the interpretation of the Song? The source in not just theological imagination, for third-century art represents the scene of Heracles plucking an apple, club in hand from a tree entwined with a serpent and with three Hesperides nymphs in the background.58 Furthermore, if the episode of Martha and Mary is a re-interpretation of the myth of Hesperides and Heracles as was popular in paintings and mosaics, hovering in the background of this passage is the archetype of divine marriage of Christ and the church.59 The comparison between the dialogue See above, page 198 for references. On the image of divine marriage, see Osiek, “The Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33: A Problematic Wedding,” in M. Nissinen and R. Uro Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (Winona Lake, WI, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 371-392. 59 58 343 reconstructed by Tolluch, the resulting image of female leadership in funerary rites and texts like that of Hippolytus deserve more research. 7.4 The Agape Meal Another type of meal practiced by Christians was the “love feast” or Agape. The Agape seems to have been a banquet designed by the “haves” of the churchschool to meet the needs of the “have nots.” It appears to be a demonstration of the pietas or (cf. Jas 1:27 θρησκεία) or familial solidarity. Entry into the Agape seems to tended to be fairly open, since Jude 12 seeks to regulate the boundary of who can be present at the Agape and who cannot (if Jude is indeed speaking of what is later called the Agape meal). Perhaps the counter-cultural meal described by Jesus in Luke 14:12-14 is the inspiration of and represents the early ideal of the Agape. As such it was a exhortation to make concrete the stipulations of Isaiah 58 in order to secure the blessings of heaven (or the resurrection). The poor and disabled are to be regarded as family members. Luke describes a similar type of table fellowship in Acts 2:42-47; 20:7-12 as “breaking the bread.” Though some scholars argue that the Eucharist and the Agape were originally the same meal, these were clearly distinguished in some parts of the church-school (Asia Minor and Antioch) by the early second century.60 For example, Ignatius of Antioch strongly recommends that the churches of Asia Minor bring the practices of baptism, the Eucharist, and “doing agape” under the authority of the bishop.61 60 Osiek and Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 212. 61 Thomas Finn, “Agape (Love Feast),” EEC, 24-25. 344 The Agape meal described by Tertullian is almost certainly not a eucharistic meal. Yet about the modest supper-room of the Christians alone a great ado is made. Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it ἀγάπη, i.e., affection. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment, but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations. As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is drunk as befits the chaste. They say it is enough, as those who remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After we wash our hands and lights are brought in, each one is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing—a proof of the measure of our drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is closed. We go from it, not like troops of mischief-doers, nor bands of vagabonds, nor to break out into licentious acts, but to have as much care of our modesty and chastity as if we had been at a school of virtue rather than a banquet. (Apol. 1.39) The Agape is described in language typical of the Greco-Roman Symposium, though it is critical of banqueting abuses. It describes first the meal, then the drinking and entertainment (or conversation). After the meal comes washing of the hands (since the absence of forks made the hand the typical eating instrument). Then lights are brought in and Scriptures are used in performed along with songs and prayer. Tertullian connects these Christian activities with those of philosophical schools and underscores the educative aspect of dining in the ancient world by remarking that the results in modesty and chastity are the same as if the participants “had been in a school of virtue.” Several aspects of On the Song of Songs recall the description of the Agape, including its educative character and concern to inculcate “modesty and 345 chastity,” its celebrative focus, and its concern for the poor. The practice of celebrating separate Agape and eucharistic feasts is quite different from the practice established by Paul, who depends on the mutual solidarity expressed in the meal itself for exemplifying and sustaining the virtues in the churches he established. Not only was dining together a way of portraying higher and lower status differential, dining was also a way of strengthening group identity and solidarity by declaring who was in and who was out. The issue in Gal 2:11-14 was not simply circumcision, but how Jews and Gentiles were to have any sort of meaningful fellowship as Christ-followers. Some, if not most, of the Jews viewed eating with non-Jews in the context of a meal with Jewish religious significance as a threat to their own sacred identity.62 Paul viewed the boundary between Jesus followers and non-Jesus followers as far more important than the boundary between Jews and nonJews. Eating together was an important mechanism for defining identity. For this reason Paul criticized Jesus followers in Corinth who continued to associate with a man involved in immoral practices. He tells them “not even to eat with such a person” (1 Cor 5:11).63 Paul implies that those who support the behavior of the wayward believer in this way pollute the fellowship of believers. On the other hand, when Paul confronts the issue of whether Jesus’ followers should respond to dinner invitations from their unbelieving friends (1 Cor 8-10), he ultimately allows those who see no harm in it to continue to do so. The assumption here is that the influence of the believer whose consciousness (συνείδησις) of God is strong and who participates in the reciprocity of exchanges of dinner invitations has the potential of raising the 62 White, “Regulating Fellowship,” Meals in a Social Context, 179. 63 Ibid. 346 unbeliever’s consciousness (συνείδησις) of the God of Jesus’ followers. Finally, the passage in 1 Cor 11:23-35 shows that the meetings of Christ-followers in Paul’s circle of influence were organized around a communal meal meeting in the dining room of the host’s home. The celebration of Eucharist was part of the festive dinner. The social abuses against which Paul inveighs threatened not only the character of the meal as the “Lord’s” δεῖπνον (1 Cor 11:20), they also spoiled the lofty (GrecoRoman) ideals of equality, friendship, and joyousness that should be thought to prevail on such an occasion. Paul’s rhetoric makes it clear that the participants also referred to their meal together as “the Lord’s meal.” However, the abuses which they allowed, according to Paul, were putting the individuals responsible in the place of the Lord, turning it into a “private” or “individual meal” (ἴδιον δεῖπνον). The meaning of this phrase is debated, but it seems likely that the point Paul makes is that the meal was no longer enhancing community solidarity. That is, the dinner guests were indulging in unequal sharing of portions in the meal, according to their status. The ἰδιον δεῖπνον is the one in which “equality”—as the Lord Jesus Christ wishes it—is not practiced in terms of portions served and other activities.64 As Plutarch observed, “where each guest has his own private portion, companionship perishes” (Plutarch, Quest. conv. 643F-644A). How do the developing practices of Eucharist and community meal of solidarity (Agape) in the early church relate to the celebration of a meal that I presume is indicated as forming the background of Hippolytus’ commentary? In the earliest Christians households the eucharist took place as part of a meal.65 64 Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 191-193.. 65 So Didache 9-10, Paul to the Corinthians and possibly P, one of the sources of TA. 347 Early on the meal shifts from the Saturday evening (after Sabbath, so Paul at Troas) to Sunday morning. As a result its character changes as it is no longer a symposium, but a breakfast. As a result portions are smaller and the meal is a lot more ritualized, and focussed on the bread and wine elements. One of the reasons for the shift may have been the abuses identified by Paul. It is also possible that the Eucharistic gathering that was also a distribution of community goods fell victim, or was perceived as being vulnerable, to laws regulating collegia. What became, however, of the important social and charitable aspects of the Eucharist? If, as it appears in the sources, the Eucharist was originally where the church not only remembered the Lord but also expressed solidarity with the poor, how could it continue to express such solidarity? Two distinct developments move historically from this shift. In Africa, Smyrna, and Rome the evidence suggests there are Agape meals distinct from the Eucharist. In the Syrian Didascalia, however, the church leaders distribute goods outside a meal context. It is also possible that in some communities hosts distributed goods as sportulae within the eucharist (as in the Apostolic Church Order).The Agape, however, is only one kind of Christian meal; we know there were others such as the Regrigerium, and the terms Eucharist and Agape should ideally be used principally as generic terms, the one intended to reinforce bonds with the divine, the other bonds of fellowship with fellow believers. 7.5 Summary The previous three chapters have approached On the Song of Songs inductively for evidence of the social context and rhetorical situation of the commentary. Rather than experiencing the commentary as readers in isolation, its 348 audience would have “heard” the commentary in a particular oral and liturgical context, the celebration of Passover/Easter and the initiation of new converts to Christianity. This chapter suggests that, for this early commentary, its oral use in a liturgical setting is crucial for understanding its genre and rhetorical purpose. The evidence of the TA was discussed, but bracketed. It should not be ignored, even though some of its elements may not reflect Roman practice or may be later developments beyond the early third century. In structure, the commentary consists of several sections that form part of a Passover celebration in which mystagogical intstruction interprets the rites following baptism in preparation for or during a paschal feast. The Eucharist was likely celebrated early in the morning as a liturgical breakfast. But the people still had to eat and the celebration of a larger meal later on would be a high occasion for receiving new converts, as in Const. ap. 5. A comparison of similar literature like the GPhil as well as the instructions for Passover celebration in Const. ap. 5 provide contextual information that may, applied with sensitivity, explain the manner in which certain topics in all three documents. The contextualization of the commentary as part of a meal-time celebration also explains certain elements, such as instruction on the use of wine and symbolism of offering in the scene in which Martha and Mary encounter the resurrected Christ. Roman domestic and funerary art provide the keys to interpreting this difficult passage. The association of Martha and Mary with nymphs dedicated to caring for the dead at a tomb and with the Hesperides, represents an attempt by Hippolytus to give Christian meaning to ancient funerary rites. It may also be an effort to enhance the honor of female patronesses in the community. 349 Chapter 8 Hippolytus’ Hermeneutical Approach to the Song of Songs 8.1 Introduction In previous chapters I argued that in On the Song of Songs Hippolytus composed a series of homilies designed to introduce certain mysteries of the faith connected with anointing with fragrant oil to newly baptized believers in the context of paschal initiation ceremonies. The poor state of the text, of course, hampers hermeneutical analysis of the commentary and salient themes. After the nineteenth century, the usual approach to the On the Song of Songs largely treat the sources of Hippolytus the exegete’s interpretation rather than Hippolytus’ interpretive approach. Wilhelm Riedel argued that Hippolytus derived his rhetorical style and much of the interpretive process and content from previous Jewish traditions.1 Several subsequent scholars followed Riedel in this approach,2 which, on the whole, approached postthird-century Jewish sources as a means to access previous traditions. Chappuzeau’s own important study of On the Song of Songs employed a more acceptable critical approach to Rabbinic sources than had her predecessors to confirm Riedel’s Riedel, Auslegung, 48-50. Johannes Quasten and Angelo di Berardino, Patrology (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, Inc., 1986), 2.174. The methodology and approach to Rabbinic materials lacks the historical framework presumed by scholars after Neusner. 349 2 1 350 conclusions.3 Chappuzeau’s study shows that rabbinic scholars datable to the second and third centuries followed similar lines of allegorical exegesis. Further, she points to Hippolytus the exegete’s lack of any quotations of other Christian interpretations of the Song as a support for a derivation from Jewish oral tradition.4 On the other hand, no evidence exists to suggest that Hippolytus the exegete’s interpretations themselves influenced Rabbinic interpretations.5 My own approach in the present and the following chapter is to contextualize the commentary in its Greco-Roman setting, comparing On the Song of Songs to the traces of the interpretation of the Song in the sources of other streams of ancient Christianity considered heretical by Hippolytus. 8.2 Invective, Community Boundaries, and the Inner Chamber 8.2.1 Tending the Boundaries Hippolytus uses the symbolism of the Song to explore his doctrine of the Trinity, the procession of the Logos from the Father and especially to discuss the symbolic value of the post-baptismal anointing with the Holy Spirit. Hippolytus’ development of these topics includes a narrative about the importance of repentance, Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 48-50 ; Chappuzeau, “Die Exegese von Hohelied 1, 2 A, B und 7,” JAC 18 (1975): 90-143. 4 Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 143, rightly points out that In Cant. is in the contemporary mainstream of Judeo-Christian understanding about the authorship of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song. 5 On the other hand, good evidence suggests that Origen and third century Rabbis in Palestine were in contact concerning the interpretation of the Song; see Reuven Kimelman, “Rabbi Yokhanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation,” HTR 73 (1980): 567-95. 3 351 the reception of Gentiles into the church and Israel’s protestations and rejection of Christ. Women and heretics also figure prominently in the interpretation of the Song. As is the case with other catechetical and mystagogical instruction, a primary concern is that new believers enjoy their participation in the inner sanctum of the church while they avoid the dangers at the margins. To this end, On the Song of Songs presents an idealized, typological vision of Christian community, including both human and divine participants of varying status, its holy books and rituals, its mystical connectedness with and superiority to Israel and its situation vis-a-vis the polytheistic environment of the Roman empire. The community is, in a sense, presented as the best of all possible worlds because it represents the promise of a new world under the dominion of Christ. The boundaries of the community are sharply defined by Hippolytus’ use of invective. Hippolytus laments the failure of the synagogue to embrace Christ (In Cant. 5.3) while urging the synagogue to repent (In Cant. 8.8), because God first took his message of salvation to the Jews in demonstration of his love for Israel (In Cant. 7.1-3). However, believers in Christ must no longer consider themselves as part of Israel’s flock (In Cant. 7.4). The failure of some Jews to accept Christ and the new economy of the Logos of God does not, however, present an insurmountable obstacle for all Jews. When a Jew “repents” and accepts Christ, it is a blessing for both community and world (In Cant.17.1). Meanwhile the ongoing obstinacy of Israel confirms both the righteous identity of the churches as the people of God. The prophetic hope for the renewal and conversion of Israel provides exciting topics of discussion for future hope and continued assurance for the self definition of the Christian community. 352 Hippolytus shows less charity toward the heretics. Their doctrines are “contemptible” (In Cant. 2.8), they are the false prophets predicted in Scripture, like little foxes that spoil the harvest of grapes in the Song (In Cant. 20.1, 2). The heretics betray and undermine the community by challenging its explanations about the exchange relationship between the human and divine participants of the community. They undermine the community by challenging its established leadership, thus calling into question its very foundations. Since, however, Hippolytus also finds them inscribed as characters in the Song, all must be well in the end. Meanwhile the church-school must be vigilant against the seducer (In Cant. 27:12), that is the serpent (In Cant. 27:7). The seducer brought lies and corruption (In Cant. 25.6). This resulted in nakedness for Adam (In Cant. 27.7) and complicated the relationship between Eve and her rightful leader. The “tree of seduction” had been the undoing of Eve (In Cant. 27.7), but Christ has now transformed her and she, as represented by the myrrhophores Martha and Mary, brings the gospel, not corruption to the apostles, who represent Adam, her husband. Behind the references to the seducer lurks the menace of heresy and assimilation to the devilish polytheistic culture.6 Jews7 and heretics are excluded8 and the church must face the hostility of the surrounding pagan culture because of its love for Christ. New Christians are a source of agitation (In Cant. 2.7) to their families and social networks; therefore, the The idea that heresy is the result of assimilation to Greek philosophy is clearly argued in Refutation of All Heresies, praef. The devil is seen as as true power behind the culture of the Empire. See Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.1.20. 7 Physical relationship to Abraham is useless apart from faith in Christ (In Cant. 7.2) 8 See In Cant. 20.1, “destroy heresy from among yourselves”; 20.2, heretics are foxes. 6 353 converts are taught to be bold (In Cant. 19.3) and are taught to expect to suffer persecution for their faith (In Cant. 3.4). Such protherapeia was a recognized type of consolation,9 and according to the author, consolation was a primary purpose of the Song (In Cant. 1.5; 2.29; 25.7). Hippolytus is allusive and his attitude toward the Roman Empire is ambivalent and measured. In regard to the relationship between women and men he shows himself to be remarkably conservative of imperial values. An uneasy relationship exists between the church-school and the Jewish and polytheistic environment of the Roman Empire, yet an openly hostile attitude is displayed toward Christian heretics. In some ways Hippolytus accomodates the values of the Roman culture. For example, he supports crucial aspects of the laws of the Empire that maintain the status quo, i.e. the prohibition against marriage between patronesses and male slaves. Hippolytus commends the slave women who must endure the sexual advances of their owner (In Cant. 2.18). Women such as these are like Tamar, who made herself look like a prostitute for the sake of the anointing. Nevertheless, he condones, the radical destruction of the concubine of Zambri by Phineas. Susch ambiguity on Hippolytus’ part suggests that women at the margins of the church were considered potentially dangerous to the church-school. Though harsh invective found in In Cant. is reserved for the heretics outside the boundary of the community, at least some of the themes used by Hippolytus can be shown to have been developed among creative souls formerly recognized as members of the community who subsequently were excoriated as heretics. One A Cyrenaic divice, Cicero, Tusc. 3.14.29 that attempts to reduce mental anguish by preparing for inevitable suffering. 9 354 heretic in particular, Valentinus, may well have given the original impetus both for Hippolytus the exegete’s use of the Song in Christian initiation as well as Hippolytus’ particular development of Logos Christology. 8.2.2 Revealing the Inner Chamber On the Song of Songs makes several backward and forward references10 to various aspects of Christian initiation rites so that almost all the rites otherwise mentioned in Tertullian, or elsewhere in Hippolytus, are read into the Song of Songs in the course of the commentary. Such is the mode of mystagogy, it is intended to lead the newly baptized into an appreciation of the hidden, secret doctrines and rites of the faith. These are conceived as an “inner chamber” as opposed to an “outer chamber” and the explanation of the mysteries holds the promise of a more intensely felt experience of Christ. The “chamber” of mysteries is a corollary to the camber of the heart where the believer embraces the resurrected Christ (In Cant. 25.2). Thus in In Cant. 3.1, 2 what seems an unintelligible reference to “what has happened” and the “future things . . . in a time of repentance,” in the Georgian text is elucidated by the agreement of the Greek and the PS. “What has happened” refers to the saving events that have been explicated in previous preaching, baptism, and catechetical instruction. The appearance of Christ in a time of repentance is a revelation of Christ in the mysteries: In Cant. 10 See above, pages #-#. 355 3.1 “A king led me to his own inner chambers.” So, who is the king, except Christ himself? Or what are the inner chambers, except the royal palaces? The people said this, 3.2 “We will rejoice and delight in you.” For he called everyone. First he tells us what has happened, then in the future things he appears in a time of repentance, “We will rejoice and delight in you.” CantPar 3.1 The king took me, he says, into his inner chamber. But what is the inner chamber except the church? Who is the one who says “take me in”? In reality it is the congregation (or synagogue) of those who have believed. For it has been made safe in the chamber which is the church.”11 Paleo-Slavonic 3.1 Who is the king? Christ. What is the bedchamber? The church. The Synagogue however speaks this. 3.2 “We rejoice and are glad in you.” So he calls everyone <who> desires salvation. Before he proclaims what should happen; then however he speaks of the time of receiving conversion: The inner chamber or bed bedchamber is the church and Hippolytus is apparently using the Songs text to mark the difference between catechetical instruction and the joyous explanation of the mysteries of faith. Cyril of Jerusalem, at the end of his first mystagogical lecture makes use a similar topos: Ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἐξωτέρῳ ἐγίνετο οἴκῳ. Θεοῦ δὲ θέλοντος, ὅταν ἐν ταῖς ἑξῆς µυσταγωγίαις εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων εἰσέλθωµεν, ἐκεῖ εἰσόµεθα τῶν αὐτόθι ἐπιτελουµένων τὰ σύµβολα. “And these things were done in the outer chamber. But if God will, when in the succeeding lectures on the Mysteries we have entered into the Holy of Holies, we shall there know the symbolical meaning of the things which are there performed.”12 Newly baptized believers in the audience were expected to experience the “consolation” of the explanations that represented an idealized image of the Synagogue is omitted in the Georgian, but likely original; both CantPar and PSflor have it. 12 Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Lectures 1:11 (NPNF2 7:146). 11 356 community in the context of a world understood as hostile.13 The world is the “gathering place” (synagogue) of darkness (In Cant. 1.5). Thus the commentary, as mystagogy, is an occasion for exploring the boundaries of the Christian community and what lies within the limits of community. In this way, it explicates the social function of the Eucharist as a community meal. The context of the community meal, then, is a very appropriate one in which to draw the boundary lines of community identity: who is in and who is out. As an introduction to the territory of the new convert’s faith, the commentary supports this function by warning of heretics and pointing out the difference between the synagogue and the church-school. Of course the theological message concerning the spiritual participants in the community is crucial. The protagonists in this message include: God the Father, the Logos (or Wisdom) who became fully personal only as Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as well as angels and the spirits of past saints, especially the patriarchs of old. The spiritual participants in the community also include at least one antagonist: the Evil One, the serpent. The theological teaching of On the Song will be a major focus of this Chapter. In social terms, the explanations of this sort represent central and powerful concerns of Hippolytus’ community. At the same time, the theology guides the moral life of the community,14 shapes the formation of its identity, and symbolizes the community itself. In this way the theological reflections of Hippolytus also have social significance. The interpretation of the Jewish Song of Songs by Hippolytus was Consolation is a repeated theme in Egeria’s report of her experiences of the Easter rites conducted in Jerusalem by Cyril, Intin. Eger. 36. 14 See Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 136-62. 13 357 conditioned by various contextual restraints ranging from Christian and Jewish oral interpretive traditions to the representational art that surrounded the hearers on the walls of their homes. The choice itself of the Song for interpretation in a mystagogical context was likely influenced by Marcionite rejection of the Old Testament. Most streams of second-century Christianity including followers of Valentinus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Callistus all affirmed the usefulness of the Old Testament in catechesis. Previous to Hippolytus’ time the Song was used and interpreted in various ways in diverse contexts among Jews and Christians. Hippolytus not only had oral traditions of Christian catechesis from the variety of Christian traditions (including the gnostic tradition) from which to draw, but also a rich and diverse Jewish oral interpretive tradition. Further, Hippolytus shows a willingness to experiment with both Jewish and polytheistic traditions, drawing on popular images from myth and Greco-Roman art in his reading of Scripture and the Song in particular. Hippolytus also appears to have been attracted by the mesmerizing images of the Song for his purpose, perhaps because of previous use of the Song in Valentinian circles. It should not be surprising Hippolytus draws upon the richness of Christian interpretations that are out of what is now considered the mainstream of the third-century church. This Chapter will explore the way Hippolytus used and shaped these traditions for his mystagogical and theological purposes. Still, Hippolytus the exegete’s commentary is a written distillation of oral performance. The production of a written commentary is a powerful rhetorical move in its own right. In its various forms, the early Christian book, and especially the commentary on Scripture, served “as a means of drawing boundaries and defining 358 Christian identities.”15 The book can produce a “heightened contrast” at the borders between “imagined communities” where distinctions between heresy, polytheism, Christianity, and Judaism might seem to be vague.16 Hippolytus used his book to make boundaries clear and to invite his hearers or readers to explore a “space” or an imaginary terrain opened up and defined through his interpretation of Scripture. Making use of topoi familiar to his audience, Hippolytus invited his audience to use the Song interpreted Christologically and Ecclesiologically to invest familiar myths, legends, and artistic expressions with Christian meanings, always under his own guidance as authoritative teacher or guide. 8.2.3 The Kiss and the Anointing that Fills the World with Meaning A close connection exists between what the exegete imagines as lying behind the image and the interpretive process.17 The contents of the interpretation are thus related dialectically to both. For example, Hippolytus acknowledges that Solomon was the author and that later scribes selected this song as the best of all songs (In Cant. 1.1-3, 13). However, both Solomon and the scribes were gifted by the Logos to produce a song of praise which concerns Christic anointing for the edification of the church (In Cant. 1.14). The figure of King Solomon as carrier of the Logos and ultimate writer of the mystery into which Hippolytus leads his congregants has a Catherine M. Chin, “Through the Looking Glass Darkly: Jerome Inside the Book,” in The Early Christian Book (ed. William E. Klingshirn, and Linda Safran; CUA Studies in Early Christianity; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 101. 16 Ibid. 17 Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 41. 15 359 political caché as well as a religious meaning. The antiquity and honor of a Solomon (and especially the Logos-Christ) mimics and interrupts the imperial discourse of his day. Framing the ritual in this way mimics or parodies imperial values, creating the liturgical space of immanent, democratic participation in symbols of power. For imperial theology and eschatology initiated by Augustus occupied that discursive space.18 The imperial theological eschatology further developed in the next two centuries and fostered continuing, powerful Roman beliefs among both elite and nonelite so that elite Greek rhetors of the Second Sophistic could appeal to “concord” (ὁµονοία) as insurance against the fear of Roman reprisals in cases of “discord” στᾶσις.19 The emperor was the focus of the eschatology of the creative power (ἐκπυρώσις) bringing the fiery return of golden age and the “immanent logos” (λόγος ἔνδιαθετος). He controlled all things through the force of destiny was connected to the ruler as Pontifex. As the human expression of the λόγος, he was also divine.20 The precedents for this theology were already present in the philosophical theories of Hellenistic theories of kingship. See Stob., Anth., contains excerpts from Diotogenes (Anth. 4.7.61-62), Sthenidas (Anth. 4.7.63), Ecphantus (Anth. 4.7.64-66 and 6.22), texts and translations of which are given in Glenn F. Chesnut, “The Ruler and the Logos in Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic and Late Stoic Political Philosophy,” ANRW (ed. Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini; New York: Gruyter, 1978): 16.1323, 1327. 19 The stability of Greek cities and their elite’s positions in them depend upon a foundation of Roman power. Near Hippolytus’ time, Aelius Aristides (Or. 24.32–3)— before him Plutarch, Praec. ger. rei publ. (Political Precepts) 813E, 824C-D. Dio Chrysostom (Ors. 32, 34, 38–41), and Dionysius of Halicarnassus Hist. 2.24 a century earlier—saw the civic leader as assistants to empire, duty-bound to insure harmony in the community. The leader does this restricting social factions and destructive elite rivalries thus avoiding Roman intervention. In their hierarchical understanding of civic harmony; harmony exists when the leaders agree and those below them follow. See Perkins, Roman Imperial Identities, 66-70. 20 See Brent, Political History of Early Christianity, 123. For the widespread notion 18 360 Baptism itself is a participation in the Spirit of the Logos leading to the proximate, ritual participating in the empire of Christ by means of anointing of Christ himself. The anointing featured in On the Song of Songs is Christic, a participation in the Logos. Hippolytus does not teach in On the Song of Songs that the anointing ritual is meant to confer the Holy Spirit on the individual. Rather, it is a participation in the vocation and joy of union as the beloved with Christ, “For she [the beloved] says, ‘More desirable are your breasts than much wine, and the scent of your anointing oil than mixed incense.’ But now what is the fragrant anointing oil of Christ, [except the Word]? For the Word is rightly esteemed to be greater than any incense. For, just as mixtures of incense give off an aroma, so also the Word once it goes forth from the Father gladdens those who hear it.” (2.4). As a result, ecclesiology is central to the explanation of the Song. And the ecclesiology is essentially a development of the vision of Ignatius. For Hippolytus everything hinges on defining the proper sphere of the church, which is a sacramental symbol in the world that reconstitutes the world. For example, the kiss of the bishoppresbyter for which the newly baptized awaits is a releases the power of the Spirit which is shared in the kiss of peace shared among the congregation (In Cant. 2.1, 2), an expression of the unity “of which the Holy Spirit taught many.” What is the will of the Spirit, for what21 [is its] power,22 or what might be the interpretation (lit. indication, sign) of this mystery? We [i.e. the bishoppresbyter] must proclaim [it] to those who will hear,23 for it is the representation that the king was the Living Logos (ἔψυχος λόγος) and the embodiment of law (νόµος ἔµψυχος), see Chesnut, “Ruler and Logos,” 16.1313-1320. 21 Lit. “which.” 22 Lit., “this power/force,” representing Greek δύναµις and a play on “meaning/ power.” The “concord” (ὁµόνοια) expressed in the community gathered liturgically defeat “Satan and his destruction is dissolved in the concord of your faith” Ignatius, Ephes., 13.1; cf. 19.2-3. Cf. 2.6 below. 23 J “those who hear.” See note 4 above. 