Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture 9781463234645

Citation preview

JOURNAL FOR LATE ANTIQUE RELIGION AND CULTURE

JOURNAL FOR LATE ANTIQUE RELIGION AND CULTURE

EDITOR Nicholas Baker-Brian, Cardiff University

CO-EDITORS Josef Lôssl, Cardiff University Shaun Tougher, Cardiff University

ACADEMIC ADVISORS Crystal Addey,

Cardiff University

Max Deeg,

Cardiff University

Alfons Fürst,

Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster

Peter Guest,

Cardiff University

Vahan Hovhanessian,

Cardiff University

Turhan Kagar,

Pamukkale University

Daniel King,

Cardiff University

Dirk Krausmüller,

Mardin University

Markus Stein,

Heinrich Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf

JOURNAL FOR LATE ANTIQUE RELIGION AND CULTURE

Volume 4 2010 Edited by Nicholas Baker-Brian, Josef Lössl and Shaun Tougher

A Publication of the Centre for Late Antique Religion and Culture C ardi ff University CARDIFF UNIVERSITY P ReI F Y S G O L O RDY[§>

Co-Published by

A*

L jn orgias ö t press

All

rights

reserved under

International

and Pan-American

Copyright

Conventions. No part of this volume may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher, the Cardiff University Centre for Late Antique Religion and Culture, and the co-publisher, Gorgias Press LLC. All inquiries should be addressed to the Cardiff University Centre for Late Antique Religion and Culture, School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Humanities Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU, United Kingdom Co-Published by Gorgias Press LLC 954 River Road Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA

Internet: www.gorgiaspress.com Email: [email protected] ISBN: 978-1-4632-0149-4 This volume is printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standard for Permanence of paper for Printed Library Materials. Printed in the United States of America

Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture is distributed electronically free of charge at http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/share/research/centres/clarc/jlarc/index.html

Contents Pauline Exegesis In Patristic Commentaries Of Old Testament Prophets: The Example Of Julian Of Aeclanum's Tractatus In Amos Josef Lôssl, Cardiff University

1

Commentary And Translation In Syriac Aristotelian Scholarship: Sergius To Baghdad

35

John W. Watt, Cardiff University Human Souls As Consubstantial Sons Of God: The Heterodox Anthropology Of Leontius Of Jerusalem Dirk Krausmiiller, Cardiff University

53

Preliminary Enquiries Into The Place Of The Laterculus Malalianus Among The Chronicles Of Late Antiquity James Siemens, Cardiff University

83

Book Reviews Andrew T. Fear (ed.), Orosius: Seven Books of History against the Pagans Victoria Leonard, Cardiff University

Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qur 'an and Its Biblical Subtext Daniel King, Cardiff University

99

103

PAULINE EXEGESIS IN PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES OF OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS: THE EXAMPLE OF JULIAN OF AECLANUM'S TRACTATUS IN AMOS

Josef Lossl, Cardiff University ([email protected])

Abstract: The surge in Pauline exegesis in the Latin world during the late fourth / early fifth century has been referred to as a "Pauline Renaissance". It produced numerous Pauline commentaries and led to a presence of Pauline motifs in many areas of late Roman cultural and intellectual life. This article is an attempt to show how it influenced not only New Testament but also Old Testament exegesis. Julian of Aeclanum's Tractatus in Amos draws direct links between the figures of Amos and Paul and thus offers a re-interpretation not only of the role of Old Testament prophecy in late antique Christianity but, almost more importantly, of the role of Paul and his "call", or, as it is more frequently understood, his "conversion", from Jewish zealot to Christian apostle. What is suggested here, among other things, is that the link between Amos and Paul in the Tractatus in Amos leads to a greater appreciation of the role of Jewish prophecy and teaching in early Christian thought and of Paul's Jewish identity.

