Kissing Christians: Ritual and Community in the Late Ancient Church 9780812203325

Citation preview

Kissing Christians

DIVINATIONS: REREADING LATE ANCIENT RELIGION Series Editors Daniel Boyarin Virginia Burrus Charlotte Fonrobert Robert Gregg A complete list of books in the series is available from the publisher

J(issing Christians Ritual and Community in the Late Ancient Church Michael Philip Penn

PENN UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESS

Philadelphia

Copyright © 2005 University of Pennsylvania Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 10987654321 Published by University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4011 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Penn, Michael Philip. Kissing Christians : ritual and community in the late ancient church f Michael Philip Penn. p. em.- (Divinations) Includes bibliographical references (p. )and index. ISBN o-8122-388o-X (cloth: alk. paper) 1. Kissing-Religious aspects-Christianity. 2. Worship-History-Early church, ca. 3o-6oo. 3. Church history. I. Title. II. Series BVI97.K57 P46 2005 270.-dc22 2005042223

To Dirk, Carol, and Staifire for teaching me about true community

Contents

INTRODUCTION

I

I. KISSING BASICS

10

2. THE KISS THAT BINDS: CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES AND GROUP COHESION

26

3· DIFFERENCE AND DISTINCTION: 57

THE EXCLUSIVE KISS

4. BOUNDARY VIOLATIONS: PURITY, PROMISCUITY, AND BETRAYAL CONCLUSION

120

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS NOTES

129

BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX

127

163

177

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

185

91

Introduction

There are those who do nothing but make the church resound with the kiss, while not having love within themselves. This, the unrestrained use of the kiss, also causes shameful suspicions and slanders. This very thing should be a mystery-the apostle calls it holy. Living worthy of the kingdom, we make known the goodwill of the spirit with a chaste and closed mouth, by which civilized ways are shown. But there is another impure kiss, full of poison, feigning holiness. Do you not know that even venomous spiders, fastening only to the lips, afflict men with pain. And kisses often inject the poison of licentiousness. -Clement of Alexandria

of Clement of Alexandria are always full of surprises. One moment you peruse a section on Christology, a moment later you are reading about the sexual habits of hyenas. Skimming through a chapter on divine knowledge you come across a passage on plant grafting. A book against heretics is followed by a lengthy discussion of proper table manners. Nevertheless, I still was shocked to find amid his writings on fashion, gambling and the racetracks a prohibition against being too passionate when kissing in church! It was my shock (and, I must admit, my delight) toward passages like this that initially motivated my examination of ritual kissing in first- through fifth-century Christianity. Discovering that, during worship, early Christian men and women kissed each other on the lips forced me to reevaluate my image of the ancient church. Very soon, however, my perspective started shifting. What I thought was marginal and hence shocking began to appear mainstream. It was

THE SECOND-CENTURY WRITINGS

2

Introduction

not simply licentious Alexandrians who kissed each other, nor were references to ritual kissing concerned primarily with eroticism. After collecting hundreds of references to early Christian kissing, I found that the kiss was one of the most prevalent features of early Christianity. In the first five centuries of the common era, Christians kissed each other during prayer, Eucharist, baptism, and ordination and in cmmection with greeting, funerals, monastic vows, martyrdom, and penitential practices. I discovered that my initial reaction-seeing the ritual kiss as odd or trivial-was not so much influenced by authors in the second century as by scholars in my own; despite the plethora of ancient references to the Christian kiss, almost all modem scholarship had ignored this in1portant component of early Christian worship and thus it has become insignificant, almost unworthy of comment. Yet thanks to Clement of Alexandria, I began asking myself a new question: what would happen if modem scholars started taking the ritual kiss as seriously as did the early Christian authors who so often wrote about it? This book is one answer to that question; it is, of course, not the only answer. My research focuses on a specific facet of the ritual kiss: its relationship with emerging social boundaries. Perhaps this connection can best be characterized by Clement's phrase "with a chaste and closed mouth?' At the most mundane level, Clement speaks of the logistics of how Christians should kiss each other: keep your mouth closed and don't be loud about it. Very quickly, however, this becomes connected with larger concerns. If you don't follow Clement's instructions it's not just your mouth that will suffer but also another Christian whom you will inject with "the poison of licentiousness?' As if this isn't bad enough, impure kisses will also open the mouths of others: in reaction to your kiss, gossipy mouths will emit words of suspicion and slander. What at first glance is a personal issue-how two individuals kissed-turns out to be a community issue. An action that began with two physical bodies has now become significant to a larger social body. Clement's answer to this dilemma can also be read on these two levels. At the level of the physical body, a chaste and closed mouth shows individual restraint-you kiss, but not too much. In examining other early Christian sources, what intrigued me was how this dynamic also played out on the level of a social body-the ways Christians described and performed the ritual kiss helped them construct a chaste

Introduction and closed community, a group that was both cohesive and, at the same time, hierarchical and exclusive. For me, a key analytical tool for examining this process is the concept of a social boundary. As numerous sociologists and anthropologists point out, societies have a form; they contain external borders, internal divisions, and areas of ambiguity. 1 These social boundaries, markers that distinguish "us" from "them;' or "some of us" from ''the rest of us;' become central to the structuring of a community. The constituents of these group and the lines that divide "out'' from "in" are, however, often ambiguous, and this ambiguity can make boundary definitions a nexus of conflict. 2 One of the main ways societies draw, reinforce, redefine, or erase these boundaries is through rituals. 3 As research continues to emphasize the role social boundaries play in a community's constituency, self-understanding, and construction of reality, an investigation of ritual and its effect on early Christian boundaries becomes increasingly important. By examining the early church's different strategies for defining self versus other, scholars can gain important insights into how Christian communities developed toward the forms they did. This relationship between ritual and the creation, reinforcing, and shifting of boundaries connects my exploration of kissing with larger issues of early Christian community structure. My work's four chapters concentrate on how social boundaries help form identity, define community, and present a site for power confrontations. They suggest that the interaction between ritual kissing and boundaries presents a very useful entry to exploring the social dynamics of early Christian communities. In addition to its connection with the issue of social boundaries, there is another reason why I have found the ritual kiss to be such an interesting and fruitful topic of research. Most scholarly discussions of early Christian ritual appear in the field of liturgics, yet many liturgicists avoid ritual and performance theory, powerful tools for investigating the connections between ritual, community, and power.4 As a result there are excellent discussions of the changing position of the ritual kiss in early Christian liturgy, such as Ed Phillip's The Kiss in Early Christian Worship or his more specialized article "The Kiss of Peace and the Opening Greeting of the Pre-Anaphoral Dialogue."5 There are thematic overviews of the ritual kiss such as N. J. Perella's book chapter

4

Introduction

"The Kiss" or Eleanor Kreider's article "Let the Faithful Kiss Each Other.''6 There are several works that focus on the kiss's origin and its relationship to Pauline theology such as William Klassen's Anchor Bible Dictionary entry "Kiss (NT)" or Klaus Thraede's article "Urspriinge und Formen des 'Heiligen Kusses' im friihen Christentum.''7 These investigations do not, however, enter into conversation with recent interdisciplinary approaches to ritual or with the emerging field of ritual studies. They also rarely concern themselves with issues such as identity, hegemony, group structure, rhetoric, or ideology. In this regard, scholarly explorations of the ritual kiss seem fairly consistent with much of early Christian studies. Although there have recently emerged a number of interdisciplinary works on early Christian ascetic practices, 8 most theoretically informed investigations of early Christianity avoid ritual and most work on early Christian worship avoids ritual studies. It is hard to think of an early Christian studies equivalent of Caroline Bynum's Holy Feast, Holy Fast, M. E. Combs-Shillings Sacred Peiformances: Islam, Sexuality, and Sacrifice, or Catherine Bell's work on Chinese religion. 9 Especially as theorists have become increasingly interested in issues surrounding the body, a body-centered ritual such as the ritual kiss presents a usefulness case study for how one might apply recent theoretical models to early Christian ritual. My goal is not simply to show the utility of these models but also to begin asking how scholars can responsibly use twentieth- and twenty-first-century models to analyze ancient materials. Throughout my work I try to find a middle ground approach to applying modern theoretical constructs to ancient texts. On the one hand, I remain deeply suspicious of those who feel they can approach a historic work with a blank slate. Since twenty-first-century scholars will inevitably view history through a modern lens, it often seems better explicitly to name some of the paradigms that have had the greatest influence on one's reading strategy. Interdisciplinary approaches can also facilitate a multivalent analysis that both produces a richer examination of ancient materials and expands one's conversation beyond traditional, academic boundaries. On the other hand, the application of modern social-scientific models to ancient sources often nms the risk of becoming reductionistic. As a historian, I find it unacceptable to treat first-century material

Introduction

5

as if it came from the twenty-first century. This danger of ahistoricism becomes especially apparent when applying models from ritual and performance studies, the theoretical tools that are most central to my own investigations of the ritual kiss. Most ritual theorists base their observations on in-depth, ethnographic study; scholarship of performance also usually focuses on modern performers where the researcher witnesses the performance itself. In historical studies, however, there rarely survives so thick a description as direct observation. Instead, we are limited to what extant writing and iconography tell us about ancient rituals. This combination of a strong belief in the potential productivity of an interdisciplinary, theoretically informed analysis and a recognition of the dangers inherent to such an approach imbues my work with both optimism and caution toward the theoretical constructs I employ. I find theoretical work on issues such as strategies of differentiation, the productivity of discourse, the importance of the body, the social construction of identity, and the relationship between representation and power particularly helpful for my investigation of the early Christian ritual kiss. At the same time, my primary allegiance is to the ancient material itself. I try to prevent theoretical constructs from predetermining my analysis and I do not use modeling as a way to interpolate missing data points. For me, social-scientific theories serve as a source for asking questions, providing perspectives, or suggesting potential correlation as opposed to arbitrators of truth or causality. My work attempts to place the modern theories that I employ in discussion with the ancient sources that I examine. The resulting dialogue not only can produce new insights concerning early Christianity, but it can also show how attention to everyday bodily practices may nuance rhetorically and discursively oriented analysis. Through the extended case example of the early Christian ritual kiss, I try to illustrate the potential benefits of using social-scientific theory as a conversation partner.

*

*

*

As with most major research projects, the end product is very different from what was first envisioned. Engagement with other scholars substantially shifted the questions I asked and the answers I developed. Work in gender studies emphasizes issues of hegemony-how dominant discourses make claims of universality. In response, my investigation

6

Introduction

more thoroughly questioned who wrote the sources describing the ritual kiss and what agendas these descriptions supported. At the same time, feminist discussions of resistance made me aware that I could not assume that the entire Christian community automatically adhered to their leaders' wishes. Similarly, recent works in cultural studies led me to view ancient kissing descriptions as documenting a developing discourse and my analysis became increasingly attentive to how powerfully rhetorical constructions could influence entire communities. Finally, my research began to focus more on the body's role in the kiss, especially on how Christian regulations of the kiss helped shape individual and social bodies. An examination of over a thousand ancient references to kissing also led to further complexity. Instead of supporting a fairly coherent, unified trajectory of the kiss's development, these sources illustrated many tensions surrounding Christian kissing practices. For example, the collection of numerous non-Christian kissing references indicated that Christian leaders often depended on non-Christian customs to help explain the ritual kiss to new converts. Yet although the similarities between Christian and non-Christian kissing made interpretations of Christian kissing more persuasive, they also threatened to lessen the contrast between Christians and non-Christians. How did Christian writers negotiate between a kiss that was too different to be culturally plausible and a kiss that was too similar to its surroundings to be distinctively Christian? The topic of Chapter 2, a kiss that binds, as compared to Chapter 3's subject, a kiss that excludes, illustrates another tension in early Christian sources. Sociologist Robert Cooper argues that the drawing of a social boundary is an inherently paradoxical act; it simultaneously separates and joins. 10 Cooper's observation suggests that what initially seem diametrically opposed constructs of the kiss, what I termed "inclusive and exclusive kissing;' were in fact mutually dependent. Whenever Christian leaders used the kiss to promote group cohesion and self-identity, they simultaneously created an out-group. Similarly, whenever Christians used the kiss to construct the other, they also defined the sel£ An examination of how Christian leaders began to regulate the kiss illustrates another set of tensions regarding issues of similarity and difference. Although many Christian authors used the kiss to emphasize the commonality between community members, they also constructed

Introduction

7

it as a means to distinguish certain community members from each other. Christian leaders never fully resolved these conflicting visions of a cohesive, egalitarian society and a stratified, hierarchically organized one. The kiss's role in rites of passage also illustrated this dynamic. In transferring a candidate from one status level to another, the kiss seemed to subvert the same distinctions it initially helped create. What becomes particularly interesting is how Christian writers framed the baptismal and ordination kisses in order to provide some minimal social mobility while simultaneously reinforcing status quo hierarchies. More detailed research also revealed silences, gaps, and unexpected absences regarding the kiss. Why did the kiss appear so often in GrecoRoman literature but so rarely in Greco-Roman art? Non-Christian sources almost never referred to the kiss as an act of forgiveness, yet this became one of the most prevalent interpretations of Christian ritual kissing. Was this truly a Christian innovation? If so, why did early Christian leaders choose the kiss as a ritual of forgiveness? Especially in later centuries, several differences arose in the ways Western and Eastern churches performed the kiss. What might account for this geographic variation? My work has only partially resolved these issues at best. Such questions suggest that because of the limitations inherent in reconstructing physical action from ancient texts, many aspects of the kiss will remain inaccessible to modern scholarship. What continually amazed me, however, was not what the ancient sources kept hidden but how much they revealed, especially concerning the kiss's connection to social boundaries. I have organized my work around this issue of the ritual kiss's various relationships with the physical and symbolic structure of early Christian communities. Chapter 1 provides background for the more detailed analysis of the ritual kiss and early Christian social boundaries: an overview of nonChristian kissing practices and a brief examination of early witnesses to Christian kissing practices, concentrating on first- and second-century Christian sources. Chapter 2 argues that early Christian leaders constructed the ritual kiss as a tool to increase group cohesion. Building on Michael Hogg's social attraction model of cohesion and Mary Douglas's characterization of strong group communities, the chapter concentrates on four ways Christian writers constructed the kiss to define group membership and strengthen the social bond between the communal body and

8

Introduction

individual members. First, the familial connotations of the GrecoRoman kiss help portray the Christian community as a family. Second, its connection with spiritual exchange emphasizes community members' pneumatological bond to each other. Third, especially as the kiss moved from a seal of prayer to part of the Eucharist service, Christian leaders attempted to decrease internal tensions by fashioning the kiss into a reconciliation ritual. Finally, the kiss as a physical action uniting two individuals was correlated with the creation of a unified body. I am particulary interested in the tension between Christian authors' use of Greco-Roman kissing customs for increasing group cohesion and their attempts to differentiate Christian from non-Christian kissing practices. Chapter 3 investigates the other side of this process, exclusive kissing. I draw from the research of Jonathan Z. Smith and Pierre Bourdieu to explore how the Christian ritual kiss created differences and distinctions related to larger issues of power. I argue that Christian leaders used the kiss to construct "the other'' and hence "the sel£'' They exalted those who kissed only fellow Christians, forbade kissing catechumens, decreed that Jews do not even have a kiss, and prohibited exchanging the kiss with potential heretics. This strategy of exclusive kissing was used by later authors also to distinguish among groups of Christians. They privileged the confessor's kiss, and forbade Christian men and women from kissing each other and laity from kissing clergy. Using Michel Foucault's discussion of the birth of the subject, I argue that when Christians followed these restrictions, they bodily helped create the very categories of pagan, Jew, catechumen, heretic, confessor, man, woman, laity, and clergy. Chapter 3 also explores the role of the kiss in rites of passage. Although during the rituals of baptism and ordination the kiss temporarily eased boundary lines, helping to transfer the candidate from one status level to another, the way Christian writings presented the baptismal and ordination kiss actually reinforced these social boundaries. Chapter 4 explores how Christian leaders constructed and controlled the kiss's potential for boundary violation. Using Douglas's correlation between purity, dirt, and disorder, I argue that the threat of impure kisses was used to reinforce social boundaries. Many scholars suggest that a misunderstanding of the Christian kiss is responsible for pagan accusations of Christian sexual immorality. I contend that this argument, based on a superficial understanding of kissing in the Greco-Roman

Introduction

9

world, needs much greater nuance. Early Christian authors were motivated not simply by fears of the kiss's possible erotic overtones but, more important, by concerns about other boundary violations, such as symbolic incest (erotically kissing one's spiritual sibling) and the mixing of sacred and profane. The chapter finally examines how Christian leaders used the motif of the kiss of Judas to regulate Christian kissing practice and the relationship between this strategy and issues such as loyalty, unity, forgiveness, hierarchy, and subversion. Throughout, I argue that early Christian leaders constructed the ritual kiss as an aid in shaping the church toward their own image of an ideal community, and that these constructions effectively reinforced and modified social boundaries. This challenges scholars to emphasize more thoroughly the role of ritual in early Christian communities. It also suggests that we should become more attentive to the importance of other rites that, like the kiss, modem scholarship has marginalized. I want my research to become part of an ongoing dialogue concerning the significance of ritual for early Christianity and the place of critical theory in historical studies. Unlike Clement of Alexandria, I am hoping that the ritual kiss will open mouths instead of closing them.

I

Kissing Basics

When you have just returned after fifteen years, Rome gives you as many kisses as Lesbia did not give Catullus. The entire neighborhood presses you: the hairy farmer with a goat-smelling kiss; from here the weaver assails you, there the fuller, from here the cobbler having just kissed his hide, there the owner of a dangerous chin ... there one with inflamed eyes and a giver of fellatio and recently cunnilingus. Now, to return was not worth the price. -Martial 12.59.5

Non-Christian Kissing Practices Martial's Epigrams is far from the most reliable (or tasteful) of historical sources. Nevertheless, even his satirical depiction of returning to Rome reflects widespread social customs. In terms of the kiss, this passage becomes especially significant because it contradicts several modern scholarly assumptions about Greco-Roman kissing practices. The few researchers who have written about late ancient kissing most often depict the kiss as a private gesture exchanged mainly between kin or lovers, frequently limiting its meanings to familial bond or erotic attraction. Martial, however, claims that the "entire neighborhood" publicly greets one with a kiss, and he links the kiss not only with eroticism but also with reunion, attempts at persuasion, class distinction, purity, and contagion. Martial is not alone. An examination of non-Christian textual and artistic depictions of kissing reveals a surprising diversity of descriptions. Ancient sources often connect kissing with the erotic or with the family, but the kiss also appears in contexts of friendship, the military,

Kissing Basics

II

patronage, slavery, celebrations, magic, elections, funerary rites, thanksgiving, contracts, rulership, reunions. Just when a collection seems complete, one encounters Pliny's statement that kissing a donkey's nostrils cures the common cold, Seneca's description of animal trainers kissing tigers, or Pseudo-Lucian's discussion of a hypersexual woman trying to seduce a man who had recently been transformed into a mule. 1 This diversity of kissing depictions is accompanied by a multitude of ancient terms for the kiss. Hebrew writers most often utilize the term ptdJ. Greek authors almost exclusively employ t.A.eoo, xmat.A.eoo, and their derivatives. 2 In contrast, Latin texts use three different terms to speak of the kiss -basium, osculum, and suavium. 3 Several ancient writers tried to distinguish these words from each other. 4 Most twentiethcentury scholarship followed their lead claiming that suavium refers to an erotic kiss, while osculum and basium are for nonerotic kisses. Occasionally, modem scholars even try to correlate these terms with the kissing of different body parts. 5 A detailed investigation of the primary sources, however, does not support any of these often cited claims. Ancient authors employ each word to speak of both erotic and nonerotic kisses,6 and writers often use these three terms interchangeably when they refer to the same kissing event? There is, however, one important terminological distinction that previous scholars have overlooked. Whenever they speak of ritual kissing, Christian writers never use suavium or basium. They always use osculum or, when later Christian leaders emphasize the kiss's role in reconciliation, the term pnx (peace). 8 Another shortcoming in previous scholarship is that no one has explored in detail the kiss's role in Roman art. An examination of artistic depictions of kissing produces an increasingly complex picture. With only a few exceptions, the artistic works that show a kiss display solely erotic kisses, and there appear to be no artistic renditions of kissing friends, kissing the recently deceased, or other motifs common in literary sources. 9 Although ancient art and literature often emphasize different gestures, this disparity between written and visual depictions of the kiss remains puzzling. It reminds researchers that because of the limitations inherent in reconstructing physical actions from ancient texts and artistic representations, many aspects of the kiss will remain inaccessible to modem scholarship. These and other discrepancies between ancient descriptions of kissing and modem reconstructions of the kiss suggest that the little

12

Chapter I

scholarship produced on ancient kissing is often overly reductionistic. In response, I collected more than one thousand pagan and Jewish references to the kiss in order to produce a sample large enough to begin reflecting the diversity of contemporary practices. Given the gender, status, and geographical bias of surviving sources, ancient kissing undoubtedly was even more varied than extant art and literature attest. Nevertheless, several meaningful generalizations can be gained from surveying a large collection of early references to kissing. These, in turn, provide a helpful vantage point from which to view the kiss's development in the early church. The largest number of non-Christian passages that speak of kissing refer to kisses between lovers: 40 percent of pagan literary occurrences of kissing that I examined appeared in an erotic context. About So percent of these kisses were between men and women; the remainder were between men. 10 Lovers kissed each others' lips, cheeks, eyes, feet, hair, head, chest, tongues, or genitals, or blew kisses through the air. 11 Greco-Roman writers use a number of adjectives to emphasize these kisses' sensuality. They may be fragrant, wanton, passionate, lascivious, sweet, honey-like, wet, long, lingering, reluctant, plucked, or seized.l2 Authors often remark on the multitude of kisses given13 and compare such kisses to the thousand Lesbia reportedly gave Catullus. 14 Some see kissing as an end in itself while others see it as foreplay, the "first stage of love?' 15 Kissing inanimate objects associated with one's beloved often became a form of erotic substitution. There are references to kissing lovers' garments, 16 the ground on which they had stood, 17 and their door posts. 18 An often suggested way to circumvent the watchful eye of a jealous spouse was to kiss the rim of a cup from which one's lover was about to drink. 19 Variations on this theme include kissing an intermediary who in turn would kiss one's secret lover20 or the more blatant technique of kissing an apple fragment which one would deftly throw down the front of the mistress's shirt. 21 Kissing also played an important role in Greco-Roman erotic art. Depictions of kisses appear on ancient wall paintings, mosaics, bowls, mirror covers, and lamps. The most typical image consists of a man and a woman kissing on the lips, although there are a few examples of two men kissing each other. 22 Scenes containing labial kisses frequenrly include images of sexual penetration, although occasionally the kiss is not accompanied by other sexual acts. 23 There are also several scenes of oral

Kissing Basics

13

sex, including women fellating men, men performing cunnilingus on women, men and women having oral sex with each other, and, in one case, a woman performing cunnilingus on another woman. 24 These connections between kissing and sexuality forced Christians to manage the kiss's eroticism. Sometimes early Christians would channel the kiss's sexual associations into other directions. For example, the underlying assumption behind acts of erotic substitution, the belief that kissing an object was similar to kissing its owner, may have contributed to Christians kissing confessors' bonds or martyrs' relics. Occasionally, Christians would purposefully emphasize the kiss's erotic potential, claiming that Christians' chaste kissing practices illustrated their moral superiority. Most often, though, Christians tried to de-eroticize the kiss. One way early Christians could downplay the kiss's sexual connotations was to emphasize its familial implications. This connection between kissing and Roman concepts offamilia eventually became one of the most prevalent motifs in Christian discussions of the ritual kiss. Here too Christians appropriated a widespread correlation already present in non-Christian sources. About 25 percent of pagan references to the kiss speak of familial kissing. 25 These kisses included those between parents and children (57 percent), spouses (25 percent), siblings (8 percent), more distant relatives (5 percent), and slaves within the domus (5 percent). Although the surviving sources rarely speak of what body part was kissed, those that do suggest that the familial kiss most often was a kiss on the lips. 26 Friends also frequendy kissed each other. There are dozens of references to male friends kissing, a few to female friends, and one to a male and female friend exchanging a kiss. 27 Particularly common was a public greeting kiss and a kiss before departing. 28 These too mainly occurred on the lips. 29 Among Jewish sources, however, most kisses were on the head, hand, or feet. 30 Writers also associated everyday kisses with reunion, thanks, celebration, agreement, or attempts at persuasion (the ancient equivalent of "kissing up"). 31 Such kisses also might be exchanged with peers, political leaders, teachers, rabbis, or priests. 32 Publicly refusing to kiss an individual often created a dramatic display of disapproval and was treated as a serious affront. 33 The Greco-Roman greeting kiss clearly influenced early Christian use of the kiss as a rite of inclusion and all five New Testament references to the ritual kiss speak of it as a greeting.