361 (lit. type)24 of the people that entreats the heavenly Word to kiss them, because [the people] wish to join [together] mouth to mouth. For [the people] wishes to join the power of the Spirit to itself.25 The post-baptismal Christic anointing, then, takes on enormous significance for him. It sacramentally enacts the concord that holds the universe together in the presence of the presbyter-bishop. As will emerge in the thematic presentations below, a primary point of departure for Hippolytus is his indebtedness to Irenaeus and the Logos predecessors such as Ignatius, Athenagoras, Justin, and pseudo-Hippolytus, and, perhaps, the enigmatic author of Refutation of All Heresies.26 Hippolytus the exegete is bearer of traditions of cosmic re-ordering,27 but he transforms them to fit his context. For Hippolytus, Irenaeus’ interpretation of the current situation of the church as refracted through the events of the Gospel tradition, explicated in Irenaeus’ Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (=Epid.) and Haer. represent the ground of reality to which the events of Israel’s history move and which the Scripture prophetically announces. Cp. Ignatius, Magnes. 6.1-2, cf. 7.2 union with the bishop and “concord” (ὁµόνοια) projects an “image (τύπος) which teaches incorruptibility.” In that passage as well as this one, the “image” is that of the Johannine Pentecost (Jn 20:21-23), cf. Brent, Political History of Early Christianity, 197-98. 25 This likely refers to the ritual kiss, which as a sharing of Spirit. Justin Apol. 1.65; Tertullian, Or. 18; Origen, Comm. Rom. 10.13; Trad. ap. 4.1; 18.3-4; 21.25; Cp. GPhil 31; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 23.4. Cf GPhil §29b-31 “If he [were born] from the mouth [of God] – where the logos comes from —, he would eat from the mouth and he would become perfect. For the perfect conceive through a kiss and give birth. Therefore, we too kiss one another, receiving conception from the grace that is within one another” (trans. van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 52. 26 Though the Refutation is perhaps a later development representing a retrenchment rather than rapprochement. 27 For this see Brent, Political History of Early Christianity, 166-208. 24 362 8.2.3.1 Precedents in Jewish Interpretations of the Song Jewish tradition contributed significantly to Hippolytus the exegete’s theology in general and his interpretation of the Song in particular. Even Hippolytus the exegete’s doctrine of the generation of the Logos is calculated to preserve his commitment to monotheism. Intermediary figures between the spiritual world and the created order were already a large feature in Jewish understanding of the cosmos, as Philo’s exegesis of the Law, Wisdom of Solomon’s interpretation of Sophia, and the Gospel of John’s understanding of “the Word” of the Lord attest. Hippolytus the exegete inherited a received canon of Scriptures that was quite well defined. In addition, as has been seen above, Hippolytus received a number of celebratory practices that had their roots in Judaism. At the same time, the Jewish influences were themselves received as part of the environment in which other Greco-Roman religious groups flourished. The discussions of the rabbis in the Mishnah, Tosephta, Song of Songs Rabbah, and the Talmud about the canonical status of the Song point to an early diversity in views and interpretive processes regarding the Song. 28 Three examples illustrate that diversity. During the same time period (193-235 AD) in which Hippolytus wrote his commentary on the Song, R. Judah the Patriarch was compiling and editing the Mishnah in Palestine (ca. 200).29 In a well- Josephus, Ap. 1.8 apparently included the Song among “four books of hymns to God” among the inspired Scriptures. His view is representative of the view dominant during time of Hippolytus the exegete. It is significant that Hippolytus the exegete has a very similar view of the function of the Song as “praise” inspired by the Holy Spirit (In Cant. 1.5-9). The passage in Josephus, however, can only support the notion of an early allegorical interpretation in a general sense. 29 Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Judaism to the Mishnah: 135-220,” in Christianity and Rab- 28 363 known passage (Yedayim 3.5. O-S, Neusner, 1127 = Song of Songs Rabbah 1. 6. 20. B) the Rabbis of the early Tannaitic period discuss the sanctity (inspiration, canonicity) of the Song. The Mishnah represents R. Aqiba (ca. 100 AD) vehemently vindicating the Song of Songs. He insists that not only is the Song holy, like the rest of the Scriptures, but “the Holy of Holies.” Though R. Aqiba favored a symbolic interpretation, he plays on the title for his argument in favor of the holiness of the Song. He validates his statement by placing a high value on the significance of the Song, perhaps even the prophetic significance: “the entire age is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel” (Yedayim 3.5.P). Another example indicates an early diversity in allegorical interpretations. For example 4 Ezra to the Song (4:37 [on Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4], and 5:26 [on Song 2:14; 5:2])30 both support the notion that the Mishnah’s attribution of an allegorical approach to Aqiba has verisimilitude. These passages also show that an allegorical approach distinct from the mishnaic tendency also existed from the early second binic Judaism (ed. Harold Shanks; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society 1992), 216-17. 30 Michael E. Stone, “The Interpretation of Song of Songs in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 38 (2007): 229-33, remarks that 4 Ezra belongs “to a different allegorical interpretation, conceivably of an eschatological cast, in which the love is redemption or the Redeemer.” He concludes: It follows, therefore, that in the first century AD at the latest, allegorical explanation of Song of Songs was current, as is clear from the Aqiba material. If we give 4 Ezra 4:37 appropriate weight, there may have been competing allegorical explanations, of which the pseudepigraphical apocalypse preserves a different or variant form from that dominant in rabbinic circles. Insufficient evidence is available at present for us to sketch the structure of that allegorical explanation, but its very existence in an apocalypse contemporary with Rabbi Aqiba opens up exegetical and religion-historical perspectives not generally in the purview students of the apocalyptic or of Jewish mystical literature. 364 century. Despite the fact that Aqiba is credited with allegorical interpretation in Song of Songs Rabbah and other sources (Song of Songs Rabbah 1:12.3 B), and 4 Ezra illustrates another, eschatologically-oriented type of allegorical interpretation. Such interpretations do not seem to have been the only options available. The Babylonian Talmud (T. Sanhedrin 12.10) attributes to R. Akiba a censure on a use of the Song as a type of entertainment at a Greco-Roman style banquet: “Rabbi Aqiba says, ‘Whoever sings the Song of Songs with tremulous voice in a banquet hall and (so) treats it as a sort of ditty has no share in the world to come.”31 This bit of tradition supports the notion that a literal or even bawdy interpretation and even a profane use of the Song existed at the same time as figurative interpretations.32 Apart from the issue of interpretive process, however, is the condemnation in the Talmud of the use of the Song of Songs in the banquet context. If one is to trill one’s voice in singing the Song, it should be in the context of the scholar’s bet-ha-midrash. Pertinent for the contextualization of Hippolytus the exegete’s In Cant. is that the Talmud may attest to the use of the Song in the context of banquet entertainment, of which Hippolytus the exegete’s interpretation of it as a baptismal and eucharistic text would be a type. A fragment of what may have been a Jewish commentary on the Song was Quoted in Samuel Dean McBride and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Song of Songs (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), 13. 32 This is true at least from the third to fifth centuries, if not earlier. From the passage in the Mishnah, Alexander Altmann, Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations (Studies and Texts 3; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), 251, mistakenly argued that the Mishnah proposed an allegorical interpretation. It seems more likely, however that the Mishnah is admitting the previous existence of both interpretations and favoring the allegorical. 31 365 discovered in Qumran (4Q240).33 Unfortunately, the fragment has not been published. The existence of such a commentary, however, at least suggests a prehistory of Jewish and Jewish Christian oral interpretation upon which Hippolytus depends34 for some of his material. Hippolytus cites no sources, yet many of his comments suggest that he is re-working Jewish material. For example, Joshua is commended for circumcising the Israelites (In Cant. 2.8). Hippolytus refers in traditional Jewish terms to the binding of Isaac, who “wished to sacrifice himself for the sake of the world” (In Cant. 2.15). Early Jewish interpretations recorded in fifth and sixth century compilations of the midrash SoS Rab connect the henna bunch (Song 1.14; In Cant. 13.1) with the binding of Isaac or the merits of Abraham. The rabbinic interpretation of SoS Rab 1.14 in two interpretations (Song 1:14; 4:13) rests upon the double meaning of the root ‫ ,כפר‬qfr, meaning either “to atone” or “ransom” as well as the “henna.” The connection between atonement/henna and Isaac/Abraham/Christ is striking. It seems likely that Hippolytus took over a pre-existing Jewish Christian interpretation of the henna bunch as a symbol of atonement in which Christ had already been substituted for Isaac. Hippolytus seems to pass this tradition on without understanding the underlying Hebrew connections. In some cases what he passes on appear to be non- 4Q240 or 4Q Canticlesa appears on J. T. Milik’s list of discovered and identified fragments. Susequent lists of manuscripts included it, some have begun to drop it from the list. The photograph of it has not been accounted for and no details of the fragment are known. See Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H Schiffman, Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989-1990 (STDJ 16; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 24 n. 3; 30 n. 19. 34 See Chappuzeau, “Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes Durch Hippolyt von Rom,” 45-81 for a careful weighing of some aspects of the connection between Hippolytus and later rabbinic interpretation. 33 366 Christian Jewish traditions. For example, he refers to the sacrifice of Isaac in terms traditional for Jews, but not Christians, as an atonement for the world, but not as a type of Christ’s atonement. Because of his zeal for the Christic anointing, Isaac desired to suffer on behalf of the world: “The blessed Isaac became desirous of [the anointing] and he wished to sacrifice himself for the sake of the world (cf. Gen 22).” (In Cant. 2:15, emphasis mine).35 The correspondence between Hippolytus the exegete’s interpretation of the Song and Rabbinic sources has been well researched, and will be noted from time to time in the discussion below. Nevertheless, specific dependence is difficult to assess, given the state of ancient Jewish sources. What may be said is that On the Song of Songs provides evidence of a good measure of cross border pollination from Judaism to Gentile Christianity via Jewish Christians.36 8.2.3.2 Greco-Roman Mythical Connections The imagery of Hippolytus’ interpretation of the Song bears a resemblance to visual representations on wall paintings, mosaics, and vases displayed in GrecoRoman houses of the first and second centuries.37 Greco-Roman religious practices of the social institution and the ideology of the banquet also shaped Hippolytus the Indeed, R. Hanina bar Hama (SoS Rab 1:14.iv.7B-G, Neusner, 133), a contemporary of Hippolytus, relates that God said to Abraham: “if your children fall into transgression and wicked actions, I shall discern which great man there is among them who can say to the attribute of Justice: “Enough!” and I shall take him and treat him as the pledge in their behalf.” 36 See Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion) (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006). 37 See discussion above page 215-310. 35 367 exegete’s interpretation of the Song. Greco-Roman polytheistic mythology and art informed the set of assumptions Hippolytus and his audiences brought to their understanding of Song. This claim is true since the audiences Hippolytus addressed were largely polytheist in background.38 It seems reasonable, then, that his typical arguments and commonplaces would include Greco-Roman myth as well as Jewish traditions. The charge of accommodation to “paganism” against Hippolytus the exegete is not a new one. Long ago von Döllinger suggested that Hippolytus’ Christology39 took much of its inspiration from polytheistic thought,40 and Brent has argued a similar case.41 Hippolytus is prepared to draw upon polytheistic thought and images in his explanation of On the Song of Songs 8.2.3.2.1 The Consolation of the Song in Hippolytus the exegete’s Use of Various Mythical Themes 8.2.3.2.1.1 The Image of Ariadne as a Symbol of the Unbelieving Synagogue Hippolytus is not content simply to pose a liturgy that touches political theology; he also involves the myths that inhabit the domestic sphere. The myth of the marriage of Dionysus and Ariadne was well known in the ancient world. The celebration of this myth was endemic to Athens in the Anthesteria,42 and The positive references to the Gentiles suggests a gentile audience, In Cant. 2.7 (x2); 6.1; 7.5; 8.2; 26.1; 27;12. It reasonable to assume that only a minority of his audiences were lapsed Jews and members of Christian “heretical” groups. 39 von Döllinger assumed pseudo-Hippolytus and Hippolytus the exegete were identical. 40 von Döllinger, Hippolytus and Callistus, 211-12. 41 Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 361. 42 Burkert, Greek Religion, 237-42. 38 368 memorialized in Rome (Ovid, Fasti. 3. 459 ff. on the fastus, or date, of March 8). Ariadne was often depicted alongside Dionysus in Greek vase painting: either among the gods of Olympus, or in Bacchic scenes surrounded by dancing Satyrs and Maenads. Dionysus’ discovery of the sleeping Ariadne on Naxos was also a popular scene in both vase painting, mosaics and domestic wall art. Paul Zanker emphasizes the beauty, especially the heterosexual, beautiful, naked pairs of lovers visually represented in frescoes and mosaics in Pompeii.43 The two main characters in this art are Dionysus and Aphrodite/Venus.44 For example, in the Villa dei Misteri just outside Pompeii, Dionysus reclines on Ariadne’s lap.45 The myth is beside the point, since the real subject is the union of lovers, personal fulfillment, the shared consumption of wine. It evokes not a fairytale world, but a mythological world that people could actually enter by means of the domestic liturgies expressing quotidian joie de vivre. The large Roman house at Nea Paphos on Cyprus is contemporary with Hippolytus and is decorated with Dionysiac mosaics, including the image of Ariadne (as Akme) and Dionysus.46 The mosaics especially The National Gallery of Art website, under “Videos and Podcasts,” offers a lecture by P. Zanker, “To Live with Myths in Pompeii and Beyond.” Contrast Zanker’s oral remarks with B. Bergmann in the exhibit catalogue, “Staging the Supernatural: Interior Gardens of Pompeian Houses,” 53-69 in Pompeii and the Roman Villa: Art and Culture Around the Bay of Naples, ed. C. C. Mattusch (Washington: National Gallery of Art, 2008), 62-64, with nn. 25-34. 44 See David Balch, “Women Prophets/Maenads Visually Represented in Two Roman Colonies: Pompeii and Corinth” in The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres (WUNT ed. Annette Weissenrieder Robert B. Coote; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 244-5. 45 Balch, CD 85, 88; Merkelbach, Abbildungen 2-3. 46 See figure 111 in Kondoleon, Domestic and Divine, 173-175. 43 369 show Italian influence, though a comparison with the mosaics of the third century House of Dionysus and Ariadne reveals Antiochian influence as well. The local artisans also gave unique expression to their work.47 Graphic representations of Dionysus and Ariadne were popular in Italy.48 The most notable examples besides the already mentioned first century murals in the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii are representations in the house of Fronto, house of the Vetti, in Pompeii49 and the thirdcentury Severan house of Dionysus and Ariadne in Antioch.50 Its wide-spread use in homes as an iconic representation of the consolation of familial love,51 divine joy of the hearth, etc., in oral tradition and literature (Philostratus, Imagines 1.15) validates the assumption that Hippolytus and his audience would readily recall images and themes of the myth at the reading of the Song of Songs.52 The third century mosaic of Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, 229; Kondoleon, Domestic and Divine, 8-9, passim and 332. Italian influence is marked, especially the presence of Italian sigillata, designs, etc. 48 Emeline Richardson, “The Story of Ariadne in Italy,” Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology (1979): 189-95. See the multiple examples in Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, listed above, page 194. 49 John R. Clarke, The Houses of Roman Italy, 100 B. C. -A. D. 250: Ritual, Space, and Decoration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 157. See also Roger Ling, Roman Painting (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 102-4. 50 Donald E. Strong, Roman Art (Pelican Histories of Art Revised; Hartford, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 240-1, figure 178; Kondoleon, Domestic and Divine, 56, figure 28. 51 It may strike as odd that Dionysus and Ariadne should be considered icons of familial love. The consolation it provided was androcentric, as the literary references suggest. It is an icon that upholds familial loyalty despite the dalliances of the husband, in the same vein as Plutarch’s Conj. praec.15-16. 52 It is possible Hippolytus the exegete named one of his heresiological treatises the Little Labyrinth, which would call to mind the myth of Theseus. Ariadne and her hideous half brother, the Minotaur. Pseudo-Hippolytus the author Haer. (according to 47 370 a triumphal procession of Dionysus and Ariadne recalls several themes picked up in the commentary. A Triumphal Procession of Dionysus and Ariadne. Photo courtesy of Sousse Museum, Agency for the development of National Heritage and Cultural Promotion, Republic of Tunisia. Used by permission. Several versions of the myth circulated. The rhetorician Philostratus the Elder (a Greek rhetor of the Severan period) referred to the story as a well-known nursery tale and popular object of painting: That Theseus treated Ariadne unjustly—though some say not with unjust intent, but under the compulsion of Dionysus—when he abandoned her while asleep on the island of Dia [i.e., Naxos], you must have heard from your nurse; for those women are skilled in telling such tales and they weep over them whenever they will. I do not need to say that it is Theseus you see there on the ship and Brent and Stewart, the predecessor of Hippolytus the exegete) does refer to part of his work as a λαβυρίνθος τῶν αἱρέσεων (Haer. 10.5.1). On the Little Labyrinth, see Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 121-33. Theodoret ascribes it to Origen; Photius apparently ascribes the same book to Gaius of Rome. A quotation of the book appears in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.28. 371 Dionysus yonder on the land, nor will I assume you to be ignorant and call your attention to the woman on the rocks, lying there in gentle slumber. Nor yet is it enough to praise the painter for things for which someone else too might be praised; for it is easy for anyone to paint Ariadne as beautiful and Theseus as beautiful; and there are countless characteristics of Dionysus for those who wish to represent him in painting or sculpture, but this Dionysus the painter has characterized by love alone. Flowered garments and thyrsoi and fawn-skins have been cast aside as out of place for the moment, and the Bacchai are not clashing their cymbals now, nor are the Satyroi playing the flute, nay, even Pan checks his wild dance that he may not disturb the maiden’s sleep. Having arrayed himself in fine purple and wreathed his head with roses, Dionysus comes to the side of Ariadne, “drunk with love” as the Teian poet says of those who are overmastered by love. As for Theseus, he is indeed in love, but with the smoke rising from Athens, and he no longer knows Ariadne, and never knew her, and I am sure that he has even forgotten the labyrinth and could not tell on what possible errand he sailed to Crete, so singly is his gaze fixed on what lies ahead of his prow. And look at Ariadne, or rather at her sleep; for her bosom is bare to the waist, and her neck is bent back and her delicate throat, and all her right armpit is visible, but the left hand rests on her mantle that a gust of wind may not expose her. How fair a sight, Dionysus, and how sweet her breath! Whether its fragrance is of apples or of grapes, you can tell after you have kissed her! (Philostratus, Imagines, 1.15)53 In the general contours of the myth, Ariadne, daughter of King Minos, falls in love with Theseus, son of Aegeus and helps him kill her hideous half-brother and escape the labyrinth by giving him a ball of string. She is carried off by her lover to the island of Naxos. There he abandoned her while she slept, on the favorite island of Dionysus/Bacchus. While she mourned her fate, Dionysus found her, consoled her, and made her his wife. As a consolation and marriage present he gave her a golden crown, decorated with precious stones. The crown is an element common to many Philostratus et al., “Imagines,” from LCL 256 (1969). Cited 10-16. Online: http:/ /www.theoi.com/Text/PhilostratusElder1A.html. 53 372 versions of the myth, since it portrays the etiology of the Corona Borealis. Some versions contain the discovery of a dalliance when Dionysus (Liber) traveled to India and brought back a dark skinned wife (Ovid, Fasti. 3.459-516), against whom she (Ariadne/Libera) complained bitterly. Ovid’s entry for March 8 is: As soon as night falls you will see the Cretan Crown: Through Theseus’ crime Ariadne was made a goddess. She’d already happily exchanged that faithless spouse for Bacchus, She who’d given the ungrateful man the thread to follow. Delighting in her wedded fate, she said: ‘Why did I weep Like a country-girl, his faithlessness has been my gain?’ Meanwhile Bacchus had conquered the straight-haired Indians, And returned with his riches from the Eastern world. Among the captive girls, of outstanding beauty, One, the daughter of a king, pleased Bacchus intensely. His loving wife wept, and treading the curving shore With dishevelled hair, she spoke these words: ‘Behold, again, you waves, how you hear my complaint! Behold again you sands, how you receive my tears! I remember I used to say: “Perjured, faithless Theseus!” He abandoned me: now Bacchus commits the same crime. Now once more I’ll cry: “Woman, never trust in man!” My fate’s repeated, only his name has changed. O that my life had ended where it first began. So that I’d not have existed for this moment! Why did you save me, Liber, to die on these lonely sands? I might have ceased grieving at that moment. Bacchus, fickle, lighter than the leaves that wreathe Your brow, Bacchus known to me in my weeping, How have you dared to trouble our harmonious bed By bringing another lover before my eyes? Alas, where is sworn faith? Where the pledges you once gave? Wretched me, how many times must I speak those words? You blamed Theseus and called him a deceiver: According to that judgement your own sin is worse. Let no one know of this, let me burn with silent pain, Lest they think I deserved to be cheated so! Above all I wish it to be hid from Theseus, So he may not joy in you as a partner in crime. I suppose your fair lover is preferred to a dark, May fair be the colouring of my enemies! 373 Yet what does that signify? She is dearer to you for that. What are you doing? She contaminates your embrace. Bacchus, be true, and do not prefer her to a wife’s love. I am one who would love my husband for ever. The horns of a gleaming bull captivated my mother. Yours, me: but this is a love to be praised, hers shameful. Let me not suffer, for loving: you yourself, Bacchus, Never suffered for confessing your desire to me. No wonder you make me burn: they say you were born In fire, and were snatched from the flames by your father. I am she to whom you used to promise the heavens. Ah me, what a reward I suffer instead of heaven!’ She spoke: Liber had been listening a long while To her complaint, since he chanced to follow closely. He embraced her, and dried her tears with kisses, And said: ‘Together, let us seek the depths of the sky! You’ll share my name just as you’ve shared my bed, Since, transmuted, you will be called Libera: And there’ll be a memory of your crown beside you, The crown Vulcan gave to Venus, and she to you.’ He did as he said, and changed the nine jewels to fire: Now the golden crown glitters with nine stars. (Ovid, Fasti, March 8)54 It is significant that Hippolytus presents an image of Christ similar to Dionysus in Ovid’s version of the Ariadne myth. Dionysus speaks tenderly with his wounded wife. Hippolytus the exegete’s presentation of Christ’s approach to the synagogue never becomes invective. Again, the myth of Ariadne and Dionysus appears to provide a topos for the kind of complicated relationship envisioned between Christ, the synagogue and the Gentile church-school. One detail otherwise unexplained in On the Song of Songs is the exhortation to the synagogue, “Now go to the Gentiles and become a type of all crowns.” (In Cant. 7.5). Hippolytus does not otherwise refer to wearing a crown or connect a Ovid, “Fasti,” (2004): Cited 10-16. Online: http://www.tonykline.co.uk/klineasfasti.htm. 54 374 crown with his baptismal rites. However, the Apocalpse of John (Rev 12:1) represents the woman wearing a crown of twelve stars in labor to give birth to the Messiah as an Israel/Church symbol. However, the specific message of the symbolic meaning of the “type of all crowns” is difficult to assess.55 Crowns were a status indicator, but also generally adopted for use in celebrations and festivals, including crowns for both bride and groom at weddings. Tertullian rejected the use of crowns by Christians (Tertullian, Cor. 13), but the eastern Odes of Solomon associates crowning with baptism, as do other eastern mainstream documents and non-mainstream groups, perhaps depending upon an ancient eastern royal understanding of baptism as an imitation of the baptism of Jesus.56 Hippolytus, with greater similarity to Tertullian, only speaks of the synagogue becoming a “type of all crowns.” According to Ovid’s version of the Ariadne myth, Dionysus consoles his wife with the promise of deification.57 Ariadne “is transformed”; she will be known as Libera. Dionysus Balch, Roman Domestic Art, 139-167 shows that John’s imagery is intended to contest the cosmic, imperial symbolism of worship of Isis and Artemis in Ephesus. 56 Tertullian assumes that Christians use the bridal crown in weddings, “Marriage, too, decks the bridegroom with its crown; and therefore we will not have heathen brides, lest they seduce us even to the idolatry with which among them marriage is initiated” (Cor. 13). The Odes allude to baptism as a crown. The bridal crown is a prominent allusion to baptism and the relationship with the Lord effected by baptism (Ode 1.5.9). Other elements include sprinkling with water, immersion in running water, the seal, signing the name, the metaphor of circumcision, filling with the Holy Spirit, new garments, fragrance, milk and honey or a cup of mixed milk, drinking living water, and taking the Lord as nourishment. The crown as a symbol of baptism is also seen in Ephrem Hymns on Epiphany 7. Crowning is also apparently a part of eastern Valentinian and Sethian baptismal rites van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 117. 57 Compare with the important theme of divinization in Hippolytus’ teaching on salvation. See below 429. 55 375 promises to memorialize their love by making a constellation of her crown in the heavens.58 As it rose into the sky, the gems grew brighter and, transformed into stars, they preserve the form of Ariadne’s crown fixed forever in the sky as a constellation between the constellation of kneeling Heracles and the man who holds the serpent (Ovid, Met. 8. 152). As a result Ariadne herself is transformed and becomes a divine figure worshipped in her own right.59 “. . . And golden haired Dionysus made brown haired Ariadne, the daughter of Minos, his buxom wife: and the son of Cronos made her deathless and ageless for him. . .” (Hesiod, Theog. 945). As suggested before, especially on page 195, Hippolytus constructs a spiritual narrative of a love triangle between Christ the synagogue and the church of the Gentiles in On the Song of Songs. Now it becomes plain that, at least in part, the underlying mythical narrative has suggested this narrative and helps shape the typological interpretation of the Song. As suggested before, the words of the beloved permit an interpretation of jealousy, she becomes Israel jilted by Christ for the Gentiles: “‘Tell me, you whom my soul has loved,’ [means], ‘tell me, Christ; respond, O Word, to me I beg you.’ ‘Where do you pasture, where do you rest at midday? You abandoned me and left me alone, you went away to the Gentiles. I remained behind as an orphan’” (In Cant. 6.1). The paraphraser captured the essence of this distinction: “The Song of Songs is the oracle of the Spirit so that it provides the song and the singing and the different gifts and how the church of the Gentiles, blackened as it was with transgressions, became clean and he united it to himself after making it brilliant The timing and consequences of the death of Ariadne vary greatly in the versions of the myth. 59 Burkert, Greek Religion, 239-40. 58 376 with differing gifts” (CantPar 1.8). It is not likely that these words are authentic, since they are out of place (in the introduction). Thus they appear to be the paraphraser’s own partial summary of On the Song of Songs: Nevertheless the interpretation is confirmed by comparing In Cant. 4.1 with 7.2: In Cant. 4.1-2 4.1 “I am black and beautiful, daughters of Jerusalem.” I am a sinner, but to a greater extent I am beautiful, for Christ has loved me. “I am black and beautiful, daughters of Jerusalem.” All peoples, gather and come and see me the beloved. 4.2 “Do not marvel at this appearance of mine, for I have become black, nor about this, that the sun gazed (or looked) upon me darkly.” You saw the word of their congregations, who/which [they] confessed the past, “do not look upon the sinner,” and “for this reason Christ did not despise me.” And for this reason truly she says “the sun.” For it says thus, “And to you who fear my name the sun of righteousness will appear.” In Cant. 7.1-2 7.1 Suddenly there arrived a voice of petition, and by it Christ was [was] displayed. The voice [is one] which calls the people. “Though you may not be well known, you are beautiful among women.” But this means, “if you will not convert with all your heart and unless you will confess your sins, so that you may be justified” (cf. Rom 10:9-10), 7.2 and, O beautiful [one] among women, unless you do not make yourself known, you who boasted and said : “I am dark and beautiful. I am a sinner, but I am beloved,” then of no help is that love to you. Indeed, God is able from stones to raise up children for Abraham, so do not beguile yourself now about the promise of the patriarchs. “For he is no respecter of persons” if, however, you do not come to know yourself and repent, behold Abraham was saved, but you it avails nothing. For generation of that one is a help to the one who comes to faith. Let us hold to good works so that there may be an election of the generation of the righteous. So if no one else recognizes you to be beautiful among women, “go away and follow the track of the flock and pasture your kids.” The beloved of the Song, in the interpretation of Hippolytus, is two different women, one believing and one unbelieving. Thus, as Chappuzeau observed, the 377 synagogue is a complex image. Christ, who has multiple Dionysiac features (see below), is cast in the role of the god. The play on the blackness of the beloved in 4.12 and the insistence in 7.1-2 that the beloved must admit blackness reverse the striking play on blackness in Ovid’s renditions of the myth. It is not necessary to insist that Hippolytus knew Ovid’s Fasti, though it is not difficult to imagine he was acquainted with it. Ovid was the most popular author painted on Pompeian walls, including his narrative of Dionysus and Ariadne.60 Given Hippolytus the exegete’s intense interest in calendrical interpretation, one might well imagine Hippolytus was acquainted with the poem. Nevertheless, the Ariadne myth formed part of the cultural material ready in the oral environment for use in the interpretation of the Song.61 Later readings of Hippolytus (represented in the Armenian and the paleoSlavonic traditions) intensify in places the negative rhetoric of Hippolytus against the synagogue:62 From a private communication with David Balch, 11-19-2008. Ovidian influence is also noted in the late second century House of Dionysus at Nea Paphos, Cyprus, see Kondoleon, Domestic and Divine, 34, 50, 116, 136, etc. 61 Xenophon, Symp. 9.2-7, shows that the Ariadne myth was part of the common stock of symposia entertainment. In the course of the meal, two dancers portray Dionysus and Ariadne as lovers. Although intended as entertainment, the dance itself functions in a setting in which “love”(ers) had been a topic of conversation. Dionysus would always be considered present symbolically as god of the vine in such settings. Xenophon concludes his story with a practical application: “At last, the banqueters, seeing [Ariadne and Dionysus] in one another’s embrace and obviously leaving for the bridal couch, those who were unmarried swore that they would take wives for themselves, and those who were already married mounted horse and rode off to their wives that they might enjoy them.” See Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 117, 118. 62 The increased anti-synagogue rhetoric in these two adaptations of On the Song of Songs is seen in the increased number of appearances of the word “synagogue.” 