John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala: Homilists, Exegetes and Theologians (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta) 9789042938632, 9789042938649, 9042938633

Citation preview

O R I E N TA L I A L OVA N I E N S I A A N A L E C TA John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala Homilists, Exegetes and Theologians

edited by JOHAN LEEMANS, GEERT ROSKAM and JOSIEN SEGERS

P E E T ERS

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND SEVERIAN OF GABALA: HOMILISTS, EXEGETES AND THEOLOGIANS

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA ————— 282 —————

BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE BYZANTION

20

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND SEVERIAN OF GABALA Homilists, Exegetes and Theologians

edited by

JOHAN LEEMANS, GEERT ROSKAM and JOSIEN SEGERS

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2019

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2019, Peeters Publishers, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven/Louvain (Belgium) All rights reserved, including the rights to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. ISBN 978-90-429-3863-2 eISBN 978-90-429-3864-9 D/2019/0602/72

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pierre AUGUSTIN, Le sixième Discours sur Lazare attribué à Jean Chrysostome: la question de l’authenticité . . . . . . . .

1

Richard W. BISHOP, Traces of a Contretemps in Severian of Gabala’s Ascension Sermons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

Harald BUCHINGER, Festal Homilies and Festal Liturgies in Antioch and Constantinople: Innovation and Convention in John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala, with Particular Attention to their Epiphany Sermons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

Sergey KIM, Un passage inédit du De mundi creatione (CPG 4194) de Sévérien de Gabala conservé dans sa version géorgienne . . . .

87

Wendy MAYER, Severian and John on Authority: Exploring the Agency of their Preaching in the Johannite Schism . . . . . . . . . 103 Samantha L. MILLER, The Exemplary Role of Adam and Eve in John Chrysostom’s Virtue-Building Program . . . . . . . . . 121 Pierre MOLINIÉ, Un exemple d’actualisation exégétique: le motif du soir et du matin dans les homélies de Sévérien de Gabala sur la Genèse (CPG 4194) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Juditha OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, The Authorship of Four PseudoChrysostomian Homilies on Job (CPG 4564; BHG, 939d-g) . . . 167 Katherin PAPADOPOULOS, Severian and Chrysostom on their Bible’s Translation, Texts, and Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Lara SELS & Sarah VAN PEE, The Slavonic Tradition of Severian of Gabala’s De mundi creatione orationes (CPG 4194) . . . . . 225 Peter VAN NUFFELEN, Boundless Ambition or a Friendship that Went Wrong? Narrating the Conflict between John Chrysostom and Severian of of Gabala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Sever J. VOICU, A Century of Progress on the Homilies of Severian of Gabala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

PREFACE

This volume contains most of the papers that have been read during the international colloquium on John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala, held in Leuven (7-9 November, 2016)1. The time seemed ripe for a scholarly gathering focusing on these two authors together. John Chrysostom’s oeuvre has always attracted much scholarly attention, resulting in an enormous body of scholarship. Severian of Gabala, for his part, has received rather scant scholarly attention and only during the past decades this somewhat shadowy character has emerged as an homilist, theologian and biblical exegete, studied in his own right. Much scholarly progress has meanwhile been made: the contours of his oeuvre (a substantial part of which transmitted under Chrysostom’s name) have become much more sharply delineated and the study of the form and content of his writings has begun in earnest. Given this situation, the time is ripe to study (the work of) both authors together. There is enough of a basis to make this a worthwhile endeavor: the influence of “Antiochene theology” on both, their being active in Constantinople together (including falling out with each other), the common Constantinopolitan liturgical context, their dialogue with the same cultural and theological context. The studies collected in this volume do contribute in many ways to advancing the state of the art. The Forschungsbericht by Voicu offers a complete survey of research on Severian, including a check-list of his authentic works. Kim, Oosterhuis-den Otter and Sels and Van Pee contribute to text-critical research on Severian, Augustin to that of Chrysostom. Read together the articles by Bishop, Mayer and Van Nuffelen offer fresh perspectives on the tensions between Chrysostom and Severian. Buchinger discusses what can be gleaned from our protagonists’ sermons about the liturgy at Constantinople; Papadopoulos engages with Severian’s biblical exegesis while Miller and Molinié analyse the content of some of the sermons. The volume as a whole does not aim at a synthesis but the editors hope that the studies collected herein, both on themselves and read together, offer fresh insights in the writings and thought of John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala, two late antique Christian bishops and theologians about whom much research still remains to be done. May this 1 The conference was organized within the framework of a major research project: ‘From Chaos to Order – the Creation of the World. New Views on the Reception of Platonic Cosmogony in Later Greek Thought, Pagan and Christian’ (promotors: G. Van Riel, J. Leemans, G. Roskam, P. Van Deun and J. Verheyden). Both the project and the conference were funded by the Research Council of KU Leuven (project nr. 3H120256). We would like to thank the Special Research Fund for its generous support.

VIII

PREFACE

volume also serve as an invitation to continue research along the lines set out in the studies in this book. At the end of the publication process we would like to express our thanks to everybody involved in it. First of all to the authors who reworked their papers on the basis of the feedback given during the conference. Many thanks also to the colleagues who were willing to critically review each other’s papers as well as to the anonymous reviewer who did this for the entire volume on behalf of the series in which it is published. Many thanks also to Peter Van Deun for graciously accepting this volume for publication in the Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta and, last but not least, to the editorial staff of Peeters Publishers for the smooth and efficient collaboration. Johan LEEMANS Geert ROSKAM Josien SEGERS

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME: LA QUESTION DE L’AUTHENTICITÉ Pierre AUGUSTIN

La splendide enluminure qui environne le titre du sixième Discours sur Lazare1 dans son plus ancien témoin grec, l’Atheniensis, 211, de la fin du 9e siècle, considéré comme l’unique collection homilétique chrysostomienne munie d’un programme iconographique spécifique,2 résume de manière saisissante le sujet de cette homélie: au registre supérieur, l’occasion du discours, un violent tremblement de terre, est représentée au moment même où les édifices urbains s’effondrent, ensevelissant sous leurs décombres les habitants, dont les maisons deviennent le tombeau: c’est le thème de l’«οἶκος/τάφος», longuement développé dans l’exorde. Au registre inférieur s’affrontent les protagonistes du drame qui se joue ici-bas, en attendant son dénouement dans l’au-delà, où les rôles seront inversés, le Mauvais Riche devenant le suppliant de Lazare; ils tirent de cet évènement un enseignement universel: la parabole commentée dans le corps du discours. À gauche, Lazare, assis sur la cendre, nu, est couvert d’ulcères que viennent lécher deux chiens compatissants; à droite, le riche, à cheval, vêtu d’un ample manteau de pourpre, s’écarte de Lazare avec dédain. L’artiste réussit ici à suggèrer une interprétation typologique: Lazare est le nouveau Job. De même que les fils de Job ont été ensevelis sous les décombres de leur maison, et que Job lui-même, affligé des ulcères les plus repoussants, est abandonné des siens, ainsi Lazare, le «maître commun», la figure ou l’achétype du juste souffrant, vient-il consoler et exhorter

1

De Lazaro concio, 6 (PG, 48, coll. 1027-1044; CPG 4329.6; BHGn, 1700z). Athen., 211, f. 87r; sur cette enluminure, voir A. MARAVA-CHATZINIKOLAOU – C. TOUFEXIPASCHOU, Κατάλογος μικρογραφιῶν Βυζαντινῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Ἐθνικῆς Βιβλιοθήκης τῆς Ἑλλάδος, vol. 3: Ὁμιλίες Πατέρων τῆς Ἐκκλησίας καὶ Μηνολόγια 9ου-12ου αἰῶνα, Ἀθῆναι, 1997, n° 2, pp. 35-36 et Εἰκ. 21; G. GASBARRI, Cristo al tempio, Lazzaro, il formicaleone. Osservazioni iconografiche su alcune miniature dell’Athen. Gr., 211, dans Rivista di Storia della Miniatura, 14 (2010), pp. 22-24. Voir aussi IDEM, Retorica e immagine: le Omelie figurate di Giovanni Crisostomo nel codice Athen. gr., 211, dans Nuovi Annali della Scuola Speciale per Archivisti e Bibliotecari, 19 (2005), pp. 21-40; sur la provenance, vraisemblablement orientale, du manuscrit, daté du règne de Basile I le Macédonien († 886), voir IDEM, Immagini eloquenti. Nuove osservazioni sul codice Athen. gr., 211 con le Omelie di Giovanni Crisostomo, dans A. ACCONCIA LONGO – G. CAVALLO – A. GUIGLIA – A. IACOBINI (eds), La Sapienza bizantina. Un secolo di ricerche sulla civiltà di Bisanzio all’Università di Roma (Milion. Studi e ricerche d’arte bizantina), Roma, 2012, pp. 295-314; 20 fig. 2

2

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

les humains éprouvés par un terrible tremblement de terre.3 Ce thème de la tragédie de Job, longuement développé dans le Discours 5 sur Lazare, n’est ici évoqué qu’à l’extrême fin de l’homélie,4 où il constitue pour ainsi dire la pointe finale que le prédicateur entend imprimer dans la mémoire de ses fidèles. Le paradoxe de ce long sermon, qui doit à son premier éditeur, Fronton du Duc, d’avoir été inséré à la sixième place dans la série des sept Discours sur Lazare,5 est en effet d’entretenir avec les précédents des rapports très étroits, au point d’en constituer pour ainsi dire un condensé – Lenain de Tillemont aurait dit «un abrégé»6 –, et d’en être par ailleurs si indépendant dans la tradition manuscrite, si différent du point de vue formel, dans sa structure et son expression, et, plus encore, pour l’exégèse même de la parabole, que la question de son attribution à Chrysostome mérite d’être posée. En effet, tandis que les discours précédents forment une série exégétique cohérente et pour ainsi dire complète consacrée à l’interprétation de la parabole de Lazare et du Mauvais Riche en Lc, 16, 19-31,7 le Discours 6, quant à lui, à plus juste titre encore que le septième, envisage l’ensemble du récit évangélique d’une manière synthétique assez inhabituelle chez Chrysostome. Dans le prologue du Discours 4 (col., 991, ll. 29 ss.), en effet, ce dernier affirme qu’il aurait très bien pu, s’il l’avait voulu, commenter l’ensemble de la parabole en une journée, mais qu’il préfère procéder par étapes, pour proportionner son enseignement aux capacités d’attention de ses fidèles. Aussi, la perspective d’un commentaire intégral en une seule homélie peut-elle, d’emblée, sembler suspecte. Mais d’autres arguments plus décisifs ont été avancés à l’encontre de l’authenticité du Discours 6: dans sa recension critique de l’édition de Montfaucon, au dernier tome de la réédition de 1840, sous l’égide des frères Gaume, Théobald 3 GASBARRI, Cristo al tempio [voir note 2], pp. 22-24 (et fig. 6-8), où est suggéré un rapprochement avec deux épisodes du cycle de Job (Jb, 1, 18-19 et 2, 7-8) représentés dans le Vaticanus gr., 749 (f. 20) et le Marcianus gr., 538 (f. 128), qui auraient ici été «fusionnés en une unique image synthétique». 4 De Lazaro concio, 6 (PG, 48, col. 1044, ll. 5-21); cf. Concio, 5, § 4 (PG, 48, col. 1023, ll. 45-55). On notera néanmoins que le manuscrit d’Athènes ne contient pas le discours 5. 5 De Lazaro conciones, 1-7 (PG, 48, coll. 963-1054; CPG 4329). 6 L. S. LENAIN DE TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, Paris, 1693-1712, 11, Article 21, p. 58: «Nous avons encore une 5e homelie sur le mauvais riche, qu’on peut dire estre un abregé des quatre qu’on vient de marquer. [Mais nous ne voyons pas qu’elle y ait aucune relation,] sinon qu’il paroit que le peuple savoit alors assez cette histoire, à cause des instructions que le Saint leur avoit déja faites, & prevenoit quelquefois son explication: [ce qui peut donner quelque sujet de croire qu’elle n’a esté faite que depuis les autres.]» 7 Au début du Discours 5 (col. 1017, ll. 20-27), Chrysostome remet à une autre occasion le développement sur l’hérésie manichéenne concernant les patriarches et le «démiurge de l’Univers», qui pourrait prolonger l’exégèse de Lc, 16, 31 abordée à la fin du Discours 4 (col. 1009, ll. 52-62), où a été stigmatisée l’incrédulité du peuple juif à l’égard des prophètes. Mais l’explication proprement dite de la parabole est désormais achevée.

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

3

Fix est, semble-t-il, le premier à l’avoir remise en question. Reprochant à Savile et Monfaucon leur excessive indulgence pour ce sermon, l’éditeur dresse à son propos une sorte de réquisitoire: à ses yeux, plusieurs paragraphes constituent un centon des homélies précédentes, auquel sont venues s’ajouter des interpolations apocryphes; il y relève des maladresses de style, des inexactitudes dans les références scripturaires, des exégèses douteuses: (...) il est arrivé, semble-t-il, à l’éminent éditeur [Montfaucon], d’épargner de manière excessive des homélies sujettes à une juste suspicion. Par exemple, dans l’homélie De Lazaro sermo in Terrae Motum, dont il affirme qu’elle était auparavant lacunaire et qu’il l’a restituée ([t. I], Préface, § IV), le fragment suivant, p. 953 ss. de la nouvelle édition [§§ 4-5], est sans aucun doute un rapiéçage de passages empruntés aux homélies précédentes qu’on a cousus ensemble, et constitué, surtout vers la fin, de nombreuses interpolations inauthentiques; en voici quelques preuves, parmi un grand nombre: (1) p. 786, E [PG, 48, col. 1041, ll. 29-30], il attribue à Paul ce qui vaut pour Pierre; or, nous soutenons en toute assurance qu’on ne rencontre pas chez Chrysostome semblable permutation de ces apôtres. (2) p. 785, C, D [col. 1040, ll. 3 ss.], reprenant la distinction entre «λαβεῖν» et «ἀπολαβεῖν» que Chrysostome avait exposée à la page 741 ss. [concio, 3, § 4, col. 996, ll. 15 ss.], il y mêle nombre d’inepties. (3) Ce que Chrysostome avait dit sérieusement à la page 720, E [concio, 1, § 10, col. 976, ll. 58-59], «οἱ κύνες ἀπέλειχον (Lazare)…, οὕτως ἦν ἐξησθενηκώς, ὡς μηδὲ τοὺς κύνας ἀποσοβῆσαι δύνασθαι», est tellement différent de la plaisanterie de l’anonyme p. 779, E [col. 1034, ll. 28-30], «τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ κύνες φιλανθρωπότεροι ἔλειχον αὐτοῦ τὰ τραύματα καὶ σηπεδόνα περιῄρουν», que nul ne pourrait se convaincre qu’un seul auteur ait pu écrire les deux passages. (4) p. 780, C [col. 1035, l. 3], il interrompt et bouleverse le cours d’une longue période, d’une façon totalement différente de la manière de Chrysostome, lorsque ce dernier, entraîné par l’abondance de phrases accumulées, en vient à oublier le début pour enchaîner des propos à d’autres. (5) p. 788, C [col. 1043, l. 8], les mots «Πάλιν ἐὰν ἴδῃς…» sont ajoutés d’une manière parfaitement absurde à ce qui précède. (6) De plus, le Catalogue d’Augsbourg ne mentionne pas ce discours; «mais pourtant il est authentique», dit Savile, qui fonde sans doute ce jugement sur le témoignage de Photius (p. 856).8 8 (...) viro præstantissimo accidisse videtur, ut Homiliis quibusdam justæ suspicioni obnoxiis nimium in modum pepercerit. Velut in Homiliis de Lazaro s. in Terrae motum, quas se hiulcas antehac instaurasse dicit ([tom. 1] Præfat., § 4), fragmentum illud pag. 953 sqq. novæ editionis sine dubio pannus est ex superiorum homiliarum locis consutus, et versus finem præsertim spuriis multis interpolatus; cujus rei documenta pauca ex multis hæc sunto: p. 786, E, Paulo tribuit quæ de Petro valent, cujusmodi permutationem horum apostolorum apud Chrysostomum non offendi quovis pignore contendimus. p. 785, C, D, repetens discrimen inter «λαβεῖν» et «ἀπολαβεῖν», quod Chrysostomus exposuerat p. 741 sqq., plurima inepta intermiscet. Quae Chrysostomus pag. 720, E, serio dixerat, «οἱ κύνες ἀπέλειχον (Lazarum)…, οὕτως ἦν ἐξησθενηκώς, ὡς μηδὲ τοὺς κύνας ἀποσοβῆσαι δύνασθαι», ita distant a lusu anonymi pag. 77, E, τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ κύνες φιλανθρωπότεροι ἔλειχον αὐτοῦ τὰ τραύματα καὶ σηπεδόνα περιῄρουν, ut unum virum utrumque locum scripsisse nemo sibi persuadeat. P. 780, C, longæ periodi seriem abrumpit et interturbat, plane diversus a more Chrysostomi, quando hic in magna sententiarum affluentium copia initii oblitus alia ex aliis serit. Pag. 788, C, Πάλιν ἐὰν ἴδῃς … superioribus perquam absurde subjunguntur. Omittit hanc orationem etiam Catalogus Augustanus; «sed tamen,» inquit Savilius,

4

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

La présente étude voudrait apporter à la fois un complément et une réponse à ce plaidoyer de Théobald Fix, en insérant les critiques de l’éditeur de Solesmes dans une réflexion plus générale sur les sources du Discours 6 sur Lazare, qui envisage tout d’abord le témoignage externe de sa tradition manuscrite grecque et des citations qui en sont transmises dans la littérature byzantine (Photius), afin d’examiner, dans un second temps, sa structure rhétorique, la teneur du texte biblique attesté par ses citations scripturaires, enfin ses exégèses controversées et leurs échos dans le corpus pseudo-chrysostomien. 1. LE DISCOURS 6

DANS LA TRADITION DIRECTE ET INDIRECTE

Le Discours 6 a joui d’une certaine faveur à Byzance; sa tradition manuscrite grecque, beaucoup moins abondante que le reste de la série, est néanmoins loin d’être négligeable, même si son édition repose actuellement sur une base trop restreinte. En effet, tandis que les autres Discours sur Lazare sont transmis par plus de 214 manuscrits (138 comportent une série, 76 des homélies choisies), nous n’avons repéré que 43 témoins du Discours 6 (sans compter quelques témoins perdus), qui se répartissent en trois familles, toutes attestées à date ancienne.9 Quant à ses trois éditions successives – l’editio princeps, par Fronton du Duc, à Bordeaux, en 1604,10 incorporée dans son second volume parisien de 1616,11 celle de Henry Savile, à Eton, en 1612,12 et celle de Bernard de «γνησία est», fortasse ob Photii (p. 856) testimonium ita judicans (A. GAUME – J. GAUME [eds], Sancti patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi… opera omnia, Paris, 1834-1839, vol., 13, 2, Paris, 1840, Epilogus novae editionis, p. ij, n. *). 9 Pour la liste des témoins du Discours 6 et leurs sigles respectifs, on voudra bien se reporter à l’Annexe. 10 F. DU DUC, S. Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani tractatuum decas de diuersis Noui Testamenti locis. Nunc primum Graece et Latine in lucem edita …, Burdigalae, 1604, pp. 1-59. L’intitulé du Discours 6, Sti Ptris Ni Chrys. Arch. Cani tractatus in terraemotum, & in diuitem & Lazarum, atque unde seruitus orta sit, est calqué sur le titre grec du Parisinus gr., 759, dont la copie autographe, exécutée par Fronton entre janvier 1589 (mort de Catherine de Médicis) et octobre 1590 (date d’une copie ultérieure, consignée dans le même recueil), n’est autre que l’actuel Oxonienis Auct. Meerman, T. 1. 1 (olim Miscell., 179), pp. 147-152. Voir P. AUGUSTIN – J. H. SAUTEL, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci VII: Codicum Parisinorum pars prior (Documents, études et répertoires publiés par l’Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, 80), Paris, 2011, Introduction, p. xvi. 11 F. DU DUC, Sancti Patris Nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi De diuersis Noui Testamenti locis Sermones LXXI. Nunc primum graece et latine coniunctim editi…, Lutetiae Paris., 1616, pp. 94-111 (Avertissement, p. 93). 12 H. SAVILE (ed.), Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi Opera Graece octo uoluminibus, Etonae, 1612, vol. 6, pp. 670-680 (homélie 65). Savile fonde sa réédition du Discours 6 sur une nouvelle transcription du Medicæus: l’actuel Auctarium, E., 3. 12, pp. 380-397 (son Liber N); voir op. cit., 8, col. 813: Hanc orationem ex Bibliotheca Regia Lutetia descriptam damus, edidit eam quoque inter suas Burdegalenseis, sed ex eodem haustam fonte (nempe Medicaeo manuscripto, qui iam est inter Regios) ut ex communi utrique apographo lacuna liquet, Fronto Ducaeus, cuius doctissimas notas adire te, lector, non pigeat. Nobis tantum animus fuit veram ex codicibus. Mss. quatenus fieri potuerit, lectionem constabilire. Agnoscit Photius Biblioth. suae

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

5

Montfaucon, à Paris, en 1718,13 reproduite dans le volume 48 de la Patrologie Grecque −, elles reposent essentiellement sur un unique témoin: l’actuel Parisinus gr., 759 (autrefois Medicæus-Regius, 2343), un Panegyrikon chrysostomien du 10e-11e siècle (notre ms. P, l’un des principaux représentants de la «famille γ»), qui présente l’homélie de manière indépendante. Ce manuscrit est affecté, pour le Discours 6, d’une grande lacune de deux folios, correspondant à près de quatre colonnes de Migne.14 Comme l’a rappelé Théobald Fix, Montfaucon prétend, dans sa Préface, avoir rétabli le texte de l’homélie «dans son intégrité primitive15». En fait, aucun des quatre nouveaux témoins dont il disposait ne permettait de combler adéquatement cette lacune: il s’était procuré par l’intermédiaire de Johann Albert Fabricius une copie partielle du Baroccianus, 55 (notre ms. B), publiée en 1708 par le bibliothécaire de l’Université d’Upsal, Eric Benzel fils, pour compléter le texte de Savile;16 il avait obtenu p. 856. Vera est ac γνησία, quamvis in catalogo Augustano minime recenseatur: «Nous éditons ce discours d’après une copie exécutée à Paris, à la Bibliothèque Royale. Fronton du Duc l’a édité lui aussi parmi ses homélies bordelaises, mais il l’a puisé à la même source (un manuscrit Medicaeus, qui se trouve maintenant parmi les Regii), comme cela ressort avec évidence de la lacune commune aux deux apographes. Lecteur, ne répugne pas à consulter ses notes fort érudites. Pour nous, notre intention a été seulement d’établir, autant que faire se pouvait, le texte authentique d’après les manuscrits. Photius le mentionne à la page 856 de sa Bibliothèque. C’est un vrai discours, un discours authentique («γνησία»), même s’il ne se trouve pas recensé dans le Catalogue d’Augsbourg.». 13 B. DE MONTFAUCON (ed.), Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera omnia quae extant, vel quae ejus nomine circumferuntur... Opera et studio, vol. 1, Parisiis, 1718, pp. 772-789 (Avertissement, p. 772). 14 La perte du bifeuillet central du cahier κα´, entre les ff. 152v et 153, a causé une «ingens lacuna» (Montfaucon) de «οὐ[κ ἄν τις ἁμάρτοι» (col. 1033, l. 18) à «ἐὰν μὴ μιμῆται» (col. 1036, l. 2 ab imo). 15 B. DE MONTFAUCON (ed.), Joannis Chrysostomi... [voir note 13], vol. 1, Parisiis, 1718, Praefatio, § 4. De restauratis quibusdam Homiliis et Opusculis antehac hiulcis et magna sui parte laceris: siquidem Homiliam de Lazaro iam numero sextam, quae in Sauiliana et Frontoniana editione paginis plus quaternis mutila erat, ad priscam integritatem quatuor manuscriptorum ope reduximus: «En effet, l’Homélie sur Lazare qui porte désormais le numéro six, et qui dans l’édition de Savile et de Fronton était mutilée de plus de quatre pages, nous l’avons rétablie dans son intégrité originelle à l’aide de quatre manuscrits». Par deux fois une édition critique du Discours 6 a failli voir le jour, vers 1550, par les soins d’Arnoldus Arlénius à Florence (archives: Oxon. Auctarium, T., 3. 4, ff. 95-107), et vers 1790-1800, par ceux de Christian Friedrich Matthaei à Saint-Pétersbourg (archives: Petropolitanus, Ф., № 573. olim monasterii A. Nevskij, Acad. Spirit., cod. 18, 9, ff. 22-30). 16 Voir PG, 48, col. 1033, n. a; E. BENZELIUS FILIUS, Supplementa Homiliarum Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiep. Const. ex Codicibus mss. Bibliothecae Bodlejanae eruit, Latine vertit, et notis illustravit…, Upsaliae, 1708, pp. 26-35: Lacuna in Oratione 55. Tom. 6. edit. Saviliana [p. 674, l. 42] suppleta e codice MS. Barocciano Bibliothecae Bodlejanae. L’exemplaire, conservé dans le Parisinus Suppl. gr., 423, ff. 73-126v, porte des annotations autographes de Montfaucon à presque toutes les pages. Selon M. L. CONCASTY (notice manuscrite de la BnF), «Cet exemplaire imprimé, auquel manquent les pp. 1-4, porte sur une languette de papier collée au bas de la page de titre la mention manuscrite suivante: Amplissimo atque celeberrimo Viro, Dn. Doct. IOANNI ALBERTO FABRICIO, Theologo et Philologo consummatissimo, mittit Interpres.» Cet envoi de l’auteur à Fabricius a dû précéder la remise du livre à Montfaucon. Fabricius avait-il reçu l’ouvrage à la demande du bénédictin, ou le possédait-il auparavant dans sa bibliothèque? La première hypothèse est plus vraisemblable: il s’agissait d’un échange de bons offices entre clercs.

16

15

14-15

14

13-14

13

11-12

11

10

Siècle

Vindob. Theol. gr., 233 (sigle W)

Patmiac., 188 (sigle Θ)

1-4, 6 2 mss

A

CP. S. Trin., 129 (sigle I)

Eblan. CBL W., 131 (sigle D)

1, 6, 2-4 2 mss

B

Discours 6

Petropolit. gr., 514 (sigle Q)

Mosqu. Syn., 127 (sigle G)

1-4, 6, 5 2 mss

C

CP. S. Trin., 128 (cc. 1-4…7)

Athen., 414 Oxon. N.C., 79

1-4, 7 3 mss

D

Paris. gr., 808

Oxon. Barocc., 172

Lesbiac., 27

1, 7, 2-4 3 mss

E

Discours 7

L’INSERTION DU DISCOURS 6 DANS LES SÉQUENCES DES DISCOURS SUR LAZARE, EN COMPARAISON AVEC LE DISCOURS 7

Mosqu. Syn., 133

Taurin. B.I., 11

Paris. gr., 581 + 751 + 713

1-4, 7, 5 3 mss

F

6 PIERRE AUGUSTIN

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

7

de Rome, par son confrère, François Le Bel, secrétaire du visiteur de la congrégation, copie du Vaticanus gr., 574 (notre ms. V) et de l’Ottobonianus gr., 13 (notre ms. O) «pour un certain nombre de passages»17; enfin, par un autre confrère, Paul Susleauë, il avait fait collationner à la Bibliothèque Colbertine le Parisinus gr., 822 (notre ms. S). Mais les manuscrits B, O, et S ne donnaient accès qu’à une recension simplifiée du texte, une sorte de vulgate transmise par la «famille β». Quant au Vaticanus gr., 574 (= V), il appartient à la «famille α», une recension, elle aussi, très différente de P. Ce n’est qu’en 1973 que la découverte, par Michel Aubineau, de l’Athous Pantéléïmon, 58 (= Π), a permis de disposer d’une copie non lacunaire de P.18 Moins abondante, la tradition du Discours 6 est aussi le plus souvent indépendante: six témoins seulement sur 43 associent le Discours 6 à la série De Lazaro, et, par surcroît, ils hésitent sur la place à lui accorder. Le tableau ci-contre représente les diverses séquences où apparaît le Discours 6 dans la tradition manuscrite, en comparaison avec le Discours 7; nous remarquons d’emblée que le premier n’est jamais associé au second, comme si tous deux s’excluaient mutuellement; cette observation ne semble pas fortuite, car ces deux sermons ont en commun de résumer pour ainsi dire l’ensemble du commentaire des homélies précédentes. Nous constatons qu’ils partagent aussi la caractéristique de ne pas occuper de place fixe au sein de la série, mais d’y être néanmoins insérés à des places semblables: dans le tableau ci-contre, on comparera deux à deux les colonnes A et D, B et E, C et F. On constatera que le Discours 6 est associé aux autres discours dans deux branches de la tradition, β et γ (jamais α).19 – il est, en effet, associé quatre fois aux discours 1 à 4 («famille β»): – deux fois à la cinquième et dernière place: Discours 1-4, 6 (mss Θ et W) [colonne A] 17

PG, 48, col. 1027, n. a (trad. lat.) et n. a (texte grec): aliquot in locis. M. AUBINEAU, Un nouveau Panegyricon chrysostomien pour les fêtes fixes de l’année liturgique: Athos Panteleimon, 58, dans AB, 92 (1974), pp. 79-96 [= Chrysostome, Sévérien, Proclus, Hésychius et alii: Patristique et Hagiographie grecques. Inventaires de manuscrits, Textes inédits, Traductions, Études, London, 1988, 6]; voir aussi IDEM, Le Panégyrique de Thècle, attribué à Jean Chrysostome (BHG, 1720); la fin retrouvée d’un texte mutilé, dans AB, 93 (1975), pp. 349356 [= Chrysostome, Sévérien et alii, 22] (sur PG, 50, coll. 745-748). L’éditeur du Panégyrique de S. Thècle se demande (AUBINEAU, Le Panégyrique de Thècle, pp. 355-356) si le Pantéléïmôn, 58 ne représente pas une copie du Parisinus. C’est ce que confirme l’étude des variantes textuelles pour le Discours 6. 19 Le manuscrit Γ (famille α) présente aussi les Discours 1-3, séparés du 6. Enfin, deux autres manuscrits, aujourd’hui perdus, contenaient des discours de la série à quelque distance du Discours 6, comme en témoignent leurs tables des matières: Londinensis Add., 19703 (pinax, f. 2r-v); Oxoniensis Coll. Corpus Christi, 21 [+ Cantabrig. B. Vn. Ii III. 25 (1789)] (pinax, f. 1v); reproduction partielle dans I. HUTTER, Corpus der Byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften [CBM], 5.2, Stuttgart, 1997, p. 22, n° 46; voir aussi 5.1, n° 8, pp. 18-20; M. AUBINEAU, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci, vol. 1: Codices Britanniae et Hiberniae, Paris, 1968, n° 100, p. 82 et n° 16, p. 15. 18

8

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

– deux fois à la deuxième place: Discours 1, 6, 2-4 (mss D et I) [colonne B], où les deux homélies les plus longues sont, au contraire, placées en tête. – il est enfin associé deux fois aux discours 1 à 5 («famille γ») à la cinquième et avant-dernière place: Discours 1-4, 6, 5 (mss G et Q) [colonne C]. Cet examen des séquences d’homélies dans les manuscrits n’est pas seulement précieux pour la constitution du stemma codicum et l’établissement du texte, en ce qu’il permet la mise en évidence de parentés confirmées par l’étude des variantes: en l’occurrence, pour le Discours 6, W et I apparaissent respectivement comme une copie de Θ et de D; quant à G et Q, ils sont également étroitement apparentés. Ce classement par séquences permet surtout de répondre au principal argument de critique externe avancé par Théobald Fix contre l’authenticité du Discours 6: son absence dans le Catalogue d’Augsbourg ou Catalogus Augustanus,20 une liste anonyme mentionnant les titres et incipit de 102 λόγοι (homélies et traités) de Chrysostome considérés comme authentiques, transmise conjointement par deux manuscrits jumeaux de la fin du 10e ou du début du 11e siècle.21 Découvert par David Hoeschel vers la fin d’un volume alors conservé à la bibliothèque d’Augsbourg (aujourd’hui Monacensis gr., 478, ff. 287-288v), d’où son nom de Catalogus Augustanus, cet ancien catalogue a été transmis par ses soins à l’émissaire d’Henry Savile, Samuel Slade, en 1607.22 Ce dernier, et Savile lui-même, y ont recouru systématiquement comme critère d’authenticité pour les textes du corpus chrysostomien, auquel l’ont

20 GAUME, Opera omnia [voir note 8], vol. 13, 2, Epilogus nouae editionis, p. ij, n. * (cf. cidessus, p. 5). 21 Répertorié par les Bollandistes sous le titre d’Elenchus genuinorum operum S. Iohannis Chrysostomi (BHGn, 881ab; cf. CPG ante 4305), ce catalogue anonyme est introduit, en guise de titre, par l’avertissement suivant: «Οἱ ἀληθῶς τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου γνήσιοι λόγοι· οἱ δὲ τούτων ἔξωθεν ψευδεῖς». Les deux témoins qui le transmettent, le Monacensis gr., 478, ff. 287-288v et le Parisinus gr., 141 A, ff. 269-270v, ont un contenu identique et sont vraisemblablement contemporains pour la copie, car ils présentent le même type d’écriture, une petite minuscule cursive aux nombreuses abréviations, que G. Cavallo, citant les ff. 9-291 du Monacensis, rapproche des mains érudites «informelles» de la fin du 10e siècle ou du début du siècle suivant (G. CAVALLO, Scritture informali, cambio grafico e pratiche librarie a Bisanzio tra i secoli XI e XII, dans G. PRATO (ed.), I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito: Atti del 5 Colloquio internazionale di paleografia greca, Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998 (Papyrologica Florentina, 31), Firenze, 2000, p. 221; pl. 2c [f. 41]). Voir aussi P. ORSINI, Minuscole greche informali del X secolo, dans B. ATSALOS – N. TSIRONI (eds), Πρακτικά του ϛ Διεθνούς Συμποσίου Ελληνικής Παλαιογραφίας (Δράμα, 21-27 Σεπτεμβρίου 2003) (Βιβλιοαμφιάστης – Παράρτημα 1), Αθήνα, 2008, I, p. 57: écriture informelle «secondaire», c’est-à-dire intentionnelle, de la 2e moitié du 10e siècle); pour le Parisinus, cf. AUGUSTIN - SAUTEL, CCG, VII [voir note 10], p. xxxv, n. 74 et n° 8, pp. 7-8 (où l’estimation de la première moitié du 11e siècle est sans doute trop basse). 22 J. L. QUANTIN, Du Chrysostome latin au Chrysostome grec. Une histoire européenne (15881613), dans M. WALLRAFF – R. BRÄNDLE (eds), Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren. Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 105), Leiden, 2008, p. 321 et n. 229.

9

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

incorporé les éditeurs.23 Or, il se trouve que l’ordre dans lequel ce Catalogue d’Augsbourg cite les Discours sur Lazare (Discours, 7, 1-5) correspond à l’une des cinq autres séquences attestées dans la tradition manuscrite (la colonne H sur fond grisé dans le tableau ci-dessous): LA SÉQUENCE DES DISCOURS, 7, 1-5 ATTESTÉE PAR LE CATALOGUE D’AUGSBOURG Siècle

10

G

H

I

J

K

7, 1-4 7 mss

7, 1-5 17 mss

7, 1-3 / 4-5 + scholies 7 mss

1, 7, 2-5 4 mss

1-5, 7 8 mss

Genuensis, 11 Sabait., 25

Athous Prôtaton, 7 Oxon. N.C., 80 Genuensis, 12 Vat. gr., 559 Mosqu. Syn. gr., 135

10-11

11

Vat. gr., 1526

Thessalon. Vlatadon, 5 Athous Esphigm., 11 Athous Iviron, 49 Cantabr. B., 8.11 Messan. S. Salv., 6 Athen., 216 Athen., 2564 Lesbiac., 32 (?) Messan. S. Salv., 72 Mosqu. Syn. gr., 113 Oxon. Canon., 76 Paris. gr., 754 Oxon. Barocc., 186 Taurin. B.II. 21 Paris. gr., 807 Sinait. gr., 379 Vat. gr., 570 Marc. gr. Z., 109

CP. Scol. theol., (26)

Sabait., 4 Sabait., 249 Paris. gr., 805 Paris. gr., 811

Sabait., 32

11-12

Cantabr. Nn.I., 21

Ott. gr., 11

12

Paris. gr., 660 (cc. 7, 1-2 / 4-5)

Paris. gr., 806 Paris. gr., 765

13

Eleiensis, 2 (?)

Paris. gr., 768

14

Paris. gr., 1019A

15

Athous Karakallou, 63

16

Marc. gr. App., II 51

CP. Scol. theol., 43

Le Catalogue d’Augsbourg entretient en effet avec ce rameau de la tradition un lien de parenté d’autant plus étroit que les trente-cinq premières homélies de cette liste ancienne sont attestées, dans un ordre rigoureusement identique et avec la même numérotation, par deux anciens témoins de cette séquence: le SAVILE, Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi Opera [voir note 12], vol. 8, pp. 707-714; MONTJoannis Chrysostomi [voir note 13], vol. 1, p. 75; GAUME, Opera omnia [voir note 8], vol. 13, 2, pp. 406-408; PG, 64, coll. 141-146. Réédition (d’après le manuscrit de Munich?) par P. A. DE LAGARDE (= BÖTTICHER), Ankündigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griechischen Übersetzung des Alten Testaments, Göttingen, 1882, pp. 54-57. 23

FAUCON,

10

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

Genuensis, 12, du 10e siècle, et l’Athous Iviron, 49, du 11e siècle24 (qui ne contient que les 34 premières pièces), comme le souligne le tableau de concordance suivant: Catalogue d’Augsbourg κ´

Textes

Genuensis, 12

Tit. «Εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ περὶ ἐλεημοσύ- In illud, Habentes ff. 154-163 νης·» eundem spiritum (2 Co., 4, 13) Inc. «Τῇ προτέρᾳ συνάξει» hom., 3 (CPG 4383)

v

κα´ Tit. «Πρὸς τοὺς εἰς τὰς ἱπποδρομίας De Lazaro, καὶ τὰ (θέατρα) εἰσελθόντας·» Concio, 7

Athous Iviron, 49 ff. 135-144

ff. 163v-167v, 173-177v, 168

ff. 144-151v

ff. 168-172v, 178-189

ff. 151v-165v

ff. 189v-198

ff. 165v-173

ff. 198-212

ff. 173-183v

ff. 212-221v

ff. 183v-192

ff. 222-230v

ff. 192-199v

ff. 230v-245v

ff. 199v-213

Inc. «Βουλόμενος [ed. βούλομαι] τῆς συνήθους ἅψασθαι διδασκαλίας» κβ´ Tit. «Μετὰ τὰς καλάνδας καὶ κατὰ Concio, 1 μεθυόντων καὶ εἰς τὸν Λάζαρον·» Inc. «Τὴν χθὲς ἡμέραν ἑορτὴν οὖσαν διαβολικὴν» κγ´ Tit. «Εἰς τὸν Λάζαρον καὶ περὶ κρί- Concio, 2 σεως καὶ ἐλεημοσύνης·» Inc. «Ἐθαύμασα τὴν ἀγάπην ὑμῶν» κδ´ Tit. «Εἰς τὸν Λάζαρον καὶ εἰς τὸ· Concio, 3 Ἀπέλαβες·» Inc. «Οὐ τὰ τυχόντα ἡμᾶς» κε´ Tit. «Εἰς τὸν λάζαρον, καὶ περὶ κρίσεως, Concio, 4 καὶ εἰς τὸν ἰωσήφ·» Inc. «Τῆς τοῦ Λαζάρου παραβολῆς» κϛ´ Tit. «Εἰς τὸ περὶ δὲ τῶν κεκοιμημέ- Concio, 5 νων·» Inc. «Ἡμέρας τέσσαρας ἀνηλώσαμεν» κζ´ Tit. «Εἰς τὸ χήρα καταλεγέσθω καὶ In illud, περὶ ἐλεημοσύνης·» Vidua eligatur Inc. «Εἰς καιρὸν ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος (1 Tm., 5, 9) (CPG 4386) ὠκονόμησε»

En caractères gras dans le tableau ci-dessus. Genuensis, 12: R. CARTER, Codices Chrysostomici Graeci, v: Codicum Italiae. Partem Priorem (Documents, Études et Répertoires), Paris, 1983, n° 21, pp. 18-19; A. CATALDI PALAU, Catalogo dei manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Franzoniana (Genova) (Urbani 2-20) (Bollettino dei Classici. Supplemento, 8), Roma, 1990, pp. 75-78; Athous Iviron, 49: P. SOTEROUDIS, Ἱερὰ Μονὴ Ἰβήρων. Κατάλογος Ἑλληνικῶν Χειρογράφων, A’ (1-100), Ἅγιον Ὄρος, 1998, pp. 89-93. Les deux témoins sont mutilés à la fin. 24

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

11

Notons qu’il s’agit également de la séquence numériquement la plus importante, avec 17 témoins (colonne H), sans compter les sept témoins munis de deux importantes scholies au troisième et au quatrième Discours, la seconde étant insérée entre les Discours 4 et 5 (colonne I), alors que les autres familles ne présentent pas plus de quatre à huit témoins chacune. Le Catalogue d’Augsbourg aurait-il joué un rôle normatif dans la constitution d’une sorte de vulgate du corpus manuscrit de Chrysostome? À moins qu’au contraire il n’ait été lui-même constitué à partir d’un témoin de la famille la plus représentative (la seule à avoir été accompagnée de scholies), auquel cas l’absence du Discours 6 serait tout simplement due à son modèle, et nous serions ramenés à l’examen de la tradition directe. Faute de données plus précises, il est difficile de trancher cette question. Il convient toutefois de relativiser le témoignage du Catalogue d’Augsbourg, dont Savile remarquait déjà le caractère sélectif: il ne mentionne, par exemple, aucune des grandes séries exégétiques, transmises, il est vrai, la plupart du temps comme un corpus à part entière. Dans ce cas précis, l’argument a silentio ne semble donc pas avoir de valeur contraignante contre l’authenticité du Discours 6; il souligne surtout le caractère indépendant de sa tradition manuscrite. Pour autant, faut-il attribuer, à l’instar de Fronton du Duc et de Henry Savile, une importance décisive au second argument de critique externe mentionné par Théobald Fix, le témoignage des citations de Photius, que semble corroborer l’attribution unanime des manuscrits? C’est un fait que la tradition directe attribue unanimement le Discours 6 à Chrysostome: puisqu’il s’agit toujours d’homéliaires chrysostomiens, l’attribution est en général implicite («τοῦ αὐτοῦ»), mais sept témoins présentent une attribution explicite, soit sous une forme brève, comme l’Atheniensis, 456, du 10e siècle, soit au moyen d’une formule développée, comme six autres témoins du 13e au 16e siècle.25 Cependant, cette absence d’attribution alternative ne constitue pas en soi une preuve décisive en faveur de l’authenticité. De même, au Codex, 277 de sa Μυριόβιβλος, Photius consigne les extraits qu’il a retenus de sa lecture de treize homélies attribuées à Jean Chrysostome. Si leur ordre de succession n’a pas permis jusqu’ici d’identifier, là aussi, un manuscrit précis du corpus chrysostomien à la source de ce florilège,26 on remarquera néanmoins que les deux passages des Discours 1 et 25 ǁ titulus τοῦ αὐτοῦ α BFCJLOTΘDI GPM (U mutil.): ἰωάννου τοῦ χρυσοστόμου K: τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου κωνσταντινουπόλεως [ἀρ. κων. om. R] τοῦ χρ. XYSW ΠR ǁ 26 L’hypothèse est néanmoins envisagée, à titre de «Gedankenspiel» par K. H. UTHEMANN, Severian von Gabala in Photios’ Bibliothek und Amphilochia: Überlegungen zu den Dubia Severiani, dans JÖB, 43 (1993), pp. 61-86. Les extraits de neuf homélies sur les treize du tableau ci-dessous sont reproduits sans titres, soit directement à partir du Cod., 277, soit plutôt en fonction de ses dossiers ou fiches de lecture sources (ce qui fixerait pour ces derniers un terminus ante quem), dans les Qu. 159 à 170 de la deuxième partie des Amphilochia, rédigée, semble-t-il, dans les années 875-877, avant le second patriarcat de Photius: cf. L. G. WESTERINK (ed.), Photius.

12

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

5 Sur Lazare sont transcrits à la suite, alors que ce n’est que plus tard, à plusieurs homélies de distance, qu’interviennent les deux développements empruntés au Discours 6 sous le titre «Ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὸν σεισμὸν καὶ εἰς τὸν Λάζαρον καὶ εἰς τὸν πλούσιον».27 Il est donc vraisemblable que la source de Photius contenait, encore une fois, la série continue des cinq premiers Discours sur Lazare, et que le Discours 6 apparaissait, sinon de manière indépendante, du moins isolé de la séquence où l’ont placé les éditeurs modernes. Toutefois, comme en témoigne le tableau synoptique ci-contre, qui reprend, à trois exceptions près, l’analyse des citations du Codex, 277 menée en 1993 par KarlHeinz Uthemann,28 la confusion entre les œuvres authentiques et les Spuria, dans le corpus chrysostomien, est déjà consommée à l’époque de Photius, dont la Μυριόβιβλος est d’ailleurs contemporaine du plus ancien témoin grec conservé: l’Atheniensis, 211.29 Il faut convenir avec Karl-Heinz Uthemann que Epistulae et Amphilochia, vol. 5, Leipzig, 1986, pp. 207-224. L’éditeur souligne à juste titre ce cas particulier des Qu., 158-170: ces 13 chapitres sont les seuls du recueil à être empruntés à la Bibliothèque (Codd., 275 et [surtout] 277); d’autre part, pour les extraits chrysostomiens, l’ordre suivi est identique de part et d’autre: n° 1 = Qu., 159; n° 2 = Qu., 160; n° 3 = Qu., 161-163; n° 4 = Qu., 164-165; n° 5 = Qu., 166; n° 6 = Qu., 167; n° 8 = Qu., 168; n° 9 = Qu., 169; n° 10 = Qu., 170; cf. L. G. WESTERINK (ed.), Photius. Epistulae et Amphilochia, vol. 4, Leipzig, 1986, Praefatio, p. xviii-xix et l’avertissement p. 206. Mais on relèvera précisément l’absence du texte n° 7 (De Lazaro concio, 1) entre les Qu., 167 et 168, ainsi que des textes n° 11-13 (De paenitentia sermo, 1; De Lazaro concio, 6; De patientia sermo, 1) après la Qu., 170. Il s’agit surtout, il est vrai, de développements parénétiques, qui pourraient avoir été omis à dessein dans cette compilation à visée essentiellement exégétique. 27 524 b 28-29 = PG, 48, col. 1027. Photius relève – au fil de la lecture, puisque les extraits transcrits se suivent dans l’ordre du texte – les passages suivants qui lui ont particulièrement plu: 524 b 30-42; 525 a 1-5, a 6-9 = De Lazaro, cc. 6; PG, 48, coll. 1029, l. 40-1030, l. 2; 1039, ll. 36-43, 46-51; R. HENRY (ed.), Photius. Bibliothèque: Codices 257-280, vol. 8 (Collection Byzantine), Paris, 1977, p. 156. Nous nous en tiendrons ici à la seule question de l’attribution du Discours 6; il ne nous sera pas possible d’examiner en détail son utilisation par Photius, de même que le long extrait mentionné par le Pseudo-Anastase (Quaest. xviii; PG, 89, col. 508, ll. 37-53; CPG 7746 = PG, 48, col. 1042, ll. 48-50; col. 1043, ll. 2-11, 17-21), qui coïncide partiellement avec l’emprunt de Théodore Daphnopatès, De aduersa ualetudine et medicis. Ecloga, 13 (PG, 63, coll. 651, ll. 53-652, ll. 43; CPG 4684.18 = PG, 48, coll. 1042, l. 21-1044, l. 21). N’est pas non plus abordée ici la question de l’ancienne version arménienne du sermon, dont plusieurs témoins ont été repérés; nous sommes sur ce point tributaire des informations que nous avait données, illo tempore, notre collègue Bernard Outtier, que nous remercions d’avoir examiné pour nous l’édition des Méckitaristes de Venise. 28 UTHEMANN, Severian von Gabala in Photios’ Bibliothek und Amphilochia [voir note 26], pp. 67-70. Notre analyse coïncide en général avec celle d’Uthemann, sauf pour trois textes, dont deux n’avaient pu être identifiés: le n° 7, où la mention erronée de l’homélie In Kalendas (CPG 4328) provient d’une malencontreuse correction de R. Henry à la fin du titre de la concio 1 de Lazaro (CPG 4329.1): «καὶ ἑξῆς» (vulg.) au lieu de «τῇ ἑξῆς» (codd.), les n° 9 et 10, empruntés en fait à la même homélie CPG 4508, et le n° 11 (CPG 4615, et non 4969). Le dernier paragraphe du Cod., 277, brève allusion, sans citation textuelle, à l’Epistula cxxv Ad Cyriacum (CPG 4405), manque dans le Parisinus gr., 1266 (p. 354). 29 Depuis la révision de sa datation et de la répartition des mains de ses copistes par Niccolò Zorzi et Guglielmo Cavallo, les recherches récentes sur le Marcianus gr., 450 (sigle A), le plus important témoin de la Bibliothèque de Photius, ont établi que son élaboration collective est née au sein même du cercle d’érudits qui fréquentaient le patriarche: F. RONCONI, La Bibliothèque

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

13

la majeure partie des emprunts du Codex, 277 provient en effet d’homélies pseudo-chrysostomiennes, dont cinq que la critique a aujourd’hui définitivement restituées à Sévérien de Gabala. À vrai dire, les seules homélies considérées par la Clauis comme authentiquement chrysostomiennes sont ici précisément les trois empruntées à la série De Lazaro!30 Photius, Codex, 277 (516 a 31 - 525 a 18; ed. R. Henry, VIII, pp. 131-157) Photius

Extrait

CPG

PG

1

516 a 32-517 a 7

(Sévérien), De spiritu sancto 4188

52, coll. 824, l. 4-826, l. 23

2

517 a 10-29

(Sévérien), In illud, Christus 4235 est Oriens (Zach, 6, 12; Amos, 4, 13; Lc, 1, 78)

éd. préparée par S. Kim31

3

517 a 32-520 a 42 (Sévérien), In incarnationem 4204 domini

59, coll. 691, l. 30-698, l. 932

4

520 b 8-522 a 4

(Sévérien), De legislatore

4192

56, coll. 400, l. 15 a. i.-406, l. 5 a. i.

5

522 a 7-23

In illud, Sufficit tibi gratia mea 4576 (2 Co, 12, 9)

59, coll. 513, l. 17 a. i.-514, l. 2

6

522 a 26-523 a 3

In illud, Si qua in Christo (2 Co, 5, 17)

64, coll. 29, ll. 45-75, 30, ll. 17-7133

4701

de Photius et le Marc. Gr., 450. Recherches préliminaires, dans Segno e Testo [S&T], 10 (2012), pp. 249-278; IDEM, L’automne du patriarche. Photios, la Bibliothèque et le Venezia, Bibl. Naz. Marc. gr., 450, dans J. S. CODOÑER – I. PÉREZ MARTÍN (eds), Textual Transmission in Byzantium: between Textual Criticism and Quellenforschung (Lectio, Studies in the Transmission of Texts and Ideas, 2), Turnhout, 2015, pp. 93-130 (le Marcianus serait «le support sur lequel la Bibliothèque a pris forme pour la première fois, [car] le moment de sa réalisation matérielle coïncide avec celui où l’ouvrage a été conçu» [p. 119]). Ce point de vue est repris, avec quelques réserves, par S. MICUNCO, Dallo schedarion al codice: sulla tradizione manoscritta della Biblioteca, dans N. BIANCHI – C. SCHIANO (eds), Fozio, Biblioteca, Pisa, 2016, pp. lxv-lxxxv (voir les réserves de la n. 84, p. lxxxiii). 30 UTHEMANN, Severian von Gabala in Photios’ Bibliothek und Amphilochia [voir note 26], p. 70. 31 Cette homélie n‘est conservée quasi-intégralement que dans une ancienne version géorgienne rééditée par S. KIM, Sévérien de Gabala dans les littératures arménienne et géorgienne, Paris, 2014, pp. 180-205; pour les extraits de Photius, voir désormais IDEM, L’homélie géorgienne CPG 4235 et le cod., 277 de la Bibliothèque de Photius, dans Oriens Christianus. Hefte für die Kunde des christlichen Orients, 98 (2015), pp. 105-108 (texte géorgien et rétroversion grecque, avec suggestions de corrections). 32 R. F. REGTUIT, Severian of Gabala. Homily on the Incarnation of Christ (CPG 4204). Text, Translation and Introduction, Amsterdam, 1992, ll. 216-626, pp. 248-276, et ch. 4. Photius Bibliotheca Cod., 277, pp. 116-125. 33 Deux extraits transmis comme un seul ensemble: § 5, ll. 69-102; § 6, ll. 5-55; K. H. UTHEMANN, Die pseudo-chrysostomische Predigt CPG 4701. Kritische Edition mit Einleitung, dans OCP, 59 (1993), pp. 36-37; 38-39 (cf. pp. 56-57: apparat du texte de Photius; pp. 59-62: excursus sur l’extrait de Photius); cf. IDEM, Der Codex Parisinus gr., 700 und die pseudo-chrysostomische Predigt CPG 4701, dans OCP, 61 (1995), pp. 223-234.

14 7

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

523 a 5-14

De Lazaro concio, 1

4329.1

48, col. 974, ll. 6-3 a. i. col. 975, ll. 1-9

8

523 a 18-33

De Lazaro concio, 5

9

523 a 35-524 a 21 De paenitentia homilia, 8

4329.5

48, col. 1018, ll. 8-35

4508 49, col. 338, ll. 20-47 (4333.8) coll. 340, l. 22 a. i.-341, l. 16 a. i.

10 524 a 24-b 16

(Sévérien), In filium prodigum 4200

59, coll. 629, l. 13 a. i.-634, l. 14

11 524 b 18-27

De paenitentia sermo, 1

4615

60, col. 691, ll. 21-30

12 524 b 30-42, 525 a 1-5, 6-9

De Lazaro concio, 6

4329.6

48, coll. 1029, l. 40-1030, l. 2,

13 525 a 11-18

De patientia sermo, 1

4620

col. 1039, ll. 36-43, 46-51 60, col. 725, ll. 53-63

Contrairement à ce que pensaient les éditeurs du 17e siècle, le témoignage de Photius ne peut donc servir de critère en faveur de l’authenticité du Discours 6. Néanmoins, les emprunts de Photius ont l’intérêt d’attester, entre autres, le titre court de la majorité des témoins de la famille β: «(Ἐκ τοῦ) εἰς τὸν σεισμὸν καὶ εἰς τὸν Λάζαρον καὶ εἰς τὸν πλούσιον (524 b 28); εἰς τὸν σεισμὸν» correspond du reste au titre transmis par le Pseudo-Anastase.34 Le Parisinus gr., 822, du 13e-14e siècle (= S) présente un pluriel, «εἰς τοὺς σεισμούς», de sens voisin. L’ensemble CJLOTΘW, très homogène, atteste la variante caractéristique «περὶ σεισμοῦ». Seuls DI omettent la mention du séisme et abrègent le titre sous la forme «εἰς τὸν πλούσιον». La majorité des témoins (HΓEΣ CJLOTΘWDI GPM) ne précisent pas la nature du discours; neuf manuscrits (A BFXYKS ΠR) l’introduisent comme un «λόγος», tandis que V, isolé, écrit «ὁμιλία».35 PS. ANAST. SINAIT., Qu. xviii; PG, 89, col. 508, l. 37. ǁ Tit. λόγος A BFXYKS ΠR: ὁμιλία V: om. HΓEΣ CJLOTΘWDI GPM: λογος ι´ V: λογος ιε´ JO cf. οε´ in fine tit. H: λό(γος) β´ in fine tit. D: λόγ. ιγ´ Π: Μη(νὶ) ὀκτωβρίω ιϛ´ ante tit. Π ǁ εἰς τὸν σεισμόν AHVΓEΣ BFXYK GPΠMR Z cf. Phot. et Ps. Anastas.: εἰς τοὺς σεισμούς S: περὶ σεισμοῦ CJLOTΘW: εἰς τὸν πλούσιον DI ǁ hic desinit tit. in AVE DI ǁ σεισμὸν + καὶ κατὰ τῶν πλουτούντων K: σεισμοὺς + καὶ εἰς τὴν παραβολὴν τοῦ πλουσίου καὶ τοῦ λαζάρου· εὐ(λ)όγησον S ǁ σεισμὸν + καὶ εἰς τὸν λάζαρον HΓ (cf. infra quae add. Γ) ǁ καὶ εἰς τὸν λάζαρον καὶ εἰς τὸν πλούσιον [καὶ – λάζαρον om. L; καὶ – πλούσιον om. F; εἰς (ante τὸν πλ.) om. X] BFXYCJLOTΘW cf. Phot. ǁ καὶ εἰς τὸν πλούσιον καὶ εἰς [εἰς om. ΣR] τὸν λάζαρον Σ GPΠMR edd. ǁ λάζαρον + εὐ(λ)ό(γησον) δέσποτα· Σ: + δέσποτα εὐλόγησον R: + κύρ(ιε) εὐλό(γησον) X ǁ λάζαρον + καὶ ὅτι οὐ δεῖ φοβεῖσθαι θάνατον, ἀλλ᾿ ἁμαρτίαν εὐλ(όγησον) δ(έσποτα) Γ (cf. § 2, 1030, 15 - 1031, 39) ǁ + καὶ πόθεν ἡ δουλεία ἐγένετο PpcΠ (cf. § 7, 1037, 10 - 1038, 53) ǁ in fine concionis tit. praebent codd. seqq. εἰς τὴν ἑρμην(είαν) περὶ τοῦ σεισμοῦ καὶ περὶ τοῦ πλουσίου καὶ τοῦ Λαζάρου characteribus maiusculis A: τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τ(ὸν) [τὸν om. D] σεισμὸν καὶ εἰς τ(ὸν) πλούσιον [καὶ – πλούσιον om. D] καὶ εἰς τὸν Λάζαρον DG ǁ τέλο(ς) οἱ μαργαρῆται [sic pro μαργαρῖται] Θ ǁ 34

35

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

15

En face du titre bref, coïncident deux titres développés, qui soulignent chacun, à la manière d’un argument, un développement privilégié: l’Athous Lavra Γ, 65 (= Γ) ajoute (après «λάζαρον») «καὶ ὅτι οὐ δεῖ φοβεῖσθαι θανάτον, ἀλλ᾿ ἁμαρτίαν». Il résume, pour ainsi dire, l’enseignement moral de l’homélie à l’exhortation du § 2: «Μηδέποτε φοβοῦ κόλασιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἁμαρτίαν τὴν μητέρα τῆς κολάσεως»: «Ne crains jamais le châtiment, mais le péché qui en est la cause».36 Quant au titre des éditions, emprunté, remarquons-le, à un ajout de seconde main dans le manuscrit P (qui se retrouve dans son apographe, Π, et dans le Vatopedinus, 440, en grec vulgaire), il énumère trois sujets distincts: 1) «Εἰς τὸν σεισμὸν»: «sur le tremblement de terre»: renvoie au préambule: §§ 1-2;37 2) «καὶ εἰς τὸν Πλούσιον καὶ εἰς τὸν Λάζαρον»: «sur Lazare et le Riche»: renvoie au commentaire de la parabole de Lc, 16, 19-31;38 3) «καὶ πόθεν ἡ δουλεία ἐγένετο»: et sur l’origine de l’esclavage»: reprend une interrogation du prédicateur: «πόθεν οὖν ἡ δουλεία ἐγένετο;»: «Quelle est donc l’origine de l’esclavage»;39 où «ἐγένετο» est d’ailleurs un ajout de PΠ), qui donne lieu a une longue digression du § 7.40 2. LE DISCOURS 6 À

LA LUMIÈRE DES CRITÈRES INTERNES:

STRUCTURE ET PARTICULARITÉS LEXICALES, TEXTE SCRIPTURAIRE ET EXÉGÈSE DE LA

PARABOLE DE LAZARE

Si nous nous tournons à présent vers les caractéristiques internes du Discours 6, nous ne pouvons que partager l’impression formulée en 1840 par Théobald Fix: celle d’une structure assez «lâche», voire improvisée en raison des circonstances de sa prédication. Le discours se caractérise, en effet, par un grand nombre d’interruptions, de digressions et de reprises. Ainsi, au moment même d’aborder la parabole de Lazare, au § 3,41 le prédicateur se lance dans un long développement sur la condescendance mutuelle que se doivent les membres de l’Église.42 De même, tout le § 7,43 nous venons de le voir, n’est qu’une longue digression sur la prévarication du genre humain, le châtiment du Déluge et l’origine de l’esclavage, soulignée dans le texte comme 36

Col. 1030, ll. 25-26; cf. coll. 1030, l. 15-1031, l. 39. Coll. 1027, l. 20-1030, l. 32. 38 §§ 4-9 (col. 1032, ll. 49-fin, sauf § 7). 39 Col. 1037, l. 20. 40 Coll. 1037, l. 17-1038, l. 53. 41 Col. 1032, ll. 21-49. 42 «Ἦν τις πλούσιος» (col. 1032, l. 21) «... Τί οὖν φησιν; Ἦν τις πλούσιος...» (col. 1032, l. 49). 43 Coll. 1037, l. 17-1039, l. 2. 37

16

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

un «πάρεργον τοῦ λόγου», lors du retour au thème de la parabole.44 Le discours est ponctué d’adresses à l’auditoire pour l’inviter à réfléchir, à écouter ou observer,45 soutenir son attention, soulever les objections d’un interlocuteur fictif, sous forme de dialogue ou de monologue d’autojustification.46 Le rythme s’accentue d’ailleurs pour ainsi dire aux deux derniers paragraphes, comme si l’attention du public se relâchait;47 on ne relève pas moins de six occurrences consécutives de «προσέχειν».48 En fait, ces excursus et tournures caractéristiques du style parlé s’insèrent ici délibérément dans une dialectique de persuasion, pour souligner en particulier les articulations du discours. Ainsi, dans l’exorde, l’évocation de la puissance divine manifestée par le séisme qui a réduit à néant les différences de conditions49 est interrompue par une première apostrophe, «Ἐννοήσατε…,»50 qui ménage une transition vers le thème opposé: les hérauts de la colère divine doivent aussi être considérés comme une manifestation de la miséricorde du Seigneur.51 Enfin, une nouvelle apostrophe, «Ἐννοήσωμεν…»,52 permet au prédicateur de revenir au thème initial de la crainte salutaire du Jugement qui ne doit jamais quitter le pécheur.53 Le tableau suivant montre que le procédé s’étend à l’ensemble du discours: La structure du Discours 6 manifestée par les apostrophes et injonctions à l’auditoire §1

Prologue: le tremblement de terre, «Ἐννοήσατε…» (col. 1027, l. 46; 1028, l. 32); manifestation de la puissance et de la «Ἐννοήσωμεν…» (col. 1028, l. 37) miséricorde divines

§2

Le profit de la prédication

«Ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖς μοι…» (col. 1029, l. 7); «Διηνεκῶς... λογίζεσθε» (col. 1030, l. 15); «Συνήκατε τί εἶπον;» (col. 1030, l. 18)

§3

Les trois degrés du châtiment

«Συνήκατε τί λέγω; Προσέχετε…» (col. 1030, l. 33); «Ἀλλ’ ἐπίπονος...» (col. 1031, l. 8); «Πρόσεχε μετὰ ἀκριβείας τῷ λόγῳ…» (col. 1031, ll. 34-35); «Κατέχέ μου τὴν διδασκαλίαν…» (col. 1031, ll. 37-38); «Προσεχέτωσαν... λῷ λεγομένῳ…» (col. 1031, l. 42)

44 «Ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ τὸ πάρεργον τοῦ λόγου... ἐχώμεθα τῆς ὑποθέσεως. Οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ πλούσιος,...» (col. 1039, ll. 15-17). 45 «Ἐννοήσατε» (coll. 1027, l. 46; 1028, l. 32), «Ἐννοήσωμεν» (col. 1028, l. 37); «λογίζεσθε» (col. 1030, l. 15); «Ἀκουέτωσαν...» (col. 1033, lin. 50), «ἄκουε…» (col. 1037, l. 23); «ὅρα θαῦμα…» (col. 1037, ll. 40-41). 46 «Πρόσεχε μετὰ ἀκριβείας τῷ λόγῳ» (col. 1031, ll. 34-35), «Προσέχετε» (col. 1036, l. 19); «Κάτεχέ μου τὴν διδασκαλίαν» (col. 1031, ll. 37-38); «Ἀλλ’ ἐρεῖς μοι…» (col. 1029, l. 7). 47 «Μὴ παράτρεχε...» (col. 1040, ll. 14-15). 48 Col. 1040, ll. 17-18, 25-26, 28, 52, 59; col. 1041, ll. 11-12. 49 Col. 1027, ll. 20-46: 27 lignes. 50 Col. 1027, l. 46; col. 1028, l. 32. 51 Coll. 1027, l. 46-1028, l. 36: 23 lignes. 52 Col. 1028, l. 37. 53 Coll. 1028, l. 37-1029, l. 6: 27 lignes.