Introduction Gennadius refers to Julian of Aeclanum as a Biblical scholar (in divinis scripturis doctus)' with a sharp mind (vir acer ingenio). Julian's intellectual encounter with Augustine in the aftermath of the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius in May 418 ignited this explosive concoction. Over large parts the debate between the two

1

Gennadius, De viris illustribus 46 (78 Richardson); J. Lössl, Julian von Aeclanum (Leiden,

2001), pp. 11.42.47.250.273; M. Lamberigts, "Iulianus IV (Iulianus von Aeclanum)," Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 19 (2000), pp. 483-505. Bede, too, calls Julian an exegete; comm. in Cant. 1 (CCL119B, 167.170.285).

2

Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture 4 (2010)

bishops was about the exegesis of certain passages of the Pauline corpus.2 As in divinis scripturis doctus Julian would have taken his exegesis of the Apostle very seriously.3 In particular, he would have thought of it not so much as his exegesis but as part of a tradition. There had been a surge in Pauline exegesis, Latin and Greek, a generation before Julian.4 It revived in part an older tradition, in part it transformed it. Julian of Aeclanum knew about this development. Ironically one of its representatives who influenced him most was Augustine.5 Augustine himself had little time for tradition. In this respect he was, as James O'Donnell writes, one of "the last of his kind. No one after him could have the same insouciance toward intellectual and theological predecessors".6 It was Julian who introduced the Patristic argument to the controversy with Augustine, though Augustine proved a quick learner, when he responded not only with a barrage of Scripture references, but added yet more Patristic authorities (almost exclusively bishops). He may have compiled this collection with a view to having to justify his position not just to Julian but to the whole church, during his lifetime or after, perhaps at a Council.7

2

Compare J. Lössl, "Augustine, 'Pelagianism', Julian of Aeclanum and Modern Scholarship,"

Journal of Ancient Christianity 11 (2007), pp. 129-50 at 129-33. 3

Note the fervour with which he attacks Augustine for "usurping the Apostle's witness" c. Iul.

imp. 1.24 (CSEL 85/1, 21.12): ...inefficaci intentione usurpasti apostoli testimonium. 4

To list but the most important ones (some of them dealing only with part of the Pauline corpus),

Ambrosiaster (ed. H. J. Vogels, 3 vols., CSEL 81, Vienna 1966-69); Augustine (ed. J. Divjak, CSEL 84, Vienna, 1971: Galatians and Romans); the Budapest Anonymus (ed. H. J. Frede, 2 vols., Freiburg i. Br., 1973-1974); John Chrysostom (PG 61); Jerome (PL 26; R. Heine, The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on Ephesians (Oxford, 2002); G. Raspanti, CCSL...); Origen (PG 14; C. P. Hammond Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes, 3 vols., Freiburg i. Br., 1996; for further editions of fragmentary material of Origen see ibid, and Heine op. cit.); Pelagius (ed. A. Souter, Pelagius 'Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, Cambridge, 1931); Marius Victorinus (ed. F. Gori, CSEL 83, Vienna 1986); Theodore of Mopsuestia (ed. K. Staab, Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, Münster, 1933; H. B. Swete, Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii, 2 vols. Cambridge 1880-82). 5

For an example, note his treatment of Gal 5.16-18, discussed below under Appendix I.

6

J. J. O'Donnell, Augustine. Sinner and Saint (London, 2005), p. 125.

7

In some sense the occasion did arise, but only after his death, at the council of Ephesus in 431,

which he was invited to attend. Had he attended, his controversy with Julian would almost certainly have become an issue. For the role and the impact of the writings against Julian immediately after Augustine's death see M. Vessey, "Opus Imperfectum: Augustine and His Readers, 426-435," Vigiliae Christianae 52 (1998), pp. 264-285; for the development of the Patristic argument during the controversies with Pelagius and Julian see E. Rebillard, "A New Style of Argument in Christian Polemic: Augustine and the Use of Patristic Citations " Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 (2000), pp. 559-78.