60 378 In Cant. 25.10 Georgian Now, beloved, it is clear from these things that he brings peace to the synagogue and the church is glorified. In Cant. 25.10 Armenian In Cant. 25.10 Paleo-Slavic Now, since these things happened, O beloved, behold, he makes peace making the synagogue of the Jews to cease and glorifies the mystery of the resurrection. We are those who worship every day even as we keep gloriously holy festival, rejoicing with the angels. After this, however, it so happens, O beloved, he boasts still further after the church breaks from the synagogue. The differences between these adaptations aside, what appears to be clear is that Hippolytus paints the picture of a love triangle, similar to that found in some versions of the Ariadne myth. Drawing further from the Ariadne myth, Hippolytus encourages the unbelieving synagogue to believe and to take up the apostolic example and “go to the Gentiles and become a type of all crowns.” (In Cant. 7.5). The abrupt appearance of the image of the crown is explained by Hippolytus drawing it from the familiar world of myth. Chappuzeau has no explanation for the appearance of the crown; she assumes that the abruptness of the appearance of the crown is a result of mistranslation.63 While it is true that neither the Greek paraphrase nor Paleo-Slavonic florilegia mention the crown, the latter makes a similar point about mission among the Gentiles, “Pasture the unmarked flock barefoot. Then go out to the Gentiles and the diaspora of the race, where all the congregations are” (PS 7.5).64 Chappuzeau recognized an almost complete lack of antagonism and animosity expressed toward the synagogue in the rhetoric of On the Song of Songs Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 66. The following comment in PS 7.5b, “The kings however he names shepherds, and ones who disperse them throughout the world,” is likely a gloss by the compiler of the florilegia. 64 63 379 She was thus led to believe that Hippolytus practices no polemic against the synagogue; nor is the synagogue despised, hated, or accused of ignorance and disobedience.65 On the contrary, she is “rich in fulfillment of the law ” (In Cant. 25:5; cf. 10.1).66 Chappuzeau suggested that Hippolytus offers no exhortation to the synagogue concerning the need of turning away from the vanity of this world.67 She must merely recognize the new economy of God and do penance, she must repent of failing to believe in the revelation of God in Christ.68 If she does this, she will be loved and justified like the patriarchs.69 By disregarding of the new commandment, the synagogue lost its share in the salvation-working Spirit of Christ and thus its role as the effective bringer of salvation to the world. In Hippolytus the exegete’s vision of the Song, the reversal of the disaster of Eve leads potentially to the conversion of the world, both Jews and Gentiles. With the liberation of Eve, the path way of eternal life lies through Jesus. Thus, Hippolytus points to the paradigmatic nature of the women as good witnesses: Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” 67. წესიერებით, c ̣esierebit has a semantic range including: “orderliness, propriety, decorum, lawfulness,” See Fähnrich and Sarjveladze, ADW, 1520, who do not list the meaning “ordination.” Cerrato’s notion that this alludes to female ordination has no support in the translation tradition. It is based on the (mis)translation of Garitte, CSCO 264:47 “in-ordinationem.” Bonwetsch, “Hippolyts Kommentar,” was correctly dissatisfied with the reading of T and preferred PS (“Receive Eve once more, the one living firmly [‘strongly’] and henceforth not naked.”) as the “right meaning.” With the discovery of J, the nonsensical “much” could be read as “walks.” See the textual note on მავალ at 25.5. 67 Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 67. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 66 65 380 In Cant. 25.6 “And after this with a cry the synagogue expresses a good testimony for us through the women, those who were made apostles to the apostles, having been sent by Christ . . .” Armenian 25.6 Now, since these things happened, in answer he cries out the confession, he giving his assent to this good testimony [given] through the women to the synagogue. Paleo-Slavonic 25.6 After this happened however, he again calls out a confession through these women to the synagogue, the good testimony; and they were sent by Christ as apostle of the apostles. In the resurrection sequence the women experience a transformation, which it the “good testimony for us.” The sense of the passage in the Georgian translation is quite opaque, but it seems they all agree that a good testimony comes through the women. The PS and the Armenian are in agreement that the testimony is given to the synagogue, that is, so that they may believe. Their own transformation is paradigmatic for the hoped-for transformation of the synagogue. Accordingly,“when someone from the circumcision believes in Christ they begin to come forth, it might be said, as a flower,70 one able to bring forth both new The description of “one from the circumcision” as “a flower” is based on Hippolytus the exegete’s Christological interpretation of the flower in Isaiah 11:1. Hippolytus the exegete links the blessing of Judah in Gen 49:9 “from a shoot, my son, leap up!” with Is. 11:1 “he will sprout up as a shoot from the root of Jesse and a flower from the house of David.” The flower is Christ born from the shoot of Mary who sprang up from the roots and the stock of the patriarchs: He did not keep silent either concerning his generation according to the flesh, but he says: “from a shoot, my son, you will go up” (Gen. 49:9). For Isaiah says: “he will go forth as a shoot from the root of Jesse “and a flower from the root” will go up (Is 11:1). The root of Jesse was the stock of the patriarchs, as a root planted in the earth, and the shoot which sprang up from this and appeared visibly was Mary, by the fact that she was from the house of the family of David. The flower that germinated in her was the Christ, as Jacob has prophesied when he said, “from a shoot, my son you will go up.” (Ben. Jac. 16 [PO 27.76-78]) Because of a their common physical ancestry, the person of Jewish birth is able to represent Christ in a unique way. 70 381 and old” (In Cant. 17.1).71 But what is the rhetorical function of the restraint Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 79 points out what appears at first glance to be an important contrast here between Irenaeus and Hippolytus the exegete in their attitudes toward Jews. In Adv. Haer. 4.24, according to Irenaeus, Israel was released previously by the prophets from both idolatry and indecent conduct and in this way was prepared for Christ. Then, however, he concludes from this fact that the faith of the Gentiles has even greater value than the faith of the Jews, because Gentiles lacked this very preparation. This notion, one which betrays a certain disdain towards Jews, is quite distant from the thought found in Hippolytus the exegete throughout On the Song of Songs (Chappuzeau claims the attitude is found throughout the Hippolytan corpus). It is true that Hippolytus the exegete does not polemicize against the synagogue in On the Song of Songs On the contrary, at the places in the commentary where the voice of the synagogue’s own disrespectfulness is expressed in her speech, in the replies of Christ there appears a certain “heilsgeschichtliche” sadness. And on the basis that the first appeal of God went out to the synagogue, Hippolytus the exegete, unlike Irenaeus, often points to the necessity of repentance and conversion. The ethos presented by Hippolytus the exegete thus contrasts to the anti-Jewish Christian polemic of second and third centuries. A similar ethos is noted in Haer. where the Gentiles are told: “Learn from us, the Hellenes, Egyptians, Chaldeans and you whole human race!” (Haer. 10.31.5 GCS 26.288.1-2) but Jews are not held up for invective and scorn. One might add to Chappuzeau’s assessment the brief statement of Noet. that merely states, without invective, “Ἰουδαῖοι µὲν γὰρ ἐδόξασαν Πατέρα, ἀλλ' οὐκ ηὐχαρίστησαν· Υἱὸν γὰρ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν,” Nevertheless, Chappuzeau’s somewhat positive portrayal of Hippolytus the exegete’s attitude toward the Jews must be properly contextualized. Hippolytus the exegete is certainly capable of invective against the Jews. In Comm. Dan. 1.14-19 he accuses Jews of wanting to excise the story of Susanna from Scripture (14), spying on Christians (15) and of antagonism to Christians (15), of being full of the power of the devil (19). Hippolytus the exegete further notes that Jews may not agree with Gentiles (non-Christian polytheists), but in terms of “worldly matters” they come together in common cause (15). The Antichrist will also be a Jewish king, or at least a king that is for the Jews (4.49.4), so Hippolytus the exegete’s position on the Jews is complicated. Pseudo-Hippolytus has a similarly complicated position concerning Jews (Haer. 9.13-25). He detracts attention from Christian diversity by describing Jewish diversity as the result of degeneration from one original unity. In addition, he describes the future hopes of all Jews as Messianic and warlike. The Messiah expected by the Jews in Haer. bears marked resemblance to the Antichrist described by Hippolytus in the Antichr. and Comm. Dan. 71 382 Chappuzeau notes in Hippolytus the exegete’s approach to the synagogue? Clearly Hippolytus is capable of invective against the synagogue. (See note 71 on page 381.) Hippolytus implicitly contrasts the complaining and unbelieving beloved to the kindness of Christ,72 thus casting a shadow of scorn on the synagogue. Throughout On the Song of Songs the more pointedly the intimate relationship of Christ to the church is stressed, the more sharply the disobedience of the synagogue comes to light.73 Interactions between Christ and the synagogue serve to exalt Christ and the Gentile church. The tactic itself appears to have been suggested by Hippolytus the exegete’s use of the Ariadne myth. The audience, many of whom knew the etiological tale of the Corona Borealis, and had seen, perhaps in their own homes, the stock images of Dionysus and Ariadne as images of dutiful but complicated married love, would get the picture.74 Urging the repentance of the unbelieving synagogue is a major theme in On the Song of Songs, even as in the Const. ap. 5.19.3 part of the Easter vigil, apart from baptizing catechumens, is to pray for the conversion of the Jews. Hippolytus elsewhere holds out the hope that a repentant Israel/synagogue would imitate the apostles and participate in the vigorous apostolic mission to the world: On praise, blame and amplification, see Aristotle, Rhet. 1.9.33-41 and [Cicero] Her. 3. 15; 4.53. 73 Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 78. 74 Christine Kondoleon, “Mosaic of Dionysos and Ariadne,” in The Arts of Antioch: Art Historical and Scientific Approaches to Roman Mosaics and a Catalogue of the Worcester Art Museum Antioch Collection (ed. Lawrence Becker and Christine Kondoleon; 2; Princeton University Press, 2005), 189, suggests that the presence of the divine couple (Dionysus and Ariadne) in a third-century bust mosaic from the House of the Sundial underscores the invitation to dinner. 72 383 Repent, Synagogue so that you too may hasten toward Christ for the race through the world, so that as a steed for him/it you may be made swift for the race as was Paul and like a shepherd as was Peter, that truly from now on you may make Christ known then as the blessed one [was] from the disciples, you may appear then as disciples of the blessed one, that with the ineffable draft animals you may be sealed. (In Cant. 8.8) By using a pop-culture mythical, framework Hippolytus the exegete attempts to make his teaching and his text relevant to his audience.75 The link between Dionysus and the Dioscuri (see the image below, the Dioscuri appearing at a banquet!) is a tenacious one. The relationship between these is not obvious either from literary or visual sources. Kondoleon, however, argues that the Calibri—overseers of grape harvest—were worshipped along with Dionysus and confused with the Dioscuri. Thus, the Dioscuri are seen in a the Paphian mosaic overseeing a great vine harvest.76 The reference in In Cant. 8.8 seems to suggest two notions. First, fraternal unity and mission, held up as an example for Jews who would believe and concordia apostolorum, a central theme of In Cant. 8. Hippolytus describes Peter as “like a shepherd” and Paul as swift “like a steed.” The interpretation as Peter and Paul, however, is clearly a western phenomenon, “either Roman or Italian.”77 Second, is the notion of celebration and harvest (see In Cant. 12.1-3 and 27). The harvest and the The fact that the version of the myth that most resembles Hippolytus the exegete’s mythical topos is a western form of the tradition found only in Ovid’s Fasti should be considered in assessing the provenance of the commentary. 76 See, Kondoleon, Domestic and Divine, 227. 77 Cf. with Peter and Paul. See Herbert L. Kessler, “The Meeting of Peter and Paul in Rome: An Emblematic Narrative of Spiritual Brotherhood,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 41 (1987): 265-75, who traces origin of the images to the fourth or fifth century. Hippolytus’ commentary suggests that the origins are earlier, perhaps as early as the second century AD. 75 384 banqueting couch are both major themes of the commentary. Picture 8: Dioscuri appear on steeds appearing at a banquet. 2nd century BC. Marble. From Larissa, Thessaly. Upper tier: the Dioscuri as riders wearing a short chiton and a chlamys, galloping above a winged Victory; lower tier: banqueting couch (kline), rectangular table with cakes and altar with a man laying an offering and a woman raising an object towards the sky. Inscription: [TOI]Σ ΘΕΟΙΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΙΣ ΔΑΝΑΑ ΑΤΘΕΝΕΙΤΕΙ[Α] ‘To the Great Gods, Danaa daughter of Aphtonetos (Atthoneiteia)’. Photo in the Public Domain, taken by Marie-Lan Nguyen. 8.2.3.2.1.2 Hippolytus’ Use of the Mythical Tale of Heracles’ Eleventh Labor The episode of the myrrhophores is the most puzzling of all the interpretive sequences of On the Song of Songs As noted above, the cast of characters that intrudes upon the text of the Song, speaking of the search of the beloved for her lover by night becomes, in typological transformation, the narrative of Martha and Mary in 385 search of the saviour at the tomb. The interpretation switches back and forth from Song to gospels. However, the third intrusive element is the introduction of Eve and Adam, the serpent, “tree of seduction,” and “tree of life” (In Cant. 25.7). It has suggested that the cast of characters in the interpretation has a corollary in popular representations of the eleventh labor of Heracles. Apollodorus, in Library (Lib.) 2.5.11 briefly tells the story and aludes to other versions of it. It is a tale of trickery by which Heracles liberates the apples of eternal life that are garded by a serpent in the garden. If he obtained the apples, he would become a “son of Zeus.” The garden is attended by three nymphs, the daughters of Atlas. Ovid also refers to a version of (Metam.4.637; 11.114; 9.190). The scenario as pictured by Hippolytus is strikingly similar to some representations of the myth in mosaic. Justin, in his first Apology recognized the existence of paralells between the earthly life of Jesus and gods and heroes such as Heracles, “In saying that the Word , who is the first offspring of God, was born for us without sexual union, as Jesus Christ our Teacher, and that he was crucified and died and after rising again acended into heaven we introduce nothing new beyond [what you say of] those whom you call sons of Zeus (Apol. 1.21.1 trans. Hardy). 386 Picture 9: Mosaic: The Twelve Labors of Hercules, Valencia (Liria), Spain. Early 3rd century. The eleventh labor, Hercules in the garden of the Hesperides, is pictured in the lower right hand corner. Photo in the public domain. In his Dialogue with Trypo (Dial.), Justin argued, however that the similarities between the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels and Heracles was a result of imitation of the prophecies about Christ: And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, “strong as a giant to run his race,” has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? (Dial. 69.3, ANF 1) 387 Picture 10: Mosaic close up of lower right hand of Picture 5: the eleventh labor of Hercules, 3rd century AD, Valencia (Liria), Spain. Mosaic on display in the Museo Arqueológico Nacional in Madrid. Photo in the public domain. As Aune has shown, in the second and third centuries, both Christians and Greco-Roman polytheists saw Christ and Heracles as rivals. Celsus, for example, argued that the Dioscuri, Heracles, Asclepius, and Dionysus were also originally mortals who became divinities (Origen, Cels. 3.22).78 Why would Hippolytus tell the story of the resurrection with multiple elements of Heracles’ labor? Guthrie suggested that Heracles was an important deity in popular myth because his life of toil and suffering led to his divinity. Heracles “offered new hope to the ordinary” person.79 Another reason that Hippolytus may have used the myth to preach Christ in his mystagogy, is that the images were on the walls or on the floors. One should imagine a painting like that found in the first-century triclinium of the Casa del Sacerdos Aune, “Heracles and Christ,” 3. William K. Guthrie, Greeks and their Gods (Ariadne Series; Beacon Press, 1971) 239. 79 78 388 Amandus in Pompeii80 or a mosaic on the floor? Images of the labors of Heracles were ubiquitous, and various types of representation gave slightly different twists to the tonality of the myth. Christian were required to reinterpret and subvert such images, just as Justin and Origen did, to counter the supposition that Christ was simply another form of the Heracles myth.81 8.2.3.2.1.3 The Psychagogical Christ and Hercules, Dionysus, and Orpheus The theme of Orpheus with the animals, especially a sheep (6.1.2; 7.5; 8.1-3), is well attested in third-century Christian iconography as a depiction of Christ.82 In one version of the myth, Orpheus fails to recover his new bride Eurydice died, bitten by a snake, from Hades because he looked back in longing at his bride just as the couple emerge from the shadows of the world of the dead. In On the Song of Songs Hippolytus has Christ send his would be bride represented by Martha and Mary back to the disciples to announce to them his resurrection. Meanwhile Christ ascends to heaven. Orpheus, the quintessential singer of hymns and hierophant of Dionysus has several other points of contact with Hippolytus the exegete’s interpretation of the Song.83 The Song of Songs, though it comes through “Solomon,” is ultimately a song See Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, CD # 208, 208a (an image of Heracles as a child strangling a snake!), 269 (painting of Heracles in the garden of the Hesperides, the image is in the triclinium of the Casa del Sacerdo Amandus (I 7, 7; PPM I 590-97). 81 This is a topic for further research. 82 Robin Margaret Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art (New York: Routledge, 2000), 7, 14, 62. 83 Clement of Alexandria’s Protrepticus shows a simultaneous rejection and assimilation of Greco-Roman mythology and mysteries. Christian appropriation of pagan 80 389 or series of songs of the Logos-Christ (In Cant. 1.1-8) and, as in Clement of Alexandria’s Protrepticus, the song of the Logos competes directly with the song of Orpheus. In fact On the Song of Songs may be read as a development of approaches initiated by Clement. In the Protrepticus he presents the Logos through various metaphors—some of which Clement does not develop further. For example, the Logos as triumphant actor or athlete in chapter 1. Clement develops, however, three metaphors in more extended fashion. He presents the Logos is as a song (chapter 1), as daylight (chapter 11), or as the true mysteries (chapter 12). All of these poetic images may be found in On the Song of Songs. However the mysteries were, on the one hand, akin in many ritual aspects to Christian experience, and on the other hand, mystery terminology had been developed by philosophy as an appropiate way to coherent with the intention of both the Protrepticus and On the Song of Songs. For Hippolytus, the New Song of the Logos substitute the old songs of Orpheus. Nothing would be more logical that the song of the Logos takes over the tone of those songs he wished to replace. The underlying assumption of Christian leaders like Clement and Hippolytus was that Greco-Roman world would not accept a religious tradition poetry has its earliest antecedent in Paul. In Acts 17:28 Paul quotes Aratus Phaen. 5; in Tt. 1:12 the Pauline writer cites Epimenides’ invective against the Cretans (picked up by Athenag. Leg. 30.2, Tat. Orat. 27.1 and Clem. Alex. Protr. 2.37.4 also cite it). Though it might be a popular saying, in 1 Cor. 15:33 Paul quotes a line from Maenander on bad habits (Thais fr. 165 K-A). These quotations perhaps derived from Paul’s general culture, and not from written sources. Authors like Clement (Strom. 1.51 and 1.91) used Paul’s example both to justify and condemn the Christian use of polytheistic culture. The apologists follow his example and have no difficulty combining simultaneous attacks on and assimilation of Greek culture and religion, as can be seen with special clarity in the case of Orphism. See Miguel Herrero de Jauregui, Orphism and Christianity in Late Antiquity (Studies in the Recovery of Ancient Texts) (1 ed. De Gruyter, 2010), 244 and n. 45. 390 esthetically inferior to their own.84 The pathos of the call for the synagogue expressed in On the Song of Songs derives, in part, from similarities and contrasts with Hippolytus’ spiritual narrative with the well-known Orpheus myth. The narrative of the commentary involves a descent of the divine Logos but not to Hades. Rather, the descent is to the “gathering of darkness” or “synagogue of darkness” that is this world. The resurrection and ascension of Christ is the Logos’ exit from this world. Martha and Mary’s intensely expressed desire to cling to Christ and exit the world with him parallel the parting of Orpheus and Eurydice, so well known in Roman wall paintings. The narrative of the Picture 11: Orpheus and Eurydice in the underworld. Port Laurentina Necropolis Tomb 33, Ostia. On display in the Vatican museums.Photograph: Giovanni Lattanzi, www.archart.it. Reproduced with permission. commentary, however, resolves the suspended reunion with a promise: Christ will allow his faithful followers—represented in Martha and Mary—to participate with For Clement’s Protrepticus, see M. H. d. Jauregui, “The Protrepticus of Clement of Alexandria: A Commentary,” And unpublished PhD Dissertation, Università di Bologna, 2008. 84 391 Christ in the resurrection. In the mean time they participate in his mission to church and world and guard themselves from the wiles of heretics. Also, the choice to bring into his interpretation of the Song a reference to the “fraud of the serpent” perpetrated on Eve may have suggested itself to Hippolytus on the basis of the myth. Hippolytus, then is once again drawing on mythical frameworks as a silent partner in his interpretation. Hippolytus encourages the believer to suckle from the twin breasts of Christ or the Word (In Cant. 3.3, 4), his breasts representing the commandments of both old and the new laws. The source of this image is a biblical text, though refracted through a Greco-Roman mythical imagination on the one hand,85 and an idealized conception of the philosopher-teacher who cares for his students in a compassionate way.86 Hippolytus is, perhaps, using the text to subvert the popular image of the androgynous Dionysus, who is presented in Pompeian wall paintings as an effeminate figure, sometimes with large breasts and distinctly feminine features. In the same passage Christ is described as the mixer of wine, as a kind of Dionysus. Hippolytus says: Through union with Christ, the church also is blessed with the breasts of the Law and the Gospel (In Cant. 12.1). Hippolytus the exegete probably derived this image from Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.24.1), who taught that the church, as mother, can alone nourish the faithful from her breasts. The church, as the body of Christ (and as mother of the faithful) is in view here. Mixed metaphors did not bother Hippolytus the exegete. 86 Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1987), 36-38. 85 392 Picture 12: A (very) androgynous Dionysus (in dress with prominent breasts) discovering Ariadne, from chap. VII of Roman Domestic Art, Casa dell'Ara massima (in situ). See also in Balch, Roman Domestic Art, CD image # 246. Used by permission of the author and the kind permission of the Soprintendente Speciale per i beni Archaeologici di Napoli e Pompei. “I have loved your breasts more than wine.” Not however [referring to] that wine which is mixed by Christ, but to the wine which in the past made Noah slow-witted by intoxication, and which deceived Lot, “we love your sources of milk more than this wine,” for the breasts through Christ were the two commandments. It makes one joyful, but does not wish to make one slow witted. For this very reason also the apostle says, “Do not be drinking too much wine to the point of intoxication.” Now for this reason, beloved, it says, “I have loved your breasts more than wine.” Distinct from Dionysus, however, the wine Christ mixes does not lead to drunkenness. Such features, apart from possible scriptural precedents,87 raise an The image of suckling on the breast of Christ (instead of “love-making” or “kisses”) is striking and comes from the LXX reading of the consonantal Hebrew text of Song 1:1 ‫ דדיך‬with patach instead of cholem. In addition to this image is Isaiah 66:11-13, where post-exilic third Isaiah symbolizes the comfort of the people of Judah with the gloriously endowed Jerusalem, who suckles and comforts her children on her breasts, but it is Yahweh who says, “As a mother comforts her child, so I will 87 393 important issue: what made it possible for Hippolytus to represent Christ as symbolically offering milk from his breasts and mixing wine for a party? As did later Christian artists, Hippolytus seems to be drawing upon an history of androgynous representations like that of Dionysus to describe Christ.88 The familiar images represented a significant commonplace between linking Hippolytus’ biblical text, the celebration of Christian mysteries, and the religious culture of every day life of prospective Christians. It would be a mistake, however to consider such androgyny in strictly sexual terms. Rather, the image of the philosophical teacher as “wet nurse,” well known from the New Testament,89 is more likely the idea. The philosophical teacher often presented himself as an emissary from heaven.90 They called their followers to adopt a dramatically different way of life from their fellows. The degree of distress that those who responded might experience often required that the teacher give the consolation comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.” 88 Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art, 124. See also Emmanuel Friedheim, “Who Are the Deities Concealed Behind the Rabbinic Expression ‘a Nursing Female Image’?,” HTR 96.2 (2003): 239-50. This god sought by participants in the mysteries had also undergone two births, natural as well as divine. Dionysus represented the promise of happiness afforded by the prosperity and patronage of the Roman elite. The representations of nursing played and important role in the cult mysteries of Dionysus. Some cult images involve followers of Dionysus nursing representatives of nature (such as the woman nursing a deer).! Thus the religious role of nursing was not limited to the ancient purpose of accelerating the fertility of nature. Henri Seyrig, La triade héliopolitaine et les temples de Baalbek, extracts from Syria, 10 (1929): 314-56. 89 Abraham J. Malherbe,” Gentle as a Nurse. The Cynic Background of 1 Thess 2.” NovT! 12 (1970): 203–17.! 90 Arrian, Discourses of Epictetus 3.22.23-24, 45-46; Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 32.1 394 of emotional support. The loss of old habits and the dramatic change in the fabric of social relationships put their followers under significant strain, sometimes to the breaking point. Family members and neighbors would wonder and worry about new behaviors and abrupt withdrawal from long-familiar interactions.91 Epicteus, for example, chided some of his students for what the perceived as poor treatment: You go back to the same things again; you have exactly the same desires as before, the same aversions, in the same way you make your choices, your designs, and your purposes, you pray for the same things and are interested in the same things. In the second place, you do not even look for anybody to give you advice, but you are annoyed if you are told what I am telling you. Again you say, “He is an old man without the milk of human kindness in him.”Arrian, Discourses of Epictetus 2.17.36-38, trans. Oldfather, LCL Accordingly, Hippolytus represents Christ as a teacher who consoles92 his own, suckling his followers “with commandments” as one of the moderate Cynic philosopher’s such as Epictetus might have done. As the leader of a house-church functioning also like a philosophical school, Hippolytus’ group would fit the profile of need sensed in such contexts. Philosophical schools recognized the difficulty of adopting a new and dramatically different way of life, and teachers adapted their “psychagogy” to support, as well as to challenge, new members. One may argue that, with Abraham J. Malherbe in Paul the apostle’s case, that the same sort of distress felt by new members in Paul's assemblies would be felt in Hippolytus’ community. Malherbe cites passages such as Joseph and Aseneth 12:11; 13:1 and Philo, On the Virtues 102-3) illustrate the consequent need for such care. 91 See Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). 92 Hippolytus states explicitly that the function of the Song is consolation (1.5). On consolation as a theme in Passover celebration, see above, pages 259 and 356. 395 A philosophical, psychagogical understanding of the androgynous Christ, however, does not put aside the larger issue of Hippolytus’ use of polytheistic imagery. The imagery of Hippolytus’ mystagogy is a Christian appropriation of Roman imperial imagery. From the time of Virgil, Julio-Claudian propaganda had coopted the imagery of Hercules and Dionysus in the service of imperial power. In a scene of the Aeneid similar to the Odyssey’s journey of Odysseus’s journey to the underworld, Aeneas is tours of the afterlife and the future in a visionary journey. Int the vision his father, Anchises, now deceased, approaches him describing the fate of souls and the torments awaiting evildoers (Aeneid 6.679-755). Afterwards, he reveals to him “the glory henceforth to attend the Trojan race.” Anchises then describes the holy line of ancestors from Aeneas’s own sons to Romulus. In the climactic moment, he then prophetically introduces his two greatest descendants: Julius Caesar, who would be deified after his death, and his adopted son Augustus: Here is Caesar and all the seed of lulus destined to pass under heaven's spacious sphere. And this in truth is he whom you so often hear promised you, Augustus Caesar, son of a god, who will again establish a golden age in Latium amid fields once ruled by Saturn; he will advance his empire beyond the Garamants and Indians to a land which lies beyond our stars, beyond the path of year and sun, where sky-bearing Atlas wheels on his shoulders the blazing star-studded sphere. Against his coming both Caspian realms and the Maeotic land even now shudder at the oracles of their gods, and the mouths of sevenfold Nile quiver in alarm. Not even Hercules traversed so much of earth's extent, though he pierced the stag of brazen foot, quieted the woods of Erymanthus, and made Lerna tremble at his bow; nor he either, who guides his car with vineleaf reins, triumphant Bacchus, driving his tigers down from Nysa's lofty peak. And do we still hesitate to make known our worth by exploits or shrink in fear from settling on Western soil? “You [Fabius], are he, the mightiest.... You, Roman, be sure to rule the world (be these your arts), to crown peace with justice, to spare the vanquished and to crush the proud.” 396 (Virgil, Aeneid 6.788-807, 847, 851-53, trans. Fairclough, LCL) Hippolytus contests such symbols—even as Paul and other early Christians had contested titles such as “Lord” and “S/son of God”—as properly belonging to the far greater glory of Christ. At every point the mystagogy wrests powerful symbols of Roman identity and takes them captive for Christ and the Christian identity. The battle for hearts and minds takes place at the level of symbols and the weapons of warfare are their reinterpretation through ceremony of initiation: baptism and the anointing. The case in support such imagery for the Christological interpretation the Song becomes stronger upon consideration of other images in the commentary. The Song refers to the unbelieving synagogue as a mare or steed yoked with the chariots of Pharaoh (In Cant. 8.1). That comparison prompts Hippolytus to describe Christ as the driver of a four wheeled (In Cant. 8.5) chariot pulled by horses (representing the apostles, In Cant. 8.2) riding over the sea and stirring up the waters “for the gathering of the Gentiles” (In Cant. 8:2).93 93 As scriptural precedent for this image Hippolytus the exegete adduces Hab 3:15. 397 Picture 13: Wall with A triumphal procession of Dionysus 252a. Casa di M. Lucetius Fronto (V4,a; PPM III 1010-13), tablinum (7), south wall. From Balch, Roman Domestic Art (in situ). Used by permission of the author and the Soprintendente Speciale per i beni Archaeologici di Napoli e Pompei. The chariot itself is also decorated with the image of four living creatures: a lion, an ox or perhaps a vine,94 an eagle, and a human being. The chariot pulled by these creatures remind of the reference in the ancient fourth-century anaphora in the Barcelona papyrus, “[Jesus Christ] who sits on the chariot, Cherubim and Seraphim before it.”95 Each of these represent the four evangelists (8.6). The apostles are both a So the Paleo-Slavic florilegium, which has “ox.” The Georgian text has “the shoot as the vine of a high priest,” that could be based upon a misunderstanding of the Greek text of Hippolytus the exegete. An original reading ὡς µοσχάριον άνατολῆς ἐξ ὕψους might account for both the Georgian and Paleo-Slavic readings. Paleo-Slavic dropped άνατολῆς ἐξ ὕψους while the Georgian text lost or dropped µοσχάριον and tried to make sense of the resulting text by interpreting άνατολῆς as “vine-shoot.” On the other hand, the image of the vine was common in early Christian iconography as a symbol of Messiah and church (perhaps echoing passages like Jn 10; Is 27:3-6). 