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

17

§4

La vie du Mauvais Riche (Lc, 16, 19)

«Ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ προλαμβάνετε…» (col. 1032, ll. 21-22)

§5

La vie de Lazare (Lc, 16, 20-22)

«Ἀκουέτωσαν...· ἀκουέτωσαν...» (col. 1033 ll. 50, 51); «ἐννόησον…, ἐννόησον…» (coll. 1033, l. 60; 1034, l. 1)

§6

Leur sort dans l’au-delà (Lc, 16, 22-25) «Διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἄγω τὸν λόγον εἰς πλάτος...» (col. 1035, l. 40); «Καὶ ὅρα τί γίνεται...» (col. 1036, l. 6); «Προσέχετε...» (col. 1036, l. 19); «Καὶ τί ποιεῖ;...» (col. 1036, l. 31)

§7

Digression: l’origine de l’esclavage

§8

La supplication du Mauvais Riche et la «Εἶδες εὐγένειαν, εἶδες...;» (col. 1039, l. 3); «Ἀλλ’ réponse d’Abraham (Lc, 16, 24-25) ἵνα μὴ τὸ πάρεργον τοῦ λόγου... ἐχώμεθα τῆς ὑποθέσεως…» (col. 1039, ll. 15-17); «Καὶ διὰ τί...» (col. 1039, l. 46); «Καὶ τί...» (col. 1039, l. 60); «Μὴ παράτρεχε...» (col. 1040, ll. 14-15); «Πρόσεχε ὃ λέγω...» (col. 1040, ll 17-18); «Πρόσεχε τοίνυν ὃ λέγω...» (col. 1040, ll. 25-26); «Προσέχετε τῷ ζητήματι...» (col. 1040, l. 28)

§9

Pourquoi Abraham a-t-il dit «ἀπέλαβες»? (Lc, 16, 25) Chacun reçoit le salaire de ses actes (Lazare, Job); Doxologie

«Καὶ ὅπως, ἄκουε…» (col. 1037, l. 23); «ὅρα θαῦμα…» (col. 1037, ll. 40-41)

«Πρόσεχε τῷ λεγομένῳ...» (col. 1040, l. 52); «Ἀλλὰ σύντεινόν σου τὴν διάνοιαν...» (col. 1040, ll. 56-57); «Πρόσεχε τοίνυν...» (col. 1040, l. 59); «Ἀλλὰ πρόσεχε...» (col. 1041, ll. 11-12); «Κατέχε ταῦτα...» (col. 1042, l. 27); «Τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ λέγω πάλιν...» (col. 1042, l. 30)

Tous ces traits de «style diatribique» se rencontrent déjà dans le Chrysostome authentique, mais ils semblent ici accentués. En revanche, comme l’a déjà souligné Sever J. Voicu,54 certaines de ces expressions ne se retrouvent pas telles quelles dans l’œuvre authentique de Chrysostome, mais elles rencontrent un écho dans les Spuria. Ainsi, la tournure «Συνήκατε τί εἶπον;»55 et sa variante «Συνήκατε τί λέγω;»56 ne sont attestée que dans le De Chananaea (avec «τί εἶπον»),57 l’In Psalmum L homilia II58 et l’In illud, si qua in Christo nova creatura,59 ou sous les formes «Ἆρα συνήκατε ὃ εἶπον;» et «συνῆκας τί εἶπον;» du De sancto hieromartyre Phoca,60 ainsi que dans l’homélie De 54 S. J. VOICU, La volontà e il caso. La tipologia dei primi spuri di Crisostomo, dans Giovanni Crisostomo: Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo. XXXIII Incontro di studiosi dell’Antichità cristiana, Roma, 6-8 maggio 2004 (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 93), Roma, 2005, p. 111. 55 PG, 48, col. 1030, l. 18. 56 PG, 48, col. 1030, l. 33. 57 PG, 52, col. 451, l. 2. 58 PG, 55, col. 577, l. 24. 59 PG, 64, col. 28, l. 13. 60 PG, 50, col. 704, l. 37; col. 705, l. 14.

18

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

capto Eutropio; de même, l’apostrophe «Κατέχέ μου τὴν διδασκαλίαν…»61 est sans exemple chez Chrysostome; enfin, l’expression «Ἀλλὰ σύντεινόν σου τὴν διάνοιαν...»62 ne se retrouve que dans l’homélie De capto Eutropio,63 ou, sous la forme «συντείνοντα τὴν διάνοιαν», dans l’Epistula ad monachos.64 Cet échantillon vise à souligner les particularités lexicales du Discours 6, mais la liste de ces exemples pourrait aisément s’allonger.65 L’examen des citations scripturaires du Discours 6 permet, quant à lui, de souligner les limites de l’édition actuelle, essentiellement tributaire d’un unique rameau de la tradition, mais aussi d’inscrire, d’une manière assez inattendue, le milieu d’élaboration de ce sermon dans une zone d’influence antiochienne. En effet, pour ne mentionner qu’un exemple, le livre d’Isaïe, que le prédicateur est amené à citer à trois reprises (Is, 43, 26; 57, 18 et 19) dans le long développement du § 2 sur l’utilité des séismes, nous constatons que la famille γ, à laquelle appartient le manuscrit P, source des éditions, présente régulièrement une lectio facilior qui a dépouillé le texte de sa coloration biblique, encore attestée par la famille α ou ses principaux représentants: 1. Is, 43, 26 (col. 1030, ll. 3-4) «Λέγε γὰρ σὺ πρῶτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας / ἀνομίας σου, ἵνα δικαιωθῇς»66 ǁ 3 γὰρ om. A ǁ σὺ om. BFCSΘW γ (- M): σοι UΣ J M ǁ πρῶτον CW ǁ ἀνομίας α CTΘW: ἁμαρτίας BFXKJLOSDI γ ǁ

Dans le premier cas, Is, 43, 26, l’hésitation de la tradition manuscrite entre «ἁμαρτίας» et «ἀνομίας» se retrouve, non seulement dans le corpus chrysostomien (sur 36 occurrences, 16 attestations d’«ἀνομίας» et 10 d’«ἁμαρτίας» dans les homélies authentiques; la proportion s’inverse, notons-le, dans les Spuria: trois attestations d’«ἀνομίας» et huit d’«ἁμαρτίας»),67 mais aussi 61

PG, 48, col. 1031, ll. 37-38. PG, 48, col. 1040, ll. 56-57. 63 PG, 52, col. 403, l. 51. 64 P. G. NICOLOPOULOS, Αἱ εἰς τὸν Ἰωάννην τὸν Χρυσόστομον ἐσφαλμένως ἀποδιδόμεναι ἐπιστολαί (Ἀθηνᾶ, 9), Ἀθῆναι, 1973, p. 484, l. 65. 65 Les faiblesses formelles relevées par Théobald Fix n’en étaient pas aux yeux des lecteurs Byzantins, dont les critères esthétiques étaient bien différents des nôtres. En effet, en face du développement final (§ 9, col. 1043, l. 2, juste avant le passage critiqué), que Théobald Fix considère comme «ajouté d’une manière parfaitement absurde à ce qui précède», nous trouvons, dans deux témoins apparentés (DI), l’annotation suivante d’un lecteur enthousiaste: «ὡραῖον ὅλον»: «tout ce passage est beau». 66 «Toi le premier, dis tes fautes (tes iniquités), afin d’être justifié». 67 Dans l’œuvre authentique: «ἀνομίας»: (1) Ad Theodorum lapsum, lib. I, c. 17, ll. 1-2 (J. DUMORTIER [ed.], Jean Chrysostome. À Théodore [SC, 117], Paris, 1966, p. 184); (2) Aduersus Iudaeos, or. 8, § 3; PG, 48, col. 931, l. 3; (3) De diabolo tentatore, hom. II, § 5, ll. 48-49 (A. PELEANU [ed.], Jean Chrysostome. L’impuissance du diable [SC, 560], Paris, 2013, p. 148); (4-5) De paenitentia, hom. II, §§ 1 et 2; PG, 49, coll. 285, ll. 23-24 et 287, ll. 37-38; coll. 285, ll. 29-30; 49-50; 286, ll. 9 etc.; (6) De cruce et latrone, hom. II, § 3; PG, 49, col. 412, ll. 48-49; (7) Non esse ad gratiam concionandum, § 3; PG, 50, col. 658, ll. 40-41; (8) De Chananaea, § 3; 62

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

19

dans les témoins de la Septante, d’après l’apparat de Josef Ziegler. 68 La leçon adoptée par l’éditeur de Göttingen, «ἀνομίας», qui correspond au lemme de Théodoret dans son Commentaire sur Isaïe,69 est celle de l’ensemble de la famille α et de quatre témoins de la famille β (CTΘW); elle semble préférable et, dans le corpus chrysostomien, lorsque nous disposons d’une édition critique récente où les deux variantes sont attestées, c’est d’ordinaire la leçon «ἀνομίας» qui a été retenue.70 PG, 52, col. 451, ll. 51-52; (9) In Genesim, hom., 10, § 3; PG, 53, col. 171, ll. 9-10 (et 10-11); (10) In Genesim serm., 1, § 1, ll. 78-79 (L. BROTTIER [ed.], Jean Chrysostome. Sermons sur la Genèse [SC, 433], Paris, 1998, p. 148); (11) Expos. in Ps., 142, § 2; PG, 55, col. 449, ll. 22-23; (12) In illud: Vidi Dominum, hom. III, § 1, ll. 54-55 (J. DUMORTIER [ed.], Jean Chrysostome. Homélies sur Ozias [SC, 277], Paris, 1981, p. 108); (13) In ep. I ad Corinthios, hom. 11, § 2; PG, 61, col. 90, ll. 60-61; (14-15) In ep. II ad Corinthios, hom. 4, § 6 et hom. 5, § 4; PG, 61, coll. 427, ll. 8-9 et 433, ll. 2-3; (16) In ep. ad Ephesios, hom. 9, § 3; PG, 62, col. 78, ll. 54-55. «ἁμαρτίας»: (1-2) De Lazaro concio, 4, § 4 et concio, 6, § 2; PG, 48, coll. 1012, ll. 26-27 et 1030, ll. 3-4; (3) De cruce et latrone, hom. I, § 3; PG, 49, col. 403, ll. 35-36; (4) Non esse desperandum, § 3; PG 51, col. 366, ll. 45-46; (5) De prophetiarum obscuritate, hom. II, § 8, ll. 47-48 (S. ZINCONE [ed.], Omelie sull’oscurità delle profezie [Verba seniorum, 12], Roma, 1998, p. 156); (6) In Matthaeum hom., 41, § 4; PG, 57, col. 450, l. 21; (7) In Iohannem hom., 7, § 2; PG, 59, col. 64, ll. 48-49; (8) In ep. ad Romanos hom., 25, § 6; PG, 60, col. 635, ll. 42-43; (9) In ep. I ad Corinthios hom., 23, § 4; PG, 61, col. 194, ll. 58-59; (10) In ep. ad Hebraeos hom., 9, § 4; PG 63, col. 80, ll. 59-60. Dans les Spuria: «ἀνομίας»: (1-2) De paenitentia hom., 8, § 2 [CPG 4508]; PG, 49, col. 339, ll. 1-2 et 29-30; (3) In Psalmum 50 hom., I, § 6 [CPG 4544]; PG, 55, col. 573, ll. 2-3; 10-11. «ἁμαρτίας»: (1) De paenitentia hom., 7, § 4 [CPG 4186]; PG, 49, col. 328, ll. 28-29; (2) In Psalmum L [CPG 4541]; PG, 55, col. 530, ll. 33-34; (3) In Psalmum, 118 [CPG 4552]; PG, 55, col. 681, ll. 71-72; (4) In secundum Domini aduentum [CPG 4595]; PG, 59, col. 623, ll. 62-63; (5-6) De paenitentia [CPG 4631]; PG, 60, col. 767, ll. 14 et 16; (7) Comm. in Iob, 31, 34a, ll. 26-27 (D. HAGEDORN – U. HAGEDORN [éds.], Kommentar zur Hiob [PTS, 35], Berlin, 1990, p. 164); (8) Fragm. in Ep. catholicas [CPG 4450]; PG, 64, col. 1048, ll. 50-51. 68 Voir Is, 43, 26 (J. ZIEGLER, Isaias [Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academia e Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, 14], Göttingen, 19833, p. 285, in apparatu; la variante «ἁμαρτίας» est attestée dès le 9e siècle dans les chaînes exégétiques (premier sousgroupe, cI, réduit ici aux manuscrits 564 et 565, car 377 ne contient pas le verset; leçon textuelle de 49, appartenant au second sous-groupe, cII), ainsi que par deux témoins «mêlés», 239 et 306; elle se trouve corroborée par des citations patristiques grecques d’Eusèbe, et latines (peccata) d’Hilaire de Poitiers. 69 THEODORET DE CYR, Comm. in Isaiam, 13, ll. 263-264 (J. N. GUINOT [ed.], Théodoret de Cyr. Commentaire sur Isaïe, II [SC, 295], Paris, 1982, p. 466). 70 L’éditeur du Traité à Théodore a privilégié, à juste titre, semble-t-il, la leçon «ἀνομίας» de BS DELco, contre «ἁμαρτίας» de NV CK Hr, car, selon son principe d’édition, «l’accord de B ou de S avec L est dans la plupart des cas contraignant» (DUMORTIER, À Théodore [voir note 67], Introduction, p. 36); pour la troisième homélie Sur Ozias, la tradition manuscrite atteste à l’unanimité la leçon «ἀνομίας»; l’ordre des mots adopté par J. Dumortier caractérise Bt, de la première famille, x1, qui représente, selon l’éditeur, la recension la plus proche de l’original, mais les cinq autres témoins mentionnés (SUjrV) donnent l’ordre «πρῶτος τὰς ἀνομίας σου». Dans la deuxième homélie Sur le diable tentateur, la tradition est en revanche divisée entre «ἀνομίας» et «ἁμαρτίας», sans que se dégage une ligne précise. Pour le premier sermon Sur la Genèse, L. Brottier adopte la leçon majoritaire «ἀνομίας» (mss SMVWR). Elle écarte la variante isolée «ἁμαρτίας» de T (Vindobonensis Theol. gr., 10, du 10e siècle. Dans la seconde homélie Sur l’obscurité des prophéties, «ἁμαρτίας» représente au contraire la leçon unanime des 26 manuscrits considérés.

20

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

2. Is, 57, 18 (1030, 8-9) «Εἶδον γὰρ, φησίν, ὅτι ἐλυπήθη καὶ ἐστύγνασε, καὶ ἰασάμην αὐτοῦ τὰς ὀδύνας»71 ǁ 9 αὐτοῦ τὰς ὀδύνας γ edd.: τὰς ὀδύνας αὐτοῦ ~ UΓE: τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ [-τῆς S] ~ AVΣ β (lac. H) ǁ (1030, 10-11) ἐλυπήθη, καὶ ἰασάμην αὐτόν ǁ

Dans le deuxième cas, Is, 57, 18, le terme employé par les Septante et transposé dans les citations chrysostomiennes est «ὁδούς» (sept occurrences dans l’œuvre chrysostomienne authentique, dont quatre dans des contextes où l’auteur cite également Is, 43, 26).72 La leçon de AVΣ et de l’ensemble de la famille β semble préférable à celle de γ; elle est également corroborée par le lemme du Commentaire d’Isaïe par Théodoret: «Τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ ἑώρακα καὶ ἰασάμην αὐτὸν» («Ses voies, je les ai vues et je l’ai guéri»).73 3. Is. 57, 19 (1029, 54): «Τοῦτο δὲ τὸ κατηγορεῖν σεαυτοῦ, πόθεν; Ὁ καρπὸς τῶν ἐμῶν λόγων»74 ǁ 54 χειλέων α; cf. col. 1029, not. c: λόγων cett. et edd.; cf. Savile VIII, 813 (ad VI, 672, l. 20) «pro his, in quibus sensus non est, legit Photius, σαὐτοῦ, ἀρχὴ διορθώσεως» ǁ

Enfin, dans le troisième cas, qui suscitait la perplexité d’Henry Savile, la réminiscence d’Is, 57, 19 n’apparaît que si l’on substitue à la lectio facilior «λόγων» de la famille γ et des éditions, la leçon χειλέων de la famille α, qui semble tout à fait de circonstance, puisque l’auteur assimile ici la mission du prédicateur à celle des prophètes.75 Cette leçon est, une fois de plus, corroborée par Théodoret, dont le lemme, pour Is, 57, 18-19, se poursuit ainsi: «καὶ παρεκάλεσα αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδωκα αὐτῷ παράκλησιν ἀληθινὴν: καὶ τοῖς παθεινοῖς αὐτοῦ κτίζων καρπὸν χειλέων» («je l’ai consolé et je lui ai donné une consolation véritable, ainsi qu’à ses affligés, en produisant le fruit de leurs

71 «J’ai vu, dit l’Écriture, qu’il a été affligé et empli de tristesse, et j’ai guéri ses douleurs (ses voies)». 72 (1) Ad Theodorum lapsum, lib. I, 6, ll. 33-34 (DUMORTIER, À Théodore [voir note 67], pp. 106-109; cf. c. 17, ll. 1-2; ibidem, pp. 184-185, Is, 43, 26); (2) Ad populum Antiochenum hom., V, § 4; PG, 49, col. 74, ll. 58-61; (3) De sanctis martyribus, § 3; PG, 50, col. 651, ll. 26-29; (4) In ep. I ad Corinthios hom., 8, § 5; PG, 61, col. 73, ll. 54-57; (5) In ep. I ad Corinthios hom., 23, § 4; PG, 61, col. 194, ll. 61-63, avec application à Lazare et au Mauvais Riche (cf. ll. 58-59, Is, 43, 26); (6) In ep. II ad Corinthios hom., 4, § 6; PG, 61, col. 427, ll. 3-4 (cf. ll. 8-9, Is, 43, 26); (7) In ep. ad Hebraeos hom., 9, § 5; PG, 63, col. 82, ll. 6-8 (cf. § 4, 80, ll. 59-60, Is, 43, 26). 73 THEODORET DE CYR, Comm. in Isaiam, 18, l. 284 (J. N. GUINOT [ed.], Théodoret de Cyr. Commentaire sur Isaïe, 3 [SC, 315], Paris, 1984, p. 210). 74 «Mais cette accusation de soi, d’où vient-elle? – C’est le fruit de mes paroles (de mes lèvres)». 75 Cette citation s’accompagne peut-être ici d’une réminiscence d’Os, 14, 3, où Osée exhorte Israël à la pénitence. Si le peuple supplie son Dieu, «nous recueillerons» («ἀνταποδώσομεν»), dit le prophète, «le fruit de nos lèvres («καρπὸν χειλέων ἡμῶν»)».

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

21

lèvres».76 Montfaucon connaissait par le manuscrit V les variantes «ἀνομίας» et «χειλέων», qu’il mentionne en note comme dignes d’intérêt,77 sans les adopter dans le texte, probablement par respect pour sa source principale. Encore une fois, il ne s’agit ici que d’un rapide sondage, mais nous constatons que, si nous adoptons les leçons de la famille α ou, dans le deuxième cas, de ses principaux témoins, ces quelques citations scripturaires du Discours 6 nous orientent plutôt vers une «version antiochienne» du texte d’Isaïe. Venons-en à l’aspect qui a le plus retenu l’attention des éditeurs: la reprise, par le Discours 6, de la plupart des thèmes abordés dans les discours précédents. Serait-il, comme le prétend Théobald Fix, un centon constitué d’emprunts à ces discours? Effectivement, sans même considérer ses développements exégétiques sur la parabole de Lc, 16, 19-31 (§§ 5 et suivants) qui, nécessairement, présentent une formulation parallèle, dans la mesure où l’interprétation est similaire, la lecture du Discours 6 évoque constamment les précédents. Montfaucon mentionne ces rapprochements dans son annotation à propos de deux thèmes parénétiques: le théâtre de la vie présente78 et la vanité des grandeurs d’établissement,79 mais on pourrait ainsi multiplier les rapprochements. Pour autant, nous n’avons ici jamais affaire à un centon au sens strict du terme: il y a bien reprise des mêmes thèmes diatribiques, – et une telle proximité pose nécessairement la question du recours à une source commune –, mais leur formulation et leur disposition sont différentes, légèrement plus rhétoriques dans le Discours 6. Voici deux exemples caractéristiques: 1. le thème du profit de la prédication, abordé dans le prologue du Discours 1, comme dans celui du Discours 6: de part et d’autre le prédicateur a recours aux mêmes procédés rhétoriques du compte à rebours (1), de l’hyperbole (2) et de l’adynaton (3) sur l’impossible inutilité du discours. Mais le Discours 6 se caractérise par un retour in fine à la sentence initiale: 76 Ibidem, 18, ll. 284-286 (J. N. GUINOT, Commentaire sur Isaïe [voir note 73], pp. 210-211). La suite du commentaire souligne cette exégèse typologique, en relation avec le sacrifice de la Nouvelle Alliance d’Hb, 13, 15: «Voilà ce qu’a fait celui qui a produit le fruit de leurs lèvres, c’est-à-dire celui qui a réclamé le sacrifice de la louange au lieu du culte prescrit par la Loi («τὴν θυσίαν τῆς αἰνέσεως ἀντὶ τῆς νομικῆς λατρείας»)» (Ibidem, ll. 294-296). C’est déjà en ce sens que Chrysostome commente Hb, 13, 15: «Καὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ θυσίαν ἀναφέρωμεν τῷ θεῷ. Ποίαν δὲ θυσίαν λέγει; Αὐτὸς ἡρμήνευσε λέγων, Καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ· τουτέστιν, εὐχὰς, ὕμνους, εὐχαριστίαν· ταῦτα γὰρ τῶν χειλέων ὁ καρπός» (In ep. ad Hebraeos hom., 33, § 4; PG, 63, col. 229, ll. 45-49). «Καρπὸν χειλέων» de la Septante traduit l’omission d’une lettre en hébreu: peri sephatheinu («le fruit de leurs lèvres»), au lieu de parim sephatheinu («les génisses [= offrandes] de leurs lèvres»). 77 Cf. PG, 48, col. 1029, notes c et d. 78 Concio, 2, § 3 (col. 986, ll. 22-57) et Concio, 6, § 5 (coll. 1034, l. 55 - 1035, l. 39); cf. Haec paucioribus tractat supra homil. II de Lazaro, num., 3 (PG, 48, col. 1034, n. a lat.). 79 Concio, 3, §§ 9-10 (coll. 1005, l. 24-1006, l. 11) cf. Concio, 6, § 6 (coll. 1036, l. 31-1037, l. 9) Cf. col. 1036, ll. 3 ss.; Ea fere repetit quae concione tertia supra, num. 9 et 10 (PG, 48, col. 1036, n. a lat.).

22

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

Discours, 1, § 1 (coll. 964, l. 26-965, l. 15)

Discours, 6, § 2 (coll. 1029, l. 7-1030, l. 32)

1. «(...) Εἰ γὰρ δέκα μόνον ἐπείσθησαν, εἰ γὰρ πέντε μόνον, εἰ γὰρ εἷς, οὐχ ἱκανὸν ἡμῖν εἰς παραμυθίαν;» 2. «Ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ ὑπερβολὴν ἑτέραν ποιοῦμαι.» 3. «Κείσθω μηδένα πεπεῖσθαι τοῖς ἡμετέροις λόγοις, ὅπερ ἀδύνατον εἰς τοσαύτας ἀκοὰς σπειρόμενον λόγον ἄκαρπον γενέσθαι ποτέ· πλὴν ἀλλὰ κείσθω τοῦτο αὐτό· οὐδὲ οὕτως ἀκερδὴς ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος. (...)»

3. «(...) Καὶ νῦν δὲ ἀμήχανον ἐν τοσούτῳ πλήθει σπόρον καταβαλλόμενον μὴ ἐνεγκεῖν μοι στάχυν·» 1. «κἂν μὴ πάντες ἀκούσωσιν, οἱ ἡμίσεις ἀκούσονται· κἂν μὴ οἱ ἡμίσεις, ἡ τρίτη μοῖρα· κἂν μὴ ἡ τρίτη μοῖρα, ἡ δεκάτη· κἂν μὴ ἡ δεκάτη, κἂν εἷς ἐκ τοῦ πλήθους ἀκούσῃ, ἀκουέτω. Οὐ μικρὸν γὰρ τὸ καὶ ἒν πρόβατον διασωθῆναι· (...)» 2. «Καὶ τοῦτο καθ᾿ ὑπερβολὴν εἶπον·» 3. «ἀμήχανον γὰρ ἐν πλήθει τοσούτῳ μὴ διορθωθῆναί τινα. (…)»

2. le thème du pécheur et du malade, au § 5 du Discours 3, repris au § 3 du Discours 6: dans l’un et l’autre cas est développée la même comparaison du pécheur avec le cancéreux et l’hydropique. Comme on plaindrait un homme atteint d’hydropisie («σηπεδών»), d’hypocondrie («ὑδέρος») ou de plaies innombrables («ἕλκη») qui continuerait à faire bonne chère au mépris de sa santé (1), ainsi faut-il plaindre celui dont l’âme est atteinte de maladie et qui ne s’en soucie pas (2).80 Car, à l’inverse du péché («ἁμαρτία»), le châtiment («κόλασις») nous rapproche de Dieu et nous affranchit de sa colère, au témoignage du prophète Isaïe (Is, 40, 1, 2; 26, 12). Toutefois, dans le Discours 6, la sentence (3) intervient au début, et non à la fin: Discours, 3, § 5 (col. 998, ll. 40-60)

Discours, 6, § 3 (coll. 1030, l. 37-1031, l. 8)

1 (...) «Ὥσπερ γὰρ εἴ τινα εἶδες ὑδέρῳ ἢ σπληνὶ κατεχόμενον, ἢ σηπεδόνα τινὰ ἔχοντα καὶ ἕλκη μυρία πάντοθεν, εἶτα ἐπὶ πᾶσι τούτοις μεθύοντα, τρυφῶντα, καὶ τὸ νόσημα ἐπιτείνοντα,» 2 «οὐ μόνον οὐ θαυμάζεις, οὐδὲ μακαρίζεις διὰ τὴν τρυφὴν, ἀλλὰ δι᾿ αὐτὸ τοῦτο μάλιστα ταλανίζεις αὐτόν· οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς λογίζου. Ὅταν ἴδῃς ἄνθρωπον πονηρίᾳ συζῶντα, καὶ πολλῆς ἀπολαύοντα τῆς εὐημερίας, καὶ οὐδὲν πάσχοντα δεινὸν, διὰ τοῦτο μᾶλλον θρήνησον,» 1 «ὅτι νοσήματι κατεχόμενος καὶ σηπεδόνι χαλεπωτάτῃ, τὴν ἀῤῥωστίαν ἐπιτείνει, διὰ τῆς τρυφῆς καὶ τῆς ἀνέσεως χείρων γινόμενος.» 3 «Οὐ γὰρ ἡ κόλασις κακὸν, ἀλλ᾿ ἡ ἁμαρτία κακόν. (...)»

3 (...) «Οὐ γὰρ οὕτω χαλεπὸν κόλασις, ὡς χαλεπὸν ἡ ἁμαρτία· τῆς γὰρ κολάσεως ὑπόθεσις ἡ ἁμαρτία.» 1 «Ἐὰν τοίνυν ἴδῃς τινὰ σηπεδόνα ἔχοντα, καὶ σκώληκας καὶ ἰχῶρας ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος κατερχομένους, καὶ ἀμελοῦντα τοῦ ἕλκους καὶ τῆς σηπεδόνος, ἕτερον δὲ τὰ αὐτὰ πάσχοντα ἰατρικῶν ἀπολαύοντα χειρῶν, καιόμενον, καὶ τεμνόμενον, καὶ πικρὰ πίνοντα φάρμακα,» 2 «τίνα θρηνήσεις; εἰπέ μοι· τὸν νοσοῦντα, καὶ μὴ θεραπευόμενον, ἢ τὸν νοσοῦντα, καὶ θεραπευόμενον; Δῆλον ὅτι τὸν νοσοῦντα, καὶ μὴ θεραπευόμενον. (...)»

80

Cf. aussi Discours, 6, § 3.

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

23

Des développements parénétiques, passons à l’exégèse proprement dite: nous constatons que, si l’interprétation de la parabole, aux §§ 5 et suivants du Discours 6, présente de nombreux points communs avec les discours précédents, la formulation y est parallèle, mais jamais absolument identique. Elle est surtout sélective et simplifiée: par exemple, le Discours 6 interprète de la même manière Lc, 16, 23 (Lazare dans le sein d’Abraham), comme une antithèse entre l’hospitalité d’Abraham et l’inhumanité du Mauvais Riche, ou encore l’expression «Tu as reçu en retour» («ἀπέλαβες») dans la réponse d’Abraham au Mauvais Riche, en Lc, 16, 25, comme soulignant qu’il n’existe ici-bas ni juste ni injuste absolus, mais que tout homme a commis de bonnes et de mauvaises actions; aussi chacun reçoit-il en ce monde la compensation pour ce qui ne doit pas compter dans l’autre. En revanche, à la question «Pourquoi le mauvais riche voit-il Lazare (Lc, 16, 23)?», la réponse de l’auteur du Discours 681 ne retient que le paradoxe de cette vue perçante du Mauvais Riche: il aperçoit Lazare à distance, séparé par un immense abîme, alors qu’il ne le remarquait nullement lorsqu’il se trouvait tous les jours à sa porte. Au Discours 2,82 en revanche, Chrysostome présentait quatre explications: (1) pour attester l’existence d’un châtiment et d’une rétribution finale; (2) pour que la vue du bonheur de Lazare aiguise le malheur du Mauvais Riche, comme Adam, chassé du Paradis terrestre, fut établi «en face» («καταντικρύ») du Paradis (cf. Gn, 3, 24: «ἀπέναντι»); (3) parce que ceux que nous aurons maltraités ici-bas seront nos accusateurs au jugement, et enfin (4) parce que le refus d’accorder l’aumône est une spoliation des pauvres. De même, à la question «Pourquoi le Riche et Abraham s’appellent-ils «mon père» et «mon enfant» (Lc, 16, 24-25)?», l’auteur du Discours 6 répond:83 pour souligner la vanité de la parenté charnelle, car on ne peut, dans l’au-delà, se prévaloir des mérites de sa parenté, ce qui ne correspond qu’à l’une des trois réponses de Chrysostome,84 alors qu’au Discours 2,85 le prédicateur insiste sur la sagesse et la tendresse d’Abraham envers l’affligé; il souligne qu’Abraham est sans rancune, mais n’est pas en état de donner satisfaction à cette supplique. Néanmoins, le Discours 6 introduit aussi plusieurs interprétations qui lui sont propres: ainsi, au § 4,86 le premier thème développé après la lecture du texte biblique, celui de l’anonymat du Mauvais Riche en Lc, 16, 19, est absent de l’œuvre authentique de Chrysostome: il développe l’idée qu’une vie inhumaine conduit à la perte du nom, qui manifeste la dignité de l’homme et l’amour de Dieu pour ses créatures. Ce thème de l’anonymat du Riche se retrouve, par 81 82 83 84 85 86

De De De De De De

Lazaro Lazaro Lazaro Lazaro Lazaro Lazaro

concio, concio, concio, concio, concio, concio,

6, 2, 6, 3, 2, 4,

§ 6 (PG, 48, col. 1036, ll. 19-31). §§ 4-5 (PG, 48, coll. 987, l. 13-988, l. 47). § 6 (PG, 48, coll. 1036, l. 31-1037, l. 9). §§ 9-10 (PG, 48, coll. 1005, l. 30-1006, l. 11). § 6 (PG, 48, coll. 990, l. 49-991, l. 3). § 4 (PG, 48, coll. 1032, l. 55-1033, l. 2).

24

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

exemple, dans les scholies attribuées à Cyrille d’Alexandrie reprises par les Chaînes sur Luc.87 Mais c’est surtout la curieuse interprétation de Lc, 16, 21b qui a suscité la perplexité de Théobald Fix. À la col. 1034, ll. 26-31, les chiens qui viennent lécher les ulcères de Lazare sont présentés, par opposition à la cruauté et à l’inhumanité du Riche, comme des êtres bienveillants et compatissants qui s’appliquent à soigner ses abcès: «Ἦν τοίνυν ὁ Λάζαρος ἐν τῷ πυλῶνι κείμενος, ἡλκωμένος, λιμῷ τηκόμενος· οἱ δὲ κύνες ἐρχόμενοι ἔλειχον αὐτοῦ τὰ τραύματα· τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ κύνες φιλανθρωπότεροι ἔλειχον αὐτοῦ τὰ τραύματα, καὶ τὴν σηπεδόνα περιῄρουν καὶ ἐξεκάθαιρον.»88 ǁ ἡλκωμένος α β (λιμῷ τικόμενος· εἱλκόμενος ~ C; om. X): πατούμενος γ (- Μ): εἱλκομένος, πατούμενος M ǁ ἔλειχον: ἀπελ- BFXY ǁ τραύματα1: ἕλκη Qtxt ǁ τοῦ - τραύματα2 om. ex homœotel. α DI γ ǁ οἱ κ. τοῦ ἀνθρ. φιλοπονώτεροι ~ Χ: ἀνθρώπου: πλουσίου K ǁ φιλανθρωπότεροι + ἐγίνοντο K ǁ ἐξεκάθαιρον + τοῦ ἀνθρώπου [+ τὰ ἕλκη Σ; + τὰ τραύματα M] οἱ κ. φιλανθρ. τοῦ πλουσίου [+ λέγω Π] γ ǁ

Or, c’est un fait que le bestiaire chrysostomien est d’ordinaire défavorable aux chiens de cette parabole. Tantôt leur attaque accroît la faiblesse de Lazare, déjà rongé par la faim et la maladie, et couvert d’ulcères. Il est dans une complète impuissance devant cette importunité; exposé («προκείμενος») et comme offert en pâture à leurs langues;89 encerclé comme une bête traquée;90 si exténué qu’il ne peut même pas éloigner ces bêtes qui le harcèlent.91 Cette 87 PG, 72, col. 825, l. 53; CPG 5207.3, et la scholie empruntée par Tischendorf à la Chaîne sur Luc de type B éditée par J. A. CRAMER, Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum, vol. 2, Oxford, 1841, p. 124, ll. 4 ss., mentionnée par J. R. ROYSE, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (New Testament Tools. Studies and Documents, 36), Leiden, 2008, p. 688, n. 383; sur ce thème du nom propre ou de l’anonymat du Mauvais Riche, voir ibidem, pp. 687690, avec la bibliographie antérieure. 88 «Lazare se tenait donc à sa porte, à terre, couvert d’ulcères, rongé par la faim; les chiens venaient lécher ses plaies; plus humains que cet homme, les chiens léchaient ses plaies, en enlevaient et en nettoyaient l’abcès» (De Lazaro concio, 6, § 5; PG, 48, col. 1034, ll. 26-31). 89 «Καὶ Λάζαρος μὲν ὁ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἄξιος καὶ τῆς βασιλείας τῆς ἐκεῖ, εἱλκωμένος ταῖς τῶν κυνῶν προέκειτο γλώτταις, λιμῷ μαχόμενος διηνεκεῖ» (Ad Stagirium a daemone uexatum, lib. I, 6; PG, 47, col. 439, ll. 41-44); «τοῖς κυσὶ βορὰ προκείμενος» (Adv. Ιudaeos or., 8, § 6; PG, 48, col. 936, ll. 37-38); «ὁ τοῖς κύσι προκείμενος» (De Lazaro concio, 7; PG, 48, col. 1052); «Οὐκ ἄρρωστον ἐπεσκέψατο. Πῶς γὰρ ὁ προκείμενος ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν κυνῶν;» (Expos. in Ps., 127, § 2; PG, 55, col. 367, ll. 54-56); «ὁ δὲ Λάζαρος διὰ τοῦτο ἐστεφανοῦτο, ὅτι μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς καρτερίας τὸν χαλεπὸν τῶν ἑλκῶν ἤνεγκε πόλεμον, τὴν πενίαν, τὴν ἐρημίαν τῶν προστησομένων, τὸ ἀπερρῖφθαι, τὸ καταφρονεῖσθαι, τὸ προκεῖσθαι τράπεζα ταῖς τῶν κυνῶν γλώσσαις» (Epist., 238; PG, 52, col. 744, ll. 11-15). 90 «Τὸν πένητα Λάζαρον ἐπὶ τοῦ πυλῶνος κατακείμενον καὶ ἡλκωμένον καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν κυνῶν κυκλούμενον καὶ διαλειχόμενον καὶ λιμῷ τηκόμενον ἀνηλεῶς παρέτρεχεν, οὐδὲ ψιχίων αὐτῷ μεταδιδούς» (De Lazaro concio, 7; PG, 48, col. 1048, ll. 53-57). 91 «Οὕτω γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὸ σῶμα παρεῖτο, ὡς μηδὲ ἀποσοβεῖν δύνασθαι τοὺς κύνας ἐπιόντας καὶ τὰ τραύματα αὐτοῦ λιχμωμένους» (Adv. Ιudaeos or., 8, § 6; PG, 48, col. 936, ll. 38-40); «Οὕτως ἦν ἐξησθενηκὼς, ὡς μηδὲ τοὺς κύνας ἀποσοβῆσαι δύνασθαι, ἀλλὰ νεκρὸς ἔμψυχος

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

25

situation s’ajoute à ses autres malheurs («κακῶς πάσχειν»).92 Ailleurs, les chiens qui lèchent les plaies de Lazare sont comparés aux démons qui lèchent les péchés du Riche.93 Théobald Fix considère le passage comme une interpolation. La tradition du texte est en effet problématique: le membre de phrase est entièrement omis par la famille α et les manuscrits DI, et il se situe à deux endroits différents dans les autres témoins. Il est en effet inséré par γ (avec quelques variantes) après «ἐξεκάθαιρον» en fin de phrase: «τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ κύνες φιλανθρωπότεροι τοῦ πλουσίου». On pourrait considérer que la répétition maladroite de «ἔλειχον αὐτοῦ τὰ τραύματα» trahit une interpolation. Mais l’explication la plus vraisemblable est que ces mots ont été omis par homéotéleute dans l’archétype d’un rameau de la tradition (famille α et DI), puis introduits en marge d’un exemplaire intermédiaire par un correcteur et réinsérés à un autre endroit dans l’ancêtre de la famille γ. Cette interprétation originale de Lc, 16, 21 semble reposer sur la croyance en la vertu thérapeutique de la salive des chiens: ce thème para-philosophique des animaux médecins, qui parcourt la littérature grecque,94 nous entraîne, il ἔκειτο, ἐπιόντας μὲν αὐτοὺς θεωρῶν, ἀμύνασθαι δὲ οὐκ ἰσχύων. Οὕτως αὐτῷ τὰ μέλη παρεῖτο, οὕτω τεταρίχευτο τῇ ἀρρωστίᾳ, οὕτω δεδαπάνητο τῷ πειρασμῷ»: «Il était tellement affaibli qu’il ne pouvait pas même éloigner les chiens; c’était un cadavre vivant qui les voyait accourir, mais qui n’avait pas la force de s’en débarrasser, tant ses membres étaient épuisés, desséchés, consumés par le mal et le chagrin» (De Lazaro concio, 1; PG, 48, coll. 975, l. 55-976, l. 1); «τὸν Λάζαρον, τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ πυλῶνος τοῦ πλουσίου κατακείμενον, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἑλκῶν ἐκείνων πολιορκούμενον, καὶ ὁρῶντα τὰς γλώσσας τῶν κυνῶν ψαυούσας αὐτοῦ τῶν τραυμάτων, καὶ μηδὲ ἀπελάσαι τούτους ἰσχύοντα…» (De Lazaro concio, 7; PG, 48, 1049, ll. 42-46). 92 «le fait d’être couché devant la porte du riche, sa faiblesse, les langues des chiens et le mépris du riche à son égard, toutes choses qui relevaient du malheur»: «Τὴν ἐν τῷ πυλῶνι τοῦ πλουσίου κατάκλισιν καὶ τὴν ἀρρωστίαν καὶ τῶν κυνῶν τὰς γλώσσας καὶ τὴν τοῦ πλουσίου κατ’ αὐτοῦ γενομένην ὑπεροψίαν ἅπερ τοῦ πάσχειν κακῶς ἅπαντα ἦν» (Ad Olympiadem epist., 10, § 8, l. 15-18; A. M. MALINGREY [ed.], Jean Chrysostome. Lettres à Olympias, Vie anonyme d’Olympias [SC, 13bis], Paris, 1968, pp. 270-271). Voir aussi «Πέμψον, φησὶ, τὸν Λάζαρον ἐκεῖνον, τὸν πένητα, ὃν πρὸ τούτου ἐβδελυττόμην, ᾧ τῶν ψιχίων οὐ μετεδίδουν· ἐκείνου δέομαι νῦν, καὶ τὸν δάκτυλον ἐκεῖνον ἐπιζητῶ, ὃν οἱ κύνες ἔλειχον» (De Lazaro concio, 7; PG, 48, col. 1051, ll. 20-23); «Ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὁ Λάζαρος οὕτως· ἀλλ’ ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἐδάφους τῶν κυνῶν παρόντων καὶ λειχομένων τὰ τραύματα, βίαιον θάνατον ὑποστὰς, (τί γὰρ λιμοῦ γένοιτ’ἂν ὀδυνηρότερον;) ἀπελθὼν ἐκεῖ τῶν αἰωνίων ἀπήλαυσεν ἀγαθῶν» (Ad populum Antiochenum homilia, 5, § 3; PG, 49, col. 72, ll. 27-31); «Τί δὲ τὸν Λάζαρον τὸ ἐν τῷ πυλῶνι κεῖσθαι, καὶ ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν κυνῶν περιλείχεσθαι, καὶ ὁ λιμὸς ὁ διηνεκὴς, καὶ ἡ ὑπεροψία τοῦ πλουσίου, καὶ τὰ τραύματα, καὶ ἡ νόσος ἡ ἀφόρητος, καὶ ἡ ἐρημία τῶν προϊσταμένων, καὶ ἡ ὑπεροψία τῶν βοηθούντων;…» (In illud Isaïae, Ego Dominus Deus feci lumen, § 7; PG, 56, col. 152, ll. 39-44). 93 «Καὶ καθάπερ οἱ κύνες τούτου περιέλειχον τὰ τραύματα, οὕτως ἐκείνου δαίμονες τὰ ἁμαρτήματα·» (De Lazaro concio, 1, § 11; PG, 48, coll. 979, l. 62-980, l. 2). Au début de la concio 2, les chiens sont opposés aux anges qui portent Lazare dans le sein d’Abraham: «εἴδετε αὐτὸν ὑπὸ κυνῶν περιλειχόμενον· βλέπετε αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων δορυφορούμενον» (De Lazaro concio, 2, § 1; PG, 48, col. 981, ll. 36-38). 94 Sur les «animaux médecins», voir par exemple PLUTARQUE, De animalium sollertia, 20, 974 a-d; J. BOUFFARTIGUE (ed.), Plutarque, Œuvres morales. Traité 63. L’intelligence des animaux (CUF), Paris, 2012, pp. 37-39.

26

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

faut en convenir, très loin du Chrysostome authentique… Encore à l’état d’esquisse dans le discours 6 sur Lazare, où elle est réduite à un membre de phrase dont l’insertion dans le texte est elle-même problématique, l’image connaîtra néanmoins une certaine fortune dans le corpus des dubia et spuria attribués à Chrysostome, voire au-delà, dans une littérature homilétique qui se rattache vraisemblablement au milieu monastique syrien de la fin du 5e à la fin du 6e siècle (Pseudo-Eusèbe95 et Euloge d’Alexandrie). Le quatrième sermon De fato et prouidentia (CPG 4367), d’authenticité douteuse, consacre en effet un long développement à la parabole de Lazare, où l’on retrouve, sous une forme encore assez sobre, la même interprétation de la péricope: Ἀναμνήσθητι τοῦ Λαζάρου καὶ τοῦ πλουσίου, πῶς ὁ μὲν πρὸς ἄκρον εὐπορίας ἐληλάκει καὶ τρυφῆς, ὠμὸς ὢν καὶ ἀπηνὴς καὶ ἀπάνθρωπος καὶ κυνῶν αὐτῶν ἀγριώτερος· εἴ γε οἱ μὲν τὸν πένητα ἠλέουν καὶ ἐθεράπευον, οὐκ ὀκνοῦντες τῇ γλώττῃ ἅψασθαι τῶν ἑλκῶν τῶν κατὰ παντὸς τοῦ σώματος, ὁ δὲ οὐδὲ ψιχίων αὐτῷ μετεδίδου.96

Le thème est, en revanche, développé avec beaucoup plus d’ampleur dans l’homélie pseudo-chrysostomienne De Lazaro et diuite (CPG 4590), où il est inséré dans un contexte exégétique particulier: Ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ κύνες, φησὶν, ἐρχόμενοι ἀπέλειχον τὰ ἕλκη αὐτοῦ. Εὐγενέστεροι οἱ κύνες τοῦ πλουσίου, ἀγαθώτεροι τῆς ἐκείνου ἀπανθρωπίας. Ἐκείνου μηδέποτε ψεκάδα ἐλαίου δροσίσαντος τῷ πένητι, οἱ κύνες τὴν ἀκμὴν τῶν ὀδόντων τῇ φιλανθρωπίᾳ πραΰναντες, ἁπαλῇ τῇ γλώσσῃ αὐτὸν ἐθεράπευον, ὡς ἂν πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ πάντα ἰχῶρα τῶν τραυμάτων αὐτοῦ ἀποσμήχοντες· καὶ τὰ ἄγρια ἕλκη τῇ λειότητι τῆς γλώττης τιθασσεύοντες, τοὺς πόνους τῶν τραυμάτων αὐτοῦ ὑπέκλεπτον ἠρέμα. Ὁ δέ γε πλούσιος οὐδὲ ὄμμα ἱλαρὸν ἐχαρίσατο τῷ πένητι πώποτε, οὐδὲ λόγον κἂν ἄκαρπον, οὐ ῥάκος αὐτῷ ἐπέρριψεν, οὐ σίτων λείψανον, οὐκ ὀβολὸν ἕνα ὑπὸ ἰοῦ δεδαπανημένον, οὐκ ἄρτον, οὐ κλάσμα ἄρτου ὑπ’ εὐρῶτος διεφθαρμένον, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ γαστρὶ, ὥσπερ ἐν πανδοχείῳ, διὰ τῆς τοῦ φάρυγγος χώνης ἐνέρριπτεν.97 95 L’hypothèse de L. S. B. MAC COULL, Who Was Eusebius of Alexandria?, dans Bsl, 60 (1999), pp. 17-18, d’une datation tardive du corpus pseudo-eusébien, qui aurait été composé en Égypte, après la conquête arabe de 641-642, vers le 8e siècle, par un moine chalcédonien peut-être issu du monastère de Saint-Sabas, comme une stratégie de légitimation du pouvoir de l’Église melkite d’Alexandrie, se heurte au témoignage des sources anciennes: voir R. GOUNELLE, Les éditions de la Collectio sermonum d’Eusèbe d’Alexandrie, dans AB, 127 (2009), p. 271, n. 92; IDEM, Le sermon Sur la passion du Seigneur d’Eusèbe dit d’Alexandrie, dans P. F. BEATRICE – B. POUDERON (eds), Pascha nostrum Christus. Essays in Honor of Rainero Cantalamessa (Théologie Historique, 123), Paris, 2016, p. 315, n. 2. 96 «Souviens-toi de Lazare et du Riche, comment l’un était parvenu au sommet de la prospérité et du luxe; bien qu’il soit cruel, impitoyable, inhumain et plus sauvage que des chiens mêmes, s’il est vrai que les uns prenaient le pauvre en pitié, le soignaient, sans hésiter à toucher de leurs langues les plaies (ulcères) qui couvraient tout son corps, tandis que l’autre ne lui donnait même pas une part des miettes» (De fato et prouidentia, sermo 4; PG, 50, col. 761, ll. 7-14; CPG 4367). 97 «Mais encore, les chiens, dit l’Écriture, venaient lécher ses plaies. Les chiens montraient plus de noblesse que le Riche, plus de bonté que son inhumanité. Tandis que le Riche n’avait jamais humecté de la moindre goutte d’huile le Pauvre, les chiens, adoucissant la pointe de leurs

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

27

On notera que les chiens sont ici assimilés, semble-t-il, au Bon Samaritain qui panse les plaies du blessé de Jéricho, à travers deux réminiscences de la parabole, en Lc, 10, 34-35: l’huile («ἔλαιος») qui symbolise la miséricorde («ἔλεος»), et l’auberge («πανδοχεῖον»), qui caractérise ici, par une sorte de jeu de mot paradoxal sur son sens premier («l’endroit où l’on accueille tout le monde»), le ventre insatiable du riche, et non le gîte assuré au blessé. Face à l’impassibilité du Riche, comparable à celle du prêtre et du Lévite de Lc, 10, le rôle des chiens, Bons Samaritains auprès de Lazare, s’infléchit dans un sens favorable. Ce souci d’harmonisation entre les deux paraboles lucaniennes est ici assez caractéristique, ainsi que l’emphase rhétorique, que nous retrouvons, par exemple, aux confins de la littérature attribuée à Chrysostome, dans un sermon appartenant au corpus du Pseudo-Eusèbe dit «d’Alexandrie» (CPG 5530),98 dont l’homélie pseudo-chrysostomienne De eleemosyna (CPG 4705) serait elle-même un centon: Οἱ δὲ κύνες ἐρχόμενοι καὶ βλέποντες αὐτὸν οὕτως έλκόμενον, καὶ τὸν ἰχῶρα τὸν ἀπορρέοντα άπὸ τῶν μελῶν αὐτοῦ, εὐσπλαγχνίαν ἐπιδεικνύμενοι, ὥσπερ γλώττῃ τινὶ καὶ σπόγγῳ ἀπέλειχον τὸν ἰχῶρα ἀπὸ τῶν μελῶν αὐτοῦ, καθὼς εὐάρεστοί τινες ἰατροὶ σπογγίζοντες, καὶ τοὺς μόλωπας θεραπεύοντες. Καὶ ἐκεῖνος οὐδὲ κλάσματος ἄρτου ἠξίωσεν αὐτῷ δοῦναι. Ὢ τῆς ἀνοίας τοῦ πλουσίου! Οἱ κύνες οἱ μὴ εἰδότες Θεὸν, μήτε ἀνάστασιν προσδοκῶντες, πρός θεραπείαν τοῦ πένητος ἐπήγοντο· καὶ ὁ πλούσιος ὁ προσδοκῶν παραστῆναι τὸ φοβερὸν κριτήριον, τὸν πένητα οὐκ ἠλέησεν.99

dents par bienveillance envers l’homme, le soignaient délicatement de la langue, en essuyant pour ainsi dire toute la souillure et tout le sang de ses blessures; et en adoucissant ses plaies sauvages par la surface lisse de leur langue, ils ôtaient doucement les douleurs de ses blessures. Tandis que le Riche, lui, n’avait jamais fait grâce au Pauvre du moindre regard aimable, ni de la moindre parole, même vaine; il ne lui avait pas jeté de haillon, ni de reste de nourriture, ni une seule obole rongée par la rouille, ni pain, ni morceau de pain gâté par la moisissure, mais il engouffrait tout dans son propre ventre, comme dans une hôtellerie, par l’entonnoir de son gosier» (De Lazaro et diuite, § 1; PG, 59, col. 594, ll. 27-43; CPG 4590). 98 La place de cette homélie dans le corpus attribué à Eusèbe et la source de son édition par Angelo Mai sont indiquées par GOUNELLE, Les éditions [voir note 95], pp. 252, 254, 259, 263-264, 272. 99 «Car les chiens qui venaient et le voyaient ainsi couvert d’ulcères (à terre Ps. Chr.), le sang ruisselant de ses membres (tout ruisselant de sang Ps. Chr.), lui montraient de la (une profonde Ps. Chr.) sympathie; ils (s’approchaient et Ps. Chr.) essuyaient de leur langue, comme avec une éponge, le sang de ses membres, l’épongeant en excellents médecins, et soignant ses meurtrissures (léchant et soignant ses plaies en excellents médecins, ouvrant leur gueule avec une profonde bienveillance, la refermant avec soin avant que le venin de leurs dents ait porté quelque atteinte au juste Ps. Chr.). Mais lui ne daignait même pas lui accorder un bout de pain. Oh! la folie (cruauté Ps. Chr.) du Riche! Les chiens (mettaient leur science médicale au service du faible; eux Ps. Chr.), qui ne connaissaient pas Dieu et n’attendaient aucune résurrection, s’empressaient de soigner le Pauvre. Et le Riche, qui s’attendait à comparaître au terrible jugement, ne prit pas le Pauvre en pitié» (PS. EUSÈBE D’ALEXANDRIE, sermo, 21, § 18; PG, 861, coll. 444 D8-445 A7; CPG 5530 = PS. CHRYSOSTOME, Homilia de eleemosyna, § 7; PG, 64, col. 440, ll. 15-29; CPG 4705). Les variantes du centon pseudo-chrysostomien sont indiquées dans l’apparat.

28

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

ǁ δὲ om. Ps. Chr. ǁ έλκόμενον: κείμενον Ps. Chr. ǁ τὸν ἀπορρέοντα άπὸ: περιρρεόμενον, καὶ Ps. Chr. ǁ εὐσπλαγχνίαν + πολλὴν Ps. Chr. ǁ γλώττῃ - ἀπέλειχον: σπόγγον τινὰ προσερχόμενοι τῇ γλώσσῃ ἀπέμασσον Ps. Chr. ǁ ἀπὸ: ἐκ Ps. Chr. ǁ καθὼς - θεραπεύοντες: περιλείχοντες, ὡς ἀριστοί τινες ἰατροὶ θεραπεύοντες, τὰ ἕλκη, μετὰ πολλῆς εὐφημίας κεχηνότες, ἀσφαλιζόμενοι ἀκριβῶς, μή πως φθάσῃ ὁ ἰὸς τῶν ὀδόντων, καὶ καταλυμήνηται τοῦ δικαίου τι. Ps. Chr. ǁ Καὶ ἐκεῖνος - δοῦναι om. Ps. Chr. ǁ ἀνοίας: ὠμότητος Ps. Chr. ǁ κύνες + ἰατρικὴν τέχνην προεβάλλοντο ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀσθενοῦντος Ps. Chr. ǁ παραστῆναι post κριτήριον transp. Ps. Chr. ǁ

Enfin, cette interprétation est attestée dans un fragment du IVe Livre Contre les Novatiens d’Euloge, évêque melchite d’Alexandrie entre 580/581 et 607/608, qui, dans sa jeunesse, avait embrassé l’état monastique, puis, devenu prêtre, avait assumé la fonction d’higoumène du monastère antiochien τὰ Ἰουστινιανοῦ.100 Hormis une chaîne tardive sur Luc,101 le Codex, 280 (et dernier) de la Bibliothèque de Photius constitue, hélas, le seul témoin de ce fragment exégétique, dont la parenté avec l’extrait du De Lazaro et diuite (CPG 4590) mentionné ci-dessus ressort de leur recours commun à l’image de la langue des chiens qui nettoie les plaies de Lazare «pour ainsi dire en les essuyant» («ὡς ἂν/οἷον ἀποσμήχοντες»): Ὅτι καὶ διὰ τῶν κυνῶν, φησίν, ἡ παραβολὴ ἀπηνέστερον ἐλέγχει τὸν πλούσιον ἐκεῖνον, οὗ πρὸ τοῦ πυλῶνος ὁ Λάζαρος ἔρριπτο*. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ κύνες οἰκτείροντες αὐτοῦ τὴν πολλὴν ταλαιπωρίαν, ὅπερ ἠδύναντο ποιεῖν, ἔπραττον περιλείχοντες καὶ οἷον ἀποσμήχοντες αὐτοῦ τὸ ἕλκος ταῖς γλώσσαις· ὁ δὲ καὶ 100 Comme il l’indique au début d’un traité marqué du chiffre 9 dans le recueil que lisait PHOTIUS, Bibliotheca, Codex, 230, Coll. Byzantine, 5, p. 53, trad. remaniée par J. SCHAMP, Photios historien des lettres. La Bibliothèque et ses notices biographiques (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, 248), Paris, 1987, p. 118 et n. 22. «Ce saint Eulogios, précise Photius, eut auparavant le grade de prêtre à Antioche («πρεσβυτέρου βαθμὸν ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ἔσχε τὸ πρότερον»), et il fut higoumène du couvent de la Très Sainte Mère de Dieu, dit «couvent de Justinien» («μονῆς ἡγήσατο τῆς παναγίας θεοτόκου τῆς λεγομένης τῶν Ἰουστινιανοῦ»)» (Ibidem, Codex, 226, 244 a 3-5; Coll. Byzantine, 4, p. 111, trad. de SCHAMP, Photios, p. 123 et n. 52, légèrement modifiée). Selon le chroniqueur monophysite Jean d’Éphèse, Euloge aurait été responsable d’un «ξενοδοχεῖον» d’Antioche, probablement un hospice pour les voyageurs ou pèlerins étrangers établi près d’un monastère: «uir cui nomen Eulogius xenodochiarius ab Antiochia» (IOH. EPH., H. E. I 40 [CSCO, 106; script. syr., 55], p. 34, l. 25). Jean Moschos, enfin, qui le connaissait personnellement, parle de lui comme de l’«ἀββᾶς Εὐλόγιος πάππας Ἀλεξανδρίας» (IOH. MOSCH., prat., 147; PG, 87, 3011). Nous empruntons ces deux dernières références à B. MÜLLER, Führung im Denken und Handeln Gregors des Grossen (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 57), Tübingen, 2009, p. 93. Voir aussi B. ROOSEN, Eulogii Alexandrini quae supersunt. Old and New Fragments from Eulogius of Alexandria’s Œuvre (CPG 6971-6979), dans Medioevo Greco, 15 (2015), p. 201 et n. 1-5. 101 Sur cette chaîne mixte secondaire de type E (CPG C, 134), essentiellement attestée dans un unique manuscrit, Vat. Palat. gr., 20 (13e-14e siècle), et sa copie, Vat. gr., 1933, mais dont la composition pourrait remonter au 10e siècle, voir J. M. LAVOIE – P. H. POIRIER – T. S. SCHMIDT, Les Homélies sur l’Évangile de Luc de Titus de Bostra, dans L. DI TOMMASO – L. TURCESCU (eds), The Reception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Montréal Colloquium in Honour of Charles Kannengiesser, 11-13 October 2006 (The Bible in Ancient Christianity, 6), Leiden, 2008, pp. 260-261.

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

29

τῶν κυνῶν περὶ τὸ ὁμόφυλον ἀπηνέστερος καὶ δι’ αὐτῶν ἠλέγχετο τῶν κυνῶν. Διὰ τοῦτο κἀκεῖνον τὸ πῦρ ἀδυσωπήτως μετέρχεται.102 * ἡ - ἔρριπτο: τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς τοῦ πλουσίου ἀπηνείας ἐλέγχει ἡ παραβολή PG et Catena in Lucam (ex cod. Palat. gr. 20, f. 160, s. XIII; CPG C 134) ǁ ἠδύναντο: ἐδύναντο PG et Cat. ǁ τὸ (ὁμόφυλον): τὸν PG et Cat.

Photius, qui a cité le Discours 6 Sur Lazare au Codex 277, n’a pas relevé ici le parallèle avec ce traité d’Euloge. Cela semble étonnant de la part de celui qui s’est par ailleurs montré sensible à la parenté de l’exégèse des paraboles néotestamentaires chez Euloge et Chrysostome, comme en témoigne sa réflexion sur la parabole du Bon Samaritain: «L’auteur explique comme Chrysostome les termes de la parabole du Seigneur qui met en scène l’homme qui descendait de Jéricho et qui fut couvert de blessures».103 En réalité, lorsqu’ont été rédigés les derniers livres de la Bibliothèque, Photius ne disposait probablement plus des textes intégraux, mais seulement de ses «σχέδη» et de leurs transcriptions partielles. Le patriarche semble avoir consulté au moins quatre recueils des œuvres d’Euloge,104 dont deux sont considérés par J. Schamp comme émanant d’une «édition savante», car ils sont munis, l’un (codices, 226227) d’une notice biographique sur l’auteur, l’autre (codex, 230) d’une hypothesis de son traité contre les Samaritains. L’auteur de la Bibliothèque ne consacre pas moins de trois Codices (codd., 182, 208 et 280) à l’œuvre du patriarche contre les Novatiens.105 À l’instar de René Henry, on estime d’ordinaire que ces trois codices ne constituent qu’un seul traité, sous des titres différents, malgré une incertitude sur le nombre de «λόγοι» (cinq ou six) qu’il contenait,106 ce que semble confirmer l’examen récent par Bram Roosen des Fragmenta in 102 «Par l’image des chiens, dit-il, la parabole critique ce riche trop dur devant la porte duquel gisait Lazare. Car les chiens, pris de pitié pour son grand malheur, faisaient ce qu’ils pouvaient en léchant et comme en essuyant ses plaies; et le riche, qui était plus dur à l’égard de son semblable que les chiens, était confondu même par eux. C’est pourquoi le feu l’atteint sans rémission» (EULOG. ALEX., Contra Nouatianos; PG 862, coll. 2961 D7 - 2964A3; CPG 6974 et 6976 = PHOTIUS, Bibliotheca, Codex 280, 543 a 40 - b 5; ed. R. HENRY, VIII, pp. 208-209). 103 Ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς δεσποτικῆς παραβολῆς εἰρημένα, ἥτις τὸν ἀπὸ Ἱεριχὼ κατιόντα καὶ τραυματισθέντα ὑποβάλλει, ὁμοίως τῷ Χρυσοστόμῳ ἀναπτύσσει, πανδοχεῖον μὲν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐκλαμβάνων, δύο δὲ δηνάρια τὴν παλαιὰν καὶ καινὴν διαθήκην, πανδοχέα δὲ τὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας προεστῶτα, ἐμπεπτωκότα δὲ εἰς τοὺς λῃστὰς τὸν ἡμαρτηκότα…» (PHOTIUS, Bibliotheca, Codex 280, 536 b 14-21; Coll. Byzantine VIII, p. 189). 104 Codd. 225-227, 230, ce dernier de onze pièces. 105 C’est un de ces «doublets» (en réalité un triplet) dont J. Schamp, à la suite de W. T. Treadgold, a donné la liste: J. SCHAMP, Photios [voir n. 100], pp. 97-98, où l’auteur estime excessive l’appellation de «doublets». 106 R. HENRY (ed.), III, p. 105 n. 2 et VIII, p. 188 n. 1. On notera néanmoins que J. Schamp rejette cette interprétation «simpliste» et préfère parler d’ouvrages distincts, dont la rédaction, pour le traité mentionné au Codex 182, serait contemporaine du patriarcat: SCHAMP, Photios [voir n. 100], p. 125. La mention du titre et du nombre de livres de la composition (σύνταγμα) dont est extraite, au cod. 280, cette exégèse de Lc 16, 21 pose en effet un petit problème d’établissement de texte: voir l’éd. R. Henry, VIII, p. 188 app. crit. et J. SCHAMP, Photios [voir n. 100], p. 124, n. 55. (R. HENRY, Photius. Bibliothèque. Codices 257-280, vol. 8 [Les belles lettres], Paris, 2003).