I4-

Chapter I

Early Christians also used the implications of refusing a kiss to help fashion the ritual kiss into a rite of exclusion. There are numerous references to kissing the Roman emperor. 34 Of particular contention was what part of the emperor's body one should kiss. The most common kiss was of the emperor's hand. 35 Writers who disapproved of a given emperor would complain that he required his subjects to kiss his knees or feet. 36 Suetonius goes one step farther and claims that whenever the tribune Cassius Chaerea kissed Caligula's hand, the emperor would move it obscenely. 37 According to these authors, a good emperor would never require such degradation; a particularly generous emperor declined the kiss of his hand and most likely replaced it with a shared labial kiss. 38 Although literary sources suggest that these kisses formed a ritual of submission, it is artistic images such as a sarcophagus showing a German barbarian kissing the hand of a Roman general or a coin depicting the city of Alexandria personified as a woman kissing the hand of the emperor Hadrian that most clearly illustrate a hand kiss as a gesture of submission or appeal for dementia. 39 Similarly, literary works question the loyalty of subjects who did not properly kiss the emperor, and are dismayed at those who kissed an unjust ruler. 40 The kissing of a ruler extended not only to the emperor himself but also to others in leadership positions. Apuleius even speaks of a band of robbers who kissed their chie£ 41 The kiss also played a role in elections. Campaigners might kiss potential voters (the Greco-Roman version of"kissing babies"), be nominated by a kiss, or illustrate their victory with shared kisses.42 These connections between kissing, leadership, and election may have influenced the Christian use of the kiss in rites of ordination and consecration. Kissing formed a part of several other Greco-Roman rites. There are many references to obtaining the last kiss from one who is about to die. 43 Mourners kissed the recently deceased body, the wounds of the dead, and the funerary pyre. 44 Additionally, ancient writers connect kissing with sealing agreements and a few references suggest a place for the kiss in betrothal and marriage ceremonies.45 The kiss also played a role in larger Greco-Roman conceptual systems. The kiss could transmit purity or pollution, spread contagion or cure disease. Greco-Roman society frequently related the kiss with spiritual exchange. Other sources speak of kissing as the true expression of the mind. 46 Because of its

Kissing Basics

15

connection with the mouth, Greco-Roman authors also linked the kiss with speech and verbal expression. 47 Early Christian authors correlate ritual kissing with each of these broader concepts. As these examples suggest, kissing often was a public gesture. Friends, peers, and family would kiss in public spaces. 48 Contradicting modem claims that Greco-Roman society treated the public kiss with "considerable reticence;'49 in all but a few cases, early texts present such kisses as completely unproblematic. 50 When speaking of erotic kissing, however, ancient sources vary greatly in their tolerance for heteroerotic and homoerotic "public displays of affection?'51 Because modem scholars most often characterize kissing as a private practice, scholarship has isolated the kiss from other Greco-Roman gestures. Reframing the ancient kiss as an action frequently performed in public allows researchers to connect it with a larger system of civic behavior and decorum. There have been numerous studies of public gestures in Greco-Roman society. 52 These often focus on classical oratory techniques, a topic with which many ancient authors seem all but obsessed. That Greco-Roman writers so often speak of gestures in the context of the most powerful of public spaces-the senate chamber, the forum, the imperial court-suggests that an exploration of ancient gesture is not simply an investigation of late antique aesthetics. Greco-Roman society saw gesture as an exercise of power. Ironically, modem scholarship, which has concentrated so intently on a senator's ideal intonations, an orator's facial expressions, or an actor's hand movements has completely ignored the more common and widely performed gesture of kissing. In its mockery of Elagabalus's reign, the Historia Augusta speaks about the formation of a female senate. According to the Historia Augusta, one of this gathering's first decrees concerned ''who was to advance to kiss another."53 Although the veracity of this description remains extremely suspect, it suggests that, like other ancient gestures, the Greco-Roman kiss was intimately connected with issues of status. The kiss often became a public performance of social rank; it both illustrated and produced distinctions. Who kissed whom, where, in what circumstances-these actions reflected, reinforced, and challenged the existing social order. Like the rest of Greco-Roman society, early Christians also used kissing as a means to form coalitions and to generate difference.

16

Chapter 1

In pagan sources, the kiss also played an occasional role in more explicidy religious contexts. Although there are a few cases of ritual participants kissing priests,54 more commonly a practitioner would kiss a religious object such as a table, 55 a magical jar,56 a temple threshold,57 sacred tree, 58 or religious statue. 59 Pliny speaks of how the right hand has religious sanctity because one often kisses the back of it before stretching it out in pledge. 60 Pliny also states that "In worshipping we raise our right hand to our lips and turn round our whole body, the Gauls consider it more effective to make the turn to the left?'61 Unfortunately, Pliny seems more concerned about the counter-clockwise Gauls than about providing any context or description for the ''worship" to which he refers. Although early Jewish sources do not speak of kissing as an element of Jewish liturgy, they do allude to the kissing of idols both in their descriptions of biblical times and in their descriptions of contemporary practices. 62 Despite these occasional pagan and Jewish references to a religious kiss, there remain two clear distinctions between Christian and nonChristian descriptions of kissing as a religious ritual. First, Christian authors write about a religious kiss much more frequendy than their non-Christian counterparts. Even with all the Christian writings about everyday kisses, Judas's kiss, kisses in the Song of Songs, kissing in the Psalms, kissing the prodigal son, and the sinful woman kissing Jesus, approximately 20 percent of early Christian references to kissing concern a contemporary religious ritual. In contrast, less than 2 percent of non-Christian references to a kiss speak of kissing in a religious context. Second, the Christian ritual kiss generally remained a communitywide ritual; the ritual kiss was not restricted to a believer kissing a priest but most often involved kissing a large number of one's peers. In contrast, there are no non-Christian references to a widely exchanged ritual kiss; non-Christian references to a religious kiss refer only to kissing one's self, kissing a religious object, or kissing a religious officiant. Lovers, families, friends, leaders, rites, space, power, and religionwhy does a book on a Christian ritual so often concentrate on nonChristian sources? Certainly such an emphasis on pagan and Jewish everyday practices is not found in most other works on early Christian ritual. This, perhaps unexpected, focus on the kiss's various roles in non-Christian communities direcdy relates to my use of the word ritual. In her book Ritual Theory) Ritual Practice, Catherine Bell sees

Kissing Basics

17

ritual resulting from the process of distinguishing certain social actions from other actions, a process she calls ritualization. 63 Bell uses the Christian Eucharist to help illustrate her point. Like all rituals, the Eucharist is a version of nonritual activity, in this case, everyday eating. For Bell, the strategically drawn distinctions between sharing the Eucharist and participating in a nonritual meal-the large number of people gathered, the periodicity of the meal, the small amount of food present-make celebrating the Eucharist an example of ritualization. Because of its assertion of privileged difference, the Eucharist becomes a ritual. 64 Bell's work has strongly influenced how I define ritual kissing. For my purposes, what makes the ritual kiss a ritual is that early Christians distinguish this action (a ritual) from everyday kisses (gestures). An examination of these strategies of distinction does not simply define certain Christian kisses as examples of ritual, it also creates a subject to analyze. If at ritual's core is a dynamic relationship with everyday gestures, it becomes impossible to appreciate a given ritual without a strong background regarding the gestures from which it draws its meaning. As a result, unlike previous research on the kiss which often ignored non-Christian practices, my own work focuses on how Christian leaders appropriated and modified Greco-Roman kissing practices in order to construct a specific set of Christian kissing rituals. Each Christian strategy of differentiation interacted with the kiss's larger cultural context. The diversity of ancient kissing practices provided both an opportunity for and a challenge to its use as an early Christian ritual. Kissing's association with many different relationships and circumstances made it a multivalent symbol, easily adaptable to a number of rhetorical strategies. At the same time, this versatility forced ecclesiastical leaders to define more stringently the ritual kiss in order to privilege certain meanings while avoiding others. Only through examining the Christian ritual kiss within the framework of everyday kissing practices can one appreciate this dynamic relationship between ritual meanings and cultural context. In other words, even if like Bell one distinguishes ritual from the "everyday:' one still needs to examine the everyday to better understand a given ritual. As a result, even when focusing on Christian kissing, the kiss's various roles in non-Christian communities will continue to play a prominent role throughout this study.

18

Chapter 1

A Brief History of the Christian Ritual Kiss Before investigating the relationship between kissing and social boundaries, it becomes necessary to produce at least a rough outline of the development of the Christian ritual kiss. The very nature of early Christian sources, however, forces such a summary to remain rudimentary; ancient ritual practice is notoriously difficult to reconstruct. This is due partially to the dearth of source material. Since most members of a community will already be familiar with a given ritual, written descriptions of ritual are extremely rare. Ironically, the few ancient works that do present extensive ritual details are the most historically suspect. Often these texts prescribe the way an author wants a ritual to be performed instead of accurately depicting the way a contemporary ritual was practiced. 65 Nevertheless, a critical examination of early Christian writings can provide at least some parameters for how early Christians kissed each other and the ways these kissing practices changed over time. The earliest Christian references to kissing appear in the Pauline epistles. Commandments for Christians to exchange a kiss occur at the end ofl Thessalonians, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, and Romans and they are virtually identical in their wording: "Greet one another" (or I Thessalonians, "all the brethren") ''with a holy kiss." 66 Although these one-line sentences do not contain much data from which to reconstruct a ritual, they form the basis for several scholarly theories concerning the kiss's origin. Some authors suggest that the Pauline epistles simply repeat a tradition that Jesus himself instituted. 67 Such assertions, however, ignore over a century's worth ofNewTestament source criticism; when modern historical Jesus research cannot agree on the most basic of Jesus' actions or sayings, it becomes problematic indeed to trace back to Jesus a ritual that the New Testament writings themselves do not assign to him. Additionally, if Jesus did originate the ritual kiss, why do no first-, second-, or third-century authors ever attribute its foundation to him? One scholar suggests a slightly more reasonable contention-Paul was instrumental in either purposefully establishing or at least encouraging the ritual kiss. 68 Yet the evidence points more strongly in the other direction. In his letters, Paul gives no explanation as to why, when, or how Christians are to kiss each other. Even in Romans, an epistle addressed

Kissing Basics

19

to a congregation he did not found, Paul assumes that the recipients already are familiar with the ritual kiss. 69 If, as these data suggest, Paul is simply passing on a preexisting tradition, New Testament scholars should add the kiss to their list of pre-Pauline rituals. Along with rites such as baptism and a common meal, kissing is part of the earliest strata of Christian ritual practice. Another scholar argues that Paul's letters accidentally created the ritual kiss. 70 Paul simply employed a widespread letter convention similar to the modern day "give him a kiss for me"; he did not really mean the letters' recipients should kiss each other in a worship service. Secondcentury Christians, like modern scholars, did not realize Paul was using a standard epistolary formula; instead they thought he literally was speaking of kissing each other. This exegetical mistake ultimately became responsible for later Christians including the kiss in the church's liturgy. Yet, because there are very few non-Christian examples of the kiss as an epistolary closing, all in letters that appear much more intimate than Paul's, 71 "the problem becomes how to explain how a letter writing 'convention; almost non-existent in the rest of the Hellenistic world, would appear four times among the seven undisputed Pauline epistles.''72 Regardless of whether the Christian ritual kiss was established by Jesus, Paul (intentionally, or not), or (as seems most likely) by one or more unknown early Christians, the question remains what was the inspiration for this rite? Scholars argue that practices from a wide range of groups-Jews, pre-Christian Gnostics, Greek mystery cults, NeoPythagoreans-influenced the creation of the Christian ritual kiss. 73 All of these suggestions, however, remain unsupported as their proponents have been unable to find any reference to members of these communities exchanging a ritual kiss with each other. Even early Judaism, an important source for many Christian rites, does not appear to have had any practice closely related to the Christian ritual kiss. 74 Given the paucity of first-century Christian references to the kiss and the lack of either Christian works prior to the fourth century that discuss the kiss's beginnings or explicit non-Christian parallels, any attempt to discover the ritual kiss's origin remains extremely conjectural. Because of these source limitations, I am less interested in the kiss's beginning than in its later interpretation and development. 75 Nonetheless, I will suggest two aspects of late ancient kissing that may have led to the kiss's use as a ritual in the earliest Christian communities.

20

Chapter I

As noted earlier, the Greco-Roman world often correlated kissing with spiritual exchange. In his analysis of Paul's letters, Ed Phillips argues that this preexisting pneumatological understanding of the kiss may have influenced the kiss's prevalence among Christian communities. Phillips notes that Paul's use of the term "holy'' often implies a spiritual element. Additionally, Phillips observes that the three Pauline letters not ending with a command to exchange the holy kiss are the only ones with the blessing, "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit''; Paul uses either the kiss or this blessing, but never both. According to Phillips, the mutually exclusive relationship between the kiss and the phrase "with your spirit'' suggests that for Paul "the holy kiss was a ritual communication of the divine pneuma dwelling within Christians."76 Phillips's traces this connection between the kiss and pneumatic exchange through a number of early Christian writings. The greatest strength of Phillips's hypothesis is its relating a prevalent, welldocumented non-Christian interpretation of the kiss with the kiss's use among Christian communities. Although suggestive, this continuity does not require causality; early Christians could have begun kissing each other for reasons unrelated to spiritual exchange and only later stressed this interpretation of the kiss. The lack of any pre-Constantinian sources explicidy linking the kiss with the exchange of spirit also weakens Phillips's argument; his analysis depends on his exegesis of the term "holy'' and on the implications he draws from the kiss's position in early liturgies. Although this makes his hypothesis speculative, it at least appears reasonable that the combination of early Christians' desire to share each other's spirit and the widespread cultural belief that kissing could facilitate such exchanges may have helped motivate the creation of the Christian ritual kiss. Another possible influence on the kiss's adoption as an early Christian ritual is the link between kissing and kinship. In late antiquity, kissing frequendy implied a familial tie. Because early Christians often tried to depict their communities as a new kind of family, ritual kissing may have appeared to be an appropriate tool for reinforcing the church's familial structure. A brief passage from Apuleius gives additional support for this theory. In The Golden Ass, the narrator "embraced Mithras, the priest and now my father, clinging to his neck and kissing him many times?'77 Unfortunately, the kiss's role in this text is far from clear. Although presented in Apuleius's discussion of the Isis rites, the

Kissing Basics

21

kiss does not occur during the initiation ritual itself but several days later and in the context of expressing gratitude; most likely it is a kiss of thanksgiving, a well-attested Greco-Roman gesture. 78 The phrase "the priest and now my father'' is also vague: does the narrator interpret his kiss primarily as a familial kiss (Mithras is now his father), a religious kiss (Mithras is a priest), or a combination of these? And, of course, there remains the often raised question of how closely Apuleius's descriptions represent actual practices. Nevertheless, Apuleius's narrative implies a connection between kissing and a religious group's use of familial imagery. I am not proposing that the rites oflsis directly influenced early Christian worship. Rather, this passage's use of kissing to illustrate kinship with a religious officiant suggests that the kiss's link to concepts of family may have motivated its application as a religious ritual in groups such as the Isis cult or early Christianity. Regardless of whether the kiss's use among the earliest Christians was due to its pneumatological significance, its familial connotations, or some other unknown origin, once Paul wrote about it and his writings became increasingly authoritative, the church had a clear mandate for the kiss's role in Christian ritual. Additionally, early Christians became aware of how neighboring churches exchanged the kiss and they often imitated (or in some cases challenged) the way it was performed. As a result, in contrast to the scarcity of sources regarding the kiss's beginnings, there exists a wealth of information on its later practice and interpretation. The last first-century reference to the ritual kiss comes from I Peter 5:14-"Greet one another with a kiss oflove."79 The difference between Paul's "holy kiss" and I Peter's "kiss oflove" shows that, even in the first century, not all Christians used the same term for describing the ritual kiss. Like the Pauline epistles, I Peter gives no explanation of its command to kiss each other; the author assumes that his audience has previous knowledge of the ritual kiss. These five first-century references to the kiss show that as early as circa 50 c.E. kissing formed part of several Christian communities' ritual practice. Yet after I Peter, there is a fifty-year hiatus during which no Christian sources allude to the kiss. 80 Most likely this is due to the dearth of early second-century sources that speak of Christian rituals.81 The first break from this silence comes from chapter sixty-five of Justin's First Apology> where Justin describes a church service that

22

Chapter r

occurred after a baptismal ritual. 82 In Justin's description, the kiss followed the common prayer and preceded the Eucharist. Unlike later authors, Justin stresses the kiss's connection only with prayer despite its temporal proximity to the Eucharist. 83 Within a few decades of Justin's Apology, two other patristic authors write about the kiss. Athenagoras refers to the kiss's careful exchange as an example of Christian self-control. 84 Clement of Alexandria warns that bold salutations among Christians are like spiders biting the lips; to avoid this "poison of licentiousness:' Christians must exchange the kiss with "a chaste and closed mouth." 85 Both authors see the kiss as a salutation, implying a connection with the New Testament commands to greet each other with a kiss. Clement's analogy of a spider injecting poison by touching the mouth and his warning against "unchaste" kisses become the first of many indications in early Christian sources that the ritual kiss was a kiss on the lips. 86 Combined with Athenagoras's suggestion that an overly enthusiastic kiss could corrupt the bodies of those called brothers and sisters and Clement's reference to "the shameless use of a kiss:' the passages attest to late secondcentury men and women kissing each other. 87 The final second-century source referring to the ritual kiss is The Acts of Paul and Thecla. According to The Acts of Paul, after the I conians imprison Paul, Thecla bribes the guards in order to visit Paul and kiss the fetters that bind him. 88 Although no extant non-Christian sources refer to the kissing of a prisoner's chains, The Acts of Paul and Thecla gives no explanation for Thecla's actions. 89 This lack of a gloss may suggest that the author expected the Christian reader already to be familiar with this moti£ Although The Acts ofPaul and Thecla is a fictitious account, its assumptions about audience indicate that, by the late second century, the kissing of martyrs' bonds already may have become an established Christian ritual. If this is the case, The Acts of Paul and Theda presents the only second-century attestation to ritual kissing outside of the regular worship service. It would also provide the earliest example of a type of kiss that will become extremely prevalent in fourth- and fifth-century accounts, a cultic kiss associated with martyrdom, sainthood, pilgrimage, and relics. By the mid-third century, writings from Rome, Athens, Alexandria, Carthage, North Africa, Asia Minor, and Syria all speak of ritual kissing among Christians. Tertullian, Origen, and The Apostolic Tradition

Kissing Basics

23

still connect the kiss with the end of prayer, although Origen is also the first writer directly to link the ritual kiss with the Eucharist.9 Cyprian and The Apostolic Tradition witness the kiss as part of the baptism ceremony.91 The Apostolic Tradition gives the first example of the kiss's use in ordination. 92 These sources also show the kiss's expanding role outside of the formal worship service. Perpetua has several examples of nonliturgical kisses, including the kiss as a seal of martyrdom; 93 Tertullian refers to kissing martyrs' bonds as well as the kiss's use in domestic devotions. 94 Cyprian may allude to the confessor's kiss as a rite of reconciliation.95 Perpetua, Tertullian, and the Apocryphal Acts refer to the kiss as a nonliturgical greeting among Christians. 96 As detailed in Chapter 3, these works also show important variations in how community members exchange the kiss and the emerging ecclesiastical hierarchy's attempts to regulate ritual kissing. Tertullian and The Apostolic Tradition limit the kiss to baptized Christians; Tertullian claims that "Gnostics" do not follow this distinction. 97 Tertullian also notes varying beliefs among congregation members regarding the kiss and fasting. Although most early Christian sources indicate that the kiss is on the lips, the Apocryphal Acts modify it to be a kiss of the feet or hands. 98 In contrast to previous texts that allowed women and men to exchange the kiss with each other, The Apostolic Tradition is the first source specifically to prohibit this practice. 99 By the end of the fourth century, many of these emerging trends-the move of the kiss from seal of prayer to preparation for Eucharist, the kiss's use in an increasing number of liturgical and non-liturgical settings, further restrictions on who kisses whom- become standard practice. The fourth-century sources speak of the ritual kiss in a variety of different contexts: as part of prayer, 100 Eucharist, 101 baptism, 102 ordination, 103 penitence,104 martyrdom, 105 and epistolary salutations. 106 These sources also hint at geographic variations in the kiss's position in the Eucharist liturgy and whether the bishop kisses the initiate immediately after baptism. 107 Additionally, they show increasing restrictions on how Christians exchange the kiss. Similar to the Apostolic Tradition, The Apostolic Constitutions limits the kiss to those of the same gender. 108 Like the Apocryphal Acts, the ascetic Pseudo-Clement's Second Letter on Virginity no longer has opposite-sexed Christians exchange a labial kiss. 109 Fourth-century documents also affirm a split between laity and clergy: The Apostolic Constitutions specifies that clergy only kiss other

°

24-

Chapter 1

clergy and laity other laity. no The Testament of Our Lord also supports this division.lll The fifth-century sources continue to display an increased diversity in early Christian kissing practices. They indicate shifts in the kiss's position within the Eucharist service, differences between eastern and western liturgical practices, and a proliferation of the kiss's connection to other rituals. By the end of the fifth century, the kiss appears as part of the closing of prayers, the Eucharist, baptism, ordination, martyrdom, the cult of martyrs, greetings, monastic vows, home devotions, saluting the altar, epistolary conventions, and death rituals. This growing variety of kissing references also shows that as Christian practices diversify and change the kiss moves into newly developed ritual arenas. 112

*

*

*

In recent years, many subfields of early Christian studies have become increasingly committed to studying the ancient church within the context of the larger Greco-Roman world. Modern scholars often list numerous parallels between Christian writings and contemporary pagan and Jewish sources. Surprisingly, most previous work on early Christian kissing has been unaffected by this larger trend in scholarship. The resulting isolation of what Christians did from what their non-Christian neighbors did clearly hinders an effective exploration of early Christian kissing. This neglect of non-Christian practices, however, is not a problem unique to kissing scholarship. Rather, it is characteristic of many scholarly investigations of early Christian ritual. This artificial divide between Christian ritual and non-Christian gesture may partially be due to the very process of ritualization. In their construction of a given ritual, communities often attempt to mitigate the similarities between the ritual and the non-ritual and define rituals as ontologically distinct from everyday actions. Scholars' frequent neglect of a ritual's larger cultural context may be one indication of ritualization's ultimate success. In terms of the ritual kiss, the development of kissing in the early church constantly interacted with the kiss's use as a widespread cultural gesture. Nevertheless, most early Christian texts try to minimize these connections, as does much of modern scholarship. To emphasize the interplay between the Christian ritual kiss and everyday kissing practices blurs the very distinctions that early

Kissing Basics

25

Christian constructions of the ritual kiss tried so hard to preserve, distinctions between ritual and non-ritual, Christian and non-Christian. The Martial Epigram that began this chapter stated, whether one liked it or not, no one in antiquity could escape the kiss. The following chapters explore what would happen if modem scholarship took seriously Martial's claim regarding the kiss's ubiquity. How does an investigation of the ways early Christian ritual paralleled, appropriated, and modified surrounding cultural practices change the way one understands kissing in early Christianity?

2

The Kiss That Binds: Christian Communities and Group Cohesion

A cohesive group is very much one in which the unique idiosyncratic individual self is relatively subservient to the group. . .. A cohesive group is one in which members identify strongly, via a process of self-categorization, and thus exhibit to varying degrees social attraction, ethnocentrism, normative conduct, and intergroup differentiation. -Michael A. Hogg, The Social Psychology

of Group Cohesiveness

IN THE LATE FOURTH CENTURY, John Chrysostom found striking similarities between his situation at Antioch and Paul's struggle with the Corinthians. With his church divided over such issues as status distinctions, relations with Judaism, and participation in what he saw as pagan culture, Chrysostom looked to Paul's letters to discover a way to unifY his own community. In his Homilies on First Corinthians, Chrysostom shares with his congregation what he has found in Paul's writings: "Greet each other with a holy kiss?' This addition of the holy kiss [Paul] makes only here. Why? [The Corinthians] were very much at variance with each other in their saying, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ," with "one being hungry and another drunk," and in having fights and rivalries and suits. And from their gifts there was great jealousy and much arrogance. Therefore, after he brings them together through his exhortation, [Paul] reasonably (etx61:ws) commands them to join themselves together also with the holy kiss. For this unites and produces one body. 1

According to Chrysostom, Paul instituted the holy kiss to help solidify the Corinthian community; the kiss connected each person to the other and ultimately produced a single, unified social body.