95 Zheltov, “Barcelona Papyrus,” VC: 488. The Ur-text of the anaphora Zheltov 94 398 yoke of twelve, and yet four.96 On profile, one sees a “wheel within a wheel” which represents the Old and New Testaments, according to Hippolytus (8.6).97 Picture 14: A close up of Picture 6, from Balch, Roman Domestic Art. Used by permission of the author and the Soprintendente Speciale per i beni Archaeologici di Napoli e Pompei. Christ is the charioteer, a righteous one (8.8). Hippolytus emphasizes the unity of the horses and the world-wide scope of their mission. The image is complex and composite. It is ostensibly drawn by Hippolytus from Ezekiel 1 and 10 (yet that vision has no horses!). rightly argues dates from the third century. 96 The Georgian text consistently makes the apostles twelve; Paleo-Slavic only gives their number as four, and Ambrose gives their number as both twelve and four: o bonourm equorum duodecauigum mirabile, et sine offensione currebant, quia bona uita equorum quadrabat, currebant igitur equi, quia non dormiebat que ascenderat equos. Ambrose here is likely nearer the original text. 97 The marvelous Spirit inhabits both the wheels and the living creatures, a symbol of biblical inspiration. 399 Picture 15: Upper photo, Helios-Christ in the Catacomb of St. Peter’s, the Vatican, third century (ca. 250 AD), Rome. Photo in the public domain. Lower photo, a denarius Coin of Emperor Probus, circa 280, with Sol Invictus riding a quadriga, with legend SOLI INVICTO, “to the Unconquered Sun.” The Emperor wears a radiated solar crown, worn also by the god (to the right). Photo in the public domain. The image has elements of the chariot of the sun in Psalm 19—representing the order or law of nature, analogous to the written Torah—and that of Ezekiel carried by four living creatures, the chariot of Helios carried by four horses, and the chariot of Dionysus, pulled by a panther, a bull and a griffin.98 However, Hippolytus 98 Cf. the famous fourth century mosaic image of Christ-Helios in the dome of the 400 emphatically connects this image to the synagogue (In Cant. 8.1, 8) and uses the image as the basis of an appeal for the synagogue to repent and join Christ in his mission. Thus it seems possible that Hippolytus is giving a Christian interpretation of a Jewish image, which in turn is taken from polytheistic mythical images.99 Yet Clement of Alexandria also referred to this same image in his Protrepticus 11 with no apparent connection at all to Judaism: For “the Sun of Righteousness,” who drives his chariot over all, pervades equally all humanity, like “his Father, who makes his sun to rise on all men,” and distills on them the dew of the truth. He has changed sunset into sunrise, and through the cross brought death to life; and having wrenched man from destruction, he hath raised him to the skies, transplanting mortality into immortality, and translating earth to heaven—he, the husbandman of God. “Pointing out the favorable signs and rousing the nations to good works, putting them in mind of the true sustenance.”100 Mosauleum M (of the Julii) of the Vatican Necropolis. See the discussion of the image in Jensen, Face to Face, 147-8. The image of the four horses drawing a chariot with Helios as the driver was a pervasive, living image in the late antique world, promoted by church, synagogue and empire with differing interpretations. See Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 572-5. The chariot of Dionysus is known in various forms, see vase paintings from the Pasithea Painter, K12, 8 the Chariot of Dionysos, Louvre NMB 1036 (400 - 390 BC): Beazley Archive Number 230398, Cited 08-21-2008 »http:/ /www.theoi.com/Gallery/K12.8.html«. 99 See Steven Fine, Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman world: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 89-91, 197-8. The fourth century synagogue in Hammath Tiberius depicts the zodiac and Helios chariot with charioteer, as do others. No images of this type survive from the third century. Hippolytus the exegete’s In Cant. is good indirect testimony that such images were employed as early as the second/third century. 100 ANF 2.203, Clement cites Aratus, Phaen. 1.7 ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ γεωργός, «δεξιὰ σηµαίνων, λαοὺς δ' ἐπὶ ἔργον» ἀγαθὸν»ἐγείρων, µιµνῄσκων βιότοιο» ἀληθινοῦ, Arati, Phaenomena: Fragmentum (e codicibus) (ed. J. Martin; Florence: La Nuova Italia 401 Clement’s charioteer is also reminiscent of the god Apollo-Dionysus.101 Interestingly, as Hippolytus, so also Clement equates the solar charioteer image of Christ with the Logos, which supports the notion that the Helios-chariot image as Logos is a topos within the tradition of Logos christology. What is more, Clement also points out that Logos-Christ is androgynous. He represents a new ἄνθρωπος, that transcends the categories of male and female: “And the one whole Christ is not divided: ‘There is neither barbarian, nor Jew, nor Greek, neither male nor female, but a new ἄνθρωπος,’ transformed by God’s Holy Spirit. Further, the other counsels and precepts are unimportant, and respect particular things,—as, for example, if one may marry, take part in public affairs, beget children; but the only command that is universal, and over the whole course of existence, at all times and in all circumstances, tends to the highest end, that is, life, is piety,—all that is necessary, in order that we may live for ever, being that we live in accordance with it.” The Christian use of graphic images of Christ with androgynous, Dionysiac or Apollonian characteristics has been long documented.102 Christ appears in Editrice, 1956), 2. 101 Other references in Clement show a deliberate tendency to interpret Christian initiation in the terms of Hellenistic “mystery” religion: Clement of Alexandria, Prot. 12 (ANF 2.205, Greek text in GCS 12, 1:84, 23. Online: Clement, “Clemens Alexandrinus,” GCS 12.1 (1905): Cited 10-16-2008. Online: http://books.google.com/books.; PG 8.241A). See G. W. H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit: a Study in the Doctrine of Baptism and Confirmation in the New Testament and the Fathers (2nd ed.; London: S. P. C. K. 1967), 10. 102 On the secondary literature, especially see especially Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art, 202, n. 52; Michael Jameson, “The Asexuality of Dionyus,” Masks of Dionysus (ed. Thomas H. Carpenter and Christopher A. Faraone, Myth and Poetics; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 44-64. The historian Diodorus, in commenting on Dionysus’ ambiguous age and sex concludes that there were actually two Dionysi the one ancient and masculine with a long beard and the other appearing youthful and effeminate (Diodorus Hist. 4.5.2; cp. Ovid, Met. 4.13.20; Seneca Oed. 420). 402 representations with protruding breasts and long, curly hair in images of fourth and fifth century iconography, leading some scholars to think such representations were depictions of women in some cases.103 Irenaeus, reports that such images were used by at least one type of Christian group in Rome from the late second century at the latest.104 Some scholars have suggested that this type of image emerged in heterodox circles.105 Nevertheless, as Clement of Alexandria illustrates, the image of the androgyne had a an honored place in Christian teaching appears as an important symbol, both of the gentleness of Christ as teacher, as previously seen, and of the restoration of original humanity in Christ, beginning with Paul and the Pauline churches (Gal 3:25-27).106 Specifically here, as Jensen summarizes: “Apollo and Dionysus iconographic types . . . share feminine attributes seen in . . . youthful Jesus images, including the round shoulders, small but obvious breasts, wide hips, and full cheeks of the nearly hermaphroditic figures See Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art, 117-25. See Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 75, Plate 13, who suggests that a seated “Christ-Serapis” with long ringlets, feminine features, and seated in the posture of a teacher is a Carpocratian teacher. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.25.6 reports that Marcellina, a female teacher with some relation to Carpocrates, is said to have gone to Rome during the time of the presbyter-bishop Anicetus (155-160 AD). She and her followers apparently used images, including images of Christ, and gave them honor with ceremonies including garlanding. Irenaeus does not offer any description of these images. 105 Thomas F. Mathews, The Cash of Gods: a Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art (Rev. ed.; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), 135-8. 106 Wayne A. Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity,” HR 13 (1974): 167. 104 103 403 described by Euripides, Ovid, Diodorus, and Seneca or portrayed in classical iconography.”107 As Jensen suggests, representations of Jesus of this type were consistent with the portraiture of savior deities in the Hellenistic mystery cults.108 Hippolytus the exegete’s depiction of Christ in such terms might represent his attempt at relevance for his audience. However, he was also likely borrowing from well-known iconography and hallowed philosophical and pastoral tradition. Such iconography in domestic contexts would have been an impressive link with the Song read in Greek to the newly baptized. Hippolytus made use of such images to co-opt the divine attributes of familiar deities and other cultural forms, transforming them into attributes of Christ and even of himself as a presbyter-bishop who represented Christ to the people. Some important preliminary conclusions can be drawn from Hippolytus the exegete’s use of polytheistic motifs used in service of Christian mystagogy. The textual moves of Hippolytus represent an approach remarkably similar to the Christian application of motifs of visual culture in the represenations of Christ that begin to appear in the third century.109 In On the Song of Songs Christ described variously in terms of motifs belonging to Dionysus, Orpheus, Apollo, Helios, or Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art, 125. Ibid. 109 Hippolytus the exegete’s attitude of co-opting mythical attributes in his text in On the Song of Songs is similar in approach to the so-called “statute of Hippolytus.” Most interpretations agree that the statue was understood as a symbolic representation either of Logos-Sophia or of the community itself as the Roman Church, a representation, perhaps, of the queenly bride of Christ. The Guarducci-Brent posits that the statue began existence as the representation of a female Epicurean philosopher. Vinzent argues that it began existence as a representation of the Amazon Hippolyta. 108 107 404 Heracles are typical rhetorical moves of amplification used in the genre of encomium. Hippolytus praises Christ by a favorable comparison to the traits of god-men, divinities and philosophical figures. As Aristotle said, when praising someone, “you must compare him with illustrious personages for it affords grounds for amplification and is noble, if he can be proved to be better than men of worth.”110 Mutatis mutandis, the principle is true in praising divine figures as well. Hippolytus could be confident in making use of themes borrowed from mythological figures because of his certainty that the resurrected Christ was far superior to the gods111 and philosophical teaches who were rivals of Christian teachers. 8.2.3.3 Valentinian Precedents of Hippolytus the Exegete’s Commentary Jewish tradition and Greco-Roman polytheistic myth shaped Hippolytus’ interpretation of the Song. Moreover, the thought and practice of diverse streams of Christianity were an important part of the matrix that formed the set of interpretive assumptions and results in Hippolytus the exegete’s In Cant. Following von Döllinger, 112 Brent and others argue convincingly that Hippolytus made use of Valentinian and Christian theological categories that would later be understood as heretical in his fight against Monarchianism.113 In view of Aristotle, Rhet. 3.14.6; Cicero, Inv. 1.16.23; Quintilian, Inst. 4.15. In the same way, the community in Rome, under Hippolytan influence, could reinterpret a statue they knew had represented many cities of the East and in Rome represented Roma, its divine genius, because of a sense of confidence that, despite their ancestral origins in non-Roman peoples and places, they were Roman nonetheless and citizens of a New Jerusalem. 112 von Döllinger, Hippolytus and Callistus, 201-2. 113 See Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church, 358. Indeed, it may well be that 111 110 405 Hippolytus the exegete’s touchy defense against the charge of Valentinianism in (Noet. 10.3-4),114 it is appropriate to probe more deeply and ask whether any evidence exists to suggest additional Valentinian influences115 in his In Cant. Valentinian influence is especially interesting because, during the later Arian controversy, Hippolytus was brought up in support of the Arian side of the controversy.116 It is quite possible that in 347 the bishops of Philopolis, referring to events about a century earlier, reflect a tradition that Hippolytus was maligned as Valentinian, because of the way eastern bishops used their tacit acceptance of the ouster of “Novatian, Sabellius and Valentinus” by the Roman Church.117 If In Cant. is properly contextualized in gnostic thought made a significant contribution to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. See Alistair H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism (Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 32. Hippolytus the exegete’s focus on making Christian use of Old Testament Scriptures also involves a reaction to debates with Marcion of Sinope and his followers on the status of the Jewish Scriptures, Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 215. 114 The reason he even mentions Valentinus in Noet. is a defensive move. 115 von Döllinger, Hippolytus and Callistus, 202. 116 Ibid. 198. One of the anathemas of the Council of Nicea was directed against what is, essentially, the position of Hippolytus the exegete, Ibid., 201-2 117 The grouping of Valentinus with the other two is odd, since he was likely excommunicated in the second century, yet it may simply be a rhetorical amplification. See Hilary of Potiers, Ex operibus historicis frag. 2.1.2 662 (PL 10); Socrates Hist. eccl. 2.15 (PG 57) makes it clear that Novatian had been expelled with no objection from the East, as the bishops meeting at Antioch (341 AD) reminded the Roman Church. The council in Macedonia (347 AD) strengthened the claim Rome should respect their condemnation of Marcellus because eastern bishops had supported Rome in the ouster of “Novatian, Sabellius, and Valentinus.” von Döllinger, Hippolytus and Callistus, 203, conjecture that the “Valentinus” condemned by Callistus was in reality Hippolytus the exegete. Brent suggests, rather, that a folk legend of a Valentinian Hippolytus condemned by Callistus persisted till that time. Cerrato, on the other hand, suggests a “real” Valentinian Hippolytus, otherwise unknown, would be just as likely. von Döllinger’s intuition would seem to be supported by the contents of In Cant. It 406 Rome, a charge from Monarchian Christians of Valentinianism against. Hippolytus, while not fair to his theological outlook, would be, nevertheless, understandable. Several features of On the Song of Songs show a marked connection with gnostic, especially Valentinian Christian practice. Not that Hippolytus advocated a second baptism, but he may well have been reacting to the nuptial interpretation of baptism and even elements of a Valentinian baptismal interpretation of the Song of Songs to enhance his own baptismal rites. Here one must remember the words of Pelletier, that the Song was more than a “marginal scriptural document or simply a curious text.”118 Rather, it was a text which had a precious link to a lived, experiential reality in the early church. That reality was no less precious among heretical groups like the gnostic Christian Valentinians. The nomenclature regarding gnostic streams of Christianity is a battle ground.119 Entering the fray, one could characterize gnostic Christians as most often globally less socially cohesive120 and yet more restrictive concerning sexuality due to has enough points of contact with Valentinian practice and theology to create the impression that Hippolytus was a Valentinian, though he saw himself as an enemy of the Valentinians. 118 Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 215. 119 See Stark, Cities of God, 141-5, who cites the recent study of the category of “gnosticism,” Michael A. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: an Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 27, 40, who argues that the only category common to all varieties of “gnostics” is the category “heresy” applied to them by monoarchians and Logos Christians. Yet, as Stark, Cities of God, 144-54 and Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons, 265-73 have shown, many features were common to many of these groups. Williams suggests “biblical demiurgic” as a label. 120 However, gnostic groups did spark mass movements that developed global organization, as in the case of the followers of Marcion. 407 radical ontological dualism,121 and more anti-Jewish than the traditionally organized church.122 On the other hand it appears likely that “heresy” was productive of theological and liturgical innovation among other Christian groups, including that of Hippolytus.123 The contours of the ritual framework presupposed by On the Song of Songs (baptism as preparation for a nuptial celebration prefigured in the Passover celebration, and post-baptismal anointing in preparation for a banquet or “couch” with nuptial connotations) did not originate with Hippolytus. . Irenaeus, discussing a number of diverse heterodox practices summarizes: For some of them prepare a nuptial couch, and perform a sort of mystic rite (pronouncing certain expressions) with those who are being initiated, and affirm that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the conjunctions above. (Adv. Haer. 1.23.3) The “nuptial couch” refers to the regular Greco-Roman banquet, but presented with the added interpretation of the celebration of a marriage. This practice is very likely a reaction to and reflection of Valentinian practice, which appeared Some, however, were radically permissive with regards to sexuality, though this seems to be the exception. 122 See Stark, Cities of God, 145-54. This sentence should not be taken to imply a centralized hierarchy like that of the present Roman Catholic Church. The variety of mechanisms of power (synod, pope or patriarch, canon, creed and, in Rome, even the monepicopacy) were not yet fully developed. Nevertheless, positions staked out in the larger church concerning Scripture, creed, hallowed habits of liturgical practice, apostolic writings, teachers and apostolic succession provided a cover of authority to which church leaders appealed in matters of dispute. See van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 4, “In all cases an appeal to ‘tradition’ was an essential element in church disputes” among the emerging mainstream. 123 This was the theory of Lampe, Seal of the Spirit, 101-48. 121 408 strange to Irenaeus. That these initiatory rites were also connected to baptism is logical, given that a bath would have preceded the banquet. Still, baptism could have been celebrated without a banquet by certain groups,124 which seems to be Irenaeus’ meaning. He immediately adds to his presentation of initiation rites the topic of baptism among heretical groups: “Others, again, lead them to a place where water is, and baptize them, with the utterance of [certain mysterious words]. After this they anoint the initiated person with balsam; for they assert that this unguent is a type of that sweet odor which is above all things” (Adv. Haer. 1.21.3). Other groups, according to Irenaeus, rejected baptism, while retaining ritual anointing, or combining water and oil in the anointing as a substitute: But there are some of them who assert that it is superfluous to bring persons to the water, but mixing oil and water together, they place this mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated,125 with the use of some such expressions as we have already mentioned. And this they maintain to be the redemption. They, too, are accustomed to anoint with balsam. Others, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power ought not to be performed by visible and corruptible creatures, nor should that of those [beings] who are inconceivable, and incorporeal, and beyond the reach of sense, [be performed] by such as are the objects of sense, and possessed of a body. These hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself perfect redemption. Varieties of practices of baptism and anointing were particularly connected with Valentinian groups. This does not mean, however, that the practice of anointing, either pre- or post-baptismal, originated with the Valentinian Christians. We know Or, conversely a banquet could have followed baptism without a specific nuptial interpretation. 125 This seems to suggest baptism by pouring. The addition of oil to the water is also attested in In Cant. 2.8. 124 409 little of baptismal rites anywhere before the third century, apart from the Didache. There was great local diversity in practice, and, as one can tell from Irenaeus, Christians within a single locale could and did differ widely. On the other hand, forces were already at work to unify diverse practices. However, part of the diversity includes the differences between Irenaeus and Hippolytus themselves. Therefore we cannot make much of differences of detail or emphasis between disparate, as this may derive from their distinct original liturgical practices. Insofar as some western rites have post-baptismal anointing, the significance lent is likely Christic126 (so in the paper attached, and also note Tertullian De baptismo.). We don’t know whether these are eastern rites imported to the west or not. Heterodox communities may have “orthodox” liturgical practices, and are often liturgically conservative (especially the Marcionites.) Therefore, it would be too large a leap to say that Valentinians originated post-baptismal anointing. It is, however, reasonable to say that Hippolytus and the Valentinians inhabit the same realm of liturgical practice, and that, given Hippolytus’ rejection of emanation language, that they inhabit a common realm of theological discourse. The words “they too anoint with balsam” gives the impression that many Valentinian Christians practiced a water baptism followed by an anointing, similar to the practice of Ireneaus’ church at Lyons but with different pronouncement formulae.127 The utterance of mysterious words to which Irenaeus points may refer to a regular mystagogical practice. Hippolytus’ On the Song of Songs, with its focus on Alistair C. Stewart, “Ἀπεκυήσις Λόγῳ Ἀληθείας: Paraenesis and Baptism in Matthew, James and the Didache,” Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings (ed. Jürgen Zangenberg, SBL Symposium; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 341-60. 127 Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 279. 126 410 the mystery of the anointing and the explication of the Song as a mysterious code may well analogous. Irenaeus himself appears to be less perturbed about the order of events themselves than about the Valentinian substitution of anointing for baptism. And the outright rejection of both baptism and anointing along with heterodox, incomprehensible words spoken over baptism and anointing would have been most disturbing to him.128 Irenaeus should not be cited as an upholder of a theory of any Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.9.3 unites the giving of the Spirit with baptism, in imitation of the baptism of Jesus. See Lampe, Seal of the Spirit, 119-20. Lampe argues that the seal of post baptismal anointing was taken up from Gnostic sects. Never mind that the same theology of sealing is present in Syrian pre-baptismal rites (the word employed, rušma’, renders σφράγις.) But it is largely a matter of evidence being absent or present. Who knows whether the Valentinian or the rites of the “greater church” came first? As is well known, Lampe was motivated by inner-Anglican politics, seeking to deny the primitive nature of post-baptismal anointing, which was being revived in Anglican circles by Anglo-Catholics. He was an evangelical. Winkler, “The Original Meaning of the Prebaptismal Anointing an Its Implications,” in Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation (ed. Maxwell E. Johnson; Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1995), has argued, against correctly against Lampe, that broad, early practice of eastern churches was pre-baptismal anointing signifying the presence of the Spirit (not exorcism). See her original article Winkler, “Original Meaning of the Prebaptismal Anointing,” 24-45, and Serra, “Syrian Prebaptismal Anointing and Western Postbaptismal Chrismation,” 328-41. In Winkler’s pioneering study, she showed that the ancient Syrian rite had originally emphasized the pre-baptismal anointing of the head alone as the crucial aspect of pre-baptismal anointing. Its meaning was quite distinct from post-baptismal, pre-banquet anointing. Rather, it was in imitation of the kingly/sacerdotal anointing of Jesus at his baptism, which signaled the gift of the Spirit and inaugurated his Messianic kingship. As such, it was a symbol of rebirth (cf. John 3) and not death and resurrection (Rom 6). Others, viz., Alistair Logan, “Post-Baptismal Chrismation in Syria: The Evidence of Ignatius, the Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions,” JTS 49 (1998): 92-108, following Bradshaw who argued that Christian practice began in haphazard diversity and only later became unified, Bradshaw, Search for the Origins of Christian Worship, 163-74, have attempted to argue that the eastern practice was as early as the second century included postbaptismal anointing as in the West. Nevertheless, the evidence for such early diversity 128 411 “sealing” administered with a rite of anointing. “Where such anointing was certainly practiced in the second century, and held to be a means of sealing the believer for future redemption, is among Gnostic sects.”129 It is likely that if Irenaeus had seen the practice of baptism as envisioned by his disciple Hippolytus, he would have been struck by the similarities with Valentinian rites. This state of affairs is explained by the fact that for quite some time Valentinus was a respected teacher in the church in Rome, and demarcating one group of Christians from another, later considered heretical did not become clearly drawn until the time of Irenaeus. When Irenaeus saw Valentinian rites in Gaul, they were probably practiced by a number of nonValentinian groups in Rome in different ways. Heracleon, the disciple of Valentinus, also links baptismal imagery, Passover, and nuptial imagery. Origen quotes him in discussing the Passover. Heracleon, however, says. This is the great feast, for it was a type of the Savior’s passion, when the sheep was not only killed but also provided rest when it was being eaten. In being sacrificed it signified the passion of the Savior in the world, but in being eaten it signified the rest at the wedding.130 in Syria and the East is weak Joseph G. Mueller, “Post-Baptismal Chrismation in Second-Century Syria: A Reconsideration of the Evidence.” JTS 57 (2006): 76-93. See also Kilian McDonnell, “Jesus’ Baptism in the Jordan.” TS 56 (1995): 209-36, on theological development surrounding the baptism of Jesus in both the eastern and western church from the event, considered of central in the early mainstream Christian understanding of redemption. 129 Lampe, Seal of the Spirit, 120-1. 130 Origen, Comm. Jn 10.117 (trans. from Origen, Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 1-10 (FC 80, trans. and ed. Ronald E. Heine; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 281. 412 Heracleon in this passage likely refers to baptism here under the image of rest, a well known image dear to the early church,131 especially in the East.132 The notion of rest connected to baptism is also a prominent feature of On the Song of Songs 26-27. It is worthy of note, therefore, that in Heracleon, a representative of western Valentinianism (Haer. 6.30.3-7), the essential elements of Hippolytus the exegete’s contextualization of the Song also come together: Passover, baptism, feast, and nuptial interpretation. Lampe argues that Valentinus and Valentinian leaders, like Heracleon, who followed him belonged to the educated circles of their day.133 He argues, however, that they could have had a considerable following among people of little or no education. The evidence suggests that Valentinians launched a mass movement of socially stratified groups based upon normal patron-client relations. They became a force that rivaled other church groups in many areas.134 Lampe’s study of a Valentinian inscription on the Via Latina, dated paleographically to the middle of the second century,135 is pertinent to understanding On the Song of Songs and the typological interpretation of Hippolytus in that it Kilian McDonnell, “Jesus' Baptism in the Jordan.” TS 56 (1995): 225-6. See the Gospel of the Hebrews fragment preserved in Schneemelcher and Wilson, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, 1.177, “My Son, in all the prophets I was waiting for thee that though shouldest come and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first-begotten Son that reignest for ever.” 133 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 297. 134 Here Stark, Cities of God, 171, finds evidence of Valentinian groups in 75% of the larger cities of the Roman world where there is evidence of non-Valentinian churches. 135 The evidence suggests the period of the Antonines (139-180 AD). See Margherita Guarducci, “Valentiniani a Roma,” MDAI 80 (1973): 169-89. 132 131 413 suggests a nuptial interpretation of baptism in Rome previous to Hippolytus’ time. Lampe’s reconstruction of the text yields the translation: Co(brothers/sisters [συνάδελφοι])136 of the bridal chambers, celebrate with torches the (ba)ths (λούτρα) for me. They hunger for (ban)quets (εἰλαπίνας) in ou(r rooms [ἡµετέροισι δόµοισι]),137 (La)uding the Father, and praisin(g) the Son; Oh, may there be flow(ing [ῥύσις εἴη]) of the only (sp)ring (πηγῆς) and of the truth in that very place (or: then).138 Lampe sums up the Christian reading of this text as reflecting a patron/host opening up his/her home for Christian rituals,139 which the host asks to be observed “for me” (i.e., in my honor or remembrance). The congregation celebrates baptisms and looks forward to eucharistic meals afterwards, which are celebrated with song in praise of the Father and the Son. Wherever the rituals are observed the patron hopes that there is the “flowing of the spring of truth.” The combination of Father, Son, and bridal chamber ocurrs in GPhil 82; further, the GPhil 95 teaches that the Valentinians received the anointing from the apostles, which Christ received “in the bridal chamber.” The bridal chamber, in GPhil, is a symbol of baptism: This could just as likely represent συντέκνοι. This could also be ἡµετέροισι ἀναγαίοις, our dining rooms, cf. Mk 14:15. 138 Greek text given in L. Moretti, “Iscrizione greche inedite di Roma,” Bullettino comunale 75 (1953-55): 83-6; M. Raoss, “Iscrizione cristiana-greca di Roma anteriore alterzo secolo?” Aevum 37 (1963): 11-30; Guarducci, “Iscrizione cristiana del II secolo nei Musei Capitolini,” Bullettino comunale 79 (1963-64): 117-34; Lampe, “An Early Christian Inscription in the Musei Capitolini,” ST 49 (1995): 79-92. Guarducci was the first to publish following a suggestion by M. Simonetti that the inscription was Valentinian. 139 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 305. 137 136 414 §90 Those who say that they will die first and (then) will rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection, while they live, they will receive nothing when they die. This way too when they speak about baptism, saying ‘Baptism is great,’ as if they who receive it will live. ... §95 The chrism is lord over baptism. For because of the chrism we are called ‘Christians’, not because of baptism. Also Christ was called (thus) because of the chrism. For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. He who is anointed has the all. He has the resurrection, the light, the cross. §96 As to the Holy Spirit, the Father gave him this in the bridal chamber (and) he received (him). The Father came to be in the Son, and the Son in the Father. This is the kingdom of heavens. Van Os has shown that Valentinian practice of baptism included stripping of garments, going down into the water (GPhil 101), baptism (GPhil 90), chrismation and receiving the Holy Spirit (GPhil 101) following the baptismal ceremony salutation with a kiss (GPhil 31)140 and a eucharistic meal (GPhil 98, 100).141 Though these rites are interpreted in ways differing from a non-gnostic Christian like Hippolytus, nevertheless, they are the same in terms of their physical reality and order. Van Os points out further that in GPhil 98 and 100 there are two references to the cup. In the first, the saying presents bread, wine and oil. In the second reference is only to a “cup of prayer” that is filled with water and wine. This outline conforms to the normal order of the Greco-Roman banquet142 in which a first course of wine and As argued by Michael P. Penn, Kissing Christians: Ritual and Community in the Late Ancient Church (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion; University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005), the kiss was an important boundary marker in early Christianity. 