Lössl

3

8

Julian has been labeled a rationalist. But it is him, not Augustine, who is at pains to support his arguments from tradition.9 It is difficult to do justice to this trait in the polemical works, where it is easily dismissed as a polemical technique. A comparison of Julian's Pauline exegesis in fragments of his polemical works with that in his non-polemical, exegetical, works, if this is at all possible, may show that this is not so, but that Julian really and rightly does see himself in a wider tradition of Patristic exegesis, a tradition which Augustine seems not to have known (or not to have cared for) to the same extent as Julian. Among the extant fragments from Julian's polemical writings those from Ad Turbantium (Turb.) offer themselves especially for such an investigation. They are not yet as single-mindedly polemical as those from Ad Florum (Flor.) and they may therefore be assumed to contain a wider variety of exegetical techniques, some of which are not exclusively polemical but can also be seen in non-polemical exegetical works. Among the exegetical works the Commentaries on Hosea, Joel and Amos (tr. proph. or Tractatus) stand out, and among them especially the Commentary on Amos (tr. Amos).10 We assume that Julian is indeed the author of the Tractatus." But even if this should one day be convincingly disproved, one can still argue that a comparison like the one proposed here may demonstrate that Julian's exegetical technique even and especially in his polemical works fitted well in the context of fourth and fifth century Pauline exegesis. Vice versa, on the assumption that the Tractatus really is Julian's work, the similarity between the exegetical techniques applied in it with those on display in the polemical works, especially Turb., can be regarded as further evidence for Julian's authorship of the Tractatus.

Paul in tr. Amos and in other Patristic Commentaries of Amos The strong presence of Paul in Julian's tr. Amos is striking. It is not so much the quantity of Pauline references as their exegetical treatment which dominates the 8

Most notably by A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, vol. 3 (Tübingen, 21890),

p. 183, cited by A. Bruckner, Julian von Aeclanum (Leipzig, 1897), p. 176; G. Bouwman, Des Julian von Aeclanum Kommentar (Rome, 1958), p. 23, cited by O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius (Stuttgart, 1975), p. 265; J. Lössl, "Julian of Aeclanum's 'Rationalist' Exegesis," Augustiniana 53 (2003), pp. 79-80. 9

As I argued in Lössl, "Julian of Aeclanum's 'Rationalist' Exegesis," 84-93.102-104, Julian

held that arguments from reason, Scripture and tradition had to support each other not to compete with each other. He accused Augustine of first introducing some new doctrinal idea by way of rational argument (namely the idea of "natural sin") and then trying to underpin it by arguments from Scripture and tradition. He held against this his own arguments from reason, Scripture and tradition. 10

For both texts I use the critical edition by L. De Coninck & E. M. D'Hont (CCL 88, 260-396).

11

For a Resümee listing and discussing the arguments in favour of this opinion see J. Lössl,

"Julian of Aeclanum's Tractatus in Osee, Ioel et Amos "Augustiniana 51 (2001), pp. 11-37.

4

Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture 4 (2010)

commentary. In mere quantitative terms it does not even amount to all that much: sixteen citations, paraphrases and "strong" allusions12 in total, four from Romans, six from 1 Corinthians, and one each from 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians and 2 Timothy.13 Only Theodore of Mopsuestia has fewer Pauline references. Only once in his commentary, in the preface, he explicitly refers to Romans 4.14 Otherwise Paul plays no role in his commentary, though it may be argued that the reference is situated in a key section of his commentary and that in that respect his use of Paul is similar to that in tr. Amos.15 Jerome's commentary of Amos contains more Pauline references, ca. 40 in all.16 Cyril of Alexandria's commentary contains roughly the same number as Jerome's. 17 But both these commentaries are much longer than tr. Amos (ca. two times and two and a half times as long as tr. Amos)1% and both contain

TO)V

12

By "strong" I mean allusions which carry meaning for the exegesis of the passage concerned.

13

For a detailed breakdown of the passages and their locations see the table under Appendix II.