The Kiss That Binds

27

Chrysostom emphasizes the appropriateness of Paul's strategy with the adverb el:xo't'oos. Paul's command to kiss each other is "reasonable" because it becomes part of a coherent course of action. Paul's letter shows that he was trying to bind the Corinthians together, and his attempt to use a ritual to nnify the commnnity is a logical strategy of this project. Chrysostom also employs the term etxo't'oos to stress the appropriateness of connecting a specific ritual, the kiss, with communal nnity. From Chrysostom's perspective, Paul commands the Corinthians to kiss because this act is clearly connected with group solidarity. Of course, Chrysostom does not know if this was the true motivation behind Paul's instructions to the Corinthians; his interest is not primarily historical. Instead, he is attempting to construct a myth of origins, (re )creating the moment of the first ritual kiss to channel Paul's authority for his own purposes. Reading Paul through the lens of his contemporary situation, Chrysostom understandably interprets the kiss's function as promoting nnity. Projecting this interpretation back to the first century, Chrysostom gives it apostolic authority. Placing this now authoritative exegesis on a preexisting liturgical action, Chrysostom has created a tool to help unify his own congregation. Attempts like this to use the kiss to bind together the Christian commnnity did not arise naturally. Because the surrounding society attached so many different meanings to the kiss, without external guidance each ritual participant could have a completely different interpretation of the activity. Some would see the ritual kiss as a sign of friendship, others as erotic. One participant could perceive the kiss as a conventional greeting, another as a magical gesture. It is this wide range of possible significances which made the kiss such an effective, multivalent symbol. But, at the same time, without any centralized guidance such a proliferation of indigenous interpretation could hinder the kiss's ability to unify the commnnity. In discussing the kiss and the it's connection with group dynamics, Christian writers like Chrysostom sought to control its meaning and construct a ritual toward a very specific end: the ritual kiss became part of a strategy to promote a commnnity characterized by a high degree of group cohesion. The terrngroup cohesion remains highly contested in the social sciences.2 My own use of this concept is heavily influenced by anthropologist Mary Douglas and social psychologist Michael Hogg. 3 Previously, studies of group cohesion most often focused on how much group members liked each other. 4 In contrast, Douglas and Hogg define a cohesive

28

Chapter 2

group (or in Douglas's words a "strong group") as a community where members are attracted not to individual personality traits but to conformity with a set of group prototypes or group norms (i.e., personally you may dislike some individuals, but if they "fit in" you are still glad that they are part of your group). This view of group cohesion accounts for cohesive groups where members may dislike each other (e.g., many sports teams) and cases where personal attraction is unnecessary for group formation (e.g., military units). Unlike an interpersonal attraction model, this paradigm also can be applied to large group phenomena, such as nationalism. s In terms of the ritual kiss, a social attraction model of group cohesion shifts focus away from the kiss as an expression of personal affection to seeing the kiss as a productive tool for shaping individual and communal identities. This perspective emphasizes the kiss's role in group dynamics. It raises questions, such as: What types of communities did descriptions of the ritual kiss idealize? How might it's practice have affected self-definition? In what ways did it relate to the construction and maintenance of early Christian group boundaries? How did modifications in the kiss's practice interact with other changes in church structure? These and similar questions revolving around issues of identity and power are foundational to my investigation of the ritual kiss. Like John Chrysostom, non-Christian authors also viewed kissing as a way to promote group cohesion. Tacitus and Suetonius speak of emperors trying to quell potential mutinies by kissing their troops. 6 Tacitus also relates the story of soldiers kissing each other in an attempt to dissuade their commander from separating them; the kiss becomes part of a strategy to emphasize the soldiers' connection with each other and to maintain (quite literally) the group's unity. 7 Kissing also could unifY more marginal communities, such as a group of robbers or prostitutes. 8 Although the motif of the kiss as a means to promote group cohesion appears in non-Christian literature, it does so infrequently. In Christian writings, however, this interpretation became much more central. Writing in the fourth century, Chrysostom inherited an already widespread Christian tradition connecting the ritual kiss to group stability. Like Chrysostom, other early Christian writers continually emphasized the kiss as a means of uniting individuals and communities. The most recent source this study examines, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius, presents this motif fully developed:

The Kiss That Binds

29

For it is not possible for those divided to be brought together to the One and to share the One's peaceful unity. For if we are illuminated by the contemplation and knowledge of the One, we should be united in a single and divine union. We must not suffer to fall into divisive desires from which material and passionate enmities are fashioned against those of like nature. Therefore I think, the rite of peace [the kiss] ordains this single and undivided life establishing like to like and separating the divine and unified visions from divided things. 9

For this author, the kiss is not a momentary action; it is a sacred prescription for an entire way of life. Heavily influenced by Produs's neoPlatonic writings, it is not surprising that Pseudo-Dionysius emphasizes the connection between earthly and divine unity. Yet the phrase ''undivided life" is in some ways a misnomer in so far as the author limits this prescribed unity to those internal to the community; the community is united with itself, but it is to be separated from others. The kiss should connect community members to each other ("like to like") but separate them from outsiders ("all divided things"). Pseudo-Dionysius sees the exchange of the kiss as a model for this internally unified group separated from those outside the community. Pseudo-Dionysius, however, never indicates why the kiss is a symbol of group cohesion. By the late fifth century, the author could assume that his audience readily would link ritual kissing and communal harmony. Taking this connection for granted, Pseudo-Dionysius can concentrate on the important results of the kiss instead of the means by which it achieves this idealized internal unity. A century earlier, Paulinus of Nola wrote concerning the messenger Martinianus, "[We have welcomed] Martinianus, my brother in spirit and true brother in one faith ... now we both are bound to each other and give pledge with the kiss of sacred peace." 10 This letter represents a different type of source regarding ancient Christian interpretations of the kiss than the exegetical homilies of Chrysostom or the ritual manual of Pseudo-Dionysius; Paulinus's epistle appears much closer to a descriptive text than a prescriptive one. He does not use the kiss as a starting point for a discussion of community cohesion, nor does he relate it to a myth of original unity. In his letter, the kiss is an action that needs little explanation. Yet, even the few words Paulinus devotes to the kiss reflect many of the themes made more explicit in other contexts. Like other Christian writers, Paulinus sees the kiss as a means to achieve unity-in this case, allying two Christians who previously

30

Chapter 2

did not know each other. Paulinus prefaces his discussion of the kiss with familial and pneumatic terminology, motifs that often dominate early Christian writings concerning ritual kissing. Paulinus's letter also represents a tendency among Christian writers to use liturgical motifs to describe nonliturgical kisses. In this case, Paulinus applies the terms and rhetoric most often associated with a Eucharist or baptismal kiss to a kiss of greeting. Greeting kisses, such as that described by Paulinus, often do not take place in church nor within the context of another rite. Nevertheless, Christian attempts to distinguish such kisses from everyday gestures and these kisses' clear dependence on actions that do occur in a more explicitly cultic setting suggest that it may also be productive to investigate greeting kisses as a ritual. These passages illustrate several different ways early Christian writers related the kiss with themes of group cohesion. Some, like John Chrysostom, explicitly argued for a link between the kiss and unity and actively constructed the ritual kiss as a tool to increase group cohesion. Others, like Pseudo-Dionysius, assumed their audiences were well aware of this connection and used the kiss as a transition into a larger discussion about the importance of internal concord. Writings like Paulinus's letter spoke of the kiss in a more incidental manner and pointed toward the success of these discursive strategies. This chapter examines how, like John Chrysostom, PseudoDionysius, and Paulinus, many early Christian writers used the kiss to promote group cohesion. Of particular interest are the ways early Christian leaders embedded the kiss in other cultural discourses-concepts of family, spiritual exchange, reconciliation, and social bodiesand how this led to tensions between appropriating a widespread cultural gesture and claiming the kiss to be a distinctively Christian ritual.

Kissing and the Familial Construction of Early Christian Communities Among scholars of early Christianity, interest in the Greco-Roman family has reached an unprecedented level. Recent studies from classics have enhanced our understanding of the Greco-Roman family and its use as a metaphor in the politics of empire. 11 At the same time, interdisciplinary research in early Christian studies has inherited from

The Kiss That Binds

31

anthropology a focus on the family as a primary social and cultural unit. 12 The result is an impressive list of scholarly monographs, articles, and anthologies analyzing the family's place in New Testament and Patristic literature. 13 These works have come to a consensus of sorts that early Christian writers used familial rhetoric and kinship terms (e.g., "brothers and sisters in Christ'') to strengthen the cohesion of early Christian groups.l4 Several studies have suggested that the Greco-Roman family, especially the figure ofpateifamilias, also provided early Christian writers with a useful metaphor of hierarchy. 15 These investigations have yielded important insights regarding the ways Christian writers used models of the Roman familia, however, because they center on the question of how early Christians wrote or spoke of their communities, these scholars have limited themselves to exploring only the verbal and written rhetoric of kinship. 16 Building on this scholarship, I want to examine a slightly different dynamic-how early Christians used ritual kissing to help perform family. Early Christians constructed the ritual kiss not only as a means to "talk" about being a family, but also as a way to act it out. The adoption and modification of a typical familial gesture into a decidedly Christian ritual helped early Christians redefine the concept of family. With the kiss's assistance, Christian communities became families united by faith. The Greco-Roman world often associated kissing with familial relations. In a survey of almost a thousand pagan references to kissing, familial kisses constituted the second largest category, surpassed only by kisses between unmarried lovers. 17 According to classical literature, relatives not only were allowed to kiss each other, they were expected to do so. Latin writers often refer to this right as the ius osculi. In his elegies, Propertius lists the various people who have the right to kiss his lover, including male and female relatives. 18 The narrator of Ovid's Amores complains that he has to kiss his lover secretly, but her husband can demand these kisses as his right. 19 Ovid later shows this from the opposite perspective, a husband proclaiming that his "sovereign rights" have been infringed when his wife kisses another man. 20 Ovid's Metamorphoses notes that siblings often kiss in public, a custom Byblis uses to conceal an incestuous relationship with her brother. 21 Suetonius states that Agrippina seduced her uncle, "aided by the ius osculi?'22 Several writers justify a man's traditional right to publicly kiss

32

Chapter 2

female relatives as a "spot breath check": It ensures that women are not stealing the family wine. 23 For example, Athenaeus states: It is impossible for a women to drink wine unnoticed. For, first, a woman does not have control of [the store] of wine. Next, she must kiss her and her husband's relatives down to the children of second cousins, and do this every day whenever she first sees them. Finally, because it is unclear whom she will meet, she is on her guard for if she only tastes [of the wine] there is no need of further accusation. 24

Gellius and Pliny present similar descriptions of this custom. 25 Tertullian also cites this tradition and laments that in contrast to ancient Rome, in his day "on account of wine, there is no free kiss?'26 Of course it seems unlikely that any of these authors knew the origins of the publicly exchanged familial kiss. Instead, they shape their explanations of a contemporary practice to help forward their own narrative project, whether it is Athenaeus's discussion of the evils of excessive drink or Tertullian's depiction of declining Roman morals. Non-Christian sources occasionally use the familial kiss to describe non-familial relationships. As noted in Chapter 1, in Apuleius's The Golden Ass, the narrator "embraced Mithras, the priest and now my father, clinging to his neck and kissing him many times?'27 Another example of the kiss's use in discussions of kinship occurs in the Satyricon, when Circe calls Encolpius's lover his "brother'' and offers herself as his new "sister" (that is, sexual partner). Encolpius must only kiss her to recognize this new relationship that comes with the same sort of sexual benefits his "brother'' currently provides. zs This culturally prominent link between kissing and kinship provided early Christians with an opportunity to use the ritual kiss as a means to emphasize Christianity's familial structure. Although previous scholars have not explored Christianity's employment of familial gestures, many have analyzed early Christians' use of familial nomenclature. Applying kinship terms not to biological relations or those of the same domus but to those connected by faith, early Christians tried to redefine familia. As exemplified by Matthew 12:46-50, the family of Christian fellowship superseded even biological ties. 29 For the ancient church, such analogies not only described but also prescribed. Comparing the ancient Christian community to the family emphasized the group's strength and unity; such a label could become self-fulfilling.

The Kiss That Binds

33

Early Christian descriptions of the ritual kiss became part of this larger project of constructing a faith community as kin. Several Christian writers explicitly state that the Christian ritual kiss is essentially between family members. Writing in the second century, Athenagoras warns that when kissing "it is of great importance to us that the bodies of our brothers and sisters and the others called the names of relatives, remain not insulted and undefiled."30 In the early third century, Tertullian suggests that, unlike the Christian husband who recognizes that kissing fellow Christians is analogous to kissing blood relatives, a non-Christian husband would misinterpret his wife's attempts "to crawl into prison to kiss the martyr's bonds" or "to meet any of the brethren to [give] the kiss."31 In the early fifth century, Augustine employs the language of kinship to proclaim, ''Your lips draw near the lips of your brother in the same way that your heart does not withdraw from his heart?'32 In their alignment of the familial and the ritual kiss, these sources allude to many different types of relationships. Nevertheless, there remains an intriguing silence when they do not mention integral members of many ancient families-slaves. 33 Among non-Christian sources, there are many allusions to kissing slaves for sexual pleasure, 34 yet a free person and slave kissing for nonsexual reasons was seen as extremely unusual. For example, in the Sa:tyricon, Encolpius is surprised when a slave he helped runs up to kiss him; 35 in his Epistles, Seneca notes that he purposefully flouts social expectations when he greets other people's slaves with a kiss on the hands. 36 Like their Jewish and pagan neighbors, early Christians took for granted the existence of slavery and expected many members of their community to either be slaves or slave owners. 37 In contrast to nonChristian texts, however, Christian sources never place any restriction on exchanging the ritual kiss with a Christian slave. 38 The Martyrdom ofPerpetua even claims that, previous to their execution, the martyrs of Carthage kissed each other, an exchange that would have included the slave Felicitas. 39 In other words, both in its performance and its description, the ritual kiss temporarily erased status distinctions that Christians otherwise maintained in their familial arrangements; at least when they exchanged the ritual kiss, slaves, too, became kissable members of the Christian family. This difference between everyday kissing practice (free and slaves generally not kissing each other) and Christian ritual practice (Christian

34

Chapter 2

slaves being kissable) illustrates a larger tension underlying the ritual kiss. At the same time that Christians drew on cultural analogies to make the kiss an intelligible practice, they also had to distinguish the ritual kiss from its cultural analogs to make it a uniquely Christian ritual. This strain between appropriation and differentiation becomes particularly apparent in the writings of John Chrysostom: The kiss is given so that it may be the fuel of love, so that we may kindle the disposition, so that we may love each other as brothers [love] brothers, as children [love] parents, as parents [love] children. But also far greater, because those are by nature, these by grace. Thus our souls are bound to each other. 40

Chrysostom's choice of analogies is not accidental. Because of the kiss's cultural connection with family relations, his audience would not be surprised by the kinship terms used to describe it. Linking the ritual kiss to the familial one, he also connects the magnitude of its result; the Christian kiss creates a bond as strong as that between the closest family members. His presentation of this analogy also imposes certain parameters on the love. By not comparing the ritual kiss to a kiss between spouses Chrysostom's statement avoids possible erotic connotations. Although linking the Christian ritual to a common familial gesture is a highly effective rhetorical move, it is also potentially problematic. By relating the Christian ritual to everyday kissing practices, Chrysostom threatens to make the kiss available outside the group's boundaries. If, as his analogy may suggest, the Christian kiss is so similar to a kiss between family members, why must one join the Christian community to experience it? To avoid this problem, he differentiates the Christian kiss from the same familial kiss with which he earlier identified it. Chrysostom first modifies his statement that the ritual kiss produces a love as strong as that between family members-indeed, it creates a love even stronger than that experienced in a biological family. He then notes that the disposition created by the familial kiss is expected; nature implants love between relatives, so the emotion is not extraordinary. Grace implants love between nonbiologically related Christians, which signifies the much more remarkable quality of Christian love-a bonding of souls. According to Catherine Bell, such a discursive strategy becomes key to any ritual action. What defines ritualization is its insistence on

The Kiss That Binds

35

distinguishing its actions from that of nonritual activities. 41 In Bell's words, "Ritualization is a way of acting that is designed and orchestrated to distinguish and privilege what is being done in comparison to other [activities] . . . ritualization is a way of acting that specifically establishes a privileged contrast, differentiating itself as more important or powerful."42 From this perspective, as Chrysostom's analogy breaks down-the ritual kiss no longer seems quite as similar to the familial kiss as initially supposed- Chrysostom no longer simply appropriates a gesture; instead, he creates a ritual. An analysis of Chrysostom's writings suggests that the exploration of ancient performance should not neglect an analysis of ancient rhetoric. Instead, both linguistic and nonlinguistic practices should be examined together. An obvious reason for this analytical strategy is that an investigation of the early Christian kiss (like the investigation of any premodern ritual) does not have access to the ritual itself, only to texts that describe the ritual. Such an approach, however, also prevents the artificial division of ritual into separate discursive spheres of interpretation and practice-that is, what leaders tell the community the kiss signifies and how group members kiss. To avoid the mistake of suggesting that ritual action could ever exist without interpretation or that interpretation could be unrelated to practice, scholars should view the exchange of the ritual kiss as praxis-the combination of interpretation and action. In other words, to more fully understand the kiss's performance, we need to look at the script and the stage directions as well as the acting and the action. An investigation of ancient ritual praxis does not suggest that previous scholars have been wrong in emphasizing the importance of rhetorical strategies in constructing communities, nor does it advocate ignoring the role of the oral and written word in the performance of ritual. Rather, the lens of praxis provides a more holistic view of ritual. When exploring praxis, analysis of a given ritual may very well begin with tools from literary and rhetorical criticisms, but should not stop there. Examining ritual as praxis requires investigating aspects of a ritual's enactment. In terms of the early Christian ritual kiss, researchers should recognize that the kiss was not just an object of discussion, but also a physical action. By appropriating a gesture common among family members and placing it in the context of a nonbiologically related community,

Chapter 2 the very act of kissing helped Christians construct a new concept of family. Every time Christians kissed, they engaged in an action routinely associated with a familial context. This connection with kinship relationships became even stronger when kissing a member of the opposite sex, because in the surrounding culture a nonerotic kiss between unrelated members of the opposite sex was extremely rare. 43 The dissonance between cultural norms (kissing primarily restricted to family members) and experienced reality (periodically kissing unrelated persons during Christian rituals) could be resolved in one of two ways. Either the parameters of kissing could be expanded regularly to include nonfamily members, or those whom one kissed during Christian rituals could be redefined as family. As the above sources suggest, early Christian leaders preferred the latter. In their alignment of the kiss with the production and expression of kinship, Christian leaders emphasized the ritual kiss's performative value. Many modern theorists agree that as "performance" ritual helps create social reality. For example, in her studies of modern Morocco, M. E. Combs-Schilling states: Rituals share many qualities of great theatrical performances . . . [but] those who sincerely participate in ritual are real performers in real-life dramas .... Rituals manufacture public and private experiences rich in sight, smell, sound, taste, touch, and imaginative abstractions. At best, they are not simply experiences, but crystalline experiences so vibrant in meaning and medium that they serve as counterpoint to other experiences built in daily life. When persuasive, rituals are experienced by the participants as life at its most profound, and can cast aspersions on the rest of experience as being less than essential ... That is culture's trump card. For rituals are staged cultural expressions that at their best appear neither staged nor cultural but rather evoke life as it exists in its essence. . . . They are shadow plays in reverse: the performers and the performance become real, while everything else becomes the shadow. 44

Unlike less participatory activities, the ritual kiss elicited the entire community's active involvement. In "acting out" a particular interpretation of the kiss, participants were audience and actors. When they saw the exchange of the kiss, Christians witnessed a specific scene that their behavior should model-joining together to form a family in Christ. Church members also participated in this performance. Sociologist Joachim Knuf stresses the importance of such ritual participation in the construction of social reality:

The Kiss That Binds

37

From the point of view of the enactor of a ritual, a ritual has a distinctively performative character and serves to bring about changes in the world. . . . Participation in a ritual is tantamount to a subjection of its intent; implementation of the ritual action plan therefore involves participants in behavior that not only symbolizes a certain order of things (or of the world), it executes this order. Many elements of ritualized communication can hence be regarded as signs that create the state they signify. 45

Christian rhetoric aligning the ritual kiss with concepts of kinship augmented an already strong cultural connection between kissing and familial relations. When practiced, the kiss made concrete a particular social ideal; it became the execution of a "ritual action plan?' These ritual performances helped early Christianity produce a new kind of family, a community formed not by biological relationship but by a kinship of faith. By connecting the Christian community with an idealized vision of family, the ritualized exchange of the kiss reinforced the group's strength, unity, and cohesion.

Kissing and Spiritual Exchange Ethnographic studies often struggle with balancing the voices of indigenous interpretation, external observation, and theoretical analysis. This juggling act becomes even more precarious when looking at late antique rites because modern scholars simply do not have direct access to the ancient rituals or to the ritual participants-no field work, no videotape, no interviews, no consultations. The lack of living voices makes it even more important to find assumptions that the surviving sources share. IdentifYing these points of consensus allows for a better understanding of the underlying cultural context or "ritual field" on which a community builds a specific rite. 46 The discussion of ritual kissing and the construction of a Christian family investigated one part of this ritual field: how Christians appropriated a common understanding of who should kiss whom. Yet this leaves unaddressed another important consideration: what physically happened when individuals kiss? To many, the answer to such a question seems obvious: when people kiss they touch their lips to someone or to something. In antiquity, however, most thought that a kiss often involved not just the touching of lips but also the physical exchange of souls or spirit. Some of the

Chapter 2 most explicit descriptions of the kiss's connection to the soul occur in late antique discussions of erotic kisses. 47 For example, in the Greek romance, Achilles Tatius's Leucippe and Clitophon, Clitophon exclaims: Nothing rivals the pleasure of a lover's kiss ... it is begotten from the most beautiful of the body's organs. For the mouth is the organ of the voice, a reflection of the soul. When mouths come together and mingle they send pleasure downward and draw the souls up to their kisses.48 This relation between kissing and spiritual exchange also appears in ancient discussions of death. Among rabbinic sources, of particular interest is the kiss God uses to take away the soul of those whom He particularly favors. 49 Jewish writers also speak of a "death bed kiss" which facilitates spiritual transference between mortals. 50 Similar kisses occur in pagan sources. For example, immediately following Dido's death, her sister states, ''Let me wash her wounds with water, and collect with my mouth whatever last breath she has?'51 In Longus's Daphnis and Chloe, "[Chloe] received [Dorco's] last kiss; and together with the kiss and his voice, [Dorco] breathed out his soul?'52 In Statius's Thebaid, Argia "falls prostrate about [her husband's] face, and seeks with kisses for his departed soul?'53 The tradition of using the last kiss to capture part of the deceased spirit undoubtedly contributed to the prevalence of kissing in Greco-Roman funerary rites 54 and may also help explain the common depictions on sarcophagi of Cupid and Psyche kissing each other. 55 Like their Jewish and pagan neighbors, Christians also speak of the kiss following death as a means of receiving the deceased spirit,56 and this pneumatological understanding of the kiss may help account for its later use in Christian death rituals. 57 As the above examples suggest, many of these "death bed kisses" combine the kiss's role in spiritual exchange with its familial connotations. Many other Christian and non-Christian references also depict the kiss as a means for dying family members to transfer their spirit to surviving spouses or offspring. 58 The kiss's pneumatological significance, however, does not just reifY preexisting families, it also can help construct new ones. For example, in the narrative Joseph and Aseneth, after Aseneth's conversion to Judaism the two protagonists "kissed each other for a long time and both came to life in their spirits. And Joseph kissed Aseneth and he gave her spirit of life and he kissed her a second time and gave her spirit of wisdom and he kissed her a third time and