141 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 121. 142 Smith, Symposium to Eucharist, 13-46. 140 415 food—represented in the first reference as “bread”—is followed by the symposium in which wine mixed with water, prayers, songs and conversation or other entertainment followed. According to A Valentinian Exposition (NHC 10.2), the Valentinians in the group represented by that document had two prayers centered on a communal meal or “banquet,” much like Lampe’s inscription.143 Examples previously mentioned from GPhil complete the picture. (See above page 144) Where it was mentioned that those waiting for baptism could see their reflections in the water because oil lamps were brought near to illuminate the place of baptism (GPhil 75), in accordance with the Valentinian inscription on the Via Latina, which mentions “celebration with torches.”144 The light of day during which GPhil 122 states that the spiritual marriage takes place is metaphorical (GPhil 126 and 127),145 received in the bridal chamber, even as Justin, Apol. 1:24-25 speaks of those who are baptized as “those illuminated.” If the waters themselves were anointed with oil, as seems to have been a practice of some Valentinians and of Hippolytus himself (In Cant. 2.8 n. a) the lights of the lamps would have flashed brilliantly in the darkness. (See above note 125 on page 408.) As noted before (above, page 144), GPhil is a combined manual of catechesis and mystagogy.146 GPhil 6-8 and 109 indicate a preferred time of year for baptism, which is symbolized as the transition from winter to summer, i.e., spring. GPhil contains several references to the crucifixion, the cross, and one to the paschal lamb. The discourse fits Easter time better than any other. 143 144 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 122. This mention also is in line with the Lucernarium eucharistic meal in TA 145 van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber,” 129. 146 See above note 43 on page 144. 416 The nuptial language, reminiscent of the Song of Songs, is a remarkable feature of Valentinian initiation that indicates the power of the teaching and practice of a charismatic, influential leader in the early church. That he was later called a “little fox” by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.31.4; cf. In Cant. 20.1, 2) may indicate that the Song was an important text for Valentinians. Both GPhil and On the Song of Songs elaborte ritual interpretations of the sacramental kiss in conjunction with initiatory rites as well (GPhil 31; In Cant. 2.1). Despite Valentinian influences, Hippolytus is essentially opposed to Valentinus and his followers because of their distinct views of history, salvation, and the flesh. Valentinus was a speculative theologian and biblical interpreter with keen spiritual insight, if the gnostic EV bears any resemblance to his original teaching.147 For Valentinus, the divine world and the physical, created world have nothing to do with one another in any direct way. The physical world is the result of an “error” in a spiritual being, Sophia, who sprang from various generations in a chain of divine entities from the primordial female-male duality called “fullness” or πληρῶµα. Sophia was lacking in understanding and became filled with desire or revolt. Thus the “error” that leads to ignorance, sin, suffering, and death took place in the divine realm. The being who shaped the physical world, the God of Genesis or the demiurge, is also part of the physical creation and not even a spiritual being of the pleroma. As Sophia attempted to separate her desire from the darkness outside the pleroma, little bits of her spiritual nature became trapped in flesh. From this thought came the Valentinian notion that humanity was separable into three classes: spiritual, psychic This summary of the EV is largely taken from Karen King, “Valentinus (f. 120-160),” EEC, 1155-56. 147 417 (soulish), and choic (material). The heavenly Christ sent down the savior Jesus to teach the lost souls about their true nature and destiny so that in death they might ascend to their true home above. Valentinus’ teaching reveals a deep appreciation of the human desire to escape ignorance and attain mystical knowledge of God. According to Lampe, Valentinians seem to have been effective recruiters of women who were able to offer patronage to the community.148 In terms of theology, what Hippolytus (and other Logos theologians) appreciated in Valentinus’ teaching was his notion of the generation of divinity.149 Hippolytus latched on to this notion as a way of holding to the oneness of God from all eternity, yet allowing for divinity in the Logos and in the Son, Jesus Christ. For Hippolytus, the Logos is a power or potential within God (who is neither Father nor Son before creation). At creation, the Logos and the Holy Spirit, not clearly distinguished from the Logos in Hippolytus, is generated from the mind (νοῦς) of God as a separate person, but still only a παῖς θεου—in the sense of having the status of a servant of God), nevertheless “God of God.” Apparently Hippolytus was also prepared to see feminine attributes ascribed to Sophia as part of the manifestation of the Logos. In other words, the androgyny of Sophia-Logos-Christ was likely a way of affirming the connection between Christ and the πληρῶµα and denying that the physical world was a result of “error” on the part of Sophia. For Hippolytus, the “error” resulting in the chaos of sin and separation from God in death took place in the physical world, due to the failure of human beings. In Hippolytus’ understanding, Lampe, From From Paul to Valentinus, 296, 312, 319 n. 3. Irenaeus accuses the Valentinian Marcosians of pursuing mostly women Adv. haer. 1.13.2ff., 7; 1.6.3 149 See Orbe, Hacia la primera teologia de la procesion del Verbo, 611-16. 148 418 the Logos becomes becomes perfect Son at the completion of the incarnation, that is, at the cross. It is in his dual nature as the human face of the Logos that the Son has the power to open the way of salvation for human beings (cf. In Cant. 13.1; Noet. 6.4; 16.6) In Hippolytus the exegete’s conception, distinct from that of Valentinus, creation is an expression of the perfect wisdom of God. Sin is the result of temptation from another spirit being, the Evil One, represented by the Serpent in Genesis. For Hippolytus, then, the problem of humanity is that they are under the rule of the Evil One and the path of salvation takes place through a historical process, for the Spirit and the Logos were at work in the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament, preparing the flesh to receive the incarnation of the Logos. With the coming of the Logos in Jesus Christ, the God of the Old Testament is vindicated and the way of return to God, a process of divinization, is opened up through the undoing of the effects of sin by the Son of God and his followers. In On the Song of Songs Eve and women are shown to have a central, vital role in the outworking of this restorative process. It appears that On the Song of Songs represents an attempt to co-opt Valentinian success by adopting features of Valentinian initiation for the advancement of the Hippolytan community. Chapter 9 Hermeneutical-Theological Process: Typology, Mystery, and Divine Economy Once on Plato’s feast I read a poem, “The Sacred Marriage”; my piece abounded in mystic doctrine conveyed in veiled words and was couched in terms of enthusiasm; someone exclaimed: “Porphyry has gone mad”; Plotinus said to me so that all might hear: “You have shown yourself at once poet, philosopher and hierophant.”1 —Porphyry, On the Life of Plotinus 15 As discussed earlier Scripture reading performed with allegorical and typological interpretation as practiced in Jewish circles at least from the time of Philo (Cf. Vit. cont. 65-75 and his own allegorical interpretation of the Torah)2 provides the closest surviving historical parallel of the sort of social practice represented by On the Song of Songs However, in philosophical schools like that of Plotinus, a similar discourse was practiced, albeit not Scripture commentary. Christians were among the students of Plotinus, some of them gnostics and some, like Origen, made the teachings of the philosophical school widely influential. In On the Song of Songs Ἐµοῦ δὲ ἐν Πλατωνείοις ποίηµα ἀναγνόντος «Τὸν ἱερὸν γάµον», καί τινος διὰ τὸ µυστικῶς πολλὰ µετ' ἐνθουσιασµοῦ ἐπικεκρυµµένως εἰρῆσθαι εἰπόντος µαίνεσθαι τὸν Πορφύριον, ἐκεῖνος εἰς ἐπήκοον ἔφη πάντων· «ἔδειξας ὁµοῦ καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν καὶ τὸν φιλόσοφον καὶ τὸν ἱεροφάντην.» 2 And in Qumran with the pesher commentaries (viz., the elusive 4Q240). 409 1 410 Hippolytus borrows the approach of performative, mystical rhetoric abounding “in mystic doctrine conveyed in veiled words ... couched in terms of enthusiasm,” on the topic of “the Sacred Marriage.” Hippolytus’ own commentary is constructed as a Spirit inspired encomium, or praise of the anointing who binds the congregants to Christ, the Logos sustaining the cosmos. Something of the allegorical is present in Hippolytus in his understanding of the world as the synagogue of darkness and in the final scenes of Martha and Mary petitioning the risen Christ for them to mix their bodies with the heavenly body of Christ (In Cant 25.4). If “allegorical interpretation” refers, in a Platonic sense, to the practice of seeking eternal truths, these truths do not depend upon what happens within the passing sphere of time, but are before and transcend all time. Origen and the Valentinian Ptolemy are primary Christian exemplars of this type of exegesis.3 Hippolytus’ works have little of this type of interpretation. Like Origen, Hippolytus sees another meaning in Scripture outside its literal meaning, and often the disagreeableness or awkwardness of the literal meaning is a sure sign that it must mean something else.4 Since for Irenaeus the “error” that results in the chaos of sin and death took place in the physical world, the deeper meaning of Scripture points to the process of redemption that takes place in the physical world through human history. The other meaning of the narratives of Israel and Song of Song concerns events that occur in the course of history through the incarnation of Logos in Christ. He expressly speaks of typological meaning (In Cant. 1.16; 2.23, 31; 7.4-5; 13.4; 17.2; 24.2; 27.2). And the obvious typologies are well-known: bridegroom/Christ; 3 See González, Christian Thought Revisited, 52. 4 Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, 29. 411 Yahweh and Israel/Christ and the church (In Cant. 1; 2; 3.7). The fragrance of the bridegroom is the Logos and the darkness of the bride her past sins. The ridge poll of the roof of the dwelling of the lovers (i.e. the heaven) are the apostles, the walls are the patriarchs (In Cant. 16.2-3). Foxes are heretics (In Cant. 20.1). Hippolytus is fond of using the phrase, “What does this mean except . . .” and then he fills in the blank either with some event of the gospel or some aspect life in Christ or in the church. For Hippolytus the progression of salvation history from creation to consummation is the primary plane in which the program of God is worked out. Thus, Israel and the physical generations of the Patriarchs participate in the plan of salvation even through the physical process of begetting children, because they generate the flesh that was taken up by the Logos (In Cant. 27). Part of the progression of the story is from the nation of Israel to the nations; for Hippolytus the church of the Gentiles has displaced unbelieving Israel. In On the Song of Songs that relationship is described as a complicated love triangle and the ideal to which Hippolytus seems to move is two churches that are part of the same family: one church of the Circumcision5 and one of the Gentiles,6 both one with Christ. Such an image is at home in the “fractionalized” church in Rome. Hippolytus holds firmly to the idea that there is continuity in the story from Israel to the church to the end of time: “the Gentiles became a desert toward God. But, from now on they are citizens esteemed in holiness by the graces of God, whence the church adorned appeared in the aroma of mixed anointing oil” (In Cant. 26.1). Now, however, that continuity is In Cant. 2.22, “Joshua, i.e. Jesus brings a second circumcision”; 12.1; 17.1; someone who comes to Christ from the circumcision is able to unite old and new, etc. 6 5 In Cant. 1.7. 412 expressed not only by unity of progression, but also by the movement of recapitulation seen in the theology of Irenaeus so that the salvation narratives of the Gospels record the reversal or systematic undoing of the effects of the fall that brought sin and death upon humanity. Thus Hippolytus reads the gospel narratives themselves as anti-typologically related to the redemption of Adam and Eve by the reversal of the fateful events of the fall. These interpretations in On the Song of Songs are also social practices. They encode a certain way of relating to outsiders (Jews and heretics), and they should be seen as part of the social history of a larger Greco-Roman set of practices surrounding and including the banquet. The early church carried on and transformed these traditions. As seen above, the testimony of Justin (Apol. 1.67.3-6), the Sunday eucharistic assembly comprised a reading of the Old Testament joined to that of the Gospel, Acts and apostolic Letters. Some have held that perhaps the proper contextualization of Hippolytus the exegete’s commentaries is non-eucharistic meetings that were held during the week, taking readings from the Old Testament Scriptures,7 similar to the homiletic cycles practiced by Origen in Caesarea.8 Concerning On the Song of Songs this comparison is not appropriate, even if Hippolytus the exegete’s other commentaries may well have originated as homiletic performances in non-eucharistic settings. Origen taught and lectured his students in Caesarea as a sophistic teacher of philosophy.9 Eventually he preached regularly Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 215. 8 Ibid, 383-9. 9 Gregory Thaumaturgus, Panegyric 6-8. See John McGuckin, ed. The Westminster Handbook to Origen (Westminster Handbooks, Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 89. 7 413 during the week and on Sundays and, for seasons, every day of the week.10 Hippolytus the exegete’s commentaries may be the written residue of a similar, if less liberal, curriculum; it appears that his program was less comprehensive and more narrowly ecclesiastical and catechetical than Origen’s Caesarean program. Still, the massive output of Hippolytus, as seen from the lists in Eusebius and Jerome, points to significant patronage and the help of secretaries like those who supported Origen, some of whom had connections to the imperial court.11 It also indicates that outsiders would have seen the church as a house-school. To a large extent the commentary became a primary teaching activity by the of the third century in circles like those of Hippolytus and Origen.12 Simonetti, Origene esegeta, 79, “Origine cominciò a predicare regolarmente in chiesa molto più tardi di quanto avesse cominciato a insegnare a scuola, e le raccolte di omelie rimontano agli ultimi anni della sua attività,” Simonetti discussed the written evidence (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.36.1) that allows the conclusion that only after he was 60 years of age (that is from 245 C.E). was Origen afforded the use of tachigraphists for recording his public discourses. The church historian Socrates (Hist. eccl. 5.22) attests, however, that Origen regularly preached on Wednesdays and Fridays. From the Homilies on Genesis 10.3, it becomes clear that Origen preached, at least during part of the year, every day. The meetings were held in the morning and dedicated specifically to the reading and explanation of Scripture. The regularity of such meetings and the use of tachigraphists permitted Origen the resources necessary to produce systematic commentaries on entire books of Scripture homiletically. Gregory, cited in the previous note, shows that Scripture study was for Origen the pinnacle of learning in liberal arts. 11 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 313. 12 Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 216. 10 414 9.1 Typology and the Mystery of the Divine Economy Hippolytus the exegete’s approach to Scripture owes a great debt to Irenaeus. For both Irenaeus and Hippolytus, the fundamental vision of God is familial and pastoral. For Hippolytus, God is a father who is beneficent and concerned that his children find their joy in the bond of family and imitation of the father’s nature.13 Even more important in On the Song of Songs, God is a shepherd God and is leading people through history toward the ultimate goal of leading humans to become godlike.14 The typology used by Hippolytus is not an erudite procedure, rather it is a Christian pastoral impulse that takes the Scripture seriously as a narrative because it bears witness to the work of God as it unfolds in history.15 For Hippolytus, the Spirit inspired Solomon to produced the Song, so the Song is prophecy just as were the various blessings of the patriarchs. They relate, however, not primarily to the experience of Israel in the context of the original message, but above all to the future that the incarnation of the Logos opens for humanity.16 Like Irenaeus, Hippolytus conceived of the faith as essentially typological and, because of that stance, his public teaching is an exegesis of the Jewish Scriptures, rooted in the assumption that the creator God is the architect of a good plan. For Hippolytus the Song points to the relationship of the incarnate Word of God to Israel, both believing Israel (as is usually the presupposition of Rabbinic exegesis) but also to unbelieving Israel. The Song, 13 14 See González, Christian Thought Revisited, 54. Ibid., 54-5. 15 Ibid., 55; Pelletier, Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques, 216. 16 Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 51. 415 therefore, becomes a justification for the substitution of unbelieving Israel by the church of the Gentiles.17 Essentially, Hippolytus interprets the Song as a complicated, three way relationship.18 9.2 The Divine Economy in On the Song of Songs The subject of On the Song of Songs is the love relationship between Christ and his followers despite its dependence on previous Jewish interpretation.19 On the Song of Songs is a work of praise in admiration of the divine economy of God revealed in Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world. It is the Spirit that sings the Song of Songs and in a prophetic way, reveals beforehand what has been ordained to take place through the church.20 The Scripture, then, reveals (In Cant. 1.16) the “new economy” “in various portions” and “typologically” and that theological deposit of understanding has been given to spiritual patrons of the church—the “we” signifies leaders like Hippolytus—to “declare to those who are able to listen with faith.21 17 18 Ibid. See page 367. 19 Chappuzeau, “Auslegung,” JAC 19: 43 20 Meloni, “Cantico dei Cantici,” 98-9, Tema centrale è il mistero dell’economia. Questa espressione, che manifesta il desiderio di comprendere il mistero della Trinità nel suo rapporto con la vita dell’umanità, ritorna varie volte nel Commento per definire la medesima realtà che essa esprime nel Contra Noetum 7. A central theme is the mystery of the economy. This expression, that shows the desire to understand the mystery of the Trinity in its relationship with human life, appears various times in the commentary to define the same reality that it expresses in the Contra Noetum. 21 Thus Irenaeus says: 416 Scripture for Hippolytus does not simply set forth divine laws with punishments and rewards. The commandments, however, do have an important nutritive function (In Cant. 2.1-3). Nor does Scripture simply reveal a series of eternal truths in allegory that could have been distilled apart from the history of God’s relationship with human beings. Rather, the history of God’s relationship in Scripture reveals God’s οἰκωνοµία (economy). The economy is the spiritual narrative of God’s relationship with people that moves from the expression of the Logos and the Spirit from the heart of the Father, the creation of the physical world and human beings, the disaster of sin, the prophetic revelation of Logos in the history of Israel, the incarnation of the Logos in Christ culminating in the crucifixion and the sending of the Spirit. Finally the economy, through the Spirit, leads to divinization of humans. It is the story of salvation. The mode of theologizing that Hippolytus follows depends upon a narrative in time and space that has to do with the redemption of physical beings of flesh and blood. Accordingly, he transforms the love poems of the Song into a spiritual Thus it was, too, that God formed man at the first, because of His munificence; but chose the patriarchs for the sake of their salvation; and prepared a people beforehand, teaching the headstrong to follow God; and raised up prophets upon earth, accustoming man to bear His Spirit [within him], and to hold communion with God: He Himself, indeed, having need of nothing, but granting communion with Himself to those who stood in need of it, and sketching out, like an architect, the plan of salvation to those that pleased Him. And He did Himself furnish guidance to those who beheld Him not in Egypt, while to those who became unruly in the desert He promulgated a law very suitable [to their condition]. Then, on the people who entered into the good land He bestowed a noble inheritance; and He killed the fatted calf for those converted to the Father, and presented them with the finest robe. Thus, in a variety of ways. He adjusted the human race to an agreement with salvation. (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4.14.2 ANF 1.479) 417 narrative that has to do with the economy as he conceives it. He even sees the canonical arrangement of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs received by him in the Scripture codex that belongs to the community as a spiritual narrative of the economy: He assigns for them a certain three-fold division (or economy), since these three books were expounded by the will of [the] Holy Spirit and through [his] blessed mouth declared by the Holy Spirit. For it is [the] Holy Spirit that would give utterance to [the] Trinity in order that the grace of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit might be spread abroad. (In Cant. 1.3). And (In Cant. 1.16) Hippolytus says: Now the result of occurrence of these events [is] a series one after another [of books] as an ancient spiritual narrative, because those who are able must narrate by faith the ancient matters. Now the Spirit sings what has been ordained in the church, since in various portions it reveals to us the economy in types which we must declare to those who are able to listen with faith. The narrative of the Trinity is revealed in the order of the economy of the Father, the economy of Christ,22 and the economy of the Holy Spirit (In Cant. 1.7): So therefore Wisdom by means of the manifold grace of the Father was making manifest to us the adornment [of the world] by the command of the Father. At the time of Wisdom’s dwelling in the world with Solomon she said to him, “I, Wisdom, have lived with you as counsel (or mystery) and knowledge.” Now since knowledge [is] blessed by the will of the faithful, [Wisdom] makes proclamation to us by the counsel (or mystery) of the Father. The mystery of the Trinity, clearly announced in In Cant. 1.1-8, has as its goal the salvation of humanity.23 In On the Song of Songs Hippolytus develops the 22 The phrase “economy of Christ” is only found in the Greek paraphrase, CantPar 1.15; however, it is clearly seen in the passages dealing with the incarnation. 23 Meloni, “Cantico dei Cantici,” 99. According to Noet. the very duality of Father and Logos, comes into existence, with the Logos as a separate person out of God’s de- 418 idea of the Trinity as “God for Us”24 by means of various images in the Song such as the “myron” or “anointing oil that is diffused” (Song 1:9), “the vines of En-geddi” (Song 1:14), “the leaping lover” (Song 2:8) and the “couch of Solomon” (3:7-8).25 9.3 Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of the Incarnate Word The incarnation represents a transition from the economy of the Father to the economy of the Holy Spirit. It is a new step in God’s plan and an expression of a new grace/gift of the divine economy: And so the Word, beloved, when he dwelt a body, because he was great, though he appeared abased that he might be revealed, he was indeed revealing the new grace of the economy. The rich was made poor for us, that by his wealth we might be made rich. Then, beloved, from that time suspended there on a tree, he gave off a pleasing aroma of anointing oil. For he humbled himself and having stood up,26 the Word began to sing forth and in that time filled [the people]; the aroma was poured out that also the mercy of the economy might always appear bringing joy in the outpouring of the fragrant anointing for it was sent from the heart of the father and made known good news to the earth. (In Cant. 13.3). The incarnation of the Word, Logos or Wisdom is the saving event par excellence in Hippolytus, as it was in Irenaeus. In On the Song of Songs Wisdom is sire to create the world, Noet. 10, “God, being alone and not having anyone contemporaneous with himself, wished to create the world.” Here it may be seen that Hippolytus the exegete is careful to make creation the work of the original Dyad, in distinction from Valentinus. Like Valentinus, however, the creation comes about by will (θέληµα), similar to desire. 24 See Catherine M. Lacugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (HarperOne, 1993). 25 Meloni, “Cantico dei Cantici,” 100. 26 Referring to the resurrection. 419 the Logos generated by the Father that comes to meet humanity to guide humanity back to the Father.27 It signals the beginning of the reversal of the effects of sin and the liberation of the entire world. Meloni draws attention to several stages in the mystery of the economy as developed by Hippolytus in his interpretation of the Song.28 a. The Logos is in the Father (as a power or potential, not as a person). b. The Logos is sent from the heart of the Father and from the mouth of the Father. c. The Logos himself creates the world along with the Father. d. The Logos acts in the world by means of the prophets. e. The Logos becomes flesh. f. Christ pours forth his divinity from his flesh (this work is consummated on the cross.) g. Christ resurrected infuses divine life into the church. h. Hippolytus, as in a, above expresses the mystery of the existence of the Logos in the mind of the Father before the creation of the world. For him, the Logos exists only in potential and in silence until the will of the Father brings him forth: For, just as a vessel in which there is anointing oil, [which] has been guarded safely and sealed up, does not emit an aroma, nevertheless it continues to contain [the aroma], that is the potential, but when they release it, it emits its aroma both nearby to it and places far [are] filled [with it], so also the Word was in the heart of the Father, and so long as it had not gone forth, no one rejoiced in 27 Meloni, “Cantico dei Cantici,” 100. See below, this process is also described as divinization. 28 Ibid. 420 it all, but when the Father sent forth the Spirit of the aroma, the Word spread joy abroad to all. (In Cant. 2.5) The above description is not meant to foster speculation about the status of the Logos but to prepare for the joy of the going forth of the Logos. That joy, most likely, is the joy connected with the creation of all things, which signals a deeply important theme that Hippolytus shares with Irenaeus, the goodness of the created order. Hippolytus does speculate for his audience about the status of the Logos internal to the Father, he did in Against Noetus before an audience when he was defending his own doctrine and urging the condemnation of the Monarchian doctrines of Noetus. There (Noet. 10) he says: “God, being alone and not having anyone contemporary to him, wished to create the world, but, though being alone, he was multiplex. He was not in fact lacking in logos, nor wisdom, nor power, nor will, but all was in him (ἐν αὐτῷ) and he was the All.” For Hippolytus, however, the multiplex nature of the All in God clearly does not mean that the logos did not have the potential to be a distinct person or πρόσωπον. In fact, in the logos within the heart of the God, the entire universe exists as a potential. This becomes clear in In Cant. 2.23 where David is said to emerge born from the heart of the Father, a type of the Blessed One. This notion arises from the words “I have found a man after the desire of my heart, David”29 (Acts 13:22). The David is an important type for Hippolytus the exegete, worthy to become a type of Christ because he was “chosen by the heart of God” (Dav. 4.6, Garitte, CSCO 264) Since he was chosen, he “announces the great mystery of the anointing (In Cant. 2.23). From childhood he “pondered in his heart the mysteries of Christ” (Dav. 1.2). He is a prophet “similar to his Lord in both word and deed” (Dav. 2.1). David is now “glorified in the heavens by God who was produced from him and is now incarnate in the heavens and glorified together with the Father” (Dav. 16.5). See Meloni, “Cantico 29 421 Word came forth from the mouth of the Father, with the implication that David came forth from the Word, and then a man (Christ) came forth from David. King David himself was “mingled in the heart of the Father” before he came forth and from him comes the mystery of the anointing (the Word made flesh). By this example Hippolytus is eager to show his commitment to strict monotheism, which he restates perhaps because his language about the L/logos coming from the mouth of the Father would open him up to the charge of ditheism. It is tortuous logic indeed. “The release of the Logos from the mouth of the Father corresponds to Meloni’s point “b.” above: For this very reason it says: “an aromatic anointing oil [is] your name poured out.” For the vessel of joy has been opened, which is the paternal mouth. By bringing forth the esteemed Word from him[self], he caused the aroma to descend from heaven. This descending (ful)filled (or, began to [ful]fill) everything. (In Cant. 2.6) The image of the anointing oil (or the myron according to CantPar) is similar to the physical metaphors used elsewhere by Hippolytus to describe the procession or expression of the Logos from the heart of the Father. The Word is “light from light,” “a ray of the sun,” “water from a fountain” (Noet. 11). According to the Against Noetus the Logos is not fully Son until the incarnation.30 The Sonship of the Logos is bound up with his taking on flesh and experiencing the full range of cycle of life and death. In pseudo-Hippolytus the Logos is παῖς (Haer 10.33.11; Marcovich, PTS 25 412.50-51), not ὑιός before the incarnation, which amounts to the same thing as what dei Cantici,” 102. 30 For neither was the Word, prior to incarnation and when by Himself, yet perfect Son, although He was perfect Word, only-begotten (Noet. 6.4; cf. 16.6 trans. YWS). 422 the Against Noetus says, the Logos before incarnation is “not yet perfect Son.” And yet, in the development of the economy during the period of the patriarchs, the Logos is preparing the way for his perfect Sonship, the paradigm of all perfect Sonship with the Father. Thus in Hippolytus the very notion of the “Sonship,” as also the “Logos” as separate person is part of the economy of salvation, not speculation about the ontological reality of God, which does not seem to have been Hippolytus the exegete’s concern. Several different images describe the sending of the Logos (In Cant. 2.4, 5, 6, 7, 23). According to Hippolytus, the Logos is generated from the Father in order to fill the World, “By bringing forth the esteemed Word from him[self], he caused the aroma to descend from heaven. This descending (ful)filled (or, began to [ful]fill) everything.” (In Cant. 2.6). The beginning of the filling is brought to completion only with the incarnation (as in Noet. 16.6). The same idea is stated in a way reminiscent of the language of On the Song of Songs in the Blessings of Judah,31 though the Ben. Jac. 16 (PO 27.76), Hippolytus, Sur Les Bénédictions d’Isaac, De Jacob Et De Moı̈ se (PO 27, ed. Louis Mariè s, B. Ch. Mercier, Maurice Briè re; Paris: FirminDidot, 1954). »Σκύµνος λέοντος Ἰούδα ἐκ βλαστοῦ, υἱέ µου, ἀνέβης», λέοντα οὖν καὶ σκύµνον λέοντος εἰπὼν σαφῶς τὰ δύο πρόσωπα ἐπέδειξεν, τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ, τὸ δὲ εἰπεῖν· «ἐκ βλαστοῦ, υἱέ µου, ἀνέβης», ἵνα τὴν κατὰ σάρκα γέννησιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ δείξῃ, ὃς ἐν κοιλίᾳ παρθένου ἐκ πνεύµατος ἁγίου σαρκωθεὶς ἐβλάστησεν ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ὡς ἄνθος καὶ ὀσµὴ εὐωδίας εἰς κόσµον προελθὼν ἐφανερώθη, ἐπεὶ οὖν σκύµνον λέοντος εἶπεν, τὴν κατὰ πνεῦµα αὐτοῦγέννησιν ἐκ θεοῦ, ὡς ἐκ βασιλέως βασιλέα γενόµενον ἔδειξεν, οὐκ ἐσιώπησεν δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν κατὰ σάρκα, ἀλλά φησιν· «ἐκ βλαστοῦ, υἱέ µου, ἀνέβης», Ἡσαΐας γὰρ λέγει· «ἐξελεύσεται ῥάβδος ἐκ τῆς ῥίζης Ἰεσσαὶ <καὶ ἄνθος ἐξ αὐτῆς> ἀναβήσεται», ἡ οὖν ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαὶ ἦν τῶν πατέρων γενεὰ ὡς ῥίζα ἐν γῇ πεφυτευµένη, ἡ δὲ ῥάβδος ἡ ἐξ αὐτῶν φανερωθεῖσα ἦν ἡ Μαρία, διὰ τὸ εἶναι ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαβίδ, τὸ δὲ ἄνθος τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ βλαστῆσαν ἦν ὁ Χριστός, ὅπερ προφητεύων ὁ Ἰακὼβ ἔλεγεν· «ἐκ βλαστοῦ υἱέ µου 31 423 appearance that it gives of attributing Sonship to the pre-incarnate Logos is only that, the Logos has Sonship here only in potential: “A whelp of a lion, Judah, from a shoot, my son, you shall go up” (Gen 49:9). Saying, therefore, “lion” and “young lion” shows clearly the two persons, that of the Father and that of the Son. And he said, “from a shoot, my son, you shall go up,” to indicate the generation of Christ according to the flesh, who, incarnated by the work, who in the womb of the Virgin took root and grew [i.e., germinated] in her and he was manifested as a flower and a sweet smell once he went forth into the world. Since, therefore, it says a whelp of a lion, he indicated the spontaneous generation [of Christ] from God according to the Spirit, as a king generated from a king. [The text] is not silent either concerning the generation according to the flesh, but says, “from a shoot, my Son, you will go up.” (Ben. Jac. 16 [PO 27.76])32 So, the language about “Father and Son” as well as the language of “lion and lion’s whelp.” (Gen 49.9), and Christ according to the Spirit and the flesh, is used for the purpose of directing the reader’s/hearers attention to the incarnation, and not meant to make a statement about the nature of the pre-incarnate Word. As Meloni states, “The generation according to the Spirit is the road toward the generation according to the flesh, that is manifested to the world”33 and that generation results, after the incarnation in a “sweet perfume” from the Father that diffuses over mankind.34 It did not bother Hippolytus that his conception of the Logos implied that ἀνέβης». Trans. YWS. Meloni, “Cantico dei Cantici,” 103, “La generazione secondo lo spirito è la strada verso la generazione secondo la carne, che la manifesta al mondo.” 