30

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

s. Scripturam (CPG 6973-6975) attribués à Euloge d’Alexandrie:107 à la suite de J. A. Demetracopoulos, ce dernier a montré que presque tous les extraits exégétiques publiés sous son nom dans la Patrologie de Migne108 devaient appartenir au Contra Nouatianos (CPG 6976a), et que leur concordance avec les fragments conservés par Photius désignait clairement ce dernier comme leur source unique. Nous sommes donc ici entièrement tributaires des transcriptions du Codex, 280. Parallèlement à cette étonnante évocation des chiens médecins de Lazare, qui intriguait tant Théobald Fix, un autre exemple d’exégèse non moins curieuse fait l’objet, cette fois-ci, d’un ample développement du Discours 6, signalé de longue date par Sever J. Voicu:109 au § 7,110 pour justifier son affirmation que la pratique du péché rend esclave et manifester le caractère contre-nature de la condition servile, le prédicateur introduit un longue digression sur Gn, 7-9, la prévarication de l’humanité, le châtiment du Déluge et la malédiction de Cham, origines de l’esclavage. À grand renfort d’images est développée une exégèse typologique de l’Église, Arche de Salut. Noé, «étincelle de notre espèce» («ὁ σπινθὴρ τοῦ γένους τοῦ ἡμετέρου»), mû par la main puissante de Dieu, a sauvé de la perdition «les prémices de notre espèce, femmes et enfants, colombe et corbeau, et tous les autres» («τὰς ἀπαρχὰς τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν ἔχων, γυναῖκα καὶ παιδία, περιστερὰν καὶ κόρακα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα»), mais l’Église fait mieux encore, en transformant les loups en brebis: Μυστήρια δὲ ἦν τὰ λεγόμενα, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων τύπος τὰ γινόμενα· οἷον, ἡ Ἐκκλησία κιβωτὸς, ὁ Νῶε ὁ Χριστὸς, ἡ περιστερὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ φύλλον τῆς ἐλαίας ἡ φιλανθρωπία τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τὸ ἥμερον ζῶον ἐξεπέμπετο, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἀπὸ τῆς κιβωτοῦ· ἀλλὰ τύπος ἐκεῖνα, ταῦτα δὲ ἀλήθεια. Ὅρα δὲ τὴν δαψίλειαν τῆς ἀληθείας. Καθάπερ ἡ κιβωτὸς ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ πελάγους διέσωζε τοὺς ἔσω ὄντας, οὕτω καὶ ἡ Ἐκκλησία διασώζει τοὺς πλανωμένους ἅπαντας. Ἀλλ᾿ ἡ μὲν κιβωτὸς ἔσωζε μόνον, ἡ δὲ Ἐκκλησία πλέον τι ἐργάζεται. Οἷόν τι λέγω· Ἔλαβεν ἡ κιβωτὸς τὰ ἄλογα, καὶ ἔσωσεν ἄλογα· ἔλαβεν ἡ Ἐκκλησία ἀλόγους ἀνθρώπους, καὶ οὐ σώζει μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ μεταβάλλει· ἔλαβεν ἡ κιβωτὸς κόρακα, καὶ κόρακα ἔπεμψε· λαμβάνει ἡ Ἐκκλησία κόρακα, καὶ ἐκπέμπει περιστεράν· λαμβάνει λύκον, καὶ ἐκπέμπει αὐτὸν πρόβατον. Ὅταν γὰρ εἰσέλθῃ ἐνταῦθα ἄνθρωπος ἁρπάζων, πλεονεκτῶν, ἀκούσῃ δὲ τῶν θείων λογίων τῆς διδασκαλίας, μεταβάλλει τὴν γνώμην, καὶ ἀντὶ

107 ROOSEN, Eulogii Alexandrini [voir n. 100], notamment n° 3. Fragm. in s. Scripturam [CPG 6973, 6974, 6975] and the Contra Novatianos [CPG 6976a], pp. 227-228 (avec une table de concordance des fragments de PG 862 et du Codex 280 de Photius). L’article de P. MATTEI, Le témoignage d’Euloge, patriarche d’Alexandrie, sur Novatien (d’après Photius, Bibl., codd. 182, 208, 280), dans B. COLOMBAT – P. MATTEI – Ch. BÉNÉ (eds), Curiosité historique et intérêts philologiques. Hommages à Serge Lancel (Recherches et Travaux, 54), Grenoble, 1998, pp. 151166, ne nous a pas été accessible. 108 PG 862, coll. 2959-2964. 109 VOICU, La volontà [voir note 54], pp. 109-110. 110 PG, 48, coll. 1037, l. 17-1039, l. 2.

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

31

λύκου γίνεται πρόβατον· ὁ μὲν γὰρ λύκος καὶ τὰ ἀλλότρια ἁρπάζει, τὸ δὲ πρόβατον καὶ τὸ ἔριον αὐτοῦ προΐεται.111 ǁ λεγόμενα γ: τελούμενα cett. (om. C) ǁ κιβωτὸς ἡ Ἐκκλησία ~ BF: κιβωτὸς Ἐκκλησία J ǁ Ἐκκλησία + ἡ codd. omnes praeter BFJ ǁ 12 ἡ ἐλαία β (- DI) ǁ ἥμερον: ἡμέτερον K ΣMR ǁ 15 πλανωμένους: πεπλανημένους α ǁ Ἀλλ᾿ – μόνον om. Σ ǁ ἔσωζε(ν): ἔσωσεν M: διέσωζε(ν) α ǁ 16 ἔσωσε(ν) BFCΘW: -ζε(ν) cett. ǁ ἄλογα2: τὰ ἄλογα β ǁ ἔλαβεν γ: λαμβάνει α β ǁ ἀνθρώπους + λέγω· α ǁ 17 ἔπεμψε [ἔπ. κ. ~ BF] BF PΠ: ἐξέπεμψε β (- BF) γ (- PΠ): ἀπολύει [ἀπολ. κ. ~ AV] α ǁ ἐκπέμπει: πέμπει ΣR ǁ 18 αὐτὸν (περιστεράν) V β M ǁ ἄνθρωπος ἐνταῦθα ~ VΓ M ǁ 19 λογίων DI γ: λόγων α BFKJLO: (τὸν...) λόγον CTΘW ǁ τῆς FΘW PΠ: καὶ τῆς cett. ǁ διδασκαλίας + καὶ BFY: γνώμην + καὶ AV XJLOT PΠMR: om. cett. ǁ τὴν γνώμην α DI γ: τὸν τρόπον cett. ǁ 20 ἔριον: ἀρνίον JLO ǁ

Sever Voicu remarque à juste titre que nous retrouvons cette exégèse dans trois Spuria, qui présentent à chaque fois un même schéma rhétorique: (1) affirmation de principe du paradoxe de l’Église, nouvelle Arche de Noé; (2) exemple concret qui se conclut par la transformation du loup en brebis, et (3) entre les deux, emploi d’une formule de transition stéréotypée «Οἷόν τι λέγω» («Voici, par exemple, ce que je veux dire»).112 L’image apparaît en premier lieu dans l’homélie In illud [2 Co, 12, 9], Sufficit tibi gratia mea (CPG 4576): Καθάπερ γὰρ Νῶε σανίδας ῥάψας κιβωτὸν εἰργάσατο, οὕτω καὶ Παῦλος ἐπιστολὰς γράψας κατεσκεύασε κιβωτὸν νοεράν. Αὕτη ἐκείνης βελτίων. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐλάμβανε τὰ ἄλογα καὶ ἐτήρει τὰ ἄλογα. Αὕτη δὲ λαμβάνει τὰ ἄλογα καὶ μεταβάλλει. Οἷόν τι λέγω· Εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν κιβωτὸν λύκος καὶ ἐξῆλθε λύκος. Εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὰς Παύλου ἐπιστολὰς λύκος καὶ ἐξῆλθε πρόβατον. Εἰσῆλθε μάγος καὶ διωρθώθη.113 111 «Ce qu’on signifiait [ou: ce qui s’accomplissait («τὰ τελούμενα»)] était un mystère, et ce qui se passait une figure de ce qui devait venir («τῶν μελλόντων τύπος»): par exemple, l’Église, c’est l’Arche, Noé, le Christ, la colombe, l’Esprit Saint, le rameau d’olivier, l’amour de Dieu pour les hommes. On envoyait dehors l’animal apprivoisé et il sortit de l’Arche; mais ce n’était qu’une figure; voici la vérité («τύπος ἐκεῖνα, ταῦτα δὲ ἀλήθεια»). Considère l’abondance de la vérité. Comme l’Arche au milieu des mers sauvait ceux qui étaient à l’intérieur, de même l’Église sauve tous les égarés. Mais tandis que l’Arche les sauvait seulement, l’Église accomplit une œuvre supplémentaire. Voici, par exemple, ce que je veux dire («Οἷόν τι λέγω»): l’Arche a reçu les animaux dénués de raison, et elle a sauvé des êtres dénués de raison; l’Église a reçu des hommes dénués de raison, et elle ne se contente pas de les sauver, mais elle les transforme («μεταβάλλει»): l’Arche a reçu un corbeau, et elle a envoyé (ou: elle libère) un corbeau; l’Église reçoit un corbeau et elle renvoie une colombe; elle reçoit un loup et elle le renvoie en brebis. En effet, lorsqu’entre ici un homme rapace, cupide, et qu’il entend les divins oracles de notre enseignement, il change de disposition («μεταβάλλει τὴν γνώμην»; la famille β dit «τὸν τρόπον»), et de loup devient brebis; car le loup ravit même ce qui est à autrui, tandis que la brebis va jusqu’à offrir sa propre toison.» 112 VOICU, La volontà [voir note 54], p. 110. 113 «En effet, comme Noé a disposé («ῥάψας») des planches pour en faire une Arche, ainsi aussi Paul a rédigé («γράψας») des épîtres pour construire une Arche spirituelle. Cette dernière est meilleure que l’autre: l’une, en effet, reçevait les êtres dénués de raison et conservait ces êtres dénués de raison, tandis que l’autre reçoit les êtres dénués de raison et les transforme. Voici, par exemple, ce que je veux dire («Οἷόν τι λέγω»): il est entré dans l’arche un loup, et il en est

32

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

Puis dans la huitième homélie De paenitentia (CPG 4333.8 et 4508): Διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τις τῆς κιβωτοῦ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν μείζονα προσειπών. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ κιβωτὸς παρελάμβανε τὰ ζῶα, καὶ ἐφύλαττε ζῶα, ἡ δὲ Ἐκκλησία παραλαμβάνει τὰ ζῶα καὶ μεταβάλλει. Οἷόν τι λέγω· Εἰσῆλθεν ἐκεῖ ἱέραξ, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἱέραξ· εἰσῆλθε λύκος, καὶ ἐξῆλθε λύκος· εἰσῆλθέ τις ἱέραξ ἐνταῦθα, καὶ ἐξέρχεται περιστερά· εἰσέρχεται λύκος, καὶ ἐξέρχεται πρόβατον· εἰσέρχεται ὄφις, καὶ ἐξέρχεται ἀρνίον, οὐ τῆς φύσεως μεταβαλλομένης, ἀλλὰ τῆς κακίας ἐλαυνομένης.114

Enfin, dans l’homélie In s. Phocam martyrem (CPG 4364): Ἡ Ἐκκλησία μήτηρ ἐστὶ τῶν οἰκείων τέκνων, καὶ τούτους δεχομένη, καὶ τοῖς ξένοις τοὺς κόλπους ἐφαπλοῦσα. Κοινὸν θέατρον ἡ κιβωτὸς ἡ τοῦ Νῶε ἦν, ἀλλ᾿ ἡ Ἐκκλησία καὶ ταύτης βελτίων. Ἐκείνη μὲν γὰρ ἐλάμβανεν ἄλογα, καὶ ἐφύλαττεν ἄλογα· αὕτη δὲ λαμβάνει ἄλογα, καὶ μεταβάλλει. Οἷόν τι λέγω· Ἐὰν εἰσέλθῃ ἐνταῦθα ἀλώπηξ αἱρετικὸς, ποιῶ τοῦτον πρόβατον· ἐὰν εἰσέλθῃ λύκος, ποιῶ αὐτὸν ἀρνίον τὸ ἐμὸν μέρος· (...).115

Il existe, il est vrai, au moins un parallèle dans le Chrysostome authentique: une longue comparaison entre l’Arche de Noé et les Épîtres pauliniennes, dans la première homélie De laudibus s. Pauli apostoli, mentionnée en note, par exemple, dans la traduction du Discours 6 par Massimiliano Signifredi.116 Mais l’absence de la formule de transition stéréotypée «Οἷόν τι λέγω» le différencie des exemples ci-dessus, auxquels il pourrait néanmoins avoir servi de modèle. Théobald Fix était enfin choqué par la confusion que manifeste, au § 9,117 une longue énumération des titres de gloire de S. Paul. Le prédicateur lui attribue des résurrections de morts opérées rien que par son ombre: «ὁ ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ ressorti un loup. Il est entré dans les épîtres de Paul un loup, et il en est ressorti une brebis, un mage, et il s’est amendé. In illud [2 Co, 12, 9], Sufficit tibi gratia mea, § 2 (PG, 59, col. 509, ll. 67-75; CPG 4576). 114 «Voilà pourquoi on n’aurait pas tort d’attribuer à l’Église plus d’importance qu’à l’Arche: l’Arche recevait les animaux, et elle conservait des animaux; l’Église reçoit les animaux et les transforme. Voici, par exemple, ce que je veux dire («Οἷόν τι λέγω»): il est entré dans l’Arche un faucon, et il en est sorti un faucon; un loup, et il en est sorti un loup; il est entré dans l’Église un faucon, et il en ressort une colombe; il entre un loup, et il en ressort une brebis; un serpent, et il en ressort un agneau, car ce n’est pas leur nature qui est transformée, mais leur méchanceté qui est chassée» De paenitentia homilia, 8 (PG, 49, coll. 336, l. 53-337, l. 3; CPG 4333.8 et 4508). 115 «L’Église est mère de ses propres enfants; elle les reçoit tout en ouvrant son sein aux étrangers. L’Arche de Noé était un théâtre commun, mais l’Église lui est encore supérieure. Cellelà recevait des êtres dénués de raison, et elle conservait des êtres dénués de raison, tandis que l’autre reçoit des êtres dénués de raison et elle les transforme. Voici, par exemple, ce que je veux dire («Οἷόν τι λέγω»): si se présente ici un renard hérétique, j’en fais une brebis; si se présente un loup, j’en fais pour ma part un agneau» In s. Phocam martyrem (PG, 50, col. 702, ll. 49-57; CPG 4364). 116 PG, 50, coll. 474, l. 31-475, l. 4 (A. PIÉDAGNIEL [ed.], Jean Chrysostome. Panégyriques de Saint Paul [SC, 300], Paris, 1982, pp. 118-120; CPG 4344); cf. M. SIGNIFREDI, Giovanni Crisostomo. Discorsi sul povero Lazzaro (Collana di testi patristici, 205), Roma, 2009, p. 159, n. 7. 117 PG, 48, col. 1041, ll. 29-30.

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

33

αὐτοῦ θάνατον λύων». Cette formulation contient en effet deux inexactitudes, car en Act, 5, 15, il n’est question que de guérisons, non de résurrections, et par ailleurs le miracle est attribué à Pierre, et non à Paul. p. 786: «E, Paulo tribuit quæ de Petro valent, cujusmodi permutationem horum apostolorum apud Chrysostomum non offendi quovis pignore contendimus».118

Il convient de nuancer cette critique. En effet, le premier éditeur du Discours, Fronton du Duc, avait déjà tenté de répondre à l’objection. À ses yeux, loin de représenter un argument contre l’authenticité, l’inexactitude de cette réminiscence biblique constituait au contraire une présomption en sa faveur, puisque nous la retrouvons dans un développement parallèle du commentaire In Epistulam ad Galatas,119 où Chrysostome considère aussi que les apôtres ont ressuscité des morts par la vertu de leur ombre, en attribuant cette fois, remarquons-le, à l’ensemble des apôtres des miracles qui reviennent à Pierre seul.120 En fait, on pourrait ajouter au témoignage invoqué par Fronton toute une liste de lieux parallèles empruntés à la prédication authentique de Chrysostome. Parfois, il est vrai, le prédicateur attribue correctement à Pierre seul les miracles qui lui reviennent,121 mais il n’est pas rare qu’il en crédite de manière plus générale l’ensemble des apôtres, des serviteurs de Dieu ou de ses fidèles.122 Enfin, dans le contexte d’un éloge, il lui arrive au moins deux fois d’attribuer ces miracles 118 «p. 786, E [= 1041, 29-30], il attribue à Paul ce qui vaut pour Pierre; or, nous soutenons en toute assurance qu’on ne rencontre pas chez Chrysostome semblable permutation de ces apôtres» (GAUME, Opera omnia [voir note 8], p. ij, n. *). 119 In Epistulam ad Galatas, 1, § 3; PG, 61, col. 616, ll. 9-20. 120 FRONTON DU DUC, Tractatuum decas [voir note 10], note sur la traduction: p. 46. l. 15. Mortem vmbra) Hoc dicit, quoniam fallente memoria putauit Petrum mortuos vmbra sua suscitasse (Actor 5. 15.) Vt in commentario in epist. ad Galatas scripsit p. 965. quem locum vide in nostris ad Panegyricos tractatus Notis p. 467. idque monere voluimus vt non ex formosis tantum lineamentis, sed etiam ex næuo & crepundijs eum in hoc fœtu agnoscamus. («S’il parle ainsi, c’est parce que sa mémoire l’a trompé, et qu’il a pensé que Pierre avait ressuscité des morts par la vertu de son ombre, en Act. 5, 15, comme il l’a écrit dans son commentaire à l’Épître aux Galates, à la p. 965. Voir ce passage dans nos Notes aux sermons Panégyriques, p. 467. Nous avons tenu à en avertir pour montrer que si nous reconnaissons Chrysostome dans cette production, ce n’est pas seulement en raison de ses traits de beauté, mais aussi pour ses défauts et ses naïvetés.»). 121 In Matthaeum hom., 56, § 2; PG, 58, col. 551, ll. 28-33; In Iohannem hom., 63, § 3; PG, 59, col. 351, ll. 5-54 (citation de Jn, 14, 12); In Acta Apostolorum hom., 21, 3; PG, 60, col. 168, ll. 11-12 (allusion; résurrection de Tabitha par S. Pierre, Act, 9, 32-43). Voir aussi Homilia de capto Eutropio, § 14; PG, 52, col. 409, ll. 10-15. La seconde partie de l’homélie a été suspectée par la critique, à tort semble-t-il, si l’on considère avec A. CAMERON, A Misidentified Homily of Chrysostom, dans Nottingham Mediaeval Studies, 32 (1988), pp. 34-48, qu’on s’est trompé sur l’identité du dignitaire dont elle fait mention. 122 Ainsi, par exemple (hormis le commentaire aux Galates), In quatriduanum Lazarum (Contra Anomœos homilia, 9), § 2; PG, 48, col. 782, ll. 3-13; A. M. MALINGREY (ed.), Jean Chrysostome. Sur l’égalité du Père et du Fils [SC, 396], Paris, 1994, pp. 224-225, ll. 105-113 (allusion à Act, 5, 15; 9, 40; 19, 11-13); In principium Actorum homilia 4, § 7; PG, 51, coll. 107, l. 60-108, l. 6 (explication de Jn, 14, 12); De mutatione nominum homilia, 1, § 5; PG, 51, coll. 120, l. 5-121, l. 2 (rappel de l’homélie précédente).

34

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

au seul S. Paul.123 Très probablement, le prédicateur aura ici superposé dans sa mémoire plusieurs versets parallèles des Actes, qui se rapportent (Act, 5, 16; 9, 20) à Pierre et (Act, 19, 11-13) à Paul, d’autant plus aisément qu’il évoque parfois à ce sujet les deux apôtres en même temps.124 Néanmoins, si l’on examine l’ensemble du passage, la longueur même de cette énumération paraît suspecte, comme l’a souligné naguère Sever J. Voicu, nous en retrouvons des échos très voisins dans deux textes manifestement pseudo-chrysostomiens: l’homélie In illud [2 Co, 12, 9], Sufficit tibi gratia mea (CPG 4576) et le sermon In Petrum et Paulum (CPG 4572), comme en témoigne le tableau de comparaison suivant:125 De Lazaro concio, 6, § 9

In illud, Sufficit, §§ 1-2

«Καὶ γὰρ Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος,»

«(Παῦλος) νύμφη παρεσκευασμένη,»

1. «τὸ σκεῦος τῆς ἐκλογῆς,»

6. «βασιλέων σεμνότερος, πλουσίων εὐπορώτερος,»

2. «ὁ ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ στόμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ λύρα τοῦ Πνεύματος,» 3. «ὁ διδάσκαλος τῆς οἰκουμένης,» 4. «ὁ γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν περιελθὼν,»

7. «στρατιωτῶν δυνατώτερος, τειχῶν ἀσφαλέστερος· λύρα ἡ γνώμη, μέλιτος γλυκύτερος, θαλάσσης βαθύτερος, οὐρανοῦ ὑψηλότερος, πυρὸς θερμότερος, σιδήρου τομώτερος· θεοῦ τὴν χάριν ἔχων,»

5. «ὁ τὰς ἀκάνθας τῶν ἁμαρ2. «ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, στόμα τοῦ τιῶν ἀνασπάσας, ὁ τὰ σπέρματα Χριστοῦ, λύρα τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβείας καταβαλὼν,» πνεύματος,»

In Petrum et Paulum sermo, § 1 «Παῦλος» 11. «ὁ μέγας τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυξ, τὸ καύχημα τῆς οἰκουμένης,» 10. «ὁ ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ἄγγελος, ἡ δόξα τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς πετόμενος ἀετός,» 2. «ἡ λύρα τοῦ πνεύματος, ἡ χελιδὼν καὶ τέττιξ, τὸ ὄργανον τοῦ δεσπότου, ὁ γρήγορος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπηρέτης (...)»

2. «τὸ στόμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ 11. «τῶν κατηχουμένων λύρα τοῦ πνεύματος,» κήρυξ, τῶν πιστῶν παιδοτρίὁ πλουσίων δυνατώτερος,» βης, πανταχοῦ περιερχόμενος, 10. «ὁ τρίπηχυς ἄνθρωπος καὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἁπτόμενος (...)» 7. «ὁ στρατιωτῶν ἰσχυρότερος, τεῖχος μηδέποτε καταπῖπτον (...)» ὁ φιλοσόφων φιλοσοφώτερος, 3. «Τὸν διδάσκαλον τῆς ὁ ῥητόρων εὐγλωττότερος, οἰκουμένης,» ὁ μηδὲν ἔχων καὶ πάντα 10. «τὸν παραδείσου κεκτημένος, ὁ ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ αὐτοῦ πολίτην,» θάνατον λύων,» 6. «ὁ βασιλέων εὐπορώτερος,

123 In illud: Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam, sermo 1, § 2; PG, 51, col. 190, ll. 9-17; In ep. I ad Corinthios homilia, 6, § 1; PG, 61, col. 48, ll. 40-42. 124 In ep. ad Romanos, homilia 14, § 6; PG, 60, col. 531, ll. 24-28 (allusion). En In ep. ad Hebraeos, homilia 3, § 5; PG, 63, col. 35, ll. 15-25, les apôtres ne sont pas mentionnés, mais le prédicateur pense de toute évidence à Act, 5, 15 et 19, 11-13. 125 De Lazaro concio, 6, § 9 (PG, 48, col. 1041, ll. 21-33); In illud, Sufficit, §§ 1-2 (PG, 59, coll. 509, ll. 57-65; 510, ll. 25-35); In Petrum et Paulum sermo, § 1 (PG, 59, col. 493, ll. 3-8, 20-21, 43-45).

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

8. «ὁ ἐν τοῖς ἱματίοις αὐτοῦ τὰ νοσήματα φυγαδεύων,» 9. «ὁ ἐν θαλάσσῃ τρόπαια στήσας,» 10. «ὁ ἁρπαγεὶς ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ, καὶ εἰς παράδεισον εἰσελθὼν,» 11. «ὁ τὸν Χριστὸν Θεὸν ἀνακηρύξας, (...)»

35

2. «τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅπερ ἔφην, τὴν λύραν τοῦ πνεύματος,» 1. «τὸ σκεῦος τῆς ἐκλογῆς,» 4. «τὸν τὴν οἰκουμένην διαδραμόντα,» 5. «τὸν τὰς ἀκάνθας τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἀνασπάσαντα, τὸν τὰ σπέρματα τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐμβαλόντα, (…)» 9. «τὸν ἐν δικαστηρίῳ τρόπαιον στήσαντα,» 4. «τὸν πᾶσαν ἐπιδραμόντα τὴν οἰκουμένην,» 8. «τὸν ἄϋπνον ἐκεῖνον οὗ τὰ ἱμάτια νόσους ἐφυγάδευσεν, οὗ ἡ ζωὴ θάνατον δραπετεύειν παρεσκεύασε (...)»

Résumons les acquis de notre analyse: le Discours 6 sur Lazare, qui constitue, au même titre que le Discours 7, comme un condensé des quatre premiers sermons de la série De Lazaro, leur a été associé dès le 10e siècle dans deux des trois branches de la tradition: quatre témoins de la «famille β» et deux de la «famille γ», tout en conservant une importante tradition indépendante. Ce sermon est unanimement attribué à Chrysostome par la tradition manuscrite, ainsi que par les auteurs de florilèges et d’excerpta du 9e siècle, Photius, le Ps.-Anastase, qui coïncide partiellement avec la 13e éclogue de Théodore Daphnopatès; son auteur semble en tout cas connaître parfaitement les quatre premiers discours, qu’il paraphrase, tout en leur imprimant sa marque personnelle; il cite une version «antiochienne» d’Isaïe, attestée par le Commentaire de Théodoret; il multiplie, à dessein ou non, les interventions auprès de ses auditeurs: apostrophes, interrogations rhétoriques, mais certaines d’entre elles sont inconnues du Chrysostome authentique; il interprète surtout d’une manière assez surprenante deux passages de l’Écriture: les chiens, médecins de Lazare, en Lc, 16, 21b, l’Église, Arche de Salut, en Gn, 7, 11-8, 8, exégèses qu’on retrouve dans plusieurs homélies inauthentiques et peut-être, pour la première, chez deux moines antiochiens des 5e-6e siècles: le Pseudo-Eusèbe et Euloge d’Alexandrie. Mais, dans le premier cas, on peut se demander s’il ne s’agit pas d’une interpolation plus tardive, et dans le second, un texte parallèle, assez différent il est vrai, existe néanmoins. Il arrive à notre auteur de juxtaposer dans sa mémoire deux passages scripturaires, mais il ne s’agit pas non plus d’un cas

36

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

isolé; toutefois, là encore, la formulation elle-même est suspecte. Ce prédicateur ne manque pas de talent oratoire et d’imagination, même si nous n’y reconnaissons pas la «griffe» caractéristique de Chrysostome. La convergence des arguments devient significative: nous sommes ici, en effet, à la limite du plagiat; comment ne pas partager la perplexité de Théobald Fix, même si ses critiques doivent être nuancées sur plusieurs points? Notre ignorance presque totale de la transmission initiale des œuvres de Chrysostome doit en effet nous inspirer une certaine prudence quant à l’attitude à adopter vis-à-vis de sermons comme celui-ci. Comme l’a rappelé Sever J. Voicu, concernant Chrysostome, il existe plusieurs niveaux de pseudépigraphie, et si une majorité de Pseudochrysostomica constituent des textes secondaires (extraits ou compilations d’autres textes), un tiers environ d’entre eux sont des œuvres originales exclusivement attribuées à Chrysostome dans la tradition directe ou indirecte.126 En l’absence d’éléments nouveaux, il nous est difficile de déterminer les mobiles d’un éventuel faussaire. Néanmoins, dans son état actuel, le Discours 6 ne saurait être attribué à Chrysostome. Il n’est ni un centon, ni une éclogue, mais un texte autonome, qui semble s’inspirer assez étroitement des Discours sur Lazare, tout en manifestant aussi une certaine originalité. Comment une telle proximité est-elle possible, sinon dans le milieu même où a vécu Chrysostome? Adhuc sub iudice lis est. ADDENDUM Sur le « chien populaire » guérisseur, voir : D. GOUREVITCH, Le Chien, de la thérapeutique populaire aux cultes sanitaires, dans Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, 80 (1968), pp. 272-273 et 280 (en particulier n. 119, citation d’Élien, Hist, des anim., VIII, 9. Τρωθέντες δὲ ἔχουσι τὴν γλῶτταν φάρμακον, ᾗŸερ οὖν Ÿεριλιχρώμενοι τὸ τρωθὲν μέρος εἰς ὑγίειαν ἐŸανάγουσιν,…. (Claudii Aeliani De natura animalium libri XVII, Varia historia, Epistolae fragmenta, I. Aelian. Rudolf Hercher, Leipzig, 1864, p. 206, ll. 1-3).

126 Pour une typologie des Pseudochrysostomica, voir S. J. VOICU, Pseudo-Giovanni Crisostomo: i confini del corpus, dans Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum [JAC], 39 (1996), pp. 105-115.

LE SIXIÈME DISCOURS SUR LAZARE ATTRIBUÉ À JEAN CHRYSOSTOME

37

ANNEXE: Les manuscrits du Discours 6 sur Lazare (CPG 4329.6): Conspectus siglorum: α = consensus codicum A H V U Γ E Σ uel (pars altera, §§ 5b-9) A H V U Γ E A H V U Γ E Σ

= = = = = = =

Atheniensis, 210 Atheniensis, 211 Vaticanus gr., 574 (D. Raffier et D. Le Bel) Vaticanus gr., 1904 Athous Magnae Laurae, Γ 65 Mutinensis Bibl. Estensis, α.W. 2.5 (gr., 70) Laurentianus Conv. soppr., 10 (pars prior, §§ 1-5a)

s. X s. IX ex. s. XI s. XI s. XII s. XV s. XIV ex.

β = consensus codicum B F X Y C K J L O S T Θ W D I β1 = B = F = X = Y = C = K = J = L = O = S = T = Θ = W= D = I =

consensus codicum B F X Y Baroccianus, 55 (E. Benzel) Laurentianus Conv. soppr., 198 Barberinianus gr., 523 Athous Iviron, 263 (e cod. propinqu. cod. F) Cantabrigiensis Coll. S. Trinitatis, B. 8.8 (192) Atheniensis, 456 Hierosolymitanus Sabaiticus, 27 Parisinus gr., 762 Ottobonianus gr., 13 (D. Le Bel) Parisinus gr., 822 (D. Susleaue) Atheniensis, 1050 Patmiacus, 188 Vindobonensis Theol. gr., 233 Eblanensis Chester Beatty Library, W. 131 Constantinopolitanus S. Trinitatis, 129

s. X-XI s. X s. XI s. XV-XVI s. X s. X s. X s. XII s. XII-XIII s. XIII-XIV s. X-XI s. XIII s. XV s. X s. XIV (2/4)

γ = consensus codicum G Q P Π M R uel (pars altera, §§ 5b-9) Σ G Q P Π M R G Q P Π M R

= = = = = =

Mosquensis Mus. Hist. olim Bibl. Syn. gr., 127 Petropolitanus gr., 514 Parisinus gr., 759 (Fronton du Duc) Athous Panteleimon, 58 Marcianus gr., 569 (M. Margounios) Parisinus Suppl. gr., 1278

s. X s. XI ex. s. X-XI s. XIII s. X a. 1442

Codices recentiores descripti et praetermissi: Z = Barberinianus gr., 332 (recensio breuiata) Athous Vatopedinus, 440 (sermone uulgari)

s. XIII s. XV

38

PIERRE AUGUSTIN

Matritensis, 4746 (e cod. Σ) Oxoniensis Auctarium, E. 3.12 (e cod. P) Oxoniensis Auctarium, T. 1.1 (e cod. P) Oxoniensis Auctarium, T. 3.4 (e cod. propinquissimo cod. U, additis inter lineas uariantibus lectionibus cod. F) Oxoniensis Holkham gr., 44 (e cod. M) Oxoniensis Langbaine, 11 (excerptum e cod. B)

s. XVI med. s. XVI s. XVI s. XVI med. s. XVI s. XVII

Codices manipulo carentes: Vaticanus gr., 2327 (cf. α) s. XI Ambrosianus, F. 130 sup. (gr., 371) (cf. β; C J L O S T Θ W) s. XII Ambrosianus, C. 181 inf. (gr., 875) (cf. β) s. XVI Codices qui textum olim praebebant: Atheniensis, 313 (tabula) Vaticanus gr., 576 (tabula) Londinensis Additional, 19703 (tabula) Oxoniensis Coll. Corpus Christi, 21 (tabula) edd. = editores mtfc. = Montfaucon e cod. P et partim e codd. V B O S

s. XI s. XI s. XII s. XIV

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS Richard W. BISHOP

The story of John Chrysostom’s fall from grace in early 5th-century Constantinople has been told largely on the basis of two types of sources: John’s own writings (or writings attributed to him), and the ancient historical accounts of his episcopacy, exiles, and demise.1 The sermons of Severian of Gabala offer the possibility of examining the conflict from a new perspective, namely, that of one of John’s opponents.2 This article investigates two sermons of Severian, probably delivered days apart, which appear to contain traces of a contretemps, a hitherto unknown episode in the larger conflict between Severian and Chrysostom’s circle.3 This pair of sermons also informs us about Severian’s motivation and self-understanding vis-à-vis his opponents. 1 For the historical sources, see the exhaustive list and discussion of the major ones in W. MAYER, The Biography of John Chrysostom and the Chronology of his Works, pp. 1-20, available at: alc.academia.edu/WendyMayerFAHA (consulted June 2017). For a reconstruction of the conflict between Chrysostom and Severian based on a careful reassessment of what these same sources have to say about it, see the contribution of P. VAN NUFFELEN to this volume. For bibliographical orientation on the early homilies attributed to but not composed by Chrysostom, see the two articles of W. MAYER, A Life of Their Own: Preaching, Radicalisation, and the Early PsChrysostomica in Greek and Latin, in F. P. BARONE – C. MACÉ – P. UBIERNA (eds), Philologie, herméneutique et histoire des textes entre orient et occident. Mélanges en hommage à Sever J. Voicu (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 73), Turnhout, 2017, pp. 977-1004; and W. MAYER, Media Manipulation as a Tool in Religious Conflict: Controlling the Narrative Surrounding the Deposition of John Chrysostom, in W. MAYER – B. NEIL (eds), Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 121), Berlin, 2013, pp. 151-168. These two articles may serve as something of a guide to the rich body of work by S. J. VOICU on the same topic. 2 Severian’s sermons have yet to be systematically mined by historians because it has taken a century of scholarship to identify the extent of the corpus. The long-planned critical edition of Severian’s corpus, now in progress under the auspices of the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, and a to-be-hoped-for chronology of the preserved sermons should assist scholars in recovering the historical information hidden in the sermons. On the century of scholarship, see the contribution of S. J. VOICU to this volume. 3 The first sermon is In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7) edited by E. S. CHATZOGLOUBALTA, Λόγοι στὴν ἑορτὴ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως τοῦ Κυρίου ἀποδιδόμενοι στὸν ἅγιο Ἰωάννη τὸν Χρυσόστομο. Προλεγόμενα σὲ μιὰ κριτικὴ ἔκδοση, in EEBS, 53 (2009), pp. 303-376 (pp. 305-314 [intro] and pp. 333-344 [text]). On the authorship of this sermon, cf. S. J. VOICU, Evidence of Authenticity: Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem Domini (CPG 5028), in R. W. BISHOP ET AL. (eds.), Preaching after Easter: Mid-Pentecost, Ascension, and Pentecost in Late Antiquity (Supplements to VigChr, 136), Leiden, 2016, pp. 407-424; and S. KIM, Quelques observations sur l’homélie In ascensionem Domini de Sévérien de Gabala (CPG 4236a.7, olim, 5028), in Mus, 128(3-4) (2015), pp. 261-272. The second sermon has been recently edited, together with Nathalie

40

RICHARD W. BISHOP

The following pages outline the first sermon’s account of the orthodox community in Constantinople and then examine Severian’s advocacy for a particular orthodox church building, the Anastasis, all with a view to uncovering a veiled criticism by Severian of Chrysostom’s ostensible opposition to the decoration of that church. We will then search the second sermon for traces of this contretemps; there we will find a robust defense of Severian’s vocation as a preacher, a rejection of certain “vain accusations” levelled against him, a plea on the part of Severian for the loyalty of his audience, and finally Severian’s offer of peace to his opponents.4 The article concludes with several observations that assess what can be known about the contretemps and its significance for our understanding of the larger conflict between Severian and Chrysostom’s circle.

1. CONSTANTINOPLE IN SALVATION HISTORY,

ACCORDING TO

SEVERIAN

The first sermon, In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7), was delivered by Severian on the Feast of the Ascension, probably in the year 402.5 The sermon contains a passage that is of particular interest for the topic of this essay, but interpreting the passage properly requires that we read it in the context of Severian’s broader argument, which contains three fundamental rhetorical moves. The first move is to locate the ascension within an account of the history of salvation.6 According to this account, by elevating human nature to heaven’s throne, the ascension reversed Adam’s fall into sin. The wide expanse of history between the fall and the ascension was part of a divinely orchestrated plan to ultimately overthrow the devil, sin, and death, and to enable individual sanctification. Severian wishes to emphasize that Christ’s involvement in this history, including his ascension into heaven, must not be interpreted as evidence of a status or deity inferior to the Father’s. On the contrary, all such involvement Rambault, by the author of the present article: R. W. BISHOP – N. RAMBAULT, Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187). Introduction and Critical Edition, in SE, 56 (2017), pp. 113-236. The introduction includes a demonstration of Severian’s authorship of the sermon (pp. 136-153). Both sermons are translated and discussed in the expected anthology of R. W. BISHOP – J. LEEMANS, Exaltation of Human Nature, Advent of the Spirit: Greek Sermons on Ascension and Pentecost from Late Antiquity; Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 4 Complementary to this analysis of Severian’s self-presentation is the approach, drawing on moral cognition research, laid out and illustrated in the contribution of W. MAYER to this volume. 5 For the occasion, see the sermon’s incipit: “Today the Savior’s assumption opened heaven and marked out a way of truth for us” (E. CHATZOGLOU-BALTA, Ἕξ λόγοι στὴν ἑορτὴ τῆς Ἀναλήψεως τοῦ Κυρίου ἀποδιδόμενοι στὸν ἅγιο Ἰωάννη τὸν Χρυσόστομο. Προλεγόμενα σὲ μιὰ κριτικὴ ἔκδοση, in EEBS, 53 (2009), p. 333, ll. 4-5). The date of this sermon depends on the date of In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187), which is discussed by VOICU, Evidence [n. 3], pp. 421-422, and by BISHOP – RAMBAULT, Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum [n. 3], pp. 153-156. 6 This first move occupies pp. 333, l. 4-338, l. 169 in the edition of CHATZOGLOU-BALTA.

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

41

in the historical process was “for our sake” and pertains to Christ’s humanity, to his “mortal nature.”7 In other words, Severian puts forward an account of the ascension and its place in the history of salvation that is entirely consistent with early 5th-century Trinitarian orthodoxy, as he understood it. The second rhetorical move in Severian’s argument is to attach the history of the orthodox community in Constantinople to this orthodox account of salvation history.8 Severian does this by making several observations, which take the form of parallels between Adam and Christ, about the course of salvation history subsequent to the ascension. Just as the sentence against Adam, the root of the human race, comprehended the fruit with the root, so also the ascension affects not just one individual (Christ) but the whole race. Christ is the firstfruits, a promise of future blessing; he is the leaven that leavens the whole lump of dough. Furthermore the mere fact that time has elapsed since the announcement of the promise via the ascension, does not mean the promise is null and void. Just as the sentence pronounced against Adam, namely, death, did not immediately come about, since Adam died at 930 years of age, so also the blessing promised to the human race via Christ’s ascension is in the process of taking effect. The general pattern of that process is one of growth from small to large. Christ was a single individual. “From the single individual, there was an advance to 12 apostles, from the 12 apostles to the 70 heralds, from the 70 heralds to the 500 brothers.”9 The increase did not stop there, but went on to thousands, to myriads, and finally to an infinite multitude “beyond sand” (Ps, 138, 18).10 Once Severian has articulated that pattern of growth, it is not difficult to situate the orthodox community of Constantinople within it. They too started out small but grew to become a multitude and finally “infinite myriads who won both influence and esteem.”11 Severian does not provide a detailed history of the growth, but he does identify three factors that drove it. The first factor is hagiographical. Severian portrays Paul, an early bishop of Constantinople,12 as a brave captain and skillful helmsman who safely steered the ship of the 7 “After all, the only-begotten God the Logos, coeternal and enthroned with the Father, is not the one led up above – for he is Master of those above – rather the mortal nature is led up by him”: “Οὐ γὰρ ὁ μονογενής, ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος, ὁ συναΐδιος καὶ σύνθρονος τῷ Πατρί, ἀνάγεται ἄνω -τῶν γὰρ ἄνω ἐστὶ Δεσπότης-, ἀλλ’ ἡ θνητὴ φύσις ἀνάγεται ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ” (p. 333, ll. 20-22) and cf. the sermon’s following paragraph. 8 This second move occupies pp. 338, l. 170-342, l. 280. 9 “Ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑνὸς προέβη εἰς δώδεκα ἀποστόλους· ἀπὸ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων εἰς ἑβδομήκοντα κήρυκας· ἀπὸ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα κηρύκων εἰς πεντακοσίους ἀδελφούς” (p. 338, ll. 175-177). 10 p. 339, l. 193. 11 “μυριάδες ἄπειροι, νικῶσαι καὶ τὴν ψῆφον καὶ τὴν ἐνθύμησιν” (p. 139, l. 197). 12 On Paul, see T. D. BARNES, Appendix 8: Paul of Constantinople, in Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, Cambridge, Mass., 1993, pp. 212-217; T. D. BARNES, The New Critical Edition of Athanasius’ Defense before Constantius, in Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity, 11 (2007), pp. 383-385.

42

RICHARD W. BISHOP

church through the storm of heresy. God multiplied Paul’s spiritual seed just as he multiplied the seed of Abraham. Thus the orthodox community in Constantinople grew because it had a saintly, skillful leader at the beginning of the process. The second factor is the miraculous character of the Constantinopolitan heretics’ conversion. Though the gates of their souls had been closed to the truth, Christ miraculously entered their closed minds, just as he entered through locked doors and showed himself to the apostles after the resurrection. He restored sight to the heretics, he healed them, and he raised them up from deadly deception. So although Severian presents a picture of growth from small to large, he wants to make clear that the growth was not simply a natural, organic process. It was rather a process driven by divine intervention. The third factor in the process of growth among the orthodox at Constantinople concerns the specific form of that divine intervention. Here Severian employs the concepts and terminology of Hellenistic medico-psychagogy.13 For the orthodox community in Constantinople, God was like a physician who, in order to cure diseased souls, is willing to employ drastic and painful treatment, such as surgery. Such treatment is not due to harshness on the part of God the physician, but is instead required by the nature of the wound or disease. At the same time, God’s therapy is not limited to one form of treatment, for in addition to harsh remedies, such as the bitter denunciations of the prophets, God also employs kind and nourishing speech, such as the heartfelt pleadings of the apostle Paul. The point of this extended comparison is apparently to offer an explanation of certain events in the religious history of Constantinople that some there had experienced as difficult; without identifying the events in question, Severian assures his hearers that the painful episodes were in fact part of a healing process superintended by the divine physician. It is interesting that at this point Severian makes an effort to distinguish the good work of the prophets and apostles, whom he envisions serving as assistant physicians under the divine physician, from the work of the false prophets, who are not engaged in proper exhortative teaching, but rather in flattery: “The false 13 D. RYLAARSDAM shows that Hellenistic pedagogical psychagogy is a fundamental context for understanding Chrysostom’s theology, hermeneutics, and homiletical practice (D. RYLAARSDAM, John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence of his Theology and Preaching [Oxford Early Christian Studies], Oxford, 2014, pp. 77-80, 183-188, 274-282). In Chrysostom’s view, God and Paul both used harsh and gentle pedagogical remedies; Rylaarsdam makes a persuasive case that Chrysostom self-consciously emulates this approach. Severian shows himself to be cut from the same cloth as Chrysostom as far as psychagogy is concerned, but the shared approach does not preclude divergent applications sometimes sharply at odds with each other. On the medical aspect of psychagogy in Chrysostom, see W. MAYER, Medicine in Transition: Christian Adaptation in the Later Fourth-Century East, in G. GREATREX – H. ELTON – L. MCMAHON (eds), Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity, Farnham, 2015, pp. 11-26; W. MAYER, Shaping the Sick Soul: Reshaping the Identity of John Chrysostom, in G. DUNN – W. MAYER (eds), Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium: Studies Inspired by Pauline Allen, Leiden – Boston, 2015, pp. 140-164.

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

43

prophets are flatterers, the prophets are physicians; the former engaged in flattery, the latter in healing. And just as with things of a corporeal nature, oil rises higher than water, so also evil conquers the truth. And the one who flatters is in appearance higher than the one who educates the disposition.”14 Here Severian acknowledges the existence of people who, unlike the prophets, apostles, and orthodox teachers such as Paul of Constantinople, do not exhibit a true concern for the health of the patient, whom they merely flatter. The flatterer – note the use of the singular – even seems to achieve a higher status than he “who educates the disposition.” At the very least, Severian here makes a general observation confirmed by experience. Whether the observation also applies to a specific contemporary may remain uncertain due to the elusive way that Severian expresses himself here. Certainly Severian’s observation includes dissatisfaction with the tendency of flatterers to achieve a higher status than true educators, and certainly Severian would align himself against the flatterers and with the true educators, such as the orthodox bishop Paul.15 Whether or not Severian’s remarks here would have put his hearers in mind of a specific contemporary, the discussion does at least introduce into the sermon the possibility of conflict between true and false teachers. 2. SEVERIAN DEFENDS THE ANASTASIS Having laid out a theological account of the history of salvation, and having attached to it the history of the orthodox community in Constantinople – not without a note of conflict and dissatisfaction on Severian’s part – it is a relatively straightforward matter for Severian to now make a third rhetorical move: in the passage of particular interest referred to at the beginning of the article, he attaches to the orthodox history of salvation not only the history of the orthodox community in Constantinople, but also the history of the very building in which he is preaching: This church has become the firstfruits of good things for us. God raised this church up first and made a namesake for his own resurrection. And he fittingly adapted the name to the economy. It was fittingly called Anastasis, and may it continue to be so called, and in the struggle let it not cease wounding heresy and resurrecting ortho14 “οἱ ψευδοπροφῆται κόλακες, οἱ προφῆται ἰατροί. Ἐκεῖνοι ἐκολάκευον, οὗτοι ἐθεράπευον. Καὶ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων φύσει τὸ ἔλαιον ὑψηλότερον τοῦ ὕδατος γίνεται, οὕτω καὶ ἡ κακία νικᾷ τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Καὶ ὑψηλότερός ἐστιν ὁ κολακεύων ὄψει παρὰ τὸν παιδεύοντα τῇ διαθέσει” (341, l. 269-342, l. 273). 15 After citing Ps, 140, 5 (“A just man will educate me with mercy, and correct me, but let not a sinner’s oil anoint my head”), Severian observes, “Such a man was the blessed Paul, who did not flatter, but taught the truth. He suffers for it, he is banished for it, he is crowned for it”: “Τοιοῦτος ἦν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος, οὐ κολακεύων, ἀλλ’ ἀλήθειαν παιδεύων. Ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς πάσχει, ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς ἐξορίζεται, ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς στεφανοῦται” (342, ll. 278-280).

44

RICHARD W. BISHOP

doxy. Now, she raised up our souls, while you raised up her walls. You joined her stones together so that she might join your souls together. You raised up all of her magnificence so that the benefaction might be rendered perfect. I rejoice to see the earnest of your zeal. For if in the meantime the “προκείμενα” are little, nevertheless I know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Cor, 5, 6).16

The name “Anastasis” refers originally to the small chapel used by Gregory of Nazianzus and his outnumbered Nicene community. Sometime after Gregory’s brief tenure, a much larger church was built next to Gregory’s chapel. We have a nice description of this expanded structure in the Vita Marciani.17 The expanded structure must have been in existence not later than about 440, since both Socrates and Sozomen attest it.18 The larger structure can be dated earlier still, for Severian’s In ascensionem domini shows that it was already in existence when that sermon was delivered. Severian’s remarks about this church allude to its illustrious history as a work of God instrumental in the struggle for orthodoxy, and they imply that its construction (more properly its enlargement) was a relatively recent event. Severian and his hearers have all benefitted from the church – and in that way, the church has become a part of the history of the orthodox community and of the larger orthodox history of salvation – but while he credits them with raising the church’s walls and joining her stones, Severian noticeably excludes himself from these activities: “she raised up our souls, while you raised up her walls.” Severian implies both that the expansion of the Anastasis church had taken place within recent memory

16 “Γέγονεν ἡμῖν ἡ ἀπαρχὴ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἡ ἐκκλησία αὕτη. Ταύτην τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὁ Θεὸς πρῶτον ἤγειρε καὶ ὁμώνυμον τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀναστάσει ἀπετέλεσεν. Εἰκότως καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ἥρμοσε τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ. Εἰκότως ἀνάστασις ἐλέγετο καὶ λεγέσθω καὶ εἰς ἀγῶνα μὴ διαλιμπανέτω ἡ κακοδοξίαν τρώσασα καὶ ὀρθοδοξίαν ἀναστήσασα. Ἀλλ’ αὕτη μὲν τὰς ψυχὰς ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν, ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτῆς τοίχους ἠγείρατε· ἁρμόσατε αὐτῆς τοὺς λίθους, ἵνα ἁρμόσῃ ὑμῶν τὰς ψυχάς. Ἐγείρατε αὐτῆς πᾶσαν τὴν εὐπρέπειαν, ἵνα ὁλόκληρος ἀποδοθῇ ἡ εὐεργεσία. Χαίρω βλέπων τὸν ἀῤῥαβῶνα τῆς προθυμίας. Εἰ γὰρ μικρὰ τέως τὰ προκείμενα, ἀλλ’ οἴδα ὅτι μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ” (342, ll. 281-290). 17 J. WORTLEY, Vita Sancti Marciani Oeconomi, in BZ, 103(2) (2011), p. 760. On the history and location of this church see: R. JANIN, Études de topographie byzantine: Ἔμβολοι τοῦ Δομνίνου. Τὰ Μαυριανοῦ, in Échos d’Orient, 36(186) (1937), pp. 129-156; partly summarized in IDEM, Géographie ecclésiastique, pp. 22-25; also important are R. SNEE, Gregory Nazianzen’s Anastasia Church: Arianism, the Goths, and Hagiography, in DOP, 52 (1998), pp. 157-186 and M. WALLRAFF, Markianos: Ein prominenter Konvertit vom Novatianismus zur Orthodoxie, in VigChr, 52(1) (1998), pp. 1-29. 18 “At that time Gregory Nazianzen, having been translated to Constantinople, was holding his assemblies within the city in a small chapel, to which at a later time the emperors adjoined a very large church and named it Anastasia” (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., 5, 7, as cited in SNEE, Gregory Nazianzen’s Anastasia Church, p. 161). “It subsequently became one of the most conspicuous in the city, and is so now, not only for the beauty and number of its structures, but also for the advantages accruing to it from the visible manifestations of God” (Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., 7, 5; A. C. ZENOS – C. D. HARTRANFT, Socrates Scholasticus. The Ecclesiastical History; Sozomen. The Ecclesiastical History [Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, 2], Grand Rapids, Mich., 1989).

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

45

and that he himself had not participated in the work, perhaps because it had predated his arrival in the city.19 Severian’s language also assumes that the construction of the church is substantially complete. Her walls have been raised and her stones fit together. The progress has been sufficient to accommodate a festal assembly and for the church’s magnificence to shine forth, portending continued benefaction. At the same time, Severian’s remarks also reveal that something remains noticeably incomplete. Hence he can refer to the visible earnest of his hearers’ zeal. In other words, a down payment, as it were, has been made, as everyone can see, but the balance is outstanding. Similarly, the citation of 1 Cor, 5, 6: “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”, assumes that the leavening process is not yet finished. And then there is the enigmatic protasis, “if in the meantime the ‘προκείμενα’ are little.” What exactly are these “προκείμενα” and what is the significance of the temporary state they presently inhabit? The following context might provide a clue. Immediately after the citation of 1 Cor, 5, 6, Severian rather abruptly shifts to a discussion of the multiplication of the loaves and the altar as Christ’s miraculously fecund right hand, all with clear Eucharistic overtones. And since the word “προκείμενα” can refer to the Eucharistic elements, that could also be its meaning here.20 On the other hand, the context preceding Severian’s invocation of the “προκείμενα” concerns the construction of the Anastasis, which suggests that the word has to do with some aspect of the church building itself. Since both possibilities find support in the text, we are faced with an interpretive dilemma. It may be, however, that the dilemma is only apparent. With regard to the architectural possibility, we know that at the Synod of the Oak, which took place at most a year and a few months after this sermon,21 Chrysostom was accused of selling off the marbles (“τὰ μάρμαρα”) that had been stored up by his predecessor Nectarius for this very church.22 The marbles were probably slabs of marble intended for decorative marble facing. It seems likely enough that these marbles were being stockpiled until the final phase of the construction 19 The expansion of the Anastasis was probably sponsored by Theodosius I to promote Nicene orthodoxy in the city. On the Constantinopolitan architectural program of that emperor, see B. CROKE, Reinventing Constantinople: Theodosius I’s Imprint on the Imperial City, in S. MCGILL – C. SOGNO – E. WATTS (eds) From the Tetrarchs to the Theodosians: Later Roman History and Culture, 284-450 CE (Yale Classical Studies, 34), Cambridge, 2010, pp. 241-264. 20 LAMPE, s.v. “προκείμαι”. 21 The earliest possible date for this sermon would be Ascension Day in the year 402. The Synod of the Oak took place in the late summer, early autumn of 403. 22 The charge against Chrysostom is the fourth in the list preserved by Photius: “τέταρτον ὅτι τὰ μάρμαρα τῆς ἁγίας Ἀναστασίας, ἃ Νεκτάριος εἰς μαρμάρωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐναπέθετο, οὗτος διέπρασε”: “That he sold off the marble [slabs] of Saint Anastasia, which Nectarius had stored up for the marbling of the church.” Bibliotheca, cod., 59 (R. HENRY [ed.], Photius. Bibliotheque: Codices, 1-84, vol. 1 (Les Belles Lettres, 1959), p. 53. Cf. T. D. BARNES – G. BEVAN, The Funerary Speech of John Chrysostom (Translated Texts for Historians, 60), Liverpool, 2013, p. 153.

46

RICHARD W. BISHOP

process or until there was a sufficient quantity of marble slabs to complete the decoration. This supposition aligns with what we have already deduced about the state of the Anastasis when Severian delivered his sermon there: the walls were up, and a festal crowd could assemble there,23 but things were not yet perfect. The “προκείμενα”, then, may well refer to some aspect of the church’s decorative program, or perhaps even to the disputed marbles themselves.24 It is reasonable to suppose that John sold off the marbles because he objected on moral grounds to opulent decoration of the Anastasis. Severian counters that the central role of the Anastasis in the struggle (“εἰς ἀγῶνα”) for orthodoxy in Constantinople deserves proper recognition and that the church’s magnificence (“εὐπρέπεια”) is not an unwarranted extravagance but rather an appropriate part of the people’s work on behalf of the truth. The church’s very magnificence promises future benefaction (“εὐεργεσία”) for the community of orthodox believers. At the same time, the use of a term like “προκείμενα”, with an established Eucharistic meaning and followed by a paragraph containing Eucharistic imagery, should not be dismissed. If actual objects, such as the disputed “μάρμαρα”, are in view, then terming them “προκείμενα” is a deliberate attempt on Severian’s part to sacralize the disputed objects. The “προκείμενα” are not merely excess building materials lying around waiting to be used or sold off, but rather sacred offerings of the community intended for the church.25 Their actual or proposed use in the church renders them holy, and Chrysostom’s attempt to liquidate them, however philanthropically motivated, was, in Severian’s view, an affront. It may be possible to deduce still more about the nature of that affront from what Severian says at the beginning of the ensuing Eucharistic passage: “You hold that the altar is Christ’s right hand present [before us], and that it receives in appearance, but supplies by its power. The spiritual right hand of Christ is farmland that does not frustrate hope, reject the labors of farmers, or wipe out their hopes.”26 If Severian is engaged here in a straightforward discussion of the Eucharist, it is difficult to see the relevance of mentioning the 23 Apparently in bad weather, as we learn from CPG 4187 (discussed below), which implies not only walls, but also a roof. 24 If the latter is the case, then Severian’s remarks may either lament or seek to forestall Chrysostom’s sale of the marbles. 25 This statement is a characterization of Severian’s rhetorical presentation of the issue. The extent to which this characterization accords with the actual history of the disputed marbles, if in fact Severian is referring to them, and Nectarius’s role in collecting them, is another matter. 26 “Τὸ θυσιαστήριον νομίζεις δεξιὰν εἶναι Χριστοῦ προκειμένην καὶ τῇ μὲν ὄψει λαμβάνουσαν, τῇ δὲ δυνάμει χορηγοῦσαν. Ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ δεξιὰ πνευματική ἐστιν ἄρουρα, μὴ σφάλλουσα τὰς ἐλπίδας, μὴ ἀποβάλλουσα τῶν γεωργῶν τοὺς πόνους, μὴ ἀφανίζουσα αὐτῶν τὰς ἐλπίδας” (342, ll. 291-295). Severian goes on to explain that Christ’s right hand was like farmland when he took the five loaves, like so many seeds of grain, and multiplied them beyond comprehension. The mention of the altar may have been suggested by the physical setting; perhaps we should envision at this point a gesture of Severian towards the physical altar. It is also

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

47

frustrated hopes and labors of the farmers, but if the construction and decoration of the Anastasis are still partly in view, then these remarks of Severian read as an indictment of Chrysostom’s liquidation of the Anastasian marbles: spurning the church’s decoration has, charges Severian, frustrated the hopes and labors of those faithful who worked on the church or otherwise contributed to its construction. On this reading, Severian positions himself as a champion of the orthodox community in Constantinople and a defender of the orthodox church of the Anastasis. At the same time, Severian calls into question Chrysostom’s commitment to the struggle for orthodoxy.27 That this public if veiled critique was delivered on a festal occasion, when attendance would have been high, and imperial attendance is not out of the question,28 makes the critique all the more significant and would have likely made it all the more provoking to Chrysostom’s circle. This reading of the sermon’s concluding paragraphs can claim both external and internal support, though the allusive nature of Severian’s remarks means that a definitive demonstration of the reading will probably remain beyond reach. Externally, the reading is consistent with what we know about the conflict between Severian and Chrysostom from the historical sources, and the reading is specifically consistent with the fourth accusation against Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak, as preserved by Photius. Internally, by interpreting the enigmatic term “προκείμενα” as a double entendre, the reading neatly accounts for the rather abrupt transition from describing the Anastasis and its construction to the final Eucharistic passage. In addition, this reading accounts for the sermon’s curiously abrupt ending, which comes scarcely a page and a half after Severian’s ostensible criticism of Chrysostom’s opposition to opulent decoration of the Anastasis. For there the sermon seems to break off in the middle of a thought.29 If the conflict between Severian and Chrysostom’s circle had already been brewing, Severian’s opponents would have been listening to him carefully. If Severian’s remarks met with murmurs of disapproval from partisans of Chrysostom, Severian may have decided to cut the sermon short rather than risk a public rebuke. Alternatively, Chrysostom’s circle may have hastily conferred and signaled to Severian that his allotted time had just run out. likely that the “προκείμενα” – whatever they were – could be seen, at least by Severian (“I rejoice to see the earnest of your zeal”) and probably by the audience as well. 27 Severian thus makes a play for the loyalty of his audience by implying that he is a more resolute champion of the city’s orthodox community than Chrysostom is. On the emotional and identity-reinforcing effectiveness of this kind of appeal, see in particular the contribution of W. MAYER to this volume. 28 Cf. A. WENGER, Notes inédites sur les empereurs Théodose I, Arcadius, Théodose II, Léon I, in REB, 10 (1952), pp. 47-59. 29 After the concluding citation of Ps, 144, 15-16, we would, as VOICU observes, expect at a minimum some explanation of these verses (VOICU, Evidence [n. 3], pp. 421-422). Instead they are immediately followed by the doxology.