The Kiss That Binds

39

gave her spirit of truth?'59 These spirit filled kisses finalize Aseneth's transformation to a suitable partner for Joseph and a marriage soon follows. As a means of both expressing and creating family, the pneumatological kiss becomes a particularly appropriate way to help bind together early Christian communities. The few scholarly works that address the kiss in early Christianity also often examine the kiss's pneumatological significance. Stephen Benko suggests that the origin of the kiss in early Christianity stems from a pneumatic interpretation of John 20:21-23, even though this passage never explicitly mentions kissing. 60 Both Benko and Eleanor Kreider note that the different uses of the kiss in early Christianity link it with the Holy Spirit. 61 Nicholas James Perella traces this motif of the spiritfilled kiss throughout patristic and "Gnostic" sources. 62 Ed Phillips constructs the history of the Christian kiss as a history of its pneumatological significance: in its earliest form, Christians saw the kiss as a means of exchanging the Holy Spirit, whereas later interpretations overshadow the kiss's original function. 63 My examination of the kiss and spiritual exchange, however, significantly differs from previous scholarship. Instead of arguing to what degree the pneumatological significance of the kiss is original, primary, or correct, I examine how early Christian writers used such interpretations of the kiss. In particular, I focus on how several early Christian writers connected the kiss, spiritual exchange, and group cohesion. Christian leaders employed this pneumatological model of kissing to construct the ritual kiss as a means to blend members' souls to each other, to transfer Christ's spirit between community members, to express the community's solidarity, and to reenact a mythical time of original unity. Two documents that modem scholars often characterize as "gnostic" provide some of the earliest Christian discussions of kissing as a form of spiritual exchange: And we [Mary and Joseph] found a spirit bound to the bed and we looked at you [Jesus] with him, we found you being like him and he who was bound to the bed was untied, he embraced you, he kissed you. And you yourself, you kissed him and the two of you became one. 64 It is from the vowing to the heavenly place that man receives nourishment ... him from the mouth. [And if] the word came forth from there, he would have been nourished from the mouth and it would have become perfect. For,

40

Chapter 2

through a kiss, the perfect conceive and beget. On account of this we kiss each other. From the grace which is in each other we receive conception.65

The first passage comes from the Pistis Sophia, where a kiss allows Jesus and his spirit to merge into a single entity. The second excerpt is from the Gospel of Philip and connects the ritual kiss with concepts of nourishment, mouth, speech, and impregnating "the perfect'' with grace. Although only the latter passage speaks specifically of a kiss regularly exchanged between Christians, both documents emphasize the kiss as a vehicle for a transfer of spirit and both link this with concepts of unity. Later writings give more detailed examples of how Christian leaders drew on the common cultural connection between kissing and spiritual exchange. In the late fourth century John Chrysostom states, "Thus our souls are bound to each other. And, on account of this, when we return from abroad we kiss each other, our souls coming into communion with each other. For this is the member that most greatly proclaims to us the soul's affection?'66 In the Greco-Roman world, it was typical to greet friends, relatives, or lovers with a kiss after a lengthy seperation. 67 Chrysostom uses this well known custom as an analogy for understanding Christian practice. The rationale behind a reunion kiss and the Christian ritual kiss are similar. Because of the strong link between the mouth, the kiss, and the spirit, kissing proclaims genuine affection- a claim very similar to Leucippe and Clitophon's discussion of the kissing mouth providing a true reflection of the soul. As the passage continues, Chrysostom again uses Greco-Roman customs as the foundation for his explanation of the ritual kiss: And concerning this holy kiss there is something else to say. What is this? We are the temple of Christ; therefore, when we kiss each other, we kiss the porch of the temple and the entrance. Do you not see how many kiss the porch of this temple, some bending down, others grasping with their hand and bringing their hand to their mouth? And Christ has both entered and continues to enter into us through these gates and doors whenever we commune. Those who partake of the mysteries understand this saying, for it is not by chance that when they receive the Lord's body, our lips have been honored. On account of this, we mainly kiss here. 68

Alluding to I Corinthians 3:17, I Corinthians 6:19, and II Corinthians 6:16, Chrysostom tells his congregation that they are temples of Christ.69 Chrysostom then links the concept of the Christian as Christ's

The Kiss That Binds

4-I

temple and the practice of Christians kissing each other: whenever Christians kiss they are kissing the entrance to the temple of Christ. At this point, Chrysostom most likely refers to the Greco-Roman practice of kissing a temple threshold. 70 Yet this connection breaks down when Chrysostom switches from speaking of a literal kiss, whether in a Christian or non-Christian context, to a discussion of the Eucharist. Through the consumption of the eucharistic elements, Christ's body kisses Christians. Chrysostom also implicitly links the "kiss" of receiving Christ's body in the Eucharist and the ritual kiss as an exchange of spirit. As in Eucharist, where the lips unite the Christian with Christ's body, Christ also can enter believers through the ritual exchange of the kiss. Because every Christian is a temple of Christ, every time Christians kiss they exchange Christ's spirit. By aligning the ritual kiss with cultural assumptions regarding kissing and the exchange of spirit, Chrysostom constructs the Christian kiss as a means of union-the ritual kiss illustrates true affection, unites the participants' souls, and allows Christians to share Christ's spirit with each other. This passage also provides an important hint regarding Chrysostom's audience. When refering to the Eucharist, Chrysostom uses the third person to speak of those ''who partake of the mysteries:' indicating that at least some of his listeners did not yet share the Eucharist. This suggests another important function of Chrysostom's continual allusion to widespread Greco-Roman kissing customs. When they spoke with congregation members, Christian leaders needed to present a reasonable explanation for why Christians kissed each other. This is especially true when instructing catechumens who, soon after they were baptized, would exchange the kiss. What better way to explain the Christian ritual kiss than to compare it with kissing customs with which neophytes already would be familiar? Although good pedagogy, this strategy encountered the same problem as Chrysostom did when he compared the ritual to the familial kiss: every such analogy made the ritual kiss less uniquely Christian. The tension between instructive comparison and ritual distinction becomes particularly apparent when comparing Chrysostom with the author of the roughly contemporary Mystogogical Lectures: Then the deacon cries out "receive each other and greet each other?' Do not suppose that the kiss is customary, publicly exchanged by common friends. It

4-2

Chapter 2

is not. This kiss joins souls with each other and it entirely forgives them. The kiss then, is a sign of the joining of souls and the banishment of all remembrance of injury. 71

Unlike Chrysostom, who used the reunion kiss as an analogy for the ritual kiss, this author uses the everyday kiss as a foil. Although the Christian kiss may appear to be like a kiss exchanged between friends, it is not. Contrary to prevalent ancient opinions, the Mystogogical Lectures denies the link between ordinary kissing and the exchange of spirit and suggests that only the Christian ritual kiss blends souls with each other. The Christian kiss is not common, it is not customary; unlike mundane kisses, the ritual kiss can unite the participants' souls and cause individuals to forgive any wrongs. In his Catechetical Instructions Chrysystom undertakes the same task as the author of the Mystogogical Lectures: he must prepare catechumens for participating in a rite they have not yet witnessed. When speaking to this audience, Chrysostom presents the most explicit link between kissing, spiritual exchange, and communal unity: But since I mentioned the kiss, I now wish to speak to you about it. When we are about to partake of the holy table, we are commanded to kiss each other and to exchange a holy greeting. Why is this? Since we are separated from our bodies, we blend our souls with each other at this time by means of the kiss, so that our assembly may become just as the apostles [were]. Because [then] all were believing and there was one heart and one soul. After having been similarly bound to each other we must accept the holy mysteries. 72

Similar to his exegesis of II Corinthians, Chrysostom again asks why Christians share the kiss. His answer is the same-group members perform the kiss to unifY the community. At the Eucharist, the church no longer consists of individual bodies; through the kiss, Christians join their souls with each other binding together all community members. According to Chrysostom, this action allows the community to return to its beginnings. The kiss moves the community from profane to sacred time, and it becomes like the early church unified under the apostles. By comparing the community, bound by the kiss, to the apostolic church, Chrysostom puts forward a mythical ideal. He argues that, through the the kiss, contemporary Christians can return to this time of unity, approach the Eucharist, and join with the body of Christ. The work of Jonathan Z. Smith suggests that this alignment of a

The Kiss That Binds

4-3

given ritual with an archetype of communal unity can be extremely effective. Smith argues that a ritual's power stems from its incongruity with experienced reality: "Ritual is a means of performing the way things ought to be in conscious tension to the way things are."73 By illustrating an ideal state, the ritual kiss presents a goal toward which the group can direct itsel£ At the same time, the kiss also becomes a cultural critique. If the ideal is found only in a ritual context, "the very fact that it is ritual action rather than everyday action . . . provides an occasion for reflection on and rationalization of the fact that what ought to have been done was not, what ought to have taken place did not?' 74 Even if the communitas experience advocated by Chrysostom cannot be maintained indefinitely, by repeatedly presenting such unity as an ideal, the kiss gives the group an end to strive toward and implicitly critiques Christian communities for not yet reaching this goal. The Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Philip, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Mystological Lectures, and Catechetical Instructions all link kissing with spiritual exchange. The connection between the Christian ritual kiss and everyday kissing (its "ritual field") formed the basis for anumber of discursive strategies aimed at promoting group cohesion. At the same time, the threat of such comparisons making the ritual kiss less uniquely Christian challenged church leaders to distinguish between ritual kisses and the everyday cultural gestures on which they based the Christian kiss's meanings.

Kissing to Promote Reconciliation and Restore Peace Given how often Christians appropriated Greco-Roman kissing customs, it seems likely that one of the ritual kiss's most prevalent meanings in early Christianity-the kiss as a sign of forgiveness-would have numerous Greco-Roman analogues. Surprisingly, this does not appear to be the case at all. For example, in a survey of over a thousand non-Christian kissing references, only three brief allusions spoke of kissing as an indication of reconciliation.75 Similarly, none of the earliest Christian references to the ritual kiss depict it as a tool of forgiveness. Paul refers to the kiss as the holy kiss (LA.iu.ta ay(ov), I Peter as the kiss oflove (IA~~.ta aya:n:TJs), and Justin simply speaks of the kiss ( Ritual Practice> 75-91. 4-2. Ibid., 74-, 90. 4-3. The kiss between Chloe and Dorco in Long. I.30.I is the only example

Notes to Pages 36-38

145

I found of a non-erotic kiss between unrelated, opposite sexed adults. But even here, there are erotic overtones. See also William Klasse, "Kiss (NT);' in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 92 who emphasizes the radicalness of early Christians kissing without regard to gender. #. M. E. Combs-Schilling, Sacred Peiformances: Islam, Sexuality, and Sacrifice (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989 ), 30-31. 4-5. Joachim Knuf, ''Where Cultures Meet: Ritual Code and Organizational Boundary Management;' Research on Language and Social Interaction 23 (1989/90 ): us. 4-6. Ronald Grimes, Beginnings in Ritual Studies, rev. ed. (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), 24--39. 4-7. Also see S. Gaselee, "The Soul in the Kiss;' Criterion 2 (1924-): 34-9-359 for a discussion of this motif in classical literature. 4-8. Ach. Tat. 2.8.2-3. Also see Ach. Tat. 4-.8.2.3-s; Ambrose, De Isaac uel anima 3.8 (CSEL 32.1, 64-7); Gel. 19.11.4-.1-10; Petr. 132.1.3. 4-9. E.g. b. Bat. 17a; b. Ber. Sa ; b. Mo'ed Qat. 28a; Midr. Deut n:IO. For a discussion of this motif also see Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994-), 17-20. so. E.g., T. Ab. 20:8-9; T. Reu. 1:s; T. Sim. 1:2. SI. Verg. A. 4-.68s-686. Also see Cic.Verr. 2.s.n8; Ov. M.et. 7.861; Stat. Silv. s.I.19S; Stat. Theb. 12.319· 52. Daphnis et Chloe 1.29. 53. Stat. Theb. 12.319. 54. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 4-84-: "The ideal was that a dose relative or coniunx be present to exchange a last kiss and to catch the dying person's last breath?' Also see Franz Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1923) 59. Examples of the kiss's role in death ritual include: Ach. Tat. 5·7·9·+; Bionus Ep. Ad. 12-14-; Long. 1.29-1.31; Luc. 3·74-S; Mosch. 66-68; Ov. Am. 3.9.54-; Ov. Ep. u.u7; Ov. Fast. 4-.851; Ov. Met. 4-.14-1, 6.278, 8.538, 9.504-, 11.738, 13.4-91; Petr. 74-.17.6; Prop. 2.13.29; Quint. (sp) Decl. 4-.22.u, 8.13.28, 11.9.21, 12.10.2; Sen. Dial. 6.3.2.1; Sil. 9.14-3; Stat. Silv. 2.1.173; Stat. Theb. 5·594-, 12.27, 12.319, 12.4-18, 12.804-; Suet. Aug. 99.1.9; Suet. Otto 12.2.4-; Suet. Vit. 7.2.4-; TacAnn. 4-.63.2; Tac. His. 2.4-9.16; Tib. 1.1.62; V. Max. 4-.6.3.7, 7.1.I.24-, 7.8.9.6. ss. See Nicolas J. Perella, The Kiss Sacred and Profane An Interpretative History ofKiss Symbolism and Related Religio-Erotic Themes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969 ), 32-33. For an inventory of examples see Maxime Collignon, Essai sur les monuments grecs et romains relatift au myth de Psyche (Paris: Bibliotheque des Ecoles Frans:aises d'Athenes et de Rome, 1877), 399-4-35. Examples from children's sarcophagi include Janet Hoskinson, Roman Children's Sarcophagi: Their Decoration and Its Social Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) 7.1, 7.2 on plate 14-. s6. Jerome, Epistula 127.14- (CSEL 56.1, 156); Ambrose, De excessu fratris Satyri 1.19 (CSEL 73, 219).

Notes to Pages 38-44 57. Pseudo-Dionysius, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia 7.2 (PG 3, 556), 7-3·+ (PG 3, 560 ), 8 (PG 3, 565). The twelfth canon of the roughly contemporaneous Synod of Autissiodorum prohibits the kissing of the dead (Mansi, 913 ). s8. E.g., Ambrose, De excessu fratris Satyri r.r9, 1.78 (CSEL 73, 219); Jerome, Epistula 127.14- (CSEL 56.r, !56); Man. s.624-; Quint. (sp), Decl. I2.ro.2; Stat. Theb. 12.319. 59. Joseph andAseneth 19 (Burchard, 692). 6o. Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, 82. 6r. Ibid. Also see Perella, The Kiss Sacred and Profane, 17. 62. Perella, The Kiss Sacred and Profane, 19-23. 63. L. Edward Phillips, ''The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1992), 270. 64-. Pistis Sc;phia r.6r (NHS 9, I2I). 65. Gospel ofPhilip 58.30-59.6 (NHS 20, 156). For recent discussions of the problems inherent in the term "Gnosticism" see Karen King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003) and Michael Williams, Rethinking "Gnosticism": An A-,yumentfor Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996). 66. John Chrysostom, In epistulam II ad Corinthios 30.2 (PG 6r, 607). 67. Ach. Tat. 5.82.n; Apul. .Met. r.24-.r7; Cic. Fam. r6.27.2; Mart. 12.59.1-'7; Ov. Ep. r8.ror; Petr. no.3.2; Pl. Am. 8oo; Pl. True. 2.4-.5; Quint. (sp) Decl. 4-.s.r2; Suet. Dom. 12.3.3; Suet. Nero 37.3.8. Midr. Gen 70:12. 68. John Chrysostom, In epistulam II ad Corinthios 30.2 (PG 6r, 607). 69. Unlike Paul, who writes of Christians as the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Cor 6:19 ), God's temple (I Cor 3=17), or the temple of the living God (II Cor 6:r6), Chrysostom here speaks of the Christian's body as the temple of Christ. 70. Mart. r.ro9.2, n.ro4-.9, 12.65.7; Ov.Am. 2.6.56; Tib. r.2.86. 7r. Cyril (sp.), Mystagogiae 5·3 (SC r26, I4-8-r5o). For a discussion of authorship see Leo P. McCuley and Anthony A. Stephenson, Introduction to The Works- of Saint Cyril of]erusalem, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1970 ), 14-3-14-9· 72. John Chrysostom, Catechesis ultima ad baptiztuulos 11.32-34- (PapadopoulosKerameus, I74--I75). 73. Smith, To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual, ro9. 74-- Ibid., !09-IIO. 75· Petr. I09.s.r: ''With these words of alliance, by agreement we set aside our anger. And so that no residue of anger might remain in our minds, even after swearing an oath, we agreed to abolish the past with a kiss?' Ov. Ars. Am. 2.4-59-4-66: ''As she cries give a kiss. Give [a kiss] as she cries the joys of Venus. [Thus] there will be peace. In this way alone will anger be dissolved.... These doves who recently fought, [now] join their beaks." In the Palestinian Talmud y. Sabb. 2ob has Rabbi Yehushua approach R. Eliezer in his last hours, kiss him, and proclaim that the vow of boycott against Eliezer has been annulled. 76. E.g., Passio SanctarumPerpetuae ro.r3, 12.5 (SC 4-17,14-0, r+S); Tertullian, De oratione r8.r.6 (CCh r, 267); Tertullian, De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos

Notes to Pages 44-4-7

14-7

4-I (CCh I, 22I-222); Traditio Apostolica 4- (Botte, ro); Traditio Apostolica 2I (Botte, 54-);Am uf]ohn Son ufZebedee 4-I (Wright,#); Theodore ofMopsuestia, On Eucharist and Liturgy 5 (Mingana, 230-232); Innocent I, Epistula 25.I (PL 20, 553); Augustine, Contra littems Petiliani I.I2.I3, 2.I7.3S, 2.23.53 (CSEL 52, I2, 4-I, 5I). 77. Tertullian, De oratione IS.r.6 (CCh I, 267). For a discussion ofTertullian's use of the term "seal of prayer" see L. Edward Phillips, The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship (Cambridge: Grove Books, I996), 2I. 7S. In his Prescription Against Heretics, Tertillian makes a similar assumption and refers to the ritual kiss simply as pn.x. Tertullian, De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos 4-I (CCh I, 22I-222). 79. Although in Commentarium in Canticum canticorum r.I.I3 (SC 375, IS4-) Origen connects the kiss with the Eucharist in Commentariorum in Epistolam adRomanos 10.33 (PG I4-, I2S2-I2S3) he speaks of the kiss as the conclusion of prayer. Similarly, the (most likely) third-century Apostolic Tradition does not speak of a Eucharistic kiss but continues to place the kiss at the end of prayer (Traditio Apostolica IS [TU 5S, I2]) as does the third-/fourth-century PseudoClementine Second Epistle on Vi1:!finity (Pseudo-Clement, Epistola II ad vi1:!fines 2 [PG I, 4-2I]) and chapter 2 of the late fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions (ConstitutionesApostolorum 2.57.I7 [Funk, I65]), although chapterS of this same work connects the kiss with the Eucharist (Constitutiones Apostolorum S.II.9 [Funk, 4-94-]). In conttast, most fourth- and fifth-century documents explicitly link the kiss with the beginning of the Eucharist: Ambrose, Epistula I.I4--IS (CSEL S2,3, I53-I55); Augustine, Contra litterns Petiliani 2.23.53 (CSEL 52, 5I); Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 30.2.2.3 (CCh 3S, 204-); Augustine, Sermo 227 (SC n6, 24-0); John Chrysostom, Catechesis ultima ad baptizandos II.32-34(Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 174--175); John Chrysostom, In epistulam II ad Corinthios 30.2 (PG 6I, 607); Cyril (sp.), Mystagogiae 5.3 (SC I26, I4-S-Iso); Innocent I, Epistula 25-1 (PL 20, 553); Jerome, Epistula S2 (CSEL 55, 109); Pseudo-Dionysius, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia 3.3.S (PG 3, 4-63); Testamentum Domini 2.9 (Rahmani, I3I); Theodore of Mopsuestia, On Eucharist and Liturgy 5 (Mingana, 230-232 ). For a more detailed discussion of these changes see Kreider, "Let the Faithful Greet Each Other;' 37-3S and especially Phillips, The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship (I996), 26-2S. So. E.g., Tertullian, De oratione IS.r.6 (CCh I, 267); Tertullian, De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos 4-I (CCh I, 22I-222); Pnssio Sanctarum Perpetuae IO.I3, I2.5 (SC 4-I7, I4-0, I4-S). Sr. Cyril (sp.),Mystewl!8'iae 5.3 (SC I26, I4-S-I5o). S2. John Chrysostom, Catechesis ultima ad baptizandos II.32-34(Papadopoulos-Kerameus, I74--I75). S3. Augustine, Sermo 227 (SC n6, 24-0); Augustine, Sermo 6.3 (MiAg I, 3I-32). S4-. John Chrysostom, In epistulam ad Romanos 21.4- (PG 6o, 67I). S5. Theodore of Mopsuestia, On Eucharist and Liturgy 5 (Mingana, 230-232). S6. Ibid. S7. Pettus Chrysologus, Sermo 93.6 (CCh 24-A, 577).

Notes to Pages 4-7-51 88. Ambrose, De paenitentia 2.3.18 (SC 179, I#). 89. Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo 3.3 (CCh 24-, 28). 90. Jerome, Epistula 122.3.8 (CSEL 56,1, 66). 91. Interpretation can move in the other direction as well. For example after a lengthy exegesis of the Song of Songs, Origen writes, "it is of this happening that the kiss, which we give one to another in church at the holy mysteries, is a figure"(Origen, Commentarium in Canticum canticorum I.I.I3 [SC 375, 184-]). 92. Cyprian, De ecclesiae catholicae unitate 9 (CCh 3, 255-256). 93. Ov. Ars. Am. 2.4-59-4-66 provides the sole non-Christian example of the dove's kiss indicating forgiveness. Even if this represents a larger cultural connection between forgiveness and doves' kisses, Christians clearly emphasized this link to a greater degree than their non-Christian counterparts. 94-. Ambrose, Exameron 6.9.68 (CSEL 32,1, 256). 95. Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus 6.12 (CCh 36, 59). 96. Augustine, Sermo 64-.4- (CCh 38, 4-26). 97. Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus 6.4- (CCh 36, 55). 98. Augustine, ContraFaustum 12.20 (CSEL 25, 34-8-34-9). 99. Plin. Nat. 10.104-. 100. Perella, The Kiss Sacred and Profane, 255-257; J. M. C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1973), 258259. For example Servius states that doves are considered sacred to Venus "on account of their frequent mating and coitus" (Serv. A. 6.193). Also see the much later Christian author Isidore of Seville, who argues that "the ancients called [the dove] 'of Venus' because they frequendy visit their nests and make love with a kiss" (Isidore of Seville, Entymologiarum 12.61 [Lindsay, np ]). 101. Basil ofCaeserea. Hom. 8.3 (GCS N.F. 2, 133). 102. Mart. 1.109.2. 103. Plin. Nat. 10.158. 104-. Mart. II.I04-.9· 105. Mart. 12.65.7. 106. Ov. Am. 2.6.56. 107. Catul. 68B.127. 108. Bell, Ritual Theory, 94---98. 109. Ibid. 95. no. Douglas, Natural Symbols, 69-70. III. Ibid. 70. n2. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Roudedge, 1966), 128. n3. The major exceptions to this are in the Apocryphal Acts, the PseudoClementine Second Epistle on Vit;!Jinity, and in martyrologies where Christians frequendy kiss the martyrs' bonds or relics. n+. E.g., John Chrysostom, In epistulam II ad Corinthios 30.2 (PG 61, 607); John Chrysostom, Catechesis ultima ad baptizandos 11.32-34- (PapadopoulosKerameus, 174--175). n5. John Chrysostom, In epistulam I ad Corinthios ++·+ (PG 61, 376).

Notes to Pages 52-59

149

n6. Theodore of Mopsuestia, On Eucharist and Lituw 5 (Mingana, 230-232). II7. John Fiske, Media Matters (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1996), 3-5. n8. Judith Perkins, The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era (New York: Routledge, 1995), 1. n9. Hogg, The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness, 53.