34 The “sweet perfume” is also an image developed in the Ben. Is. 7; Hippolytus, Sur les bé né dictions d’Isaac, de Jacob et de Moı̈ se (Louis Mariè s, et al.; PO 27.1-2 Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1954). 33 32 424 there was when the Logos was not. It is understandable how Hippolytus could have been quoted in support of the Arian party a century after his death. Hippolytus merely affirms the statement of Scripture: “Now Wisdom was brought forth by the Father ‘before all the mountains,’ by means of Wisdom the beauty of this world was arranged” (In Cant. 1.6). Thus, the Logos is eternal because he was “generated before all hills” (Prov 8:25).35 This last passage affirms Meloni’s point “c.” Meloni’s point “d.” is abundantly demonstrated in On the Song of Songs Besides the references to the prophetic Spirit, a manifestation of Wisdom in the introduction, Hippolytus repeatedly affirms that the Logos is operative in the prophets, just as he was in David. On the Song of Songs affirms that the lover “looks intently through the window” (Song 2:9; In Cant. 23.1). That window is a “window in the heavens that is open.” The window is the prophets through whom the Word is made known and through whom the Word looks at the world and says to his beloved, “Come, my neighbor, come!”36 The central theme of the incarnation, Meloni’s point “e.” is that the Logos, generated from the heart of God, his “generation according to the spirit” in turn results in the patriarchs and matriarchs who generate Christ according to the flesh (In Cant. 27.7-9). The human body that is formed from Mary participates in the flesh of all the humans who generated his physical body from Adam to Mary, (In Cant. 27.7)37 Hippolytus the exegete, Antichr. 2.18.21, the Son of Man is king and judge of the celestial world, “because the Logos had been generated from the heart of the Father before all things.” 36 That the Logos who from the beginning of the world was at work through the prophets is also present in both Antichr. 2.5.20-6.2 and Noet. 12.17. It is a Hippolytan commonplace. 37 Meloni, “Cantico dei Cantici,” 113 35 425 In On the Song of Songs Hippolytus teaches that the patriarchs offered their own flesh in order to produce the “flesh of Christ” in the womb of Mary. Hippolytus gives a round number of progenitors, sixty (seventy in the Greek CantPar), which corresponds to the sixty strong men who surround the couch of Solomon (Song 3:7-8). A similar theme is used in the Antchr. 4, where the flesh of Christ is also described with the image of nuptial robes in which the Logos is dressed. The prophets and patriarchs weave on a loom the flesh of Christ by means of the thread of grace “that comes from the love of Christ” and the shuttle of the “power of the Spirit.” Finally, the Virgin dressed the Logos in the robe, but the weaving process was not complete until the “sufferings of the Cross”: For then the Logos of God, that was without flesh, put on the holy flesh of the holy virgin as a husband dresses himself in a robe, he finished weaving it for himself in the suffering of the cross, so that, uniting our mortal body with his power and having mixed the corruptible with the incorruptible and the weak with the strong, he might save humanity that walked in ruin. The fabric of the Lord is the suffering which occurred on the cross, the shuttle or needle within this is the power of the Holy Spirit, that weaves it and the holy flesh is knitted together with the Spirit, the thread is the grace that comes from the love of Christ, that binds and joins the two realities in one, the bobbin is the Logos, those who operate it are the patriarchs and the prophets, that knitted the beautiful garment slowly until penetrating the feet and the perfect robe of Christ like the spool, the Logos by means of them knitted all that which the Father had willed.38 38 ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄσαρκος ὢν ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἁγίαν σάρκα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου ὡς νυµφίος ἱµάτιον, ἐξυφήνας ἑαυτῷ ἐν τῷ σταυρικῷ πάθει, ὅπως συγκεράσας τὸ θνητὸν ἡµῶν σῶµα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάµει, καὶ µίξας τὸ φθαρτὸν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ καὶ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῷ ἰσχυρῷ σώσῃ τὸν ἀπολλύµενον ἄνθρωπον, ἔστι µὲν οὖν ὁ ἱστὸς τοῦ κυρίου ὡς τὸ πάθος τὸ ἐπὶ τῷ σταυρῷ γεγενηµένον, στήµων δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος δύναµις, κρόκη δὲ ὡς ἡ ἁγία σὰρξ ἐνυφαινοµένη ἐν τῷ πνεύµατι, µίτος δὲ ἡ δι' ἀγάπης Χριστοῦ χάρις σφίγγουσα καὶ ἑνοῦσα τὰ 426 The culmination of the incarnation in Meloni’s point “f.” in which the saving force of the cross is that Christ pours forth his divinity from his flesh, consummating the incarnation on the cross. The power of the death and resurrection of Christ is the release that brings glorification and the hope of vindication for believers in the future: O economy of new grace and of enormous mysteries (lit. counsels)! “Behold my nephew leaping arrived and approaches” (Song 2:8.) What does the message about leaping mean? He leapt down from heaven into the womb of a virgin; he leapt from the holy womb and mounted the cross. He leapt from the cross into the underworld; he leapt up in human flesh to the world. (In Cant. 21.2) The death of Christ on the cross is the occasion for the release of the power of the Logos, the final step of the work of the incarnation. Only with the crucifixion, symbolized by the wounding of balsam tree upon which hangs a bunch of grapes, brings the full release of God’s mercy and the full measure of joy to the world: Then, beloved, from that time suspended there on a tree, he gave off a pleasing aroma of anointing oil. For he humbled himself and having stood up, the Word began to sing forth and in that time filled [the people]; the aroma was poured out that also the mercy of the economy might always appear bringing joy in the outpouring of the fragrant anointing for it was sent from the heart of the father and made known good news to the earth. (In Cant. 13.3) The result of that consummation, Meloni’s point “g.,” is that the resurrected Christ infuses divine life into the church. This is the point of Hippolytus the exegete’s intricate, symbolic exploration of the mystery of the Trinity from start to finish. He dose not demonstrate an interest in an eternal hierarchy of divine beings, but clearly is ἀµφότερα εἰς ἕν, κερκὶς δὲ ὁ λόγος, οἱ δὲ ἐργαζόµενοι πατριάρχαι τε καὶ προφῆται οἱ τὸν καλὸν ποδήρη καὶ τέλειον χιτῶνα ὑφαίνοντες Χριστοῦ, δι' ὧν ὁ λόγος διικνούµενος κερκίδος δίκην ἐξυφαίνει δι' αὐτῶν ταῦθ' ἅπερ βούλεται ὁ πατήρ. Hippolytus, Antichr 4.1-13 (Achelis, GCS 1.2). 427 concerned about the salvation of the world through the revelation of the economy. That salvation comes concretely through the congregations of believers and its qualified leaders (like himself). Christ has become one with humanity in the flesh, so that he can share his divine life, the perfume of the Logos. And that comes about through a recognition of this man as God (In Cant. 15.1). Salvation consists in the gathering, or reunification of all people, Jews and Gentiles with Christ. 9.4 The World-wide Proselytizing Mission: the Grace of the Economy From the outpouring of mercy and the gathering of the nations, the church of the last days participates in the economy of the Spirit through the manifestation of the economy in fulfillment of the mystery of Scripture: And this [process] did not occur without the economy of the Spirit so that the mystery to come might be made known through them at the fulfillment of the last days. (CantPar 1.14) . . . from ancient time [Hezekiah] made a choice [of proverbs and songs] through the Spirit for every use. And [to] those who are completely zealous for the church this later was made intelligible with contemplative study (In Cant 1.13d) . . . They sought out some afterwards and added to the [more] ancient selection for the edification of the church (In Cant. 1.14d) In Cant. 1.13-14 has suffered greatly in transmission, however, the words expressing CantPar 1.14 and In Cant. 1.13d, 14d seem to express the main point, that the Scriptures the church possesses are the best exemplars of the wisdom expressed by the prophetic figures like Solomon. The process of selection itself was also guided by the Spirit. Thus the Scriptures provide types and symbols in Israel that point to the 428 new economy of the Spirit. For this reason, the new economy is celebrated in preaching and in celebrations of the mystery revealed in Scripture that recapitulate the story of salvation by prayers, rituals, and simple representative objects that make the economy (analogous to the myths and rituals of the mystery religions) capable of being ritually experienced by the initiate. One representative object was oil of anointing,39 representing Holy Spirit/Logos present through senses of touch and smell (In Cant. 2.5): “A fragrance of anointing oil poured out is your name.” ¡O new economy and of the wonderful mysteries preached by means of the Holy Spirit! The scope of the economy, however, far more than personal enlightenment, is deeply communal and broadly applicable. For Hippolytus, then the key “grace” or “gift of the new economy” is a world-wide reach of the proselytizing mission initiated by the incarnate, crucified and resurrected Righteous One, the righteous one and perpetuated by the apostles: And behold a new grace of the economy. For the steed was from the people, just as the blessed apostles [were] released (or were bold) to race through the world like steeds. And there was a chariot gathering the Gentiles. (In Cant. 8.2) The chariot represents the church on its mission through the world. The gift or grace given in the economy of the Spirit is world mission, unity of the Spirit in emulation of the apostles, and imperial, regal presence and authority of Christ. This mission is seen as the fulfillment of the hopes of Israel as signaled in this context by the exposition of the great Helios chariot that known from earlier domestic Others are “the books” (1.4-8); “the waters” (2.5); “the kiss” (2.1 ff.); “the wine” (2.3); “the cross” “the knife,” (13.1 ff.); “the couches” (27). 39 429 decorations,40 later Synagogue mosaics,41 and in contemporary Christian funerary decoration,42 races through the world to gather the peoples.43 There may be some blending of motifs in the image of the chariot, since the “gathering of the peoples” is more reminiscent of the chariot of Dionysus on his return from conquest.44 9.5 Divinization: the Goal of the Divine Economy Perhaps the central focus of Christian teaching about human beings and salvation in the early church is the doctrine of θεῶσις.45 For both the heresiographer and Hippolytus the exegete, this teaching refers to the transforming effect of the grace of God in body and soul.46 As used by Hippolytus in On the Song of Songs, it means that, by the action of God in Jesus Christ, the incarnation of the Logos, people of all nations may be infused with divine grace and thus share in divine nature. This basic theological outlook continues from Irenaeus and pseudo-Hippolytus, the author of Haer. The later concludes his demonstration of the true doctrine with as clear a statement of the vision of divinization as is possible: Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, 218, 230. Ibid, 189-192. 42 Ibid., 251. 43 See page 395 above. 44 Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, 227. The chariot is sometimes ridden by Ariadne, as in the fifth-century Terrace House in Ephesus, Ibid., 251. 45 The normal term in Greek patristic thought for the transforming effect of grace. See David Balás, “Divinization,” EEC, 338-40. 46 Dietrich Ritschl, “Hippolytus’ Conception of Deification: Remarks on the Interpretation of Refutation X, 34,” SJT 12.4 (1959): 388-399. 41 40 430 This comprises the meaning of the proverb, “Know yourself;” that is, discover God within yourself, for he has formed you after his own image. For to the knowledge of self is linked being an object of God’s knowledge, for you are called by the Deity himself. So, do not be inflamed, O people, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to find your way back quickly. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, bringing life again to the old human. And God called the human being his likeness from the beginning, and has put forward in a figure his love towards you. And provided you obey his solemn commands, and you become a faithful follower of him who is good, thou shall resemble him, inasmuch as you be honored by him. For when Deity comes down to us, he does not diminish the divinity of his divine perfection in any way; even when he made you God to his glory! (Haer. 10.34.5)47 In On the Song of Songs Hippolytus the exegete’s also makes use of the theme of divinization expressed in multiple symbols. Among these are the diffusion of the aroma of the Logos, the outpouring of the divine life upon humans at the resurrection, and the mystery of the production of the flesh of the Logos by the patriarchs and matriarchs, the assumption of human flesh in the physical body of Christ. Divine love motivated the filling of the physical body of Christ with the divine life of the Logos and with the Holy Spirit from start to finish: A container for spices, a vessel, [is] Christ who put on the garment of flesh and is held fast by means of a binding of a chord of love, that by means of this he may be crushed as grapes. (In Cant. 12.1) Divinization is clearly expressed as the goal of the divine love expressed in the incarnation that culminated in the crucifixion: He glorified himself in the earth and appeared as the aroma of the anointing oil and hurried to heaven. [That is] having been diffused from heaven, he was ascending from earth to heaven. For a dew was brought out from fruit and descended from on high, that terrestrial creatures might be sealed for life which 47 Trans. YWS. 431 is this: the Word descended that men might be able to ascend to heaven. This parable of types [is] clearly suggested in such words as: “My sister, my child, in the vineyard of Engeddi.” (In Cant. 13.3) The allusions to the divine couple Dionysus and Ariadne as a topos to create a basis for explaining the relationship between the incarnate Logos, Israel, and the Gentile church also suggest divinization as the goal of the new mystery of the economy. The love of Dionysus for Ariadne resulted in her divinization. By this mechanism, Hippolytus the exegete and mystagogue makes use of known quantities in the polytheistic outlook of his audience to explain the mysteries of the faith. The understanding of the goal of salvation he expresses and the rhetoric he employs are profoundly shaped by Greco-Roman polytheistic categories. However, Hippolytus carefully denies divine status to the ostensive author of the Song, King Solomon, who had wisdom but was not himself Wisdom (In Cant. 1.1). It was the gift of Sophia, the Logos, who dwelt with him that gave him the ability to speak for the edification of the church. The ekphrastic reference to the popular representation of the labor of Heracles in the Garden of the Hesperides illustrates the author’s use of polytheist categories in the interpretation of Song 3.1ff. In visual representations of that myth, Heracles carrying a club often appears in the presence of three women, a snake, and an apple tree. In the Greco-Roman myth apples of eternal life and the nymphs of the garden are deities themselves. Heracles, according to the version of the story in Apollodorus desires to become a son of Zeus. But in the transformative “retelling” by Hippolytus, it is the women who yearn for eternal life and Jesus who is already glorified in an imortal body. The myth is completely turned on its head. Hippolytus similarly transforms the concept of divinization implicit in the Heracles myth. No 432 longer is it the reward for a life of suffering and hard work, available to those willing to make the sacrifice. Rather, it is given to those who repent and believe in Christ. Christ himself does not earn divinization, but begins as the expression of divinity. Such a concept, however, was already part of the pagan myth in some of its forms. Indeed, Cornutus declared that Heracles was “the Logos, permeating everything, giving nature its force and cohesion.”48 Seneca the Stoic, and also contemporary of Cornutus, who wrote two tragic plays with Heracles as the central protagonist remarks that Heracles had a divine pre-existence. He claims that the divina ratio who is author of the world, called by many names, is also known as Heracles (De Beneficiis 4.7.1-8.1). Seneca, then implies that Heracles was the Logos incarnated.49 As mystagogue and pastor, Hippolytus imagined his audience in need of the transformation of myths through the gospel. One may surmise that devotion to Heracles was part of the problem of the rhetorical situation faced by the mystagogue. The yearning for and hope of divinization is poignantly and touchingly expressed in the episode of the myrrhophores (In Cant. 24-25), where Martha offers her flesh to be mingled with the body of the Son of God in eucharistic terms, and asks to be taken to heaven with him. Martha enacts a mystery of righteousness by commending Eve as a new sacrifice, since her flesh has been redeemed in the flesh of Christ and ascends to heaven in his resurrected body as well as in the ecclesiastical body of Christ.50 The mystery Martha shared with Christ is appropriate styled a Cornutus, Theologiae graecae compendium 31 (Cornutus, Theologiae graecae compendium, Leipzig: Teubner, 1881). 49 For further references, see Aune, “Heracles and Christ,” 14. 50 On this theme, see below, page 119. 48 433 “mystery of righteousness” because Martha enacts the recapitulation of the deceitful sin of Eve when she bore the news of the resurrection to the apostles. The issue is not a theology of female redemption,51 separate from that of males, but laying the appropriate groundwork for the theme of the offering of the flesh of all the patriarchs (In Cant. 26-27). On the Song of Songs insists that all the patriarchs had offered their “flesh” so that the “flesh of Christ” could be formed in the womb of the virgin. In order to explain the significance of the “couch of Solomon surrounded by sixty strong men” (as in Song 3:7-8), Hippolytus affirms that this image prefigured the flesh of Christ, prepared by sixty progenitors of Jesus listed in the biblical genealogy from Adam to Mary mother of Jesus.52 The symbol is complex, but it is a eucharistic symbol in which the gathered community of women and men celebrating the offering of the body and blood of the Lord also see in that symbol an offering of their own flesh to God in the company of all the faithful of all generations through the body of Christ. Such a complex symbol presupposes divinization that is depicted in terms of the resurrection and ascension, in which Christ rises from death and ascends as smoke rising from incense. It is instructive to compare this text with 1 Timothy 3:16: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, As in Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West, 184. Mat 1:1-17 has three cycles x 14 generations each from Abraham to Mary; Lk 3:23-38.77 arranged in inverse order from Mary to Adam. In the patristic tradition the number is fluid, resulting in diverse symbolic interpretations, Meloni, “Cantico dei Cantici,” 113. 52 51 434 seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory. The incense of the column of smoke in Song 3:6 represents the path of apotheosis through the resurrection:53 In Cant. 26.2 Georgian CantPar 26.2 Greek In Cant. PSFlor 26.2 Paleo-Slavic 26.2 And she says, “Now who is this, that comes out from the desert, like smoke of incense ascending” (Song 3:6)? O excellent incenses, mixed aromatic incenses! For concerning whom does it say: “as fragrant smoke of incenses ascending” (Song 3:6)? As smoke from fire comes out from a fire and is taken up into the air, and a flame as a leader of chariots, shows it to us and appears, so the good mystery of Christ was spread abroad giving notice, going up from earth to heaven. For he was sending forth beautiful aromas of the mystery by making known the resurrection. As billows of incense smoke going up. 26.2 “As one producing a smoking pillar of smoke.” Why of smoke? Because smoke goes up into the air as it comes from the fire. In the same way that the mystery of Christ announces the divine economy to the ends of the earth, sending us up from the earth into heaven by the flame of divinity. 2 “Who” now, he said (having announced), are these coming upwards from the desert as palm trees of the smoke of frankincense?” O the beautiful incense, the adornment full of aroma! And saying: “Like palms of smoke of the incense.” For the smoke of fire flies upwards into the air, in which manner Christ promises the mysteries of the economy, from the earth upwards to heaven. Now as the Palm tree, promising the mystery of the resurrection. The Greek version explicitly alludes to divinization, which is also the meaning of the image given in the Georgian text. The pillar of smoke rising from the 53 For the echo of imperial apotheosis in this passage, see page 209. 435 burning incense of the entourage of Solomon represents the way Christ ascended to the sky (cf. In Cant. 13.3). The Paleo-Slavic has misinterpreted its Vorlage, reading Palm-tree rather than column of smoke. The chariot rising to the sky upon the death of a famous king was a common image of divinization.54 (The biblical Elijah was also caught up into the sky in a chariot.) Such images were common in Greco-Roman houses55 and could readily be interpreted by Christians in biblical terms, effectively undercutting the ideology of the polytheistic image. Recalling the image of the Helios chariot chariot from In Cant. 8, this image could be associated with the Helios chariot or with the apotheosis of Heracles. Christ points the way to heaven and, even as he was caught up to heaven—Hippolytus adds what is natural—in a chariot, so he points the way for those who trust in him: the way to divinization. 9.6 Chapter Summary In drawing attention to hermeneutical issues and a few selected themes, this Chapter has emphasized the Greco-Roman context of the commentary. The neglect of the Jewish context should not be taken as a suggestion that the Jewish context is unmportant. What has emerged in this study is the importance of the implicit, contentious dialogue between Hippolytan Christians and Valentinian Christians. It has been argued that Valentinian practice and theology has influenced Hippolytus, who For example, in the popular representations of Sabina, wife of Hadrian in the “Apotheosis of Sabina, Arco Di Portogallo, Rome,” (Hadrianic period, early 2nd cent. AD) and “Apotheosis of Antoninus Pius and Faustina, From the Base of the Column of Antoninus Pius,” (Antonine period, after 161 AD). 55 See Balch, Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches, 19, 182, 203, 206. 54 436 received a Roman tradition of initiation already influenced by second-century Valentinian practice. Hippolytus drew freely yet critically on this tradition of Old Testament interpretation and Christian initiatory practice. The patronage of wealthy woman was an important part of the growth of the church, and this study supports that notion by drawing attention to the implicit tension between some of the roles of women portrayed in the commentary and the role taken by Hippolytus as interpreter and regulator of the community. It has been argued that a close reading of On the Song of Songs indicates that Hippolytus does not support the ordination of women in the church. Nonetheless, Hippolytus and the Roman churches were dependent upon the help of patronesses. The ascription of the title “apostle to the apostles” to the myrrhophores Martha and Mary represents a way of ascribing honor and recognition without granting official status within the community. Nevertheless, women were present; women were leaders, and women were needed for the growth and flourishing of the Christian community. Chapter 10 Conclusions Rather than reading the commentary as a work in isolation, its audience would have “heard” the commentary in a particular oral context: the celebration of Passover initiation of new converts to Christianity. This chapter suggests that, for this early commentary, its oral use in a liturgical setting is crucial for understanding its genre. The liturgical context of On the Song of Songs underscores its potential for identity construction in the Hippolytan community. It aimed at constructing a resilient identity, through an emotionally charged and mystical experience of that, in essence constituted the world anew. It created a potent, shared memory of Jesus’ last Passover through a extended homilies and liturgy of the kiss of peace and Christic anointing. Further, it divulged secrets, the mystery of righteousness revealed in the unexpected figures of Martha and Mary at the tomb of Jesus as myrrhophores beyond the text of the written, canonical gospels. These women who were apostles to the apostles revealed the mystery of the church sent into the world for mission until it could be taken up to heaven. Martha and Mary, the sisters of Bethany represent the witness of the believing synagogue. The tense relationship between the Hippolytan community and its Jewish roots is exemplified in the motif of the two wives of Christ. An estrangement in the triangle Israel-Christ and the churches of the Gentiles. Yet the celebrated the unity of the church in the figures of Martha and Mary as well as Peter and Paul indicate the fulfillment of hopes of putting aside discord and expriencing 437 438 unity. These preoccupations for unity indicate the context of a fractured church. At the same time they represent the aspirations of the church to fulfill the imperial mission of “concord” through the church. Nevertheless discord with heretics defined the limits of the Hippolytan church. The commentary consists of an introduction and three homilies, or homilies and a liturgy for a Passover celebration interpreting the rites following baptism in preparation for a paschal banquet. A comparison of similar literature such as Gospel of Philip, the fourth century works De Mysteriis by Ambrose of Milan and the Mystagogical Instructions, likely by Cyril of Jerusalem, as well as the instructions for Passover celebration in Apostolic Constitutions 5 contextualize the instruction and explain why the topic of the conversion of the Jews appears so prominent. The reading of Song of Songs and the commentary On the Song of Songs could very well be a midrashic a replacement for the kind of reading and midrash on Exodus 12 known in Melito’s On the Passover. The contextualization of the commentary as part of a liturgical, meal-time celebration also explains many elements of the commentary. The focus on riddles and playful imagery suggests a meal time context. The rich selection of biblical characters that have no relation at all to the Song, shows the influence of Greco-Roman symposium literature as well as the art work that was often found in triclinia and other parts of the Greco-Roman peristyle home. The instruction in On the Song of Songs on the use of wine and rich eucharistic symbolism in a scene in which Martha and Mary encounter the resurrected Christ suggest a meal time context. The topic of love, and a critique of Plato’s concept of love were also discussed at the banquet of the Therapeutae, and the use of allegorical interpretations of sacred texts are parallels 439 to Hippolytus’ interpretation to the Song. On the Song of Songs fits well within the Severan age (193-235 AD), with the imperial concern for the consolidation of classical knowledge. The early Christian movement, mostly centered in house-churches, also developed a keen interest in producing such texts, a mimicry of elite values. Among Christians, the commentaries that began as collections of notes on the interpretation of sacred texts first used as helps for teachers in the liturgical celebrations developed in house-churches elevated their ethical stature as teachers of philosophy of a sort. On the Song of Songs is an example of a more or less developed set of liturgical speakers notes, not a fully developed literary composition. Collections such as these were called ὑποµνήµατα. As the name implies, they were an aide to memory. Since memory itself was commonly conceptualized by Greco-Roman authors of rhetoric around the theme of the house and the art work in it, it is natural that the homily should reference popular artistic representations from the domestic sphere. The use of the commentary genre became an appealing vehicle for Christian instruction as the church attracted more and more members of the Greco-Roman elite. The allegorical or typological function of the art ubiquitous in Greco-Roman homes provides the background against which many of the images of the commentary make sense. One could argue that the art is an expression of an allegorical or typological culture and that the art itself encourages such an interpretation of traditions. Roman Christian funerary art and banqueting practice also provide a key to interpreting the difficult passage about Martha and Mary as myrrhophores and witnesses to the resurrection. Hippolytus’ displayed an attitude toward women in the commentary that is difficult to assess. The patronage of wealthy women was an important part of the 440 growing church, and this study illustrates that idea by pointing out the implicit tension between some of the roles of women portrayed in the commentary and the role taken by Hippolytus as interpreter and regulator of the community. Hippolytus’ commentary has recently attracted attention because of its possible advocacy of female ordination. This study began intending to discover finding additional support for and a greater appreciation of the theology of female ordination. A closer reading of On the Song of Songs, however, revealed that Hippolytus did not support the ordination of women in the church. When Hippolytus ascribes the status of apostles to the apostles to Martha and Mary, he is not providing a theological basis for official female leadership in the church. Rather, he is indirectly extolling the women who embody the virtues of the myrrhophores. The consolation of the church in hoping for the future conversion of Israel or the Synagogue is the main point in this incident of typological interpretation. The myrrhophores (as representatives of the Synagogue) then are indeed enabled to find the resurrected Christ by only going “a little further” (In Cant. 25.1) and finding grace. The implication is that the Jews of the Synagogue walk in darkness, seeking the Messiah. They are not vilified in On the Song of Songs for their condition, only encouraged to go a little further to meet the resurrected Christ. Thus the essential message of the episode, as redacted or adapted by Hippolytus has to do, on one level, with the recapitulation of all humanity under the New Eve-New Adam typology. The women cling to the “tree of life” (made present through the resurrected Christ). In this way Hippolytus allows his audience to look in on the moment in time in which the New Eve, now the church, takes the place of the Old Eve, the Synagogue. The episode functions in a more restricted way to recapitulate the Synagogue under the 441 headship of Christ and the apostles. It is going too far to consider Eve in this passage as exclusively and directly “symbolic of womankind” or that Martha and Mary are “agents of female salvation.” Such a notion demands too much of the mental horizon of Hippolytus and the image is not applied in this way. Hippolytus makes significant use of symposium themes and images in On the Song of Songs and the symposium tradition shapes the ethos, the narrative, and the themes of the commentary raising the sympotic references to the level of a central motif. The question arises, however, whether these themes and symbols amount to evidence that On the Song of Songs was intended to be read or performed at a banquet or whether themes and images of the symposium find their way into the commentary written to be read at any time. The argument of this book has been that the sympotic motif also deeply shapes Hippolytus’ characterization of his audience. If this assertion is true, then the likelihood is that Hippolytus indeed wrote the commentary for banquet performance; however, it was written not as a finished product but as a series of notes on the text, like the Gospel of Philip. Unlike the GPhil it seeks to use one central, continuous biblical text for its exposition, whereas the GPhil demonstrates little or no coherence with one central text. The three perorations in On the Song of Songs (2.9-35; 22:1-20; 26.1-27.10) suggest three homilies. The first of three perorations in the commentary ends with a call to receive the Christic anointing (In Cant. 2.1-35). A rousing rehearsal of biblical characters who desired the anointing serves as a powerful inducement for the audience to join the biblical story of redemption. This first part of the commentary seems appropriate as a post-baptismal homily (In Cant. 1-2; cp. Cyril Mystagogical Instructions, homily 2). On the basis of the breaks at 1:16; 2:35; and 22:10, it is 442 suggested that the commentary is composed of three homilies to be delivered after the baptismal rites and during the Passover celebration that culminated in a feast. The liturgical context in a house-church is important for three reasons. First, it greatly increases understanding and enjoyment of the commentary by providing a way of connecting and organizing what would otherwise be a chaotic series of typological comments on the Song. Second, if On the Song of Songs was written for use both in the celebration of mystagogy in connection with a meal, it has potential unrecognized unitl now as a source both for the social history of church and the history of Christian liturgy at the beginning of the third century. This point is especially important because many scholars have argued, either on the basis of archaeological evidence or the reading of texts, that the practice of full-scale eucharistic banquets was in the process of disappearing by the third century, and that indications suggest that by the beginning of the second century the use of the fullscale banquet was on the wane. Following Klinghardt and Balch, I question the idea that a strict distinction could always be made at this time between the Eucharist and the “Agape feast.” This study of On the Song of Songs suggests that meals were still being practiced as central religious rituals. Still, it may be expected that the practice died a slow death, particularly in connection with certain high festivals such as Passover. Further, the Eucharist may well have been practiced as a symbolic meal, perhaps a small breakfast with a full scale meal celebrated later in the day. A close reading of the commentary itself turns up certain other features such as the practice of post-baptismal anointing representing the Spirit of Christ that are consistent with, without proving in themselves prove, a western provenance for the commentary. The hermeneutical approach of the commentary owes much to Valentinian 443 influence. Valentinus and Valentinian commentaries (attested in Irenaeus) provided the impetus for the writing of commentaries by Hippolytus. Perhaps the strongest argument made is by means of liturgical enactment. The ritual of Christic anointing and feasting and entertainment by means of mysterious holy books like the Song of Songs were themselves are formative for identity. They inculcated particular visions of the good life, and did so in a way that meant to triumph over other Valentinian formulations. Valentinians believed that their allegorical, spiritual teaching could help lower-level psychic Christians achieve a greater sense of freedom from spiritual bondage. They urged such Christians who had not experienced their deeper, more meaningful intitiation to read their commentaries on Scripture and press on to an initiation into nuptials with Christ. Valentinian practice and theology influenced Hippolytus, who received a Roman tradition of initiation already influenced by second-century Valentinian practice. Hippolytus drew critically on this tradition of Old Testament interpretation and Christian initiation. Chapter 11 Annotated Translation The translation of Hippolytus’ Commentary on the Song of Songs (In Cant.) is the first English translation of the Georgian text of this commentary of Hippolytus.1 The translation attempts to be as literal as possible but does not attempt always to maintain the exact word order. Nor does the translation always translate the same Georgian word with a one word English equivalent. The original Greek of the commentary is no longer extant. The Georgian text, by Garitte, CSCO 264, is also provided with a modern Latin translation in item, CSCO 264. The Georgian text used in this translation is based on B. Gigineišvili and El. Giunašvili, ed. შატბერდის კრებული X საუკუნისა (Tbilisi, 1979: edition electronically prepared by J. Gippert, Berlin/Bamberg/Frankfurt a/M. 1986-1998; Titus version by Jost Gippert, Frankfurt a/M. 2/28/1998-12-27-2002, «http://titus, uni-frankfurt, de/ texte/etcs/cauc/ageo/satberd/satbe, htm»), 249-67. 