48

RICHARD W. BISHOP

3. SEVERIAN DEFENDS HIS VOCATION If In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7) does attest a contretemps of the kind described above, we might expect to find traces of that contretemps in Severeian’s subsequent preaching. The remainder of this article examines the evidence for such traces in what was likely the very next sermon Severian delivered, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187).30 This sermon’s well-crafted proemium is highly revealing for our purposes. After gesturing at the greatness of the task before him by citing the words of Psalm, 105, 2: “Who shall tell the mighty acts of the Lord, make heard all his praises?” Severian disclaims any ability to do justice to this theme.31 Still, he continues, people should not avoid theology on account of its difficulty but rather pursue it with confidence since God judges our intentions, not our eloquence. Severian explains: Just as affectionate fathers, when they see their children stammering and limping along in their diction, do not look to the inarticulateness of their speech, but rather to their natural desire, and the stammerings of their children are more welcome to them than all rhetorical grandiloquence and lofty philosophic discourse, so also God does not look to our tongues stammering about theology, but rather to our desire and our attitude, because we preach in faith and we laud in love. You see, nothing can be said distinctly through a human tongue; rather, whatever we say about God, we say with a stammer. Why is that? Because, [as] even Paul exclaims: “We know in part and we prophesy in part” (1 Cor, 13, 9). Nevertheless even if we stammer, he has entrusted to us the proclamation of peace. For this reason Isaiah exclaims, “Even the tongues that stammer will learn to speak peace” (Isa, 32, 4). Come then, quietly and bit by bit let us stammer to our common father and Master, who deigned to say to his disciples, “Little children” (John, 13, 33). After all, if he calls them children, he is content with them stammering.32

30 That In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7) is the sermon that preceded In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187) is demonstrated by three facts: (1) the latter sermon refers to a sermon Severian delivered at the Feast of the Ascension two days before; (2) that prior Ascension sermon was not delivered at Elaia, the customary location for the Ascension Feast in Constantinople; (3) that prior Ascension sermon was hastily concluded. In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7) satisfies all three conditions. 31 The disavowal is of course a topos of ancient rhetoric. In an elegant public address delivered 30 years ago, the Dutch scholar Cornelis Datema outlined the literary history of the topoi that are evident in this proemium. C. DATEMA, De stamelende orator, Amsterdam, 1987, pp. 3-15. This address was partly Englished, less elegantly, in IDEM, Severian of Gabala: A Modest Man?, in Studia Patristica, 22 (1989), pp. 104-107. The present article complements Datema’s analysis with a historical dimension. 32 “Ἀλλ’οὐ δεῖ πρὸς τὸ μέγεθος τῆς θεολογίας ὁρῶντας ναρκᾷν, ἀλλά πρὸς τὴν πρόθεσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ βλέποντας, κατατολμᾷν τῆς θείας διδασκαλίας. Βραϐεύει γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς οὐ τῇ ἀξίᾳ τῶν λεγομένων, ἀλλὰ τῷ πόθῳ τῶν κηρυττόντων καὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῶν ἀκουόντων. Καὶ ὥσπερ φιλόστοργοι πατέρες, ἐπειδὰν ἴδωσι τοὺς παῖδας ψελλίζοντας καὶ χωλεύοντας τῇ λέξει, οὐ πρὸς τὸ ἄναρθρον βλέπουσι τοῦ λόγου, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸν πόθον τῆς φύσεως, καὶ πάσης αὐτοῖς ῥητορικῆς μεγαλοφωνίας καὶ φιλοσόφου μετεωρολογίας ἡδύτερά ἐστι τὰ τῶν παίδων ψελλίσματα· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς οὐκ εἰς τὰς γλώσσας ἡμῶν ψελλιζούσας περὶ θεολογίας, ἀλλ’εἰς τὸν πόθον καὶ εἰς τὴν διάθεσιν βλέπει, ὅτι πίστει κηρύττομεν καὶ ἀγάπῃ ἀνυμνοῦμεν. Οὐδὲν γὰρ

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

49

Likening the efforts of preachers to those of a stammering child has the evident purpose of relativizing human discourse about the divine. This relativization implies that all (sincere) preachers have more or less equal standing before God, a claim that would tend to minimize the importance of ecclesiastical hierarchy. Apart from this general rhetorical posture, the image of a father’s patience with a stammering child would also seem to evoke Severian’s own challenges with speaking Greek. Certainly if such difficulties were evident to his hearers, a supposition justified by the reports Socrates and Sozomen,33 those same hearers could hardly have avoided thinking of Severian himself as he made these remarks. So when Severian says, “even if we stammer, he has entrusted to us the proclamation of peace,” he is not only admitting his own speech difficulties, but also concisely expressing his sense of divine vocation. God has called him to preach; no one should deny him the opportunity to obey that calling. Severian even seems to apply a prophecy of Isaiah to himself: “Even the tongues that stammer will learn to speak peace” (Isa, 32, 4). The implicit message to his opponents is that if God accepts him despite his speech difficulties, they should too. There is, moreover, an implicit rebuke of anyone who takes pride in or privileges public eloquence. For that is not what God considers important.34 δύναται δι’ἀνθρωπίνης γλῶττης τρανῶς λαλεῖσθαι, ἀλλ’ὅσα ἂν λαλήσωμεν περὶ Θεοῦ, ψελλίζοντες λαλοῦμεν. Διατί; Ἐπειδὴ καὶ Παῦλος βοᾷ· Ἐκ μέρους γινώσκομεν, καὶ ἐκ μέρους προφητεύομεν. Ὄμως δὲ εἰ καὶ ψελλίζομεν, ἐνεχείρισεν ἡμῖν τὸ κήρυγμα τῆς εἰρήνης. Διὰ τοῦτο βοᾷ Ἠσαΐας· Καὶ αἱ γλῶσσαι αἱ ψελλίζουσαι μαθήσονται λαλεῖν εἰρήνην. Φέρε τοίνυν ἠρέμα καὶ κατὰ μικρὸν ψελλίσωμεν πρὸς τὸν κοινὸν ἡμῶν Πατέρα καὶ Δεσπότην, τὸν καταξιώσαντα εἰπεῖν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς· Τεκνία· εἰ γὰρ τέκνα καλεῖ, τῶν τέκνων ψελλιζόντων ἀνέχεται” (BISHOP – RAMBAULT, Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum [n. 3], §1, 23-41). 33 “They (sc. Severian of Gabala and Antiochus of Ptolemais) were both renowned for their eloquence; but although Severian was a very learned man, he did not succeed in using the Greek language perfectly; and so while speaking Greek he betrayed his Syrian origin” (Socrates, Hist. eccl., 6, 11, 3; ZENOS – HARTRANFT, Socrates Scholasticus. Sozomen). “Ἄμφω μὲν οὖν διὰ λόγων ῥητορικῶν ἤχθησαν, Σευηριανὸς δὲ δοκῶν πεπαιδεῦσθαι, οὐ πάνυ τῇ φωνῇ τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ἐξετράνου γλῶσσαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἑλληνιστὶ φθεγγόμενος Σύρος ἦν τὴν φωνήν” (P. MARAVAL – P. PÉRICHON [eds], Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres IV-VI [SC, 505], Paris, 2006). “Severian and Antiochus, bishop of Ptolemaïs, a city in Phœnicia, were both learned men, and well qualified to teach in the churches. Antiochus had so fine a voice and delivery that, by some persons, he was surnamed Chrysostom. Severian, on the other hand, had the harshness of the Syrians in his speech; but, in point of knowledge and the evidences of the Scriptures, he was considered superior to Antiochus” (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., 8, 10, 1; ZENOS – HARTRANFT, Socrates Scholasticus. Sozomen). “οὗτός τε γὰρ καὶ Ἀντίοχος ὁ Πτολεμαΐδος (Φοίνισσα δὲ πόλις ἥδε) κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἄμφω ἐγενέσθην ἐλλογίμω τε καὶ ἐπ’ ἐκκλησίας ἱκανὼ διδάσκειν· ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν εὐκόλως καὶ μάλα εὐήχως ἔλεγεν, ὡς καὶ Χρυσόστομος πρός τινων ὀνομάζεσθαι, ὁ δὲ Σευηριανὸς τὴν Σύρων δασύτητα, καίπερ τοῖς νοήμασι καὶ ταῖς μαρτυρίαις τῶν γραφῶν ἀμείνων εἶναι δοκῶν, ἐπὶ τῆς γλώσσης ἔφερεν” (J. BIDEZ ET AL. [eds], Sozomène. Histoire ecclésiastique: Livres VII-IX [SC, 516], Paris, 2008). 34 In Severian’s oeuvre, the imagery of an indulgent father and a stammering child is not unique to this sermon, for it can also be found, complete with the citation of Isa, 32, 4, in CPG 4235 (§18), which is preserved only in Georgian. I wish to thank Sergey Kim for supplying

50

RICHARD W. BISHOP

In addition to this defense of Severian’s vocation as a preacher of good news and a herald of peace, the closing invitation merits attention. Here Severian refers to Christ as “our common Father”. Presumably Severian does this because the expression fits with the imagery he has been using of a stammering child and an indulgent father. Nevertheless, in the theological discourse of the late 4th and early 5th centuries, the term “Father” is normally reserved for God the Father; to call Christ Father is to risk being branded a heretic. Hence it is highly unusual for any preacher of this period to call Christ Father. So why does Severian express himself in a way that is both risky and potentially confusing from a theological point of view? The likeliest answer to this question is to be found in the meaning of the expression “our common father” which is a normal way for a junior cleric to refer in a sermon to a presiding bishop.35 Severian’s use of the term here must have caused his hearers to think of Chrysostom, yet Severian rather pointedly refrains from applying the expression to the bishop of the city. Instead Severian recognizes Christ as “our common father,” the true bishop, and the source of Severian’s commission to preach. Since Christ is the one who commissioned him, no one but Christ can take that commission away. So under the pressure of a rivalry emerging into open conflict, Severian permits himself an expression that is theologically imprecise, yet quite effective in expressing his disapproval of Chrysostom while preserving plausible deniability. If this reading is correct, then this sermon begins with a defense of Severian’s own dignity and vocation as a preacher; that defense is at the same time both a critique of certain unnamed opponents for disrespecting that vocation and a challenge to Chrysostom’s authority. Something prior to this sermon must have happened to provoke Severian’s defense and his public if veiled slight of the city’s bishop. What that something is, Severian does not say, but the kind of contretemps we discerned behind In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7) would certainly be a candidate.

4. SEVERIAN ADDRESSES “VAIN ACCUSATIONS” The next paragraph of In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187) is particularly interesting, since it contains remarks about In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7): Even though he previously ascended to the heavens, and his oft-hymned assumption was proclaimed, grace is not shut up by time, nor is theology circumscribed me with a pre-publication French translation of this text. Severian’s defense of his vocation as a preacher, despite his difficulties with Greek, was thus not limited to In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187). 35 “Πατήρ, ὁ” (Lampe, s.v.). Cf. meanings A, B, and C.

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

51

by days. And since, although we had wished to ascend the Mount of Olives, we were hindered from doing so, as Christ knows; since we had proposed it but were prevented on account of the unsettled weather and the packed crowd – I mention these [facts] to allay any suspicion on the part of those inclined to bring a vain accusation – and since in view of the quantity of words spoken, we hastily shortened the sermon so that we might not overwhelm your memory with them, today we are repaying the debt. The Law in fact used to permit one who did not celebrate Pascha in the first month to repay the debt in the second month (cf. Num, 6, 9-13). And you ought to know that the word of God is not circumscribed by times or days; on the contrary, proclamation of the cross, the passion, the resurrection, the assumption, and the second coming is welcome every day.36

This passage contains a striking admission on the part of Severian that some people might have been suspicious of him and even inclined to level an accusation against him. Although he omits directly informing his hearers (and us) as to the substance of that accusation, whether actually levelled or only feared, Severian’s defense of himself enables us to make some deductions about the nature of the accusation and at the same time informs us about the circumstances of the two sermons. There are two main points on which Severian defends himself: the appropriateness of the location for each sermon and the appropriateness of delivering a second, after-the-fact Ascension sermon. The passage implies that the present sermon (CPG 4187) was delivered on the Constantinopolitan Mount of Olives and that the preceding, festal sermon was not. Comparison with both that sermon (In ascensionem domini [CPG 5028/4236a.7]) and later passages in the present sermon confirms this understanding.37 The situation was therefore liturgically aberrant: the Constantinopolitan Mount of Olives, also known as Elaia, is where the Feast of the Ascension was customarily celebrated until in later centuries the celebration was relocated.38 Severian excuses himself for not celebrating at Elaia on the 36 “Καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἔφθη ἀνελθεῖν εἰς οὐρανοὺς, καὶ ἡ ἀνάληψις αὐτοῦ ἡ πολυύμνητος ἐκηρύχθη, οὐκ ἀποκλείεται χρόνῳ ἡ χάρις, οὐδὲ περιγράφεται ἡμέραις ἡ θεολογία. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ θελήσαντες ἀνελθεῖν εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν, ἐνεποδίσθημεν, ὡς οἶδεν ὁ Χριστὸς, προθέμενοι μὲν, κωλυθέντες δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀκαταστασίαν τοῦ ἀέρος καὶ τὸ συνεχὲς τοῦ πλήθους – λέγω δὲ ταῦτα, ἵνα πᾶσαν ὑπόληψιν λύσω τῶν μάτην ἐγκαλεῖν βουλομένων – ἐπειδήπερ πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος ἰδόντες τῶν εἰρημένων, ταχέως συνεστείλαμεν τὸν λόγον, ἵνα μὴ τῷ πλήθει τῶν λεγομένων καταχώσωμεν ὑμῶν τὴν μνήμην, σήμερον ἀποδίδομεν τὴν ὀφειλήν. Καὶ γάρ ὁ νόμος ἐπέτρεπεν τὸν μὴ ποιήσαντα τῷ πρώτῳ μηνὶ τὸ Πάσχα, τῷ δευτέρῳ μηνὶ τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἀποδιδόναι. Δεῖ δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι Θεοῦ λόγος οὐ χρόνοις, οὐχ ἡμέραις περιγράφεται, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἡμέραν δέχεται κήρυγμα καὶ σταυροῦ, καὶ πάθους, καὶ ἀναστάσεως, καὶ ἀναλήψεως, καὶ δευτέρας παρουσίας” (§2, 1-14). See note 30 on the identity of the sermon referred to in this passage. 37 Cf. §9 and §33 of the present sermon (CPG 4187). 38 “He [Sisinnius] had been appointed to the priesthood in one of Constantinople’s suburbs, which is eponymously called Elaia. Though situated across from the city, that is where the Feast of the Savior’s Assumption is customarily celebrated by all the people” (Hist. Eccl., 7, 26, 2): “ἐν προαστείῳ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ᾧ ἐπώνυμον Ἐλαία, τὴν ἱερωσύνην ἐκεκλήρωτο, ὅπερ καταντικρὺ μὲν κεῖται τῆς πόλεως, ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ ἐξ ἔθους ἡ ἀναλήψιμος τοῦ Σωτῆρος

52

RICHARD W. BISHOP

day of the feast by appealing to “the unsettled weather” and “the packed crowd” on that day. Left unstated here is that starting in the city proper and going to Elaia involved crossing the Golden Horn by boat. Bad weather could have made the crossing dangerous, and a large crowd would have increased the risk.39 Since Severian twice affirms that his intention had been to celebrate at Elaia on the feast day itself (“although we had wished to ascend the Mount of Olives” … “since we had proposed it”) and twice mentions the frustration of that intention due, he says, to no fault of his own (“we were hindered … were prevented”), it is reasonable to infer that Severian believed some had been questioning the sincerity of his intention to celebrate at Elaia on the fest day itself. His accusers may have suspected that Severian had actually preferred to celebrate the Ascension Feast in the Anastasis instead of Elaia, perhaps in order to set the stage for Severian’s Ascension Day criticism of John’s opposition to the marbling of the Anastasis. In other words, Severian’s accusers may have suspected that the contretemps was not the result of a spontaneous outburst, but rather deliberately planned. While the Ascension Day sermon appears to have raised questions about its location, it seems that the present sermon, if we are to judge by Severian’s defense of himself on this point, raised questions about the appropriateness of delivering a second, after-the-fact sermon devoted, at least in part, to the same feast. From an offhand remark, we know that the present sermon was delivered on the Saturday following the Ascension feast.40 Since Saturday was a customary day for a synaxis, the mere fact of holding one on that day cannot have been an issue. In the passage cited above, it is instead the theme of the sermon that Severian twice defends on the grounds that the topic of a sermon ought not be constrained by the calendar; the ascension is a worthy topic on any day, not ἐπιτελεῖται πάνδημος ἑορτή.” (P. MARAVAL – P. PÉRICHON [eds], Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique [SC, 506], Paris, 2007, p. 102). On Elaia, see R. JANIN, Constantinople byzantine: développement urbain et répertoire topographique, 2nd ed. (Archives de l’Orient chrétien, 4A), Paris, 1964, p. 456. On the relocation of the festal celebration, see C. MANGO, Constantinople’s Mount of Olives and Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyre, in Néa Rhóme, 6 (2009), pp. 168-169, n. 46. 39 For a reference to the crossing necessary to visit Elaia, see the discussion of Chrysostom’s De Eleazaro et de septem pueris (CPG 4441.13; PG, 63, coll. 523-530) by J. PARGOIRE, Les homélies de saint Jean Chrysostome en juillet 399, in EO, 3(3) (1900), pp. 159-161 (cited by MANGO, p. 168). For a discussion of a similar, aborted crossing (of the Bosporus) also attested by Chrysostom, see W. MAYER, Cathedral Church or Cathedral Churches? The Situation at Constantinople (c. 360-404 AD), in OCP, 66 (2000), pp. 60-61. 40 “The assumption was in fact the day before yesterday, since 40 days are completed from the resurrection to the assumption. For on the 50th day, it was not the assumption, but the visitation of the Holy Spirit”: “Καὶ γὰρ πρὸ τῆς χθὲς ἦν ἡ ἀνάληψις, ἐπειδὴ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέραι πληροῦνται ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως μέχρι τῆς ἀναλήψεως· τῇ γὰρ πεντηκοστῇ οὐκ ἦν ἀνάληψις, ἀλλ’ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐπιφοίτησις” (§13,12-15). The present sermon was therefore delivered on a Saturday, two days after the Feast of the Ascension, which took place on Thursday, the 40th day after Easter.

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

53

only on the feast day itself. Chrysostom, in fact, employs a similar argument, which provides some justification for Severian prefacing one iteration of his defense with the words “you ought to know” (“δεῖ δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι”).41 Of course the very fact that Severian felt the need to make such an argument suggests that there was some expectation that sermon topics be appropriate to the day. This expectation, however, was evidently not inviolable. In the second part of Severian’s defense of this after-the-fact celebration of the Ascension, our attention is directed again towards the end of the sermon he delivered at the feast itself: “since in view of the quantity of words spoken, we hastily shortened the sermon so that we might not overwhelm your memory with them, today we are repaying the debt”. The concern with the quantity of words and taxing his hearers’ memory seems, at first glance, specious. In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7), while not as short as some roughly contemporaneous festal sermons for the Ascension, is not particularly long, while the present sermon, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187), is extremely long. Why would a concern for the length of the sermon apply to the feast itself but not on other occasions? A partial answer may be that the festal audience included many who did not frequently attend and thus were not accustomed to lengthy harangues.42 In addition, it is entirely possible that Severian was not the only person to address the festal assembly on Thursday. In fact, Severian’s statement that, “[Christ’s] oft-hymned assumption was proclaimed” could be understood to mean “his assumption was proclaimed by [many] hymns,” where “hymns” refers to sermons.43 The presence of more than one speaker at the Ascension Feast on Thursday could explain why Severian had to cut his remarks short. It would not, however, explain why Severian had to do so hastily (“ταχέως”). Severian was an experienced public speaker. Presumably he would have known in advance about the presence of more than one speaker and adjusted his own remarks accordingly. That he here says he

41

§2, 11. Cf. Chrysostom’s remarks in his sermon, De sancta Pentecoste (CPG 4343.1): “Now, so that you might learn that it is always appropriate for us to celebrate a feast, that there is no specific time, nor are we limited by temporal necessity, listen to what Paul says, Let us, therefore, celebrate the feast (1 Cor, 5, 8). And yet it was not a feast when he wrote these words; it was not Pascha, it was not Epiphany, it was not Pentecost. Instead he was showing that it is not time which makes a feast, but rather a clean conscience”: “Καὶ ἵνα μάθητε ὅτι ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν ἀεὶ ἑορτάζειν καὶ οὐκ ἔστι καιρὸς ὡρισμένος οὐδὲ ἀνάγκῃ χρόνου συγκεκλείσμεθα, ἀκούσατε τοῦ Παύλου τί φησιν· Ὥστε ἑορτάζωμεν. Καίτοι οὐκ ἦν τότε ἑορτὴ, ὅτε ταῦτα ἔγραφεν· οὐκ ἦν πάσχα, οὐκ ἦν ἐπιφάνια, οὐκ ἦν πεντηκοστή· ἀλλὰ δεικνὺς, ὅτι οὐ καιρὸς ποιεῖ ἑορτὴν, ἀλλὰ συνειδὸς καθαρόν” (N. RAMBAULT [ed.], Jean Chrysostome. Homélies sur la résurrection, l’Ascension et la Pentecôte, vol. 2 [SC, 562], Paris, 2013, p. 212, ll.1-7). 42 Noting the large crowds at a feast and lamenting their absence on other days is a common theme of festal preaching. Cf., for example, the beginning of Chrysostom’s just-cited De sancta Pentecoste (CPG 4343.1). 43 “ἡ ἀνάληψις αὐτοῦ ἡ πολυύμνητος ἐκηρύχθη” (§2, 1-2). Cf. the expression “πίστει κηρύττομεν καὶ ἀγάπῃ ἀνυμνοῦμεν” (§1, 32-33).

54

RICHARD W. BISHOP

hastily shortened the sermon suggests that the reason for the abrupt ending arose during the course of the sermon itself. Our analysis of In ascensionem domini supports this suggestion. The precipitating event during the sermon may well have been Severian’s criticism of Chrysostom’s opposition to opulent decoration of the Anastasis. Why did Severian feel it necessary to defend the appropriateness of a second, after-the-fact celebration of the Ascension? If the preceding sermon ended in the way described above, Severian’s after-the-fact celebration may have been viewed by his opponents not only as a defiant response to the apparently enforced curtailment of his Ascension Day sermon, but also as an attempt to secure or shore up his own group of followers, who had perhaps been dissatisfied with how things unfolded at the feast. In any case, by this point in the present sermon, Severian has already defended his preaching vocation, dismissed attacks on his speaking style, and pointedly refused to identify Chrysostom as “our common Father.” In the sermon’s second paragraph he openly mentions his opponents and defends the location of both sermons and the topic of the second. Evidently Severian felt that he had to address these issues before he could ask for his hearers’ undivided attention. 5. SEVERIAN AND HIS AUDIENCE Although the opening paragraphs of the present sermon as well as its conclusion are richest in traces of the contretemps, there are several passages in the body of the sermon that illumine how Severian positions himself vis-à-vis his audience. For example, when discussing the post-resurrection commissioning of the disciples in John, 20, 21-23, Severian first comments on the necessity of their being fortified with the Holy Spirit and then on the necessity of their being granted “authority over punishment and pardon,” like a vice-regent entrusted with a distant nation, who receives “authority over pardon, death, and punishment.” Then our preacher offers a further explanation: After all, it is an impossible task either to be a genuine martyr, or to preach zealously, or to accomplish something great and difficult, if the power of the Holy Spirit does not fortify the martyr’s exertion. Otherwise there can be no martyrs. But I am now calling a martyr not only the one made perfect through suffering (cf. Heb, 2, 10), but also the one who bears witness to the word of grace. You see, every preacher of the truth is a martyr-witness of God.44 44 “Ἓν γάρ ἐστι τῶν ἀμηχάνων, ἢ μαρτυρῆσαι γενναίως, ἢ κηρῦξαι σπουδαίως, ἢ πρᾶξαί τι τῶν μεγάλων καὶ δυσκατορθώτων, ἐὰν μὴ Πνεῦματος ἁγίου δύναμις νευρώσῃ τὸν τόνον τοῦ μάρτυρος· ἄλλως γὰρ οὐ δύνανται μάρτυρες εἶναι. Μάρτυρα δὲ λέγω νῦν, οὐ μόνον τὸν διὰ παθῶν τελειούμενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν τῷ λόγῳ μαρτυροῦντα τῆς χάριτος. Πᾶς γὰρ κήρυξ ἀληθείας, μάρτυς ἐστὶ Θεοῦ” (§6, 20-25).

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

55

This statement is remarkable. Though it has been argued that Severian shows relatively little interest in the cult of the martyrs,45 here he makes a bid to coopt that cult for preachers, or at least he makes an exegetical argument for including “preachers of the truth,” among whose company Severian undoubtedly counts himself, in the category of martyr. In so doing, Severian aims to elevate his own status in the eyes of his hearers. At the same time, the qualification for this new status is not ecclesiastical credentials, but rather the Holy Spirit’s empowerment. Such relativization of ecclesiastical hierarchy recurs in a later aside. When seeking to identify “the promise of the Father” mentioned in Acts, 1, 4, Severian expresses some perplexity about it and makes the following remark: Where then is the promise? I am one of you seeking it with you, since I am one of you by the faith and the love that surround Christ (cf. 1 Tim, 1, 14; 2 Tim, 1, 13). For I have often told your graces that with respect to human distinction there are sheep and shepherds, but with respect to Christ all are sheep. In fact those who shepherd and who are shepherded, are shepherded by the one shepherd above. Where then did he promise?46

The mention here of human distinction does acknowledge a place for ecclesiastical status, including Severian’s own episcopal status, but the assertion that before Christ all shepherds are sheep reminds those who are overly concerned with ecclesiastical status that they or their leaders are really no better than Severian. This apparently innocuous remark thus reinforces Severian’s defense of his preaching vocation as opposed to the ecclesial standing of others. At the same time, Severian’s declaration that all are sheep with respect to Christ is also a declaration of solidarity with his hearers. He presumably hoped that the feelings of solidarity would be reciprocated. As revealed in the next passage, however, Severian could not always count on the loyalty of his audience. In his discussion of Christ’s stretching out of his hands and blessing the disciples during the ascension (Lk, 24, 50-51), Severian exhibits a concern not with his rivals, but rather with his own fickle followers C. DATEMA, The Rôle of the Martyr in the Homilies of Severian of Gabala, in A. A. R. BAS– A. HILHORST – C. H. KNEEPKENS (eds), Fructus centesimus: mélanges offerts à Gerard J. M. Bartelink à l’occasion de son 65 anniversaire, Steenbrugge – Dordrecht, 1989, pp. 61-67. To the texts Datema cites should be added CPG 4234, which contains material on Thecla (according to S. KIM, private communication, 16 June 2017), and perhaps Encomium in sanctos martyres (CPG 4950); in addition note the mention of Alkimos and Phileomon in § 33 (already observed by Datema), as well as Severian’s implication that Paul of Constantinople was a martyr: see the text cited at note 15, which states that Paul was “crowned”. 46 “Ποῦ οὖν καὶ ἡ ἐπαγγελία; Ζητῶ μεθ’ὑμῶν εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν, ὡς εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν ὢν τῇ πίστει καὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ περὶ τὸν Χριστόν. Εἶπον γὰρ πολλάκις πρὸς τὴν ὑμετέραν ἀγάπην, ὅτι πρόϐατα καὶ ποιμένες, πρὸς ἀνθρωπίνην εἰσὶ διαίρεσιν· πρὸς δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν, πάντες πρόϐατα. Καὶ γὰρ οί ποιμαίνοντες καὶ οἱ ποιμαινόμενοι, ὑφ’ἑνὸς τοῦ ἄνω ποιμένος ποιμαίνονται. Ποῦ οὖν ἐπηγγείλατο;” (§18, 14-19). 45

TIAENSEN

56

RICHARD W. BISHOP

who have criticized his performance and social or ecclesiastical standing. According to Severian, Christ stretched out his hands in order to provide priests with an authoritative example of how to bless the people. Lest anyone think, however, that the blessing derives in any way from the priest, Severian “cites” a scriptural passage that he believes teaches otherwise: “God said to Moses, Say to Aaron your brother, ‘When you come out from the altar, stretch out your hands over the people, and pronounce my name and I will bless’” (Cf. Num, 6, 22-23; Lev, 9, 22-23).47 Severian then explains: He removed here the false pretension of the proud. For sometimes, when people are not minding their own affairs, but rather busying themselves with the lives of others, they are divided in their thinking: “Shall I bow my head to this one? Shall I go to this one that he may bless me?”48 Then you condemned me, but [do] not [condemn] the name. After all, can I promise to bless because you are fleeing? I pronounce the name of God, and he is the one who blesses. If a rescript is sent to you by the emperor, do you concern yourself with the bio of the messenger or with the grant of the sender? You don’t inquire as to the standing of the one sent by the emperor, whether he lives in the country or the city, whether he is a senator or a dignitary, do you? There is no difference as far as the rank of the messenger is concerned. On the contrary, you accept the honor of the sender.49

The import of the analogy of the imperial messenger in the second part of this passage seems clear enough. Severian likens God to an earthly emperor and preachers to imperial messengers. The authority of preachers and imperial messengers alike derives not from their own rank, but rather from their commission 47 “Λέγει τῷ Μωϋσῇ ὁ θεός· Εἶπον Ἀαρών, τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου· Ὅταν ἐξέρχησθε ἀπὸ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ἐκτείνατε τὰς χεῖρας ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν, καὶ ἐπονομάσατε τὸ ὄνομά μου κἀγὼ εὐλογήσω” (§28, 11-14). A rather periphrastic conflation of the two texts. 48 In this context, bowing one’s head to someone probably means to accept that person as an ecclesiastical authority. Cf. Palladius, Dialogus: “κλίνατε τὴν κεφαλὴν ὑμῶν ὡς Ἰωάννῃ (οὐ δύναται γὰρ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἄνευ ἐπισκόπου εἶναι)” (P. R. COLEMAN-NORTON, Palladii dialogus de vita S. Joanni Chrysostomi, Cambridge, 1928, p. 61, l. 10-11). 49 “Ἐνίοτε γὰρ πολλοὶ τὰ ἑαυτῶν μὴ ἐξετάζοντες, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἑτέρων βίους πολυπραγμονοῦντες, μερίζονται τὴν διάνοιαν· Ἐγὼ τούτῳ κλίνω τὴν κεφαλήν; Ἐγὼ πρὸς τοῦτον ἔλθω, ἵνα με οὗτος εὐλογήσῃ; Εἶτα ἐμοῦ κατέγνως, ἀλλὰ μὴ τοῦ ὀνόματος. Μὴ γὰρ ἐγώ ἐπαγγέλλομαι εὐλογεῖν ὅτι φεύγεις; Ἐπονομάζω τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς εὐλογεῖ. Ἆρα ἐὰν ἀποσταλῇ σοὶ παρὰ βασιλέως ἀντιγραφὴ, περιεργάζῃ τὸν βίον τοῦ ἀποσταλέντος, ἢ τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἀποστείλαντος; Μὴ ζητεῖς τίς ἡ ἀξία τοῦ ἀποστελλομένου παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως· ἀγροῖκος ἐστὶν ἢ πολίτης, συγκλητικὸς ἢ ἀξιωματικός; Οὐ διαφέρει περὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα τοῦ ἀποσταλέντος· ἀλλὰ δέχῃ τήν τιμὴν τοῦ ἀποστείλαντος” (§28, 14-24). Cf. Chrysostom’s sermon, De regressu, 16, which contains a rather similar analogy, though the focus there is on the writing implement used, not the messenger. In this connection, note also the language about a pen earlier in §28 (ll. 9-10) of CPG 4187. This sermon of Chrysostom’s was edited by A. WENGER, L’homélie de saint Jean Chrysostome à son retour d’Asie, in REB, 19 (1961), pp. 110-123; W. MAYER – P. ALLEN, John Chrysostom (The Early Church Fathers), London, 2000, pp. 98-103. If an allusion to De regressu could be established here with certainty, it would prove that Severian preached his two Ascension sermons shortly after Chrysostom’s return from Asia in 402. The question of whether Chrysostom was present at Severian’s two Ascension sermons is discussed in the conclusion to this essay.

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

57

to carry a message. Just as it would be inappropriate to concern oneself with the social status or rank of a messenger sent by the emperor, rather than with the imperial communique that the messenger carries, so also is it inappropriate to concern oneself with a preacher’s social status or ecclesiastical rank rather than with the message the preacher brings. Severian evidently feels that some people, who don’t know how to mind their own business, have examined his life history and now disregard his preaching ministry because they view him to be of a low status or rank.50 In Severian’s view, such disregard is illegitimate. While the significance of the analogy of an imperial messenger is clear enough, the beginning of this passage is more difficult to interpret, though still of considerable interest. The proud, who seem to be the same people who cannot mind their own business,51 are apparently also the same group of people Severian criticizes in the second part of the passage for investigating his status rather than attending to his message. The questions, “Shall I bow my head to this one? Shall I go to this one that he may bless me?” seem to describe the internal deliberations of these fickle hearers, who expect to receive a blessing in exchange for their attendance.52 They are divided in their thinking because after contemplating giving their allegiance to Severian, they turn around and condemn him, apparently because they were not satisfied with the efficacy of the blessings he pronounced over them.53 Severian defends himself by asserting that the priestly blessing’s efficacy does not depend on him. All Severian can do is perform the act. For it to be effective, God must make it so. 50 It is not impossible that in making this complaint, Severian appeals to imperial imagery in order to subtly reinforce his connections to the imperial court. An interesting catalogue of Severian’s use of imperial imagery, taken from sermons preserved in Greek, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonic has been assembled by S. KIM, Severian of Gabala as a Witness to Life at the Imperial Court in 5th-Century Constantinople, in Studia Patristica, 96(22) (2017), pp. 189-206. It is also striking that, with the exception of his allusion to it in the passage from §18 cited above, Severian has so little to say about his own ecclesiastical rank. He too was a bishop, but, perhaps for strategic reasons, he does not defend himself on those grounds, but rather on the grounds that he has a divine commission to preach. At least in this sermon, he seems to regard that commission as something independent of ecclesiastical office. 51 Since the remarks preceding the reference to “the proud” concern the instrumental function of priests in delivering the priestly blessing, it could be that the words “the proud” refer to priests who imagine that they themselves are essential to the blessings conferred through them. But since the remainder of the paragraph seems to be an explanation for the remark about “the proud”, and since in that explanation Severian complains about his hearers evaluating him in light of his social standing rather than in the light of his divine commission to preach, it seems more likely that “the proud” are those same hearers. 52 The deliberative subjunctive verb “ἔλθω” probably requires us to construe “κλίνω” in the same way, though accenting the latter as a future form (“κλινῶ”) would not be impossible. It is difficult to decide if “τούτῳ” (§28, 16) and “τοῦτον” (§28, 17) refer to the same person. 53 The exact significance of two key sentences in this paragraph (“Εἶτα ἐμοῦ κατέγνως, ἀλλὰ μὴ τοῦ ὀνόματος. Μὴ γὰρ ἐγώ ἐπαγγέλλομαι εὐλογεῖν ὅτι φεύγεις;” [ll. 17-18]) is not entirely clear. Does “φεύγεις” refer to their leaving a congregation? If so, is it Severian’s, or that of some other preacher? In addition, which verb, if any, is to be supplied with “ἀλλὰ μὴ τοῦ ὀνόματος”?

58

RICHARD W. BISHOP

Up to this point in the sermon, we have observed Severian defending his preaching vocation against his opponents, but in this instance Severian seems to take issue with some of his own followers. He does not express displeasure with the fact that they are evaluating him, but rather with the basis on which they do so. Instead of viewing him as a messenger sent by God, they apparently have come to consider Severian as beneath them because of his social standing, or perhaps because of his ecclesiastical rank in the city – a bishop to be sure, but only a visiting one from a provincial town. In criticizing his failure to bless them, they are making a similar mistake. They assume that the efficacy of the blessing depends on him rather than on God. This passage thus hints at the atmosphere of competition among Constantinopolitan preachers at this time. Severian, like Chrysostom as will be discussed below, was acutely aware of the willingness of some to vote with their feet for their favorite priest and preacher. 6. SEVERIAN SUES FOR PEACE We now come to the sermon’s conclusion, which reveals as much about the contretemps between Severian and his opponents as any passage we have examined so far. As many Ascension Day preachers end up doing, Severian turns in his conclusion to the theme of Christ’s second coming. The homilist exhorts his hearers to be worthy of meeting the Lord upon the clouds at his return, recognizing of course that there will be degrees of worthiness. “For,” as Severian reminds his hearers, “each will receive his wages according to his labor” (1 Cor, 3, 8). Immediately Severian continues: May no word of a sermon ever be hindered. For we truly have the freedom to speak, since with the love of Christ we nourish a congregation and water souls; though we are divided by souls, we are not, due to suspicions, in a state of schism. The enemy of peace has one who judges. And since, brothers, “we persuade, but what we are is known to God” (2 Cor, 5, 11), the inspector of thoughts is a witness; he will demand an account from everyone who tells the lie that we have ever wished or wish to be enemies of peace. After all, if we destroy peace, we are enemies of those who hear, “Peace be with you” (John, 20, 19, 21, 26). But that we wish, strive, and yearn for peace, the one who knows is a witness. Concerning the other [accusations] I will be silent, for he who expects to have God as an arbiter does not insult the judgment seat above with a defense. God is able to grant peace, to establish peace, among preachers, among the preached to, among teachers, among learners, so that beginning from peace, reaching the middle in peace, and finishing in peace, we might through it all offer up glory to the God of peace, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and always, and for ages of ages. Amen.54 54 “Μηδέποτε κωλυέσθω λόγος λόγου. Μετ’ἀληθείας παρρησιαζώμεθα γὰρ, ἀγάπῃ Χριστοῦ λαὸν τρέφοντες, ψυχὰς ἀρδεύοντες, ψυχαῖς μεριζόμενοι, ταῖς δὲ ὑπονοίαις μὴ σχιζόμενοι. Ὁ εἰρήνης ἐχθρὸς ἔχει τὸν δικάζοντα. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ, ἀδελφοὶ, πείθομεν, Θεῷ δὲ

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

59

With the initial words of this final passage, “May no word of a sermon ever be hindered,” Severian apparently objects to the enforced curtailment of the preceding sermon, In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7), thereby offering striking confirmation of our reading of that text.55 Severian complains that his preaching ministry has been unfairly restricted. He too is responsible for the spiritual health of a congregation, and therefore he too has, or ought to have, the freedom to speak.56 In this way, Severian returns once again to a defense of his own preaching vocation. After succinctly staking out his ground on that point, he frankly acknowledges that a real division (“ψυχαῖς μεριζόμενοι”), apparently a competition for hearers between him and an unnamed rival or rivals, does exist. He also goes on to deny that the division has reached the point of schism, though he cannot resist suggesting that any such schism, were it to occur, would be the result of unjust suspicions against him (“ταῖς δὲ ὑπονοίαις μὴ σχιζόμενοι”). After defending his vocation, while at the same time openly acknowledging the existence of conflict with unnamed opponents, Severian makes an offer of peace. The offer has several components. There is first of all a warning to those who, in Severian’s view, are slandering him. They will be held to account since all must face the judgment seat of God. The second component is an assertion of Severian’s sincerity: he is no more an enemy of peace than he is of the apostles who first heard, “Peace be with you.” Severian invokes God as a witness of his sincere desire for peace. Then there is a tantalizing reference to “other [accusations],” which Severian will not discuss, but which he is confident will be another occasion for God ruling in his favor. Then comes the final component of the offer of peace: a declaration that God is willing and able to grant peace to the parties in conflict. If Severian has established that he and his followers want peace, and that God is able to grant it, then if peace does not πεφανερώμεθα, μάρτυς ὁ τῶν ἐννοιῶν ἐπόπτης, ὃς ἀπαιτήσει λόγον πάντα τὸν λαλοῦντα τὸ ψεῦδος, ὡς οὐδέποτε ἐχθροὶ εἰρήνης οὔτε ἠθελήσαμεν, οὔτε θέλομεν γενέσθαι. Ἐὰν γὰρ τὴν εἰρήνην ἀπολέσωμεν, ἐχθροί ἐσμεν ἐκείνων τῶν ἀκουόντων· Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. Ἀλλ’ὅτι εἰρήνην θέλομεν, καὶ σπεύδομεν, καὶ ποθοῦμεν, μάρτυς ὁ εἰδώς· περὶ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν σιωπήσομαι. Ὁ γὰρ βραϐευτὴν ἐκδεχόμενος τὸν Θεὸν, τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ οὐχ ὑϐρίζει τὸ ἄνω δικαστήριον. Δυνατὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς εἰρήνην δοῦναι, εἰρήνην πῆξαι, ἐν τοῖς κηρύσσουσι, ἐν τοῖς κηρυσσομένοις, ἐν τοῖς διδάσκουσι, ἐν τοῖς μανθάνουσιν, ἵνα διὰ πάντων ἀπὸ εἰρήνης ἀρξάμενοι, καὶ ἐν εἰρήνῃ μεσάσαντες, καὶ ἐν εἰρήνῃ πληρώσαντες, τῷ Θεῷ τῆς εἰρήνης δόξαν ἀναπέμψωμεν, τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν” (§40, 8-23). 55 PG, 52, col. 790, l. 11 ab imo reads: “Therefore, may God’s Word never be hindered” (“Μηδέποτε τοίνυν κωλυέσθω λόγος Θεοῦ”), but the reading “λόγος Θεοῦ” is an editorial decision based on inferior manuscripts. See the textual note on §40, 9 in BISHOP – RAMBAULT, Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum [n. 3], pp. 235-236. The best reading is in fact “λόγος λόγου”, with the meaning given above. 56 The anarthrous state of “λαός” and the context of the paragraph alike indicate that we should understand “λαός” to refer to a congregation (on this meaning, see Lampe, s.v.) rather than simply “the people.”

60

RICHARD W. BISHOP

ensue, the only conclusion to draw is that Severian’s opponents are the ones standing in the way of peace, despite the threat of divine judgment. So just as Severian started this long sermon with a defense of his calling to preach the good news and proclaim peace, he draws it to a conclusion with a defense of his calling to preach and a defense of himself as a proponent, not an enemy, of peace.57 7. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS We are now in a position to make some concluding observations about these two sermons and what they have to tell us about the larger conflict between Severian and Chrysostom’s circle. The first observation concerns a comparison between the two Ascension texts. In the first, In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7), the notes of conflict are muted, and when they do arise, we see Severian on the offensive, attacking flatterers and apparently criticizing Chrysostom’s opposition to opulent decoration of the Anastasis. In the second 57 Severian’s comments about peace in this paragraph are what have convinced scholars that the conflict alluded to in this sermon is the one between him and Chrysostom’s circle. The comments also seem to presage at least the theme of Severian’s sermon De Pace, edited by A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias (Ανάλεκτα Ιεροσολυμιτικής Σταχυολογίας), vol. 1, Petroupolis, 1891, pp. 15-26. Chrysostom’s sermon, De recipiendo Severiano (CPG 4395), delivered the day before Severian’s De Pace, is known only in an abbreviated, Latin form (PG, 52, coll. 423-424). Cf. the discussion in BISHOP – RAMBAULT [n. 3], p. 155. Even so, several points of contact between De recipiendo Severiano and Severian’s In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187) stand out. (I thank the anonymous reviewer of this article, whose comments stimulated these thoughts about the relationship between De recipiendo Severiano and In ascensionem et in principium Actorum.) In the first place, at the occasion of this orchestrated yet ultimately abortive reconciliation, it is Chrysostom who first broaches the topic of peace and positions himself as an advocate for it (PG, 52, col. 425, ll. 25-32); this rhetorical move may be read as a response to Severian’s earlier portrayal of himself as a defender of peace, as described in this article. Second, to picture his relationship to the people assembled, Chrysostom invokes the imagery of sheep and shepherd and likens himself to an ambassador sent by God (col. 425, ll. 9-17; ll. 27-28; col. 426, ll. 3-5); these images, common enough in themselves, were also employed by Severian in CPG 4187 (§18, 16-19; §28, 19-24, both cited above). Third, at the beginning of De recipiendo Severiano, Chrysostom devotes considerable space to reinforcing his position as a spiritual father to the people he addresses. Severian accommodates him in De pace by twice according Chrysostom the title of “common father” (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, p. 18, l.6; p. 26, l. 18), which he had pointedly refrained from doing in the proemium of CPG 4187. It would seem that Chrysostom was stung both by Severian’s refusal in CPG 4187 to acknowledge Chrysostom’s paternal status and by Severian’s other rhetorical affronts. Perhaps Severian’s cession of this rhetorical ground to the bishop of the city in De pace was the negotiated price for the public reconciliation. As shown by W. MAYER in her contribution to this volume, which contains an illuminating analysis of De recipiendo Severiano and De Pace, Severian still manages to position himself as a defender of Constantinopolitan orthodoxy and subtly cast Chrysostom as smallminded and vindictive. It is to be hoped that additional research will reveal more about what happened between the Ascension contretemps of 402 and the abortive reconciliation later that year. In particular, as Mayer notes, we would like to know what Chrysostom is referring to when he mentions certain dreadful deeds that have occurred in the recent past (Multa dudum tristia gesta sunt in Ecclesia [426, ll. 5-6]).

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

61

sermon, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187), conflict is far more prominent. It begins and ends the sermon, and shows up at various places in between. Moreover, in this sermon, Severian is very much playing defense. He defends his preaching vocation and his commitment to peace. When he does make an offensive move, such as his attempt to relativize the value of ecclesiastical hierarchy, the move turns out to be part and parcel of Severian’s defense of his vocation as a preacher. This shift in rhetorical posture from one sermon to another suggests that rather fierce criticism of Severian preceded the second sermon. That criticism may have been precipitated by Severian’s apparent critique of Chrysostom in the first sermon. A second observation concerns the picture of rivalry and competition between preachers that emerges from these two sermons: it is a rivalry replicated among their followers.58 While Severian is never loathe to attack heretics, it is striking that in these two sermons he does not accuse his ecclesial rivals of heresy. It would appear, then, that the rivalry these sermons attest was within the orthodox community, which in turn suggests the existence of rival orthodox congregations in Constantinople at this time.59 The existence of such congregations in the city would provide an illuminating context for Severian’s attempt to establish himself as a champion of Constantinopolitan orthodoxy. This picture of rival orthodox preachers and congregations in the imperial city is rather similar to the one attested by Chrysostom in his sermon on Eph, 4, 4-16, 11th in the series on that book. Chrysostom complains about rival preachers who have lured away some of his flock, who in turn defend themselves by asserting that since the other preachers are orthodox, there is no problem. Chrysostom expresses himself grieved by their departure. Although he makes a point of saying that he is issuing no commands, but rather only giving counsel, he nevertheless also makes a point of defending ordination, rejecting the invasion of one ruler into the church of another, and criticizing those who have “unlawfully mounted the throne.” In fact Wendy Mayer has suggested as a possible setting for this sermon of Chrysostom’s the time after his return from Ephesus. If, as the historical sources suggest, Severian had succeeded in developing a following while preaching in Chrysostom’s stead during the latter’s absence, then Severian may well have continued preaching to his followers in a separate location upon Chrysostom’s return.60 It may even be the case, though it of 58 On this factionalism and competition in Constantinople, see P. VAN NUFFELEN, A War of Words: Sermons and Social Status in Constantinople under the Theodosian Dynasty, in L. VAN HOOF – P. VAN NUFFELEN (eds), Literature and Society in the Fourth Century AD: Performing Paideia, Constructing the Present, Presenting the Self (Mnemosyne Supplements: Monographs on Greek and Latin Language and Literature, 373), Leiden – Boston, 2015, pp. 201-217. 59 It is especially §28 and §40 of CPG 4187 that support this view. 60 W. MAYER, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom: Provenance. Reshaping the Foundations (OCA, 273), Rome, 2005, pp. 411-416, esp. 415-416; but cf. p. 480. Although, as we have seen, Severian vigorously defends his vocation as a preacher, his studied refusal in these two sermons

62

RICHARD W. BISHOP

course remains unproven, that the contretemps attested by Severian’s two Ascension sermons precipitated the separation of Severian and his followers from those who remained loyal to Chrysostom. A third observation is suggested by the intriguing similarity between the context of Severian’s two sermons and that of Chrysostom’s sermon on Eph, 4, 4-16. As our picture of the extent and chronology of Severian’s homiletic corpus becomes clearer, additional sermons of Severian may further illumine the contretemps described here, or perhaps necessitate revising our estimate of it altogether. Similarly, additional passages of interest from the sermons of Chrysostom may come to scholarly attention and alter the picture presented here.61 A fourth observation concerns the question of whether Chrysostom was present at the delivery of either Ascension sermon. On the one hand it is possible that Chrysostom returned after Pentecost in the year they were delivered and so was not present at either sermon.62 On the other hand, it is possible that Chrysostom returned somewhat earlier, a few weeks after Easter, in which case he would very likely have been present at least for the sermon Severian delivered at the Feast of the Ascension itself, and possibly for the second sermon, delivered two days later on Saturday.63 Although the evidence for the contretemps uncovered in this essay does not rule out either possibility, the veiled yet to invoke his episcopal status may be a tacit acknowledgment of his canonically tenuous position in the city and thus an attempt to inoculate himself against the charge of having “unlawfully mounted the throne.” 61 For example, Severian’s sermon entitled, De religione baptismoque, which is preserved only in Armenian, may allude to the beginning of In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7) as a recently delivered sermon. The preaching activity of Severian around Pentecost in the same year as the two Ascension sermons would also be of interest. Cf. BISHOP – RAMBAULT, Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum [n. 3], pp. 152-153. 62 This view has been recently supported by VOICU, Roma e l’ultimo manoscritto del corpus omiletico di Severiano di Gabala, in C. CARBONETTI – S. LUCÀ – M. SIGNORINI (eds), Roma e il suo territorio nel medioevo. Le fonti scritte fra tradizione e innovazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio dell’Associazione italiana dei Paleografi e Diplomatisti (Roma, 25-29 settembre 2012) (Studi e ricerche, 6), Spoleto, 2015, p. 75. The absence in both sermons of any explicit reference to Chrysostom’s presence may support this view. 63 J. N. D. KELLY believed that the return was only “some two or three weeks after Easter 402” (J. N. D. KELLY, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom – Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, Ithaca [NY], 1995, p. 181). Two considerations may support this view. First, that Severian seems not to have preached at the Feast of Pentecost in 402 could imply that Chrysostom did. For a defense of the view that Severian did not preach at the Feast of Pentecost in the year that CPG 4187 was delivered, see BISHOP – RAMBAULT, Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum, p. 152, note 97. Second, that in De regressu Chrysostom apologizes for missing the celebration of Pascha and the attendant baptisms, but says nothing about Pentecost or Ascension, may imply that the latter two feasts had not yet taken place (De regressu, 12-15). Both of these views adopt the date of 402 for CPG 4187. If, however, the two sermons were delivered in 403, i.e., after the abortive reconciliation that took place in the summer of 402 and that occasioned De recipiendo Severiano and De pace, then we would have to imagine a somewhat different context for the two sermons, though the basic interpretation of them that is presented here would still be viable.

TRACES OF A CONTRETEMPS IN SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S ASCENSION SERMONS

63

pointed criticisms of Chrysostom in both sermons and Severian’s vigorous defense of himself in the second make the most sense if Chrysostom had already returned from Asia and was present at least for the first sermon. But even if Chrysostom was not present for either sermon, he probably would have been informed of what Severian said, especially of any remarks perceived as directed at Chrysostom himself.64 If they were in fact directed at Chrysostom, then the sermons examined here bring into view a contretemps that was one episode in the disintegration of the relationship between the Goldenmouth and the sometime bishop of Gabala.

64 See De regressu, 20, where Chrysostom mentions the messengers who kept him abreast of what was going on in Constantinople during his absence from the city.

FESTAL HOMILIES AND FESTAL LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE: INNOVATION AND CONVENTION IN JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND SEVERIAN OF GABALA, WITH PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THEIR EPIPHANY SERMONS Harald BUCHINGER

John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala were both prolific preachers whose festal homilies are not only of literary interest as prominent examples of their genre; they also provide valuable historical information about the development of the various liturgical occasions and the festal cycles as such. John Chrysostom has long been famous as early witness, amongst others, for the introduction of Christmas in the East and for the early history of the celebration of the Ascension on the 40th day after Easter. Liturgical historians, however, have largely ignored Severian, although his homilies prove to be the first documents for many feasts in Constantinople and therefore should be considered as key sources for the late antique prehistory of what by the Middle Ages was to become the Byzantine rite. One looks in vain for references to Severian in the heortological standard works; his name is rarely mentioned even in specialised monographs on liturgical history. The few existing studies are not easily accessible: a Danish Festschrift article by Holger Villadsen on “The early pericope system in Constantinople according to Severian of Gabala”,1 Sergey Kim’s overview of “Liturgical practices mentioned in the homilies of Severian of Gabala” in Russian,2 and Gary Philippe Raczka’s unpublished dissertation on “The Lectionary at the Time of Saint John Chrysostom”3. In view of this somewhat wanting state of the question, the present article pursues a double goal: to combine a general assessment of the importance of the two preachers in their historical situation of liturgical development with a more specific view at a significant test case. H. VILLADSEN, De tidlige perikopesystem i Konstantinopel ifølge Severian af Gabala, in G. HALLONSTEN – S. HIDAL – S. RUBENSON (eds), Florilegium patristicum: En festskrift till Per Beskow, Delsbo, 1991, pp. 233-257 [repr. in IDEM, Perikoper og kirkear i oldkirken. Jerusalem, Konstantinopel og Rom, København, 2010, pp. 101-128]. The article summarises the main research results of the author’s unpublished dissertation. 2 S. KIM, Литургические обычаи в проповедях Севериана Гавальского [= Liturgical practices mentioned in the homilies of Severian of Gabala], in Bulletin of the Ekaterinburg Theological Seminary, 4(12) (2015), pp. 131-143. 3 G. P. RACZKA, The Lectionary at the Time of Saint John Chrysostom, unpublished diss. University of Notre Dame, Indiana, 2015. I am deeply grateful to the author for granting me access to his work prior to its publication. 1

66

HARALD BUCHINGER

This article consists of three parts: after introductory remarks on the relevance of festal sermons for investigating the historical development and the theological exposition of the liturgical year in the century following Constantine, a brief overview sketches the general importance of John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala as festal preachers (deliberately omitting the Sanctorale4), before a final sounding inspects exemplary sermons on Epiphany, with preliminary side-glances at the material on Christmas.5 A comparative view is appropriate not only in view of the overarching theme of this volume, but also because both preachers are on the one hand connected by intricate biographical involvement (which is the object of other contributions to this volume); on the other hand, they provide the first testimonies of the feasts at hand in their respective domains and are therefore of particular interest for liturgical history (which is the topic of this investigation). 1. FESTAL

PREACHING AND THE EMERGENCE OF FESTAL CYCLES IN THE LATER FOURTH CENTURY

1.1. Festal cycles as an innovation of the post-Constantinian church It is well-known that the Christian festal cycles do not emerge before the second half of the 4th century.6 Only the unitive Easter celebration as such with its preceding paschal fast can be traced back to the 2nd century, its subsequent 50 days of the Pentecost period at least to the beginning of the 3rd;7 the annual celebration of local martyrs also comes up in the second half of the 2nd century and gains importance after the persecutions of the 3rd.8 Although early roots have been claimed also for Christmas or Epiphany, clear attestations only come from the 4th century.9 Series of feasts and cyclical or systematic conceptions 4 In contrast to the wealth of sermons on various kinds of saints by John Chrysostom, there probably exist no homilies of Severian dedicated to post-biblical saints – which is possibly due to the lack of local martyrs and therefore respective feasts in Constantinople. 5 My special thanks go to Professor S. J. Voicu for stimulating conversations and very substantial suggestions on the topic of this contribution. I am also obliged to John Nicholson for revising the English text. 6 After the authoritative manual of H. AUF DER MAUR, Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit, vol. 1: Herrenfeste in Woche und Jahr (Gottesdienst der Kirche. Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft, 5), Regensburg, 1983, P. F. BRADSHAW – M. E. JOHNSON, The Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons in Early Christianity (Alcuin Club Collections, 86), London – Collegeville, MN, 2011, give a critical update on important developments in recent research. 7 H. BUCHINGER, Pascha, in RAC, 26 (2014), coll. 1033-1077; H. BUCHINGER – C. LEONHARD, Pentekoste, in RAC, 27 (2015), coll. 87-108. 8 H. AUF DER MAUR, Feste und Gedenktage der Heiligen, in H. AUF DER MAUR – P. HARNONCOURT, Feiern im Rhythmus der Zeit II, 1. Der Kalender/Feste und Gedenktage der Heiligen (Gottesdienst der Kirche. Handbuch der Liturgiewissenschaft, 6, 1), Regensburg, 1994, pp. 65-357. 9 S. K. ROLL, Toward the Origins of Christmas (Liturgia condenda, 5), Kampen, 1995; H. FÖRSTER, Die Feier der Geburt Christi in der Alten Kirche. Beiträge zur Erforschung der

FESTAL HOMILIES AND LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE

67

of liturgical time in the rhythm of the year, however, appear as an innovation of the post-Constantinian era. While the pre-paschal Quadragesima emerges in the second quarter of the 4th century,10 and the triad of Epiphany (as the celebration of Christ’s Nativity), Pascha, and Pentecost (as individual feast, not as period) is documented at least from shortly after the mid-4th century,11 fully fledged festal cycles are attested for the first time only in the last quarter of the 4th century and promptly appear in many regions of the Christian oikoumene. Of course the first extant evidence of a phenomenon is not to be mistaken for its historical origin, and only rarely can the introduction of a liturgical feast be palpably observed in late antiquity. Yet, most liturgical institutions of the postConstantinian century erupt in a remarkably full-grown shape, the development of which seems to presuppose a certain period of latency. There is, however, good reason to assume that the development of diversified festal cycles took place in Jerusalem only in the third quarter of the 4th century, because Cyril’s pre-baptismal catecheses, which are thought to have been delivered towards 350, appear to ignore the wealth of mimetic feasts which are first attested by Egeria in the early 380s.12 Liturgical developments rarely disclose their raison d’être; it is a matter of interpretation to explain the reasons for the occurrence of feasts and institutions.

Anfänge des Epiphanie- und Weihnachtsfestes (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 4), Tübingen, 2000; IDEM, Die Anfänge von Weihnachten und Epiphanias. Eine Anfrage an die Entstehungshypothesen (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 46), Tübingen, 2007, to be complemented, among others, by H. BUCHINGER, Die vielleicht älteste erhaltene Predigt auf das Epiphaniefest: Vier syrische Fragmente des Titus von Bostra (CPG 3578), in D. ATANASSOVA – T. CHRONZ (eds), Σύναξις καθολική. Beiträge zu Gottesdienst und Geschichte der fünf altkirchlichen Patriarchate für Heinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag (Orientalia – Patristica – Oecumenica, 6), Wien, 2014, pp. 65-86. 10 H. BUCHINGER, On the Early History of Quadragesima. A New Look at an Old Problem and Some Proposed Solutions, in H.-J. FEULNER (ed.), Liturgies in East and West. Ecumenical Relevance of Early Liturgical Development. Acts of the International Symposium Vindobonense I, Vienna, November 17-20, 2007 (Österreichische Studien zur Liturgiewissenschaft und Sakramententheologie, 6), Wien, 2013, pp. 99-117; also in Studia liturgica, 43 (2013), pp. 321-341. An extensive critical review of earlier research is given by N. V. RUSSO, The Origins of Lent, unpublished diss. University of Notre Dame, Indiana, 2009. 11 Ephraem, De nativitate 4, 57-61; 22, 8 (CSCO, 186 = CSCO.S, 82, pp. 30f; 100f / CSCO, 187 = CSCO.S, 83, pp. 28; 100 BECK), provides a terminus ante quem († 373). Whether the fragment of the Armenian Letter of Macarius transmitted by Ananias of Shirak (7th century), 284 (5) (A. TERIAN [ed.], Macarius of Jerusalem. Letter to the Armenians, A.D. 335 [Avant, 4], Crestwood, NY, 2008, p. 82), which – unlike the version of the same letter in the Kanonagirk‘ – mentions the same triad, is to be attributed to Macarius I (bishop after 313-335/6 AD) of Jerusalem instead of II (552 and 563/564-574? AD), remains more than doubtful. For further witnesses from wider regions of the Levant, see BUCHINGER, Predigt [see note 9], p. 67, n. 10. 12 Cf. lastly, among others, N. V. RUSSO, The Distribution of Cyril’s Baptismal Catecheses and the Shape of the Catechumenate in Mid-Fourth-Century Jerusalem, in D. A. PITT – S. ALEXOPOULOS – C. MCCONNELL (eds), A Living Tradition. On the Intersection of Liturgical History and Pastoral Practice. Essays in Honor of Maxwell E. Johnson (A Pueblo Book), Collegeville, MN, 2012, pp. 75-100.