Chapter 3. Difference and Distinction: The Exclusive Kiss Epigraphs: Pierre Boudreau, Distinction, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984-), 4-79; Jonathan Z. Smith, "What a Difference a Difference Makes," in "To See Ourselves as Others See Us»: Christians) jews) and ({Others)) in Late Antiquity, ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs (Chico, Cali£: Scholars Press, 1980), 4-7· 1. Smith, ''What a Difference a Difference Makes," 5. 2. The works of Mary Douglas and Michael Hogg present a siniilar perspective. Douglas's group/grid model and Hogg's depersonalized social attraction model both suggest that increased group cohesion results in a greater concern with social boundaries. When group members see themselves more as part of a "we" than an individual "I," the concept of who makes up "we" takes on additional significance. As a result, communities that experience strong cohesion become more likely to have rigid social boundaries. Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Vmtage Books, 1970), 54--68; Jonathan L. Gross and Steve Rayner, Measuring Culture: A Paradigm for the Analysis of Social Organization (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985) 5; Michael A. Hogg, The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity (New York: New York University Press, 1992), 103, 107, II5-12o. For a discussion of Douglas's model see Bruce J. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986), 14-, 19. 3· Luc. Alex. 4-1.12. 4-. E.g., Fro.AdM. Caes. 5.30; Luc. 2.n4; Phaed. 5.1.5; Plin. Pan. 24-.2.2; SHA. Gall. 16.6.4-; SHA. Max. 28.7.8; Suet. Cal. 56.2.7; Suet. Tib. 72.3.7; Tac. Ann. 1.34-.7, 15.71.4-; Tac. Hist. 1.4-5.3; Richard Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in

Roman Art: The Use ofGestures to Denote Status in Roman Sculpture and Coinage (New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1963), fig. 3-77· 5. See, e.g., Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae 12.5 (SC 4-17, 14-8); Tertullian,Ad uxorem 2.4-.2 (CCh 1, 389);AaaAndreae 5 (Lipsius, 39);Aaaioannis 62, 78, 24(Bonnet, 181, 190, 164-);AaaPetri cum Simone 3 (Lipsius, 4-8); (First) Apocalypse of]ames 31 (NHS n, 81); (Second) Apocalypse of]ames 56 (NHS n, 132); Jerome, EpistulaAdversus Rufinum 23 (CCh 79, 94-); Jerome, VitasanaiPauli 10 (PL 23, 25); Jerome, Epistula 22.6 (CSEL 54, 151); Augustine, De civitate Dei 22.8 (CCh 4-8,826); Paulinus of Nola, Epistula 5.16 (CSEL 29, 35); Pseudo-Clement, Homilia 4-.7 (GCS 4-2, 86). The ritual use of the greeting kiss also may have

ISO

Notes to Pages 59-65

helped the kiss become a conventional epistolary salutation. Quite deliberately following the Pauline epistles, Christian authors occasionally conclude their letters with a commandment for the recipients to kiss each other. E.g., Cyril, Epistula I9.4- (Schwartz, I3); Epistle Against the Manichees 4-D-4-2 (Roberts, 4-2-4-3); Pseudo-Ignatius, Ad Antiochenos q.2.5 (Diekamp, 222); PseudoIgnatius,Ad Tarsenses ro.3.2 (Diekamp, I-43-I#). 6. Gregorius Nazianzen,Ad patrem ro (PG 35, 996). 7. As discussed in Chapter +,Martyrdom ofAndrew (Detorakis, 338) also may depict an instance of a Christian refusing to kiss a non-Christian relative because of religious differences. 8. For scholarly overviews of different approaches to Christian antiJudaism see Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed eds. The Ways That

Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, (Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford, Cali£: Stanford University Press, I999 ), and Miriam Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus (New York: E.J. Brill, I995)· 9. Smith, ''What a Difference a Difference Makes:' 4-7. ro. As noted by Neil B. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994-) 304-,

Ambrose may have had little contact with actual Jews, and for the most part Judaism may have presented him mainly with a symbolic threat. For a larger discussion of Ambrose and Judaism see Gegory Figueroa, The Church and the Synagogue in St. Ambrose (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, I94-9); John Moorhead, Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World (New York: Longman, I999), I82-I85; and Boniface Ramsey, Ambrose (New York: Routledge, I997), 34--35. II. Ambrose, Epistula I.I4--I8 (CSEL 82,3, I53). I2. For another example of alluding to pax's dual meanings see Tertullian,

De oratione I8.r.6 (CCh I, 267). I3. Ambrose, Epistula I.I4--I8 (CSEL 82,3, IS+). I4-. Origen uses a sinrilar strategy in Commentarium in Canticum canticorum r.r.r3 (SC 375, I84-). I5. Ambrose, Epistula I.I4--I8 (CSEL 82,3, I54--I55). I6. Ambrose, Epistula I.I4--I8 (CSEL 82,3, I55). I7. For a general overview of the Originist conttoversy and Rufinus and Jerome's involvement in this debate see F. X. Murphy, Rufinus of Aquileia (34S-4II): His Life and Works (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, I94-5); J. N. D. Kelly,]erome: His Life, Writings, and Contrwersies (New York: Harper and Row, I975); and especially Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Contrwersy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, I992). IS. Jerome, EpistulaAdversus Rufinum 23 (CCh 79, 94-). I9. Jerome, EpistulaAdversus Rufinum 23 (CCh 79, 95-96). 20. E.g., Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam I0.63 (CCh I4-,

Notes to Pages 66-72

151

364-); Jerome, Epistula I25 (CSEL s6, II9); Jerome, Tractus lix in psalmos ro8.I6 (CCh 78, 2I6}; John Chrysostom, In epistula ad Romanos Hommily 7I (PG 6o, 607); John Chrysostom, In Joannem Homily 7I (PG 59, 388). 2I. Jerome, EpistulaAd:versus Rufinum H (CCh 79, 103). 22. For an overview of Augustine and the Donatists see Peter Brown,

Augustine ofHippo: A Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, I967) and W H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa) 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, I985). 23. Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani r.2 (CSEL 52, 4--5). 24-. Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani r.I2.13 (CSEL 52, 12). 25. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 94-.8.20 (CCh 39, IH7)· 26. Augustine, Tractatus in Euangelium Joannis 6.3 (CCh 36, 54-). 27. Tertullian, De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos 4-I (CCh I, 22I-222). For a brief discusion of this passage, see Elaine H. Pagels, "The Demiurge and His Archons: A Gnostic View of the Bishop and Presbyters?" Harvard Theological Review 69, no. 3-4- (I976): 3I8-3I9. 28. E.g., Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, I984-), 85. 29. Tertullian, De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos 4-I (CCh I, 22I-222). 30. See e.g., Pagels, "The Demiurge and His Archons," 3or-324-; Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Vmtage Books, I979), 28-4-7, ro2-n8; Frederik Wisse, "The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner Diversity and Conflict:' in Nag Hammadi) Gnosticism) and Early Christianity, ed. Charles W Hedrick and Jr. Robert Hodgson (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, I986), I77-I90. 31. TraditioApostolica 18 (TU 58, 12 [Sah.]; Horner, 19 [Eth.]; Horner, 99 [Ar.]). 32. Constitutiones Apostolorum 2.57.I7 (Funk, 165); Constitutiones Apostolorum 8.Ir. 9 (Funk, 4-94-). For the dating of the Apostolic Constitutions see Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship) 2nd ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 93 and Paul F. Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edward Phillips, the Apostolic Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 9. 33. E.g., Cyril (sp.),Mystagogiae 5·3 (SC 126, I4-8-Iso); John Chrysostom, Cathecheses ad illuminandos 2.27 (SC so, I4-8); John Chrysostom, Catechesis ultima ad baptizandos II.32-34- (Papadopoulos-Kerameus, I74--I75)· 34-. Thomas M. Finn, "Ritual Process and the Survival of Early Christianity: A Study of the Apostolic Tradition ofHippolytus-;' Journal ofRitual Studies 3, no. I (1989): 72; Thomas M. Finn, ''It Happened One Saturday Night-;' Journal oftheAmericanAcademy ofReligion 58 (I990): 6oo-6or. 35. Finn, "Ritual Process and the Survival of Early Christianity," 73; Finn, "It Happened One Saturday Night," 6oo-6oi. See Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Chicago: Aldine, I969) for a more thorough discussion of liminality. 36. Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I909 ).

152

Notes to Pages 72-76

37. For a brief review of van Gennep's influence on later scholarship, see Catherine Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 3s-38, 101-102. 38. L. Edward Phillips, "The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship» (PhD. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1992), 126 argues that Tertullian's reference in De baptismo 8.3 to the descending of God's holy spirit as a dove is an allusion to a baptismal kiss. Limiting myself to more explicit references to the kiss, I present the third-century Traditio Apostolica 21 (Botte, s+ [Lat.]; Homer, 23 [Eth.]; Homer, 102 [Ar.]) and Cyprian, Epistula 6+.+ (CSEL 3.2, 719--720) as the first clear examples of a Christian kiss within the baptism ritual. For a discussion of Cyprian's reference, see Augustine, Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum 4.8.23 (CSEL 6o, 5+6-547), G.W. Clarke, "Cyprian's Epistle 6+ and the Kissing of Feet in Baptism:' Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 147-1s2; Johannes Quasten, "Der Kuss des Neugetauften in altchristlicher TauB.iturgie," in Litur;gie Gestalt und Vollzug, ed. Walter Diirig (Mililchen: Max Hiiber Verlag, 1963), 267-269; and Thraede, ''Urspriinge und Formen des 'Heiligen Kusses' im friihen Christentum:' 124-126, IS9-16I. For later sources dependent on the Apostolic Tradition's depiction of the baptismal kiss, see Canons of Hippolytus 19 (PO 31.2, 282) and Testamentum Domini 2.9 (Rahmani, I3I). The earliest Eastern references to the kiss and baptism appear in the fourth and fifth centuries. See John Chrysostom, Cathecheses ad illuminandos 2.27 (SC so, I+8),Acts ofjohn Son of Zebedee +I (Wright,++), and Narsai, Homily 2I (Mingana, 3+6). There also is a geographical variation in how the Western and Eastem churches perform the baptismal kiss. The third- through fifth-century Western churches have the bishop and then the rest of the congregation kiss the initiate, whereas the Eastern sources refer to only a single kiss, usually the whole congregation kissing the neophyte as part of the Eucharist service. For a more thorough discussion of the kiss's place within the various service orders, see Phillips, "The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship:' I76-246; L. Edward Phillips, "The Kiss of Peace and the Opening Greeting of the Pre-Anaphoral Dialogue;' Studia Litur;gica 23 (I993): I77-I86; and Dominic E. Serra, "The Kiss of Peace: A Suggestion from the Ritual Structure of the Missa," Ecclesia Orans I+ {I997): 79--94. 39. Narsai, Homily 2I (Mingana, 346). 40. Acts ofjohn Son of Zebedee +I (Wright,++). 41. Narsai, Homi!J 2I (Mingana, 3+6). 42. John Chrysostom, Cathecheses ad illuminandos 2.27 (SC so, I48). +3· C£ Canons ofHippolytus I9 (PO 3I,2, 282). ++· Fro. Ep. 2.3.3.3; Gel. 3-IS-3-s; Luc. Pseudol. 23-2; Mart. 1.76.I4; Plin. Ep. 9.I3.21.3; Plin. Pan. 7I.1.2. +s. Str. IS.3.20.3. +6. Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae 10.I3, 21.7 (SC 4I7, I+o, I8o); Tertullian, Ad uxorem 2.4.2 (CCh I, 389); Cyprian, Epistula 6.I (CCh 3B, 29-30); Cyprian, De /apsis 2 (CCh 3, 22I). +7· Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiasticae 6.3.4 (SC +I, 87). 48. Eusebius, De martyribus Palaestinae n.20 (GCS 2,2, 942).

Notes to Pages 76-81

153

49. Cyprian, De /apsis 2 (CCh 3, 22I). so. Cyprian, Epistula 6.I (CCh 3B, 29). SI. Pronto, Ad Verum Imp. 2.8 (trans!. Haines, 239). Also see Var. L. 6.76.1. 52. Ach. Tat. 2.9.2.4; Cic. Fam. 3.n.2.2; Long. 3.8.r.I; Luc. DDeor. 8.2.n; Lucr. 4.I1.79; Mart. I2.93-1; Nonn. 42.7I; Ov. Ep. I9.3I; Ov. Met. 4-II7; Sil. 8.I27; Suet. Vit. 2.5.9; Verg. A. 2.4-90. 53. Ov. Fast. 4.85I; Ov. Met. 4-II7, 8.538; Petr. 60.9.2; Quint. (sp.) Decl. ro.r2.5; Suet. Cal. 7.I.7. 54. Jerome, Contra Viglantrum 4 (PL 23, 357); Jerome, Epistula ro8 (CSEL 55, 3IS); Prudentius, Liber Peristephanon 2.5I7-S2I, 5-337-34-0, 9-99-IOo, II.I93-I94 (CCh I26, 275, 305, 329, 376). ss. Augustine, Sermo 277A (MiAg I, 243). 56. TraditioApostolica 9 (TU sBJ 4-6 [Sah.]; Homer, I6 [Eth.]; Homer, 97 [Ar.]). Promoting a confessor to the status of bishop does require the laying on of hands. Apparently, confessing could only get you so far! The Apostolic Tradition refers only to male confessors. Unlike later church orders such as the Didascalia and The Apostolic Constitutions, it does not speak of a deaconess or any other female clergy member. 57· J. Patout Bums, "On Rebaptism: Social Organization in the Third Century Church;' Journal ofEarly Christian Studies I (I993): 367-403. s8. See Ambrose, De paenitentia 2.10.9I (SC I79, I9o-I9I), Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiasticae 2.9.3 (SC 3I, 62), and John Chrysostom,Ad Theodorum lapsum 9 (SC II7, 202) for possible links between ritual kissing and penitential rites. 59. Cyprian,Epistula 57·5 (CCh 3B, 308); Cyprian,Epistula 59.I3 (CCh 3C, 357). 6o. Phillips ''The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship;' I3I-I32. 6r. I Thes 5:26; I Cor I6:2o; II Cor Ipo; Rom I6:Is; I Pet s:r+; Justin, Apologia 65-2 (Goodspeed, 74). 62. Acta Pauli et Theclae, I9 (Lipsius, 247). 63. Athenagoras, Legatio 32.5.8 (Schaedel, 48-so); Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus pi.8I-82 (SC IS8, IS7-I58). 64. Tertullian,Ad uxorem 2.4.3 (CCh I, 389). 65. Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae 10.I3 (SC 4I7, I4o); Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae 12.5 (SC 4I7, I48). 66. Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae 21.7 (SC 4I7, I8o). 67. Acta Andreae 5 (Lipsius, 39). 68. Acta Joannis 62, 78,24 (Bonnet, I8I, I90, I64). 69. Acta Petri cum Simone 3 (Lipsius, 48). 70. Acta Andreae s (Lipsius, 39). 71. Acta Joannis 62 (Bonnet, I9I). 72. E.g. Apul. Met. 2.28.9; Ov. An. 2.534; Plin. Pan. 24-.2.2; Sen. Ben. 2.I2.r.3; SHA. Gall. I6.6.4; SHA. Max. 28.8; Suet. Cal. 56.2.7; Suet. Dom. I2.3.3; Suet. Otho I2.2.4-; Tac.Ann. I5.71.4; Tac. Hist. I.45·3· Add. Esth 4:21-23; b. Ketub. 49a, 63a. There are also several artistic depictions of a kiss on the hand as an act of submission. See Bernard Andreae, The Art of Rome (New York:

154

Notes to Pages 82-84

Harry Abrams, 1977), fig. 7; Richard Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art: The Use of Gestures to Denote Status in Roman Sculpture and Coinage (New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1963), figs. 3-130, 3.77; Elaine Fantham et. al., Women in the Classical World: Image and Text (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), fig. II.II. n TraditioApostolica 19 (TU 58, 12 [Sah.]; Horner, 19 [Eth.]; Horner, 99

[Ar.]). 74. For arguments of why liturgical prohibitions are often prescriptive instead of descriptive see Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship, 17-19, 95--96. 75· Constitutiones Apostolorum 2.57.17 (Funk, 165). 76. ConstitutionesApostolorum 8.11.9 (Funk, 494). 77· Constitutiones Apostolorum 2.57.17 (Funk, 165). 78. Sulpicius Severus, Dialogi 2.8 (PL 20, 189 ). 79. Pseudo-Clement, Epistula II ad 'Pi1:!Jines 2 (PG r, 421). 8o. Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, 79, 86, 98; Fernard Cabrol, "Baiser;' in Dictionnaire D'Archeologie Chretienne et de Litu1:!Jie, ed. Fernard Cabral and Henri Leclercq (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ane, 1925), n8-n9; William Klassen, "Kiss (NT);' in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 88-92; William Klassen, ''The Sacred Kiss in the New Testament: An Example of Social Boundary Lines," New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 122-135; Eleanor Kreider, "Let the Faithful Greet Each Other: The Kiss of Peace;" Conrad Grebel Review 5 (1987): 31; Walter Lowrie, "The Kiss of Peace;" Theology Today 12 (1955): 240; Nicolas J. Perella, The Kiss Sacred and Profane: An Interpretative History of Kiss Symbolism and Related Rcligio-Erotic Themes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 30. 81. Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1922). For examples of different applications of Weber to an analysis of early Christianity, see John Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975); James S. Jeffers, Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991); and J. A Draper, ''Weber, Theissen and 'Wandering Charismatics' in the Didache;'Journal ofEarly Christian Studies 6, no. 4 (1998): 541-576. 82. Weber, The Sociology ofReligion, 104. 83. For an overview of the increased gendering of other early Christian rituals see Teresa Berger, Women's Ways of Worship: Gender Analysis and Liturgical History (Collegeville, Md.: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 27-68. 84. E.g., Virginia Burrus, The Making ofa Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 6-12; Karen Jo Torjesen, "Tertullian's 'Political Ecclesiology' and Women's Leadership;' Studia Patristica 21 (1987): 277-282; Karen Jo Torjesen, When Women

Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993), 155-178.

Notes to Pages 84-87

155

85. Many scholars have focused on the honor/shame model as a means to better Wlderstand early Christian gender relations. For a fuller explanation of this construct see Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropowgy (Adanta: John Knox Press, 1981); Bruce J. Malina and Jerome Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts," in The Social World ofLukeActs, ed. Jerome Neyrey (Peabody, Mass.: Hendreickson, 1991), 25-46; and the essays in Semeia 68 (1994): Honor and Shame in the World ofthe Bible, especially John C. Chance, ''The Anthropology of Honor and Shame: Culture, Values, and Practice;' 142-144; K. C. Hanson, "How Honorable! How Shameful! A Cultural Analysis of Matthew's Makarisms and Reproaches," 82-84; and Jerome H. Negrey, "Despising the Shame of the Cross: Honor and Shame in the Johannine Passion Narrative;" 115-118. Also see Torjesen, When Women Were Priests for a more thorough discussion of this system's gendered elements. 86. For a more extended discussion of space and the gendering of Christian liturgy see Berger, Women,s Ways ofWorship, 13-14, 19, 33-34,46-52, 54-56. 87. E.g., Didascalia 12 (V66bus 407, 143-148). 88. John Chrysostom, Commentariarum in Matthareum 73-3 (PG 58, 677). For brief discussions of this passage, see Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom (New York: Roudedge, 2000 ), 24 and Wendy Mayer, "The Dynamics of Liturgical Space: Aspects of the Interaction between St. John Chrysostom and His Audiences;" Ephemerides Litu1J!icae III (1997): 108-109. 89. ActaAndreae 5 (Lipsius, 39);Actaioannis 62, 78,24 (Bonnet, 181, 190, 164); Acta Petri cum Simone 3 (Lipsius, 48); Pseudo-Clement, Epistula II ad 'Pir-

gines 2 (PG 1, 421). 90. TraditioApostolica 19 (TU 58,12 [Sah.); Horner, 19 [Eth.]; Horner, 99 [Ar.]); ConstitutionesApostoWrum 2.57.17 (Funk, 165). 91. ConstitutionesApostoWrum 8.11.9 (Funk, 494). 92. Testamentum Domini 1.23 (Rahmani, 36); Innocent I, Epistula 25.1 (PL 20, 553). In contrast, ca. 400 Maximus ofTurin speaks of laity and clergy exchanging a kiss and warns that the bishop can tell when one is not fasting by the smell of of one's kiss (Maximus of Turin, Sermo so [CSEL 23, 197]). 93· Kreider, ''Let the Faithful Greet Each Other;' 42. 94. E.g., Constitutiones ApostoWrum 2.57.17 (Funk, 165). 95. Plin. Pan. 7J.1.2; Suet. Nero 34.2.13; Tac. Hist. !.4.5-3, Suet.~- 94.8.15. 96. TraditioApostolica 4 (Botte, 10 [Lat.]). Although the Apostolic Tradition states that all congregation members are to give the peace to the newly ordained bishop, since later the Apostolic Tradition prohibits men and women kissing each other, most likely only male laity kissed the bishop. 97. C£ the Testamentum Domini 1.30 (Rahmani, 70) where the ordained presbyter also receives a kiss. This leads Phillips, "The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship;' 250 to suggest that The Apostolic Tradition communities did kiss the other clergy as part of their ordination. The Apostolic Tradition simply does not give a full description of the presbyters and deacon's ordination ceremonies. 98. Canons ofHippolytus 3-17 (PO 31.2, 352). 99. Testamentum Domini 1.21 (Rahmani, 32).

Notes to Pages 87-94Constitutiones Apostolorum 8.s.IO (Funk, 476). 101. Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia 5.2, 5.3.1 (PG 3, 509). I02. Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia 6.2 (PG 3, 533). I03. Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia 6.3.4 (PG 3, 536). 104. C£ Theodore of Mopsuestia, On Eucharist and Litut;gy 5 (Mingana, 23D-232). ws. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 135-169. I06. Ibid., 25-28. ID7. Ibid., 177-194. I08. Smith, "What a Difference a Difference Makes;' 4-5. IOo.

Chapter 4. Boundary Violations: Purity, Promiscuity, and Betrayal Epigraph: Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. r, An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Random House, 1990), I2. I. Foucault, History of Sexuality, I, IO. 2. Ibid. 12. 3· Ibid. II. 4. Robert Cooper, "Organization/Disorganization," Social Science Information 25, no. 2 (I996): 300-30I; Bruce J. Malina, Christian Origins and CulturalAnthropology (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986), 2o-21. s. Sen. Con. I9.2.1. 6. Sen. Con. 1.2.1. 7· Sen. Con. 1.2.1. 8. Sen. Con. 1.2.5. 9. Sen. Con. 1.2.9 IO. Sen. Con. 1.2.7, I.2.I2. u. Sen. Con. I.2.IO. I2. E.g. Apul. Met. 4.26.2, 5.6.26; Char. 2.8.1.8; Luc. !0.365; Mart. I2.65.7; Ov. An. 1.424; Ov. Met. 6.479; Pl. As. 687; Sil I2.592; Suet. Ct. 26.3.5; V Fl. 7.I23. Add Esth 4:21-23;]os. Asen. 22:9-w;]os. Asen. 28:I4; Sir 29:5. I3. Sen. Con. I.2.I2. I4. Sen. Con r.2.I6. I5. Sen. Con. 9.2.n. I6. Apul. Met. I0.21.7. Also see Mart. so.6 for another reference to basia pura. I7. Mart. 6.66.7. I8. Sen. Ben. 2.I2.2.I. I9. Luc. 2.n4. 20. Plin. Nat. 26.3.3. Pliny later constructs the kiss as also having medicinal benefits; he twice refers to kissing a mule's muzzle as curing sneezing, hiccups, and the common cold (Plin. Nat. 28.57.2, 30.31.2). 21. E.g., Catul. 99.2; Petr. 21.2.3, 23.4.I; Mart I1.95.I; Pl. As. 895. 22. Luc. Pseudo/. 23.2.