14

See Theod. Mops. comm. Amos praef. (105.25-26 Sprenger): ...aAA' avwQev KOI -npo naupwv

xpovcov

TOVTO

TTpoaipio¡levov Kara

TOP

fiaKapiov

I lVAT]na Kaff VTTOoTaoiv rjpeoOrf) appears to be deliberately anti-Origenist. At the time when Leontius wrote his treatise it was staunch Nestorians such as Babai the Great who insisted on the pre-existence of the body whereas theologians with Origenist leanings such as Maximus the Confessor claimed that body and soul were created simultaneously.8 However, Leontius' statement is less clear-cut than it first seems. Unlike Babai the Great who states unequivocally in his Liber de Unione that Adam's soul was created in the pre-existing body he merely speaks of the endowment of Adam's body with the soul. Moreover, he expresses this notion in a rather idiosyncratic manner. Taking as his starting point Genesis 2:7: "and God formed man as dust from the earth and breathed into his face a breath of life and man was turned into a living soul" (KCU eirXaoev

o 6eo*s TOV avBpooirov

%ovv airo r f j i y f j i Kal evet^varjaev

els TO TrpoaooTTov

o avOpooTTos eis ifoxyv tfiixsav), he rephrases this verse in such a way that it now corresponds to traditional definitions of the human being as "the soul ... that has been united in a hypostasis with the body" (17 ij^XV ••• K A ® ' vTioaTaaw rjvconevrj to) aaj^aTL).9 The obvious consequence of this reformulation is the replacement of "the soul" (17 ^XV) with "the divine inbreathing" (TO deiov avrov

TTvorjv £oofj's Kal eyevero

1

CN 1.26, PG, 86, 1492D10-14.

8

See Babai the Great, Liber de Unione, c. 10, tr. A. A. Vaschalde (CSCO, 80, Scriptores Syri, 35;

Leuven, 1953), p. 90,11. 1-4: Scriptum nobis exposuit ilium primum in omnibus membris

suisformatum

et corporatum fuisse, et deinde exposuit creationem animae in eo; and Maximus, Ambìgua, PG, 91, 1321D-1325C. 9

Anastasius the Sinaìte, Capita vi adversus monotheletas,

9.1, ed. K.-H. Uthemann, Anastasii

Siinaitae sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei necnon opuscula adversus monotheletas (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca, 12; Turnhout, 1985).

58

Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture 4 (2010)

¿Hvorma), which sends a clear signal to the readers that these two terms refer to one and the same reality. Leontius makes this substitution without further ado and thus gives the impression that what he says is completely above board. However, there can be no doubt that it would have been roundly rejected in the theological circles to which Leontius' Nestorian adversary belonged. Representatives of the Antiochene tradition such as Diodore of Tarsus, John Chrysostom and Theodoret of Cyrus had made a careful distinction between the "inbreathing" and the human soul, which they considered to be created out of nothing, and Babai the Great was still propounding this position at the beginning of the seventh century when he stated in his Liber de Unione that "the angels ... realised that God who breathed into Adam and created the soul ... had created for them, too, rational life out of nothing" (angeli ... intellexerunt quod Deus, qui in Adam inspiravit et creavit animam ... etiam ipsis creavit vitam ratio-nalem ex nihilo).10 These authors were clearly troubled by the fact that Genesis 2:7 does not clearly distinguish between God's act of breathing into Adam's face and the presence in Adam of a soul as its result and therefore took great pains to read this distinction into the text. In the fourth century Diodore of Tarsus averred that Moses "says that the divine inbreathing is the creative cause of it (sc. of the soul)" (¿nvorma Oeiov brmiovpyiKov avrfjs [sc. rfjs IJFVXV^] 3vai (firjoiv),11 and a similar position is still expressed in a Pseudo-Athanasian text from the seventh or eighth century, the Liber de Definitionibus, which states that "the inbreathing created a soul in the human being" (TO Se ¿¡JL(F>VAT]NA EKEIVO IFOXYV i8r)niovpyrjaev IV T& avOpooTrco).12 Leontius evidently takes the diametrically opposite approach when he identifies the two terms. What are the implications of such a move? The Antiochene authors whom I have just mentioned state that they responded to exegetes who concluded from the ambiguous wording of Genesis 2:7 "that the divine inbreathing had become the immortal soul" (TO ¿¡JL(F>VAT]na TOV Beov yeyevrjoOai IFOXYV adavarov);13 and Cyril of Alexandria who preferred to interpret the "inbreathing" as an additional endowment of the already complete human being Adam with the Holy Spirit also makes reference to the alternative view "that the inbreathing that had come forth from the divine substance ... became a soul for the living being" (TO ¿K rrjs Qeias ovaiai irpoeXBov ¿¡jL(f>vaT]na, *ln)X"Qv ••• ytveoOai T £CWCW). 14