68

HARALD BUCHINGER

It seems obvious that pilgrim spirituality played a pivotal role in the rise of celebrations “according to time and place”.13 The identification of biblical sites, the building programme begun under Constantine almost immediately after his accession to rulership over the East, and the pilgrimage movement boosted not least by his mother Helena may have triggered the motivation to celebrate the events that were connected with the holy places according to a chronology likewise derived from the Bible.14 Jerusalem therefore takes pride of place and a key position in the development of the liturgical year. Pilgrim spirituality may however not be the universal key: Wolfram Kinzig has suggestively argued that doctrinal concerns may have contributed to the amazingly quick creation and diffusion of the Christological festal cycles. Indeed, feasts centred on the basics of the Christian creed may have been a powerful tool for conveying exactly these rudiments of faith to the newly-baptised (and certainly not always deeply converted) masses in the century after the Constantinian Turn and to root them in their collective consciousness by annual celebration.15 It may be no mere coincidence that at the same time similar topics were introduced into the “oratio Christologica” of the Eucharistic prayer and thus into the core text of the most important weekly service.16

13 The classical formulation comes from Egeria, Itinerarium, 47, 5 (G. RÖWEKAMP [ed.], Egeria, Itinerarium [Fontes Christiani, 20], Freiburg, 1995, pp. 302-304 and passim since ibidem, 29, 5 (ibidem, p. 254). 14 H. BUCHINGER, Heilige Zeiten? Christliche Feste zwischen Mimesis und Anamnesis am Beispiel der Jerusalemer Liturgie der Spätantike, in P. GEMEINHARDT – K. HEYDEN (eds), Heilige, Heiliges und Heiligkeit in spätantiken Religionskulturen (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 61), Berlin, 2012, pp. 283-323. The innovative style of celebrating biblical events according to the biblical chronology and in a manner which uses or, in other places, represents biblical topography is generally referred to as “mimetic” in liturgiological discourses; cf., for example, I. SCICOLONE (ed.), La celebrazione del Triduo Pasquale. Anamnesis e mimesis. Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Liturgia. Roma, Pontificio Istituto Liturgico, 9-13 Maggio 1988 (Studia Anselmiana, 102 = Analecta Liturgica, 14), Roma, 1990. A schematic typology is provided by K. STEVENSON, Jerusalem Revisited. The Liturgical Meaning of Holy Week, Portland, OR, 1988, pp. 9f.; a material overview in ecumenical breadth can be found in A. G. KOLLAMPARAMPIL (ed.), Hebdomadae Sanctae Celebratio. Conspectus Historicus Comparativus. The Celebration of Holy Week in Ancient Jerusalem and its Development in the Rites of East and West. L’antica celebrazione della Settimana Santa a Gerusalemme e il suo sviluppo nei riti dell’Oriente e dell’Occidente (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae. Subsidia, 93), Roma, 1997. 15 W. KINZIG, Glaubensbekenntnis und Entwicklung des Kirchenjahres, in W. KINZIG – U. VOLP – J. SCHMIDT (eds), Liturgie und Ritual in der Alten Kirche. Patristische Beiträge zum Studium der gottesdienstlichen Quellen der Alten Kirche (Studien der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft, 11), Leuven, 2011, pp. 3-41. 16 P. F. BRADSHAW, Eucharistic Origins (Alcuin Club Collections, 80), London, 2004, p. 140, was perhaps the first to argue “that the gradual introduction of the institution narrative into eucharistic prayers themselves, which we can see happening in the latter half of the 4th century, was motivated by a desire to remind worshippers of the grounds and meaning of the liturgical rite being celebrated.” The catechetical aspect is more than the “heilsgeschichtliche Perspektive … im größeren Kontext eines insgesamt erwachenden Geschichtsbewusstseins” described, for example, by A. BUDDE, Die ägyptische Basilios-Anaphora. Text – Kommentar – Geschichte (Jerusalemer

FESTAL HOMILIES AND LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE

69

The rapid spread of the new liturgical style and the astonishingly quick diffusion of the various feasts are remarkable examples of the transregional mobility and the tendency towards liturgical standardisation in the Imperial Church. In view of the diversity that emerges wherever early sources abound (Northern Italy being a prominent example in the Latin West, as is Cappadocia in the Greek East17), it nevertheless remains a fascinating and still largely outstanding task to trace the lines of transmission and to chart the diverse developments in the various regions of the Ancient Christian world. Liturgical handbooks are of little help beyond the few incessantly reiterated principal examples.18 Wolfram Kinzig’s regionally differentiated table of “oldest proofs for the major feasts of the Lord”19 is more useful, although even this valuable resource has to be complemented or corrected in a number of cases, notably Severian’s Constantinople. Festal homilies are the most important sources for the dissemination of the liturgical year. In fact, beyond Egeria’s invaluable account of the liturgy of Jerusalem and a small number of historical notices, they often remain the only ones. As is generally known, liturgico-historical research essentially struggles with two major methodological difficulties. Firstly, notorious questions of authenticity and attribution impede a precise historical assessment, and the controversial discussions of patristic scholars occasionally leave the liturgical historian almost in despair; this is exceptionally true for most preachers active in late antique Constantinople (from John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala through Proclus to Leontius …). In some cases – particularly John Chrysostom – the place of delivery of the sermons remains dubious too. Secondly, the assignment of certain sermons to specific feasts may be secondary, especially when homilies are transmitted in medieval liturgical collections. For example: without unequivocal indications in the text, a homily on the Thomas pericope from John, 20 need not stem from a celebration of the Easter octave even if it is transmitted in medieval manuscripts for that day, as is the case with expositions of the raising of Lazarus from John 11 and Saturday before Palm Sunday.20 Likewise, other exegetical homilies could secondarily theologisches Forum, 7), Münster, 2004, pp. 276f., or the “Historisierende Tendenz” noted by M. WALLRAFF, Christliche Liturgie als religiöse Innovation in der Spätantike, in KINZIG – VOLP – SCHMIDT, Liturgie und Ritual [see note 15], pp. 69-97 (85-88). 17 Cf., for example, M. CONNELL, The Liturgical Year in Northern Italy (365-450), unpublished diss. University of Notre Dame, Indiana, 1994; H. BUCHINGER, The Easter Cycle in Late Antique Cappadocia. Revisiting Some Well-Known Witnesses, in Bollettino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, 3a serie, 11 (2014), pp. 45-77. 18 Unlike John Chrysostom, Severian of Gabala seems to be totally neglected by heortological handbooks; not even T. TALLEY, The Origins of the Liturgical Year, Collegeville, MN, 21991 [11986], though often meticulously detecting lesser known sources, mentions Severian – maybe because his main interest is more in the absolute origins of feasts than in their spread once they had been established. 19 KINZIG, Glaubensbekenntnis [see note 15], pp. 32-39. 20 Some clearness can only be gained if connection is made to the liturgical occasion, as is the case in the homily CPG 4322: In quatriduanum Lazarum, 1 (A.-M. MALINGREY [ed.], Jean

70

HARALD BUCHINGER

have been integrated in liturgical collections at feasts where the respective pericopes were employed. 1.2. Festal sermons as homiletic response to the new liturgical challenge Patristic festal sermons, however, do not only pose historical problems for modern research; they also disclose how their authors dealt with the theological challenges posed by the categorical innovation of mimetic festal liturgies.21 1.2.1. Rhetorical construction of festal contents The study of patristic festal sermons has flourished in recent decades,22 generating profitable methodological questions: investigating (1) liturgical elements, (2) especially the use of Scripture not only in the selection of readings, which would ultimately lead to the codification of lectionaries, but also in biblical types and proof texts.23 Studying (3) instruments of rhetorical art, and (4) not least, doctrinal issues and polemical agenda; finally, (5), traces of the preacheraudience-relation, of the congregant’s behaviour and popular habits may provide valuable hints at the relevance and meaning of festal liturgies beyond their clerical conceptions.24 Two remarks may suffice in the present context: The first and basic step in the rhetorical construction of many festal homilies is the identification and definition of a “content-matter of the feast” (“ὑπόθεσις τῆς ἑορτῆς”), often in the exordium – and not infrequently in the opening Chrysostome, Sur l’égalité du Père et du Fils: Contre les Anoméens, homélies VII-XII [SC, 396], Paris, 1994, p. 212: “σήμερον ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγειρόμενος ὁ Λάζαρος …”) attributed to John Chrysostom – but considered undoubtedly spurious by S. J. VOICU, Pseudo-Giovanni Crisostomo: I confini del corpus, in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, 39 (1996), pp. 105-115 (107). 21 Feasts and liturgical elements that take up the biblical narrative are terminologically referred to as “mimetic” in liturgiological discourses; cf. ch. 1.1 with n. 14. 22 After M. B. CUNNINGHAM – P. ALLEN (eds), Preacher and Audience. Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics (A New History of the Sermon, 1), Leiden – Boston – Köln, 1998, the exemplary study of J. REXER, Die Festtheologie Gregors von Nyssa. Ein Beispiel der reichskirchlichen Heortologie (Patrologia: Beiträge zum Studium der Kirchenväter, 8), Frankfurt, 2002, see the numerous studies, among others, by P. Allen, W. Mayer, and J. Leemans, who belong to the first to tackle the Sanctorale, which had been culpably neglected by liturgical historians out of theological prejudice and interests: J. LEEMANS – W. MAYER – P. ALLEN – B. DEHANDSCHUTTER (eds), “Let us die that we may live”. Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine and Syria (c. AD 350-AD 450), London, 2003. The methodological agenda outlined in this paper owe much to conversations with Johan Leemans. 23 Cf. the forthcoming Regensburg 2015 Novum Testamentum Patristicum conference volume on The Liturgical Reception of the Bible, forthcoming in the series Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte at Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen. 24 Sensitivity to messages between the lines has grown, not least in the wake of R. MACMULLEN, The Second Church. Popular Christianity A.D. 200-400 (Society of Biblical Literature: Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplement Series, 1), Atlanta, 2009.

FESTAL HOMILIES AND LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE

71

sentences – of a respective sermon. After multiple employments of this terminology in Gregory of Nyssa and especially John Chrysostom,25 only few instances are attested in later patristic literature, mostly with a different function.26 Defining and promoting “festal contents” as such therefore appears to have been a task fulfilled and in a sense completed by the first generation of festal preachers. Related to the designation of the “content-matter” is the account of what happened at the liturgical “today” (“σήμερον”/hodie), which recurs in innumerable festal sermons throughout history. While 20th-century liturgical renewal has made much of this rhetorical topos to envision a patristic theology of liturgical anamnesis,27 it may have originated as a theologically much less demanding rhetorical tool for popularising the central topics of newly established feasts,28 the message of which may simply not have been rooted in the audience 25 Gregory of Nyssa, In sanctum pascha (A. VAN HECK – E. GEBHARDT ET AL. [eds], Sermones. Pars 1 [GNO, 9], Leiden, 1967, p. 253, l. 15; CPG 3174); In diem natalem salvatoris (G. RHEIN ET AL. [eds], Sermones. Pars 3 [GNO, 10, 2], Leiden, 1996, p. 236, ll. 6f.; CPG 3194); In sanctam Pentecosten (ibidem, p. 287, l. 3; p. 288, l. 22; CPG 3191); Epistula 4, 1 (G. PASQUALI [ed.], Epistulae [GNO, 8, 2], Leiden, 1959, p. 28, ll. 7f.; CPG 3167); John Chrysostom, De baptismo Christi, 2 (PG, 49, col. 365; CPG 4335); In ascensionem, 1 (N. RAMBAULT [ed.], Homélies sur la résurrection, l’ascension et la pentecôte, tome 2 [SC, 562], Paris, 2014, p. 158, ll. 96f.; CPG 4342); John Chrysostom, De sancta Pentecoste 1, 1. 2. 5 (ibidem, p. 208, ll. 59f.; l. 62.; l. 68f.; p. 210, ll. 80f.; p. 214, ll. 24f.; p. 242, ll. 1f.; CPG 4343); cf. De sanctis martyribus, 1 (PG, 50, col. 647, of martyrs’ feasts; CPG 4357); cf. De proditione Judae, 1, 4 (PG, 49, col. 379, of biblical Passover; CPG 4336); cf. Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae, 3, 4 (PG, 47, col. 354, of biblical Passover; CPG 4307); of course there are multiple further occurrences of “ὑπόθεσις” alone in heortological contexts. Beyond festal homiletics, cf. Basil of Caesarea, Homilia in Psalmum, 59, 2 (PG, 29, col. 461 B, of Old Testament feasts; CPG 2836), and, in a more remote sense, John Chrysostom, In Genesim homilia, 62, 3 (PG, 54, col., 536; CPG 4409); Expositio in Psalmum, 121, 2 (PG, 55, col. 349, more generally of Old Testament feasts; CPG 4413). 26 A certain cumulation is to be noticed in Theodotus of Ancyra and in homilies more or less confidently contributed to his contemporary Proclus: Theodotus of Ancyra, Homilia 1 and 2 In die nativitatis Domini (ACO, 1, 1, 2, p. 73; 74; 80 SCHWARTZ; CPG 6125f.); Proclus, Homilia 4 In natalem diem Domini, 1 (N. CONSTAS, Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity. Homilies 1–5, Texts and Translations [Supplements to VigChr, 66], Leiden, 2003, p. 226; CPG 5803, reuses Theodotus, Homilia 1); Pseudo-Chrysostom, In ascensionem 4 (PG, 52, col. 799; CPG 4534: Proclus?); cf. also Proclus, Homilia 1 de laudibus s. Mariae, 1 (ACO, 1, 1, 1, p. 103; CPG 5800); furthermore: Pseudo-Chrysostom, In annuntiationem sanctissimae Deiparae (PG, 60, col. 756; CPG 4628); De cognitione Dei et in s. Theophania (PG, 62, col. 44; CPG 4703); In catenas s. Petri, 2. 5 (Chrysostomika, 3, p. 978; 980; CPG 4745); In Pascha, 5 (PG, 59, col. 733, of Greek feasts; CPG 4610); Pseudo-Chrysostom, In Genesim sermo, 3, 1 (PG, 54, col. 527, only indirectly heortological; CPG 4562: Proclus?); cf. also Theodoret, Epistula, 5 (Y. AZÉMA, Theodoret de Cyr, Correspondance, vol. 2 [SC, 98], Paris, 1964, p. 30, l. 15). Derivatives of the heortological use can be seen in Basil of Seleucia (?), Vita sanctae Theclae, 11 (G. DAGRON, Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle [SH, 62], Bruxelles, 1978, p. 214, l. 56), and an anonymous catena fragment on Lk, 15, 24 (CRAMER 2, p. 120, l. 7). A glance in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae shows that the term becomes popular again only after a certain gap in Byzantine authors of the Middle Ages. 27 Cf., for example, J. J. FLORES ARCAS, El Hodie en los escritos de Odo Casel, in Ecclesia orans, 16 (1999), pp. 53-62. 28 WALLRAFF, Liturgie [see note 16], p. 87.

72

HARALD BUCHINGER

and therefore had to be summarised at crucial moments of the exposition to inculcate it in the minds of the listeners. The theologically more or less sophisticated way in which preachers and liturgies represented and thus realised the anamnetic content of the respective feast constitutes the core of festal theology. 1.2.2. Justifications of liturgical feasts as such Some representatives of the first generation of festal preachers occasionally expressed a certain uneasiness with regard to the existence of Christian feasts as such. In so doing, they probably show an awareness of the simple fact that the liturgical innovation was not self-evident, but needed justification. Since Christians neither continued to celebrate Jewish feasts (with the notable exception of the profoundly transformed celebration of Pascha), nor shared the festivities of the Greco-Roman world, they had learned to distance themselves from public feasts for more than three centuries. This attitude may not have changed everywhere immediately when new festal cycles were introduced in the later 4th century. The lengthy introduction to John Chrysostom’s Pentecost sermon (CPG 4343) is a beautiful example of the persistence of the old apologetic motif that Christians should celebrate “always” and thus in a metaphorical way instead of indulging in rare festivities.29 2. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND SEVERIAN OF GABALA AS FESTAL PREACHERS 2.1. John Chrysostom John Chrysostom attests a quite fully-fledged liturgical year and even a number of biblical readings;30 unfortunately, the notorious ambiguity about the localisation of many homilies affects their historical significance. It is therefore not beyond doubt that the sermons on a remarkably developed Holy Week and 29 John Chrysostom, De sancta Pentecoste, 1, 1f. (RAMBAULT, Homélies sur la résurrection, l’ascension et la pentecôte, tome 2, pp. 202-214). The argument is a bit paradoxical: in view of the good attendance of the festal liturgy, the preacher laments – as oftentimes; cf. N. RAMBAULT, ibidem, p. 203 – a disproportionate ordinary practice; in contrast to the three feasts prescribed to the Jews (cf. Ex, 23, 17), Christians should celebrate “always”, which, however, can only be fulfilled metaphorically and therefore has to exceed the paraenetical goal of exhorting the audience to more regular church attendance. The appeal to 1 Cor, 5, 8 (ibidem, p. 212) is theologically sensitive and the metaphorical point in line with the Pauline argument; ascribing the celebration of rare feasts to “Jewish mind” (ibidem, p. 206) in order to motivate Christians to continuous presence in church is an old polemical topos, going back at least to Origen, In Genesim homilia, 10, 3 (W. A. BAEHRENS [ed.], Origenes Werke. 6: Homilien zum Hexateuch in Rufins Übersetzung [GCS, 6], Leipzig, 1920, p. 97, l. 4). 30 RACZKA, Lectionary [see note 3]; some information on the Easter cycle has been collected by H. AUF DER MAUR, Die Osterfeier in der alten Kirche (Liturgica oenipontana, 2), Münster, 2003, pp. 178-180.

FESTAL HOMILIES AND LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE

73

other feasts of the Easter cycle belong to Antioch, as is often, if not generally, assumed.31 In any case, they do not show distinct signs of commenting a very recent development. Indeed, such a celebration may have been traditional in Antioch, and John may have inherited the custom of consecutive sermons from his mentor Meletius (360-381 AD) if the Georgian homilies attributed to Meletius on various moments of Holy Week (CPG 3425) are authentic and their division as well as their liturgical assignation original.32 In that case a celebration of the Passion according to the biblical chronology would be attested in Antioch not only before the period of John Chrysostom’s activity (386-397 AD), but also before Egeria’s visit as first witness to that development in Jerusalem (381-384 AD), thus opening questions of the origin and early history of a mimetic liturgical year as such. In any case, John Chrysostom’s sermons reveal a strong sense of liturgical mimesis. The existence of a Palm Sunday cortège is dubious: when the exordium to the homily on Ps., 145 (CPG 4415; traditionally – but not reliably – localised in Antioch because of its referral to monks who live on the mountains33) states that “we do not go out from one city to meet Christ today, and not only from Jerusalem, but from all around the whole world the Churches go forth with thousands of people to meet Jesus, not holding and shaking palm branches, but offering charity and philanthropy and virtue and fasting and tears and prayers and vigils and every piety to the Lord Jesus”,34 it does not become clear whether this occursus was rhetorical imagination or liturgical reality. It is at any rate remarkable that John Chrysostom presupposes the chronological harmonisation of the gospels of John, 12, 1 and 12 and Matthew, 21 that underlies

The list W. MAYER, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom – Provenance. Reshaping the Foundations (OCA, 273), Roma, 2005, p. 469, gives of “The status of homilies individually assigned provenance” (cf. also ibidem, p. 511: “Homilies of certain provenance”) maintains certainly Antiochene provenance only for CPG 4343 De sancta Pentecoste, reduces the degree of certainty to “probably” in the cases of CPG 4334 In diem natalem and CPG 4342 In ascensionem, and passes over CPG 4335 De baptismo Christi (Epiphany) and the Holy Week and Easter sermons CPG 4336-4340 altogether. W. MAYER – P. ALLEN, John Chrysostom (The Early Church Fathers), London, 2000, p. 19, however, appear to take for granted the assignment of the homily De coemeterio et cruce on Good Friday and In ascensionem (CPG 4337; 4342, cf. below, n. 36-38) to Antioch. 32 W. HUBER, Passa und Ostern. Untersuchungen zur Osterfeier der alten Kirche (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 35), Berlin, 1969, pp. 203-205; M. VAN ESBROECK, Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens. Étude descriptive et historique (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, 10), Louvain, 1975, pp. 310-312: “Même s’il n’y a pas lieu de tenir pour authentiques les longueurs précises de chaque homélie comme nous les lisons aujourd’hui, … il n’y a vraiment aucune raison d’en refuser la paternité à Mélèce d’Antioche.” (p. 312) 33 MAYER, Homilies [see note 31], p. 93; on the difficulty of this criterion, see ibidem, pp. 426434. Her own lists ibidem, p. 470; 511f. therefore do not concede certainty or even probability to the localisation. 34 John Chrysostom, In Psalmum, 145, 1 (PG, 55, col. 520). 31

74

HARALD BUCHINGER

the chronological structure of any Jerusalem-type Holy Week.35 Mimesis is, however, not limited to liturgical time. Conspicuous is also the place of the celebration of Good Friday out of town, explicitly interpreted in the homily on the day (CPG 4337) as a mimetic reference to the crucifixion “out of town”36 – a feature which must have been developed directly from the Bible, since Golgotha was situated in the middle of the town in late antique Jerusalem. As in contemporary Jerusalem, the day has a vigil (although the full eucharistic celebration attested by the same sermon remains erratic).37 Similarly being celebrated out of town, the feast of the Ascension displays the same strong mimetic imprint in its topographic code.38 This is all the more noticeable given that Chrysostom’s Ascension homily (CPG 4342) has a good chance of being the first extant attestation at all of that feast,39 and particularly antedates its attestation in Jerusalem. As Chrysostom’s homily comes decades before the Armenian Lectionary, conserving the liturgical status of 417-439 AD and providing the first attestation of a celebration of the Ascension on the 40th day in Jerusalem,40 formidable questions about the origin and early history of that 35 Only the gospel of John provides a chronological framework for the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Joh, 12, 1 and 12); the mention of the raising of Lazarus (In Psalmum, 145, 1 [PG, 55, coll. 519f.]) and the idea of “going out to meet” (cf. Joh, 12, 13) condense the Johannine reference-system. 36 De coemeterio et de cruce, 1 (PG, 49, col. 393); the concrete choice of the so-called “κοιμητήριον” is motivated with reference to the descent of Jesus to the dead on Good Friday. 37 De coemeterio et de cruce, 3 (PG, 49, col. 398: vigil; coll. 397f.: full eucharistic celebration); cf. S. JANERAS, Le Vendredi-Saint dans la tradition liturgique byzantine. Structure et histoire de ses offices (Studia Anselmiana, 99 = Analecta liturgica, 13), Roma, 1988, pp. 386f. The dubious, if not spurious homily In proditionem Iudae (PG, 50, coll. 715f.; CPG 4511), calls the grove of Daphne an “image of the garden … in which the betrayal of the Saviour was undertaken”, thus perhaps alluding to a mimetic service in the evening of Holy Thursday or the vigil of Good Friday somehow similar to the one celebrated in Jerusalem according to Egeria, Peregrinatio, 23, 2-36, 4 (RÖWEKAMP, Egeria, Itinerarium, pp. 266-270), and the Armenian Lectionary, n° 39ter-42 (PO, 36, 2 = 168, pp. 268 [130]-280 [142]). Holy Thursday is the “day of the betrayal” not only according to the authentic homily De proditione Iudae, 1, 1 (PG, 49, col. 373; CPG 4336), but also In Genesim homilia, 33, 1 (PG, 53, col. 305). 38 In ascensionem, 1 (RAMBAULT, Homélies sur la résurrection, l’ascension et la pentecôte, tome 2, p. 148); Chrysostom himself nevertheless speaks of “honouring the martyrs”. On the identification of the church, see W. MAYER – P. ALLEN, The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300-638 CE) (Late Antique History and Religion, 5), Leuven, 2012, pp. 97f.; 187f; C. SALIOU, À propos de quelques églises d’Antioche sur l’Oronte, in Topoi, 19 (2014), pp. 628-661, esp. pp. 638-645. 39 H. BUCHINGER, Pentekoste, Pfingsten und Himmelfahrt. Grunddaten und Fragen zur Frühgeschichte, in R. W. BISHOP ET AL. (eds), Preaching after Easter. Mid-Pentecost, Ascension, and Pentecost in Late Antiquity (Supplements to VigChr, 136), Leiden, 2016, pp. 15-84, esp. pp. 81f.; N. RAMBAULT, La fête de l’Ascension à Antioche d’après l’homélie de Jean Chrysostome In Ascensionem Christi, in BISHOP ET AL., Preaching after Easter, pp. 141-157, esp. p. 141; S. J. VOICU, Evidence of Authenticity. Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem Domini (CPG 5028), in BISHOP ET AL., Preaching after Easter, pp. 407-424, stresses that the sermon does not imply that the feast was an innovation and suggests “that the Feast of the Ascension appeared first in Antioch … and from there spread to other places.” (p. 422) 40 Armenian Lectionary, n° 57 (A. RENOUX, Le codex arménien Jérusalem, 121, vol. 2: Édition comparée du texte et de deux autres manuscrits [PO, 36, 2 = 168], Turnhout, 1971, pp. 336 [198]338 [200]).

FESTAL HOMILIES AND LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE

75

feast arise. Since Egeria does not yet observe the feast of the Ascension in Jerusalem in 381-384 AD, it must either have originated there a very short time after and spread instantly to Antioch, or the highly mimetic celebration on the 40th day and out of town must have been invented in Antioch. The question where the feast of the Ascension was first celebrated is not merely of historical interest, but of fundamental importance. It would challenge general models of liturgical development if such a mimetic celebration originated in a different place from the Holy City with its surrounding biblical landscape, which is generally thought to have inspired the development of the mimetic festal cycles. Not least, John Chrysostom is famous for the introduction of Christmas to Antioch, thus completing the canon of feasts as concisely recapitulated in his homily De beato Philogonio (CPG 4319) (with its archaic association of the Cross with Pascha, which cannot be discussed exhaustively in the present context).41 2.2. Severian of Gabala In view of the doubtful localisation of John Chrysostom’s respective homilies, Severian is one of the first somewhat precisely fixable witnesses of a developed Passion Week as such beyond Jerusalem42 and definitely the first secure one in Constantinople.43 Particularly remarkable is the homily De lotione pedum (CPG 4216): although Severian does not mention a mimetic re-enactment of “the awe-inspiring mystery that happened today: … the Saviour washes the feet of 41 See below, ch. 3.1.1. The association of the Cross with Pascha hints at a pristine paschal theology, which does not yet divide or even oppose Passion and resurrection. It is also disputed whether the reading of the Passion “at the general feast, when men and women are present with the whole multitude, and simply all in the great evening of Pascha” according to In Matthaeum homilia, 87 (88), 1 (PG, 58, col. 770; CPG 4424; the localisation is uncertain), refers to Good Friday (as assumed by JANERAS, Vendredi-Saint [see note 37], pp. 350f., followed by RACZKA, Lectionary [see note 3], p. 67) or rather to the paschal vigil (as accepted by AUF DER MAUR, Osterfeier [see note 30], p. 179, and plausible to the present author). The assumption of a reading of the Passion both, on Good Friday and in the paschal vigil, is bolstered by In principium Actorum homilia, 4, 5 (PG, 51, col. 104; CPG 4371, of undetermined localisation, since a connection with the Antiochene homilies 1f. In principium Actorum cannot be proven according to W. MAYER, The Sequence and Provenance of John Chrysostom’s Homilies In illud: si esurierit inimicus [CPG 4375], De mutatione nominum [CPG 4372] and In principium actorum [CPG 4371], in Augustinianum, 46 [2006], pp. 169-186): “At the day of the cross we read everything about the cross; again on the Great Sabbath”. 42 The attribution of the Good Friday homily De cruce et latrone (CPG 4728) to Severian by A. WENGER, Le sermon LXXX de la collection augustinienne de Mai restitue à Sévérien de Gabala, in Augustinus Magister. Congrès International Augustinien, Paris, 21–24 Septembre 1954. Communications, Paris, 1954, pp. 175-185, is uncertain; cf. S. J. VOICU, Sévérien de Gabala, in DSp, 14 (1990), coll. 752-763, here col. 758. The Holy Thursday homily mentioned below, however, suffices to prove a developed celebration of Passion Week. 43 Despite the fact that MAYER, Homilies [see note 31], does not explicitly support the localisation of Chrysostom’s Holy Week sermons CPG 4336-4340 in Antioch, no serious proposal appears to have been made to assign them to Constantinople.

76

HARALD BUCHINGER

the disciples”,44 he concentrates on an element of the day which was to become ritually productive a little later in Jerusalem,45 and he applies current sacramental language to it. The whole Easter cycle appears to be just as highly developed as in John Chrysostom’s Antioch: Severian attests the convention of reading Genesis and Job in Lent46 as well as the feasts of the Ascension and Pentecost.47 The efforts his sermon on the Ascension makes to advocate that feast and emphasise the dating of the biblical event on the 40th day may, however, reflect the possibility of that date not having been long established in Constantinople in his time and still needing promotion among the audience.48 The celebration of the Ascension on the “mount of Olives” opposite the town is a noteworthy

44 A. WENGER, Une homélie inédite de Sévérien de Gabala sur le lavement des pieds, in REB, 25 (1967), pp. 219-234, quotation p. 227, § 12; § 13 elaborates on the language of fear and awe. 45 Unequivocal evidence for ritual footwashing on Holy Thursday first comes from the Georgian Lectionary § 641 (M. TARCHNISCHVILI, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Eglise de Jérusalem [CSCO, 188 = CSCO.I, 9, p. 115 / CSCO, 189 = CSCO.I, 10, p. 92], Louvain, 1960, documenting the liturgical development in Jerusalem between the 5th and the 7th century. Perhaps already Hesychius of Jerusalem, In Job homilia, 5, Prologue (C. RENOUX, Homélies sur Job: version arménienne [PO, 42,1], Turnhout, 1983, p. 150, with nn. 12f. ibidem, p. 151; CPG 6551), alludes to a liturgical ceremony around the middle of the 5th century when Sion is rhetorically addressed: “Betimes you offer the basin and bring the foot towel”, since references to further anamnetic contents of Holy Week are to follow. The Georgian Lectionary does not, however, give a hint at the venue of the rite, which follows after the Mass held in the “katholike” (i.e. basilica) of the Anastasis complex. Hesychius’s appeal to Sion refers in the first place to the biblical Cenacle. 46 Homilies on the Creation of the World, 1, 3. 7; 2, 1 (PG, 56, coll. 432; 437; 439; CPG 4194); cf. VILLADSEN, Perikopesystem [see note 1], p. 237. The series may have continued according to RACZKA, Lectionary [see note 3], pp. 259; 281-283, following C. DATEMA, Towards a Critical Edition of the Greek Homilies of Severian of Gabala, in Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 19 (1988), pp. 107-115, esp. pp. 110f., with reference to a number of further homilies on Genesis, of which De Noe et de arca (K. H. UTHEMANN – R. F. REGTUIT – J. M. TEVEL [eds], Homiliae pseudo-chrysostomicae, Turnhout, 1994, pp. 146-153, here p. 146; CPG 4271 = 4236 [4]) mentions to be held in the middle of Lent. On the In Iob sermones, 2f. (PG, 56, col. 567-582; J. J. OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies on Job [CPG 4564, BHG 939d-g]. Transmission, Critical Edition, and Translation, Amsterdam, 2015; CPG 4564), see OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, ibidem, p. 2, and S. J. VOICU, Nuove restituzioni a Severiano di Gabala, in RSBN, 20-21 (30-31) (1983-1984), pp. 3-24, with reference especially to In Job sermo, 3, 4 (PG, 56, col. 576 / OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Homilies on Job, p. 254, l. 331). 47 S. J. VOICU, Pentecost According to Severian of Gabala, in BISHOP ET AL., Preaching after Easter [see note 39], pp. 293-303; IDEM, Evidence of Authenticity [see note 39]. 48 In ascensionem DNJC et in principium Actorum, 8 (PG, 52, col. 782, n. b; CPG 4187): “On the 50th/at Pentecost was not the Assumption (sc. Ascension), but the visit of the Holy Spirit.” Cf. BUCHINGER, Pentekoste [see note 39], pp. 46f., n. 158, reporting the suggestion of R. W. Bishop that this variant reading is to be considered original. Some 20 years earlier (379-381 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio, 41, 5 (C. MORESCHINI – P. GALLAY, Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 38-41 [SC, 358], Paris, 1990, p. 324; CPG 3010), preached in Constantinople, associated not only the manifestation of the Spirit but also the termination of the bodily presence of Christ with the feast of Pentecost, thus making the assumption of a separate feast of the Ascension on the 40th day improbable; cf. BUCHINGER, Easter Cycle [see note 17], pp. 55f.

FESTAL HOMILIES AND LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE

77

mimetic feature;49 the choice of Joh., 20, 19(-27) as gospel of the day may hint at an archaic state of the Eastertide lectionary.50 It is striking that Severian repeatedly preached on days after the respective feast. This would not be peculiar during the Easter octave (CPG 4243),51 and the Ascension sermon (CPG 4187) mentions that the celebration was shifted two days because of bad weather.52 In the case of Pentecost, however, the second sermon De spiritu sancto (CPG 4188)53 would either point to a Pentecost octave not otherwise attested that early beyond the erratic testimony of the Apostolic Constitutions,54 or to – rather – non-eucharistic services, in which the presider could chose the content of his discourses more freely. Continuing to expound the subjects of preceding days would have to be considered as Sitz im Leben of this and possibly other post-festal sermons.55 3. EXEMPLARY SOUNDINGS IN EPIPHANY SERMONS, SIDE-GLANCES AT CHRISTMAS

WITH PRELIMINARY

The first – and probably original – celebration of Christ’s Nativity in the Christian East was Epiphany on January 6th, clearly attested as such by Ephraem († 373).56 Jerusalem is famous for sticking to that tradition until the 6th century,57 and fragments of a homily on Epiphany (CPG 3578) by Titus of Bostra (bishop 49

In ascensionem DNJC et in principium Actorum, 2 and 7 (PG, 52, coll. 775; 780). The location is confirmed by the historian Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 7, 26, 2 (G. C. HANSEN [ed.], Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica [GCS, N. F., 1], Berlin, 1995, p. 375; CPG 6028); cf. C. MANGO, Constantinople’s Mount of Olives and Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyre, in Nea Rhome, 6 (2009), pp. 157-170. 50 In ascensionem DNJC et in principium Actorum, 3 (PG, 52, col. 775). The Thomas pericope may have been part of a course reading of the gospel of John during the Pentecost season and not yet assigned to the octave day of Easter in Constantinople in that period. 51 Homilia 5 De pascha deque catharis (J. B. AUCHER [ed.], Severiani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae, Venetiis, 1827, pp. 180; 188). 52 In ascensionem DNJC et in principium Actorum, 2; 8 (PG, 52, coll. 775; 782, n. b). 53 De spiritu sancto, 1 (PG, 52, col. 813). 54 Apostolic Constitutions, 5, 20, 14 (M. METZGER, Les constitutions apostoliques, tome 2: livres III-VI [SC, 329], Paris, 1986, p. 282). 55 In addition to De spiritu sancto on the day after Pentecost [see note 53], the homily In illud: Genimina viperarum (CPG 4947) was preached at some date shortly after Pentecost: VOICU, Pentecost [see note 47], p. 297. 56 See above, note 11, and, explicit about the date, De nativitate, 5, 13 (E. BECK [ed.], Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Nativitate [Epiphania] [CSCO, 186 = CSCO.S, 82], Leuven, 1959, p. 48 / E. BECK [trans.], Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen De Nativitate [Epiphania] [CSCO, 187 = CSCO.S, 83], Leuven, 1959, p. 41), which is confirmed by Epiphanius, Panarion, 51, 22, 7 (A. HOLL – J. DUMMER [eds], Epiphanius Werke. 2: Panarion haer. 34-64, 2nd ed., [GCS, 31], Berlin, 1980, pp. 284f.); cf. most recently G. ROUWHORST, The Feast of Epiphany in Early Syriac Tradition, lecture at the congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, Holy Etchmiadzin, September 2016, forthcoming in the conference volume. 57 The ample dossier of sources cannot and need not be reiterated in the present context; cf. the literature quoted in note 9 and 60.

78

HARALD BUCHINGER

under emperor Julian 361-363 AD and deceased before 378 AD) demonstrate its early observance in the periphery of the Holy City.58 The extant evidence does not reveal where the feast originated in the first place, although a growing consensus opts for Jerusalem or, more precisely, Bethlehem59 – at any rate a plausible choice for a celebration “fitting to time and place”, although contesting traditions of Christ’s birthday remained virulent in the period of liturgical creativity.60 That the church of Jerusalem resisted the introduction of Christmas perhaps even twice61 may not only be a sign of conservativism, but also of historical self-consciousness as the “mother of all churches”62 who had given to the Christian world a good number of the most prominent liturgical identitymarkers, perhaps including the annual celebration of the Lord’s birth as such. Only the introduction of Christmas on December 25th as the Western date of Christ’s Nativity (literarily, not necessarily liturgically documented at the latest 354 AD in the famous calendar of Philocalus63) allowed the old Eastern feast to assume a new content and to concentrate on Christ’s Baptism. When and how exactly these two developments happened is shrouded in mystery; indisputable evidence comes only from the last quarter of the 4th century.64 58 BUCHINGER, Predigt [see note 9]. The Palestinian-born Epiphanius, Panarion, 51, 16, 1; 22, 3-18; 24, 1; 27, 4f.; 29, 4-7 (HOLL – DUMMER, Epiphanius Werke. 2), pp. 270; 284-288; 292f.; 298; 300f.) stresses January 5/6 as the date of Christ’s birth. 59 FÖRSTER, Anfänge [see note 9], pp. 121; 306f.; cf. ROUWHORST, Feast [see note 56]. 60 FÖRSTER, Feier; IDEM, Anfänge [see note 9]. The most prominent proponents of Christmas are Jerome, Homilia de nativitate Domini (G. MORIN ET AL. [eds], Hieronymus. Tractatus sive homiliae in psalmos. In Marci evangelium. Alia varia argumenta [CCSL, 78], Turnhout, 1958, pp. 527f., ll. 111-160); cf. In Hiezechielem, 1, 3 (F. GLORIE [ed.], Hieronymus, Commentariorum in Hiezechielem libri XIV [CCSL, 75], Turnhout, 1964, p. 6f.), who opposed the local tradition of Bethlehem to the Western feast, and John Chrysostom’s famous Christmas homily mentioned below, ch. 3.1.1). 61 When Christmas first spread to the East towards the end of the 4th century, Jerusalem stuck to Epiphany as date of Christ’s Nativity. If the dubious (Pseudo-?) Basil of Seleucia, Oratio, 41: Laudatio s. protomartyris Stephani (PG, 85, col. 469 B; CPG 6656) is – regardless of its contested authenticity – trustworthy in crediting bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem (422-458 AD) with introducing Christmas in mid-5th-century, its observance must have fallen into disuse quickly, before Christmas was again forcedly and definitively implemented a century later by Justinian I († 565); cf. M. VAN ESBROECK, La lettre de l’empereur Justinien sur l’Annonciation et la Noël en 561, in AB, 86 (1968), pp. 351-371; IDEM, Encore la lettre de Justinien. Sa date: 560 et non 561, in AB, 87 (1969), pp. 442-444. Nevertheless, the homily of Antipater of Bostra (around 457/458 AD) In epiphaniam (E. MALKI, Die syrische Handschrift Berlin Sachau 220 [Heidelberger Orientalistische Studien, 6], Frankfurt, 1984, pp. 205-212; CPG 6685), by commenting on the Baptism of Christ on the feast of the Epiphany insinuates that the celebration of Christmas was adopted in the Transjordan province shortly after Juvenal (Antipater’s four homilies De nativitate [CPG 6695-6698] transmitted in Armenian are inedited); cf. BUCHINGER, Predigt [see note 9], p. 78. 62 Anaphora of the Liturgy of St James (B. C. MERCIER, La Liturgie de Saint Jacques [PO, 26, 2 = 126], Turnhout, 1947, repr. 1997, p. 206 [92], l. 27). 63 The notice VIII kal. Ian natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae marks the beginning of the depositio martirum (T. MOMMSEN [ed.], Chronica minora saec. IV, V, VI, VII [MGH. Auctores antiquissimi, 9, 1], München, 1981, p. 71). The immense bibliography on the source cannot be reported here; FÖRSTER, Feier [see note 9], pp. 100-103, even argued that the whole entry is an interpolation made after 525 AD. 64 On the complex dossier of sources and their controversial interpretation see once more the bibliography quoted in note 9.

FESTAL HOMILIES AND LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE

79

According to Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphany, the “day of lights”, was wellestablished in Constantinople in 379-381 AD as celebration of Christ’s Baptism in addition to the Nativity on December 25th.65 This was also the case in Cappadocia when Gregory of Nyssa preached his respective homilies, mostly, though not unanimously dated to 383 AD and 386.66 Antioch, however, appears to have been a little more tardy in embracing the Western customs. 3.1. John Chrysostom 3.1.1. Christmas John Chrysostom’s only authentic homily In diem natalem (CPG 4334) is the oft-treated key witness for the adoption of the Western celebration of Christmas in Antioch (or, rather, at least in Flavian’s Meletian congregation); it definitely post-dates the Golden Mouth’s presbyteral ordination (386 AD).67 The preacher states that “it is not yet the 10th year” since he had become aware of the date68 (which would, it may be noted, exclude a localisation in Constantinople, where the feast is documented already by Gregory of Nazianzus’ Christmas homily held in 379-381 AD and thus more than 10 years before John’s relocation to the capital in 398 AD). It has been widely assumed though not coercively demonstrated that the sermon stems from the very first celebration of Christmas in Antioch. The certain reluctance to introduce the new feast in Antioch suggests that this old and powerful liturgical centre may have been more conservative than at least some communities in the adjacent region of Cappadocia and than the capital of the Eastern Empire itself.69

Oratio, 38 and 39 (MORESCHINI – GALLAY, Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 38-41; CPG 3010). In diem luminum (VAN HECK – GEBHARDT ET AL. [eds], Sermones. Pars 1, pp. 221-242; CPG 3173); In diem natalem Salvatoris (RHEIN ET AL. [eds], Sermones. Pars 3, pp. 235-269; CPG 3194); on the date of the former in 383 AD and the latter in 386 AD, cf. REXER, Festtheologie [see note 22], pp. 97; 88. 67 The rich and complex history of research on the date is referenced by MAYER, Homilies [see note 31], index p. 530, and tables pp. 162; 261; nevertheless – and in spite of the reference of In diem natalem, 6 (PG, 49, col. 358) to a subsequent preacher, probably the bishop; cf. MAYER, Homilies, pp. 323; 341; 345; 354; 465f. – she reduces the degree of certainty about Antiochene provenance of the homily to probability (MAYER, Homilies, p. 469). Most recent considerations come from FÖRSTER, Feier [see note 9], pp. 161-179, who argues that the congregation of Paulinus began to celebrate Christmas around 375 AD under the influence of Jerome. 68 John Chrysostom, In diem natalem, 1 (PG, 49, col. 351). 69 Constantinople, while generally being liturgically dependent from Antioch, belonged to the periphery of its liturgical realm before it became a successful liturgical centre in its own right, spreading its liturgy as what later was to become the Byzantine rite. In addition to its Antiochene pedigree and the influence from nearby Cappadocia, personified by the bishops John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus, the Byzantine rite is the product of a repeated give-and-take of the capital especially with Palestine, happening well after the Golden Age of patristic preaching: R. F. TAFT, The Byzantine Rite. A Short History (American Essays in Liturgy), Collegeville, MN, 1992. 65

66

80

HARALD BUCHINGER

Be that as it may, other homilies undoubtedly preached in Antioch confirm the insertion of Christmas in the festal calendar of the Orontes metropolis. Most notably, the sermon De beato Philogonio, 3-4 (CPG 4319) distinguishes the Nativity, which he emphatically calls “the most venerable and awe-inspiring of all feasts, which one would not fail to address as the metropolis of all feasts”, from Christ’s “Baptism, which is the Theophany”. The hyperbolic language and the persuasive case the preacher makes in the following to show that all other feasts – namely Pascha, Ascension, and Pentecost along with Epiphany – “took their content-matter (‘ὑπόθεσις’)” from Christ’s Nativity may be taken as an indication that the celebration was still not deeply rooted in his audience.70 More difficult is the case of De sancta Pentecoste, 1, 1 (CPG 4343), where Chrysostom enumerates the content-matters of three feasts, beginning with “our first feast”, Epiphany; “what, then, is the content-matter of the feast? That God ‘has appeared on earth and sojourned with the humans’ (Bar, 3, 38)”.71 From this, it has often been concluded that Christmas had not been introduced when the Pentecost homily was delivered;72 indeed, John Chrysostom uses the same biblical proof text here for the content of Epiphany as in the exordium of his Christmas homily,73 which could insinuate a shift of festal contents from the former to the latter feast. Nathalie Rambault, however, has recently argued that Chrysostom may have referred to the old triad of Christian feasts in order to offer a polemical counterpart to the “three feasts” of the Jews according to Exod., 23, 17,74 and that Christmas was at any rate known to him at the point when he preached on Pentecost;75 furthermore, the description of the festal content may refer to Christ’s Baptism as well as to his Nativity.76 A definite decision appears difficult. Corroborative evidence comes from the lists of feasts in the Apostolic Constitutions;77 although they are generally thought to have been redacted in the Antiochian realm in the last quarter of the 4th century, they are not to be used for historical questions without a certain danger of circular reasoning. 70

PG, 48, col. 752f. RAMBAULT, Homélies sur la résurrection, l’ascension et la pentecôte, tome 2, p. 208, ll. 61-63. 72 Most recently, cf. FÖRSTER, Anfänge [see note 9], p. 125. 73 John Chrysostom, In diem natalem, 1 (PG, 49, col. 351). 74 De sancta Pentecoste 1, 1 (RAMBAULT, Homélies sur la résurrection, l’ascension et la pentecôte, tome 2, p. 206). 75 Cf. the “ten years” mentioned in John Chrysostom’s In diem natalem, 1 (PG, 49, col. 351). 76 N. RAMBAULT, Introduction to her Homélies sur la résurrection, l’ascension et la pentecôte, p. 64 and p. 209, n. 1. 77 Apostolic Constitutions, 5, 13, 1f. (METZGER, Les constitutions apostoliques, tome 2, p. 246) distinguishes the feast of the Nativity on Dec. 25th from the feast of Epiphany “on which the Lord made for us a demonstration of his divinity”, on Jan. 6th (according to Apostolic Constitutions, 7, 36, 2 [M. METZGER [ed.], Les constitutions apostoliques tome 3, Livres VII et VIII (SC, 336), Paris, 1987, p. 82], which does not refer to the festal calendar, “he demonstrated himself as God in the baptism”); Apostolic Constitutions, 8, 33, 6f. (METZGER, Les constitutions apostoliques, tome 3, p. 242) repeats the terminology and explicitly refers to Christ’s baptism. 71

FESTAL HOMILIES AND LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE

81

3.1.2. Epiphany Chrysostom’s De beato Philogonio and the earlier evidence from Gregory of Nazianzus’s Constantinople both demonstrate that the Baptism of Christ had quickly become the content of Epiphany after the introduction of Christmas in both cities, Antioch and Constantinople. John Chrysostom’s sermon De baptismo Christi (CPG 4335), which cannot be localised confidently,78 confirms this shift. After a long complaint about the meagre participation of his audience in the Sunday services “once the feast has passed”,79 he straightforwardly identifies the content-matter of Epiphany, which – other than the name of the feast – was overtly not known to many, as “the day, on which he was baptised”, in contrast to “the day when he was born”. He quotes Tit., 2, 11-13 as the reading of the day (which was to become the choice of the medieval Byzantine liturgy80) and muses about the two appearances of Christ: “one this present one, which has already happened, the other one, which is yet to come and to happen at the end in glory”.81 Since by his being baptised Christ “hallowed the nature of the waters …, also at midnight at this feast all people, having drawn water, stow the waters away at home and keep it for the whole year, that is the waters which have been hallowed today”;82 with this hint, the sermon provides the first description of what was to be ritualised as the solemn water blessing in oriental liturgies.83 Subsequently, Chrysostom distinguishes Christ’s Baptism from both, the Baptisms – i.e., lustratory ablutions – of the Jews and the Christian Baptism, which forgives sins and bestows the Spirit, and ponders on his fulfilment of righteousness (Matt., 3, 15).84 He concludes the sermon with an admonition to the “many among you, who approach this holy table because of the habit of the feast”, affording valuable insights into eucharistic practice and piety as well as into the popular bad habit of leaving before the final song of thanksgiving, whilst others still were communicating.85

Earlier research as summarised by MAYER, Homilies [see note 31], index p. 520; tables pp. 162; 255; 261, opted for Antioch, but without convincing proof; MAYER’s lists of provenance Homilies, pp. 469; 511, therefore omit the sermon. 79 John Chrysostom, De baptismo Christi, 1 (PG, 49, col. 363). 80 J. MATEOS, Le Typicon de la Grande Église. Ms. Saint-Croix n° 40, Xe siècle. Tome I: Le cycle des douze moins (OCA, 165), Roma, 1962, p. 187. 81 John Chrysostom, De baptismo Christi, 2 (PG, 49, col. 365). 82 John Chrysostom, De baptismo Christi, 2 (PG, 49, coll. 365f.). 83 N. DENYSENKO, The Blessing of Waters and Epiphany: The Eastern Liturgical Tradition (Liturgy, Worship and Society), Farnham, 2012. 84 John Chrysostom, De baptismo Christi, 3f. (PG, 49, coll. 366-369). 85 De baptismo Christi, 4 (PG, 49, coll. 369-372), alluding to the chant of the Sanctus and mentioning the closing of the doors as well as post-communion “songs of thanksgiving” and a “last prayer after the sacrifice”; the passage is therefore an important source of F. VAN DE PAVERD, Zur Geschichte der Messliturgie in Antiocheia und Konstantinopel gegen Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts. Analyse der Quellen bei Johannes Chrysostomos (OCA, 187), Roma, 1970, index p. 563. 78

82

HARALD BUCHINGER

For the sake of completeness, two more texts from the Chrysostomic corpus can be added here to the dossier, though their provenance is impossible to determine. The first is a homily on Tit., 2, 11 (CPG 4456). The text is not only transmitted in a liturgical manuscript for Epiphany, but also assigned to that feast by its editor, Antoine Wenger,86 although it commences as part of a consecutive series of exegetical homilies on different biblical texts87 and does not give a clear hint at a festal context (or, for that matter, at the Baptism of Christ, although it mentions in passing Christian baptism). Finally, there is Chrysostom’s In Matthaeum homilia, 12 (CPG 4424) on the baptismal episode Matt., 3, 13-17.88 This text was apparently also transmitted on the occasion of Epiphany and adapted for that purpose with some appropriate opening words.89 As neither of these texts can be localised, they cannot be inserted into an overall reconstruction of the feast’s earliest developments. 3.2. Severian of Gabala From the sermons preached by Gregory of Nazianzus in his short tenure as bishop of Constantinople (379-381 AD) it is clear that December 25th was introduced into the festal calendar of the capital decades before Severian’s activity (in the first years of the 5th century, before 408 AD). Gregory attests Christmas as feast of Christ’s Nativity, which maintained the name of Theophany90 but left January 6th as the “Day of Lights” vacant to attract the Baptism of Jesus as the festal content of the day.91

86 A. WENGER, Une homélie inédite de Jean Chrysostome sur l’Épiphanie, in REB, 29 (1971), pp. 117-135. Sinai gr., 491 (8-9th century), foll. 116-129, is a liturgical collection. Whereas pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr. (accessed December 2016) does not mention the homily in its index of the other manuscript used by Wenger, Paris gr., 700, foll. 136-166 (obviously not a liturgical collection), it does register another non-liturgical manuscript, Mount Athos, Iviron, 255 (14th century), foll. 237-240. To MAYER, Homilies [see note 31], p. 26, “the style and vocabulary seem … to be sufficiently alien to Chrysostom to raise doubts.” 87 According to the opening lines, the lection of the preceding day was Matt, 5, 28 – not a particularly suitable choice for the Christmas/Epiphany season. 88 PG, 57, coll. 191-208. 89 WENGER, Homélie [see note 86], p. 117, with reference to Sinai gr., 491 [cf. note 86], foll. 72-87v, confirmed by the Pinakes-database. The introduction of In Matthaeum homilia, 12, 1 (PG, 57, coll. 201f.) integrates the baptism of Christ into the context of his incarnation and crucifixion; its corpus # 3 (PG, 57, col. 206) reflects on the effect the baptism of Jesus has on Jewish and Christian baptisms: “by fulfilling the Jewish baptism, he opened the door for the one of the Church … in one stream at the same time describing the shadow and adding the truth.” 90 Oratio 38, 3 (MORESCHINI – GALLAY [eds], Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 38-41, p. 108) debates the terminology of “Θεοφάνια … εἴτουν Γενέθλια”. 91 See above, note 65.

FESTAL HOMILIES AND LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE

83

3.2.1. Christmas There is an extensive dossier of sermons on the Nativitiy of Christ attributed to Severian transmitted in several languages, although none of them can unequivocally be identified as an authentic Christmas homily. Because the feast was well established in Constantinople at his time, it may suffice to simply list (1) a Greek sermon In incarnationem Domini (CPG 4204) edited critically by Remco F. Regtuit and held, at best (if at all) some time after Christmas,92 (2) the Syriac homily De nativitate (CPG 4260) edited by Cyril Moss (with supplementary fragments contained in a florilège of John Maron), which comes from a series of dogmatic homilies rather than a festal context,93 (3) the Armenian homily De incarnatione (CPG 4240), equally unlikely to be a festal homily for Christmas,94 and (4) an unedited Arabic sermon De epiphania et de nativitate (CPG 4290) identified by Joseph-Marie Sauget in a Melkite manuscript.95 (5) The exordium of two Coptic fragments In natalem Domini (CPG 4282) edited by Enzo Lucchesi makes unambiguously clear that they belong to a festal homily on Christmas, although its corpus deals at length with the annunciation by Gabriel; but unfortunately they are of disputed authenticity.96

92 R. F. REGTUIT, Severian of Gabala. Homily on the Incarnation of Christ (CPG 4204). Text, Translation and Introduction, Amsterdam, 1992. The homily opens with an allusion to Tit, 2, 11 (REGTUIT, Severian of Gabala. Homily on the Incarnation of Christ, p. 234, l. 1; the reading is attested in John Chrysostom’s Epiphany homily and adopted as epistle of that Feast in the Byzantine liturgy; cf. above, ch. 3.1.2) with n. 80) and concludes with Joh, 1, 14 and Bar, 3, 38 (ibidem, p. 286, ll. 744f.); the intention to “meet our debt” to “speak about Christ” (ibidem, p. 234, ll. 22; 25f.; cf. p. 284, l. 738), however, suggests that if any connection to Christmas were to be made, the homily would come after the feast (as do several others of Severian’s; cf. above, ch. 2.2 with n. 51-55). 93 C. MOSS, Homily on the Nativity of our Lord by Severian, Bishop of Gabala, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 12 (1947-1948), pp. 555-566; fragments in M. BREYDY (ed.), Jean Maron. Exposé de la foi et autres opuscules (CSCO, 497 = CSCO.S, 209 / CSCO, 498 = CSCO.S, 210), Leuven, 1988, vol. 1, pp. 68f.; vol. 2, pp. 30f., n° 44f. The introduction refers back to a homily on the previous Sunday “against the Jews” about the basic articles of Christology. 94 Homilia 2 De incarnatione (AUCHER, Severiani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae, pp. 16-55). Nothing points to a festal context, and Joh, 10, 32f. as “today’s reading” (ibidem, p. 34) would be a strange choice at Christmas. 95 J. M. SAUGET, Un homéliaire melkite bipartite: Le manuscrit Beyrouth, Bibliothèque Orientale 510, in Mus, 101 (1988), pp. 231-290, here pp. 286f., n° 49. The text begins with an allusion at Tit, 2, 11 [cf. also above, note 92], and the continuation of the first sentence makes it clear that the sermon was held at a feast of Christ. 96 E. LUCCHESI, Un sermon copte de Sévérien de Gabala sur la Nativité du Christ (attribué aussi à Proclus de Constantinople), in AB, 97 (1979), pp. 111-127; exordium p. 117. While M. AUBINEAU, Un traité inédit de christologie de Sévérien de Gabala In centurionem et contra Manichaeos et Apollinaristas (Cahiers d’Orientalisme, 5), Genève, 1983, p. 21, accepts the authenticity, S. J. VOICU, Séverien [see note 42], col. 758; S. J. VOICU, Fogli copti di Severiano di Gabala, De serpente (CPG 4196), in Augustinianum, 34 (1994), pp. 471-474, here p. 474, considers the fragments as spurious.

84

HARALD BUCHINGER

3.2.2. Epiphany The sermon In theophaniam (CPG 4212, still partly unpublished97) commences with the old Constantinopolitan – and Cappadocian – notion of the “Day of Light”,98 and hails the advent (“παρουσία”) of Christ before tying up with the “refrain which we sang”, Ps., 79(80), 8 = 20 (a verse which contains the cue word “επίφανον”99 and returns as Prokeimenon after the 9th reading of the Epiphany vigil in the medieval Byzantine liturgy),100 and commenting on the opening verses of that psalm which can be assumed to have been sung in its entirety.101 The actualisation of the benefactions of God in Christ’s Epiphany is then concretised in the ranks of the Church (prophet, apostle, priest, deacon, reader, and emperor).102 The conception that “John baptised in the rank of a priest and Christ was baptised in the rank of a lay-person” builds the bridge to the Gospel of the day and a reference to the obviously traditional notion that Christ “bestowed holiness to the waters”. In this context, the preacher touches the old baptismal terminology of “enlightening” and describes the action of the Spirit at Christ’s Baptism in the sacramental terms of “mystagogy” and “sealing”.103 It would not be Severian if he had missed the opportunity of a side blow at unspecified “heretics, who did not fear the voice ‘This is my Son, the beloved; listen to him’ (continuing Matt, 3, 17 with Matt, 17, 15)”, expounding Christ as “fulfilling of the law” (conflating Rom, 13, 10 with Matt, 5, 17).104 After considerations about the fulfilment of Is, 35, 2,105 the sermon concludes with a retrospect to a full vigil “from evening on” with “hymns and words about God” and reiterating the initial motif of light.106 A fragment published by Antoine Wenger and thought to stem from the peroration of this homily likewise expounds on the motif of light and continues with political allusions to the emperor, which obviously were dropped in the history of textual transmission.107 97 VOICU, Sévérien de Gabala [see note 42], col. 756; S. J. VOICU, Due sermoni pseudoagostiniani tradotti dal greco, in Augustinianum, 19 (1979), pp. 517-519, has identified the (pseudo-) Augustinian Sermo, 138 (PL, 39, coll. 2017f.) as a Latin version of this text. 98 See above, introduction to ch. 3, with nn. 65f. 99 “ἐπιφανεῖν” first appeared in § 1 for describing the “apparition of the truth” (PL, 39, col. 16 A). 100 MATEOS, typicon [see note 80], vol. 1, p. 179. 101 In theophaniam, 1-5 (PG, 65, coll. 16 A-20 A). Although the preacher first speaks of the “ἡμέρα φωτός” (PG, 65, col. 16 A) and about Christ’s “παρουσία”, § 5 (PG, 65, col. 20 A) also mentions the “ἐπιφάνεια”, and the respective verb “ἐπιφανεῖν” is prominent in both, the sermon and the liturgy it comments upon; cf. n. 99 and the importance of Ps., 79(80), 8 = 20. 102 In theophaniam, 6 (PG, 65, col. 20 A-B). 103 In theophaniam, 7f. (PG, 65, col. 20 C-21 C). 104 In theophaniam, 9f. (PG, 65, col. 21 C-24 C). 105 In theophaniam, 10f. (PG, 65, col. 24 B-26 A). 106 In theophaniam, 12 (PG, 65, col. 25 A-B). 107 A. WENGER, Notes inédites sur les empereurs Théodose I, Arcadius, Théodose II, Léon I, in REB, 10 (1952), pp. 47-59, here p. 48f.

FESTAL HOMILIES AND LITURGIES IN ANTIOCH AND CONSTANTINOPLE

85

Contested by its editor and plainly rejected by Sever Voicu is the attribution to Severian of the pseudo-chrysostomic festal sermon De epiphania (CPG 4882),108 which deals with the Baptism of Christ as narrated by Matt, 3 as manifestation (Epiphany) of Christ. 3.3. Epilogue: The pseudo-chrysostomic homily In sancta lumina vel In baptismum et tentationem (CPG 4735) A brief concluding remark shall be devoted to the pseudo-chrysostomic homily In sancta lumina or rather In baptismum et tentationem (CPG 4735), critically edited by Karl-Heinz Uthemann.109 It is attributed to Severian with caution by Antoine Wenger and Judit Kecskéméti,110 to John Chrysostom himself by Thomas Halton,111 and to an anonymous preacher educated in Antioch but probably active before 415 AD in Constantinople by Sever Voicu.112 The multifaceted sermon does not disclose its precise liturgical context: it explicitly links up with a sermon given the day before, probably on the exordium of Paul’s epistle to the Romans or Corinthians,113 and refers to Gal, 1, 1 as point of departure of the present homily.114 Afterwards, it moves on to expound Jesus’s Baptism,115 in passing polemicizing against Christological heresies attributed to “Markionites and Manichaeans”116 and defending a non-arian understanding of Matt, 3, 17, “you are my son, in whom I have been well pleased”.117 Having stressed from the outset that “the devil did not know what happened from the 108 A. WENGER, Une homélie inédite (de Sévérien de Gabala?) sur l’Épiphanie, in AB, 95 (1977), pp. 73-90; cf. VOICU, Sévérien de Gabala [see note 42], col. 759, following AUBINEAU, Un traité inédit de christologie de Sévérien de Gabala [see note 96], pp. 20f. The homily comes from the liturgical collection Sinai gr., 491, foll. 103-115v [cf. notes 86 and 89]. 109 K. H. UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem (BHG 1936m; CPG 4735). Kritische Edition mit Einleitung (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1994, 3), Heidelberg, 1994. 110 A. WENGER, La tradition des œuvres de saint Jean Chrysostome. I. catéchèses inconnues et homélies peu connues, in REB, 14 (1956), pp. 5-47, here p. 46: “elle semble devoir revenir à Sévérien de Gabala”; J. KECSKEMÉTI, Sévérien de Gabala: exégète et théologien antiochien méconnu, in Euphrosyne, N.S., 24 (1996), pp. 99-126, here p. 122. 111 T. HALTON, Two Newly-Edited Homilies of John Chrysostom, in Irish Theological Quarterly, 43 (1976), pp. 133-138. 112 S. J. VOICU, Une nomenclature pour les anonymes du corpus pseudo-chrysostomien, in Byz, 51 (1981), pp. 297-305, here p. 302; S. J. VOICU, Sévérien de Gabala [see note 42], col. 759. 113 In baptismum et tentationem, 1, 3; 2, 1 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, pp. 122; 124). 114 In baptismum et tentationem, 3, 4 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, p. 125). 115 In baptismum et tentationem, 4 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, pp. 128-132). 116 In baptismum et tentationem, 3, 7 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, p. 127). 117 In baptismum et tentationem, 4, 6, 3 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, p. 132).

86

HARALD BUCHINGER

beginning”,118 although “the devil was present and saw what happened” already at the Baptism,119 the preacher continues to comment on the Temptation by the same devil (Matt, 4, 1-11).120 The notice that the latter “entered into the soul of Judas (cf. Luk, 22, 3), so that he would betray him (sc. Jesus; Joh, 13, 2)” provides a bridge to continue the sermon with the crucifixion. Especially the Lukan anecdote of the Good Thief (Luk, 23, 40-43), which he likewise develops as an argument with and against the devil. The opening of the tombs (Matt, 27, 52f.) and the descent into Hades conclude the contest between Christ, who is demonstrated to be God, and the devil.121 Although the sermon was transmitted by most manuscript witnesses in liturgical collections for Epiphany,122 it is implausible that the sermon originally belongs to a celebration of that feast. The homily departs not from the festal contents of Epiphany, but from Pauline scriptural passages; in the complex contents of its corpus, the Baptism plays an important, but not dominant role.123 Not least references of the introduction not only to two subsequent days of preaching, but also to the “synaxis on the Lord’s day” with its “rest of/from the bodily things, so that there be work of the intellectual things”, and the opposition between the “two days, (which is) about intellectual contents, in which is salvation” and “the whole week, (which is) about affairs, in which is envy”,124 virtually preclude a dating of the sermon on the variable weekday of January 6th. To conclude: few significant commonalities can be identified between John Chrysostom’s and Severian’s Epiphany sermons, but both authors do offer significant insights into the early celebration and understanding of one of the most complex and fascinating feasts of the Christian calendar. Apart from their documentary value, they also shed light on processes of liturgical development in a period of intensive exchange between various liturgical centres, especially Antioch and Constantinople, but also Jerusalem and, in the case of Christmas, the West. In baptismum et tentationem, 4, 1 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, p. 128, l. 1). 119 In baptismum et tentationem, 4, 4 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, p. 128, l. 39). 120 In baptismum et tentationem, 5 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, pp. 132-134). 121 In baptismum et tentationem, 6f. (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, pp. 134-137). 122 UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem [see note 109], p. 10. 123 The quotation of Matt, 4, 4 links the exordium In baptismum et tentationem, 2, 3 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, p. 124, l. 43) with the corpus of the homily; Matt, 4, 3 returns in the final part In baptismum et tentationem, 6, 5, 1 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, p. 136). 124 In baptismum et tentationem, 2, 3 (UTHEMANN, Die Pseudo-Chrysostomische Predigt In Baptismum et Tentationem, pp. 124f.). 118

UN PASSAGE INÉDIT DU DE MUNDI CREATIONE (CPG 4194) DE SÉVÉRIEN DE GABALA CONSERVÉ DANS SA VERSION GÉORGIENNE1 Sergey KIM 1. ÉTAT DE LA QUESTION Lors de la préparation de l’article sur les pratiques liturgiques mentionnées dans les homélies de Sévérien de Gabala,2 j’ai constaté que le passage sur le débat autour du chant du Trisagion, relaté par Sévérien dans sa deuxième homélie sur l’Hexaéméron, est précédé dans la version géorgienne d’un autre passage, inexistant dans le texte grec courant.3 Le passage semble être absent de la traduction ancienne slavonne;4 la version arabe du cycle de Sévérien est encore presque totalement inexplorée.5 La version géorgienne des homélies de Sévérien sur la création du monde a été découverte dans les années 1960 par le chercheur géorgien Torniké Tchkonia, qui identifia ce texte dans deux manuscrits géorgiens de Jérusalem (Patriarcat grec, georg., 44 et 74); l’auteur du catalogue classique du fonds géorgien de Jérusalem, Robert Pierpont Blake, n’avait pas réussi à identifier ce cycle de Sévérien.6 Une mort prématurée n’a pas permis à Tchkonia de publier le texte géorgien de ces homélies de Sévérien; il n’en existe qu’un volume dactylographié,7 1

Je remercie cordialement le prof. Bernard Outtier (CNRS, France) pour ses remarques et Dr. Agnès Lorrain (Université de Munich) pour la relecture de ma traduction française du passage géorgien. Je tiens à remercier spécialement Dr. Tamara Pataridzé (Belgique) pour m’avoir procuré une copie de l’ouvrage rarissime de Tchkonia (cf. plus bas). 2 S. KIM, Литургические обычаи в проповедях Севериана Гавальского, dans Вестник Екатеринбургской духовной семинарии, 4(12) (2015), pp. 131-143. 3 PG, 56, col. 443. Mme Sarah Van Pee qui a travaillé sur une nouvelle édition critique du cycle d’homélies de Sévérien sur la création du monde nous confirme l’absence de ce passage géorgien de tous les manuscrits grecs connus. 4 Le texte de la deuxième homélie de Sévérien est inclus dans l’Hexaéméron slavon de Jean l’Exarche, cf. R. AITZETMÜLLER, Das Hexaëmeron des Exarchen Johannes, Band 2, Graz, 1960, et plus récemment Г. С. БАРАНКОВА – В. В. МИЛЬКОВ, Шестоднев Иоанна экзарха Болгарского, Санкт-Петербург, 2001, pp. 356-357 (texte slavon), 685 (traduction russe). Pour la version slavonne du cycle de Sévérien cf. aussi la contribution de Lara Sels et Sarah Van Pee dans ce volume. 5 Cf. J. ZELLINGER, Studien zu Severian von Gabala (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 8), Münster i. W., 1926, pp. 116-121. 6 R. P. BLAKE, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens de la Bibliothèque patriarcale grecque à Jérusalem, dans ROC, 4 (24) (1924), pp. 208-210, 387-388 (n. 44) et 407-408 (n. 74). 7 თ. ჭყონია, სევერიანე გაბალოვნელი და ძისი თხზულება ექუსთა დღეთათჳს (ძანქანაზე გადაბეჯდილი), თბილისი, 1960.