Notes to Pages 94-99

157

23. t. Tehar. 3:8. 24. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Routledge, I966). 2s. Ibid., 3· 26. Ibid., 2-3. 27. Ibid., 36. 28. There are several other interesting examples of Christian discussions of kissing and issues of purity: e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, Canticum canticorum homiliae IS (Langerbeck, 33); Tertullian, De ResurrectioneMortuorum I6.6 (CCh 2, 939). ' 29. See Arnold van Gennep, The Rites ofPassage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I909); Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and AntiStructure (Chicago: Aldine, I969). 30. The surviving manuscripts of Joseph and Aseneth preserve two main textual traditions and it remains unclear if the longer version is an expansion of the shorter, or the shorter an abridgement of the longer. Marc Philonenko, Joseph andAseneth (Leiden: E.J. Brill, I968) provides an edition of the shorter text and Christoph Burchard,]oseph undAseneth (Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, I983) a translation of the longer recension. Joseph and Aseneth 8 (Philonenko, IS4-IS6; Burchard, 648-6so ). 31. Joseph andAseneth I6 (Philonenko, I86; Burchard 68I). 32. Ibid. 33· Joseph andAseneth I9.II (Burchard, 692). 34· Joseph andAseneth 2I (Philonenko, 196; Burchard 694). 3S· See especially Ross Shepard Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wij&, Reconsidered (New York: Oxford University Press, I998), 22s-293 for her discussion of dating, provenance, and authorship. Kraemer argues that the previous consensus for an early, Egyptian, Jewish Joseph and Aseneth is based on very weak data. Although she feels that not enough evidence exists for a definitive answer, Kraemer suggests that Joseph and Aseneth may be a fourth-century work, perhaps from a Syrian-Christian community. Also see Michael Penn, "Identity Transformation and Authorial Identification in Joseph and Asenetb» Journal for the Study ofPseudepigrapha 13,2 (2002): I7I-I83. 36. TraditioApostolica I9 (TU s8, I2 [Sah.]; Horner, I9 [Eth.]; Horner, 99 [Ar.]). There is some discrepancy regarding the translation of this passage. The Ethiopic and the Arabic, both read "pure" (Horner, Statutes, I9 [Eth.], 99 [Ar.], ISO [tr. Eth.], 2SI [tr. Ar.]). Modern translators render the Coptic either as "pure" or as "holy?' The Coptic uses the term OYOTI which, when used with "spirit" is translated as holy but in most other cases means pure. In his dissertation, Phillips uses Geoffrey J. Cuming's translation, which reads: "They shall not give the peace for their kiss is not yet holy?' Phillips, "The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship," roo; Geoffrey J. Cuming, Hippolytus: A Text for Students (Bramcote: Grove Books, I976) I6. So too Paul F. Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition (Minneapolis:

Notes to Pages 99-104 Fortress, 2002). The majority of translations, though, e.g., Dix,Apostolic Tradition, 29, Burton Scott Easton, The Apostolic Tradition ofHippolytus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, I934), 43, and George Homer, The Statutes of the Apostles) or) Canones ecclesiastici (London: Williams and Norgate, I904), 3I4 translate the Coptic phrase the same as the Ethiopic and Arabic, that is, "not yet pure" as opposed to "not yet holy?' 37· Douglas, Purity and Danger, 3· 38. For example, Douglas writes, ''When the sense of outrage is adequately equipped with practical sanctions in the social order, pollution is not likely to arise . . . wherever the lines are precarious we find pollution ideas come to their support" (Douglas, Purity and Danger, I32, I39 ). 40. Tertullian, De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos 4I (CCh I, 22I-222). 41. Michael Foucault, "The Subject and Power," in Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, ed. Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I982), 208. 42. Martyrdmn ofAndrew I77-I94 (Detorakis, 338). 43. Although the text never makes this explicit, Maximilla may be basing this belief on ICor 7:5: "Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer." The Martyrdom ofAndrew, however, provides several reasons why Maximilla's statement is not just a way to avoid what she sees as a possible precursor to "unclean union." The text suggests that, from Maximilla's perspective, kissing Aegeates after prayer presents a legitimate purity concern. The narrator leaves unglossed Maximilla's own explanation of why she refuses her husband's kisses. Aegeates accepts her explanation, suggesting that it has at least some credibility in their shared worldview. Although Aegeates enters claiming he will kiss Maximilla's hand, only when he tries to kiss her mouth (and hence a purity concern arises) does she object. +f.. Tert. or. I8.I.6 (CCL I:267). 45· Paulinus of Nola, Epistula 23.37-39 (CSEL 29, I94). 46. Clement of Alexandria, Paedngogus pr.8I-82 (SC IS8, IS7-I58); Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 2.20.I2o.s (SC 38, I24); Charito 2.8.r.8; Longus I8.I-n; Mosch. 27. 47. Gregory of Nyssa uses a similar motif in his discussion of Simon the leper, Canticum canticorum homiliae IS (Langerbeck, 33). 48. Douglas, Purity and Danger, 2-3. 49. Stephen Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, I984), 79, 86, 98. so. Eleanor Kreider, "Let the Faithful Greet Each Other: The Kiss of Peace," Conrad Grebe! Reviews (I987): 31. sr. Nicolas J. Perella, The Kiss Saered and Profane: An Interpretative History ofKiss Symbolism and Related Religio-Erotic Themes (Berkeley: University of California Press, I969 ), 30. 52. Femard Cabral, "Baiser:' in Dictionnaire d)archtfologie chrttienne et de litut;!fie, ed. Femard Cabral and Henri Leclercq (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ane, I925), II8-II9.

Notes to Pages

105-108

159

Lowrie, "The Kiss of Peace;' 240. Klassen, "Kiss (NT);' 91; Klassen, ''The Sacred Kiss;' 128. Klassen, "Kiss (NT);' 91; Klassen, "The Sacred Kiss;' 126. In support of relatives not kissing each other Klassen first cites Clement of Alexandria's suggestion that Christian spouses should not kiss in front of slaves. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus p1.81-82 (SC 158, 157-158). Clement, however, explicitly targets his advice to Christians, and there is no reason to assume it is representative of any prevalent non-Christian taboo on family members publicly kissing. Contrast Clement's prescriptive statement with Jerome's descriptive one that when dining with the married, one should expect husband and wives to kiss each other. Jerome, Epistula 117 (CSEL 55, 429). Klassen also quotes from Plutarch's statement that Cato the Elder cast Manilius out of the senate because Manilius kissed his wife while his daughter was present (Plut. Cato 17.7). Plutarch's goal in describing this episode is not to accurately depict contemporary kissing practices but to help characterize Cato as zealously committed to moral reform during his censorship. Numerous examples in Greco-Roman literature of spouses and other relatives publicly kissing without incurring any form of condemnation clearly show that Cato's action does not indicate a widespread "reticence" toward public kissing. In support of nonrelatives not kissing each other Klassen quotes Dio Chrysostom's Seventh Discourse, in which a farmer states that he "understood that in the cities they do not kiss one another" (D. Chr. 7·59 ). Again, the passage's context (Dio using the farmer's generosity as a critique of city life) and the numerous examples of public kisses suggest that this statement does not represent common Greco-Roman attitudes. 57. Ov. Ep. 4.144; Ov. Met. 9.560. 58. Ath. 10.440-+41; Gel. 10.23-1.5; Plin. Nat. 14.90.2; Tertullian,Apologeticum 6.4 (CCh 1, 97). 59. Ach. Tat. 5.82.11. 6o. Fro.AdM. Caes. 3.13.2. 61. Mart. 11.98.1-23. 62. Plin. Ep. 9.13.21.3. 63. Suet. Tib. 11.1.1. 64. There are many other examples such as Cicero (not renowned for his countercultural impulses) writing to Tiro: "When I arrive, even ifi see you in the middle of the forum, I will eagerly kiss you" (Cic. Fam. 16.27.2.). Martial writes, on returning to Rome one cannot help but be publicly kissed by "all the neighborhood"-farmer, weaver, fuller, cobbler alike (Cic. Fam. 16.27.2). Similarly, Mattial also refers to Titullus who is "soaked with the kisses of the city" (Mart. 8.+4.5) and rebukes Linus for greeting all of Rome with icy kisses in the midst of winter (Mart. 7.95-2). 65. Athenagoras, Legatio 31 (Schoedel, 76). 66. Athenagoras, Legatio 32 ( Schoedel, 48-50 ). 67. Athenagoras, Legatio 31 (Schoedel, 77). 68. Athenagoras, Legatio 33 (Schoedel, So). 53. 54. 55· 56.

160

Notes to Pages 109-114

69. For example, Lesslie W. Bamard,Athemworas: A Study in Second Century Christian Apologetic (Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1972), 22-24, T. D. Barnes, "Embassy of Athenagoras," Journal ofTheological Studies 26 (1975): m-n4, and Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), roo suggest that Athenagoras did in fact recite his Plea

before the emperor. Other scholars argue that this is implausible but suggest that Athenagoras designed his Plea as a written petition for the emperor's officials or as an open letter to both the emperor and the general public. For the former, see Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1986), 305-306. For the latter, see W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 234; William R. Schoedel,Athemworas: Legatio and De &surreaione (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), xii-xiii; William R. Schaedel, "Apologetic Literature and Ambassadorial Activities," Harvard Theological Review 82, no. r (1989): 55-78. 70. For a more general discussion of ritual and self-representation see Frederick B. Bird, "Ritual as Communicative Action," in Jack N. Lightstone and Frederick B. Bird, Ritual and Ethnic Identity: A Comparative Study of the Social Meaning of Liturgical Ritual in Synagogues (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1995), 30-31. 71. Athenagoras, Legatio 32 (Schaedel, 79). 72. Between siblings: Luc. 10.3.65; Ov. ep. 4.144; Ov. met. 9.458, 504, 539, 560; Stat. Ach. 1.589. Father and daughter: Ov. met. 10.344, 362. Mother and son: Quint. (sp) Ded. 18.7.21; Suet. Nero 34.2.13; Tac. ann. 14.2.5. Uncle and niece: D.C. Epitome 62.3.7. 73. Recently, certain scholars have suggested that the works of Christian apologists do not constitute a genre per se, and instead that "their common intent is justification of an anomalous social position, whether in the eyes of others or themselves, whether in real live courtroom situations or more informally.'' Frances Young, "Greek Apologists of the Second Century'' in Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, jews, and Christians (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999 ), 104. This more nuanced view of apologetics better accommodates the type of dynamics present in Athenagoras's discussion of kissing than do more traditional models of Christian apologies and it also does not make apologetics and the reification of self-definition mutually exclusive. 74. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 3.11.81-82 (SC 158, 157-158). 75. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 2.20.120.5 (SC 38, 124). 76. Tertullian, De &surrectione Mortuorum 16.6 ( CCh 2, 939 ). 77· Mosch. 27. 78. Luc. Pseudo/. 23.2. 79. Charito 2.8.1.8. So. Longus 1.18.1-n. 81. Ambrose, De virginitate 6.33. 82. See Sarah Willburn, "Irrespressible and Promiscuous: Lizzie, Lucy,

Esther," paper delivered at the conference ''Victoria's Secrets," New York University, Department of English, New York, February 25, 1995.

Notes to Pages

114-123

161

83. For example, Jerome, TractRJus Ux in psalnws, 108, I47; Jolm Clnysost:om, In epistula ad Romanos Hommily 7I (PG 6o, 607); Jolm Chrysostom, In ]oannem homililae (PG 59, 392). 84. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 3.I, 40.11 (CCh 38, 7-8, 457); Cyprian, De bono patientiae 6 (CCh 3A, I2I-I22); Jerome, Epistula 6I.I (CSEL 54, 575). 85. Jolm Chrysostom, In epistula ad Romanos Hommily 7I (PG 6o, 607). Also see Jerome, Tractatus de Psalmis Io8.2 (CCh 78, 209-2Io); Paulinus of Nola, Epistula 24.I6 (CSEL 29, 2I6). 86. Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam I0.63 (CCh I4, 364); Jolm Chrysostom, In epistula ad Romanos Hommily 7I (PG 6o, 607); Jolm Chrysostom, In ]oannem Homily 7I (PG 59, 388); Jerome, Epistula I25 (CSEL 56, 119); Jerome, EpistulaAd:versus llil.jinum 23 (CCh 79, 95-96); Jerome, Tractus lix in psalmos I08.2, 108.I6 (CCh 78, 209-2IO, 2I6); Origen, Contra Celsum 2.11.I3 (SC 132, 310). 87. Jolm Cassian, Conlationes I6.I8.6 (CSEL I3, 454-455); Constitutiones Apostolorum 2.57.I7 (Funk, I65); Quodvultdeus, De quattuor uirititibus charitatas II.4 (CCh 6o, 375); Clement of Alexandria, Paetiagngos 2.8.64.4 (SC 108, I26). 88. Ambrose, Epistula I.I4-I8 (CSEL 82,3, I53-I55); Augustine, De patientia 9.8 (CSEL 4I, 670-67I); Augustine, Sermo 6.3 (MiAg I, 3I-32); Quodvultdeus, De Symbolo ill 5-I3 (CCh 6o, 357); Quodvultdeus, De accendentibus adgratiam II 6.5 (CCh 6o, 463); Quodvultdeus, De quattuor uirtitibus charitatas II.4 (CCh 6o, 375 ); Theodore of Mopsuestia, On Eucharist and Liturgy 5 (Mingana, 230-232 ). 89. Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto 3-17-130 (CSEL 79, 205-206); Ambrose, Exameron 6.9.68 (CSEL 32, 256); Augustine, Sermo 6.3 (MiAg I, 3I-32). 90. Jerome, Tractus lix in psalmos Io8.2 (CCh 78, 209). 91. Ambrose, Epistula I.I4-I8 (CSEL 82,3 I53-I55). 92. Augustine, De patientia 9.8 (CSEL 4I, 670-67I); Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 3.I (CCh 38, 7-8); Augustine, Epistula 44.5 (CSEL 34,2, 117); Augustine, Sermo 6.3 (MiAg I, 3I-32); Jerome, Tractatus de Psalmo I47-I4 (CCh 78, 339); Quodvultdeus, De quattuor uirtitibus charitatas II.4 (CCh 6o, 375). 93. Jerome, EpistulaAd:versus RJI.jinum 23, 33 (CCh 79, 94-96, I03). 94. Ambrose, Epistula LI4-I8 (CSEL 82,3, I53-I55). 95. Theodore of Mopsuestia, On Eucharist and Litur:!fy 5 (Mingana, 23o-232). 96. Augustine, Sermo 6.3 (MiAg I, 3I-32). 97. Origen, Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Romanos I0.33 (PG I4, I282-I283)· 98. Jerome, Epistula 82 (CSEL 55, 109).

Conclusion I. E.g. Paul Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship, 2nd ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) I4-20.

162

Notes to Page 124-

2. In my opinion, a good example of this latter approach can be found in Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996). Emphasizing his expertise in sociology, Stark porttays himself as an outsider able to employ rigorous scientific models to definitively answer some of the most central questions of early Christian studies. Stark's interdisciplinary approach has been very useful, his arguments are often extremely insightful, and his perspectives are always thought provoking. His work has also become one of the most controversial books in the field. A special issue ofJournal ofEarly Christian Studies, 6, no. 2 (1998) was dedicated to The Rise of Christianity and contained. Elizabeth Castelli's "Gender, Theory, and the Rise of Christianity: A Response to Rodney Stark," Todd E. Klutz's ''The Rhetoric of Science in The Rise of Christianity: A Response to Rodney Stark's Sociological Account of Christianization;' and Rodney Stark's "E Contrario." A fairly representative collection of book reviews would also include Birger A. Pearson, "On Rodney Stark's Foray into Early Christian History," Religion 29 (1999): I71-178; Pamela Eisenbaum, "The Rise of Christianity," Journal oftheAmericanAcademy ofReligion 66 (1998): 4-69-4-71; Joseph Bryant, "The Rise of Christianity," Sociology ofReligion 58 (1997): 191-195; Blake Leyerle, "The Rise of Christianity," Journal ofEarly Christian Studies 5 (1997): 306-308; Bruce Malina, "The Rise of Christianity;' Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 ( 1997): 593-595; Carl A. Volz, ''The Rise of Christianity;' Church History 66, no. + (1997): 779-780; and Javier Travino, ''The Rise of Christianity;' Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35 (1996): 4-4-8-4-4-9· Surprisingly, those most committed to using social scientific theories were often the most critical of Stark's work. A brief sentence at the end of Stark's first chapter perhaps best explains a basic disagreement between Stark's numerous fans and foes: "When [appropriately using solid social science theories] there is no reason to suppose that we cannot reason from the general rule to deduce the specific in precisely the same way that we can reason from the principles of physics that coins dropped in a well will go to the bottom. . . . Need is the only justification for the application of social science to fill in historical blanks." (Rise of Christianity, 26; emphasis Stark's). For many scholars, phrases like these seem to use the rhetoric of scientific supremacy to create a positivistic approach to antiquity that replaces the dirty complexities of history with a set of sterile, all-knowing models. My point in citing Stark's work is not to criticize a particular book, individual, or sentence (for Stark is certainly not unique in his rhetoric or approach) but rather to see the controversy surrounding this work's publication as indicative of a larger debate regarding the use of social scientific criticism for the study of early Christianity. More than anything else, the resulting discussion among scholars of early Christianity has challenged me to reassess how one should use critical theory in historical studies.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Acta Joannis. Ed. M. Bonnet. Acta apostowrum apocrypha 2,r. Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1898. 151-215.

Acta Pauli et Theclae. Ed. R. A. Lipsius. Acta apostohJrum apocrypha 1,r. Leipzig: Mendelsohn, 1891. 235-271.

Acta Petri cum Simone. Ed. R. A. Lipsius. Acta apostohJrum apocrypha 1,r. Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1898. 4-5-77.

Acta Thomae. Ed. M. Bonnet. Acta apostohJrum apocrypha 2,2. Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1903. 99-288.

Act.r ofJohn Son of Zebedee. Ed. W. Wright. .ApocryphalAct.r of the Apostles. 1871. Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968.

Apostolic Tradition. Ed. Dom Bernard Botte. La tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte. Mtinster Westfalen: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1963.

Apostolic Tradition (Coptic). Ed. Walter Till and Johannes Leipoldt. Der Koptische Text der Kirchenordnung Hippolyts. TU 58 (1954-). Canons ofHippolytus. Ed. Rene-Georges Coquin. Les canons d'Hippolyte. PO 31, 2 (1966).

ConsiliumAutisiodorense Synodus. Ed. Giovan Domenico Mansi. Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova etAmplissima Collectio 9. Paris: H. Welter, 1902. Constitutiones apostohJrum. Ed. Franciscus Xaverius Funk. Didascalia et Constitutiones .ApostohJrum. Paderbornae: In Libraria Ferdinandi Schoeningh, 1905). Didache. Ed. W. Rordorf and A. Tullier. La Doctrine des douze apotres (Didache).

sc 24-8 (1978).

Epistle Against the Manichees. Ed. Calvin Henderson Roberts. CatahJgue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1938. Ex Actis Andreae. Ed. R. A. Lipsius. Acta apostohJrum apocrypha 1,r. Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 1898. 38-4-5. (First) Apocalypse ofJames. Ed. William R. Schoedel. Nag Hammadi Codices V,

z-s and VI. NHS n (1979): 65-104-. Gospel of Philip. Ed. Bentley Layton. Nag Hammadi Codex II,z-7. NHS 20 (1989): 14-2-215.

Joseph and Aseneth. Ed. Marc Philonenko. Joseph et Asineth. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968.

Bibliography joseph and Aseneth. Ed. Christoph Burchard. Gesammelte Studien zu joseph und Aseneth. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. I6I-2I2. Martyrdom ofAndrew. Ed. Th. Detorakis. Acts of the Second International Congress of Pe/Qponnesian Studies, vol. I. Athens: Hetaireia Peloponnesiakon Spoudon, I98I/I982. 325-352.

Passio sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis. Ed. Jacqueline Amat. Passion de Perpltue a de Felicite. sc 4-17 (1996). Pistis Sophia. Ed. Carl Schmidt. Pistis Sophia. NHS 9 (1978). (Second) Apocalypse ofjames. Ed. Charles W. Hedrick. Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2-s and VI. NHS n (1979): IOS-ISO. Testamentum domini. Ed. I. E. Rahmani. Testamentum Domini Nostri jesu Christi. Hildesheim: G. Ohns, 1899. 2-14-8. Ambrose. De excessu fratris Satyri. Ed. Otto Faller. SanctiAmbrosii Opera. CSEL 73 (1955): 8o-IOI.

- - . De paenitentia. Ed. Roger Gryson. Ambroise de Milan) La Penitence. SC 179 (1971).

- - . De spiritu sancto. Ed. Otto Faller. Sancti Ambrosii Opera Pars VIlli. CSEL 79 (1964-): IS-222. - - . Epistulae. Ed. Michaela Zelzer. SanctiAmbrosi Opera. CSEL 82,3 (1982). - - . Expositio CPangelii secundum Lucam. Ed. M. Adriaen. Sancti Ambrosii Mediolanensis Opera Pars IV. CCh 14- (1957): 1-4-oo. Athenagoras. Legatio. Ed. W. R. Schaedel. Athenagoras: Legatio and De resurrectione. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. 2-86. Augustine. Contra Faustum. Ed. Josephus Zycha. Sancti Aureli Augustini. CSEL 25 (I89I): 251-'797· - - . Contra litteras Petiliani. Ed. M. Petchenig. Sanct Avereli Augustini Scripta ContraDonatistas. CSEL 52 (1909): 1-227. --.De civitate Dei. Ed. Bemardus Dombart and Alphonsus Kalb. Sancti AureliiAugustini De Civitate Dei Libri XI-XXII. CCh 4-8 (1955). --.De patientia. Ed. Josephus Zycha. Sancti Aureli Augustini. CSEL 4-I (194-0): 66I-69I.

- - . Enarrationes in Psalmos. Ed. D. Eligius Dekkers and Johannes Fraipont. SanctiAureliiAugustini Enarrationes in Psalmos 1-L. PL 38 (1956). - - . In Iohannis euangelium tractatus. Ed. D. Radbodus Willeins. Sancti AureliiAugustini In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV. CCh 36 (1954-). - - . Sermones. Ed. Suzanne Poque. Augustin d'Hippone Sermons pour Ia Paque. SC n6 (1966). - - . Sermones. Ed. D. Germani Morin. Sancti Augustini Sermones post Maurinos Reperti. MiAg I (1930 ). Basil. Epistulae. Ed. Y. Courtonne. Saint Basile: Lettres, vol. I. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1957.

- - . Hexameron. Ed. Emmanuel Amand de Medieta and Stig Y. Rudberg. Basilius von Caesarea Homilien zum Hexaemeron. GCS NF 2 (1997). Cassian. Conlationes. Ed. Michael Petschenig. Iohannis Cassiani Conlationes XXIII!. CSEL 13 (1886).

Bibliography Chrysologus. Sermones. Ed. Alexandri Olivar. Sancti Petri Chrysowgi. CCh 2+ (I975). - - . Sermones. Ed. Alexandri Olivar. Sancti Petri Chrysowgi. CCh 24-A (I98I). Clement. Paedagogus. Ed. Claude Mondesert, Chantal Matray, and HenriIrem!e Marrou. Climent d'Alexandrie: Le pedagogue Livre III. SC I58 (I970). - - . Paedagogus. Ed. Claude Mondesert and Henri-Irenee Marrou. Climent d'Alexandrie: Le pedagogue Livre II. SC Io8 (I965). - - . Stromata. Ed. Claude Mondesert. Clement d'Alexandrie les stromates stromate II. SC 38 (I95+). Cyprian. De bono patientiae. Ed. C. Moreschini. Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera. CCh 3A (I976): n8-I33· --.De ecclesiae ca:tholicae unitate. Ed. M. Bevenot. Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera. CCh 3 (I972): 2+9-268. --.De /apsis. Ed. M. Bevenot. CCh 3 (I972): 22I-2+2. - - . Epistlulae. Ed. G. Hartel. S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani opera omnia. CSEL 3, 2 (I87I). - - . Epistulae. Ed. Gerardus Frederick Dierkcks. Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Epistularium. CCh 3B (I99+). - - . Epistulae. Ed. G. F. Diercks. Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Epistularium. CCh 3C (I996). Cyril. Epistulae. Ed. E. Schwartz. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. Berlin: Academiae Scientiarum Bavaricae, I92+. --.Mystagogiae. Ed. A. Piedagnel and P. Paris. Cyrille de Jerusalem: ca:techeses mystagogiques. SC I26 (I966): 82-I7+· Eclanum. Libri iv ad Turbantium. Ed. Lucas De Coninck. Iuliani Aeclanensis Expositio Libri Job Tractatus Prophetarum Osee Iohel etAmos. CCh 88 (I977): 3+0-396. Epiphanius. Panarion. Ed. Karl Holl. Epiphanius (Ancoratus und Panarion). GCS 26 (I922). Eusebius. De martyribus Palaestinae. Ed. Theodor Mommsen. Eusebius Werke. GCS 2,2 (I9o8): 907--950. --.De vita Constantini. Ed. Friedheim Wmkelmann. Eusebius Werke Uber das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin. GCS I, I (I975). - - . Historia ecclesiastica. Ed. Gustave Bardy. Eusebe de Cesaree: Histoire ecclisiastique livres I-4. SC 3I (I952). - - . Historia ecclesiastica. Ed. Gustave Bardy. Eusebe de Cesarie: Histoire ecclisiastique livres s-7. SC +I (I952). - - . Historia ecclesiastica. Ed. Gustave Bardy. Eusebe de Cesaree. SC 55 (I958). Felix, Minucius. Octavian. Ed. Alfred Schone. M. Minucii Felicis Octavius. Leipzig: Bernhard Liebisch, I9I3. Gregory Nazianzen. Funebris oratio in patrem. Sancti Patris Nostri Gregorii Theowgi. PG 35 (I886): 985-IO#. - - . In Canticum canticorum (homiliae IS). Ed. H. Langerbeck. Gregorii Nysseni opera, vol. 6. Leiden: E.J. Brill, I96o.