10 Babai the Great, Liber de Unione, ch. 10, tr. A. Vaschalde, p. 90,11. 17-21. 11 Catenae Graecae in Genesim etExodum, II, Collectio Coisliniana in Genesim, ed. F. Petit (Corpus Christianorum, Series graeca, 15, Turnhout, Leuven, 1986), * 83 (Diodore), p. 86,11. 9-12. 12 Pseudo-Athanasius, Liber de definitionibus, ch. 7, PG, 28, 545D7-10. 13 Catenae Graecae in Genesim etExodum, II, ed. Petit, * 83 (Diodore), p. 86,11. 2-3. 14 Cyril of Alexandria, In D. Joannis Evangelium, ed. E. Pusey, 3 vols (Oxford, 1872), II, p. 485,11. 1415.

Krausmüller

59

The advantages of such a position for a theologian in Leontius' situation are immediately obvious. If he had claimed that the soul was divine, he would have been able to counter his adversary's argument even more effectively than if he had had recourse to a model according to which the soul pre-existed the body, but was nevertheless a created being. Since countless human souls are hypostatically united with created material bodies, there could then be no conceivable reason why a hypostatic union between an uncreated and a created being should be impossible in the specific case of the divine Word. However, is this really the message that Leontius wishes to convey? At first sight this seems utterly out of the question. After all, belief in the soul's full divinity, as expressed in Pseudo-Justin's De Resurrectione where the soul is called "part ... and inbreathing of God" (fiepos ... TOV Oeov KCU ¿Nvorma),15 was roundly rejected by mainstream Christians, not only because it blurred the difference between creator and creation but also because it made God subject to division and change. Therefore one might be tempted to conclude that Leontius applied the term "inbreathing" (¿nvorma) to the soul in a much vaguer fashion that did not call into question its status as a creature, especially since there were respectable precedents for such use: Cyril of Alexandria, for example, characterises the soul as "image and inbreathing of God" (elKOJV Oeov KCU envorma) and then adds that one must for this reason take care of one's soul and raise it up "to its creative cause" (TTPOS TTJV aniav avrfjs TTJV 8RJNLOVPYLKRJP).16 Accordingly it could be argued that Leontius held the same view as Cyril and the absence of a similar corrective in his text could be explained through a lack of awareness of the problems arising from a straightforward equation of the divine inbreathing and the human soul. If this were the case we would need to return to our original assessment of the passage and would be forced to conclude that the arguments put forward by Leontius fail to address the issues raised by his Nestorian adversary. There is only one way to establish which of the two proposed interpretations is correct: we need to analyse further passages in Contra Nestorianos where Leontius sets out his views about the origin of the human soul. The first passage which I will consider is found in the first chapter of book one, where Leontius is confronted with the Nestorians' claim that the soul as part of the human composite is by necessity itself made up of parts. In order to refute this claim Leontius points out that if this were true for "that which is intelligible and spiritual and like to angels and furthermore also in the image of God and an inbreathing of the glory of the almighty" ( T O voepov Kal TrvevftariKov KCU laayyeXov en ¡JLT)V Kal TO Kar elKova Oeov Kal

15 Pseudo-Justin, De resurrectione, PG, 6, 1588A3-4. 16 Cyril of Alexandria, Die Matthäus-Kommentare Berlin, 1957), pp. 153-269, fragment, 81,1. 7.

aus der griechischen Kirche, ed. J. Reuss (TU, 61 ;

60

Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture 4 (2010)