88

SERGEY KIM

conservé aujourd’hui à l’Institut National des Manuscrits à Tbilisi en Géorgie. La version géorgienne des homélies de Sévérien de Gabala sur la création du monde est restée ainsi pratiquement inconnue, si bien qu’elle fut ignorée par la Clavis patrum graecorum, un répertoire-clé pour les études patristiques. L’édition de Tchkonia a été utilisée par le prof. Edisher Tchelidzé dans son étude sur la terminologie ancienne géorgienne;8 malheureusement, le fait que le chercheur se référait au texte non-critique de l’Hexaéméron de Sévérien fourni par la Patrologia Graeca – le seul disponible à l’époque – affaiblit la valeur de ses analyses et comparaisons philologiques.9 2. TRADITION MANUSCRITE Les manuscrits Jérusalem, Patriarcat grec, georg., 44 (sigle A) et 74 (sigle B) sont des recueils d’œuvres patristiques, de caractère exégétique, portant sur la Genèse, sur la création de l’homme et sur les autres thèmes de l’Ancien Testament. Ces codex datables des 13e-14e siècles sont remarquables par le fait qu’ils contiennent plusieurs textes traduits de l’arménien en géorgien: dans son catalogue, Blake mettait déjà le cod., A en parallèle avec le recueil de Shatberd,10 du 10e siècle, qui est connu pour une riche masse de textes traduits de l’arménien. Les homélies géorgiennes de Sévérien figurent donc à côté du traité de Grégoire de Nysse sur la constitution de l’homme, de la série de traités exégétiques attribués à Hippolyte sur les bénédictions de Moïse, sur les bénédictions de Jacob, sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques, sur l’Antéchrist, et aussi d’une des nombreuses recensions du De mensuris et ponderibus d’Epiphane de Cyr. Un tel entourage pourrait à lui seul nous induire à supposer un intermédiaire arménien pour le texte géorgien des homélies de Sévérien; cette hypothèse devra être vérifiée scrupuleusement lors d’une édition complète de ce cycle de Sévérien, à l’aide des méthodes comparatives d’analyse linguistique. On notera que ces homélies de Sévérien ne sont pas connues en arménien, malgré l’indication contraire fournie par la Clavis Patrum Graecorum.11 En effet, une erreur s’est glissée dans ce répertoire patristique, faute d’une mauvaise interprétation de la notice de F. Macler12 vis-à-vis du codex Leiden Or., 5494 (Heb., 177).13 ე. ჭელი ე, ველი ქართული საღვთისძეტყველო ტერძინოლოგია, 1, თბილისი, 1996. J’ai recensé brièvement l’édition de Tchkonia dans ma thèse de doctorat: S. KIM, Sévérien de Gabala dans les littératures arménienne et géorgienne, Paris, 2014, pp. 55-56. 10 Sur le recueil de Shatberd cf. ბ. გიგინეუშვილ – ე. გიუნაშვილი, შათბერდის კრებული X საუკუნისა (ველი ქართული ძწერლობის ეგლები, 1), თბილისი, 1979. 11 Cf. n. 4194 (versio armeniaca). 12 F. MACLER, Notices de manuscrits arméniens, dans Nouvelles archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires, choix de rapport et instructions, 22 (1924), pp. 279-472. 13 Cf. une nouvelle description dans J. J. WITKAM, Inventory of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Library of the University of Leiden. Vol. 6. Manuscripts Or., 5001 - Or., 6000 Registered in Leiden University in the Period between May 1905 and May 1917, Leiden, 2007, pp. 122-123. 8 9

UN PASSAGE INÉDIT DU DE MUNDI CREATIONE DE SÉVÉRIEN DE GABALA

89

En réalité ce manuscrit de l’an 1678 contient les fragments des homélies arméniennes de Sévérien de Gabala que Mkrtič Augerian, alias Johannes Baptista Aucher, a éditées en 1827;14 ce sont des fragments de ces homélies d’Aucher qui ont été mélangés par un relieur peu attentif15 avec les fragments d’un certain traité latin sur l’Hexaéméron traduit en arménien.16 Plus bas nous réunissons quelques observations sur les deux manuscrits de Jérusalem, dont les photos nous ont été fournies par la Bibliothèque du Congrès à Washington.17 2.1. Jérusalem, Patriarcat grec, georg., 44 (A). L’écriture du manuscrit A est un nousxouri très régulier, incliné vers la droite; très peu de corrections de la première main sont placées entre les lignes et en marge. Le parchemin semble en bon état. Les cahiers sont des quatérnions; quelques folios manquent au début (les trois premiers cahiers sont endommagés) et au milieu (quelques cahiers ne sont pas complets); la fin du codex est mutilée, on ignore le nombre total des folios finaux manquants.18 Pace Blake,19 nous n’avons pas relevé de signatures arméniennes. Les annotations ne sont pas très nombreuses, voir ci-dessous. a) Une annotation au f. 56v marg. inf., nousxouri irrégulier, différent de la main principale, exécutée en une encre noire foncée: «ძწარედ ც(ოდ)ვილსა გრიგ(ო)ლს / და ძისთა ძშო(ბე)ლთა შ(ეიწყალ)ნ(ე)ს ღ(ძერთძა)ნ»: «Que Dieu prenne pitié du pécheur amer Grigol et de ses parents!» b) Une longue note exécutée en un nousxouri très irrégulier, f. 77r marg.inf., est rayée et n’est plus lisible. c) Une annotation au f. 122v est volontairement anonyme, écrite par une main contemporaine à la main principale: «ღ(ძერთ)ო შ(ეიწყალ)ე ბერისა ვისაძე ც(ო)დ(ვი)ლისა ვაძე (sic) / ძე ძერძისა ძისთ(ჳ)ს ს(ა)სჯელისა»: «Ô Dieu, prend pitié du vieux pécheur tel; malheur à moi lors du dernier jugement!» 14 J. B. AUCHER, Seueriani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae nunc primum editae, Venetiae, 1827. 15 Nous avons eu l’occasion de mentionner cette faute dans notre recension russe: S. KIM [rec.], R. W. THOMSON, Saint Basil of Caesarea and Armenian Cosmology. A Study of the Armenian Version of Saint Basil’s Hexaemeron and its Influence on Medieval Armenian Views about the Cosmos, Leuven, 2012, dans Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I. Богословие. Философия, 1(6) (56) (2014), pp. 124-126. 16 «Un Hexaméron traduit du latin de Fra Bartolomeo» (MACLER, Notices [voir note 12], p. 356). 17 Les manuscrits géorgiens de Jérusalem ont été microfilmés lors de l’expédition américaine des années 1949-1950, cf. la liste des manuscrits photographiés dans K. W. CLARK, Checklist of Manuscripts in the Libraries of the Greek and Armenian Patriarchates in Jerusalem Microfilmed for the Library of Congress, 1949-50, Washington, 1953. 18 Le cahier final XXXIV (f. 241-245) n’est pas non plus complet. 19 Cf. BLAKE, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens [voir note 6], p. 209: «on rencontre parfois des signatures arméniennes».

90

SERGEY KIM

d) Une longue note au f. 158r est écrite en un nousxouri de très petite taille; certaines portions nous échappent: «ჵ ჩ(ე)ძო (...) შ(ე)ნ ძ(იე)რ გ(ა) რდაძოვალს სრულებისა ძაგის კ(ე)თ(ი)ლთ(ა)ჲსა ძოცეძ(ა)ჲ კ(ე)თ(ი) ლთა დანგი სრული. ს(უ)ლ-თქ(უ)ძით შევრდოძილი შეძიწყნარე / რ(აჲთ)ა წ(ძიდა)ჲ ს(უ)ლი შ(ენ)ი შ(ეძდგოძა)დცა ძიღოდის გზასა წრფელსა, რ(ოძე)ლსა სლვაჲ არა ვარ ღირს გინა შეხებ(ა)დ, ვ(ითა)რ ოზია კიდობნისა ძ(იე)რ / და ძრჩობლ (...) რ(ოძელ)ი თჳთ ძცირედ ძძჩენელობ, გ(ა)რნა ვპოებ (...)»: «Ô mon (...), par toi descend l’accomplissement des biens (cf. Jac, 1, 17), l’obole parfaite des biens. Reçois-moi, prosterné gémissant, pour que, par la suite aussi, ton saint Esprit me guide vers le chemin droit (cf. Ps, 106, 7; 142, 10), où je ne suis pas digne de marcher ou de toucher, comme Ozias, l’Arche (de l’Alliance, cf. II Rois, 6, 6; I Par, 13, 9), et double(?) (…), lequel montre-moi ne serait-ce que très peu, mais moi, je trouve (…)». Un nombre d’annotations tardives en mxedrouli se trouve aux f. 15r (le nom d’un certain Bessarion est mentionné), 77v, 158v, 178r. 2.2. Jérusalem, Patriarcat grec, georg., 74 (B) Le manuscrit a été paginé deux fois, une foliotation qui débute par 93 et va jusqu’à 312 a été rayée et suppléée par une autre foliotation qui prend en compte le nombre actuel de feuillets. Les cahiers, dont se compose le manuscrit, sont tous des quatérnions, sauf le cahier XXIII (f. 136-141) qui semble être incomplet et le cahier final XXXIII (f. 214-218) qui ne compte que cinq folios. Le codex est mutilé au début et commence au cahier VI (incomplet d’un folio). Robert Blake remarquait déjà que le manuscrit B était une copie d’un codex du monastère de Kalipos.20 Le copiste a laissé trois mémoriaux où il mentionne son nom, Michael Martsvala («ძიქაელ ძარცუალა») et l’endroit de provenance de son modèle, Kalipos: (1) f. 97r: ... «ესეცა თქ/(უძული ... ექუ)სთა დღეთაჲ჻ / ლ(ო)ცვაჲ ყავთ ც(ო)დვილისა ძ(ი)ქ(აე)ლ და გ(იორგ)ისთ(ჳ)ს, / ზოგად ძჩხრეკელთათ(ჳ) ს (legendum ძჩხრეკალთათჳს), წ(ძიდა)ნო ძ(ა)ძანო / ღ(ძერთძა)ნ(?) გარწძუნოს჻჻»: «(…) ce (discours … sur les six) jours. Priez pour le pécheur Michael et Giorgi, les deux gratte-papiers, ô saints pères, que Dieu vous persuade!» (2) f. 97r: «წ(ძიდა)ნო და ღ(ძრთი)თ შეძოსილნო ძ(ა)ძ(ა)ნო: ვინცა იკი/ თხვიდეთ წ(ძიდას)ა აძ(ა)ს წიგნსა. გინა დასწე/რდეთ: კალიპოსს 20 Cf. BLAKE, Catalogue des manuscrits géorgiens [voir note 6], p. 407. Sur la communauté géorgienne du monastère de Kalipos situé dans les environs de la Montagne Noire, cf. l’ouvrage de Levon Menabde: ლ. ძენაბდე, ველი ქართული ძწერლობის კერები, ტ., 2. თბილისი, 1980, pp. 158-159.

UN PASSAGE INÉDIT DU DE MUNDI CREATIONE DE SÉVÉRIEN DE GABALA

91

იპოვა აძისი დედაჲ წიგ/ნი: და შეუცვ(ა)ლ(ე)ბ(ე)ლ(ა)დ და უტყუვ(ე) ლ(ა)დ ღ(ძრთ)ისა / შეწევნითა რ(ოძელ)იცა ეთარგძნა ვისცაღა: / ეგრეთვე ჩ(ე)ძგ(ა)ნ დაიწერა უტყუვ(ე)ლად჻»: «Ô pères saints et revêtus de Dieu, vous qui lirez ce saint livre ou qui le copierez, (son) original a été trouvé à Kalipos, et sans changement ou altération, avec l’aide de Dieu, il a été copié en l’état où quelqu’un l’avait traduit, par moi, sans altération». (3) f. 150v: «ქ(რისტ)ე აკ(ურთხ)ე ორთავე შ(ინ)ა ცხო/რებ(ა)თა ძიქ(აე)ლ ძარცუალა; / და წ(ძიდა)ო ი(ოან)ე ოქროპირო ძეოხ / გუჱყ(ა)ვ წ(ინაშ) ე ქ(რისტეს)ა.»: «Ô Christ, bénis Michael Martsvala dans les deux vies et saint Jean Chrysostome intercède pour nous devant le Christ!» L’état de conservation du manuscrit B est plutôt mauvais; plusieurs ajouts marginaux et bien des restaurations font suite à un accident matériel que le codex avait subi. Les dégâts d’eau ont laissé des traces dans la partie supérieure du pli sur la totalité des pages du manuscrit. Le restaurateur a suppléé les parties endommagées en s’appuyant sur un modèle qui était aussi endommagé et lacuneux; les annotations suivantes en sont la preuve: (4) f. 8v marg. inf.: «უწყოდეთ უ(ფალ)ნო ჩ(ე)ძნო, წაშლილი ჩ(ე)ძგ(ა)ნ არა არს»: «sachez, mes maîtres, ce n’est pas par moi que cela a été endommagé»; (5) f. 89v marg. Inf.: «ესრეთ ეწერა სხ(უა)ჲსა დედასა, იქით აკლს»: «il est écrit ainsi dans l’autre copie; il y a là une lacune»; (6) f. 147v: «აქცა აკლდა დედასა»: «ici aussi il y a une lacune dans l’original»; (7) f. 150v: «სხ(უა)ჲს დედასა ესრეთ ეწერაჲ და ძე გლ(ა)ხ(აკ)ი ძას ძივყევ / აძაშიგან აღარა (legendum არღარა) აქ(უ)ნდაჲ და სიტყ(უა)ჲ ურიგოდძო / ძე ნუ ძაბრალ/ებთ ო(ჳფალ)ნო»: «Dans l’autre copie il est écrit ainsi, et moi, misérable, je l’ai suivi, là où il n’y avait plus rien et le texte était en désordre; ne m’en accusez pas, ô maîtres!» (8) f. 162r marg. sup.: «ესე აკლდა»: «cela manque»; (9) f. 208r marg. sup.: «არა აკლს»: «il n’y a pas de lacune»; (10) f. 209r marg. sup.: «არცა აქა აკლს»: «ici il n’y a pas de lacune non plus». Le restaurateur se nomme dans les deux annotations placées au milieu et à la fin du codex: il s’appelait Barnaba, originaire de Tbilissi, ensuite higoumène du monastère de la Sainte-Croix à Jérusalem. (11) Au f. 97r on lit une annotation touchante (elle est placée entre les colophons du copiste 1 et 2, cf. supra): «ლ(ო)ცვა ყ(ა)ვთ კ(უალა)დ ც(ო)დვილისა ტფილელისა და ჯ(ვრ)ის ძ(ა)ძი/სა ბარნაბასთ(ჳ)ს; რ(ოძელ)ი სიკუდიდ ძიახლებ(ე)ლსა წიგ/ნსა აძ(ა)ს ვაცხოვლებ და კ(უალა)დ გ(ა)ნკურნებისათ(ჳ)ს / ვძეცადინობ: იცის ტკბილძ(ა)ნ ო(ჳფალძა)ნ.

92

SERGEY KIM

ა(რაძე)დ ვიჭირვი. და ლ(ო)/ცვა ყ(ა)ვთ ყ(ოველ)თა. ჩ(ე)ძთა ძშ(ო)ბ(ე) ლთა ძათათ(ჳ)ს. რ(აძეთუ) იგ(ი)ნიცა იჭირვან რ(ოძელ)იძე წიგნთა შეკაზძასა რ(ოძელ)იძე რ(ოძე)ლსაძე ჴ(ე)ლთ-/საქძარსა და ძუშაობაჲსა჻»: «Priez encore pour le pécheur de Tbilissi et l’abbé (du monastère) de la Croix, Barnaba, qui restaure ce livre proche de la mort, et je m’efforce encore pour obtenir (sa) guérison. Le Seigneur, qui est doux, le sait, mais moi, je peine. Priez aussi pour tous mes parents et frères, car ils ont aussi peiné, les uns en reliant les livres, les autres en d’autres œuvres et travaux faits à main». (12) Le même Barnaba a signé le f. 218v: «ძოვაცხო(ვ)ლე წ(ძიდა)ჲ ესე წიგნი. ექუსთა დ/ღეთა: ძე ც(ო)დვ(ი)ლძ(ა)ნ პ(ირვე)ლ ტფილელძ(ა) ნ. და აწ / ჯ(ვრ)ისა ცხ(ოვ)ლისა ძონასტრისა წინაძღ(უა)რძ(ა)ნ. უ/ ღირსძ(ა)ნ ბ(ა)რნ(ა)ბ(ა)ჲ: სალ(ო)ცველ(ა)დ ც(ო)დვილისა ს(უ)ლ/ისა ჩ(ეძ)ისა: და ძათა: და ძ(ა)ძ(ა)თა ჩ(უე)ნთა ს(უ)ლ(იე)რთათ(ჳ)ს / და რ(აჲთ)ა ერთობით ღირს ვიქძნნეთ პოვნა/დ წყ(ა)ლ(ო)ბისა დღესა ძ(ა)ს ს(ა)სჯელის(ა)სა: ხს(ე)ნ(ე)ბ(უ)ლძცა / ვართ წ(ძიდა)თა შ(ინ)ა ლ(ო)ცვა (!) თქ(უე)ნ/თა ძკითხველნო / და ძსძენე/ო჻»: «J’ai réparé ce saint livre de l’Hexaéméron, moi le pécheur, jadis habitant de Tbilissi et maintenant l’higoumène du monastère de la Croix Vivante, indigne Barnaba, pour que l’on prie pour mon âme pécheresse et pour celle de mes frères et pères spirituels, et pour être tous ensemble trouvés dignes de pitié au jour du jugement, et pour être commémorés dans vos saintes prières, ô lecteurs et auditeurs!» (13) «ღ(ძერთ)ო აბრ(ა)ძისო / ღ(ძერთ)ო ის(ა)კ(ი)სო ღ(ძერთ)ო / ყ(ოვ)ლის დაბადებ/ლისაო შ(ეიწყალ)ე ცდია/ვლი (!) ატონე (legendum ანტონე?) / აქა და ძ(ა)ს / ს(აუ)კუნესა»: «Dieu d’Abraham, Dieu d’Isaac, Dieu de l’univers entier, aie pitié d’A(n)toné le pécheur ici-bas et dans l’autre siècle!» Un lecteur a laissé sa trace, f. 8r marg. ext., en écrivant en un nousxouri bien déséquilibré et à l’envers: 2.3. La version géorgienne Le cycle de Sévérien est attribué explicitement à Jean Chrysostome dans le témoin A. En B, l’eau a partiellement détruit le titre initial, en emportant l’attribution; mais on peut supposer que le texte y était aussi attribué à Chrysostome vu que l’annotation au f. 150v (cf. annotation 3 supra) du manuscrit B mentionne Jean Chrysostome. Les homélies du cycle de l’Héxaéméron sont désignées en géorgien comme des prosomilia/ prosomilisi («პროსოძილია / პროსოძილისი»), un terme sans doute calqué sur le grec «προσομιλία / προσομίλησις». Le mot grec «προσομιλία» possède le sens d’«allocution» ou de «discours prononcé

UN PASSAGE INÉDIT DU DE MUNDI CREATIONE DE SÉVÉRIEN DE GABALA

93

devant un auditoire», si l’on juge à partir de son utilisation chez les auteurs chrétiens du 4e-5e siècle: ainsi Cyrille de Jérusalem21 se réfère à ses propres homélies comme à des «προσομιλίαι»; l’historien Socrate raconte que les partisans de Cyrille d’Alexandrie accusaient Nestorius en s’appuyant sur la lecture de ses discours («τὰς προσομιλίας»).22 Par contre, le terme «προσομίλησις» semble être beaucoup plus rare et beaucoup moins technique que «προσομιλία»; une recherche sur la base du TLG ne donne aucun résultat sur son emploi dans le sens de «discours devant un auditoire»; toutefois il y a un menu nombre d’occurrences du terme dans le sens de «communication entre personnes; entretien personnel».23 On notera également que le texte De mensuris et ponderibus d’Epiphane, qui fait suite à la dernière homélie de Sévérien, est nommé «septième prosomilia» dans le témoin B (f. 201v: «პროსოძიილიაჲს(ა)ჲ ზ»), sans doute à l’initiative du copiste qui a pris ce texte pour une continuation des discours de Sévérien. Le nombre «sept» est doublement faux, car non seulement ce texte n’est pas de Sévérien, mais, qui plus est, la version géorgienne ne conserve que cinq homélies de Sévérien sur la Création! 3. LA

PATERNITÉ DE

SÉVÉRIEN

L’appartenance du passage géorgien à Sévérien semble hors doute. Ce nouveau passage géorgien contient des traits caractéristiques de la langue et du style de Sévérien; nous avons aussi trouvé un parallèle littéraire tiré du même cycle sur l’Hexaéméron. 3.1. Les traits stylistiques de Sévérien Juste au début du passage géorgien, l’orateur implore ses auditeurs de respecter la «fatigue» de sa voix (§4 «გლოცავ, დაშროძაჲ ჴძისა ჩეძისაჲ გულის-ჴძა-ყავთ»: «je vous prie, ayez égard à la fatigue de ma voix»): déjà 21 «Μὴ νομίσῃς τὰς συνήθεις εἶναι προσομιλίας· κἀκεῖναι μὲν γὰρ ἀγαθαὶ, καὶ πίστεως ἄξιαι· ἀλλ’ ἐὰν σήμερον ἀμελήσωμεν, αὔριον μανθάνομεν· τὰ δὲ περὶ τοῦ λουτροῦ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας κατ’ ἀκολουθίαν διαδιδόμενα διδάγματα ἐὰν σήμερον ἀμεληθῇ, πότε κατορθωθήσεται;» (Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatechesis, 11; PG, 33, col. 352). 22 «Οἱ δὲ περὶ Κύριλλον τὰς προσομιλίας Νεστορίου, ἃς περὶ τοῦ ζητήματος εἰρήκει, πολλάκις ὑπαναγνόντες, ἐξ αὐτῶν τε κρίναντες αὐτὸν ὡς βλασφημήσαντα εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθεῖλον αὐτόν» (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., 7, 34; G. C. HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus. Historia ecclesiastica [GCS, N.F., 1], Berlin, 1995). 23 Cf. un exemple bien tardif chez Nicephore Blemmyde, Epistula ad Manuelem Patriarcham, 33, 5 (N. FESTA, Theodori Ducae Lascaris Epistulae CCXVII [Pubblicazioni del R. Istituto di studi superiori pratici e di perfezionamento in Firenze. Sezione di filosofia e lettere, 29], Firenze, 1898, p. 325): «συνέβη δὲ ἡμῖν ὀδύνη τοῦ φάρυγγος πολυήμερος καὶ τοῦ δεξιοῦ ποδὸς φλεγμονή, καὶ ἀπεκώλυσαν ἡμᾶς τῆς δεξιωτάτης πορείας, τῆς ἡδυτάτης προσομιλήσεως.»

94

SERGEY KIM

Johannes Zellinger24 remarquait que Sévérien avait du mal à parler lors de la prononciation de ses discours sur l’Hexaéméron, en indiquant plusieurs endroits où notre prédicateur se plaignait d’une faiblesse de voix.25 C’est d’ailleurs sur la référence à ce malaise que repose un des arguments que Zellinger avance pour prouver la paternité de Sévérien pour l’homélie Quomodo Adam acceperit animam (CPG 4195) et en faveur de son emplacement à l’intérieur de ce cycle sur l’Hexaéméron.26 La phrase «ვინაჲ ესე»: «d’où cela?» (§7, l. 10) correspond sans doute au grec «πόθεν τοῦτο», qui est une marque sûre du style de Sévérien.27 Les formes verbales «იგულე/იგულეთ» traduisent à notre avis le grec «πρόσεχε/ προσέχετε»; une recherche rapide dans la base «Titus» nous fournit plusieurs exemples de correspondances entre «იგულე» et «πρόσεχε» dans les traductions bibliques; c’est ainsi que la rédaction de Gelati,28 la recension AK29 et la Bible de Mcxeta30 traduisent les passages du Deutéronome qui commencent avec «πρόσεχε» – Deut, 12, 13.19.30; 24, 8 (Gelati); Deut, 4, 9; 8, 11; 11, 16; 12, 13.30; 15, 9 (recension AK); Deut, 8, 11; 11, 16; 12, 13.30; 15, 9 (Bible de Mcxeta). Ainsi, les deux phrases géorgiennes introduites par ces verbes (que nous traduisons par «remarquer») reçoivent une résonnance sévérienne: «იგულე უღძრთოებაჲ იგი, როძელ დააბრკოლებს»: «remarque («πρόσεχε») cette impiété qui ne sait que contredire» (§4, l. 5-6); «იგულეთ, ძანო»: «remarquez («προσέχετε»), frères» (§5, l. 10). Le deuxième exemple nous fournit encore un trait de Sévérien qui touche à sa façon de s’adresser à son auditoire: Sever Voicu a démontré que l’appellation «frères» est omniprésente chez notre auteur.31 Ainsi, «frères» («ძანო») sont évoqués au §2, l. 1 et au §5, l. 10. On notera aussi l’intérêt de l’orateur envers le miracle et le miraculeux, telle une clé herméneutique qu’il utilise pour aborder les endroits difficiles de J. ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen, 7[1]), Münster i. W., 1916, pp. 40-47. 25 Homélies, 3 (PG, 56, coll. 450, 456), 4 (PG, 56, col. 457), 5 (PG, 56, coll. 477, 478) et 6 (PG, 56, coll. 487, 493). 26 CPG 4195: «καὶ ἐπεὶ χθὲς ἡμῖν τὸ τῆς φωνῆς ὄργανον οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν, ἀνάγκη σήμερον ... ἀναλαβεῖν λόγους» (H. SAVILIUS, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων, vol. 5, Etonae, 1611, p. 648). 27 On consultera les listes des tournures de Sévérien dans S. VOICU, Nuove restituzioni a Severiano di Gabala, dans RSBN, 20-21 (1983-1984), p. 10 (l). 28 ი. აბულაე – ბ. გიგინეიშვილი – ნ. გოგუაე – ც. კურციკიე, წიგნი უელისა აღთქუძისანი, ნაკვეთი 2: ლევიტელთაჲ, რიცხუთაჲ, ძეორისა სჯულისაჲ (ველი კართული ძცერლობის ეგლები, 11[2]), თბილისი, 1990. 29 ბ. გიგინეიშვილი – ც. კიკვიე, წიგნი უელისა აღთქუძისანი, ნაკვეთი 1: შესაქძისაჲ, გაძოსლვათაჲ (ველი კართული ძცერლობის ეგლები, 11/1), თბილისი, 1989. 30 ე. დოჩანაშვილი, ძცხეთური ხელნაწერი, თბილისი, 1981-1986. 31 VOICU, Nuove restituzioni [voir note 25], p. 8 (a). 24

UN PASSAGE INÉDIT DU DE MUNDI CREATIONE DE SÉVÉRIEN DE GABALA

95

l’écriture. Il s’exclame: «ô miracle!» (§7, l. 5); «le miracle est double» (§5, l. 8). On sait bien que chez Sévérien les renvois au miracle (τὸ θαῦμα, τὸ θαυμαστόν) se comptent par dizaines par homélie.32 3.2. Parallèles littéraires Pour ce qui concerne le contenu du passage, nous avons trouvé un parallèle littéraire sûr avec les autres œuvres de Sévérien. Le thème de l’émerveillement des anges lors de la création du monde qui émerge au §7, l. 3-11 trouve un écho dans la quatrième homélie de Sévérien sur l’Héxaéméron (hom. IV, 6, PG, 56, 464-465), où l’auteur refuse le titre de collaborateurs de Dieu aux anges. La citation de Job 38, 7 clôture les deux passages de manière identique. On comparera: In cosmogoniam hom., 4, 6,

Passage géorgien, §7

PG, 56, col. 464-465 «Οὐ τολμᾷ οὔτε αἱρετικός, οὔτε Ἰουδαῖος εἰπεῖν, ὅτι μία εἰκὼν καὶ ὁμοίωσις θεοῦ καὶ ἀγγέλων. Μὴ γὰρ ἄγγελοι, οἱ γενόμενοι, συνεργοὶ ἦσαν τοῦ θεοῦ, λειτουργοὶ μόνον, ὑμνοῦντες, εὐχαριστοῦντες, εἰδότες ὅτι ἐγένοντο, ὅτι πρὸ τούτου οὐκ ἦσαν, καὶ πνεύματι ἀγαθότητος ἐγένοντο καὶ ἑστήκασι θεωροί, βλέποντες τὰ γινόμενα μετ’ αὐτούς. Ἔβλεπον οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γινόμενον καὶ ἐξεπλήττοντο, θάλασσαν ἀφοριζομένην καὶ ἐθαύμαζον, ἐθεώρουν γῆν κοσμουμένην καὶ ἔφριττον. Ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἦσαν ἄγγελοι συνεργοί, ἀλλὰ θαυμασταί, λέγει ὁ θεὸς πρὸς τὸν Ἰώβ· Ὅτε ἐποίησα ἄστρα, ᾔνεσάν με πάντες ἄγγελοι καὶ ὕμνησαν» (Job, 38, 7).

«Les anges furent créés avant le ciel, et c’est après les anges que le ciel et la terre furent créés. Les anges devancèrent la création; le ciel s’affermissait et les anges louaient Dieu. Ô miracle, ô grandeur de la puissance qu’opère cette droite omnisciente! En effet, ils n’ont pas vu leur propre création, ils ont admiré la création du ciel, ils ont vu que le soleil se mettait à briller et ils ont pris peur. Ils ont vu que la lune se mettait à luire, ils ont vu la création des astres et s’émerveillaient. D’où cela ? Dieu dit à saint Job : Lorsque j’ai créé les étoiles, ils m’ont loué d’une voix forte» (Job, 38, 7).

Il est aussi à noter qu’au §2 notre auteur dit que c’est «l’homme saint» qui lui a raconté l’anecdote relatée par la suite. Or, dans plusieurs homélies authentiques de Sévérien le patriarche Jean Chrysostome est mentionné de manière périphrastique en recevant bien des appellations flatteuses («le père admirable, le maître véridique, le grand pasteur», etc.). Plus bas je ne cite que très peu de cas, en grec et en arménien. 32 VOICU, Nuove restituzioni [note 27], p. 11 (i, j); M. AUBINEAU, Un traité inédit de christologie de Sévérien de Gabala in centurionem et contra Manichaeos et Apollinaristas: Exploitation par Sévére d’Antioche (519) et le Synode du Latran (649) (Cahiers d’orientalisme, 5), Genève, 1983, pp. 49-52.

96

SERGEY KIM

33 34 35 36 37

De pace33 (CPG 4214)

«ὁ κοινὸς ἡμῶν πατὴρ»34 «τὸν κοινὸν πατέρα»35

De caeco nato (CPG 4236a.4) (olim 4582)

«ὁ θαυμάσιος ἡμῶν πατήρ» (PG, 59, col. 545, §2) «τούτου τοῦ θαυμασίου πατρός» (PG, 59, col. 546, §2) «ὁ θαυμάσιος οὗτος πατήρ» (PG, 59, col. 546, §3) «ἄξιον γάρ ἐστιν τὸ μιμιτὰς εἶναι διδασκάλου ἀγαθοῦ» (PG, 59, col. 547, §4) «ταῦτά μοι εἴρηται, ἵνα μάθητε πάντες καλῷ διδασκάλῳ ἕπεσθαι καὶ ποιμένα ἀγαθὸν μιμεῖσθαι» (PG, 59, col. 550, §5) «τοῦ μεγάλου ποιμένος» (PG, 59, col. 550, §5) «ἀκολούθησον ἀληθεῖ διδασκάλῳ» (PG, 59, col. 554, §6)

De pascha, deque catharis36 «Եւ զայս մեզ հայր սուրբ ի նացանձէ բարք ուսուցին» (CPG 4243) «Et cela, c’est notre père pur de jalousie, qui nous l’a appris…» «Եւ դու տես զհայրս հասարակաց, զիարդ զուարթ երեսօք եւ քաղցրահայեաց աչօք նայի ի մեզ՝ որ ասեմք, եւ ձեզ որ լսէքդ» «Et toi, vois le père commun, avec quel visage gai et avec quels yeux gentils il nous regarde, nous, qui parlons, et vous qui écoutez…» In venerabilem trinitatem consubstantialem37 (CPG 4248, §1)

«Տկարութիւն մարմնոյ յանդիմանէ զամենայն հողեղէն, այլ բարեխաւսութիւն աղաւթից սուրբ հաւրս եւ ամենայն սրբոց հարցս, որ շուրջ զսովաւ րստ բարբառոյ գրոց սրբոց «պսակեալ» նստին, եւ եղբարց յաւժարութիւն եւ լսաւղացդ ջերմեռանդն նախանձ սրբոյ եւ փառաւորեալ շնորհաց Հոգւոյն լինին երաշխաւորք…» «La faiblesse de la chair est le lot de tout être issu de la poussière, mais la bénédiction des prières de ce saint père et de tous les saints pères qui sont assis autour de lui portant des couronnes (Apoc, 4, 4) d’après la parole des saintes Écritures, aussi bien que la bienveillance des frères et le zèle ardent des auditeurs, nous deviennent des arrhes de la sainte et glorieuse grâce de l’Esprit.»

33 A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias (Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχυολογίας), vol. 1, Petroupolis, 1891, pp. 15-26. 34 PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 18. 35 PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 26. 36 AUCHER, Severiani sive Seberiani [voir note 14], p. 178 (hom. 5). On verra aussi l’hypothèse que Hans-Dietrich Altendorf formule en passant qui propose de voir dans les louanges exagérées du Chrysostome de la part de Sévérien un signe de la situation après la querelle et la réconciliation (H. D. ALTENDORF, Untersuchungen zu Severian von Gabala, Tübingen, 1957, p. 282, note 1). 37 N. AKINIAN, Եւսեբեայ եպիսկոպոսի Եմեսւոյ ճառք, dans Handes Amsorya, 72 (1958), pp. 449-450.

UN PASSAGE INÉDIT DU DE MUNDI CREATIONE DE SÉVÉRIEN DE GABALA

97

Qu’il nous soit permis de citer, à titre accessoire, un passage tiré d’un texte spurium conservé en arabe sous le nom de Sévérien38, qui présente un parallèle quelque peu éloigné à l’image du bois et de sa conduite dans l’eau (cf. §6, l. 1-11 de notre texte). C’est ainsi que le texte arabe commente le miracle opéré par le prophète Élisée (4 Rois, 6, 1), qui a tiré le bois dans l’eau et une hache en fer en est émergée39: ‫§( العود الخفيف الذي نزل طلب الحديد‬17) «Et le bois bien léger qui s’immer-

gea dans l’eau pour chercher en tirer le

‫ فنزل العود وسبح الحديد‬.‫ الثقيل في الما‬fer lourd? Que le bois descendit et que le ‫ وهذا‬.‫ وطاف هذا حسب العاده والطبع كان‬fer émergea et flotta, cela était-il habituel

et naturel? (cf. 4 Rois, 6, 1) Ici encore,

‫ هو سر الاهوت الابن الذي نزل في طلب‬c’est le mystère de la divinité du Fils qui .‫ جسد ال ادم الذي كان غرق في الخطايا‬descendit chercher la chair de la lignée

d’Adam plongé dans les péchés comme

.‫ كفي عمق البحر فانتشله واصعده الي العلا‬dans les profondeurs de la mer. Il l’en tira, .‫ واجلسه في السماوات فوق كل مكون‬l’éleva aux hauteurs et le fit s’asseoir sur les cieux au-dessus de ce qui a été créé.»

4. ÉDITION Plus bas nous éditons le passage géorgien, en lui joignant notre traduction française; dans l’édition nous corrigeons quelques petites erreurs de transcription de Tchkonia (ed.)40. Les pages des manuscrits et celles de l’édition de Tchkonia sont données en marge. La division en paragraphes est nôtre; pour les paragraphes 1 et 8 nous avons reproduit le texte grec de Migne (PG, 56, col. 443).

38 J’ai édité cette homélie arabe De epiphania et de nativitate (CPG 4290) dans ma thèse de doctorat: KIM, Sévérien de Gabala [voir note 9], pp. 409-443. 39 KIM, Sévérien de Gabala, p. 428 (texte arabe), 438 (traduction française). 40 ჭყონია, სევერიანე გაბალოვნელი [voir note 9].

98 A 115r, B 123r ed. 50

B 123v

A 115v ed. 51

B 124r

ed. 52

SERGEY KIM

1 ǀ და ჰრცხუჱნის ძწვალებელთა! გონებაჲ ესეძლევანთა ǀ იქძს, და ძისი იგი შეძოქძედი, როძელი ყოველთა გონებათა უძტკიცეს არს, როძელსა აქუს ძეყსეულად შესაქძე, უძსთუჱს დაბადებისა, ვერ ძისაწდოძელ არს სახე იგი, და არა გაძოსაკულეველ არს საუნჯე იგი? 2 ხოლო ძნებავს თქუენდა ძიძართ, ძანო, ⌜სიტყუა ერთ1 თქუძად, როძელ ძესძა კაცისაგან წძიდისა, წყეულთა ენათაგან თქუძული.2 3 იკადრა ვინძე ძწვალებელთაგანძან თქუძად, რაძეთუ ესძა ქრისტე3 ზღუასა ზედა ვიდოდა რაჲ: «დიდი-ა-ო?4 აწ ღა დაǀჰყინდის ზღუასა, არა-ძე ვლენედ-ა კაცნი?» იხილე5 სიბოროტე ეშძაკისა უუკეთურესი! 4 ძე ესრე ვჰგონებ, ვითარძედ აძიერითგან ესე სატანაჲსგან6 არა ისწავებენ, არაძედ ეშძაკი ძათგან. გლოცავ, დაშროძაჲ ჴძისა7 ჩეძისაჲ გულის-ჴძა-ყავთ და სულ-გრელებით თქუძულნი ესე ისძინენით. «ძებრვე არარაჲ საკჳრველ ǀ არს-ო, ვითარძედ ქრისტე ზღუასა ზედა ვიდოდა.8 ǀ აწ კაცნიცა ზღუასა ზედა ვლენან».9 იგულე უღძთოებაჲ ⌜იგი, როძელ10 დააბრკოლებს, უკუეთუ11 სადა სარწძუნოებაჲ იხილა. ვითარ არა უქუჱძოეს ყოფაჲ იკადრა ისაჲ, არაძედ ძკუდარსაცა ასწორა, უფროჲს ხოლო განგებულებაჲ12 იგი! ძრავლითა13 უგუნურებითა ⌜სავსე არს სიტყუაჲ იგი.14 5 სხუაჲ15 არს წყალთა ზედა დაყინებასა16 სლვაჲ, და17 სხუაჲ18 არს განლტობილთაჲ19 ძათ, განძარტულთაჲ20 ძათ21 და განხრწნილთაჲ22 წესისა სლვაჲ. ორი იყო საკჳრველი. არა საკჳრველ, ვითარძედ23 ვიǀდოდა ⌜ზღუასა ხოლო ზედა?24 არაძედ ზაძთრის არცაღა თუ ნავნი იყვნიან შეძლებელ, ჩანს, რაძეთუ განფიცხნიან ზაძთრისა25 იგი ქარნი. უკუეთუძცა იყო ყუდროვება,26 ვინ უწყის თუძცა თანა-სწორ იყო საკჳრველებაჲ, და ვითარცა ქუეყანასა ზედა ვიდოდა. იხილენ ღელვანი: აღდგა27 და იქცეოდეს, თავს-იდებს ǀ უფლისასა ძას28 სლვასა. ორ წილ არს საკჳრველებაჲ: რაძეთუ29 ზღუასა ზედა30 ვალს და ძჳნვარეთა31 ღელვათა32 დაავაკებს. იგულეთ,33 ძანო: ზღჳსა ძის ზედა სლვასა დაყინვებაჲ34 იგი დააბრყჳლებს საკჳრველებასა ძას ძაცხოვრისასა, ვითარძედ თავადი ზღუასა ზედა35 ვიდოდა? ⌜ნავნიცა უკუე36 სწორვე არიან-ა37 უფლისა, ვითარძედ38 ქრისტე39 ზღუასა ზედა ვიდოდა და ნავნიცა ზღუასა ზედა ვლენან? †რასა აყენებს უკუნ-ქცევად საკჳრველებასა ⌜თჳსთა ძათ წესთაგან40 სრბად?†41

1

B B A B B A A

ერთ სიტყუა B 2 თქუძულნი A 3 ვითარძედ praem. B 4 დიდ არს-ო A 5 იხილე-ა 6 სატანასგან B 7 გულისა A 8 ვიდოდა-ო B 9 ვლენან-ო B 10 როძელ-იგი 11 om. A 12 განგულებაჲ B 13 ძრავალი A 14 სიტყუაჲ იგი სავსე არს A 15 სხუა 16 დაყინებისა A 17 om. A 18 სხუა A 19 განლტობილთა B 20 განძარტებულთაჲ 21 om. B 22 განჴსნილთა B 23 ვითარ B 24 ხოლო ზღუასა ზედა B 25 ზაძთრისაჲ 26 ძყუდრ B 27 აღდგეს B 28 ზედა add. B 29 om. B 30 om. B 31 ძღჳარეთა 32 om. A 33 იხილეთ B 34 დაყინებაჲ B 35 om. A 36 უკუჱ ნავნიცა A 37 არიან 38 და praem. A 39 ქრისტეცა A 40 თჳსთაგან წესთა B 41 A ხლვად B

UN PASSAGE INÉDIT DU DE MUNDI CREATIONE DE SÉVÉRIEN DE GABALA

99

1 ǀ (PG 56, 443, l. 13 ab imo) Αἰδέσθωσαν αἱρετικοί. Νοῦς τοιαῦτα ἐργάζεται, καὶ ὁ τοῦ νοῦ τεχνίτης, ὁ πάσης ὀσφρήσεως ὀξύτερος, οὐ ταχυτέραν ἔχει τὴν ἐνέργειαν, οὐ σύντομον τὴν δημιουργίαν, οὐκ ἀκατάληπτον τὴν φύσιν; 2 Mais je veux vous dire, frères, une parole que j’ai entendue de l’homme saint sur ce que disent les langues maudites. 3 Un des hérétiques, entendant que le Christ a marché sur la mer1, a osé dire: «Est-ce vraiment quelque chose de grand? Maintenant que la mer gèle, les hommes n’y marchent-ils pas aussi?» Regarde à quel point la démence du démon est méchante! 4 Moi, je pense ceci: d’ores et déjà ce ne sont pas eux qui apprennent de Satan, mais c’est plutôt le démon qui apprend d’eux. Je vous prie, ayez égard à la fatigue de ma voix et écoutez ces paroles avec patience!2 «Il n’y a, dit-il, absolument aucun miracle en ce que le Christ marchait sur la mer. Aujourd’hui aussi, les hommes marchent sur la mer». Remarque cette impiété qui ne sait que contredire, où qu’elle voie la foi. Comment! Non seulement elle a prétendu faire du Fils un inférieur, rien moins que cela, mais elle l’a fait égal, Lui, ou plutôt l’Économie, à un mortel! Ces propos sont pleins d’une grande folie. 5 Une chose est de marcher sur les eaux lorsqu’elles sont gelées, autre chose est d’y marcher lorsqu’elles se trouvent dans un état liquide, aplani et dissout. Il y a deux choses étonnantes qui ont eu lieu. N’est-il pas étonnant qu’il ait marché tout simplement sur les eaux? Mais il semble qu’en hiver même les bateaux n’en sont capables, car pendant l’hiver les vents deviennent violents. Et au contraire, si le temps est calme, qui sait s’il y aurait un miracle de même nature pour qu’il (sc. le bateau) marche comme sur la terre. Regarde les vagues: il (sc. le Christ) s’est dressé alors qu’elles étaient agitées3, elles supportent la marche du Seigneur. Le miracle est double: il marche sur la mer et aplanit les vagues déchaînées4. Remarquez, frères: lorsqu’il marcha sur la mer, est-ce qu’il y avait du gel qui aurait affaibli le miracle du Sauveur? Car il a marché luimême sur la mer! Est-ce que les bateaux sont égaux au Seigneur, parce que le Christ a marché sur la mer et que les bateaux aussi vont sur la mer? †Pourquoi empêche-t-il de détourner le miracle en allant selon l’ordre naturel?†5

1

Cf. Mt. 14, 24-32. Cf. Sev. Gab., In Hexaemeron III, 7; IV, 1; V, 5; VI, 3, Sev. Gab., Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus, éd. Savilius V, p. 648. 3 Cf. Mt. 14, 24-25. 4 Cf. Mt. 14, 32. 5 La phrase semble être corrompue ou lacuneuse; ce que nous donnons ici entre les cruces n’est qu’une tentative de traduction. 2

PG 56, 443, l. 13 ab imo

100

B 124v

ed. 53

A f.116r

B f.125r

ed. 54

B 125v

SERGEY KIM

6 სხუა არს ნავისა ხილვაჲ და42 სხუა არს ჴორცისაჲ.43 ჴორცი წიაღ-ვალს წესსა გარეშე,44 ǀ ⌜ნავი წიაღ-ვალს წესსა ზედა.45 ძერძე ვჰკითხავ: როძლითა სახითა46 წიაღ-ჴდის ნავი? არა ვჰკითხავ დიდთა ძათ ძიუწდოძელთა. რაჲსათჳს რკინა47 რაჲ შთავარდის ზღუასა, ვერ შეძლებელ არნ ძიძოღებად, არაǀძედ შთანთქის; ყოველნი თუ ნაუნი ლიბანისანი დაესხნენ ზღუასა ზედა,48 ვერ დაინთქნენ სისხჳლისაგან ანუ სიგრისაგან ანუ სიძიძისაგან? ⌜სიტყუაღა ძიგეთ.49 უკუეთუ ვერ შეძლებელ არიან, განეშორნედ50 ალისაგან! ელისა51 წესსა ვერ ეწევი და შეძოქძედისა ბუნებასა ⌜ძრავლის-ჰძეტყუჱლებ?52 7 ǀ თქუა ღძერთძან: «იყავნ ნათელი». სიტყუაჲ იგი რბიოდა და შეიქძნა, დაეძყარა53 ცაჲ და იყო ბნელ, რაძეთუ ძზე არღა იყო. საშინელად სახილველ იყო. ისძინე: ანგელოზნი შეიქძნნეს ⌜ცისა პირველად,54 და ანგელოზთა შეძდგოძად ცაჲ და ქუეყანაჲ. წინაშე-დგეს ანგელოზნი დაბადებასა, დაეძყარებოდა ცაჲ, აქებდეს ანგელოზნი ღძერთსა.55 ჵ საკჳრველებისაჲ,56 ǀ ჵ დიდებისა57 ძის ლიერებისაჲ,58 რაბაძსა იქძს ყოვლად ბრენი იგი ძარჯუენე!59 რაძეთუ თავისა ძათისა შესაქძე არა იხილეს, ცისა60 შესაქძე უკჳრდა, ǀ ჰხედვიდეს61 ძზისა აღტყინებასა და ზარი აღჰვიდოდა.62 ჰხედვიდეს63 ძთოვარისა განბრწყინვებასა, ჰხედვიდეს64 ვარსკულავთა შესაქძესა და დაუკჳრდებოდა. ვინაჲ65 ესე?66 ეტყჳს ღძერთი წძიდასა იობს: «რაჟაძს შევქძნენ67 ვარსკულავნი, ძაქეს68 ძე ჴძითა დიდითა». უკუეთუ ვარსკულავნი შეიქძნებოდეს და ანგელოზთა დაუკჳრდებოდა, ე იქადაგების და ჰგძობენ. 8 სხუაჲ69 გითხრა კუალად უცხო70 უცხოება რაოდენ71 უღძრთოებისათჳს, ხოლო უუსძტე72 ძორწძუნეთა, რაოდენ73 გაძოსაკითხველად,74 რაჲთა ისწაო75 რაოდენსა76 ძაცავს77 ეშძაკი, რაოდენსა78 ჰპოვებს,79 რაოდენსა80 აშირებს, ხოლო81 უფროჲს ძათ82 ძწვალებელნი. დღეს ვინძე წძიდათა კაცთა და ძაძათა წინაშე ძოვიდა ǀ ჩუენდა ძწვალებელი...

42

A B B B B B B

om. A 43 ჴორცილებრისაჲ B 44 ზედა B 45 om. B 46 სახითაჲ B 47 რკინაჲღა 48 om. B 49 სიტყუა ძიგეთღა B 50 განეშორე B 51 ელისაღა B 52 A ჰძეტყუელებ 53 და praem. B 54 პირველად ცისა B 55 om. A 56 საკჳრველებაჲ B 57 დიდებულსა 58 ლიერებაჲ B 59 ძარჯუჱნე B 60 ცისაჲ B 61 ხედვიდეს B 62 აღვიდოდა 63 ხედვიდეს B 64 ხედვიდეს B 65 ვინაჲცა B 66 ესერა B 67 შევქძნნენ B 68 ძაქებდეს 69 სხუა A 70 om. B 71 რავდენ B 72 correxi: უუსტე A, უუჲსტე B 73 რავდენ 74 გაძოსაკითხავად B 75 ისწავო B 76 რავდენსა B 77 ძაცუავს B 78 რავდენსა 79 ჰპოებს B 80 რავდენსა B 81 om. A 82 ძათსა B

UN PASSAGE INÉDIT DU DE MUNDI CREATIONE DE SÉVÉRIEN DE GABALA

101

6 Une chose est la forme d’un navire, autre chose est celle d’un corps humain. Un corps humain tient debout sur l’eau contre l’ordre naturel, tandis qu’un bateau tient selon l’ordre naturel. Ensuite, je demanderai: comment un bateau avance-t-il? Je n’interroge pas sur de grands mystères inconnus. Pourquoi le fer, une fois tombé dans la mer, n’est-il pas capable de flotter et coule au fond, mais si n’importe quel cèdre du Liban tombe dans la mer, il ne se noiera pas malgré sa grosseur, sa longueur et son poids? Donnez-moi une raison! Si on ne peut pas, qu’on se tienne loin du Tout-Puissant! Tu ne comprends pas la nature du bois et tu bavardes sur la nature du Créateur? 7 Dieu dit: «Que la lumière soit»6. Cette parole courut et se réalisa7, le ciel s’affermit mais il était obscur, car le soleil n’existait pas encore. Quel spectacle terrifiant c’était! Écoute: les anges furent créés avant le ciel, et c’est après les anges que le ciel et la terre furent créés. Les anges devancèrent la création; le ciel s’affermissait et les anges louaient Dieu. Ô miracle, ô grandeur de la puissance qu’opère cette droite omnisciente! En effet, ils n’ont pas vu leur propre création, ils ont admiré la création du ciel, ils ont vu que le soleil se mettait à briller et ils ont pris peur. Ils ont vu que la lune se mettait à luire, ils ont vu la création des astres et s’émerveillaient8. D’où cela? Dieu dit à saint Job: «Lorsque j’ai créé les étoiles, ils m’ont loué d’une voix forte»9. Quand les étoiles étaient en train d’être créées, les anges s’émerveillaient, mais quand le Fils est prêché, on le blasphème. 8 Βούλομαι δέ, ἀδελφοί, εἰπεῖν εἰς ὑμᾶς τὸ ξένον μὲν ὅσον εἰς ἀσέβειαν, σύντροφον δὲ τῆς πίστεως ὅσον εἰς ἐξέτασιν, ἵνα μάθητε πόσα καινοτομεῖ ὁ διάβολος, πόσα εὑρίσκει, πόσα ὑποβάλλει τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς· μᾶλλον δὲ ἐκείνῳ αἱρετικοί. Σήμερόν τις ἐπὶ ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν καὶ πατέρων ἐλθὼν πρὸς ἡμᾶς αἱρετικὸς ἔλεγε...

6 7 8 9

Gn. 1, 3. Cf. Ps. 147, 4. Cf. Sev. Gab., In Hexaemeron IV, 6. Job 38, 7; cf. Sev. Gab., In Hexaemeron IV, 6.

SEVERIAN AND JOHN ON AUTHORITY: EXPLORING THE AGENCY OF THEIR PREACHING IN THE JOHANNITE SCHISM Wendy MAYER INTRODUCTION In his version of the events that contributed to the Johannite schism, Socrates asserts that before John Chrysostom departed for Asia Minor Severian of Gabala was in John’s good graces, the latter being positively disposed towards Severian.1 By the time that John returned, he had become estranged from Severian, in part because of hostilities between the latter and John’s favoured administrator and archdeacon, Sarapion. As the story goes, John demanded that Severian quit Constantinople and return to his own see in Syria. The empress had Severian recalled and insisted on their reconciliation.2 The now famous homiletic handshake between the two bishops ensued.3 The details of what really occurred are beyond our knowledge, but what is of significance for the emerging schism that would within less than two years trigger the deposition of John and effect his exile is Socrates’ assertion concerning the role that preaching played in this estrangement. During John’s absence in Asia Minor, he claims, Severian of Gabala through his preaching gained considerable popularity.4 To quote: “no less beloved and honoured by [John] he both flourished 1 For a thorough analysis of how the historical sources frame the relationship between these two bishops and these events, see the article by VAN NUFFELEN in the present volume. 2 See Socrates, Hist. Eccl., 6, 11 (G. C. HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus. Historia ecclesiastica [GCS, N.F., 1], Berlin, 1995, pp. 329-333). 3 Severian of Gabala, De pace (CPG 4214; A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias (Ανάλεκτα Ιεροσολυμιτικής Σταχυολογίας), vol. 1, Petroupolis, 1891, pp. 15-26; John Chrysostom, De recipiendo Severiano (CPG 4395; PG, 52, coll. 423-426). The latter homily survives only in a Latin translation that has, given its brevity and the example of the disparity in length between the Latin translation of De pace (PG, 52, coll. 425-428) and its Greek original, most likely been significantly shortened. See J. N. D. KELLY, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom - Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, London, 1995, p. 187. The date of the homilies is dependent on the dating of John’s trip to Asia Minor. Both KELLY, Golden Mouth, pp. 181-188, and R. BRÄNDLE, Johannes Chrysostomus. Bischof. Reformer. Märtyrer, Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln, 1999, pp. 98-100, locate the exchange following his return, after Easter 402. 4 Cf. Ps.-Martyrius, or. funeb., 36 and 45 (M. WALLRAFF – C. RICCI, Oratio funebris in laudem Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi: epitaffio attribuito a Martirio di Antiochia (BHG, 871; CPG 6517) [Quaderni della Rivista di bizantinistica, 12], Spoleto, 2007, pp. 86 and 96); Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., 8, 10 (G. C. HANSEN, Sozomenus. Historia ecclesiastica – Kirchengeschichte [Fontes Christiani, 73(4)], Turnhout, 2004, pp. 986-988); KELLY, Golden Mouth, pp. 173 and

104

WENDY MAYER

in his preaching and came to the notice of many persons of rank and even the emperor himself”,5 and “while John was being delayed at [Ephesus], in Constantinople Severian became more and more beloved to his listeners”.6 My translation of this last statement does little justice to the force of the comparative adjective (“ἐρασμιώτερος”), which carries connotations of increasingly intense emotion and personal attachment. Socrates, in the shorter recension of the story, attributes John’s concern and subsequent disaffection with Severian to jealous rivalry (“ζηλοτυπίαν”),7 a charge which Sozomen repeats.8 That preaching, like any other type of rhetorical performance of the period, was essentially agonistic is a point made by Peter Van Nuffelen in his article “A War of Words”, in which he highlights the alignment between preaching and episcopal standing and power in “a social system in which rhetorical and social success [were] closely linked”.9 But that is not what we are interested in here. While Van Nuffelen has mined the aforementioned episode and its related sources for what it has to say about the impact of preaching from the preacher’s point of view,10 our interest lies with the hint that Socrates supplies about the impact of Severian’s preaching on his listeners. The sources indicate that, wherever he preached, John Chrysostom developed what we might call an enthusiastic “fan base”.11 If Severian, through his preaching, developed a rival fan base and even attached some of John’s previous enthusiasts to himself, as the sources likewise suggest, then what can we say about how this phenomenon contributed to the schism? At the very least, our knowledge of late-antique rhetoric indicates that how their homilies were preached – that is, the style of individual homilies and the rhetorical techniques used to convey their message – played a role in arousing their listeners’ emotions and thus attaching members of the Nicene community in Constantinople to John or Severian on a personal level. That is, the simple act of being a successful preacher who satisfied audience expectations engendered a degree of 182. Contrary to Socrates and Sozomen, Ps.-Martyrius has nothing positive to say about Severian and his preaching. 5 Socrates, Hist. Eccl., 6, 11, 7 (HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus, p. 329 ll. 15-17). 6 Socrates, Hist. Eccl., 6, 11, 11 long recension (HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus, p. 330 ll. 12-13). 7 Socrates, Hist. Eccl., 6, 11, 12 short recension (HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus, p. 330 ll. 14-21). 8 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., 8, 10, 3 (HANSEN, Sozomenus, p. 988, ll. 2-4). 9 P. VAN NUFFELEN, A War of Words. Sermons and Social Status in Constantinople under the Theodosian Dynasty, in L. VAN HOOF – P. VAN NUFFELEN (eds), Literature and Society in the Fourth Century AD: Performing Paideia, Constructing the Present, Presenting the Self (Mnemosyne Supplements: Monographs on Greek and Latin Language and Literature, 373), Leiden – Boston, 2015, p. 206. 10 VAN NUFFELEN, A War of Words [n. 9], pp. 203-206. 11 Ps.-Martyrius, or. funeb., 16-18 (WALLRAFF – RICCI, Oratio funebris in laudem Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi, pp. 62-66); Socrates, Hist. Eccl., 6, 4, 8 (HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus, p. 316, ll. 9-11); Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., 8, 2, 11 (HANSEN, Sozomenus, pp. 956-958).

SEVERIAN AND JOHN ON AUTHORITY

105

patronage and/or loyalty. This is the thesis successfully argued by Van Nuffelen.12 But what if homilies also played a deeper and less obvious role? What if the message itself tapped into subconscious ways of conceiving the world towards which the listener was predisposed and in this way succeeded, without their conscious awareness, in radicalising them? Socrates has already suggested that the audience’s growing attachment to Severian was emotional. What we will do in this article is explore ways in which current work in the cognitive and neurosciences is suggestive. A key element in that research is a recent shift in the way that we understand the relationship between emotion and reason in moral judgment. Another is the recent recognition of the link between preconscious moral judgment, polarisation within and between social groups, and ultimately violence. Between John’s first and second exile hostility between the pro- and anti-Johannite parties had grown to such an extent that an assassination attempt was set in motion,13 physical assault between the two parties was on the increase,14 and one or the other group considered it a valid response to commit arson.15 What we want to explore in this article in particular is the hint Socrates supplies that, in stimulating such levels of radicalisation, the preaching of these two key figures was not benign. In other words: is it possible that, when we take current neuroscientific research into account, in the context of the Johannite schism neither the preaching, nor exegesis, nor theology of John nor Severian can be construed as innocent? This is a complex argument to make and much of the theory we will adduce is explained in detail elsewhere.16 In consequence we will provide in summary VAN NUFFELEN, A War of Words [n. 9], pp. 201-217. See Ps.-Martyrius, or. funeb., 105-106 (WALLRAFF – RICCI, Oratio funebris in laudem Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi, pp. 158-162), who references two separate assassination attempts against John. Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., 8, 22, 5-8 (HANSEN, Sozomenus, pp. 1024-1025), mentions one. 14 See, e.g., Ps.-Martyrius., or. funeb., 79 (WALLRAFF – RICCI, Oratio funebris in laudem Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi, p. 132; Palladius, Dial., 9-10 (A. M. MALINGREY [ed.; trad.], Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome [SC, 341], vol. 1, Paris, 1988, pp. 196-204); John Chrysostom, Ep. 1 ad Innocentem (A. M. MALINGREY [ed.; trad.], Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome II [SC, 342], vol. 2, Paris, 1988, pp. 82-86, ll. 146-182). Additional evidence is collated and discussed, in a now somewhat dated way, by T. E. GREGORY, Vox Populi: Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious Controversies in the Fifth Century A.D., Columbus, Ohio, 1979, pp. 53-62. 15 Ps.-Martyrius, or. funeb., 111-113 (WALLRAFF – RICCI, Oratio funebris in laudem Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi, pp. 166-168); Palladius, Dial., 10 (MALINGREY, Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome, pp. 210-214). Ps.-Martyrius alludes to looting of the Great Church’s treasury in addition. 16 See W. MAYER, Australia’s Moral Compass and Societal Wellbeing, in D. COSTACHE – D. CRONSHAW – J. R. HARRISON (eds), Wellbeing, Personal Wholeness and the Social Fabric: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Cambridge, 2017, pp. 110-131; EADEM, A Life of Their Own: Preaching, Radicalisation, and the Early Ps-Chrysostomica in Greek and Latin, in F. P. BARONE – C. MACÉ – P. UBIERNA (eds), Philologie, herméneutique et histoire des textes entre orient et occident. Mélanges en hommage à Sever J. Voicu (IPM, 73), Turnhout, 2017, pp. 977-1004; W. MAYER, Fundamentalism as a Response to Perceived Threat: Teasing out Some Cognitive Mechanisms at Work, in 12 13

106

WENDY MAYER

only as much theory here as is essential to make our case, leaving as much space as possible to test it out on our two homilies. This research is still in its infancy. Our aim here is simply to test whether the thesis that the homilies of these two preachers played a greater agential role in the schism than we have previously supposed – in particular, that the homilies can tell us something about how mob behaviour on the part of both parties might have come about – can be supported. Our argument is divided into four parts. First, we will establish in brief the constraints of the project. Second we will explain the role of intuitive moral judgments in dividing people. Third, we will explain how language works to activate these intuitions in the brain. That is, that rhetoric is not simply ornament and that metaphor can both reflect how the speaker and audience conceive of the world and influence audience behaviour. Finally, we will look briefly at the two homilies alleged to have been preached at the moment when the relationship between John and Severian broke down irrevocably, adducing in support, where helpful, other homilies preached by the two bishops at Constantinople. CONSTRAINTS First, it is important to set out our methodological constraints. As regards the body of homilies under discussion, we adopt the thesis that the bulk, if not all of the homilies currently considered to have been genuinely authored by Severian were delivered in Constantinople.17 We confine ourselves to those homilies in Greek that have been published in one edited form or another – some 53 in number.18 In regard to John, we accept, on the basis of the close relationship between the Latin translation of the Severian homily De pace and its Greek text that the Latin translation of De recipiendo Severiano at the least represents a summary of the original Greek; at most, constitutes a truncated version. We thus A. PAPANIKOLAOU – G. DEMACOPOULOS (eds), Fundamentalism or Tradition (Orthodox Christianity and Contemporary Thought), New York, forthcoming; and W. MAYER, Preaching Hatred? John Chrysostom, Neuroscience, and the Jews, in C. L. DE WET – W. MAYER (eds), Re-visioning John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New Perspectives, Leiden – Boston, 2019, pp. 58-137. 17 This is the argument put forward by R. CARTER, The Chronology of Twenty Homilies of Severian of Gabala, in Traditio, 55 (2000), pp. 1-17. For the acceptance of Carter’s thesis that Severian delivered his Constantinopolitan homilies in the years 401-402, see S. J. VOICU, Pentecost According to Severian of Gabala, in R. W. BISHOP ET AL. (eds), Preaching after Easter: Mid-Pentecost, Ascension, and Pentecost in Late Antiquity, Leiden, 2016, p. 296, although note that Carter pushes the date range back into the year 400. 18 The size and limits of the corpus continue to be the subject of debate. For a list of 53 homilies in Greek now considered authentic to Severian, see S. J. VOICU, Evidence of Authenticity: Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem Domini (CPG 5028), in BISHOP ET AL (eds), Preaching after Easter [n. 17], pp. 410-412. For an extensive status quaestionis, see the article by VOICU in the present volume (in Appendix 2 a complete list of sermons is given: besides the 53 Greek homilies also those preserved fragmentarily and/or in other languages are given).