444 1 WORKS CITED Primary Sources Ambrose. Expositio Psalmi Cxviii: Pars V. Ambrosius. Opera: Ambrosius 5. Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999. Ambrose. Des sacrements. SC 25. Edited by Bernard Botte. Paris: Cerf, 1961. Brock, Sebastian. “Some New Syriac Texts Attributed to Hippolytus.” Le Museon 94.1-2 (1981): 177-200. Clement of Alexandria. Clemens Alexandrinus. Edited by Otto Stählin. Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten drei Jahrhunderte 12.1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905. Chronicon Paschale. Edited by Dindorfius, Ludovicus. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantina 1. 1832. Cornutus. Theologiae graecae compendium. Edited by Carol Lang. Leipzig: Teubner, 1881. Diehl, Ernst, Jacques Moreau, and Henri Irénée Marrou, eds. Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres. Berolini: Apud Weidmannos, 1925. Diogenes, Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Edited by Robert Drew Hicks. London New York: W. Heinemann G.P. Putnam’s sons, 1925. Egeria. Egeria: Diary of a Pilgrimage. Ancient Christian Writers. Edited by S.T.D. Walter, J. Burghardt Johannes Quasten, S.J. and Thomas Comerford Lawler. Translated by George E. Gingras. Newman Press, 1970. Frey, Jean Baptiste. Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions: Jewish Inscriptions From the Third Century B.C. To the Seventh Century A.D. The Library of Biblical Studies. New York: Ktav Pub House, 1975. Gellius, Aulus. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. Loeb Classical Library, 195; 200; 212. Edited by John C. Rolfe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. 520 521 Hippolytus. Epigrafia greca iv. Epigrafi sacre pagane e cristiane. Edited by Margherita Guarducci. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico, 1978. Hippolytus. Hippolytus Werke. Volume 4. Second edition. Edited by R. Helm (post A. Bauer). Berlin: Akademie–Verlag, 1955; Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 46. Hippolytus. Commentaire sur Daniel. Sources Chrétiennes 14. Introduction by Gustave Bardy. Text and translation by Maurice Lefèvre. Paris: Cerf, 1947. Hippolytus. Contra Noetum. Heythrop Monographs 2. Edited and translated with introduction by Robert Butterworth. London: Heythrop College, University of London, 1977. Hippolytus. Hippolyte De Rome Sur Les Bénédictions D’isaac, De Jacob Et De Moïse. Volume Patrologia orientalis, 27, fascimilie 1-2 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1954). Hippolytus. Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 1.2. Edited by Hans Achelis. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897. Hippolytus. “Hippolyts Kommentar zum Hohenlied auf Grund von N. Marrs Ausgabe des Grusisinischen Textes.” Texte und Untersuchungen, NF 8.2c (1902): 1-108 Texte und Untersuchungen, NF. Text and translation by Nathaniel G. Bonwetsch. Hippolytus [pseudo-Justin Martyr/Athenagorus]. De resurrectione. Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum Saeculi Secundi. Volume 3. Third edition. Otto, J.C.T. Jena: Mauke, 1879, Reprinted 1971. Hippolytus. La tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte: essai de reconstitution. Litugiewissenschaftliche Quellen and Forschungen 39. Edited by Bernard Botte. Translated by Bernard Botte. 3. Aufl. ed. Münster Westfalen: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966. Hippolytus. La tradition apostolique d’après les anciennes versions. Sources chrétiennes 11. Edited by Bernard Botte. 2e éd. rev ed. Paris: Cerf, 1984. Hippolytus. On the Apostolic Tradition. Edited by Alistair Stewart. Popular Patristics 522 Series. Crestwood, N.Y: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001. Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium. Patristische Texte und Studien. Volume 25. Edited by Miroslav Marcovich. Berlin; New York: W. De Gruyter, 1986. Hippolytus. Sur Les Bé né dictions d’isaac, De Jacob et De Moı̈ se. Patrologia orientalis 27. Edited by Louis Mariè s, B. Ch Mercier, and Maurice Briè re. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1954. Hippolytus. Traités d’Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur l’Antéchrist. Edited by Gérard Garitte. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalis; Scriptores Iberici 15 263. Louvain: Sécretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965. Hippolytus. Traités d’Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur l’Antéchrist. Edited and translated into Latin by Gérard Garitte. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalis; Scriptores Iberici 15 264. Louvain: Sécretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965. [Hippolytus]. The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1968. Iamblichus. On the Pythagorean Way of Life. Edited by John M. Dillon, and Jackson Herschbell, P. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1991. Garitte, Gérard, ed. Traités d’Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur l’Antéchrist. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalis; Scriptores Iberici 15 263. Louvain: Sécretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965. ———, ed. Traités d’Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur l’Antéchrist. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalis; Scriptores Iberici 16 266. Louvain: Sécretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965. ———. “Une Nouvelle Source du ‘De Fide; Géorgien Attribué à Hipplyte.” Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique 63.3-4 (1968): 835-48. Les Constitutions Apostoliques. Sources chrétiennes 320, 329, 336. Edited by Marcel Metzger. Paris: Cerf, 1985. Lucian and A. M Harmon. Lucian. LCL. 8 volumes. Cambridge, Mass London: Harvard University Press, 1959. 523 Mommsen, Theodor “Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae ad C. Caesaris mortem.” Editio altera pars prior. Berlin: George Reimer 1893, 254-79. ______ “Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae ad C. Caesaris mortem,” editio altera pars prior. Berlin: George Reimer, 1893, 254-79. Melito of Sardis. Meliton de Sardes: Sur la Pâque et fragments. Sources chrétiennes 123. Edited by Othmar Perler. Paris: Cerf, 1966. Origen. Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13-32. The Fathers of the Church 89. Edited and translated by Ronald E. Heine. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1993. Origen. Contra Celsum. Edited by Henry Chadwick. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Patrologia graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Patrologia latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864. Plutarch, Moralia. Loeb classical library. Volume 2. Translated and edited by Frank C. Babbitt. London New York: W. Heinemann G. Putnam’s, 1927. Ovid. Fasti. Edited by Roger D. Woodard, and A. J. Boyle. London: Penguin, 2000. Prott, Hans Theodor Anton von, and Ludwig Ziehen. Leges Graecorum Sacrae e Titulis Collectae, Ediderunt et Explanaverunt Ioannis de Prott, Ludovicus Ziehen. 2. Lipsiae: Teubner, 1896. Robinson, James McConkey, ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Third completely revised edition. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Richard, Marcel. “Comput et chronographie chez saint Hippolyte,” Mélange de Science Religieuse, 7 (1950): 237–68. ______. “Comput et chronographie chez saint Hippolyte (II),” Mélange de Science Religieuse, 8 (1951): 19–50. ______.“Le comput pascal par octaétéris.” Le Muséon, 87 (1974): 307-39. ______. “Quelques Nouveaux Fragment de Pères.” Pages 3 v in Opera Minora. 1. 524 Turnhout: Brepols, 1976. Richard, Marcel, ed. Asterii Sophistae, Commentariorum in Psalmos Quae Supersunt Accendunt Aliquot Homiliae Anonymae. Oslo: Brørgger, 1956. Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 1. American reprint of the Edinburgh edition ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmanns, 1978. Schenke, Hans-Martin, Hans-Gebhard Bethge, and Ursula U. Kaiser. Nag Hammadi Deutsch: Studienausgabe. Eingeleitet und Ubersetzt von Mitgliedern des Berliner Arbeitskreises für Koptisch-Nostische Schrifteu (Gruyter-. Schrifteu (De Gruyter Texte). Gruyter, 2007. Scourfield, J. H. D, and Jerome. Consoling Heliodorus: A Commentary on Jerome, Letter 60. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford New York: Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, 1993. Seneca, Lucius Annaeus and John W Basore. Moral Essays. The Loeb classical library. London: Heinemann, 1928. Simplicius. Commentaire Sur Les Catégories. Edited by Ilsetraut Hadot. Philosophia antiqua. Volumes 50-51. New York: E. J. Brill, 1989. Tcherikover, Victor, and Alexander Fuks. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Cambridge, MA: Published for the Magnes Press, Hebrew University [by] Harvard University Press, 1957. Zahn, Theodor. Der Evangeliencommentar des Theolphilus von Antiochien. Forschungen Zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons und der Altkirchlichen Literatur. Erlangen: Deichert, 1883. Secondary Sources Abraham, William J. Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism. Oxford University Press, USA, 2002. Achelis, Hans. Hippolytstudien. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der 525 altchristlichen Literatur, Band 16, Heft 4 (neueFolge, 1 Bd., Hft. 4). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897. Aichelle, George. The Control of Biblical Meaning: Canon as Semiotic Mechanism. Trinity Press International, 2001. Altmann, Alexander. Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations. Vol. 1906. Studies and Texts 3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966. Andrei, Osvalda. “L’esamerone cosmico e le Chronographiae di Giulio Africano.” Pages 169-83 in Atti del XXIII Incontro di studiosi dell’Antichità cristiana: Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 50. Rome: Instituto Patristico Augustinianum, 1994. ———. “La formazione di un modulo storiografico cristiano: dall’esamerone cosmico alle Chronographiae di Giulio Africano.” Aevum 69 (1995): 147-70. Aune, David E. “Heracles and Christ: Heracles Imagery in the Christology of Early Christianity.” Pp. 3-19 in Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Ed. David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Balch, David L. Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches. WUNT 228. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Balch, David L., Everett Ferguson and Wayne Meeks, eds. Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Fortress Press, 1991. Baldovin, John F. “Hippolytus and the Apostolic Tradition: Recent Research and Commentary.” Theological Studies 64.3 (2003): 520-42. Bammel, Caroline P. “The State of Play With Regard to Hippolytus and the Contra Noetum.” Heythrop Journal 31 (1990): 195-99. Bardy, Gustave. “Le écoles romaines du second siècle.” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique (1927): 501-32. Bardy, Gustave and Maurice Lefèvre eds. Hippolyte. Commentaire sur Daniel. Sources Chrétiennes 14. Introduction by Gustave Bardy. Text and translation by Maurice Lefèvre. Paris: Cerf, 1947. 526 Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Edited by Robert A Kraft, and Gerhard Krodel. Translated by Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel. First paperback edition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Bautz, Freidrich William. “Bibliographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon.” 2 (1990): 888-93. Online: http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/h/hippolytos.shtml. Beauvoir, Simone de, and H. M. Parshley. The Second Sex. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1953. Becker, W. A, and Karl Friedrich Hermann. Charikles. Bilder Altgriechischer Sitte, Zur Genaueren Kenntniss der Griechischen Privatlebens. Leipzig: F. Fleischer, 1854. Berardino, Angelo Di. Encyclopedia of the Early Church. 2 volumes. Oxford University Press, USA, 1992. Bertonière, Gabriel. The Cult Center of the Martyr Hippolytus on the Via Tiburtina. Bar International Series 260. Oxford, England: B.A.R, 1985. Birdsall, J. Neville. “Geneaologies of Jesus in the Works of Hippolytus: a Possible Pointer in the questions of Authorship.” Studia Patristica 31 (1997): 243-52. Bisconti, Fabrizio. Temi di Iconografia Paleocristiana. Sussidi allo studio delle antichità cristiane; 13. Città del Vaticano: Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana, 2000. Bitzer, Lloyd. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1-14. Blumenfield, Bruno. “Classical and Hellenistic Sources for a Political Paul.” Ph. D. diss., Columbia University, 1997. Bobertz, Charles A. “The Role of Patron in the Cena Dominica of Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition.” Journal of Theological Studies 44.1 (1993): 170-84. Bokser, Baruch M. The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Bonwetsch, G. Nathanael. “Studien Zu den Kommentaren Hippolyts zum Buche Daniel und Hohen Liede.” Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Volume 16.2 (Neue Folge, 1.Bd., Hft.2). Leipzig: J. C. 527 Hinrichs, 1897. ———. “Hippolyts Kommentar zum Hohenlied auf Grund von N. Marrs Ausgabe des Grusisinischen Textes.” Texte und Untersuchungen, NF 8.2c (1902): 1-108. Botte, Bernard. “Le Baptême dans l’Eglise Syrienne,” L’Orient Syrien 1 (1956): 135-54. ______. La Tradition Apostolique de Saint Hippolyte: Essai de Reconstitution. Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen; Heft 39. 3. Aufl. ed. Münster Westfalen: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966. ———, ed. La Tradition apostolique: d’après les anciennes versions. 2. éd ed. Sources Chrétiennes 11. Paris: Cerf, 1968. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Bradley, Keith. “The Roman Family At Dinner.” Pages 36-55 in Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Edited by Inge Nielsen, and Hanne Nielsen. Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity 1. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998. Bradshaw, Paul F. “Redating the Apostolic Tradition: Some Preliminary Steps.” Pages 3-17 in Rule of Prayer, Rule of Faith: Essays in Honor of Aidan Kavanagh, Osb. Edited by John Baldovin, and Nathan Michell. Collegvile, MN: Pueblo Liturgical Press, 1996. ———. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. ———. “Other Acts of Worship.” Pages 61-3 in Essays on Hippolytus. Edited by Paul F. Bradshaw, Edward Charles Whitaker, and G. J. Cuming. Grove Liturgical Series 15. Bramcote, Notts: Grove books, 1978. ———. “'Diem Baptismo Sollemniorem': Initiantion and Easter in Christian Antiquity.” Pages 41-51 in Eulogêma: Studies in Honor of Rober Taft, S. J. Edited by E. Carr, S. Parenti, and A. A. Thiermeyer. Rome: 1993. ———. “Jewish Influence on Early Christian Liturgy: A Reappraisal.” (2008): Cited 528 07-01. Online: http://jcrelations.net/en/?area=Articles. Bradshaw, Paul F, and Lawrence A Hoffman. Passover and Easter: The Symbolic Structuring of Sacred Seasons. Two liturgical traditions; v. 6. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999. Bradshaw, Paul F, Maxwell E. Johnson, L. Edward Phillips, and Harold W. Attridge. The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary. Heremeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002. Bradshaw, Paul F. “Who Wrote the Apostolic Tradition? A Response to Alistair Stewart.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48.2-3 (2004): 195-206. Braund, David and John Wilkins, eds. Athenaeus And His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire. Classical Studies and Ancient History. University of Exeter Press, 2000. Brent, Allen. Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension Before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae; v. 31. Leiden; New York; Köln: E. J. Brill, 1995. ______. The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity Before the Age of Cyprian. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 45. Brill Academic Pub, 1999. ______. “St. Hippolytus, Biblical Exegete, Roman Bishop, and Martyr.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48.2-3 (2004): 207-31. ______. “Review of: Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55 (2004): 342-43. Brock, Sebastian. “Studies in the Early History of the Syrian Orthodox Baptismal Liturgy.” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972): 16-64. ______. “Studies in the Early History of the Syrian Orthodox Baptismal Liturgy.” Studia Liturgica 12 (1977): 177-83. ______. “The transition to a post-baptismal anointing in the Antiochene rite,” in The Sacrifice of Praise: Studies in honour of A.H. Couratin (ed. B. Spinks; Ephemerides Liturgicae, Subsidia 19, 1981), 215-25. 529 ______. The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition. Gorgias Press Studies 4. Piscataway, NJ: 1979. ______.“Some New Syriac Texts Attributed to Hippolytus.” Le Museon 94.1-2 (1981): 177-200. Brown, Peter Robert Lamont. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. Lectures on the history of religions; new ser., no. 13. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985. ———. Ancient Mystery Cults. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987. Butterworth, Robert. Contra Noetum. Heythrop Monographs 2. London: Heythrop College, University of London, 1977. Cantalamessa, Raniero. L’omelia in S. Pascha dello Pseudo-Ippolito di Roma. Ricerche sulla Teologia Dell’asia Minore Nella Seconda Metà Del Ii Secolo. Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1967. Cantalamessa, Raniero, James M. Quigley, and Joseph T. Lienhard, eds. Easter in the Early Church: an Anthology of Jewish and Early Christian Texts. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1993. Carcopino, Jérôme, Henry T. Rowell, E. O. Lorimer, and Mary Beard. Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the City At the Height of the Empire. Yale Nota bene. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Carpenter, Thomas H., and Christopher A. Faraone, eds. Masks of Dionysus. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. Carter, Warren. Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19-20. Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement series; 103. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1994. ———. The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide. Abingdon Essential Guides Abingdon Essential Guides. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006. ———. John and Empire: Initial Explorations. Continuum International Publishing 530 Group, 2008. ———. “Vulnerable Power: The Roman Empire Challenged By the Early Christians.” Pages 453-88 in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches. Edited by Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and Paul-André Turcotte. Walnut Creek, CA; Oxford: AltaMira Press, 2002. Dal Covolo, E. “I Severi e il Cristianesimo: un Decenio di Ricerche (1986-1996).” Augustinianum 8 (1999): 43-51. Cerrato, John A. Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. ———. “The Association of the Name Hippolytus with a Church Order now known as the Apostolic Tradition.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48 (2004): 179-94. Cerrato, John A. “Hippolytus and Cyril of Jerusalem on the Antichrist: When Did an Antichrist Theology First Emerge in Early Christian Baptismal Catechesis?” Pages 154-59 in Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity. Edited by Robert Daly. Holy Cross Studies in Patristic Theology and History. Baker Academic, 2009. Chapa, Juan. Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri. Papyrologica Florentina; v. 29. Firenze: Edizione Gonnelli, 1998. Chappuzeau, Gertrud. “Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes durch Hippolyt von Rom.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 19 (1976): 45-81. Chappuzeau, Gertrude. “Die Exegese von Hohelied 1, 2 A.B und 7 bei den Dirchenvätern von Hippolyt bis Bernhard. Ein beitrag zum Verständnis von Allegorie und Analogie.” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 18 (1975): 90-143. Chesnut, Glenn F. “The Ruler and the Logos in Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic and Late Stoic Political Philosophy.” Aufstieg un Niedergang der Römischen Welt 16.2:1310-32. Part 2 Principat, Principat, 16.2. Edited by H. Temporini, and W. Haase. Childers, Jeff. “Funerary Practices.” Pages 443-44 in Encyclopedia of Early 531 Christianity. Second edition. Edited by Everett Ferguson. New York: Garland, 1999. Chin, Catherine M. “Through the Looking Glass Darkly: Jerome Inside the Book.” Pages 101-16 in The Early Christian Book. Edited by William E. Klingshirn, and Linda Safran. CUA Studies in Early Christianity. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 2007. Christ, Alice. Review of Catherine Brown Tkacz, The Key to the Brescia Casket: Typology and the Early Christian Imagination. Journal of Early Christian Studies 11.2 (2003): 249-50. Church, F. Forrester. “Sex and Salvation in Tertullian.” The Harvard Theological Review 68.2 (1975): 83-101. Clark, Elizabeth. “Ideology, History, and the Construction of ‘Woman’.” Pages 155-84 in A People’s History of Christianity. Vol. 2. Edited by Virginia Burrus. Late Ancient Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. ———, ed. Ascetic Piety and Women’s Faith: Essays on Late Ancient Christianity. Studies in Women and Religion 20. Lewiston: Mellon Press, 1986. Clark, Elizabeth A. History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Clarke, John R. The Houses of Roman Italy, 100 B.C.-A.D. 250: Ritual, Space, and Decoration. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Otto Stählin. Clemens Alexandrinus. Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten drei Jahrhunderte 12.1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “Judaism to the Mishnah: 135-220.” Pages 194-223 in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. Edited by Harold Shanks. Washington, D.C.: 1992. Connolly, R. H. “Eusebius H. E. V. 28.” Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1948): 73-9. Conybeare, Catherine. “Tertullian on Flesh, Spirit, and Wives.” Pages 430-9 in Severan Culture. Edited by Simon Swain, Stephen Harrison, and Jas' Elsner. 532 New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Cunningham, Mary B, and Pauline Allen. Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics. New history of the sermon; v. 1. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1998. D’Anna, Alberto, ed. Pseudo-Giustino. Sulla Resurrezione: Discorso cristiano del II secolo. Brescia: Editrice Morcelliana, 2001. D’Arms, J. H. “Slaves At Roman Convivia.” Pages 171-83 in Dining in a Classical Context. Edited by William J. Slater. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991. Daniélou, Jean. The Bible and the Liturgy. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956. ———. Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. Translated by Austin, John. London Philadelphia: Darton, Longman & Todd Westminster Press, 1973. ———. Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres Supplement. Berolini: Apud Weidmannos, 1967. Denzey, Nicola. The Bone Gatherers: The Lost Worlds of Early Christian Women. Beacon Press, 2008. Dix, Gregory, and Henry Chadwick, eds. The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1968. von Döllinger, Johann Joseph Ignaz. Hippolytus and Callistus; Or, the Church of Rome in the First Half of the Third Century, With Special Reference to the Writings of Bunsen, Wordsworth, Baur, and Gieseler. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876. Doval, Alexis James. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue: the Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses. Patristic Monograph Series. Volume 17. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 2001. Drijvers, Jan Willem. Cyril Of Jerusalem: Bishop And City (Supplements to Vigiliae 533 Christianae). Brill Academic Publishers, 2004. Elliott, J. K. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford University Press, USA, 2005. Ernst, Allie M. “Martha from the Margins: An Examination of Early Christian Traditions about Martha.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Queensland, 2006. Fähnrich, Heinz, and Zurab Sarjveladze. Altgeorgisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Lexicographia orientalis. Vol. 5. Hamburg: H. Buske Verlag, 1999. Felber, Heinz, Schmitt-Pantel, Pauline and Binder, Gerhard. “Banquet.” Brill’s New Pauly (2005): Electronic encycloedia. <http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/ entry?entry=bnp_e230040. Cited 08-08. Online: http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl. Felber, Heinz, Wieshehöfer, Josef and Wagner-Hasel, Beate. “Hospitality.” Brill’s New Pauly (2005): Electronic encycloedia. <http://www.brillonline.nl/ subscriber/entry?entry=bnp_e230040. Cited 08-08. Online: http:/ /www.paulyonline.brill.nl. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World Attitudes and Interactions From Alexander to Justinian. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1993. Ferguson, Everett, ed. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Second edition. New York: Routledge, 1997. ______, “Catechesis, Catechetical Instruction.” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Second edition. Edited by Everett Ferguson. New York: Garland, 1999. Ferguson, Everett. “Wine as a Table-Drink in the Ancient World.” Restoration Quarterly 13.3 (1970): 141-53. ______. “Irenaeus’ Proof of the apostolic Preching and Early Christian Catechesis,” Studia Patristica 18.3 (1989): 119-140. ———. “Justin Martyr and the Liturgy.” Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 267-78. ———. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003. Fine, Steven. Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish 534 Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Finn, Thomas. “Agape (Love Feast).” Pages 16-17 in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. Second edition. Edited by Everett Ferguson. New York: Garland, 1999. Fitzgerad, John T, ed. The Function of Friendship Language in Philippians 4:10-20. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 82 Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament. Leiden/New York/Köln: E. J. Brill, 1996. Fowler, David B, L. Gregory Bloomquist, and Duane Frederick Watson, eds. Fabrics of Discourse: Essays in Honor of Vernon K. Robbins. Harrisburg, PA; London: Trinity Press International, 2003. Frickel, Josef. Das Dunkel um Hippolyt von Rom: ein Lösungsversuch; die Schriften Elenchos und Contra Noëtum. Grazer Theologische Studien 13. Graz: Institut für Ökumenische Theologie und Patrologie an der Universität Graz, 1988. ———. “Ippolito di Roma, Scrittore E. Martire.” Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 30 (1989): 23-41Nuove ricerche su Ippolito. ———. “Hippolyts Schrift Contra Noetum: Ein Pseudo-Hippolyt.” Pages 87-123 in Logos: Festschrift für Luise Abramowski. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993. Friedheim, Emmanuel. “Who Are the Deities Concealed Behind the Rabbinic Expression ‘a Nursing Female Image’?” Harvard Theological Review 96.2 (2003): 239-50. Führer, Arnold. Tod, Trauer und Trost in Ciceros Tusculanischen Schriften und Malebranches Schrift Entretiens Sur la Mort: Eine Phänomenologische Untersuchung. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2002. Gamble, Harry. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. Yale University Press, 1997. Gonnet, Dominique. “La Pâque de Pères de L'église.” La Maison-Dieu 240 (2004): 33-57. Gonzalez, Justo L. Christian Thought Revisited: Three Types of Theology. Orbis 535 Books (USA), 1999. Goodenough, Erwin R. “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship.” Yale Classical Studies 1 (1928): 55-101. Gorman, Michael J. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers. Hendrickson Publishers, 2001. Gould, Graham. “Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus.” Journal of Theological Studies 54 (2003): 312-14. Gregg, Robert C. Consolation Philosophy. Vol. 3 Patristic Monograph Series. Cambridge, MA: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975. Guarducci, Margherita. “La ‘Statua di Sant Ippolito e la Sua Provenienza.” Nuove ricerche su Ippolito. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 30 (1989): 61-74. ———. “Valentiniani a Roma.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen archäologischen Instituts 80 (1973): 169-89. ———. “La Statua di ‘Sant’ippolito.” Pages 17-30, 164 in Recerche Su Ippolito. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 13. Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1977. Gutsfel, Andreas. “Cena.” Brill’s New Pauly (2005): Electronic encycloedia. <http:/ /www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnp_e230040. Cited 08-08. Online: http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl. ———. “Meals.” Brill’s New Pauly (2005): Electronic encycloedia. <http:/ /www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnp_e230040. Cited 08-08. Online: http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl. Hadot, Ilsetraut. Simplicius: Commentaire Sur Les Catégories. Philosophia antiqua, v. 50-51. New York: E. J. Brill, 1989. Hamman, Adabert G. “Valeur et Signification des Renseignements Liturgiques de Justin.” Studia Patristica 13 (1975): 364-74. Hanson, K. C. and Douglas E. Oakman. Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Fortress Press, 2008. 536 Hanssens, Jean Michel. La Liturgie d’Hippolyte: Ses Documents, son Titulaire, Ses Origines et son Caractère. Orientalia Christiana analecta; 155. Second edition. photolithographique ed. Roma: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1965. Harl, Kenneth W. Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. To A.D. 700. Ancient society and history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Harland, Philip. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. ———. “Connections With Elites in the World of Early Christianity.” Pages 385-408 in Vulnerable Power. Edited by Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and PaulAndré Turcotte. Walnut Creek, CA; Oxford: AltaMira Press, 2002. Harnack, Adolf Von, and Kurt Aland. Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur Bis Eusebius. 2. erweiterte Aufl., mit einem Vorwort von Kurt Aland ed. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1958. Harvey, William Wigan, ed. Sancti Irenaei, episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros quinque adversus haereses. Cantabrigiae: Typis Academicis, 1857. Heeren, John. “Another View of Easter and Passover.” American Sociological Review 49 (1984): 581-82. Heimgartner, Martin, and Pseudo-Justinus. Pseudojustin, über die Auferstehung: Text und Studie. Patristische Texte und Studien; Bd. 54. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Heine, Ronald. “Hippolytus, Ps.-Hippolytus and the Early Canons.” in Hippolytus, Ps.-Hippolytus and the Early Canons. Edited by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Beard, Mary and John Henderson. Classical Art: From Greece to Rome. Oxford History of Art Series. Oxford University Press, USA, 2001. Hill, Charles E. “Hades of Hippolytus Or Tartarus of Tertullian: The Authorship of the Fragment De Universo.” Vigiliae christianae 43.2 (1989): 105-26. Holloway, Paul A. Consolation in Philippians. Society for New Testament Studies 112 Monograph series. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 537 Jensen, Robin Margaret. Understanding Early Christian Art. London ; New York: Routledge, 2000. ———. Face to Face: Portraits of the Divine in Early Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005. Johann, Horst-Theodor. Trauer und Trost; Eine Quellen- und Strukturanalytische Untersuchung der philosophischen Trostschriften über den Tod. München: W. Fink, 1968. John, Chrysostom. Catecheses Baptismales = Taufkatechesen. Fontes Christiani 6. Edited by Reiner Kaczynski. Freiburg: New York: Herder, 1992. Johnson, Maxwell E. The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation. Revised and expanded ed. Liturgical Press, 2007. Jones, Cheslyn, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Edward Yarnold, eds. The Study of Liturgy. Revised edition ed. London: SPCK, 1978. Jungklaus, Ernst. Die Gemeinde Hippolyts Dargestellt nach Seiner Kirchenordnung. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1928. Kennedy, George Alexander. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. ———. Classical Rhetoric & Its Christian & Secular Tradition From Ancient to Modern Times. 2nd ed., rev. and enl ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999. Kienast, Dietma. Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer Römischen Kaiserchronologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1990. Kimelman, Reuven. “Rabbi Yokhanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A ThirdCentury Jewish-Christian Disputation.” The Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 567-95. Kirchner, Johannes, ed. Decrees and Sacred Laws. 2 ed. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, 3. Berlin: 1913. 538 Klauck, Hans-Josef. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to GraecoRoman Religions. Studies of the New Testament and its world. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000. Klinghardt, Matthias. Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie Frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter; 13. Tübingen; Basel: Francke Verlag, 1996. Kraeling, Carl H. and C. Bradford Welles. The Christian Building. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report 8.2. New Haven : Locust Valley, N.Y: DuraEuropus Publications, distributed by J. J. Augustin, 1967. Krause, Martin, and Pahor Labib. Gnostische und Hermetische Schriften Aus Codex II und Codex VI. Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1971. Krusch, Bruno. Studien zur Christlich-mittelalterlichen Chronologie: der 84jährige Ostercyclus und seine Quellen. Leipzig: Veit & comp, 1880. Judge, E A. “Early Christians as a scholastic community I.” Journal of Religious History 1 (1960): 4-15. ______. “Early Christians as a scholastic community II.” Journal of Religious History 1 (1961): 125-37. ______. “The First Christians as a Scholastic Community.” Pages 526-52 in The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan & New Testament Essays. Edited by James R Harison. Wissemschaftlich Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 229. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ______.“Die Einführung des griechischen Paschalritus im Abendlande.” Neues Archiv 9 (1884): 99-169. ______. Victorius and Exiguus Dionysius. Studien zur christlich-mittelalterlichen Chronologie : die Entstehung unserer heutigen Zeitrechnung. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, in Kommission bei W. de Gruyter u. Co, 1938. La Piana, George. “The Roman Church At the End of the Second Century: The Episcopate of Victor, the Latinization of the Roman Church, the Easter Controversy, Consolidation of Power and Doctrinal Development, the Catacomb 539 of Callistus.” Harvard Theological Review 18.3 (1925): 201-77. Lacugna, Catherine M. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. HarperOne, 1993. Lampe, G. W. H. The Seal of the Spirit: A Study in the Doctrine of Baptism and Confirmation in the New Testament and the Fathers. S.P.C.K. Paperbacks. 2nd ed., with corr. and new intro. and additional bibl ed. London: S.P.C.K, 1967. Lampe, Peter. “The Eucharist: Identifying With Christ on the Cross.” Interpretation 48 (1994): 36-49. ———. “Das Korinthische Herrenmahl Im Schnittpunkt Hellenistisch-Roemischer Mahlpraxis und Paulinischer Theologia Crucis (1 Kor 11, 17-34).” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Alteren Kirche 82 (1991): 183-213. ———. “The Corinthian Eucharistic Dinner Party: Exegesis of a Cultural Context (I Cor. 12:17-34).” Affirmation 4 (1991): 1-16. ———. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians At Rome in the First Two Centuries. Edited by Marshall D. Johnson. Translated by Steinhauser, Michael. 1st Fortress Press ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Larson, Jennifer. Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Lawson, R. P, ed. The Song of songs. Commentary and Homilies. Ancient Christian Writers 26. Westminster, Md: Newman Press, 1957. Lee, Clarence L. “The Catacombs and the Colosseum; the Roman Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity.” Pages 121-38 in The Catacombs and the Colosseum; the Roman Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity. Edited by Stephen Benko, and John J. O'rourke. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1971. Leon, Harry J, and Carolyn Osiek. The Jews of Ancient Rome. (pbk.) ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Leyerle, Blake. “Meal Customs in the Greco-Roman World.” Pages 29-61 in 540 Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times. Edited by Paul F. Bradshaw, and Lawrence A Hoffman. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. The Apostolic Fathers. 5. London and New York: Macmillan and co, 1885. Ling, Roger. Roman Painting. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Logan, Alastair H. B. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism. Hendrickson Publishers, 1996. Logan, Alistair, H. B. “Post-Baptismal Chrismation in Syria: The Evidence of Ignatius, the Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions.” The Journal of Theological Studies 49.1 (1998): 92-108. Loi, Vincenzo. “L'identità Letteraria di Ippolito di Roma.” Nuove ricerche su Ippolito. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 30 (1989): 67-88. ———. “La problematica storico-letteraria su Ippolito di Roma.” Paper presented at Ricerche su Ippolito. Rome, 1977. Macmullen, Ramsay. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. London; New York: Routledge, 1992. Maier, Harry O. “Religious Dissent, Heresy and Households in Late Antiquity.” Vigiliae Christianae 49.1 (1995): 49-65. ________. The Social Setting of the Ministry as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas, Clement, and Ignatius. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 1. Waterloo, Ont: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1991. Mansfeld, Jaap. Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled Before the Study of an Author Or a Text. Philosophia antiqua, v. 61. Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, 1994. Mansfield, Herbert W. “A Society in Aldersgate Street.” Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 19 (1934): 77-80. Marcovich, Miroslav, ed. Refutatio omnium haeresium. Patristische Texte und 541 Studien, Bd. 25. Berlin; New York: W. De Gruyter, 1986. ______ “Hippolyt.” Pages 381-87 in volume 15. Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by Thornton, Claus-Jürgen, Gerhard Krause, Gerhard Müller, Siegfried M. Schwertner, and Matthias Glockner. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986. Martin, J, ed. Arati phaenomena: Fragmentum (e codicibus). CD TLG 653 ed. Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice, 1956. Martin, Josef. Symposion, die Geschichte einer Literarischen Form. Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1931. Matthews, Thomas F. The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art. Rev. ed., rev. and expanded ed., rev. pbk. ed. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1999. Mattingly, Harold. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum: Antonius Pius to Vitelius. Coins of the Roman Empire in the Brit. Museum 4. 2005 (reprint) ed. London: Spink & Sons Ltd, 1923. Mattingly, Harold, and R.A.G. Carson. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum: Severus Alexander to Pupienus. Coins of the Roman Empire in the Brit. Museum 4. 2005 (reprint) ed. London: Spink & Sons Ltd, 1923. Mcbride, Samuel Dean, and Roland Edmund Murphy. The Song of Songs. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. McConvery, Brendan. “Hippolytus’ Commentary on the Song of Songs and John 20: Intertextual Reading in Early Christianity.” Irish Theological Quarterly 71 (2006): 211–22. McDonnell, Kilian and George T. Montague. Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: Evidence from the First Eight Centuries (Michael Glazier Books). Michael Glazier Books, 1990. McDonnell, Kilian.“Jesus’ Baptism in the Jordan.” Theological Studies Theological Studies 56 (1995): 209-36. McGowan, Andrew Brian. Ascetic Eucharists: Food and Drink in Early Christian Ritual Meals. Oxford early Christian studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. 542 ———. Andrew Brian McGowan, “Food, Ritual, and Power,” in Late Ancient Christianity (ed. Virginia Burrus; A People's History of Christianity 2; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005).. McGuckin, John, ed. The Westminster Handbook to Origen. Westminster Handbooks. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. McKechnie, Paul. “Christian Grave-Inscriptions From the Familia Caesaris.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 50 (2000): 427-41. McNeil, Brian. “Avircius and the Song of Songs.” Vigiliae christianae 31.1 (1977): 23-34. Meeks, Wayne A. “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity.” History of Religions 13 (1974): 165-208. Meloni, Pietro. “L’Influsso del Commento al Cantico di Ippolito sull’Expositio Psalmi CXVIII di Ambrogio.” Pages 865-930 in Letterature comparate, problemi e metodo: studi in onore di Ettore Paratore. Bologna: Pàtron, 1981. ______. “Ippolito e il Cantico Dei Cantici.” Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 13 (1989): 97-120. Merkelbach, Reinhold. Isis Regina, Zeus Sarapis: die Griechisch-Ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen Dargestellt. Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, 1995. Metzger, Marcel. Les Constitutions Apostoliques. Sc 320, 329, 336. Paris: Cerf, 1985. ———. “Nouveles Perspectives Pour la Prétendue Tradition Apostolique.” Ecclesia Orans 5 (1988): 242-59. ———. “Enquêtes Autour de la Prétendue Tradition Apostolique.” Ecclesia Orans 9 (1992): 7-36. Mlasowsky, Alexander. “denarius.” Brill’s New Pauly (2005): Electronic encycloedia. <<http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnp_e230040. Cited 08-08. Online: http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl. Mosshammer, Alden A. The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Oxford Scholarship Online. Oxford University Press. 20 January 2010 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ 543 9780199543120.001.0001> Mueller, Joseph G. “Post-Baptismal Chrismation in Second-Century Syria: A Reconsideration of the Evidence.” Journal of Theological Studies Journal of Theological Studies 57 (2006): 76-93. Nautin, Pierre. Le Dossier d’Hippolyte et de Méliton Dans Les Florilèges Dogmatiques et Chez les Historiens Modernes. Paris: Cerf, 1953. ———. Lettres et Écrivains Chrétiens des I et II Siècles. Patristica 2. Paris: Cerf, 1961. ———. Origène. Christianisme antique 1. Paris: Beauchesne, 1977. ———. Hippolyte et Josipe Contribution a L’histoire de la Litterature Chretienne du Troisieme Siecle. Paris: Cerf, 1947. Neuschäfer, Bernhard. Origenes als Philologe. Schweizerische Beiträge Zur Altertumswissenschaft 18. Basel: F. Reinhardt, 1987. Newby, Zahra. “Art At the Crossroads? Themes and Styles in Severan Art.” Pages 201-49 in Severan Culture. Edited by Simon Swain, Stephen Harrison, and Jas' Elsner. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper, 1951. Nielsen, Inge, and Hanne Nielsen. Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Aarhus studies in Mediterranean antiquity; 1. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998. Nock, Arthur Darby. “A Diis Electa: A Chapter in the Religious History of the Third Century.” The Harvard Theological Review 23.4 (1930): 251-74.; 1930. Noy, David. Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers. Cardiff: Classical Press of Wales, 2000. Nussbaum, Martha Craven. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Martin Classical Lectures; New Series 2. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1996. Ogg, George. “Hippolytus and the Introduction of the Christian Era.” Vigiliae 544 christianae 16 (1962): 2-18. Oller, Gary H. “Tamar.” Pages 315 in vol. 5 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Orbe, Antonio. Hacia la Primera Teologia de la Procesion Del Verbo. Estudios Valentinianos, Vol. I. Roma: Universitas Gregoriana, 1958. ———. Commentary on the Gospel According to John Books 1-10. The Fathers of the Church 80. Edited by Ronald E. Heine. Translated by Heine, Ronald E. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 1989. Scholia in Canticum canticorum. Patrologia graeca 17. Edited by J.-P Migne. Paris: 1857. van Os, Lubbertus Klass. “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber: the Gospel of Philip as a Valentinian Baptism Instruction.” University of Groningen, 2007. Osborn, Eric Francis. Irenaeus of Lyons. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Osburn, Carroll D. “The Text of the Pauline Epistles in Hippolytus of Rome.” Second Century 2 (1982): 97-124. Osiek, Carolyn and David L. Balch. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches. The Family, Religion, and Culture. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Osiek, Carolyn and Helmut Koester. Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999. Osiek, Carolyn, Margaret Y. Macdonald and Janet H Tulloch. A Woman's Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006. Osiek, Carolyn. Tulloch, Janet H. “Women Leaders in Family Funerary Banquets.” Pages 164-93 in A Women's Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity. Edited by Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Macdonald. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006. Osiek, Carolyn. “Roman and Christian Burial Practices and the Patronage of 545 Women.” in Commemorating the Dead: Texts and Artifacts in Context: Studies of Roman, Jewish and Christian Burials. Edited by Laurie Brink. Walter de Gruyter, 2008. ______. “The Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33: A Problematic Wedding.” Pages 371-92 in Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity. Edited by Nissinen Martti and Risto Uro. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2008. ______. “Patronage of Women in Early Christianity.” Pages 173-92 in Feminist Companion to Patristic Literature. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Maria Mayo Robbins. Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christianity. T & T Clark International, 2008. Padilla, Armando M. and William Perez. “Acculturation, Social Identity, and Social Cognition: A New Perspective.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 25.1 (2003): 35-55. Pahls, Michael J. “The Institutional History of the Catechumenate From 236-430 C.E. A Select and Annotated Bibliography.” reformedcatholicism.com (2006): 1-30. Cited 05-06. Online: http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/?p=838. Paratore, Ettore, ed. Letterature comparate, problemi e metodo: studi in onore di Ettore Paratore. Bologna: Pàtron, 1981. Pasithea [Painter]. “K12.8 the Chariot of Dionysos.” Louvre NMB 1036 (400-390 B.C.E.): Beazley Archive Number 230398. Cited 08-21-2008. Online: http:/ /www.theoi.com/Gallery/K12.8.html. Pelletier, Anne-Marie. Lectures du Cantique des Cantiques: de L’enigme du Sens aux Figures du Lecteur. Anbib. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990. Penn, Michael Philip. Kissing Christians: Ritual and Community in the Late Ancient Church (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion). University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. Perler, Othmar, ed. Meliton de Sardes: Sur la Pâque et fragments. Sources chrétiennes 123. Paris: Cerf, 1966. Petsalis-Diodimidis, Alexia. “Landscape, Transflormation, and Divine Epiphany.” Pages 250-89 in Severan Culture. Edited by Simon Swain, Stephen Harrison, 546 and Jaś Elsner. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Philostratus, Philostratus, Sophista Callistratus, and Arthur Fairbanks. Philostratus, Imagines; Callistratus, Descriptions. The Loeb classical library. London New York: Heinemann G. P. Putnam’s sons, 1931. Pietri, Charles. Roma Christiana: recherches sur l'Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311-440). Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 224. Rome: École Français. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Oxford University Press, USA, 2007. Pitra, Jean Baptiste. Analecta biblica 4 (1883): 61-64; 330-1. Porter, Stanley E, ed. Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.-A.D. 400. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997. Potter, David S. The Roman Empire At Bay: A.D. 180-395. Routledge History of the Ancient World. London; New York: Routledge, 2004. Powell, Jonathan. “Unfair to Caecilius? Ciceronian Dialogue Techniques in Minucius Felix.” Pages 177-89 in Severan Culture. Edited by Simon Swain, Stephen Harrison, and Jas' Elsner. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Quasten, Johannes. Initiation aux Pères de L’église. Paris: Cerf, 1955. Quasten, Johannes, and Angelo di Berardino. Patrology. 2. Westminster, Md: Christian Classics, Inc, 1986. Raes, Alphonse. Introductio in Liturgiam Orientalem. Rome: Oriental Institute, 1947. Rhee, Helen. Early Christian Literature: Christ and Culture in the Second and Third Centuries (Routledge Early Church Monographs). Routledge, 2005. Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Richardson, Cyril C. “The Quartodecimans and the Synoptic Chronology.” The Harvard Theological Review 33.3 (1940): 177-90. Richardson, Emeline. “The Story of Ariadne in Italy.” Pages 189-95 in The Story of 547 Ariadne in Italy. Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology. J. J. Augustin, 1979. Richardson, Peter. Building Jewish in the Roman East. Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press, 2004. Riedel, Wilhelm. Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes in der Jüdischen Gemeinde und der Griechischen Kirche. Leipzig: Deicher, 1898. Robbins, Vernon K. The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology. New York: Routledge, 1996. Robinson, James McConkey, ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd completely rev. ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Robinson, James McConkey, and Richard Smith. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 4th rev. ed. Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, 1996. Robinson, William C. “Exegesis on the Soul.” Novum Testamentum 12 (1970): 102-17. Saller, Richard. “Status and Patronage.” Pages 817-54 in volume 11 of The High Empire, A.D. 70-192. The Cambridge Ancient History 11. Edited by Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey and Dominic Raithbone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Salzman, Michele Renee. On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. The Transformation of the Classical Heritage; 17. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Sandys, John Edwin, and Sidney George Campbell. Latin Epigraphy; an Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions. 2d ed. Cambridge, UK: The University press, 1927. Saxer, Victor. “Ippolito di Roma, Scrittore e Martire.” Nuove ricerche su Ippolito. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 30. Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1989: 43-59. Schäublin, Christoph. Untersuchungen Zu Methode und Herkunft der Antiochenischen Exegese. Köln: P. Hanstein, 1974. Schenke, Hans-Martin, Hans-Gebhard Bethge, and Ursula U. Kaiser. Nag Hammadi 548 Deutsch: Studienausgabe. Eingeleitet und Ubersetzt von Mitgliedern des Berliner Arbeitskreises für Koptisch-Nostische Schrifteu (Gruyter-Schrifteu (De Gruyter Texte). Gruyter, 2007. Schenke, Hans-Martin, Hans-Gebhard Bethge, and Ursula Ulrike Kaiser. Nag Hammadi Deutsch. Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Jahrhunderte. Neue Folge Bd. 8, Etc Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften 2. Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. Schmitt-Pantel, Pauline. “Kline.” Brill’s New Pauly (2005): Electronic encycloedia. <<http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnp_e230040. Cited 08-08. Online: http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, and R. McL. Wilson, eds. New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 1914. Louisville, KY: Clarke & Co/Westminster John Knox Press, 1991. Schöllgen, Georg, Clemens Scholten and Ernst Dassmann, eds. Stimuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum; Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 23. Münster: Aschendorff, 1996. Scholten, Clemens. “Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus.” Vigiliae christianae 59.1 (2005): 85-92. Schürer, Emil, Géza Vermès, and Fergus Millar. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135). Edinburgh: Clark, 1973. Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Serra, Dominic E. “Syrian Prebaptismal Anointing and Western Postbaptismal Chrismation.” Worship 79 (2005): 328-41. Seyrig, Henri. La triade héliopolitaine et les temples de Baalbek. Extracts from Syria, 10 (1929): 314-356. Shero, L. R. “The Cena in Roman Satire.” Classical Philology 18 (1923): 126-43. Siegert, Folker. “Rhetoric in Practice: Homily and Panegyrical Sermon.” Pages 421-44 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B. C. -a D. 400. Edited by Stanley Porter. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997. 549 Simonetti, Manlio. “Nuove Ricerche Su Ippolito.” Nuove ricerche su Ippolito. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 30. Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1989: 45-65. ———. “Aggiornamento Su Ippolito.” Nuove ricerche su Ippolito. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 30. Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1989: 75-130. ———. “Una Nuova Proposta Su Ippolito.” Augustinianum 36 (1996): 13-46. ———. Contro Noeto. Biblioteca patristica; 35. Bologna: EDB, 2000. ———, ed. Simonetti, Manlio, ed. Ricerche su Ippolito. 13. Rome: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 1977. ———. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. Edited by Bockmuehl A, Markus N, Bergquist Anders, and Willianm Horbory. Translated by Hughes, John A. T. & T. Clark, 1994. ———. Origene Esegeta e la Sua Tradizione. Letteratura Christiana Antica Nuova Serie 2. Brecia: Morcelliana, 2004. Sluiter, Ineke. “Commentaries and the Didactic Tradition.” Pages 173-205 in Aporemata: kritiche Studien zur Philologie: Commentaries—Kommentare. Edited by Glenn Most. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Smith, Daniel A. “Irenaeus and the Baptism of Jesus.” Theological Studies 58.4 (1997): 618-42. Smith, Dennis Edwin. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Smith, Jonathan Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 14. London Chicago: School of Oriental and African Studies University of London University of Chicago Press, 1990. Snyder, Graydon F. Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine. Mercer University Press, 2003. Snyder, Harlow, Gregory. “Justin Martyr’s in the City of Rome.” Harvard 550 Theological Review 100 (2007): 335-62. Sokolowski, Franciszek. Lois Sacrées des Cités Grecques. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1969. Speidel, Michael P. “Commodus the God-Emperor and the Army,” The Journal of Roman Studies 83 (1993): 109-114. Spier, Jeffrey. Picturing the Bible: The Earliest Christian Art. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007. Spinks, Bryan D, ed. The Sacrifice of Praise: Studies on the Themes of Thanksgiving and Redemption in the Central Prayers of the Eucharistic and Baptismal Liturgies: in Honour of Arthur Hubert Couratin. Bibliotheca Ephemerides liturgicae. Subsidia 19. Edited by M. Melrose. Roma: C.L.V, 1981. Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: a Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1996. ______. Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome. San Francisco: Harper, 2006. Stark, Rodney, and William Sims Bainbridge. A Theory of Religion. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 1996. Stark, Rodney, and Roger Finke. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Stein, S. “The Influence of Symposia Literature on the Literary Form of the Pesah Haggadah.” Journal of Jewish Studies 8 (1957): 13-44. Stewart, Alistair. “Hermas the Prophet and Hippolytus the Preacher: the Roman Homily and its Social Context.” Pages 33-63 in Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics. Edited by M. B. Cunningham and P. Allen. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———, ed. ed. On the Apostolic Tradition. Popular Patristics Series. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002. ———. “Ordination Rites and Patronage Systems in third Century Africa.” Vigiliae Christianae 56.2 (2002): 115-30. 551 ———. “Tradition Apostolica, the Liturgy of Third-Century Rome and the Hippolytean School Or Quomodo Historia Liturgica Conscribenda Sit.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48 (2004): 233-48. ———. “Mimesis and Typology and the Institution Narrative: Some Observations on Tradition Apostolica 4 and Its Afterlife.” Pages 106-19 in Wilderness: Essays in Honour of Frances Young. Edited by Frances M. Young, and R. S. Sugirtharajah. Jsntsup 295. London; New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2005. Stone, Michael E. “The Interpretation of Song of Songs in 4 Ezra.” Journal for the Study of Judaism: In the Persian Hellenistic & Roman Period 38 (2007): 226-33. Strohm, Paul. Theory and the Premodern Text. Medieval Cultures; v. 26. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000. Strong, Donald Emrys. Roman Art. Pelican Histories of Art. Edited by Roger Ling, and Jocelyn M. C. Toynbee. Revised ed. Hartford, CT: Yale University Press, 1988. Sturgeon, Mary C. “The Corinth Amazon: The Formation of Roman Classical Sculpture.” American Journal of Archaeology 99.3 (1995): 483-505. Swain, Simon, Stephen Harrison, and Jas' Elsner, eds. Severan Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Taussig, Hal. “Greco-Roman Meals and Performance of Identity: A Ritual Analysis.” Unpublished Seminar paper in Society of Biblical Literature, Meals in the Greco-Roman World (2004): Cited 6-6. Online: »http://www.philipharland.com/ meals/GrecoRomanMealsSeminar.htm«. Testini, Pasquale, ed. Nuove ricerche su Ippolito. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 30. Roma: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum,” 1989. Thesaurus linguae graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works.Edited by L. Berkowitz and K. A. Squitier. 3d ed. Oxford, 1990. Thomassen, Einar. “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Second-Century Rome.” Harvard Theological Review 97.3 (2004): 241-56. 552 Thornton, Claus-Jürgen, Gerhard Krause, Gerhard Müller, Siegfried M. Schwertner, and Matthias Glockner. Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1977. Thür, Gerhard. “Eranos.” Brill’s New Pauly (2005): Electronic encycloedia. <http:/ /www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnp_e230040. Cited 08-08. Online: http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl. Tkacz, Catherine Brown. The Key to the Brescia Casket: Typology and the Early Christian Imagination. Collection des études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité; 165. Notre Dame, Paris: University of Notre Dame Press Institut d'Etudes Augustiennes, 2001. Tolluch, Janet. “Women Leaders in Family Funerary Banquets,” in A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity. Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. MacDonald. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006, 273- 313 including images. Too, Yun Lee. “The Walking Library: The Performance of Cultural Memories.” Pages 111-24 in Athenaeus and His World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire. Edited by D. Braund and J. Wilkins. Classical Studies and Ancient History. University of Exeter Press, 2000. Torjesen, Karen Jo. “Social and Historical Setting: Christianity as Culture Critique.” Pages 181-99 in Social and Historical Setting: Christianity as Culture Critique. Edited by Frances Young, Lewis Ayres, and Andrew Louth. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Trapp, Michael. “Philosophy, Scholarship, and the World of Learning in the Severan Period.” Pages 470-88 in Severan Culture. Edited by Simon Swain, Stephen Harrison and Jaś Elsner. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Unger, Christoph. On the Cognitive Role of Genre: A Relevance-Theoretic Perspective. 2001. Valentini, Roberto, Giuseppe Zuchetti. Codice topografico della città di Roma. Volume 1. Fonti per la sotria d’Italia 91. Rome: Tipograpfia del Senato, 1940, 63 ff. Vermeule, Cornelius. The Goddess Roma in the Art of the Roman Empire. London: Spink, 1959. 553 Vinzent, Markus. “‘Philobiblie’ Im Frühen Christentum.” Das Altertum 45 (1999): 115-43. ———. “Hippolyt von Rom und Seine Statue.” Pages 125-34 in Zur Zeit Oder Unzeit. Edited by A. M. Ritter, W. Wischmeyer, and W. Kinzig. Texts and Studies in the History of Theology 9. Mandelbachtal: Edition Cicero, 2004. ———. “Rome.” Pages 397-413 in The Cambridge History of Christianity. Volume 1. Edited by Margarett Mitchell, and Frances M. Young. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Wagner-Hasel, Beate. “Presents.” Brill’s New Pauly (2005): Electronic encycloedia. <http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=bnp_e230040. Cited 08-08. Online: http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl. Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. “Domus and Insulae in Rome: Families and Households.” Pages 3-18 in Early Christian Families in Context: an Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Edited by David L. Balch and Carolyn Osiek. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Walzer, Richard. Galen on Jews and Christians. London: Oxford University Press, 1949. Webb, Pamela A. Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands. Madison, Wisc: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1996. Webb, Ruth E. “Ekphrasis Ancient and Modern: The Invention of a Genre.” Word & Image 15 (1999): 7-18. ______. Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Ashgate, 2009. Weyermann, Maja. “The Typologies of Adam-Christ and Eve-Mary, and Their Relationship to One Another.” Anglican Theological Review Anglican Theological Review Anglican Theological Review 84 (2002): 609. Whealey, Alice. “Hippolytus’ Lost ‘De Universo’ and ‘De Resurrectione:’ Some New Hypotheses.” Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996): 244-56. ———. “Pseudo-Justin’s de Resurrectione: Athenagoras Or Hippolytus?” Vigiliae 554 Christianae 60 (2006): 420-30. White, L. Michael. “Regulating Fellowship in the Communal Meal: Early Jewish and Christian Evidence.” Pages 177-205 in Roman Family At Dinner. Edited by Inge Nielsen, and Hanne Nielsen. Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity 1 Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1998. Whitmarsh, Tim. “Prose Literature and the Severan Dynasty.” Pages 29-51 in Severan Culture. Edited by Simon Swain, Stephen Harrison, and Jas' Elsner. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Wilken, Robert. “Collegia, Philosophical Schools, and Theology.” Pages 268-91 in Collegia, Philosophical Schools, and Theology. Edited by Stephen Benko, and O'rourke. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1971. Wilken, Robert L. “Early Christian Chiliasm, Jewish Messianism, and the Idea of the Holy Land.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 298-307.; 1986. Williams, Michael A. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1996. Winkler, Gabriele. “Original Meaning of the Prebaptismal Anointing and Its Implications.” Worship Worship 52.1 (1978): 24-45. ———. “The Original Meaning of the Prebaptismal Anointing an Its Implications.” Pages 58-81 in Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation. Edited by Maxwell E. Johnson. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1995. Winterbottom, Michael. “Cyprian’s Ad Donatum.” Pages 190-99 in Severan Culture. Edited by Simon Swain, Stephen Harrison, and Jas' Elsner. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Woodhall, Jonathan A. “The socio-religious role of women according to Hippolytus in the light of the early Christian fathers.” Ph.D, Fordham University, 1980. Yoder, John Howard. Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture. Abingdon Press, 1995. Young, Frances M. The Theology of the Pastoral Letters. New Testament Theology. 555 Cambridge University Press, 1994. Yubal, Israel J. “Easter and Passover as Early Jewish-Christian Dialogue.” Pages 98-124 in Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times. Edited by Paul F. Bradshaw, and Lawrence A Hoffman. 5. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999. Zani, Antonio. La Cristologia di Ippolito. Richerche di Scienze Teologiche 22. Brixiae: Morcelliana, 1984. Zerubavel, Eviatar. “Easter and Passover: On Calendars and Group Identity.” American Sociological Review 47 (1982): 284-89.