RFJS 8Ó^R¡S TOV TTAVTOKPÁROPOS), it would also be true for the divine archetype, which then permits him to accuse his opponent of blasphemy. 17 At first sight the characterisation of the human soul as "in the image of God" (KCLT eÍKÓva Oeov) and as "inbreathing" {e¡x^>var¡¡ia), based on Genesis 1:26 "let us make man according to our image" (Troir\aa>jiev avOpomov KCLT eiKova i]¡xe.T¿pav), and on Genesis 2:7 "God ... breathed into his face the breath of life" (6 Qeós ... evetpvarjaev els TO irpooamov avrov TTVOT/V (fiofjs), seems unexceptional: after all, we have just come across the almost identical phrase "image and inbreathing of God" (elxwv Oeov KA\ envorma) in Cyril of Alexandria. However, a closer look reveals that the two verses from Genesis are not the only Biblical passages to which Leontius makes reference because the qualification of the inbreathing as "of the glory of the almighty" ( r f j s 8¿^r¡s TOV UAVTOKPATOPOS) is clearly based on the second part of the formula "outflow of the glory of the almighty" (¿Troppoia rfjs TOV TiavToKpaTopos 8¿^r¡s) in Wisdom 7:25, a connection that is further emphasised by the adjectives "intellectual and spiritual" (voepov KCU Trvev¡iaTiKÓv), which closely resemble the phrase "intellectual spirit" {uvev^a voepov) in Wisdom 7:22. The result of this conflation is evident: the replacement of ¿Troppoia with envorma insinuates equivalence between the two terms, which can only mean that Leontius expects his readers not only to equate the soul with God's "inbreathing", but also to conceive of this inbreathing as an emanation of the divinity. I¡XCFIVARINA

Does this additional evidence permit us to affirm that Leontius thought human souls to be fully divine? Unfortunately, the answer must still be no. Use of the term aTroppoia in protological contexts is not uncommon in Christian literature of earlier centuries. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, had referred to the mind as "the outflow from the divine inbreathing" (77 ¿K TOV Oeíov e¡i^>var]¡iaTos airoppoia).18 Gregory of Nazianzus had claimed that the human souls "were a part ... of God and had flowed from above" (¡xolpav ... ovTas Oeov KCLL avcodev pevaavTas).19 In the early seventh century such phrases were, of course, considered unacceptable because of their Origenist overtones but this does not necessarily mean that they were intrinsically heretical: after all, neither of the two Cappadocian authors had ever believed that human souls were an effluence of the divine substance. At this point one might therefore conclude that Leontius may well have held heterodox views about the origin of the soul but that the ambiguities inherent in the terms and concepts used by him make it impossible to arrive at any certainty. However, there are other passages in Contra Nestorianos where Leontius is less guarded and where he does indeed confirm that the souls are consubstantial with 17 CN, 1.1, PG, 86, 1405D-1408A. 18 Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus adversas Apollinarem, ed. F. Müller, Gregorii Nysseni Opera, III. 1: Opera dogmatica minora, (Leiden, 1958), p. 146,1. 26. 19 Gregory of Nazianzus, Depauperum

amore, PG, 35, 865B12.

Krausmiiller

61

their "father" God. I will start the discussion with chapter nineteen of book four, which addresses the Nestorian claim that Mary cannot be called "God-bearer" because the Son of God is engendered by his consubstantial Father and can therefore not experience a second birth from a human mother in the incarnation. Leontius points out that the Son has two "partial" (ek nepovs) progenitors, one "according to being" ( K a r a TO elvai) and one "according to qualified being" ( K a r a TO roicooBe elvai) when he becomes incarnated, and then proceeds to support his argument with the anthropological paradigm: "Qairep enl avOpomov

opoj/iev, TOV ¡lev ADI/ICNTOS TTJV yevvrjaiv ei's t o elvai ¿K TOW

yoveow e^oyro?, ttj? Se ¡/iu^tj?