SEVERIAN AND JOHN ON AUTHORITY

107

consider it valid to include it in our analysis. We exclude the authentic Greek homilies delivered at the time of his first exile (CPG 4396 and 4398) on the grounds that they occur too late in the course of the schism and thus potentially bias our investigation.19 We also exclude homilies that have been identified as of mixed authenticity (De capto Eutropio, De s. Phoca).20 We are thus left with the 15 so-called Novae homiliae (CPG 4441), on the grounds that it is probable that all 15 were delivered in Constantinople,21 plus Contra anomoeos hom., 11 (CPG 4324), De Christi divinitate (CPG 4325),22 In Eutropium (CPG 4392),23 Cum Saturninus et Aurelianus (CPG 4393),24 De regressu (CPG 4394),25 In Acta apost. hom., 9, and In Col. hom., 2-3.26 To these 23 homilies we can probably add In Eph. hom., 11 and In Heb. hom., 13,27 but will exclude these for the present from consideration. MORAL COGNITION As regards the neuroscientific research that we apply, its focus is on cognitive mechanisms that are specific to moral decision-making and are so basic and common that they are considered to be largely a-cultural, deep-historical, and pan-human. These last three assertions are open to criticism, and indeed already 19 That is, if the homilies De recipiendo Severiano and De pace were delivered ca. mid 402, they pre-date those delivered at the time of John’s first exile, which occurred in autumn 403, by more than a year. By the time of his first exile the differences between the two parties had become hardened. We are concerned rather with homilies delivered in 402 or earlier, when hostilities were milder and the boundaries between the two groups more fluid. Concerning the inauthenticity of CPG 4397 and 4399, homilies usually included among the cluster John delivered at the time of his first exile, see E. BONFIGLIO, John Chrysostom’s Discourses on his First Exile. Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the Sermo antequam iret in exsilium and of the Sermo cum iret in exsilium, Oxford, 2011. 20 See S. J. VOICU, La volontà e il caso: La tipologia dei primi spuri di Crisostomo, in Giovanni Crisostomo: Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 93), Rome, 2005, pp. 101-118. 21 See W. MAYER, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom: Provenance. Reshaping the Foundations (OCA, 273), Rome, 2005, pp. 491-510. Concerning their date, see EADEM, Les homélies de s. Jean Chrysostome en juillet 399. A Second Look at Pargoire’s Sequence and the Chronology of the Novae homiliae (CPG 4441), in Bsl, 60(2) (1999), pp. 273-303. 22 Both delivered shortly after John’s consecration in 398. See A. M. MALINGREY (ed.), Jean Chrysostome. Sur l’égalité du père et du fils. Contre les Anoméens homélies VII-XII (SC, 396), Paris, 1994, p. 370; and MAYER, Homilies of St John Chrysostom, p. 490. 23 The homily was preached after Eutropius had been condemned to exile and before his arrest. Concerning the date of this event in autumn 399, see Eutropius I, in J. R. MARTINDALE, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 442-443. 24 Delivered in 400 at the time of the coup by the Gothic general Gainas. See KELLY, Golden Mouth, pp. 152-156. 25 Delivered on John’s return from Asia Minor and thus in 402 shortly before the homiletic exchange between John and Severian. See KELLY, Golden Mouth, p. 180. 26 See MAYER, Homilies of St John Chrysostom, pp. 322-324. 27 See MAYER, Homilies of St John Chrysostom, pp. 411-416 and 397.

108

WENDY MAYER

have been variously challenged from the perspective of other disciplines, but for the purposes of our analysis we adopt the current rough consensus among experimental moral psychologists, neuroscientists, and cognitive linguists that, strictly in the area of morality, the most basic cognitive mechanisms are more or less universal.28 This allows us to at least entertain the possibility that the same cognitive mechanisms that play a role in polarising and dividing groups in the present usefully explain the same phenomenon within human social groups in the distant past.29 In response to scepticism about such universalist claims, we accept that culture does play a role, but in the case of intuitive moral foundations this concerns the degree of emphasis a group places on each moral foundation and the precise metaphors a culture uses to express it, rather than the moral foundations themselves.30 What we mean by moral foundations or intuitions we will discuss shortly. We should also be clear that when we talk about morality, we are – perhaps surprisingly, given that we are talking about preaching – not concerned with ethics or religious values. Morality in the sense we evoke is not about what a person should or should not do (determining the morally correct approach to a situation or what is ideally good), but social-functional values, that is, about the unconscious values and moral judgments that inform our everyday actions and behaviour. This is because the research we adduce, and therefore our own approach, is primarily sociological.31 Our underlying presuppositions are that a religious community or sect is a social group. Religious groups are not special. Individuals bind together to form religious groups and religious groups split into sects or come into conflict with other religious groups on the basis of the same mechanisms that cause all social groups to bind, split or generate conflict. This is because, as we will discuss in a moment, it is not religion per se, but morality that is the primary force that binds social groups together.32 28 See the summary by M. S. GAZZANIGA, Not Really, in Does Moral Action Depend on Reasoning? Thirteen Views on the Question, A Templeton Conversation, 2010, pp. 4-7 (www. templeton.org/reason; accessed 1 June 2017). Regarding the challenges, see the literature cited in the footnotes to MAYER, Preaching Hatred? [n. 16], sections 3-4. 29 Two key works concerning the role of moral cognition in dividing groups are: J. HAIDT, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, New York, 2012; and J. D. GREENE, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them, New York, 2013. 30 The metaphors that express the moral intuitions are culturally informed and can be culturespecific. On the role of culture, see, in addition to GAZZANIGA, Not Really [n. 28], Y. FEDER, Contamination Appraisals, Pollution Beliefs and the Role of Cultural Inheritance in Shaping Disease Avoidance Behavior, in Cognitive Science, 40(6) (2016), pp. 1561-1585; and J. GRAHAM ET AL., Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (2013), pp. 55-130. 31 On this point, see J. HAIDT – J. GRAHAM, Planet of the Durkheimians. Where Community, Authority, and Sacredness are Foundations of Morality, in J. T. JOST – A. C. KAY – H. THORISDOTTIR (eds), Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification, New York, 2009, pp. 371-401. 32 For this argument, see MAYER, Fundamentalism as a Response [n. 16].

SEVERIAN AND JOHN ON AUTHORITY

109

This brings us to the role intuitive moral judgments play in dividing groups and in binding them together.33 The first point to be made is that, contrary to what we have believed since the Age of the Enlightenment, reason plays only a secondary role in moral judgments. When it comes to “I’m right; she’s wrong!” or “that’s heretical; this is orthodox!”, such judgments arise from an automatic, intuitive, preconscious response. In regard to the current dual-processing model of the human brain, that gut response is invariably rationalised only after the fact. That is, the reason is made to fit the split-second intuition, rather than informing the moral judgment.34 In describing this process, Jonathan Haidt utilises the metaphor of the intuitive or emotional dog and its rational tail.35 This relationship between reason and intuition in cognitive processing is specific to morality and is an insight currently accepted by the majority of neuroscientists. This finding has significant implications for group behaviour. A key finding of Jonathan Haidt, Joshua Greene and other experimental moral psychologists, who study the values that inform how individual human beings facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation and overcome selfishness, is that morality both “binds and blinds”. That is, as Greene expresses it: groups share some core values; each group’s philosophy is woven into its daily life; each group has its own version of moral common sense; they fight, not because they are immoral, but because when they come into competition, they view the contested ground from very different moral perspectives.36 As Haidt expresses it: “[Morality] binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.”37 This research is suggestive that, when a social group fragments into two distinct sub-groups that are antagonistic towards each other, two different morallyinformed ideological positions are likely to be engaged.38 How this phenomenon works and that it expresses universally across human social groups becomes clearer when we explore the theory of moral foundations. 33 This argument and the research that informs it are discussed in much greater depth in the chapters cited in note 16, especially MAYER, Preaching Hatred? [n. 16], which provides extensive footnoting and bibliography. The summary that follows is derived in large part from that chapter. 34 See the summary provided by S. CLARKE, The Justification of Religious Violence, Malden, Mass., 2014, p. 75. 35 HAIDT, The Righteous Mind [n. 29], pp. 32-60; and IDEM, The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment, in Psychological Review, 108(4) (2001), pp. 814-834. 36 GREENE, Moral Tribes, pp. 4-5 (paraphrased). 37 HAIDT, The Righteous Mind, p. 366. 38 See especially the argument of J. GRAHAM – J. HAIDT, Sacred Values and Evil Adversaries: A Moral Foundations Approach, in M. MIKULINCER – P. R. SHAVER (eds), The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 11-31, regarding the role of ideological narratives.

110

WENDY MAYER

Extracted from the adaptive challenges of social life discussed by evolutionary psychologists, Moral Foundations Theory seeks “to identify the best candidates for ... the universal cognitive modules upon which cultures construct moral matrices”.39 These, Haidt and his colleagues argue, have been developed in response to five basic adaptive challenges that all groups face: “caring for vulnerable children”; “forming partnerships with non-kin to reap the benefits of reciprocity”; “forming coalitions to compete with other coalitions”; “negotiating status hierarchies”; and “keeping oneself and one’s kin free from parasites and pathogens, which spread quickly when people live in close proximity”.40 While there is tentative discussion about three additional potential moral foundations or intuitions,41 the five identified thus far are: care/harm; fairness/cheating; loyalty/betrayal; authority/subversion; and sanctity/degradation.42 What Haidt and his colleagues found in their experiments is that moral progressives placed strong emphasis on the first two foundations, whereas conservatives placed more equal emphasis on all five.43 This led Haidt to propose “that there are two common ways that cultures suppress and regulate selfishness, two visions of what society is and how it ought to work ... the contractual approach and the beehive approach”.44 In the contractualist approach the individual is the fundamental unit of value; in the hivist approach, it is the group and its territory. This model further led Haidt to describe care/harm and fairness/cheating as individualizing foundations, in that they generate virtues and practices that protect individuals from each other and allow them to live in harmony as autonomous agents who can focus on their own goals. Loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation he describes as binding foundations, because the virtues, practices, and institutions they generate function to bind people together into hierarchically organized interdependent social groups that try to regulate the daily lives and personal habits of their members.45 Now, we might assume that by the early 5th century the Christian church had across the Mediterranean world definitively become a hivist organisation. The prevailing discourse of heresy/ orthodoxy was all about loyalty and tradition/authority; as an institution it was HAIDT, The Righteous Mind, p. 146. HAIDT, The Righteous Mind, p. 146. 41 Liberty/oppression (HAIDT, The Righteous Mind, pp. 180ff); efficiency/waste, and ownership/theft (GRAHAM ET AL., Moral Foundations Theory, section 4.1.5). 42 HAIDT, The Righteous Mind, p. 146. 43 HAIDT – GRAHAM, Planet of the Durkheimians (especially fig. 1). 44 This statement and the theory summarised in the next paragraph are set out in J. HAIDT, Moral psychology and the misunderstanding of religion, in The Edge, 9.21.07, http://edge.org/ conversation/moral-psychology-and-the-misunderstanding-of-religion (accessed 1 June 2017), revised and published under the same title in J. SCHLOSS – M. J. MURRAY (eds), The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion, New York, 2009, pp. 278-291. Citations are from the online version. 45 Ibidem. 39 40

SEVERIAN AND JOHN ON AUTHORITY

111

becoming increasingly hierarchical, again emphasising authority; and the concern with personal ascetic praxis, with sexual continence, and with avoiding contamination by not just heretics (group insiders), but also pagans and Jews (group outsiders), placed considerable emphasis on loyalty and purity. But, as I have argued elsewhere, within Christianity at this period, for instance in the dispute between Catholics and Donatists in North Africa, we can see both a strongly hivist and a more contractualist mentality at play.46 Similarly, in the present day, within the distinctly hivist institution of the Roman Catholic church, we could describe the ecclesiology of Pope Francis as contractualist, reflecting his origins in the global South; while those of his two predecessors, both Europeans and traditionalists, appeal more strongly to the hivist foundations.47 This brings us to one of the most significant findings of Moral Foundations research: groups that place strong emphasis on either the contractualist or hivist foundations may work towards the same pro-social goals, but, as a result of the different moral foundations on which the group places emphasis, disagree strongly on the best way to achieve them. For our suspicion that these same moral foundations may have played an unwitting role in the Johannite schism John’s sermon De recipiendo Severiano is suggestive. When we look at the opening lines, John appeals immediately to the hivist values of loyalty and obedience. The world is ordered hierarchically; nothing can survive if it is separated from its head or source; John is that source for the neo-Nicene church in Constantinople.48 Not only can the audience, by implication, not survive, if separated from him, but its duty is to be submissive to him, just as he in turn submits to God.49 In this respect Scripture is explicitly invoked as authoritative, with obedience enjoined at “the apostle’s commands” and his own paternal obligation towards his flock described as an “apostolic law and command of the Lord”.50 The sermon picks up imagery more generally appealed to in the MAYER, A Life of Their Own [see note 16]. This case is made in MAYER, Fundamentalism as a response, using the analysis of the ecclesiology of Pope Francis and his two predecessors by N. ORMEROD, Secularisation and resacralisation: False alternatives for a missionary Church, in Australian eJournal of Theology, 23(1) (April 2016), pp. 32-42, http://aejt.com.au/2016/volume_23/vol_23_no_1_2016. 48 John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. (PG, 52, coll. 423, l. 7 ab imo-425 l. 8): Sicuti capiti corpus cohaerere necessarium est, ita Ecclesiam sacerdoti, et principi populum: utque virgulta radicibus, et fontibus fluvii, ita et filii patri, et magistro discipuli. ... Pater enim sum ... Pater sum ... . 49 John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. (PG, 52, col. 424, ll. 3-7 ab imo: ... obedientia discipulorum crescat in vobis, et quantum affectum patri deferatis, appareat. Adornate me, filii, et imponite mihi obedientiae vestrae coronam, facite me apud omnes beatum judicari, et doctrinam meam magnificate per obedientiam vestram ... . 50 John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. (PG, 52, coll. 424, l. 3 ab imo-425 l. 10: ... secundum apostoli monita, dicens: Obedite praepositis vestris ... Pater sum, et pater nimis super filios tremens, ita ut sanguinem meum pro vobis fundere paratus sim. Et in hoc non est mihi gratia. Apostolica enim lex est, et Domini praeceptum dicentis: Pastor bonus animam suam ponit pro ovibus suis. 46

47

112

WENDY MAYER

homily John preached on his return from Ephesus, De regressu, where in his exaggerated praise of the audience’s virtue and their conversion of heretics he styles himself as a second Moses, as their husband, and as their shepherd, father, helmsman, general, teacher and father.51 These are all figures of authority that invoke the natural and social order. There is much more that could be said about the moral intuitions activated by both sermons, but this is to get ahead of ourselves. Before we can understand the agency of this kind of language in the brain, we first need briefly to come to an understanding of the relationship between language and cognition. CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR The question of how these primitive moral intuitions are activated and strengthened by individual phrases and words brings us to the third part of our argument. Here we argue that rhetoric is not just entertainment. It has a real impact on the brain.52 Since the 1980s a growing body of research has overturned literary theories of rhetoric, establishing that “metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.”53 Metaphoric language, these studies show, is not just ornamental but evidence of the way we think, and is so automatic that we are largely unaware of it. It is the basic way we deal with thinking about and communicating abstract ideas. This finding, that these metaphors operate at the preconscious level, aligns with the research we discussed earlier about the two basic types of cognitive activities. That is, conceptual metaphors are part of the automatic, intuitive and non-conscious activity of the brain and are distinctly separate from reason.54 Many conceptual metaphors are culturally informed. Because they are often rooted in common human experience, however, some of the most basic, such as moral concepts (e.g., Morality is Light, Immorality is Darkness; Morality is Purity, Immorality is Rottenness; Good is Up, Bad is 51 John Chrysostom, De regressu, 1-5, 11 (A. WENGER, L’homélie de saint Jean Chrysostome à son retour d’Asie, in REB, 19 [1961], pp. 114-116 and 118). This homily, preached shortly after Easter 402, pre-dates De recipiendo Severiano by a short period. The precise date of the latter is unknown. On the question of date see n. 3 above. 52 This argument is set out in greater detail and with extensive citation of supporting literature in MAYER, Preaching Hatred? [n. 16], section 3. 53 G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, 2nd ed., 2003, p. 3. 54 Conceptual metaphors are distinctively different from literary metaphors, constituting the basic building blocks (concepts) that sit behind the latter. They involve the mapping of an abstract idea onto something concrete that is common in our embodied experience and are usually described in the form: A (the abstract idea) is B (the concrete domain). For an explanation of how this works, see Z. KÖVECSES, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, New York, 2nd ed., 2010.

SEVERIAN AND JOHN ON AUTHORITY

113

Down; Good is Clean, Bad is Dirty55) or ones that derive from how we perceive our body (Body is Container), are more likely to be common across history, language, and culture.56 This shift from an understanding of metaphor as non-essential linguistic ornament (mere rhetoric) to metaphor as a common embodied mode of thought which expresses in language has significant implications for the cognitive impact of preaching. Rather than assuming indifference on the part of a 5th-century listener on the basis that the rhetorical features employed by our homilists were normative and their listeners had heard it all before, it is precisely because the rhetoric was so normative that we should expect that the homilies and the metaphors, similies, analogies and metonymy they employed were effective.57 That is, we should expect that, at the very least, the most commonly used metaphors tapped intuitively into ways of viewing the world that in the early 5th century were commonly held and thus, through repetition, conceptually reinforced them. A good example of this is offered by Chris de Wet’s recent study of what he terms John’s doulology. By promoting a discourse of bondage to sin and slavery to Christ within a slave culture in which the master-slave relationship was experientially normative, John unwittingly reinforced domestic mastery of women, children and slaves by the male head of the household, as well as the practice of slavery as an institution.58 Of significance also for our argument is the discovery that the relationship between language and thought is not uni- but bi-directional. That is, while it is now commonly acknowledged that the presence of metaphor in language is evidence of the way we think, it is equally the case that the introduction of a particular metaphoric concept or set of concepts can alter or influence the way we think and make decisions. The way we think and make decisions expresses in our actions.59 Here we arrive at an area within Conceptual Metaphor Theory called Conceptual Framing.60 The direct link between conceptual framing and action poses a challenge to the idea that the effect of preaching on its audience is benign and especially that seemingly ordinary and not overtly polemical preaching is not agential in increasingly hostile schismatic group behaviour. One particularly powerful morally-informed conceptual 55 For a more complete list of basic cross-cultural moral metaphors, see G. LAKOFF, The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and its Politics, New York, 2009, pp. 96-98. 56 On this point, see KÖVECSES, Metaphor [n. 54], pp. 195-210. 57 This argument is made at length in MAYER, Preaching Hatred?. 58 C. L. DE WET, Preaching Bondage: John Chrysostom and the Discourse of Slavery in Early Christianity, Oakland, California, 2015. 59 On this point, see especially MAYER, Preaching Hatred?, section 3.2. 60 For a discussion of framing, see F. ERVAS – E. GOLA – M. G. ROSSI, Metaphors and Emotions as Framing Strategies in Argumentation, in G. AIRENTI ET AL. (eds), Proceedings of the EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science / 4th Conference on Cognitive Science / 11th International Conference on Cognitive Science, Torino, Italy, September 25-27, 2015, CEUR Workshop Proceedings 1419, 2015, pp. 645-560, http://ceur–ws.org/Vol–1419/paper0107.pdf.

114

WENDY MAYER

frame is that of the body politic – in our case, the neo-Nicene Christian church – as family. Here cultural difference plays a more obvious role – Lakoff’s model describes late 20th-century American politics – but the same clusters of basic moral concepts can be seen to be at play.61 The key difference for John’s early 5th-century view of the world, for instance, would be to locate Morality is Health as a second core concept in Strict Father Morality.62 We also need to recognise that in his preaching the two frames can be invoked alternatively. When John is focused on personal virtue and sin it is Strict Father morality that often comes to the fore. When he focuses on grace, it is a version of Nurturant Parent morality. The broader implication of this research is that differing Christian theologies are predicated on different conceptual frames (e.g., God as Strict Father, God as Nurturant Parent), just as different Christian sectarian movements on this same basis interpret the rich metaphors contained within the Christian scriptures differently. For precisely this reason two different theologies by virtue of their two different frames can lead to action or behaviour that in each instance the group that holds the frame views as pro-social (i.e. socially beneficial), but which in each instance can be viewed as anti-social (i.e. socially harmful) by the other group.63 That is, when differing sets of moral intuitions, metaphors and frames are repeatedly activated in their brains, one group’s orthodoxy can readily become the other group’s heresy, and both groups can become frustrated because to each what is right is blatantly obvious. Language does not just reflect this phenomenon, but is the primary agent. Much more could be said about the neural instantiation of these metaphors in the brain, the limits of neural plasticity, and why repeated linguistic activation of particular circuits strengthens them in the brain and leads to the weakening and loss of others.64 This is useful for understanding how particular moral frames or concepts become entrenched in a listener’s brain and why “changing” their mind is literally difficult. More important for our purposes, however, is that we turn to the homilies themselves, which brings us to part four of our argument. What does this research have to say about the two bishops’ preaching?

61 Lakoff first described the Nation is Family metaphor and the moral concepts that inform the two competing frames that he identified in G. LAKOFF, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Chicago, 1996 (see especially pp. 77-78 and 81). He further nuanced it in IDEM, The Political Mind [n. 55], in light of more recent research. 62 The primary concept Lakoff identified is Morality is Strength, Immorality is Weakness. See LAKOFF, Moral Politics, pp. 65-104. 63 On this point, see LAKOFF, Moral Politics, pp. 245-270. 64 For discussion of the explanatory research, see MAYER, Preaching Hatred?, section 3.3.

SEVERIAN AND JOHN ON AUTHORITY

115

MORAL INTUITIONS AND THE HOMILETIC EXCHANGE We have already indicated that at the beginning of De recipiendo Severiano John repeatedly activates in his listener’s brains the authority/subversion moral foundation. The constant reference to the natural order in which the body should be joined to the head, etc., also invokes in-group loyalty.65 The audience is attached to John as their (Strict) father.66 Their obedience to his commands shows their discipline and submission to his authority. Even his invocation of peace is authoritative. It is fitting that peace be declared in the church, he says,67 which intuitively invokes the liturgical declaration of peace by the bishop.68 The allusion to the crowd’s anger and to recent grim events is also effective.69 In telling them to let it go, he subconsciously invokes and reinforces the cause of their anger.70 If the crowd’s hostility and anger is real, it is suggestive of their view of Severian either as a traitor or, more likely, as being in the wrong and unfair.71 If not, then John, whether deliberately or unwittingly, 65

See note 48. See the passages cited in notes 48-50, where the Church is Family metaphor is being invoked: the audience, as sons, are to be obedient to John, their father; John, in turn, as father, is obedient to the authority of Scripture, which conveys the authoritative commands of the Son of God. The parallel between John’s own readiness to shed his blood for his children and Christ’s shedding of blood (John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. [PG, 52, col. 425]) sets up a graded hierarchy of authority and submission. 67 John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. (PG, 52, col. 425, ll. 23-25): Loquimur rem, quam dignum est in ecclesia loqui, et quam dignum est libenter audiri. Pro pace loquimur ad vos. 68 See F. VAN DE PAVERD, Zur Geschichte der Messliturgie in Antiocheia und Konstantinopel gegen Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts (OCA, 187), Rome, 1970, pp. 83-93, 221, and 465-466. Note that we are concerned here with the pre-eucharistic liturgy, which concludes following the homily. 69 John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. (PG, 52, col. 426, ll. 5-9): Multa dudum tristia gesta sunt in Ecclesia, Deum confiteor, sed non laudo perturbationes, seditiones non amplector. Sed omittamus iam haec; desinite, conquiescite, cohibete animos, refrenate iracundiam: ... . The precise nature of the events alluded to is unclear. On the basis of Zosimus, who relies up to Book 5, 24 (404 CE) on a history by Eunapius for his information, T. E. GREGORY, Zosimus 5, 23 and the People of Constantinople, in Byz, 43 (1973), pp. 61-83, argues that the slaughter of anti-Johannite monks by Johannite supporters took place in one of the city’s churches following John’s return from his first exile just over a year later. John’s comments in this sermon suggest that violence between the two parties was already taking place prior to its delivery in mid-402. In fact, if the events alluded to here and in Severian’s homily In ascensionem domini (CPG 5028/4236a.7) are one and the same (see the article by BISHOP in the present volume), then this would strengthen the argument that the latter homily was delivered on the feast of Ascension 402. It would also help to narrow down the date of the homiletic exchange. 70 That use of particular language activates particular images and concepts in the brain is argued by LAKOFF, Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, Vermont, 2004. See especially p. 3: “When we negate a frame, we evoke a frame.” It is noteworthy that, after asking the audience to accede to his ambassadorial overtures and receive/welcome Severian, John almost immediately re-invokes their anger and the grim events (John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. [PG, 52, col. 426, ll. 26-29]). 71 On rage at traitors as a characteristic emotion associated with activation of the loyalty foundation, anger, of the fairness/cheating foundation, see HAIDT, The Righteous Mind, p. 146, fig. 6.2. 66

116

WENDY MAYER

is arousing their anger with its intuitive moral judgment that Severian is untrustworthy and a threat to the group. In the end, when we add in John’s metaphoric adduction of himself as ambassador, whether to the audience on behalf of Severian or the emperor, or as God’s ambassador and negotiator of peace between two warring groups,72 the intuitive message that the sermon conveys and invokes in its listeners’ minds is that John, rather than an agent in the conflict, stands outside it, and that their reception of Severian, as well as the “peace” that ensues, is due entirely to John’s authority as bishop,73 which is reinforced by Scripture, God, society, and nature. Viewed through the lens of Moral Foundations Theory, the sermon does little cognitively to weaken the audience’s disaffection with Severian. Rather, it is more likely to have reinforced it. So what of the sermon that Severian preached? Proclaimed a day later than John’s and thus in response to it, Severian’s sermon De pace is a masterpiece of conceptual reframing. The word “peace” (“εἰρήνη”) is a constant refrain throughout,74 it is constantly declared on the authority of Scripture alone rather than his own episcopal authority,75 and Severian positions himself from the opening of the homily as a kind of angelic herald of this gospel message.76 Overtly it is about a concord effected between equals, who are brothers.77 Covertly, the prefacing of the later repetitive and constant declarations of peace by 72 John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. (PG, 52, coll. 425, l. 25-426, l. 18): Et quid ita conveniens, quam sacerdotem Dei pacem populo persuadere? Contradictio nulla est, ubi et legatio sancta et legatus acceptus est. ... pro hac ergo legatus ad vos missus sum. … desinat turbatio: hoc enim et Deo placitum, et piissimo principi acceptum est. … Si ergo praeparavi animos vestros ad suscipiendam legationem meam, recpitie fratrem nostrum Severianum episcopum. 73 John again twice invokes the audience’s obedience to him immediately after asking that Severian be received/welcomed. John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. (PG, 52, col. 426, ll. 20-23): Dedistis mihi fructus obedientiae: nunc me semen bonum gratulor seminasse. Ecce enim statim frumenti manipulos colligam. Retribuat vobis Dominus praemium benignitatis, et obedientiae mercedem. 74 See Severian of Gabala, De pace, 1 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 16, l. 18-p. 17, l. 15), where the word occurs 8 times in rapid succession, occurring 11 times in the entire section. In section 2 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, pp. 18-19), it occurs a further 14 times. Severian invokes the term some 85 times throughout the entire homily. 75 See, e.g., De pace, 1 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 15, ll. 1-5 [Luke, 11, 10]; p. 16, l. 31-p. 17, l. 4 [Eph, 2, 14]; p. 17, l. 30-p. 18, l. 3 [Zach, 6, 13]), 2 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 19, ll. 4-23 [Luke, 11, 14; Matt, 21, 9]), 3 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 20, ll. 7-10 [Col, 3, 15]). A similar pattern of citations occurs in the sections that follow. 76 De pace, 1 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 15, ll. 6-9): “Παρ᾽αὐτῶν τοίνυν τῶν ἁγίων ἐκείνων ἀγγέλων καὶ ἡμεῖς δανεισάμενοι φωνὴν εὐαγγελιζόμεθα ὑμῖν σήμερον ...”. Cf. De pace, 2 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 18, ll. 20-28), which ostensibly includes the entire “flock” (all the orthodox Christians in the city, or at least present in the audience) in the earthly hymn of peace that mirrors that of the angels. In the context of the opening lines of section 1 and Severian’s reference to himself a few lines earlier in section 2, this passage is just as likely to have conceptually reinforced Severian’s role as Christ’s angelic emissary of peace. 77 See De pace, 1 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 17, l. 16- p. 18, l. 3).

SEVERIAN AND JOHN ON AUTHORITY

117

the persistent refrain “today ... today ... today”, invoked nine times in the opening lines,78 encourages the listener to contrast today’s declaration of peace with that of yesterday and Severian’s open generosity as an episcopal colleague with John’s less generous, albeit liturgically correct, declaration as presiding bishop.79 The entire sermon is about care and harm, specifically the current security of the church against its enemies.80 To the devil and demons evoked in John’s sermon as a threat to the church,81 Severian adds from the beginning that of heretics.82 This is a common theme in the homilies he delivered in Constantinople. As Sever Voicu points out, the doctrinal controversies of the day were of considerable importance to Severian and he constantly scrutinized “Scripture in search of tools for his polemics”.83 The heresies Severian identifies for his audience and that he targets across his preaching are considerably more expansive than those identified by John in his preaching as bishop.84 Severian is also more explicit and consistent in his promotion of Trinitarian formulae.85 No heresy is explicitly identified in De pace, nor is any Trinitarian formula uttered, but an audience familiar with Severian’s preaching would have understood from this sermon that the purity and security of the neo-Nicene church in Constantinople were of central concern to him. The intuitive take-home 78 De pace, 1 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 15, l. 9-p. 16, l. 22). 79 Severian of Gabala, De pace, 2 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 18, ll. 5-8). Cf. John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. (PG, 52, col. 426, ll. 5-9) and Severian of Gabala, De pace, 1 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 16, ll. 21-22), where “πᾶσαν λύπην” may well allude to the tristia gesta sunt, and “μικροψυχίαν” refer not only to the state of mind of the protestors, but also hint at the smallmindedness of Bishop John. 80 Severian of Gabala, De pace, 1 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 15, l. 9-p. 16, l. 6): “σήμερον τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐν γαλήνῃ ... Σήμερον τὸ σκάφος τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐν γαλήνῃ ... Σήμερον οἱ ποιμένες ἐν ἀμεριμνίᾳ καὶ ἡ ποίμνη ἐν ἀσφαλείᾳ ...” . 81 John Chrysostom, Recip. Sev. (PG, 52, col. 425, ll. 34-36): et velut murum Ecclesiae dedit, quam scutum adversum diabolum posuit, quam gladium adversum daemones dedit ... . 82 See Severian of Gabala, De pace, 1 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 15, l. 10-p. 16, l. 17), where, in the list of enemies of truth, heretics precede the devil and demons. 83 VOICU, Pentecost According to Severian [n. 17], p. 303. That is, not just Severian’s preaching, but also his exegesis of Scripture, is strongly oriented towards combating heresy and bringing the audience towards right belief. 84 Severian of Gabala, for instance, frequently targets Apollinarians, whom John references in his entire corpus only once (in In Phil. hom., 6). See, e.g., Severian of Gabala, De centurione et contra Manichaeos et Apollinaristas (CPG 4230), which is characteristic of Severian’s targeting of more than one heresy in his preaching, even if a specific heresy is the focus. On the focus of Severian’s homily De spiritu sancto (CPG 4188) on a new heresy that the Spirit is a servant and creature, which receives no reference by John, see VOICU, Pentecost According to Severian, pp. 298-300. 85 See, e.g., In ascensionem Domini (CPG 5028; E. S. CHATZOGLOU-BALTA [ed.], ῞Εξ λόγοι εἰς τὴν Ἀνάληψιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἐπιγραφόμενοι ἐπ᾽ὀνόματι τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ χρυσοστόμου, in EEBS, 53 [2007-2009], pp. 333-344, at p. 337, ll. 140-147); and De spiritu sancto (PG, 52, coll. 813-826), which explicitly employs Trinitarian language in the final column. Severian’s evocation of Trinitarian theology in his homily on Ascension is further discussed in the article by BISHOP.

118

WENDY MAYER

message of this sermon is that the source of Severian’s joy in the resolution of the conflict between the two bishops is his care for the audience and the larger neo-Nicene community. The intuitive sting in the tail of that message is (1) that the attention of both bishops ought to be on routing heretics as the best means of caring for the church (which John implicitly fails to do), and (2) that a church divided is weakened against its enemies.86 A bishop who does not pay attention to the unity and orthodoxy of the church, Severian is preaching, is responsible for making it vulnerable to harm. This stance encourages Severian to adduce at length towards the end of De pace an exemplum from Scripture (Acts, 15, 36-40)87 – ostensibly for the purpose of reassuring the audience88 – that both invokes scriptural authority and is cognitively plastic. That is, depending on how the audience had come to view the moral position of each bishop, it allowed them intuitively to read the two bishops into the apostolic dispute and to interpret its implications differently. Whatever Severian’s own intent, his reading of the dispute as a matter of Paul honouring justice, and Barnabas (who is aligned with the errant Mark), as promoting injustice,89 activates the fairness/cheating foundation. Both apostles are said to approach the same goal (eusebeia) from different moral stances.90 Eusebeia (piety, right religion) is a key term, much used by both preachers, that invokes the purity moral foundation.91 Paul is strict and stubborn; Barnabas is caring and compassionate. Paul is concerned with justice; Barnabas with friendship and kindness. Paul wants to exclude and discipline Mark; Barnabas to forgive and re-embrace him.92 Here we see Severian himself expressing the core of what we have been discussing – that a dispute can arise when two parties hold to the same belief or pursue the same goal but from different moral perspectives.93 86 See especially Severian of Gabala, De pace, 3 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, pp. 19-20), where he explicitly emphasises the wiles of Satan and states that his evils cannot prevail when brothers are in accord. 87 De pace, 10 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, pp. 25-26). 88 See De pace, 9 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 24). 89 De pace, 10 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 25, ll. 1-2): “Ἐγένετό ποτε μεταξὺ Παύλου καὶ Βαρνάβα φιλονεικία, ὅτι οὖν τοῦ μὲν ἑνὸς μέρους δικαιοσύνην τιμῶντος, ἑτέρου δὲ τὴν ἀδικίαν, ... ” . 90 De pace, 10 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 25, l. 3): “... ἀλλ᾽ ἑκάστου μέρους σκοπῷ εὐσεβείας δουλεύοντος”. 91 For John’s constant reference to its opposite, asebeia, with reference to Jews in his homilies Adversus Iudaeos and its relationship to purity/sanctity, for example, see MAYER, Preaching Hatred?, section 5. Severian frequently uses the term in relation to orthodoxy, when addressing heretical beliefs. For Severian the term is often coupled with reference to “the enemies of truth”. See, e.g., Severian of Gabala, In illud: In qua potestate (CPG 4193; PG, 56, coll. 411-428). 92 De pace, 10 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 25, ll. 19-25). 93 De pace, 10 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 25, ll. 25-27): “Στασιάζοντες τοίνυν τῇ γνώμῃ, εἰ καὶ συνεφώνουν τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ, εἰς τοσοῦτον ἦλθον παροξυσμόν, ὡς καὶ χωρισθῆναι ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων.”

SEVERIAN AND JOHN ON AUTHORITY

119

It is also of interest that his interpretation of the two apostles taps into the oppositional conceptual moral frames of Strict Father (Paul) and Nurturant Parent (Barnabas). The suspicion that, for his own part – and, if they received his message in the same way, that of his supporters – Severian reads himself as Barnabas and John as Paul is raised by his adduction at the conclusion of section 10 of Paul’s brief admonition concerning Mark (Col, 4, 10): “If he comes, receive him”.94 This intuitively recalls John’s own words of the previous day in De recipiendo Severiano: “Receive our brother bishop Severian (recipite fratrem nostrum Severianum episcopum).”95 Having delivered this subtle critique, Severian graciously concludes by deferring once again to John’s liturgical role as presiding bishop, asking that he make the sign of the cross and give the declaration of peace.96 CONCLUSION When we subject these two homilies to cognitive analysis, it allows us to see that each preacher activates a different set of moral intuitions. John places considerable emphasis on authority and loyalty, Severian on care/harm and fairness. The way that Severian speaks about heresy and orthodoxy, at least in this homily, only weakly activates the purity and loyalty foundations. As Severian himself points out, when these two differing moral emphases are strongly held they can lead individuals and groups to become adversarial. At the very least we can see fundamental disagreements between the two preachers in regard to how one should approach the health of the neo-Nicene community. Looking across Severian’s homilies, in a very preliminary analysis one gains the impression that for him right belief is of paramount importance in Constantinople,97 where in objective terms the church remains at this point in time small and vulnerable. This manifests in his emphasis on theology and orthodoxy. This is not a fundamentalist approach to orthodoxy, however, and is married with a view of the world that is somewhat contractualist and egalitarian. For John it is right living (rather than right thinking) that ensures the health of the church.98 De pace, 10 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 26, ll. 10-12). 95 PG, 52, col. 426, ll. 17-18. 96 De pace, 11 (PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, p. 26). 97 See, e.g., Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem (CPG 4187) and In ascensionem (CPG 5028), and the discussion of these two homilies in the article by BISHOP. 98 Again, BISHOP’S analysis of Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem (CPG 5028) with regard to John’s sale of the marble intended for decoration of the Anastasia church in Constantinople is highly evocative in this regard and supportive of this conclusion. That is, John sells the marble because he disapproves of the wastage of money that should be spent on the poor; Severian constructs John’s actions as damaging to orthodoxy. 94

120

WENDY MAYER

When this view is married with a hierarchical view of the world, in which authority and loyalty receive emphasis,99 the resulting moral framework can promote exclusion and coercion, and can ultimately lead to violence. So in In Acta apost. hom., 9 John encourages the faithful to correct those who swear oaths in the agora and to drag them to him, regardless of rank, for discipline, like little children.100 In neither case is the preacher consistent in the moral intuitions that they invoke, however, the situation being more complex. So John in Postquam presbyter Gothus (CPG 4441.9) preaches the inclusion within the Nicene community of Goths against the intuitive prejudice against these “barbarians” that prevailed at the time in Constantinople. 101 In De legislatore (CPG 4192) Severian arouses fear of them as enemies and activates an already entrenched bias.102 We would have to show that, regardless, each bishop in the main repeatedly activated and strengthened the same divergent moral foundations, frames and metaphors, if we are to make a successful case that their preaching contributed to the schism. Ultimately, what this study does show is that there is value in this approach and that the results may prove surprising. At the very least it gives us new tools that allow us to push back against the inherent bias of the sources. So used are we to seeing the bishops Theophilus and Severian as arch-enemies and wrong and John as in the right and innocent. Yet, as Krastu Banev has recently shown, Theophilus’ actions are consistent with his own worldview, which can be accessed and understood through his epistolary rhetoric.103 So, I would argue, application of these approaches to analysis of the preaching of Severian and John can open up new cautionary perspectives. One of the entailments of current research in moral psychology is recognition that good people do bad things for good reasons and that both approaches in a conflict do not just view their own position as, but are in reality, equally moral.

99

One wonders if there is not a covert criticism of John by Severian at the close of In ascensionem (CPG 4187) to the effect that God is the sole arbiter of peace and that John is setting himself up in God’s place. For the text of the conclusion and for the dating of this homily in relation to De pace, see R. W. BISHOP – N. RAMBAULT, Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187). Introduction and Critical Edition, in SE, 56 (2017), pp. 153-156 and 227. In his article in this book, BISHOP makes the point that even at the opening of this homily Severian most likely covertly criticises John’s authority over him, viewing his own authority as residing solely in Christ. 100 PG, 60, col. 83, ll. 49-57. 101 The negative attitude towards Goths in Constantinople and the inclusive message of John’s homily, which he reads as directed towards the “Roman” inhabitants of the city, are discussed by J. STANFILL, Embracing the ‘Barbarian’: The Goths in the Pastoral Strategy of John Chrysostom, New York, 2015. 102 PG, 56, coll. 407, l. 19-408, l. 9. 103 K. BANEV, Theophilus of Alexandra and the First Origenist Controversy: Rhetoric and Power, Oxford, 2015.

THE EXEMPLARY ROLE OF ADAM AND EVE IN JOHN CHRYSOSTOM’S VIRTUE-BUILDING PROGRAM Samantha L. MILLER

“Nothing is as important as virtue”.1 So Chrysostom says at the end of his 8th homily on Genesis. For all of Chrysostom’s rhetorical devices, this line isn’t merely a rhetorical device. Given the amount of time Chrysostom spends encouraging his congregation to be virtuous throughout his corpus, it is clear that virtue has the highest importance for him. The question is, if virtue is all-important for Chrysostom, how does he characterize it? What is it that he wants his congregants to pursue? In this section at the end of the 8th Genesis homily Chrysostom gives his congregation a description of virtue, and elsewhere Chrysostom often uses Adam and Eve to serve as both the examples and counterexamples of virtue. Through explaining the way that Adam and Eve are together both Chrysostom’s positive and negative examples of virtue, I argue that Chrysostom believes human beings were created for virtue and, as a result, have a responsibility to be virtuous as a response to, and part of, their salvation. This – salvation – is the reason for his numerous exhortations to virtue. My argument will be in three parts. First I do a close reading of In. hom. Gen., 8, 6 to tease out the various dimensions of Chrysostom’s understanding of virtue. Second, using primarily the In Gen. hom. along with supplementary passages from On the Powers of Demons and That No One Can Harm the One Who Does Not Harm Himself (afterward referred to as De diab. tent. and Quod nem. laed., respectively), treatises where Chrysostom discusses the nature of virtue, I demonstrate Chrysostom’s use of Adam and Eve as both exemplars of virtue and negative examples of those who fail in virtue. Finally, I analyze the contexts of these positive and negative examples to argue for Chrysostom’s understanding that human beings are created virtuous with a responsibility to remain that way for the sake of their own salvation.

1 In Gen. hom., 8, 6 (PG, 53, col. 75; HILL, p. 115). English translations of Chrysostom’s In Gen. hom. come from R. C. HILL (trans.), Saint John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, 1-17 (Fathers of the Church: a New Translation, 74), Washington, 1986.

122

SAMANTHA L. MILLER

1. DESCRIPTION OF VIRTUE Chrysostom’s In. hom. Gen., 8, 6 begins: “Let us not neglect our own salvation, for nothing is as important as virtue”.2 The first seven homilies in this series have been reflections on the first five and a half days of creation, through 1, 25. Homily 8 begins as a reflection on Gen, 1, 26-27, and Chrysostom’s focus is on the place of the human being in creation. According to Chrysostom, the fact that God created humans last and with the purpose of ruling over the rest of creation indicates that humans have the highest place in creation. Being made in God’s image refers to the control humans have over created things rather than being made in the physical form of God, as some would say. Then Chrysostom discusses rescuing from the devil’s traps those who would oppose God (those who say God has a physical form), the importance of teaching others for the sake of their salvation, the importance of living well as part of that teaching, and fasting and almsgiving as virtuous acts that snatch us from the fires of Gehenna. Chrysostom then draws all these themes together in closing with this final summary passage on the importance of virtue for salvation. As with the other homily-ending exhortations to virtue, this one also is intimately related to the content of the sermon, which is done for the salvation of his congregation, and not merely an add-on as part of Chrysostom’s broader moralism.3 I highlight this homily-ending exhortation in particular because it is part of a homily on the creation of human beings and because it draws together several themes that comprise Chrysostom’s understanding of virtue and salvation. For the moment I want to pass over the first line: “Let us not neglect our own salvation” with only a note to remember that this passage on virtue is about salvation, and that the imperative not to neglect our salvation indicates that the congregants have some measure of responsibility for their own salvation. That responsibility, the next clause tells us, is virtue. In fact, it starts with a “γάρ”:

2

Ibidem. Robert Carter is representative of this “moralist” critique. In a 1973 essay about what studies of Chrysostom’s theology ought to be done, Carter writes: “Chrysostom’s fundamental interests were pastoral and moral rather than speculative and systematic. Therefore it has been fashionable for speculative theologians to dismiss Chrysostom as a conventional moralist whose contribution to the history of theology was minimal. Today theology is much more pastorally oriented. It is concerned with Christian life and action. So it may be that theologians will find Chrysostom more relevant to their concerns than they have in the past.” (R. E. CARTER, The Future of Chrysostom Studies: Theology and Nachleben, in P. C. CHRISTOU (ed.), Symposion: Studies on St. John Chrysostom (Analecta Vlatadon, 18), Thessaloniki, 1973, pp. 129-130. For another example, see an outdated but standard biography: C. BAUR – M. GONZAGA (trans.), John Chrysostom and His Time, vol. 1, Westminster (MD), 1959, p. 355. Against this characterization scholars like Wendy Mayer, Chris de Wet, and David Rylaarsdam, among many others, are asking for a reappraisal of Chrysostom as a sophisticated thinker and theologian in his own right. See W. MAYER – C. L. DE WET, (Re)Visioning Chrysostom: New Theories and Approaches, Leiden, 2019; D. RYLAARSDAM, John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence of His Theology and Preaching, Oxford, 2014. 3

THE EXEMPLARY ROLE OF ADAM AND EVE

123

“For nothing is as important as virtue”. This is a strong statement and begs the question of what Chrysostom means by virtue. If nothing is as important as this, we ought to know what it is. Several clauses down in the passage Chrysostom gives a description: “Virtue it is to scorn all human affairs … Virtue it is to adopt the attitude of a corpse in regard to the affairs of this life”.4 The likely source of the corpse image for Chrysostom is Romans, 6, where Paul discusses a Christian’s participation in Christ’s death and resurrection in baptism. In his homily on this Romans passage, Chrysostom also uses corpse language. He preaches: “Just as he who is dead is freed from sinning for the future because he is now a corpse, so also is the man who comes up from the waters of baptism. Because he died there once and for all, he must remain dead to sin altogether”.5 As in the Genesis homily, the word is “νεκρός”, and the idea is for the Christian to act like a corpse, that is, unaffected and unmoved. The Christian must be detached from the things of this world. In In Gen. hom., 8, 6, Chrysostom tells his listeners to be a corpse in relation to “the affairs of this life”. In a more explicit example, Chrysostom uses this language in his Cat. Or., telling his catechumens: This is practically saying: “What now do you have in common with the present life? You have died, that is, you are corpses as far as sin is concerned. Once and for all you have renounced the present life.” … Therefore do not be active in the things of this life as if you were living, but be as if you had died and were corpses.6

Finally, in the homily on Genesis, 8, 6, in the same sentence as the corpse expression, Chrysostom quotes Paul in Galatians, indicating that Scripture in general and Paul in particular are at the forefront of his mind. The passage from the catechetical oration ties together two ideas and deepens our understanding of what Chrysostom means by “scorning all human affairs”. We are to be corpses with regard to the “present life” and the “things of this life” and also, as with the Romans homily, with regard to sin. Sin is part of the present life and in Genesis homily, 8, 6, “the affairs of this life”. In 8, 6 Chrysostom also preaches that virtue is to “like a corpse take no active interest in what threatens the soul’s salvation”. This is similar language to the catechetical homily “not active in the things of this life”. “Human affairs” or “the things of this life” are among the things that threaten the soul’s salvation. They appear, in fact, to be in the same category as sin.7 To be a corpse is to be 4

Ibidem. In Rom. hom., 11, 1 (PG, 60, col. 485, P. PAPAGEORGIOU, St. John Chrysostom. Homilies on Romans, Brookline, Mass., 2013, pp. 202-203). 6 Cat., 7, 22 (A. WENGER, Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites [SC, 50bis], Paris, 1970, p. 240; English translations are from: P. W. HARKINS, Baptismal Instructions [Ancient Christian Writers, 31], Westminster, 1963, pp. 112-113). 7 For a discussion of Chrysostom’s understanding of self-mortification, see C. L. DE WET, The Practice of Everyday Death: Thanatology and Self-Fashioning in John Chrysostom’s Thirteenth 5

124

SAMANTHA L. MILLER

detached or unaffected by the world and by sin. Implicit here is a contrast: human affairs rather than divine and the affairs of this life instead of the affairs of that life, the future one. The clause that follows “virtue it is to scorn all human affairs” is “to keep the mind on future realities at each hour of the day”. That is, virtue is about the future life. This is the way to scorn the present life, and for further explanation I look to Chrysostom’s tendency to point his congregants to exemplars like Job. Whatever befalls Job, he does not curse God. Job, Chrysostom says, has the proper perspective on his sufferings: sufferings are not worth damaging his soul (the result should he curse God), and this perspective is what makes Job virtuous. Job’s virtue is in his refusing to yield to the devil’s temptations to curse God for his sufferings.8 For Chrysostom, this perspective scorns human affairs – the suffering – and looks to eternal affairs or the future realities – the state of his soul and his salvation. Job has a heavenly orientation. The same perspective is true of Daniel, Joseph, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego – anyone who suffered.9 Virtue is recognizing that suffering is not true harm and protecting their souls from what is true harm, sin. Virtue is both to keep a heavenly perspective – to be a corpse, or to be detached, unaffected, with regard to the affairs of this life – and this includes resisting the devil at every turn. Virtue as resistance to the devil is also part of the passage from Genesis, 8, 6: virtue “makes us stronger than the enemy of our salvation (I mean the devil)”. The devil’s primary goal is to prevent a person’s salvation. In the context of the Genesis, 8, 6 passage it becomes clear that the devil’s attacks on virtue are attacks on salvation.10 When Satan tempts a person to attend the theater instead of worship, it is an attack not merely against the person’s health or reputation

Homily on Romans, in Hervormde Teologiese Studies, 71(1) (2015), https://hts.org.za/index.php/ hts/article/view/2957. 8 For examples of Job as a paragon of resistance see De diab. tent., 2, 1; 3, 2; Quod nem. laed., 3-5; In 1 Cor. hom., 28, 6, to name a few. 9 Quod nem. laed., 15 (A. M. MALINGREY, Lettre d’exil à Olympias et à tous les fidèles [Quod nemo laeditur] [SC, 103bis], Paris, 2011, pp. 130-134). For further discussion, see L. BROTTIER, L’actualisation de la figure de Job chez Jean Chrysostome, in P. MARAVAL, Le Livre de Job chez les Pères (Cahiers de Biblia Patristica, 5), Strasbourg, 1996, pp. 63-110; P. W. LAI, John Chrysostom and the Hermeneutics of Exemplar Portraits, Durham, 2015; and H. F. STANDER, Chrysostom’s Interpretation of the Narrative of the Three Confessors in the Fiery Furnace, in Acta Patristica et Byzantina, 16 (2005), pp. 91-105. 10 The rest of Chrysostom’s corpus elucidates the devil’s attacks on faith, which consist of instigating misinterpretations of Scripture or false doctrine: “In this way many destructive doctrines are brought into our life, the devil persuading the lazy to proclaim perversely the contents of the Scriptures” (Dom., non est in hom., 2 [PG, 56, col. 156, my translation]). In De incompr. hom., 2, Chrysostom claims that the Anoemeans are caught in the devil’s snare: “Let us pray for them and plead with God’s loving-kindness… to deliver them from the roaming trap of the devil” (De incompr. hom., 2, 55 [A. DE VOGUÉ, La règle de Saint Benoît, IV (SC, 184), Paris, 1971, my translation]).

THE EXEMPLARY ROLE OF ADAM AND EVE

125

but against her very salvation, since “nothing is as important as virtue” as we aim not to “neglect our own salvation”. Against all of these attacks, however, a person is “stronger” (“ἰσχυροτέρους”) than the devil and “superior” (“ἀνώτερος”) to demons. Her virtue makes her stronger, according to In Gen. hom., 8, 6. The devil does his best to cause injury to a person’s virtue, but a person is stronger and can defeat the devil, keeping her virtue intact. In 8, 6, virtue (or a continuous choice for virtue) makes a person superior to anything that would keep her from being virtuous. So the hallmarks of the virtuous person for Chrysostom are maintenance of a heavenly orientation, or a detachment from the things of this life and, as part of this maintenance, resistance of the devil. It is about obedience to God and avoiding sin, and this detachment and resistance of the devil’s schemes make that happen. We now turn to Chrysostom’s use of Adam and Eve as exemplars. 2. ADAM AND EVE

AS

EXEMPLARS

As with most patristic authors, Chrysostom looks to creation for his understanding of the order God intended for the world and for human beings. Chrysostom writes: “do not speak to me about humanity, fallen, disgraced, and condemned. But if you want to learn what sort of body God formed us with at the beginning, let us go to Paradise and see the human that was created at the beginning”.11 That beginning includes the knowledge to distinguish good from evil. The soul has a “greater wisdom” than the body because it was designed for virtue.12 He preaches in In Rom. hom., 13, 2: “do you see how Paul shows that the knowledge of things that are good and of those that are not has been laid as a foundation in us from the beginning?”13 According to Chrysostom, this ability is demonstrated in Adam’s naming of the animals. That God asks Adam to name them and that Adam gets them all correct show with what great wisdom (“σοφία”) God has endowed Adam. Chrysostom preaches: “notice already in this case … his independence of decision and the eminence of his understanding, and do not say he did not know right from wrong”.14 Putting 11

De stat., 11, 2 (PG, 49, col. 121, my translation). “The soul possesses greater wisdom and can distinguish between what should be done and what should not be done. However, it lacks the strength to control the horse, namely, the body, as it wishes” (In Rom. hom., 13, 2 [PG, 60, col. 509; PAPAGEORGIOU, St. John Chrysostom. Homilies on Romans, p. 254]). See also In Gen. hom., 25, 5 (PG, 53, col. 225), where Chrysostom describes Adam as having from the beginning the “imprint of virtue” (“τῆς ἀρετῆς τοὺς χαρακτῆρας”). 13 In Rom. hom., 13, 2 (PG, 60, col. 510; PAPAGEORGIOU, St. John Chrysostom. Homilies on Romans, p. 255). 14 In Gen. hom., 14, 5 (PG, 53, col. 117; HILL, Saint John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, 1-17, p. 191). 12

126

SAMANTHA L. MILLER

the right names on things and not getting the sequence mixed up shows Adam to be full of intelligence and understanding, including the ability to know right from wrong. In addition to this, when preaching to his catechumens, Chrysostom asks, “Do you see why faith in Christ and the return to virtue are called a new creation?”15 Their baptism is a “return” (“ἐπάνοδος”) to virtue, which suggests that at one time people were virtuous but are no longer. Baptism must be a return to some other time or state of humanity, their prelapsarian existence, exemplified in Adam and Eve. The other thing Chrysostom says about the way humans were created is that they had an angelic life, modeled by Adam and Eve before the fall: “Like some angel, in fact, man lived this way on earth, wearing a body, yet being fortunately rid of any bodily needs; like a king adorned with scepter and crown and wearing his purple robe, he reveled in this life of freedom and great affluence in the garden”.16 Adam and Eve enjoyed a “life of freedom,” indicating that nothing tied them down. This is not unlike the corpse-like attitude Chrysostom refers to as a description of virtue. Though it does not make sense to speak of Adam and Eve as “corpse-like” before the fall, since they were not yet mortal, the primary feature of the corpse imagery is that the person remains unaffected by the things of this world. It is ultimately about attachments, and a corpse has no attachment to the world. Neither did Adam and Eve, who, according to Chrysostom, were free of bodily needs. Adam and Eve would have been free from worldly cares also, as Chrysostom says they “lived on earth as if they were in heaven”.17 Adam and Eve had bodies, but they “did not feel the limitations of their bodies,” like a corpse that has a body but is unaware of it.18 In another Genesis homily, commenting on whether Adam and Eve had intercourse, Chrysostom describes the prelapsarian life thus: Consummation of that intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes.19 15 Cat., 4, 16 (WENGER, Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites, p. 191; HARKINS, Baptismal Instructions, p. 72). 16 In Gen. hom., 13, 3 (PG, 53, col. 109, HILL, Saint John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, p. 177). See In Ps., 100, 4 (PG, 55, col. 634) for a similar description of Adam’s life in the garden. 17 In Gen. hom., 16, 1 (PG, 53, col. 126, HILL, Saint John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, p. 207). 18 Ibidem. This is not precisely the same, of course, since a corpse has no awareness of anything, whereas the angelic Adam and Eve were aware they had bodies but did not experience the limitations of such. The point of the corpse metaphor, however, is that the Christian keep herself from responding to worldly things, rather than be completely unaware of them, and the unresponsiveness is characteristic of the angelic life as Chrysostom describes it. 19 In Gen. hom., 15, 4 (PG, 53, col. 123; HILL, Saint John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, pp. 202-203).

THE EXEMPLARY ROLE OF ADAM AND EVE

127

Here Chrysostom adds to the description the lack of passions and humans as incorruptible. They lived so much “like angels” and detached from the affairs of this life that even clothes were unnecessary. Adam and Eve were free even in their “great affluence” (of the garden, not wealth), something Chrysostom encourages his congregants to be. Chrysostom’s description of the angelic life as one free of attachment to this world and free of its passions is similar to the description of virtue as the attitude of a corpse: unaffected by the world. That is, Adam and Eve had the detachment that Chrysostom elsewhere refers to as virtue. “Angelic” is also the same adjective Chrysostom uses to describe the virtuous life of monks when he encourages his congregation to emulate these mountaindwellers. Chrysostom says that the monks’ way of life “befits heaven”, and, “They have attained a state inferior in no way to that of angels”.20 Chrysostom urges his congregants to view the monks as exemplars, paragons of virtue they should imitate in the cities: If you did not know the dead through the Scriptures, you should have seen these living men. But is there no one to lead you? Come to me, and I will show you the dwellings of these holy ones; come and learn something useful from them…. For this reason they lived in solitude, that they might teach you to despise the clamor in the midst of the world.21

Chrysostom argues that what makes the monk’s way of life superior to others’ ways of life is their detachment from worldly, temporal things and their correlative focus on heavenly, eternal things, that heavenly orientation and scorn for the affairs of this world that Chrysostom calls virtue in In Gen. hom., 8, 6.22 Chrysostom’s comparisons in his Comparatio regis et monachi show the vast difference between the king’s attachment for the world and the way it weighs him down to keep him from ascending to higher matters over against the monk’s indifference to the things of this world. Chrysostom discusses the manner in which each figure passes the night. The king is oppressed Adv. opp. vit. mon, 3, 11 (PG, 47, col. 366, HUNTER, p. 147). Translations from both Adv. opp. vit. mon. and Comp. reg. et mon. are from D. HUNTER, A Comparison Between a King and a Monk/Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life: Two Treatises by John Chrysostom (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, 13), Lewiston, 1989. After Hunter’s translation and argument for Chrysostom’s authorship of Comp. reg. et mon., there has been discussion of the treatise’s authenticity. For an argument in favor, see S. BLACK, Paideia, Power and Episcopacy: John Chrysostom and the Formation of the Late Antique Bishop, Berkeley, 2005. In opposition, see S. VOICU, L’immagine di Crisostomo negli spuri, in M. WALLRAFF – R. BRÄNDLE (eds), Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahren: Facetten der Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 105), Berlin, 2008, pp. 61-96. 21 Hom Matt., 72, 4 (PG, 58, col. 672, my translation). 22 Comp. reg. et mon. is a comparison of the monk’s poverty and the king’s wealth that demonstrates the superiority of the monk’s poverty because wealth ensnares one in the cares of the world, whereas poverty frees one to “converse with the angels” (PG, 47, coll. 387-392). Adv. opp. vit. mon. are three treatises designed to demonstrate the superiority of the monastic way of life, and again, the key is the monks’ poverty, which facilitates the angelic life on earth. 20

128

SAMANTHA L. MILLER

by a deep sleep, snoring, passed out until well after the sun has risen, a kind of deadness to the world and a complete surrender to his creaturely limitations. By contrast, the monk is “adorned with the worship of God and with prayers, singing much earlier than the birds”.23 His sleep is light, barely necessary, and as a result, he spends the night “living with the angels, conversing with God, enjoying the goods of heaven”.24 The monks Chrysostom recommends to his congregants as models of virtue are referred to as living the “angelic” life or living on earth as already in heaven. Thus, when Chrysostom talks about the prelapsarian Adam and Eve as having an “angelic” existence, including the same kinds of details – lack of concern for bodily things and so on – he means they are virtuous and they are examples to emulate just like the monks in the mountains.25 3. ADAM AND EVE

AS

COUNTEREXAMPLES

So much for Adam and Eve as exemplars of virtue. When Adam and Eve sinned, they became counterexamples, or negative exemplars, and Chrysostom uses them thus. In truth, he uses them as counterexamples more often than as exemplars. After explaining the body Adam had in De stat., 11, Chrysostom explains that when Adam sinned, God, “chastening him through these acts, made him corruptible and mortal and bound him with many necessities”.26 Humans are now mortal. The reason for the change is that Adam deemed “a deceiving demon more worthy of credit than God who cared for him”, and, at this demon’s instigation, Adam believed he could be as a god. According to Chrysostom, God wanted to “eradicate this idea” and thus made the human body subject to suffering and disease “to persuade him by this that he should never imagine or dream such a thing”.27 Whereas the virtuous, angelic life 23 Comp. reg. et mon., 3 (PG, 47, col. 389; HUNTER, A Comparison Between a King And a Monk, 72). 24 Ibidem. 25 That God desires divinization for humans is a major argument in D. RYLAARSDAM, Divine Pedagogy. Every mention of aiming toward the angelic life is Chrysostom’s attempt to preach his congregation closer to that goal. Others have argued that Chrysostom’s exhortations to virtue are for the purpose of transforming the city of Antioch into a heavenly “πολιτεία”: see M. M. MITCHELL, John Chrysostom, in J. P. GREENMAN – T. LARSEN – S. R. SPENCER (eds), The Sermon on the Mount through the Centuries, Grand Rapids (MI), 2007, pp. 19-42; A. M. HARTNEY, John Chrysostom and the Transformation of the City, London, 2004; J. L. MAXWELL, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and His Congregation in Antioch, Cambridge, 2006. For a discussion on the way Chrysostom uses demonological discourse in his attempt to Christianize the city, see D. S. KALLERES, City of Demons: Violence, Ritual, and Christian Power in Late Antiquity, Berkeley, 2015. 26 De stat., 11, 2 (PG, 49, col. 121, my translation). 27 De stat., 11, 2 (PG, 49, col. 121, my translation). Note how important it is for Chrysostom that Adam have the right understanding, or the right frame of mind, in order to live the way God intends. This is a theme we will explore below.