Bibliography

166

Hennas. Similitudines. Ed. M. Whittaker. Die apostolischen Viiter I: Der Hirt des Hermas. GCS 48 (1967): 1-98. Innocent. Epistulae. Ed. D. Coustant. Quinti sacculi scriptorum ecclesiasticorum. PL 20 (1845): 465-685. Isidori. Entymologiarum. Ed. W M. lindsay. Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri XI-XX. New York: Oxford University Press, 19n. Jerome. Commentariorum in Matheum. Ed. D. Hurst and M. Adriaen. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Commentariorum inMatheum Libri IV. CCh 77 (1969 ). --.Contra Viglantrum. S. Eusehii Hieronymi Opera Omni. PL 23 (1845). - - . Epistulae. Ed. Isidorus Hilberg. Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae 7I-120. CSEL 55 (1996). - - . Epistulae. Ed. Isidorum Hilberg. Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae r2r-rs4. CSEL 56,1 (1996). - - . Epistulae. Ed. Isidorus Hilberg. Sanct Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae I-'10. CSEL 54 (19ro). - - . Tractatus de Psalmis. Ed. D. Germanus Morin. S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. CCh 78 (1958): 3-352. - - . Vita sancti Pauli. Ed. Joannis Martianaei. Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Opera Omnia. PL 23 (1883): 17-30. John Chrysostom. Joannis Chrysostom Commentariarum in Matthaeum. PG 58 (186o).

--.Ad Theodorum lapsum. Ed. J. Dumortier. Jean Chrysostome: A Theodore.

SC II7 (1966): 8o-218. - - . Catechesis ultima ad baptizandos. Ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus. Varia Graeca Sacra. St. Petersburg: Kirschbaum, 1909. 166-175. - - . Cathecheses ad illuminandos. Ed. A. Wenger. Jean Chrysostome: huit caticheses baptismales. SC so (1970): 1o8-26o. - - . In epistulam ad Romanos. Ed. S.P.N. Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera Omnia Quae Exstant. PG 6o (1862): 391-682. - - . In epistulam I ad Corinthios. Ed. S.PN. Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera Omnia Quae Exstant. PG 61 (1862): 9-380. - - . In epistulam I ad Thessalonicenses. Ed. S.PN. Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera Omnia Q;1ae Exstant. PG 162 (1862): 391-466.

- - . In epistulam II ad Corinthios. Ed. S.PN. Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera Omnia quae Exstant. PG 61 (1862): 381-610. --.In Joannem Homily. Ed. Joannis Chrysostomi Opera Omnia Quae Exstant. PG 59 (1862). Justin. Apologia. Ed. E. J. Goodspeed. Die altsten Apologeten. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1915. 26-77. Maximus of Turin. Sermones. Ed. Almut Mutzenbecher. Mnximi Episcopi Taurinensis Sermones. CSEL 23 (1962). Narsai. Homiliae. Ed. Alphonsus Mingana. Narsai: Homiliae et Carmina. Mosul: Dominican Press, 1905.

Bibliography Origen. Commentarii in epistulam ad Romanos. Ed. Origenis Opera Omnia. PG I4 (I862): 837-I292.

- - . Commentarium in Canticum canticorum. Ed. Luc Bresard and Henri Crouzel. Origene Commentarie sur le Cantique des Cantique. SC 375 (I99I).

- - . Contra Celsum. Ed. Marcel Barret. Origene Contre Celse Tome I. SC I32 (I967).

--.Contra Celsum. Ed. Marcel Barret. Origene Contre Celse. SC I47 (I969). Paulinus. Carmina. Ed. Gilemus de Hartel. Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini No!ani Carmina. CSEL 30 (I894). - - . Epistulae. Ed. Guilemus Hartel. Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani Epistulae. CSEL 29 (I894). Prudentius. Liber Peristephanon. Ed. Mavricii P. Cunningham. Am·elii Prudentii Clementis Carmina. CCh I26 (1966): 25I-389. Pseudo-Clement. Epistolaii ad V~ines. Ed. Saint Clementis IJ Pontijicis Romani) Opera Omnia. PG I (I886): 4I7-45I. - - . Homilien. Ed. Johannes Irmscher. Die Pseudoklementinien I Homilien. GCS 42 (I953). Pseudo-Dionysius. De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia. Ed. S. DionysiiAreopagitae Opera Omnia Quae Exstant. PG 3 (I889): 370-583. --.De Eclesiastica Hierarchia. Ed. Johannes Quasten. Monumenta eucharistica et litut;gica vetustissima Fasciculus VII Pars VI. Bonnae: Sumptibus Petri Hanstein, I936. Pseudo-Ignatius. AdAntiochenos. Ed. Franciscus Diekamp. Patres apostolici v. 2. Tiibingen: Laupp, I9I3. 2I2-222. --.Ad Tarsenses. Ed. Franciscus Diekamp. Patres apostolici v. 2. Tiibingen: Laupp, I9I3. 94-112. Quintilian(sp). DeclamationesMaiores. Ed. Lewis A. Sussman. The Major Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang, I987. Quodvultdeus. De accedentibus ad gratiam II. Ed. R. Braun. Opera Quodvultdeo CarthaginiensiEpiscopo Tributa. CCh 6o (I956): 459-470. - - . De quattuor uirtitibus charitatas. Ed. R. Braun. Opera Quodvultdeo Carthaginiensi Episcopo Tributa. CCh 6o (I956): 365-378. - - . De symbolo III. Ed. R. Braun. Opera Quodvultdeo Carthaginiensi Episcopo Tributa. CCh 6o (I956): 335-348. Sulpicius Severns. Dialogi. Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Qui adS. Hieronymus, PL 20 ( I895): I83-222.

Tertullian. Ad uxorem. Ed. A. Kroymann. Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera. CCh I (I954): 373-94. - - . Apologeticum. Ed. E. Dekker. Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera. CCh I (I95+): 85-I7I. --.De oratione. Ed. G. F. Diercks. Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera. CCh I (I95+): 257-274· --.De Rcsurrectione Mortuorum. Ed. J. G. Borleffs. Tertulliani Opera Pars II. CCh 2 (I95+): 92I-1022.

168

Bibliography

--.De virginibus velandis. Ed. E. Dekkers. Q!t.inti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera. CCh 2 (1954): 1209-1226. Theodore. On Eucharist and Liturgy. Ed. A Mingana. Theodore ofMopsuestia on the Lortf!s Prayer and Sacraments. Cambridge: W. Heifer and Sons Limited, 1933. Theophilus. Ad Autolycum. Ed. Gulielmus Gilson Humphry. Libri Tres ad Autolycum. London: Joh. Gul. Parker, 1852.

Secondary Sources Aasgaard, Reidar. "Brotherhood in Plutartch and Paul: Its Role and Character?' In Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor, ed. Halvor Moxnes. London: Routledge, 1997. 166-182. Achtemeier, Paul J. I Peter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Aldrete, Gregory S. Gesture and Acclamation in Ancient Rome. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1999. Allason-Jones, Lindsay. Women in Roman Britain. London: British Museum Publications Ltd, 1989. Allen, Pauline and Wendy Mayer. John Chrysostom. New York: Routledge, 2000. Andreae, Bernard. TheArtofRome. New York: Harry Abrams, 1977. Balch, David L. and Don S. Browning, eds. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997. Barnard, Lesslie W.Athenagoras: A Study in Second Century Christian Apologetic. Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1972. Barnes, T. D. "Embassy of Athenagoras."Journal ofTheological Studies 26 (1975). Barton, Stephen C. Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph So. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Becker, Adam and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds. The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Bell, Catherine. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. --.Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Benko, Stephen. Pagan Rome and the Early Christians. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984. Berger, Teresa. Women's Ways of Worship: Gender Analysis and Liturgical History. Collegeville, Md.: Liturgical Press, 1999. Bianchi Bandinelli, Ranuccio. Rome, the Center of Puwer, soo B.C. to A.D. 200. Trans. Peter Green. Arts of Mankind 15. New York: G. Braziller, 1970. Bird, Frederick B. "Ritual as Communicative Action." In Jack N. Lightstone and Frederick B. Bird, Ritual and Ethnic Identity: A Comparative Study of the Social Meaning of Liturgical Ritual in Synagogues. Waterloo: Wtlfrid Laurier University Press, 1995. 23-52.

Bibliography Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984-. Boyarin, Daniel. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford, Cali£: Stanford University Press, 1999. Bradley, Keith R. Discqpering the Roman Family. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Bradshaw, Paul F. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Bradshaw, Paul F., Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edward Phillips. The Apostolic Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Brilliant, Richard. Gesture and Rank in Roman Art: The Use ofGestures to Denote Status in Roman Sculpture and Coinage. New Haven, Conn.: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1963. Brown, Peter. Pl!Wer and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. Madison: University of WISconsin Press, 1992. Bryant, Joseph. "The Rise of Christianity?' Sociology of Religion 58 (1997): 191-195· Buell, Denise Kimber. Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria and the Rhetoric of Legitimacy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999. Burns, J. Patout. "On Rebaptism: Social Organization in the Third Century Church." Journal ofEarly Christian Studies r (1993): 367-4-03. Burrus, Virginia. The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. - - . "Begotten, Not MJuie»: Conceiving Manhood in Late Antiquity. Stanford, Cali£: Stanford University Press, 2000. Cabrol, Femard. "Baiser?' In Dictionnaire d'archiologie chrttienne et de liturgie, ed. Femard Cabrol and Henri Leclercq. Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Am~, 1925. II7-130.

Carre, Yannick. Le baisser sur Ia bouche au Moyen Age: rites, symboles, mentalites, atravers les textes et les images, XI-XV si&cle. Paris: Leopard d'Or, 1992. Castelli, Elizabeth, "Gender, Theory, and the Rise of Christianity: A Response to Rodney Stark." Journal ofEarly Christian Studies 6, no. 2 (1998): 227-257. Chance, John C. "The Anthropology of Honor and Shame: Culture, Values, and Practice?' Semeia 68 (1994-): 139-152. Chidester, David, "The Challenge to Christian Ritual Studies." Anglican Theological Review 66 (1984-): 23-34-. Clark, Elizabeth A. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992. Clarke, G. W. "Cyprian's Epistle 64- and the Kissing of Feet in Baptism?' Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 14-7-152. Clarke, John C. Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art rooB.C.-A.D. 250. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. --.Roman Sex, rooBC-AD 250. New York: Harry Abrams, 2003. Cohen, S. J. D., ed. The Jewish Family in Antiquity. Brown Judaic Studies 289. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

Bibliography

170

Collignon, Maxime. Essai sur les monuments grecs et romains relatifs au myth de Psycht. Paris: Bibliotheque des Ecoles Fran~aises d'Athenes et de Rome, !877.

Collins, Raymond F. ''I Thess and the Liturgy of the Early Church;'' Biblical

Theology Bulletin IO (1980): 51-64. Combs-Schilling, M. E. Sacred Peiformances: Islam, Sexuality, and Sacrifice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989. Conzelmann, Hans, I Corinthians. Trans. James W Leitch. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969; reprint, 1975. Cooper, Robert. "Organization/Disorganization;'' Social Science Information 25, no. 2 (1996): 299-335. Cullman, Oscar, Early Christian Worship. London: SCM Press, 1953. Cuming, G. J. "Service Endings in the Epistles;'' New Testament Studies 22 (1975-1976): IIO-II3.

Cuming, Geoffrey J. Hippolytus: A Text for Students. Bramcote: Grove Books, 1976.

Cumont, Franz. After Life in Roman Paganism. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1923. Day, Peter D. The Liturgical Dictionary of Eastern Christianity. Collegeville, Md.: Liturgical Press, 1993. Destro, Adriana and Mauro Pesce. "Kinship, Discipleship, and Movement: An Anthropological Study of John's Gospel;" Biblical Interpretation 3 (1995): 266-284.

Dix, Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre Press, 1945. Dixon, Susanne, The Roman Family. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Douglas, Mary. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Vintage Books, 1970.

- - . Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Routledge, 1966. Draper, J. A. ''Weber, Theissen and 'Wandering Charismatics' in the Didache;'' Journal ofEarly Christian Studies 6, no. 4 (1998): 541-576. Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. Trans. George Simpson. 1893. Reprint Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1933. Easton, Burton Scott. The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934. Eisenbaum, Pamela. "The Rise of Christianity;" journal of the American Acad-

emy ofReligion 66 (1998): 469-471. Elliot, John H. Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of First Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. - - . "Peter, First Epistle of;" In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 269-278. - - . "The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: I Peter in Recent Research." In Perspectives on First Peter, ed. Charles H. Talbert. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1986.

Bibliography

171

Esler, Philip F. The First Christians in Their Social World. London: Routledge, I994·

- - . Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies oftheNew Testament in Its Context. London: Routledge, I995· Evans, Nancy J. and Paul A. Jarvis, "Group Cohesion: A Review and Reevaluation?' Small Group Behavior n, no. 4 (I98o): 359-370. Fantham, Elaine, Helene Peet Foley, Natalie Boymel, Kampen, Sarah B. Pomeroy, and H. A. Shapiro. Women in the Classical World: Image and Text. New York: Oxford University Press, I994· Festinger, Leon. "Informal Social Communication?' Psychowgical Review 57 (I950): 27I-282. Figueroa, Gregory. The Church and the Synagogue in St. Ambrose. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, I949· Finn, Thomas M. "It Happened One Saturday Night." Journal of the American Academy ofReligion 58 (I990): 589-601. - - . "Ritual Process and the Survival of Early Christianity: A Study of the Apostolic Tradition ofHippolytus?' Journal of Ritual Studies 3, no. I (I989): 69-89. Fishbane, Michael. The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism. Seattle: University of Washington Press, I994· Fiske, John . .Media Matters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, I996. Flury, Peter. "Osculum und Osculari?' In Scire litteras Forschungen zum mittelalterlichen Geistesleben, ed. Sigrid Kramer and Michael Bernhard. Miinchen: Bayerische Akaedeinie der Wissenschaften, I988. I49-I57· Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vmtage, I979· - - . The History of Sexuality. Vol. I, An Introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vmtage, I990. --."The Subject and Power." In Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, ed. Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I982. Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, I984. Gager, John. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Gamble, Harry, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, I977· Gaselee, S. "The Soul in the Kiss." Criterion 2 (I924): 349-359. Gibbs, James M. "Canon Cuining's 'Service-Endings in the Epistles': A Rejoinder." New Testament Studies 24 (I978): 545-547. Gilhus, Ingvild Soelid. "Fainily Structures in Gnostic Religion?' In Constructing Early Christian Families, ed. Halvor Mo:xnes. London: Routledge, I997· 235-249· Gleason, Maud W. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, I995· Graf, Fritz. "Gestures and Conventions: The Gestures of Roman Actors and

Bibliography

172

Orators?' InA Cultural History of Gesture, ed. Jan Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991. 36-58. Grant, Robert M. Greek Apowgists of the Second Century. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988. Grimes, Ronald, Beginnings in Ritual Studies. rev. ed. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995. Gross, Jonathan L. and Steve Rayner. Measuring Culture: A Paradigm for the Analysis of Social 01lJanization. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.

Grubbs, Judith Evans. Law and Family in Late Antiquity: The Emperor Constantine's Marriage Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Haines, C. R. The Correspondence ofMarcus Cornelius Fronto. New York: Putnam, 1920. Hanson, K. C. "How Honorable! How Shameful! A Cultural Analysis of Matthew's Makarisms and Reproaches." Semeia 68 (1994-): 8r-n2. Hofmann, Karl-Martin. Philema Hagion. Giitersloh: Rufer Evangelischer Verlag, 1938. Hogg, Michael A. The Social Psychowgy of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. New York: New York University Press, 1992. Horner, George. The Statutes of the Apostles, or, Canones ecclesiastici. London: Williams and Norgate, 1904-. Horrell, Donald G. "The Product of a Pettine Circle? A Reassessment of the Origin and Character of r Peter." Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 86 (2002): 29-60.

Hoskinson, Janet. Roman Children's Sarcophagi: Their Decoration and Its Social Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Jacobelli, Luciana. Le pitture erotiche delle terme suburbane di Pompei. Rome: Erma di Britschneider, 1995. Jeffers, James S. Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. King, Karen. What Is Gnosticism? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. Klassen, William. "Kiss (NT)?' In Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 89-92. - - . "Musonius Rufus, Jesus and Paul: Three First Century Feminists." In From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare, ed. Peter Richardson and John Coolidge Hurd. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984-. 185-202. - - . "The Sacred Kiss in the New Testament: An Example of Social Boundary Lines?' New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 122-135. Klutz, Todd E. "The Rhetoric of Science in The Rise of Christianity: A Response to Rodney Stark's Sociological Account of Christianization." Journal ofEarly Christian Studies 6, no. 2 (1998): 162-184-. Knuf, Joachim. "Where Cultures Meet: Ritual Code and Organizational Boundary Management." Research on Language and Social Interaction 23 (1989/90): I0!}-138.

Bibliography

173

Kraemer, Ross Shepard. When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, &considered. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Kreider, Eleanor. "Let the Faithful Greet Each Other: The Kiss of Peace." Conrad Grebel Review 5 (1987): 29-4-9. Kroll, W. "Kuss." In Pauly-Wissowa Supplement. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche, 1931. Kuefler, Mathew. The Manly Eunuch: Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Landecker, Werner S. "Cohesion?' InA Dictionary ofthe Social Sciences, ed. Julius Gould and William L. Kolb. Glencoe, ill.: Free Press, 1964-. 99-100. Lane Fox, Robin. Pagans and Christians. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1986. Lassen, Eva Marie, "The Roman Family: Ideal and Metaphor?' in Constructing Christian Famies: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor, ed. Halvor Moxnes. London: Routledge, 1997. 103-120. Leyerle, Blake. "The Rise of Christianity?' Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997): 306-308. Lietzmann, Hans. Mass and Lord's Supper: A Study in the History of the Litut;gy. Trans. Dorothea H. G. Reeve. 1926. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979. Love, Stuart L. "The Household: A Major Social Component for Gender Analysis in the Gospel of Matthew." Biblical Theology Bulletin 23 (1993): 21-31. Lowrie, Walter. "The Kiss of Peace?' Theology Today 12 (1955): 236-24-2. Malina, Bruce J. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986. - - . The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981. - - . "The Rise of Christianity.'' Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (1997): 593-595. --.Windows on the World ofJesus. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993. Martin, Dale. "The Construction of the Ancient Family: Methodological Considerations." Journal ofRoman Studies 86 (1996): +o-6o. Martin, Jochen. Das Alte Rom: Geschichte und Kultur des Imperium Romanum. Munich: Bertelsmann, 1994-. Mayer, Wendy. "The Dynamics of Liturgical Space: Aspects of the Interaction between St. John Chrysostom and His Audiences." Ephemerides Liturgicae III (1997): 104--IIS. McLynn, Neil B. Ambrose ofMilan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994-. Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983. Moorhead, John, Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World. New York: Longman, 1999. Moreau, Ph. "Osculum, Basium, Sa:vium?' Revue de Philologie 4-2 (1978): 87-97. Moxnes, Halvor, ed. Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social &ality and Metaphor. London: Routledge, 1997.

174

Bibliography

Mudrack, Peter. "Defining Group Cohesiveness: A Legacy of Confusion?" Small Group Behavior 20, no. r (1989): 37-49. Negrey, Jerome H. "Despising the Shame of the Cross: Honor and Shame in the Johannine Passion Narrative." Semeia 64 (1994): II3-138. - - , ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Neyrey, Jerome H. and Bruce J. Malina. "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts." In The Social World ofLuke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome Neyrey. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. 25-46. Nyrop, Christopher. The Kiss and Its History. London: Sands, 1901. Osiek, Carolyn. "The Family in Early Christianity: 'Family Values' Revisited." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996): r-25. Pagels, Elaine H. "The Demiurge and His Archons: A Gnostic View of the Bishop and Presbyters?" Harvard Theological ReNew 69, no. 3-4 (1976): 301-324. - - . The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1979. Pearson, Birger A. "On Rodney Stark's Foray into Early Christian History." Religion 29 (1999): 171-178. Penn, Michael. "'dentity Transformation and Authorial Identification in Joseph and Aseneth?' Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 13, no. 2 (2002): 171-183. Perella, Nicolas J. The Kiss Sacred and Profane: An Interpretative History of Kiss Symbolism and Related Religio-Erotic Themes. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Perkins, Judith. The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era. New York: Roudedge, 1995. Pharr, M. B. "The Kiss in Roman Law?' ClassicalJournal42, no. 8 (1946-1947): 393-397· Phillips, L. Edward. The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship. Cambridge: Grove Books, 1996. - - . "The Kiss of Peace and the Opening Greeting of the Pre-anaphoral Dialogue." Studia Litut;gica 23 (1993): 177-186. --."The Ritual Kiss in Early Christian Worship?' Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1992. Quasten, Johannes. "Der Kuss des Neugetauften in altchrisdicherTaufliturgie?' In Litut;gie: Gestalt und Vollzug, ed. Walter Diirig. Miinchen: Max Hueber, 1963. 267-271. Ramsey, Boniface. Ambrose. New York: Roudedge, 1997. Rawson, Beryl, ed. Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Robinson, John A. T. "Traces of a Liturgical Sequence in I Cor. r6.2o--24?' Journal ofTheological Studies 4 (1953): 38-41. Saller, Richard P. Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Sandnes, Karl Olav. "Equality Within Patriarchal Structures: Some New

Bibliography

175

Testament Perspectives on the Christian Fellowship as a Brother- or Sisterhood and a Family?' In Constructing Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and.Metnphur, ed. Halvor Moxnes. London: Routledge, 1997. I5o-165. - - . A New Family: Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church with CrossCultural Comparisons. Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 91. Bern: Peter Lang, 1994. Schachter, Stanley. "Cohesion, Social." In International Encyclopedia ofthe Social Sciences, ed. David L. Sills. New York: Macmillan, 1968. 542-546. Schaedel, William R. ''Apologetic Literature and Ambassadorial Activities?' Harvard Theological Review 82, no. I (1989): 55-78. - - . Athenaguras: Legatio and De Resurrection&. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Schollgen, Georg. "The Didache as a Church Order: An Examination of the Purpose for the Composition of the Didache and its Consequences for Interpretation." In The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan A. Draper. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996. 43-'71. Schiissler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory ofHer: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983. Senior, Donald P. r Peter. Collegeville, Md.: Liturgical Press, 2003. Serra, Dominic E. "The Kiss of Peace: A Suggestion from the Ritual Structure of the Missa?' Ecclesia Orans 14 (1997): 79-94. Shotola, Robert W. "Small Groups." In Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. 4, ed. Edgar F. Borgatta. New York: Macmillan, 1992. 1796-1806 Smith, Jonathan Z. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. - - . "What a Difference a Difference Makes?' In ((To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, jews, and ((Others" in Late Antiquity, ed. Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs. Chico, Cali£: Scholars Press, 1980. 3-48. Sriihlin, Gustav, "LAEU> X't:A." In Theologisches Wiirterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel. 1932. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974. II3-I46. Stark, Rodney. "E Contrario?' Journal ofEarly Christian Studies 6, no. 2 (1998): 259-267. --.The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996. Stephenson, Anthony A. and Leo P. McCuley. The Works of Saint Cyril of jerusalem. Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1970. Taylor, Miriam. Anti-judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus. New York: E.J. Brill, 1995. Thraede, Klaus. "Friedenskuss?' In Reallexikon for Antike und Christentum, ed. Theodor Klauser. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1972. 505-519. - - . "Urspriinge und Formen des 'Heiligen Kusses' im friihen Christentum?' ]ahrbuch for Antike und Christentum n-12 (1968-1969): 124-18o. Torjesen, Karen Jo. "Tertullian's 'Political Ecclesiology' and Women's Leader-

Bibliography ship?' StudiaPa:tristica 21 (1987): 277-282. --.When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal ofTheir Subordination in the Rise ofChristianity. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993. Toynbee, J. M. C. Animals in Roman Life and Art. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1973. Travino, Javier. "The Rise of Christianity?' Journal for the Scientific Study ofllili-

gion

35 (1996): 448-449.

Treggiari, Susan. Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago:

Aldine, 1969. van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909. Volz, Carl A. "The Rise of Christianity?' Church History 66, no. 4 (1997): 779-780.

Weber, Max. The Sociology oflliligion. Boston: Beacon Press, 1922. Willburn, Sarah. "Irrespressible and Promiscuous: Lizzie, Lucy, Esther?' Paper presented at conference, ''Victoria's Secrets," New York University, Department of English, New York, February 25, 1995. Williams, Michael. &thinking «Gnosticism": An At;!Jument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996. Wisse, Frederik. "The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner Diversity and Conflict." In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, ed. Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986. 177-190. Young, Frances. "Greek Apologists of the Second Century." In Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, ed. M. J. Edwards, M. D. Goodman, and S. R. F. Price. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 81-104.

Zanker, Paul and Bjorn Christian Ewald. Mit Mythen Ieben: die Bilderwelt der rihnischen Sarkophage. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2004.