OVK

ei's t o elvai airXms —

TOVTO

Kal o TrpWTon\aoTO rj/jup). This is clearly a scenario that would be reconcilable with the view that the human soul is of divine origin, which we have encountered in the previously dis-cussed passages. In particular, the claim that God lodges "himself (¿avTov) in the "clay" ( T T I I X O S ) and the juxtaposition of the two prepositional phrases "out of the own nature" (¿K T-rjs OLKEIAG (fjvaeajg) and "from earth" (¿TTO y f j s ) resemble closely the statements we found in Leontius's discussion of the two-fold consubstantiality of human beings. avQpamos

33

eis v TOV TRVEV/JIATOS). Other Christian authors such as Gennadius of Constantinople had interpreted this formula as "the partial grace of the Spirit" (TO ¡LEPIKOV TOV IRVEV^ATOS X « P M ) bestowed in the wake of the incarnation and had juxtaposed it with the "universal grace" (KCLQOXOV x«P l ?) that will be given after the resurrection. 45 Significantly, 44

T A

42

A

H.G. Liddell, R. Scott and H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, 1968), s. v. appaßwv,

earnest-money, caution-money, deposited by the purchaser and forfeited if the purchase is not completed, 2. generally, a pledge, earnest. 43

See P. Bruns, Den Menschen mit dem Himmel verbinden. Eine Studie zu den katechetischen

Homilien des Theodor von Mopsuestia (CSCO, 549, 'Subsidia, 89; Leuven, 1995), 332: "Der Teil-aspekt gehört wesentlich zur Natur des Unterpfandes," and note 214 with a list of examples from Theodore and other authors of the fourth and fifth centuries. For a later parallel, see Anastasius of Antioch, Oratio, IV, 14, ed. S. N. Sakkos, Anastasii IAntiocheni opera omnia genuine quae supersunt (Salonica, 1976), 75.2525: IlpoKaTaßeßXrjTai

TO o\ov aWa

yap a)s afiev o dppaßcbv

[it]vvwv TO Trap rrjs booecos' o yap dppaßcbv

TO fiepos.

44 See II Corinthians 1:21-22, and II Corinthians 5:5. 45 Gennadius of Constantinople, Fragmenta in Epistolam ad Romanos, PG, 85, 1700A.

OVK IOTL

72

Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture 4 (2010)

however, the same conceptual framework is employed by Antiochene theologians when they attempt to distinguish between Christ and other virtuous human beings. As I have already mentioned, the Nestorian author put a strong emphasis on the endowment of the man Jesus with the Holy Spirit, which then permitted him to claim that it was not necessary to conceive of the incarnation as a composition in order to safeguard the salvific effects of the incarnation. This endowment of Jesus with the Spirit, however, was conceived in quantitative terms: It was argued that Jesus received the whole Spirit whereas saintly human beings of earlier times only received a part of this Spirit. This notion is set out most concisely by Theodoret of Cyrus in his Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium where it is claimed that God distributed to the prophets the gifts of the Spirit, whereas in the incarnation he gave the "assumed nature" (Trpoa\rj(f>e1aa cf>vois) not merely a "partial grace" (fiepiKi) Xapis), but the whole "fullness of divinity" (TrX-qpaj^a rfjs OeoTrjTog).46 The affinity of this view with Leontius' position is evident throughout Contra Nestorianos: in chapter twenty-eight of book four Leontius attempts to distinguish Christ's status from that of Jeremiah and John the Baptist by claiming that Mary gave birth to "the spirit itself' (avro TO irvev^a), which in this context clearly refers to Christ, whereas the latter two figures were anointed in the womb "through participation of the sanctifying spirit" (¡JLEROXFJ TOV ayiaoTiKov TTvev/jiaTos),41 and in chapter six of book five he distinguishes Jesus Christ from other "Jesuses" mentioned in the Bible by claiming that these other "Jesuses" were given that name "because of partial partaking of the spirit" (¿TTO ¡ilpovs irvev^aTLKfj^ neTa\rjtfjecog).4i This shows that Leontius conceived of the difference between participation in the spirit and reception of "the spirit itself' in terms of part and whole, i. e. in very much the same ways as Antiochene and Nestorian authors did. Therefore one can argue that Leontius was influenced by the conceptual framework of his opponent, which he then modified to serve his own purposes. The first step that he took was to transpose this model to a protological context. This is not without precedent: Basil of Caesarea, for example, states in his Homiliae super psalmos that by breathing on Adam's face God "deposited a part of his own grace in the human being in order that the like recognise the like" (jiolpav Tiva rrjs ¿Bias 49 )(apiTo