Index

Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, 3S, 4-0, I06 Acts ofAndrew, SI, IOI, I4-0DD96, 9S, I4-9nS, ISOn7, I53Dn67, 70, ISsnS9 ISSnn4-2, 4-3 Acts ofjohn, SI, 14-0nn96, 19S, I4-9ns, I53nn6S, 7I Acts ofjohn the Son ofZebedee, 73, I4-0ni02, I4-7n76, IS2Dn3S, 4-0 Acts ofPaul and Thecla, 22, 4-3-4-4-, 76, 7S, So, 139nnSS, S9, I53n62 Acts ofPeter, SI, I4-0n96, I4-9n5, I53n69, ISsnS9 adultery/incest, 107, I09, no agreement, kiss for, 13, I4ahistoricism, danger of, 4--5 Alexander, 58-59 Alexandria, I4alterity, versus similarity, 57, 6o Ambrose, 4-7, 4-S, 6o-62, n2, n5, I4-0DDIOI, 103, 14-5n4-S, I4-6nsS, I4-7n79, I4-SnnSS, 94-, I5onnn, 13, IS, I6, 20, ISOniO, I53n5S, I6onSI, I6InnS6, SS, S9, 9I, 94ancient practice of kiss, 6, Io-n, I7, I!}--20 anthropology, 30-3I, so-si, S9 anti-Christ, 69 anti-Judaism, 6o-63, ns Apocalypse ofJarnes (First), I4-9n5 Apocalypse ofJarnes (Second), I4-9n5 Apocryphal Acts, 23, SI-S2, Ss, IOI-2, I03, I4-Sn113 apostles, authority of, SI The Apostolic Constitutions, 23-24-, 7I,

S2, S7, I4-QnniOO, 103, I4-InmOS, no, I4-7n79, I5In32, I53ns6, I54-Dfl7S-77, I55Dfl90, 9I, 94The Apostolic Tradition, 22-23, 7I, 74-, 79, S2, S6, S7, 9S-10o, n9, I39llS7, I4-0DD92, 99, I#n3S, I4-7Dn76, 79, ISin3I, IS2n3S, I53ns6, IS4-n73, I55Dfl90, 96, 97, I57036. See also catechumen; Eucharist Apuleius, 14-, 20-21, 32, 94Atarbius, 6s--66 Athenaeus, 32, 105 Athenagoras, 22, 33, 4-3-4-4-, So, I06-IO, 113, 119, 139Dfl S4-, S7, I4-+n3o, 153n63, 159nn 6s-6S, I6onn 7I, 73. See also Christianity Augustine, IIS, 120, 139nS6, I4-+n32, I4-7Dn76, 79, S3, I4-SDD95--9S, 14-9n5, 151nn23-26, 152n3S, I53n55, 16IDDS4-, SS, 92, 96; Donatists and, 67--70; Judas' kiss and, n6; kiss as communal, 33, 120, I23; kiss as forgiveness, S9; kiss as ritual, 4-S; kiss as sacred, 4-5; martyrs and, 79; metaphor for kiss, 4-S-4-9 baptism, 4-I, 72, 73, 90, 99; kiss and, 2, 7, S, 23, 72-75, SS, I3SnSo, I52n3S Basil of Caeserea, I4-Smoi Bell, Catherine, 4-, I6-I7, 34--3s, I22, 136n63

so,

Index Benko, Stephen, 39, ro+ betrothal/marriage, kiss in, 14-, I35n4-s Bible: I Corinthians, 18, 51; II Corinthians, 18, 4-2; I Corinthians P7, 4-o; II Corinthians 6:16, 4-o; Ephesians, 68-69; Genesis 4-1:4-5, 96; John 20:21-23, 39; Luke 7:4-5, 4-7, 61, 62; Matthew 5:24--25, 4-9; Matthew 5:28, 107, 109; Matthew 6:5-6, n3; Matthew 12:4-6-50, 32; Pauline epistles, 18, 19, 21, 26, 54-, 138n79, 14-9n5; I Peter, 4-3-4-4-, So; I Peter s:I4-, 21, I38n79; Psalms, 16; Romans, 18; I Samuel ro:I, 86; Song of Songs, 16, 61, 63, ro2; I Thessalonians, 18 bishop: authority of, 79; ordination of, 86-87, 155n96 boundary, social: Christian community, 3, so-ss; for Greco-Roman kiss, 15; identity through kiss, 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 27-29, 4-3, 58, 71-'73, 92, 98-99, ro9, II3, II5, II9, 120, I29n4-, 14-102, 14-902 Bourdieu, Pierre, 8, 57, 6o, 90, 95, 99, 124Bynum, Caroline Walker, 4Cabrol, Fernard, ro+ Caecilian, 67 Caligula, 14-, 94cannibalism, ro7

Canons ofHippolytus, 87, I4-0ni03, I55n98 Cassius Chaerea, I4catechumen: baptism of, 4-1, 72, 73, 90, 99; exorcism of, 99; Greco-Roman society and, 71; as martyr, 99; ritual kiss for, 8, 4-I, 70-'75, 84-, 86, 88, 90, 99,

uS, 124-, 152n38, 157n36; training of, 71. See also Apostolic Tradition; Christianity Catullus, 12, 4-9 Christ: body as temple of, 4-0, 4-1, 52, 14-6n69; body of, 4-1, 52, II4Christian community: adultery in, ro7, 109; ambiguity, 3; antiJudaism, 60-63, ns; boundaries, 3, 58, 73, 92, 98-99, 109, n3, us, 129n4-, 14-902; clergy versus laity, 8, 23-24-, 4-6-4-7, 8+-88, 90, 14-Imn; converts, 73; definition, 3; exorcism, 99, 125; gossip, 2; hierarchy, 73, 75, 84-, 88, 121-22; immorality in, ro7-8, In; incest in, no; internal thoughts, 112; as kinship of faith, 31-37; meaning of Judas' kiss, 9, 16, 62, 64--4-7, 92, II2, II4--I9, 120; mores/ritual within, 2-3, 31, 129n4-; physical body and, 50-51, 89; remarriage, roB; ritual kiss, 39, 4-0-4-2, 50-51, 125; self-restraint, 91-92, 106-9, u2-13; slaves in, ro-n, 13, 33, 14+1138; social dynamics, 3, so-ss; as temple of Christ, 4-0, 4-1, 52, 14-6n69; virtue in, roB, 109; women in, 82, 84-, 89, 155n8s Christianity: catechumen in, 8, 4-1, 7D-75, 84-, 86, 88, 99, us, 124-, 152n38, 157n36; Catholics versus Protestants, 125; converts, 70, ro1; development/ discrediting, 84-, ro6; eternal life/damnation, 109; familial terms in, 31-32, 34-, ro9-ro; inclusion/exclusion of, 6-8, 15, 17, 56, sB-59, 70, 89-90, no, uS, 120, 121; Judaism as separate from, 88, 90; moderation in, III, n2; patriarchal norms

Index of, 83, 89; as Roman state religion, 83. See also Christian community Christians, lapsed, 79-80 Chrysologus, Petrus, 47 Clement of Alexandria, I, 2, 9, 22, IIQ-II3, I35n50, I39n85, IS3n63, I58fi46, I59n56, I60llll74, 75, I6m87; gender and, So; kiss and, 43-44, 106, no-I3, I39n87, I59n56; moderation, In, 112 clergy, versus laity, 8, 23-24, 46-47, 84-88, 90, I4Iniii Combs-Shilling, M. E., 4, 36 communion. See Eucharist confessor: kiss of, 8, 23, 76-78; power of, 79 Constantine, 78 contracts, kiss for, IO-n Cooper, Robert, 6 cultural context, 6, 7, 10-n, 24, 27, 34, 105, I2I-23 cunnilingus, I2-13 Cyril ofJerusalem, 4I-43, 45 I40ni06, I46n7I, I47llll79, 8I, I49n5, I5Ill33 Cyprian, 23, 48, 76, 78, 79, I40llll9I, 95, I48n92, I52n38, 46, I53llfi49, so, 59, I56lliOO damnation/eternal life, 109 deacon, 79, 86-87 death, kiss at, I4, 38, I35n43, I46n57 Decian persecution, 79 departure, kiss at, I3, I34n28 Didache, I39n8I Didascalia, I53n56, I55n87 discourse, kiss as, 53-55 disease: kiss as cause, 94; kiss as cure, I4 Donatus, 63, 67; Donatists, 67-70 Douglas, Mary, 7-8, 27-28, so-52, 72, 95, 96, 99, I49n2, I58n38 dove: as Christian symbol, 48, 49, 69; as lustful, 49, I48lliOO

179

egalitarianism, 49, 84. See also hierarchy Elagabalus, 15 emperor, Roman, 14, 28. See also Greco-Roman society Epiphanius, 64-66, II5 Epistle Against the Manichees, 149n5 eroticism, I, 9, I2, 13, 38, 8I, 92, 104-7, III-I2, 144n43; as adultery, 107, 109; substitution of, 12, 13, 78 ethnocentrism, 26 etymology of kiss: Greek, II, 130n2; Hebrew, II, 130n2; Latin, n, I30llll3-6 Eucharist, I7, 4I-42, 122; cannibalism, 107; kiss and, 2, 8, 23, 44-45, 47, 74, 122, 147n79; spirit exchange, 41-42 euphemisms for kiss, 30 Eusebius, 76, 140lllli04, 105, 152llll47, 48, I53n58 exorcism, 99, 125 family, 8, 13, 20, 30-39, 85, 109-10; terms for, 31-32, 34, 109-10 fasting, 23, 44, 155n92 fellatio, 12-13 Finn, Thomas, 71-72 Fiske, John, 53 Flaccus, 106 foot washing, 125 forgiveness, 7, 45; kiss for, 7, 9, 41-43, 45, 68, 79-80, II5-I6. See also reconciliation, kiss for Foucault, Michel, 8, 41, 72, 73, 8991, 95,100 friendship, kiss in, Io-II Pronto, 77-78, Io6 funeral, kiss during, 2, 10-II Gellius, 32, I05 gender, So-83, 89, 99, 122; gender studies, s-6, 8o-8I

180

Index

Gnostics, 19, 70

Gospel ofPhilip, 4-0, 4-3, 14-4-n32, 14-6n6s Greco-Roman society: catechumen rejection, 71; Christian church and, 24-; Christian modification, for kissing, 17, 4-3; erotic art, 12; family and, 30-32; impurity of kiss for, 93-95; kissing practices of, w, 15, 20, 21, 31, 38, 4-0, 4-7, 58, 75, 81, 78, 103-6, 122, I36ns9, I4-5n54-, 153n72, 159n56; literature versus art, 7; speech/verbal expression, 15, 31; status, 86; submission, 81, 153n72 Greek mystery cults, 19 Gregory Nazianzen, 59-60, 89, 97, I33n26, I4-9n6, I50n6 Gregory of Nyssa, 158n4-7 greeting, kiss as, 2, 23, 30, 59, I37n70, I4-9n5 group structure, kiss and, 4-, 7, 28 Hadrian, I4Hebrew Bible, 86 hegemony, kiss and, 4heresy, 8, 63-67, 69-71, 90, 102-3 hierarchy, 73, 75, 84-, 88, 121-22; clergy and, 4-6; gender and, 88, 89, 99; kiss and, 9, 4-6, 4-9, 55, 71, 75; pateifamilias metaphor, 31. See also Apostolic

Tradition HistoriaAugusta, 15 Hogg, Michael A., 7-8, 26-28, 55, 123, 14-902 Holy Spirit: dove as icon, 4-8, 4-9, 69; kiss and, 39, 4-0, 62, 98, 112, 121-22 homoeroticism, So iconography, 5 identity, social, 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 27-29, 4-3, 58, 71-73, 92, 95, 98-99,

109, U3, US, U9, 120, 129n4-, 14-102, 14-9n2; difference and, 57; kiss and, 4-, 28, 53, 70, 120, 121, 14-2n8; power and, 120-21; through ritual, 3, 58, 73, 92, 98-99,109,129n4-,I4-902; threat to, 57 ideology, kiss and, 4idols, kissing of, 16 inanimate objects, kissing of, 16, I36ns9 incest, symbolic, 9, 109-10 Innocent I, I4-InUI, 14-70076, 79 Isidore of Seville, 14-Smoo Isis rites, 20-21 ius osculi (right of kissing), 31, 59, I4-3n23, I50n7 Jerome, 4-7, 63-67, 70, us, U7, 121, 136n61, 14-000IOI, 105, 106, 14-5ns6, 14-6ns8, 14-7n79, I4-8n90, I4-9ns, 1500018, 19, 1510020, 21, 153n54-, 159ns6, 1600083, 84-, 1610085, 86, I6IOO 90, 93, 98 Jesus: familial ties, 32, 14-4-029; ritual kiss and, 18, 19, 4-0, 68-69 John Chrysostom, 26-27, 4-2, 4-3, 139n86, 14-000IOI, 102, 104-, I4-Ini, I4-4-n4-o, 14-60066, 68, 69, 72, 14-70079, 82, 84-, I4-800U4-, US, 1510020, 33, 1520038, 4-2, 153ns8, 155n88, 16on83, 161oo8s, 86 baptismal kiss, 74--'75; gender separation, 84-; kiss for unity, 28, 30, 51; ritual kiss, 26-28, 34-, 35, 4-0, 4-5-4-6, 89 Joseph andAseneth, 38, 96-98, 100, I4-6ns9, 1570030-35 Judah, Rabbi, 94Judaism: Ambrose and, 60-63, Isomo; Christian antiJudaism, 60-63, us; Christianity as separate from, 88,

Index 90; kiss in, 8, 13, 16, 61-62,

J3In10, 133I11125, 26, 134-DD30, 32, 135n51, 138n74Judas, kiss of, 9, 16, 62, 64--67, 92, 112, 114--20 Justin, 21-22, 4-3-4-4-, 76, 8o, 139n82, 153n61 Klassen, William, 4-, 105, 106, 159n56 knowledge, propagation of, 91 Knuf, Joachim, 36-37 Kreider, Eleanor, 4-, 39, 104-; "Let the Faithful Kiss Each Other;' 3-4laity, versus clergy, 8, 23-24-, 4-6-4-7, 84-, 85-88, 90, 14-mn1 Lesbia, 12 literary/rhetorical studies, 4-, 54-, 89, 123-24-, 16202 liturgy, Christian, 3, 4-9, 129n4-; kissing in, 19, 23, 4-4--4-5, 137n7o; public space and, 84Longus, Daphnis and Chloe, 38, 112 Lowrie, Walther, 105 loyalty, kiss for, 9, I4Lucanus, 94Lucian, 58, 94-, 95, II2 Lucius Commodus, 108 Lucius Verus, 77 magic, kiss in, Io-n Majorinus, 67 Marcus, 106 Marcus Aurelius, 108 Marius, 94Martial, 10, 25, 4-9, 94-, 106, 159n64Martinianus, 29 martyrdom,2,22,23, 33,76,79, 8o, 99,100 Martyrdom ofAndrew, 100

Martyrdom ofPerpetua and Felicitas, 23, 33, 76, So, 139n87, I4-0DD93, 96, I#n39, 14-6n76, 14-9n5, 15204-6, 153DD.65, 66,

181

Maximian, 67-68 Maximus ofTurin, 155n92 medicinal use of kiss, II, 14-, 94-, I30DI, 156020 Mensurius, 67 metonymy, 77--78 military, kiss in, Io-n, 28, 14-2n6 monastic vows, 2 Moschus, 112 Narsai, 73, 52nn38, 39, 4-1 nationalism, 28. See also group structure, kiss and Neo-Pythagoreans, 19 New Testament, kiss in, 13, 18, 19, 22, 4-7 Noah, 4-8 ordination, 2, 7, 8, 14-, 23, 86, l55n96 Origen, 22-23, 63, 76, II7, 139n9o, I#n32, I4-7n79, I4-8n9I, 1500!4-, I6Inn 86, 97 origin/development of kiss, n-12, 18-21, 138n75, 139n81 orthodoxy, 63-67, 71, 90. See also heresy Ovid, 31, 4-9, 105 pagan: exclusion of, 8, 59-6o; gods, no; kiss as religious, 16; kiss at death, 38; kissing as erotic, 12, 31, 131nio, 133027, 14-3m7; kissing as familial, 13, 31, 133025, I4-3DI7; kissing for friendship, 13, 133I11127-29; slander of Christianity, 104--5 pateifamilias, 31 Patristic literature, 31 patronage, kiss as, Io-n Paul, 4-, 18, 19, 21, 27, 4-3-4-6, 51, n6, 117, 14-9n5; epistles of, 18, 19, 21, 26, 54-, 138n79, 14-9n5; gender and, 8o; and Roman

Index

182

church, 45-46, 120, r46n69. See also Bible Paulinus of Nola, 29-30, 102-3, r42nro, r44n32, r49ns, rs8n4s, r6rn8s pax (peace), kiss of, 44, 46, 48, 52, 61, 68-69, 79, I2I, 147n78

pax vobis,

69

Perella, Nicholas James, 3-4, 39, 104 performance/ritual theory, 3, 129n4 Perkins, Judith, 53 persecution, Christian, 88 persuasion, kiss for, I3 Petilian, 67-68 Petronius, 32, 33 Petrus Chrysologus, 147n87, 148n89 Phillips, L. Edward, 3, 20, 39, 137n70, 138n8o, I40ni07 pilgrimage, 22 Pistis Sophia, 40, 43 146n64 Pliny, n, r6, 32, 48-49, 86, 94, 105, ro6, rs6n2o pneumatic exchange, 20 pollution behavior. See purity/impurity Polybius, ros Pompeius Pennus, 94 poststructuralism, 53 Postumianus, 82 power, 8, rs, 91, r2o-21; confrontation with, 3; production of, 70 prayer, 2, 23, 44-45, ror, rs8n43 presbyter, priest, 13, 79, 86-87, 155n97 Primian, 67-68 Proclus, 29 promiscuity, 103-4, II3, 120 Propertius, 31 Prudentius, 153n54 Pseudo-Clement, 23, 81-83, 85, I4Ini09, 147n79, I48nii3, 149n5, rssn88 Pseudo-Dionysius, 28-30, 86-88,

I4Iniii, 142n9, 146n57, 147n79, rs6nn.10r, ro2, 103 Pseudo-Ignatius, r4onro6, 149ns Pseudo-Lucian, II purity/impurity, r, 93, 96-103, 109, II2-I3, II6-I7, II9, 121; ritual, 95; social order and, 95--96, n9. See also.Apostolic

Tradition Quodvultdeus, r6rn 88 reconciliation, kiss for, 8, n, 23, 30, 43-49, 79, I2I, I3In8, 146n75 refusal to kiss, 13 regulation of kissing, 6-7, 23, 58, 81, 91--92, 107, 136n51 relic, kiss for, 22, 78-79 repressive hypothesis, 91--92 reunion, kiss for, ro-n, 13, 40 rite of passage, kiss in, 8, 72-74, 87, 90, 152n38 ritual: analysis of, 35, 123; creation of, 35; cultural context, 24, 34, ros, 121-23; kiss, 2-3, 7, 8, 14, 17-20, 26-28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37-43, 45-46, 48-sr, 58, 62, 68-75, 84, 88--90, 92, 95, 97--99, 109, n2, n8, 121-22, 124, 125, I29fi4, q6n6r, 149n2, rs2n38, 157n36; rite of passage, 8, 72, 73-74, rs2n38; social boundaries through, 3, 58, 73, 92, 98--99, 109, II3, ns, n9, I29fl4, 149n2; as social drama, 96

ritual versus daily practice of kiss, 17 ritualization, 24, 34-35; process of, 24; theory of, r6-r7, q6n63 ritual/performance theory, 3-5, r8, 24, 35, 37, 57, 129n4 Roman art, II, 13rn9 Roman emperor, 14, 28 routinization of charisma, 84

Index Rufinus, 63-68, 70, us, 121 rulership, kiss for, ro-n rumor hypothesis, 104--10, II3 sainthood, kiss and, 22 schismatics, 67--70. See also anti-Christ scripture, interpretation of, 4-8 Seleucus, 76 Seneca the Elder, 93--97 Seneca the Younger, n, 33, 94sex: prohibition, 91; sexual restraint and kiss, 91-92, 106--9, n2-13 sexuality: history, 91; regulation/ restraint, 91-92, 106-9, n2-13; religion and, 96--98, roo-roz, 104--8. See also eroticism similarity, versus alterity, 57, 6o slave, kiss for, ro-n, 13, 33, 14-4-n38 Smith, Jonathan Z., 8, 4-2-4-3, 57-58, 6o, 90, 95, 99, I24social boundary of kiss, 2, 3, 7, 8, IS, 28, 58, 71--'73, 92, 98--99, 109, II3, IIS, II9, 120, 12904-, I4-9ll2 Socrates, n2 spirituality, kiss and, 14-, 20, 30, 34-, 37-4-3, 62, 98, II2, 121-22, 136n6I Statius, 38 Strabo, 75 structuralism, 53 submission, kiss as, 14-, 8r, 90 subversion, kiss and, 9 Suetonius, 14-, 28, 31, 86, ro6 Sulpicius Severns, 82 synagogue, protection of, 6o-6r

Tacitus, 28, 86 Tertullian, 22-23, 32, 33, ++-+s, 70, 76, 78, 80, 99, IOI, 105, II2, I3Ill8, l39llll87, 90, I4-0llll94-, 97, l#llll26, 31, 32, 14-6n76, I4-7llll77, 78, 80, 14-9n5, l50lll2, I5Illll27, 29, 152n4-6, 153n64-, rs8n+o, 159ns8, r6on76 The Testament of Our Lord, 24-, 87, 14-Illiii, 14-7n79, I55llll92, 97, 99 texts, ancient: examination/ revelation of, 4--5; kissing in, ro-n thanksgiving, kiss for, ro-n, 13 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 4-6-4-7, 52, 88, ns-r6, n9, r+omor, 14-Illiii, I4-7llll76, 79, 85, 14-9nn6, rs6mo+, r6rnn88, 95 Theodosius, 6o-6r, 63 Theodulus, 76 Thraede, Klaus, + Tiberius, 106 Tosefta, 94Turner, Victor, 96 unity, kiss for, 9, 27, 4-0, 4-2, universality, claims of, s-6

so-ss

Valentinians, 23 van Gennep, Arnold, 72, 96 Weber, Max, 84women, segregation of, 82, 84-, 89, rssnss

Acknowledgments

It seems appropriate to end a work about commurunes with an acknowledgment of the various members of my academic and friendship circles without whose support this project would never have been completed. First and foremost I want to thank Elizabeth Clark. Liz has been a tireless mentor. I have constantly benefited from her caring, kindness, and direction. Her advice and insight have influenced every part of this project. Denise Buelle, Virginia Burrus, Bart Ehrman, Blake Leyerle, Dale Martin, Jean O'Barr, Laura Poole, and Orval Wmtermute each read through and commented on my entire manuscript. Their feedback and suggestions led to numerous improvements in the work and I can not thank them enough for their generosity. Melissa Aubin, Teresa Berger, Bettina Bergmann, David Everson, Bjoem Ewald, Melinda Hamilton, Micaela Janan, Tally Kampen, Barbara Olsen, Ed Phillips, Moulie Vidas, two anonymous readers from the Journal ofEarly Christian Studies, and two anonymous readers from the Journal of Ecclesiastical History all provided additional comments and helped with various sections of my project. Just in case a book is ever judged by its cover, I need to also give special thanks to Virginia Burrus and Sarah Wtllbum, who independently suggested the title "Kissing Christians;' as well as Derek Kuegel, who discovered the cover art. The editorial board of Divinations as well as Jerry Singerman, Alison Anderson, and Ted Mann at the University of Pennsylvania Press helped me navigate the publication process and have been a joy to work with. There are also several additional groups of colleagues and friends from various locales whose emotional support has meant so much to me. I am particularly grateful for the constant encouragement I received

186

Acknowledgments

from my friends from the Duke Department of Religion and the Duke Women's Studies Program, especially Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch, Mark Chancey, Catherine Chin, Carrie Schroeder, and Tina Shepardson. Additional thanks go to Marc Brettler, the Brandeis Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies, and especially Bernadette Brooten, who were all such kind hosts for my stay at Brandeis University, as well the Brandeis University Kraft-Hiatt fellowship which made that year possible. Since I relocated to Western Massachusetts, the Mount Holyoke Religion Department has been an unbelievably welcoming and supportive institutional home. I have been blessed with an amazing group of companions and co-conspirators. I am ever indebted to the kindness of Jane Crosthwaite, Larry Fine, John Grayson, Susan Mrozik, Amina Steinfels, and Tadanori Yamashita. On a more personal note, let me thank my parents and many friends in California who have continually been an invaluable source of encouragement. Most of all, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my spouse and lifetime partner Sarah Willburn, whose caring and love enrich every day.