THE EXEMPLARY ROLE OF ADAM AND EVE

129

included a body free of concern, the life that gives into demons and walks away from God results in a mortal body that must be attended to.28 Along with an awareness of the body, Chrysostom discusses in In Rom. hom., 11 how the passions entered human beings when Adam sinned. Chrysostom writes: After Adam’s sin brought death, a great swarm of passions entered into man. And for this reason he was not very nimble in the race for virtue. Neither was the Spirit yet present to help, nor was baptism, which could deaden these passions. Man was like a resistant and ill-bridled horse that ran but often went astray.29

Post-lapsarian Adam is “not very nimble in the race for virtue,” in contrast to the prelapsarian Adam, who was living that angelic life on earth as in heaven. Now Adam is the example – and cause – of humans who fumble about with regard to virtue rather than pursuing it at a sprint. Indeed, Adam is aware of his bodily needs and affected by passions and worldly affairs, not detached and corpse-like at all, and thus not meeting Chrysostom’s description of virtue. The faculty of wisdom was not corrupted by the fall of Adam; the soul still knows good from evil, but in the fall the body became incorrigible. Thus the difficulty in being virtuous. This is an important point, for when describing wisdom, Chrysostom says the reason God made sure we knew Adam was given this intelligence was so we would also know his sin did not come out of ignorance. Chrysostom preaches in In Gen. hom., 16, 6: “[Adam] knew quite well. It was, after all, on that account that God from the outset equipped this creature with independence: if this had not been the case, he ought not have been punished when he broke the command nor considered worthy of praise for keeping it”.30 Had Adam transgressed God’s commandment out of ignorance, there could have been no punishment. Since he had wisdom, however, the sin was due to sloth and thus Adam is responsible.31 Adam is an example of sloth and of responsibility for sin.

28 Even the expulsion from paradise is an example, although it is an example of God’s lovingkindness. When discussing later episodes in Genesis, Chrysostom refers to Adam as the prototype for whatever aspect of the story he is explaining. For an example, see his discussion on the punishment for the Tower of Babel: In Gen. hom., 30, 4 (PG, 53, col. 278). See also In Gen. hom., 27, 4 (PG, 53, coll. 244-245) on the covenant with Noah. 29 In Rom. hom., 11, 3 (PG, 60, coll. 487-488; PAPAGEORGIOU, St. John Chrysostom. Homilies on Romans, p. 207). 30 In Gen. hom., 16, 6 (PG, 53, col. 132; HILL, Saint John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, p. 218). Cf. In Gen. hom., 17, 4 (PG, 53, col. 139). 31 In Gen. hom., 14, 5 (PG, 53, col. 116; HILL, Saint John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, p. 190). See also De diab. tent., 2, 5 (A. PELEANU [ed.], Jean Chrysostome. Homélies sur l’impuissance du diable [SC, 560bis], Paris, 2013, p. 188); and Quod nem. laed., 4, 1 (MALINGREY, Lettre d’exil à Olympias et à tous les fidèles [Quod nemo laeditur], p. 74).

130

SAMANTHA L. MILLER

In addition to knowledge and responsibility, Chrysostom focuses on Adam and Eve’s giving in to the devil rather than listening to God when he narrates the fall: O woman, what have you done? You have not only followed that deadly counsel literally and trampled on the law imposed on you by God, spurning his instruction, … but you have also … put faith in the words of the serpent, you regarded its advice worthy of greater heed than the instruction given you by the Creator, and have been ensnared in such awful deception as to be incapable of any claim to excuse.32

And it wasn’t just Eve Chrysostom blames here: Great was the man’s indifference, too: … he should have kept God’s law intact and given it preference before her improper greed, and not joined her as a partner in her fall, … offending his benefactor who had also shown him so much loving kindness and had regaled him with a life so free of pain and relieved of all distress.33

Adam and Eve had lives “free of pain and relieved of all distress”, but they chose to put the devil’s word before God’s. This is the sin for which Chrysostom holds them most accountable: knowing better, they gave into the devil’s deception and chose disobedience. I noted earlier that Chrysostom’s use of Job as an exemplar often focuses on Job’s resistance to the devil. Regardless of the disasters or temptations the devil tries in order to provoke Job to curse God, Job resists. Job never loses sight of God or God’s goodness and thus defeats the devil. For contrast, Chrysostom often juxtaposes Job with Adam and Eve. The latter are Chrysostom’s negative example or antitype of a virtuous human, especially with regard to interactions with the devil. Chrysostom criticizes Eve for allowing herself to be deceived by the devil and scolds Adam for his failure to follow the commandment God gave him. After comparing the two stories, Chrysostom preaches: Nowhere [for Adam] was there labor or bodily pain, neither despair nor cares, no reproaches, insults, or the myriad evils which fell upon Job. But when nothing like this existed, he fell and was overthrown. Is it not clear that it was because of laziness? Just as therefore [Job], being oppressed and weighed down by all these things, stood nobly and did not fall, is it not clear that this was because of his vigilance of soul (“νῆψιν ψυχῆς”)?34

Continual resistance of the devil and obedience to God are key components of virtue. Adam apparently did not possess either, though everything was in his 32 In Gen hom., 16, 4 (PG, 53, col. 130; HILL, Saint John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, p. 214). 33 In Gen. hom., 16, 4 (PG, 53, col. 130-131; HILL, Saint John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, pp. 215-216). Cf. Exp. in Ps., 6, 2 (PG, 55, col. 73). 34 De diab. tent., 2, 4 (PELEANU, Homélies sur l’impuissance du diable, p. 188, my translation). See also De stat., 4, 5 (PG, 49, col. 66); De paen. hom., 9, 1 (PG, 49, col. 344); Quod nem. laed., 4 (MALINGREY, Lettre d’exil à Olympias et à tous les fidèles [Quod nemo laeditur], p. 74); In Matt. hom., 13, 1 (PG, 57, col. 209); and In 2 Cor. hom., 9, 6 (PG, 61, col. 402).

THE EXEMPLARY ROLE OF ADAM AND EVE

131

favor, already living the angelic life when he disobeyed God because he listened to the devil. In De diab. tent. Chrysostom offers Adam and Job as examples of two types of diabolical attack: word and deed. Adam and Eve are the negative example, Job the positive. Chrysostom writes: [The devil] attacked Adam with mere words, but Job even with deeds. For the one he stripped of all his wealth and robbed of his children. But from this man he did not take away anything either little or great. But rather let us examine the very words and the method of the attack.35

Chrysostom continues to retell the story of Genesis 3 with commentary. Regarding the serpent’s question to Eve, Chrysostom says, “See the wickedness of the Devil… . Exciting the woman with mere words and puffing her up with empty hopes, he thus deceived her”.36 The devil’s attack on Eve was by word alone. The devil presented the fruit from which God had told Eve not to eat as something desirable. More than this, the devil claimed that what God had told Eve about the fruit was wrong. It would not cause her death. This is Chrysostom’s negative example: Eve should have recognized the devil’s words as a deception and refused to be deceived, just as the congregants ought to be vigilant, recognize the devil’s deceptions, and refuse to be fooled.37 Adam and Eve become the counterexample of virtue – those who are ensnared in the devil’s deception and do not remain obedient to God, affected by the world, no longer detached, and forfeiting the angelic life. 4. RESPONSIBILITY FOR VIRTUE AND SALVATION That the prelapsarian Adam and Eve are positive examples suggests that this angelic life they lived is the one to emulate. That is, we are to aim at the virtue of the prelapsarian state, living lives detached from worldly concerns – having little thought for our bodies – and our minds on heavenly things. We see this in Chrysostom’s exhortations to be like the angelic monks and also in his urging 35 De diab. tent., 2, 3 (PELEANU, Homélies sur l’impuissance du diable, pp. 178-180, my translation). 36 De diab. tent., 2, 4 (PELEANU, Homélies sur l’impuissance du diable, p. 184, my translation). Chrysostom claims the serpent’s words and action as Satan’s deception, but he does not suggest that the serpent was possessed. Chrysostom says the serpent “was a mere serpent” (De diab. tent., 2, 4), suggesting that Chrysostom thought the serpent to be a form the devil took in that instance, though he is not clear enough to allow a decisive conclusion. 37 Chrysostom preaches: “Do you see how he uses the words like a bait to inject his poison? The woman should have been able from his very approach to recognize the extremity of his frenzy and the fact that he deliberately said what was not the case and made a pretense of care for them as part of his plan so as to be in a position to find out the instructions they had been given by God, and thus lead them to their downfall” (In Gen. hom., 16, 2 [PG, 53, col. 127, HILL, Saint John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, p. 210]).

132

SAMANTHA L. MILLER

the catechumens to return to virtue. That Chrysostom urges them indicates both that he believes they can return to virtue and that they should. Since they are catechumens, he cannot be referring to the virtue of their life; he must be referring to something else. Chrysostom tells the catechumens that the baptized live this angelic life, that baptism is the first step in the return to virtue: “Even if this man [newly baptized] will continue to walk the earth, he will have the same disposition as one who lives in heaven … and will no longer fear the plots of the wicked demon”.38 This life to which the Christian strives, the “same disposition as one who lives in heaven,” is similar language to what he uses for that prelapsarian angelic existence modeled in Adam and Eve. That life includes no fear of the devil, a component of resistance, which is virtue. That Adam and Eve did not remain in this virtuous life, and, in particular, that they sinned both in full knowledge and as a result of not resisting the devil Chrysostom means as a warning to his congregants. Knowing that Adam and Eve had all the knowledge of virtue and made a choice to sin implies that, for Chrysostom, they are responsible for their sin; they did not remain detached corpses with regard to the temptation and instead participated in it. Chrysostom even writes: “For Adam, having ‘προαίρεσις’, was lazy, as the end showed.”39 Otherwise their mortal punishment is incomprehensible. Chrysostom insists that we have the knowledge and choice as well; it was not lost in the fall but remains part of our creation and nature. That is, Chrysostom emphasizes Adam and Eve’s responsibility for sin in order to tell his congregation that they also are responsible for their sins and thus should not sin. Humans are responsible for their sin and also for their virtue, and it is important that they remain virtuous.40 The question here is whether Adam and Eve were somehow perfect in virtue and lost that state or whether they were somehow naturally virtuous, the answer to which has implications for whether Chrysostom believed humans could ever lose their virtue once attained. That Chrysostom ascribes knowledge of right and wrong to Adam and Eve and his subsequent emphasis on that knowledge, on their choice, and on their responsibility for their sin suggests that they were, in fact, virtuous. The emphasis on knowledge and choice further suggests that, even if this virtue is their created state, they had made choices to remain virtuous.41 Whether Adam and Eve were perfect in virtue is impossible to know. That they lost their virtue is clear for Chrysostom. 38 Cat., 4, 5 (WENGER, Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites, p. 185; HARKINS, Baptismal Instructions, pp. 67-68). 39 Ad Stag., 1, 5 (PG, 47, col. 435; my translation). 40 For a treatment of recompense as a theme in Chrysostom’s work, see C. CRÉPEY, La récompense, un thème majeur dans le discours pastoral de Jean Chrysostome, in Revue des sciences religieuses, 83 (2009), pp. 97-113. 41 Chrysostom often places choice and nature in opposition to say that things of nature cannot be punished or rewarded, which is why virtue and sin are choices rather than nature. If Adam and Eve were virtuous by nature, there would be nothing praiseworthy about it; they must have made

THE EXEMPLARY ROLE OF ADAM AND EVE

133

Chrysostom understands virtue to be dynamic rather than static. He encourages his congregation to be virtuous and recognizes that people change, which suggests that virtue is something one pursues, even when one is virtuous. Indeed, Chrysostom exhorts his audience to be virtuous in every sermon, whether he uses “ἀρετή” or tells people to give alms or to stop going to the races. Chrysostom’s understanding of virtue sees it as a continuous choice to be obedient to God and to resist the devil. This understanding leaves no room for the question “How much virtue is enough virtue to ‘not neglect salvation’?” There is no “enough”; one must continue to choose virtue over vice until the judgment, especially if the devil is still attacking with temptations and deceptions. Were it only about nature, rather than choice, virtue could be static. However, were it only about nature, Adam and Eve would not be responsible for sin. Choice, and particularly Chrysostom’s emphasis on it, implies that virtue is not static but dynamic and fully within the power of the human being. Since virtue is dynamic and since humans experienced the fall and no longer live in the same state as Adam, Adam’s original way of life is now for Chrysostom the orientation toward which Christians strive. Humans cannot of their own accord regain the prelapsarian nature – Chrysostom argues that Christ has a role in making virtue possible, though he is not always clear about the details of this role42 – but Chrysostom does encourage the audience to strive for the same orientation, or mindset, of the prelapsarian Adam. They ought to live as Adam lived, as an angel on earth. The key in all of this is choice. Choice is what distinguishes prelapsarian Adam and Eve from postlapsarian Adam and Eve and thus accounts for the difference in Chrysostom’s use as example or counterexample. They chose to

choices to be virtuous before making the choice to sin in eating the fruit. See De diab. tent., 1, 2; 2, 3; In Matt. hom., 59, 3; 79, 1; In Gen. hom., 24, 7; 29, 4; In Ioh. hom., 18, 4; In Rom. hom., 13, 3. 42 “A person’s willingness (“προθυμία”) is not enough, unless he receives the benefit of influence (“ῥοπή”) from above; and again we won’t gain any influence from above without a willingness… . For from these two things virtue is woven” (In Matt. hom., 82, 4 [PG, 58, col. 742, my translation]). In his catechetical homilies, Chrysostom also describes the Christian life as a fight with the devil, but in this fight, Christ is not only the judge but fights on the Christian’s side, helping him up when he slips: “But in our combat with the devil, Christ does not stand aloof but is wholly on our side… . He anointed us with the oil of gladness, but He bound the devil with fetters that cannot be broken to keep him shackled hand and foot for the combat. But if I happen to slip, He stretches out His hand, lifts me up from my fall, and sets me on my feet again” (Cat., 3, 8-9 [WENGER, Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites, pp. 155-156; HARKINS, Baptismal Instructions, p. 58]). See also Cat., 4, 14 (WENGER, Huit catéchèses baptismales inédites, p. 190). For an extensive treatment in secondary literature, see A. J. NAIDU, Transformed in Christ: Christology and the Christian Life in John Chrysostom (Princeton Theological Monograph Series), Eugene, OR, 2012. Chrysostom’s soteriology broadly is cooperative in nature, requiring both God’s work and our work. In preaching on Ephesians, Chrysostom writes: “Lest the greatness of the benefits raise you up, see how he brings you down: ‘By grace you have been saved,’ he says, ‘Through faith.’ Then, again, lest our ‘αὐτεξούσιος’ be ruined, he also adds our part in the work” (In Eph. hom., 4, 2 [PG, 62, col. 33, my translation]).

134

SAMANTHA L. MILLER

believe the devil, chose to do what was forbidden, chose sin. They had the knowledge of right and wrong, and they chose wrong. The congregants are thus urged to choose right since they have the example of Adam and Eve as well as many other exemplars, not only the inherent knowledge of virtue and vice that Adam and Eve were given. The tradition of using exemplars is that a figure is an example of a particular virtue.43 Among patristic authors, Joseph is often an exemplar of chastity, Abraham of faith, and Job of noble suffering. For Chrysostom, Adam and Eve are counter-exemplars of good choice and of resistance to the devil. This issue of choice is significant for Chrysostom, for only choices can be punished or rewarded.44 Coercion cannot have the same result. Chrysostom uses Adam and Eve as exemplars of choices for sin in his attempts to motivate his congregation to choose virtue. They have a choice, and God expects them to choose virtue. The question is why? Why does Chrysostom make this move and emphasize choice so much? In In Gen. hom., 8, 6 Chrysostom tells his congregants: “Let us not neglect our salvation, for nothing is as important as virtue”. 43 For pagan examples, see Virgil’s Aeneid, where Aeneas is the example of Roman virtue, and Seneca’s On Firmness, 2, 2: “In Cato the immortal gods had given to us a truer exemplar of the wise man than earlier ages had in Ulysses and Hercules,” and he goes on to explain why Cato is the truly wise man. For other Christian authors who appropriate this pagan rhetorical technique and use Biblical exemplars, see 1 Clement, 9-12; Methodius’s Symposium, 11; Athanasius’s Life of Antony; and Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses and Life of Macrina. Having studied rhetoric under Libanius, Chrysostom would have been familiar with the technique. For a discussion in secondary literature about the use of exemplars in education and public life, see C. SKIDMORE, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of Valerius Maximus, Exeter, 1996, pp. 3-21. 44 For more on the relationship between virtue, choice, demonology, self-determination, and salvation, see S. L. MILLER, No Sympathy for the Devil: The Significance of Demons in John Chrysostom’s Soteriology, Winsconsin, 2016. The discussion of virtue, choice, and self-determination in Chrysostom centers around the term “προαίρεσις”. Demetrius Trakatellis was among the first to note Chrysostom’s emphasis on “προαίρεσις” in an article on Chrysostom’s anthropology: D. TRAKATELLIS, Man Fallen and Restored, in the Teaching of St. John Chrysostom, in Sobornost, 4 (10) (1964), p. 573. Edward Nowak was another of the early scholars to explore this term in Chrysostom’s thought, noting Chrysostom’s frequent contrast of “προαίρεσις” with “φύσις” (E. NOWAK, Le Chrétien devant la souffrance: Étude sur la pensée de Jean Chrysostome, Paris, 1973, pp. 57-69. Christopher A. Hall, in his 1991 dissertation, a translation and interpretation of Chrysostom’s On Providence (Ad eos qui scand.), also explores Chrysostom’s use and understanding of “προαίρεσις”. Hall concludes that “προαίρεσις” is a key term and concept in Chrysostom’s anthropology and that it signifies the responsible faculty in humans (C. HALL, John Chrysostom’s On Providence: A Translation and Theological Interpretation, Madinson, 1991, pp. 16-47). Most recently, Adina Peleanu discusses the import of “προαίρεσις” for Chrysostom in her introduction to the critical edition of De diab. tent. (PELEANU, Homélies sur l’impuissance du diable, pp. 34-37). Against this narrative, Raymond Laird argues that those scholars who have found the key to Chrysostom’s anthropology in “προαίρεσις” – in particular, Nowak, Hall, and Trakatellis – have missed something vital. Laird argues that “γνώμη” is in fact the key term for Chrysostom, and that “mindset,” as he translates it, is the final locus of moral responsibility. For Laird, “γνώμη” controls “προαίρεσεις”: “What this study does do is move the concentration away from the ‘προαίρεσεις’ (moral choice) to the controlling and motivating faculty behind it, the ‘γνώμη’” (R. LAIRD, Mindset, Moral Choice and Sin in the Anthropology of John Chrysostom, Strathfield, NSW, 2012, p. 2).

THE EXEMPLARY ROLE OF ADAM AND EVE

135

The first sentence tells Chrysostom’s congregation that they have some measure of responsibility for their salvation. Not to neglect salvation means that a person must do everything within her power to gain salvation; “μὴ καταφρονῶμεν” is a verb of present action.45 What is important here is that the onus of action is on the audience.46 We must not neglect salvation. From the beginning of the passage there is something a person can (or must) do to be saved. The question is what that thing is, and the answer, according to the “γάρ” and the second clause, is virtue: “For nothing is as important as virtue”. Adam and Eve serve, then, not only as Chrysostom’s examples of the virtuous life and the negative examples of a life choosing sin and losing that virtuous life, but as an exhortation to choose to be virtuous for the sake of salvation itself.

45 I use the phrase “within her power” to evoke the echoes of “ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν” prominent in Stoic ethics. Further, “ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν” is one of the phrases Chrysostom uses to speak about the human contribution to salvation. This phrase “not neglect” (“μὴ καταφρονῶμεν”) can also suggest that salvation is something which has already occurred, something human beings have and must attend to continually in order that they not lose it. “Μὴ καταφρονῶμεν” need not have salvation as its object, and it is not a technical term. A search of the TLG reveals that Chrysostom uses the phrase and the word (“καταφρονῶμεν”) more frequently than any of his predecessors (54 times as opposed to Basil’s 2, Origen’s 2, and Nazianzus’s 2). Chrysostom occasionally uses it to exhort his congregants to attend to their salvation, as in this passage, but he uses “καταφρονῶμεν” just as often to exhort the audience to despise earthly pleasures, as in Adv. opp. vit. mon., 2, 3 (“ὅταν μὴ σώματος αὐτοῖς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπολλυμένης καταφρονῶμεν”). “Καταφρονῶμεν” is one of Chrysostom’s verbs of exhortation. The verb “καταφρονέω” appears ten times in the New Testament and 24 times in the Septuagint, but never in any technical sense. 46 The onus is also on the speaker, since he says “we,” not “you.”

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE: LE MOTIF DU SOIR ET DU MATIN DANS LES HOMÉLIES DE SÉVÉRIEN DE GABALA SUR LA GENÈSE (CPG 4194) Pierre MOLINIÉ, S.J.

La prédication de Jean Chrysostome se caractérise par le lien étroit entre l’explication de l’Écriture sainte et les préoccupations pastorales. Ainsi, ses commentaires bibliques se présentent souvent sous la forme d’homélies où la parénèse constitue une partie distincte et conséquente de l’ensemble.1 Face à l’opinion traditionnelle2 qui interprétait ce phénomène en termes de discontinuité, nous avons montré que les sections parénétiques pouvaient être vues, dans certains cas au moins, comme une forme d’actualisation du texte biblique: après le commentaire linéaire de quelques versets, Jean en fournit dans son exhortation l’application à des situations de la vie quotidienne. Parler d’«actualisation» à la suite de Laurence Brottier,3 ou de «retrieval» avec Frances M. Young,4 c’est affirmer d’une manière ou d’une autre que le texte sacré reprend vie: comme une pièce de théâtre n’existe que lorsqu’elle est jouée, comme un morceau de musique ne se révèle que lorsqu’il est interprété par un artiste, comme un texte de loi ne produit son effet que lorsqu’il est promulgué et appliqué, ainsi l’Écriture sainte, qui n’est pour Jean Chrysostome qu’un pâle reflet de la Parole vivante, ne déploie son potentiel salvifique que

1 Cette bipartition se retrouve dans la tradition manuscrite, qui identifie par le mot ethicon le démarrage de ces parénèses. Parfois, des sommaires d’ethica sont placés en tête d’une série, et certains manuscrits n’ont conservé que ces ethica, ainsi coupés du commentaire qui les précédait. La parénèse chrysostomienne se caractérise par le changement de thème (le passage du commentaire exégétique à une exhortation morale) et le changement de style (un discours qui se rapproche de la diatribe). 2 Le jugement d’O. RATHAI, quoique relatif aux homélies sur Matthieu, correspond à une opinion répandue: «La seconde partie de l’homélie fournit l’application pratique ou morale, qui prend souvent une très grande place – parfois presque la même que l’explication linéaire de l’Écriture. Elle ne se raccroche pas toujours non plus de manière très logique au texte biblique. C’est pourquoi cette partie parénétique des homélies intéresse moins les exégètes que la partie exégétique» (O. RATHAI, Johannes Chrysostomus als Exeget nach seinem Matthäus-Kommentar, dans Pastor Bonus, 30 [1917], p. 343). 3 L. BROTTIER, L’actualisation de la figure de Job chez Jean Chrysostome, dans J. DOIGNON, P. MARAVAL, D. DOUCET ET AL., Le Livre de Job chez les Pères (Cahiers de Biblia Patristica, 5), Strasbourg, 1996, pp. 63-110; EADEM, L’appel des «demi-chrétiens» à la «vie angélique»: Jean Chrysostome prédicateur entre idéal monastique et réalité mondaine, Paris, 2005, pp. 239-283. 4 F. M. YOUNG, John Chrysostom on First and Second Corinthians, dans Studia Patristica, 18 (1989), pp. 349-352; EADEM, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, Cambridge – New York, 1997, pp. 248-257.

138

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

lorsqu’elle fait l’objet d’une performance, d’un enactment, d’une réalisation – en un mot: d’une actualisation. L’effet est double: d’une part, le texte redevenu parole vient illuminer la vie du croyant; d’autre part, la parénèse vient éclairer d’une lumière nouvelle le texte biblique – elle remplit une fonction exégétique.5 Qu’en est-il chez Sévérien de Gabala? Cette question se dédouble: observet-on chez lui, non seulement un intérêt pour les questions éthiques, mais des sections spécifiquement dédiées à cette dimension? Et si de telles sections existent, jouent-elles, comme on l’observe chez Jean Chrysostome, un rôle exégétique? La présente étude vise d’abord à rééquilibrer le jugement selon lequel la prédication de Sévérien serait déficiente sur le plan moral et parénétique, ensuite à rappeler que certaines de ses homélies (une minorité) contiennent une véritable section parénétique, enfin à démontrer que, dans le cas de la série Sur les six jours de la Création,6 les parénèses apportent un véritable plus à la démarche exégétique, car ce sont elles qui apportent l’explication d’un lemme systématiquement passé sous silence dans le commentaire linéaire. Dans cette perspective nous examinerons les six homélies Sur les six jours de la Création en les comparant à six autres homélies de Sévérien, pour y déterminer l’existence de sections parénétiques clairement identifiables (1). Nous exposerons ensuite le riche enseignement spirituel de cette série (2), avant d’étudier la portée de ces passages, apparemment tournés vers l’exhortation et la morale, pour l’interprétation du refrain qui rythme tout le récit de Gn 1: «Il y eut un soir, il y eut un matin. Ce fut le xème jour» (3). 1. DES SECTIONS PARÉNÉTIQUES AU

SEIN DE CERTAINES HOMÉLIES

La place de Sévérien était à l’ambon, et nous le plaçons au mieux dans le groupe des praticiens moyens qui ont interprété pour le peuple les décisions doctrinales des synodes et les idées des théologiens dominants, qui les ont popularisées à l’aide d’images et de comparaisons et les ont habilement soutenues et étayées par des passages bibliques.7

On reconnaît généralement que Sévérien est avant tout un dogmaticien, c’està-dire un prédicateur s’intéressant surtout aux questions de théologie dogmatique. Dans le meilleur des cas, on reconnaît en lui un dogmaticien et un exégète, à cause notamment du cycle Sur les six jours de la Création.8 De plus, ces qualités 5 P. MOLINIÉ, Jean Chrysostome exégète. Le commentaire homilétique de la Deuxième épître de Paul aux Corinthiens (OCA, 305), Rome, 2019, pp. 436-457; 621-659. 6 CPG 4194; PG, 56, coll. 429-500. 7 J. ZELLINGER, Studien zu Severian von Gabala (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 8), Münster i. W., 1926, p. 148. 8 ZELLINGER, Studien zu Severian von Gabala [voir note précédente], p. 8: «Dans les homélies sur l’Hexaemeron, en Sévérien c’est l’exégète qui parle, et le dogmaticien ne s’exprime qu’à

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

139

de théologien et d’exégète s’exercent au détriment des préoccupations morales.9 Sur ce point, Johannes Zellinger – qui voit par ailleurs en Sévérien «un Antiochien de stricte observance»10 – le compare à Jean Chrysostome: En pratique, l’exégèse scientifique et la valorisation homilétique de l’Écriture sainte n’étaient pas encore séparées l’une de l’autre, de sorte que c’était tantôt l’une, tantôt l’autre qui manquait de souffle. Malgré tout, les homélies de Sévérien accordent tout de même trop peu de place à l’éthique et à l’édification. Le sentiment religieux ne trouve absolument pas son compte chez cet homme sec et sans imagination. Alors que Chrysostome, dans ses homélies sur la Genèse, se montre tout entier prédicateur – au détriment de l’exégèse –, Sévérien est tout entier exégète et n’offre, au mieux, qu’une brève parénèse en guise d’épilogue qui n’a aucune continuité avec ce qui précède.11

Ces jugements sévères, prononcés au début du 20e siècle par un éminent spécialiste de Sévérien, n’ont pas été fondamentalement remis en question depuis lors. De nombreuses recherches continuent de préciser l’étendue du corpus et offrent de nouvelles éditions critiques,12 mais peu d’études sont consacrées au contenu des homélies. Certes, deux auteurs ont fourni d’importantes contributions sur la prédication de Sévérien: Karl-Heinz Uthemann et Judith Kecskeméti. Le premier s’est notamment intéressé à la «langue théologique» de l’évêque, c’est-à-dire aux théories du langage sur lesquelles reposaient ses options dogmatiques,13 ainsi qu’au style des homélies, mis en rapport avec le genre littéraire et oratoire de la diatribe.14 La seconde a également approfondi notre compréhension du style de Sévérien, en étudiant l’aspect dramatique ou

l’arrière-plan; en revanche toutes les autres prédications de l’évêque sont au service de l’homoousie du Logos proclamée à Nicée». 9 Ainsi, 60 ans après J. ZELLINGER, S. J. VOICU écrit: «La prédication morale de Sévérien est assez limitée; il donne souvent et explicitement la préférence aux questions théologiques, se contentant de temps à autre d’exhorter son public à pratiquer l’aumône» (S. J. VOICU, Sévérien de Gabala, dans DSp, 14 [1989], col. 760). 10 J. ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen, 7[1]), Münster i. W., 1916, p. 64; IDEM, Studien zu Severian von Gabala [voir note 7], p. 167. 11 ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala [voir note précédente], p. 64. 12 Voir la contribution de S. J. VOICU dans ce volume. 13 K. H. UTHEMANN, Die Sprachtheorie des Eunomios von Kyzikos und Severianos von Gabala. Theologie im Reflex kirchlicher Predigt, dans Studia Patristica, 24 (1993), pp. 336-344. 14 K. H. UTHEMANN, Forms of Communication in the Homilies of Severian of Gabala: A Contribution to the Reception of the Diatribe as a Method of Exposition, dans M. B. CUNNINGHAM – P. ALLEN (eds), Preacher and Audience. Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics (A New History of the Sermon, 1), Leiden – Boston – Köln, 1998, pp. 139-177. L’auteur précise sa conception de la diatribe dans les pp. 145-149; voir aussi IDEM, Diatribe [or. all. 1997], dans New Pauly, 4, Leiden – Boston, 2004, p. 366: «A diatribe is a popular-philosophical dialexis and not an original literary genre, but a ‘presentational style’, which could also be referred to as homilia or sermo».

140

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

théâtralisé des homélies.15 Dans les deux cas, toutefois, l’essentiel de la réflexion concerne le style. C’est particulièrement vrai chez Karl-Heinz Uthemann, qui découvre les spécificités des «homélies éthiques» et des «homélies contre les hérétiques»,16 mais surtout leur commun emprunt au genre de la diatribe, marqué par la familiarité affectée avec les auditeurs et la production d’un effet de dialogue.17 De son côté, Judith Kecskeméti accorde un développement aux stratégies du «prédicateur-exégète»,18 et en particulier à l’usage du «versetrefrain exégétique» chez Sévérien – un élément sur lequel nous reviendrons, car il joue un rôle important dans les homélies Sur les six jours de la Création. En revanche, pas plus que Karl-Heinz Uthemann, elle ne mentionne la structure globale des homélies, et la place propre qu’y occupe parfois la section parénétique. Cette première partie de notre étude aura donc pour objet de rappeler qu’il y a bien, dans certaines homélies de Sévérien, des parties spécifiquement parénétiques. Avant d’aborder le cycle sur le début de la Genèse,19 nous allons brièvement examiner six autres homélies, pour mesurer l’ampleur de ce phénomène.20 1.1. Les homélies De fide et lege naturae (CPG 4185) et De paenitentia (CPG 4186) On pourrait s’imaginer que les homélies éthiques sont un beau terrain pour trouver des parénèses. On pourrait au contraire considérer que, ces homélies étant entièrement consacrées à la morale, il est vain d’y rechercher des passages spécifiquement parénétiques. En réalité, les choses sont plus complexes: une homélie peut contenir un riche enseignement moral, et même faire de la morale 15 J. KECSKEMÉTI, Doctrine et drame dans la prédication grecque, dans Euphrosyne, 21 (1993), pp. 29-68; EADEM, Deux caractéristiques de la prédication chez les prédicateurs pseudochrysostomiens: la répétition et le discours fictif, dans Rhetorica, 14 (1996), pp. 15-36; EADEM, Une rhétorique au service de l’antijudaïsme: IVe siècle – VIIe siècle (Bibliothèque d’études juives, 26. Série histoire, 22), Paris, 2005. 16 Comme exemples de prédications «éthiques», l’auteur présente les homélies De fide et lege naturae (CPG 4185; PG, 48, coll. 1081-1088) et De paenitentia et compunctione (CPG 4186; PG, 49, coll. 323-336); comme exemples de prédications «contre les hérétiques», il cite les homélies In illud: Pone manum tuam (CPG 4198; PG, 56, coll. 553-564), In illud: In qua potestate haec facis (CPG 4193; PG, 56, coll. 411-428) et De serpente homilia (CPG 4196; PG, 56, coll. 499-516). 17 UTHEMANN, Forms of Communication [voir note 14], pp. 149-150. 18 KECSKEMÉTI, Une rhétorique au service de l’antijudaïsme [voir note 15], pp. 169-178. 19 Sur l’identification de ce cycle, voir ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala [voir note 10], pp. 9-10 et 39-54. 20 Les cinq homélies citées par UTHEMANN [voir note 16], ainsi que l’homélie De legislatore (CPG 4192; PG, 56, coll. 397-410). Nous n’avons pas poussé plus loin notre enquête, puisque ce sondage permettait déjà d’obtenir la réponse à notre question: y a-t-il, dans certains cas, des sections parénétiques dans les homélies de Sévérien?

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

141

son thème principal, tout en restant à un niveau théorique. Reprenons les deux exemples cités par Uthemann. Dans l’homélie De fide et lege, Uthemann distingue trois parties: la première constitue une exhortation à ne pas se contenter de pratiquer des œuvres bonnes, mais à leur associer une foi véritable, «l’œuvre de vérité»;21 la deuxième traite de la question «qu’est-ce qu’une œuvre bonne?», et la troisième de l’expulsion d’Adam et Ève hors du paradis.22 Or, il n’y a pas ici de partie plus théorique et de partie plus parénétique: chaque paragraphe de l’homélie relève à la fois de l’instruction et de l’exhortation. Sur le plan stylistique, les marques du dialogue fictif affleurent tout au long de l’homélie.23 Le discours, fait d’une alternance d’arguments et d’apostrophes, demeure dans le cadre du style diatribique décrit par Uthemann. Un seul élément tranche par rapport au reste du discours: le passage à une exhortation inclusive (à la première personne du pluriel).24 Cet élément marque parfois le début d’une parénèse;25 toutefois ce n’est pas le cas ici: on ne note aucune inflexion dans le discours, et Uthemann peut à bon droit associer cet hapax au «common we» du prédicateur soucieux de s’incorporer «dans la communauté des auditeurs, ses frères».26 Semblablement, l’homélie De paenitentia a pour thème la nécessité de répondre à la patience divine par une vie de conversion – et notamment par la pratique de l’aumône. Mais il s’agit avant tout d’une démonstration, appuyée sur de nombreux exemples scripturaires. Au cœur de l’homélie se déploie la figure de Rahab, image de l’Église. Les véritables exhortations y sont rares – du moins si l’on entend par là, non pas le simple impératif typique du style diatribique, mais les invitations précises adressées par le prédicateur à la communauté pour mettre en pratique tel ou tel point –: un appel à pratiquer la pénitence,27 un argument

21

De fide et lege, § 1 (PG, 48, col. 1081, l. 48). UTHEMANN, Forms of Communication [voir note 14], pp. 153-157. 23 Ainsi, dès le début de l’homélie: «Vois comment il appelle la foi une œuvre!» (col. 1081, l. 54: «Ὄρα πῶς τὴν πίστιν ἔργον ἐκάλεσεν»); «Et ne me dis pas que…» (col. 1082, l. 12: «Καὶ μή μοι λέγε»); «Veux-tu voir avec précision que les œuvres, sans la foi, ne vivifient pas?» (col. 1082, ll. 18-20: «Καὶ θέλεις ἰδεῖν ἀκριβῶς, ὅτι ἔργα ἄνευ πίστεως οὐ ζωοποιεῖ;»). 24 «Devenons donc, mes bien-aimés, des oliviers pleins de fruits, chargés d’œuvres, de fruits et de feuilles» (col. 1083, l. 52: «Γενώμεθα οὖν, ἀγαπητοί, ἐλαία κατάκαρπος, καὶ ἔργοις καὶ καρποῖς καὶ φύλλοις κομῶντες»). 25 Nous le verrons dans les exemples suivants. Sur l’exhortation inclusive comme marqueur de la parénèse chez Jean Chrysostome, voir MOLINIÉ, Jean Chrysostome exégète [voir note 5], pp. 168-170. 26 UTHEMANN, Forms of Communication [voir note 14], pp. 156-157; 165-166. 27 De paenitentia et compunctione, § 3-4 (PG, 49, coll. 327, l. 49 – 328, l. 32), passage qui commence par cette invitation: «Approchons-nous donc, mes frères, de la pénitence, qui est un remède en vue du salut; ou plutôt, recevons de Dieu la pénitence qui nous guérit» («Προσάγωμεν τοίνυν ἑαυτοῖς, ἀδελφοί, φάρμακον εἰς σωτηρίαν τὴν μετάνοιαν· μᾶλλον δὲ δεξώμεθα παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν μετάνοιαν ἰατρεύουσαν ἡμᾶς»). 22

142

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

a fortiori tirant la leçon de l’histoire de Rahab,28 une prière instante de se concilier le juge tant qu’il est encore temps.29 Notons que, lorsque de tels passages surgissent, ils s’étendent sur quelques lignes, et que le prédicateur revient ensuite à un discours argumentatif, sans marquer de rupture notable. 1.2. L’homélie De legislatore (CPG 4192) Après un exorde,30 cette homélie se présente comme le commentaire de deux textes lus durant la liturgie de la parole: l’évangile de la pêche miraculeuse (Lc, 5.1-11)31 et le psaume 97/96, 1.32 Jusque-là, Sévérien se contentait d’expliquer le texte biblique avec force citations de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament, quelques apostrophes et une certaine dose d’interprétation allégorique.33 La seconde moitié de l’homélie, en revanche, prend une autre tournure. Un premier départ parénétique est fourni lorsque l’enseignement proposé à propos des vêtements sacerdotaux se transforme en exhortation: «Il nous faut donc fleurir, de fleurs à la fois belles et complètes».34 Suit un passage dont le ton reste encore du côté de l’instruction, mais très vite Sévérien reprend: La pénitence est la racine de la piété. Convertissons-nous donc et fléchissons Dieu par la pénitence, afin qu’il mette fin aux guerres, qu’il apaise les barbares, qu’il brise les révoltes de nos ennemis, et qu’il nous donne la jouissance de tous les biens.35 28

De paenitentia et compunctione, § 5 (PG, 49, col. 331, ll. 32-38): «Combien plus recevronsnous le salut, si nous nous approchons de la pénitence? C’est maintenant le temps de la pénitence (…). Éteignons l’incendie de nos péchés, non avec de l’eau en abondance, mais par de simples larmes» («Πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς, ἐὰν προσάγωμεν τὴν μετάνοιαν, δεξόμεθα τὴν σωτηρίαν; Μετανοίας νῦν ὁ παρὼν καιρός […]. Σβέσωμεν τὴν πυρκαϊὰν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, οὐχ ὕδασι πολλοῖς, ἀλλὰ μικροῖς δάκρυσι»). 29  De paenitentia et compunctione, § 6 (PG, 49, col. 332, ll. 35-40): «Ici-bas, fléchissons donc le juge, et invoquons-le; ici-bas, supplions-le de toutes nos forces, et non avec nos biens; ou plutôt, s’il faut parler vrai, l’ami de l’humanité se laisse convaincre également par des biens, non qu’il les reçoive lui-même, mais à travers les pauvres. Donne tes biens au pauvre, et tu fléchis ton juge» («Ἐνταῦθα οὖν τὸν κριτὴν δυσωπήσωμεν, καὶ παρακαλέσωμεν· ἐνταῦθα παντὶ σθένει καθικετεύσωμεν ἀλλ’ οὐ χρήμασι· μᾶλλον δέ, εἰ χρὴ τἀληθῆ λέγειν, πείθεται καὶ χρήμασιν ὁ φιλάνθρωπος, οὐκ αὐτὸς δεχόμενος, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῶν πενήτων. Δὸς πενομένῳ χρήματα, καὶ τὸν κριτὴν ἐδυσώπησας»). 30 De legislatore, § 1 (PG, 56, coll. 397, l. 3 – 399, l. 7). 31  De legislatore, § 2-3 (PG, 56, coll. 399, l. 8 – 402, l. 21). 32 De legislatore, § 3-4 (PG, 56, coll. 402, l. 21 – 403, l. 21). 33 Ainsi, le filet est «l’image de l’enseignement évangélique du Sauveur» (col. 400, ll. 11-12: «εἰκών ἐστι τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος διδασκαλίας»); les vêtements du grand-prêtre représentent à la fois la chair du Christ et les vertus (coll. 403, l. 22 – 405, l. 25). 34 De legislatore, § 5 (PG, 56, col. 405, l. 26): «Δεῖ οὖν ἡμᾶς ἔχειν καὶ τὰ ἀνθοῦντα κάλλη καὶ τὰ πεπληρωμένα». 35 De legislatore, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 407, ll. 6-10): «Μετάνοια ῥίζα θεοσεβείας. Μετανοήσωμεν οὖν καὶ δυσωπήσωμεν τὸν Θεὸν τῇ μετανοίᾳ, ἵνα καὶ πολέμους ἀφανίσῃ, καὶ βαρβάρους σβέσῃ, καὶ τῶν ἐχθρῶν τὰς ἐπαναστάσεις θραύσῃ, καὶ δῴη ἡμῖν πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν».

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

143

À partir de là, se multiplient les appels à la prière, adressés tour à tour au «Seigneur des anges»,36 au Christ,37 à la vierge Marie38 et à tous les saints.39 L’homélie se termine par une invitation au jeûne, corporel mais surtout spirituel,40 conclue par une prière qui s’élargit aux souverains ainsi qu’au monde entier.41 Nous avons ici un exemple d’une pratique identique à celle de Jean Chrysostome: une première partie de l’homélie traite de thèmes exégétiques, fournis par l’occasion de la liturgie; la seconde partie, d’une taille presque aussi importante, est consacrée à des questions pratiques et à la mise en œuvre de la vie chrétienne. Entre les deux, nous avons repéré une sorte de premier départ et un second départ: le paragraphe situé entre les deux peut être qualifié de «paragraphe suture», puisqu’il constitue une transition entre la partie exégétique et la fin de l’homélie, franchement parénétique.42 1.3. Les homélies In illud: In qua potestate haec facis (CPG 4193) et De serpente (CPG 4196). Passons à deux homélies «contre les hérétiques». La première a pour point de départ l’évangile lu au cours de la liturgie: «Les grands prêtres et les anciens du peuple s’avancèrent vers lui pendant qu’il enseignait, et ils lui dirent: En vertu de quelle autorité fais-tu cela? Et qui t’a donné cette autorité?» (Mt, 21.23).43 Le début du discours commente effectivement ce texte; Sévérien en vient à la réponse de Jésus, qui refuse de se laisser enfermer dans la problématique de ses adversaires et leur répond par une autre question: «Moi aussi, je vais vous poser une question, une seule; si vous me répondez, je vous

36 De legislatore, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 407, ll. 41-42: «Παρακαλέσωμεν τὸν τῶν ἀγγέλων Δεσπότην»). 37 De legislatore, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 409, l. 7: «Τῷ Χριστῷ τοῦτο εἴπωμεν»). 38 De legislatore, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 409, ll. 30-32: «Ἔχομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς τὴν ἁγίαν Παρθένον καὶ Θεοτόκον Μαρίαμ πρεσβεύουσαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν»). 39 De legislatore, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 410, ll. 17-20: «Παρακαλέσωμεν τὴν ἁγίαν ἔνδοξον Παρθένον καὶ Θεοτόκον Μαρίαμ· παρακαλέσωμεν τοὺς ἁγίους καὶ ἐνδόξους ἀποστόλους· παρακαλέσωμεν τοὺς ἁγίους μάρτυρας»). 40 De legislatore, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 410, ll. 10-13): «Ne nous contentons pas de supplier, mais, si cela convient, jeûnons également. Il est préférable de pratiquer le jeûne au sujet des désirs, et non le jeûne qui suscite la faim; il est préférable de pratiquer le jeûne de la charité, et non le jeûne de la nécessité» («Μὴ μόνον ἱκετεύσωμεν, ἀλλ’, εἰ δοκεῖ, καὶ νηστεύσωμεν. Βέλτιον νηστεῦσαι νηστείαν πόθου, καὶ μὴ νηστείαν λιμοῦ· βέλτιον νηστεῦσαι νηστείαν ἀγάπης, καὶ μὴ νηστείαν ἀνάγκης»). 41 De legislatore, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 410, ll. 12-17). 42 Sur les différents types de suture (i.e. d’articulation entre les parties exégétiques et parénétiques) chez Jean Chrysostome, voir MOLINIÉ, Jean Chrysostome exégète [voir note 5], pp. 189-194. 43 «Προσῆλθον αὐτῷ διδάσκοντι οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ λέγοντες· ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιεῖς; καὶ τίς σοι ἔδωκεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην;»

144

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

dirai à mon tour en vertu de quelle autorité je fais cela» (Mt, 21.24).44 Pour l’évêque, il y a là une règle de conduite: Fais bien attention à ce passage: le Seigneur de toutes choses établit pour nous une règle et un principe d’enseignement. Lesquels? Il veut que, face aux questions des hérétiques de mauvaise foi, des Juifs, des Grecs, ou de tout autre qui se serait écarté de la piété, nous ne répondions pas complètement.45

Après un bref développement, Sévérien invite ses auditeurs à appliquer cette règle: Nous aussi, mes frères, il nous faut donc recevoir du Seigneur cette règle, et ne pas fournir aux questions des hérétiques une réponse complète. Lorsqu’un hérétique pose une question vicieuse, oppose-lui une question honnête, et débarrasse-toi de sa demande hors de propos.46

Mais Sévérien ne se contente pas de cette invitation: dans tout le reste de l’homélie, qui remplit quatorze colonnes de la PG, l’évêque met en pratique le principe ainsi relevé. Il l’illustre par les exemples de Moïse et de Paul, puis invoque l’autorité du roi David et même des anges;47 enfin il s’exerce lui-même à répondre aux objections d’un interlocuteur fictif.48 On peut décrire la dynamique de l’homélie de la manière suivante: d’abord, un bref exposé exégétique, suscité par la lecture liturgique; puis une longue application, qui recourt dans un premier temps à des illustrations bibliques, et dans un second temps à une actualisation dans le climat de la polémique contre les anoméens; enfin une brève exhortation conclusive qui fait alterner le «common we» du prédicateur49 et les injonctions formulées à la deuxième personne.50 L’homélie De serpente, prononcée le lendemain,51 présente un cas de figure intéressant: dans une première partie, Sévérien s’astreint à commenter les

44 «Ἐρωτήσω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ λόγον ἕνα, ὃν ἐὰν εἴπητέ μοι κἀγὼ ὑμῖν ἐρῶ ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ». 45 In illud: In qua potestate haec facis, § 2 (PG, 56, col. 414, ll. 10-15): «Ἐνταῦθα πρόσεχε, πῶς ὅρον ἡμῖν καὶ κανόνα διδασκαλίας ὑποτίθεται ὁ πάντων Κύριος. Τίς δὲ οὗτός ἐστι; Βούλεται ἡμᾶς ὤστε τοῖς πονηροῖς αἱρετικοῖς, Ἰουδαίοις ἢ Ἕλλησιν, ἣ ἑτέροις τισὶν ἀπεσχισμένοις τῆς εὐσεβείας, μὴ ἀποκρίνεσθαι πάντα πρὸς τὰς ἐρωτήσεις». 46 In illud: In qua potestate haec facis, § 2 (PG, 56, col. 415, ll. 4-8): «Δεῖ τοίνυν καὶ ἡμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, τοῦτον τὸν κανόνα παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου λαμβάνοντας, μὴ πάντα ταῖς ἐρωτήσεσι τῶν αἱρετικῶν διδόναι. Ὅταν κακῶς ἐρωτήσῃ αἱρετικός, ἀντερωτήσει δικαίᾳ λῦσον αὐτῷ τὴν ἄτοπον πεῦσιν». 47 In illud: In qua potestate haec facis, § 3 (PG, 56, coll. 416, l. 44 – 418, l. 29). 48 Voir le commentaire de UTHEMANN, Forms of Communication [voir note 14], pp. 168-169. 49 Voir ci-dessus, note 26. 50 In illud: In qua potestate haec facis, § 8 (PG, 56, col. 427, ll. 25-26: «Μὴ τοίνυν συκοφαντεῖτε τὰ μὴ λεγόμενα, ἀλλὰ στοιχεῖτε τοῖς κηρυττομένοις»; col. 427, ll. 47-48: «Μὴ τοίνυν, ἀδελφέ, μεθάρπαζε ῥήματα εἰς προσκόμματα»), et surtout la fin de l’homélie, ponctuée d’une série d’impératifs: Πιστεύετε, μὴ ἀντιλέγετε, μὴ παραγράφου, μὴ πολυπραγμόνει, μὴ ὑποβάλῃς, ἄκουε, φεῦγε, ἔχε, ἐπιγράφου, ἐξακολούθησον, ἄκουε, ἀκολούθει (col. 428, ll. 31-44). 51 Voir UTHEMANN, Forms of Communication [voir note 14], p. 169, note 59.

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

145

textes du jour (Mt, 20.18 et Ga, 3.1), et développe une réflexion sur le mystère de la Croix.52 Puis, il s’interrompt: Mais il manquait quelque chose à notre exercice d’hier concernant le verset Qu’ils te connaissent, toi, le seul vrai Dieu, et le Seigneur Jésus Christ (cf. Jn, 17.3): au sujet des mots le seul vrai Dieu, nous avons exposé les prophéties et les témoignages relatifs au Fils, qu’il est aussi seul et vrai; je pense qu’il est à présent nécessaire de scruter aussi le sens profond de ces paroles.53

Le reste de l’homélie reprend le fil de l’argumentation développée la veille. La structure globale de l’homélie est donc: un commentaire des textes proposés par la liturgie, qui occupe le premier tiers du discours (soit six colonnes de la PG), suivi d’un exposé consacré à un autre sujet, qui s’étend sur les douze colonnes restantes (soit le double de la première partie). Tout au long de l’homélie, on remarque des éléments d’exhortation ou d’édification;54 mais ceux-ci constituent des remarques ponctuelles, qui ne forment pas de parties distinctes et n’affectent pas le mouvement du discours. Seule la fin de l’homélie,55 qui traite de l’action de l’Esprit saint dans la vie du croyant, peut être vue comme légèrement autonome: elle constitue la conclusion d’un discours polémique sur la divinité de l’Esprit, mais elle revêt un caractère plus simple et plus spirituel que les paragraphes précédents. Pour autant, on ne saurait parler de parénèse, car le prédicateur se contente encore d’instruire d’un point de théologie spirituelle, sans inviter ses auditeurs à pratiquer un comportement concret. 1.4. L’homélie In illud: Pone manum tuam (CPG 4198) Cette dernière homélie, après un commentaire des textes du jour (extraits de Gn, 24 et Za, 4), reprend la polémique contre les anoméens. L’argumentation vise notamment à clarifier la juste interprétation de Ph, 2 et d’autres textes christologiques ou messianiques, mais elle accorde une large place au style dialogué: apostrophes, questions et exclamations alternent avec les objections de l’interlocuteur fictif.56 Néanmoins, on observe une évolution vers la fin de l’homélie: plusieurs exhortations inclusives y apparaissent,57 et Sévérien 52

De serpente, § 1-4 (PG, 56, coll. 499, l. 20 – 505, l. 11). De serpente, § 4 (PG, 56, col. 505, ll. 11-17): «Ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ τοῖς χθὲς ἡμῖν γεγυμνασμένοις ἔλειπέ τι πρὸς τὸ, Ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν καὶ Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν· καὶ πρὸς μὲν τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν ἀπεδείχθησαν αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ αἱ μαρτυρίαι τῷ Υἱῷ, ὅτι καὶ μόνος ἀληθινός· ἀναγκαῖον δὲ οἶμαι κἀκείνην ἐξετάσαι τῆς λέξεως τὴν θεωρίαν». 54 Par exemple l’invitation à s’élever spirituellement, à l’image du Christ élevé sur la Croix (De serpente, § 1; PG, 56, col. 501, ll. 9-17; et § 4; coll. 504, l. 61 – 505, l. 9), les considérations sur les rôles respectifs du prédicateur et des auditeurs (ibidem, § 7; col. 511, ll. 32-34) ou sur la grâce baptismale (ibidem, § 10; col. 514, ll. 26-51). 55 De serpente, § 10 (PG, 56, coll. 514, l. 51 – 516, l. 47). 56 Voir la description de UTHEMANN, Forms of Communication [voir note 14], pp. 164-167. 57 In illud: Pone manum tuam, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 562, ll. 9-10): «Défaisons-nous de toutes les confusions qu’engendre l’incrédulité, et recevons la foi sans confusion» («Περιέλωμεν 53

146

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

consacre son dernier développement à justifier qu’il traite de questions dogmatiques, et non de morale.58 On peut considérer que la dernière section de l’homélie se rapproche d’une exhortation: en tout cas, le débat ne tourne plus directement autour des questions dogmatiques, mais autour de l’attitude des fidèles et des hérétiques à l’égard des remontrances de l’évêque. Quel bilan dresser à partir de ces six homélies? Premièrement, la pratique de Sévérien n’est pas uniforme. Deuxièmement, les éléments relevant de l’édification ou de l’exhortation sont le plus souvent mêlés au reste du discours – l’exhortation se confondant généralement avec l’interpellation de l’auditeur, typique du style dialogué de la diatribe. Troisièmement, les homélies sont peu structurées: on n’y trouve pas toujours d’exorde ou de péroraison, et le style aussi bien que le contenu sont souvent stables tout au long d’une même homélie; les éléments d’argumentation, d’exégèse ou de controverse s’enchaînent, sans que l’on ait le sentiment que la nature du discours a changé. Quatrièmement, nonobstant le point précédent, certaines homélies présentent une structure relativement nette: l’homélie De legislatore offre une partie exégétique et une partie parénétique assez faciles à distinguer; l’homélie In illud: In qua potestate haec facis peut être divisée en une partie proprement exégétique conduisant à faire émerger une «règle», et une seconde partie qui est l’application de cette règle à différents contextes; l’homélie De serpente comprend deux parties exégétiques bien distinctes (celle qui commente les textes du jours, et celle qui reprend le thème de l’homélie de la veille). Cinquièmement, les éléments qui caractérisent la section parénétique chez Jean Chrysostome (changement thématique explicite, exhortation inclusive) affleurent de manière moins nette dans ces homélies: typiquement, l’homélie In illud: Pone manum tuam offre, dans sa dernière section, de tels éléments, mais sans produire l’impression décisive de la discontinuité. 1.5. Les homélies Sur les six jours de la Création On pourrait poursuivre l’étude des homélies de Sévérien, mais pour notre propos, ce sondage réalisé sur six homélies est suffisant: il permet de mesurer l’originalité des homélies consacrées par Sévérien au début de la Genèse. 59 πᾶσαν σύγχυσιν ἀπιστίας, καὶ δεξώμεθα τὴν ἀσύγχυτον πίστιν»); ibidem (col. 562, ll. 29-31): «Mais puissions-nous tous nous enfuir loin du joug du péché et du joug de l’hérésie, et posséder une foi inébranlable» («Ἀλλὰ γένοιτο ἡμᾶς πάντας ζυγὸν ἁμαρτίας καὶ ζυγὸν αἱρέσεως ἀποφυγόντας, ἔχειν τὴν πίστιν ἀκλινῆ»). 58 In illud: Pone manum tuam, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 562, ll. 32-35): «J’en ai entendu beaucoup s’exprimer ainsi: Pourquoi ne nous parle-t-il pas des questions de morale? Pourquoi ne traite-t-il pas des comportements et de la décence? Mais ils ne disent pas cela parce qu’ils en ont le désir: c’est parce qu’ils fuient le reproche» («Πολλῶν γὰρ ἤκουσα λεγόντων, ὅτι Διὰ τί μὴ τὰ ἠθικὰ ἡμῖν διαλέγεται; διὰ τί μὴ περὶ τρόπων καὶ κοσμιότητος; Οὐ τοῦτο δὲ ποθοῦντες λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἔλεγχον φεύγοντες»). 59 Comme les six précédentes, ces homélies appartiennent aux œuvres attribuées avec un haut degré de certitude à Sévérien. En revanche, il est difficile de se prononcer sur la date et sur le lieu

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

147

D’abord, parmi les homélies qui nous sont parvenues, ce sont les seules qui fournissent le commentaire continu d’une partie d’un livre biblique. Ensuite, quoique les auditeurs se soient eux-mêmes plaints du haut degré d’érudition déployé par l’évêque de Gabala,60 on y trouve un riche enseignement spirituel, sur lequel nous reviendrons dans la section suivante. Enfin et surtout, trois d’entre elles présentent une division entre commentaire et parénèse inhabituelle chez Sévérien – un trait que J. Zellinger relève sans lui accorder d’importance,61 et passé inaperçu depuis lors. Cette division se repère par l’abandon du commentaire de Gn, 1 et par l’inflexion du discours vers des thèmes d’exhortation, inflexion explicitement présentée comme telle par l’auteur. Dans l’homélie 1, le commentaire occupe sept colonnes de la PG, soit 75 % de l’homélie. Une césure apparaît nettement dans le paragraphe suivant, où l’emploi de la première personne du pluriel indique qu’il ne s’agit plus d’explication exégétique, mais d’application parénétique: Mais nous avons assez parlé du premier jour. Car le soir est venu, comme alors le premier soir, et nous avons exposé cela comme nous le pouvions, même si les pensées (de l’Écriture) étaient profondes. Il appartient aux fidèles de scruter maintenant les paroles prononcées, et de poursuivre l’exploration. Quant à nous (Ἡμεῖς δὲ), qui avons été nourris par le saint jeûne et qui, dans le manque de nourriture corporelle, goûtons aux délices du ciel, appliquons-nous (σπουδάσωμεν) à observer ce saint jeûne.62

La fin de l’homélie consiste en une exhortation sur le rapport entre le jeûne, pratique recommandée mais insuffisante, et la sainteté de la vie, qui seule peut donner au jeûne sa véritable valeur spirituelle – un thème déjà présent dans les citations bibliques qui émaillent le texte de Sévérien.63 Ce développement n’a où elles auraient pu être prononcées (voir ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala [voir note 10], pp. 9-10). 60 Homélie 5, § 1 (PG, 56, col. 471, ll. 35-38): «J’en ai entendu certains qui nous accusent en disant: quel besoin y avait-il de parler du feu et de l’eau, et que le feu crépite lorsque l’on jette de l’eau dessus? Nous, nous voulons apprendre la théologie, pas la physiologie!» («Ἤκουσά τινων ἐγκαλούντων, ὅτι τις χρεία ἦν εἰπεῖν περὶ πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος, ὅτι τρίζει τὸ πῦρ ὕδατος ἐπιβαλλομένου; Ἡμεῖς, φησὶ, φυσιολογίαν οὐ θέλομεν μανθάνειν, ἀλλὰ θεολογίαν»). Cf. Homélie 1, § 3 (PG, 56, col. 432, ll. 51-53): «Nous savons, frères, que ces recherches minutieuses paraissent difficiles à supporter pour les esprits de beaucoup» («Οἴδαμεν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι τὰ λεπτὰ ταῦτα ζητήματα δυσχερῆ φαίνεται ταῖς τῶν πολλῶν διανοίαις»). 61 ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala [voir note 10], p. 64, note 1, qui précise les limites de ces «brèves parénèses» et les décrit de la manière suivante: «Elles consistent, d’une manière typique de Sévérien, en un fouillis d’exhortations morales. Les homélies 2, 5 et 6 s’achèvent directement, sans épilogue éthique mais après un bref propos édifiant, par la doxologie habituelle». 62 Homélie 1, § 6-7 (PG, 56, col. 437, ll. 12-20): «Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα ἀρκούντως εἰς τὴν πρώτην ἡμέραν εἰρήσθω. Κατέλαβε γὰρ ἡ ἑσπέρα, ὥσπερ κἀκεῖ τὰ τῆς πρώτης ἡμέρας, καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν, εἰ καὶ βαθέα ἦν τὰ νοήματα, ὅμως ἐξεθέμεθα. Τῶν δὲ πιστῶν ἐστιν ἐρευνῆσαι τὰ λεχθέντα, καὶ ζητῆσαι τὴν ἱστορίαν. Ἡμεῖς δὲ νηστείας ὄντες ἁγίας θρέμματα, καὶ ἐν ἀτροφίᾳ σωμάτων τρυφήσαντες τὰ οὐράνια, σπουδάσωμεν τὴν νηστείαν ἁγίαν φυλάξαι». 63 Jl, 1.14; Za, 8.19; cf. Is, 58.3-6; Za, 7.1-14; Si, 34.31.

148

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

pas de rapport (direct) avec le texte commenté; en revanche, il paraît tout à fait pertinent dans le cadre d’une prédication de carême. Dans l’homélie 3, la répartition est moins nette. Le commentaire exégétique proprement dit (qui traite des versets Gn, 1.9-15) occupe quatre colonnes de la PG; puis Sévérien consacre un développement aussi long à plusieurs points de controverse contre les hérétiques. Une dernière partie est explicitement dédiée à une exhortation morale, introduite par les mots: «Mais il nous faut également traiter un point de morale».64 Cette parénèse ne représente que 9 % de l’homélie, mais la partie de controverse abordait déjà plusieurs éléments d’édification.65 Surtout, le thème de la parénèse est le sacrifice du soir, sur lequel nous reviendrons ci-dessous. Or ce thème apparaissait déjà dans la partie centrale de l’homélie. Celle-ci accorde donc, finalement, une large place à la formation spirituelle des fidèles. Dans l’homélie 4, enfin, la dynamique est semblable. Après un bref exorde, le commentaire des versets 1.20-26 occupe huit colonnes et demie de la PG. Le reste de l’homélie se répartit de manière équilibrée entre une polémique relative à la divinité du Fils et une parénèse, à nouveau clairement identifiable: On peut dire beaucoup de choses sur l’être humain, mais ce développement est réservé pour la suite, (lorsque nous aborderons) le sixième jour, où (l’être humain) a été modelé. Ainsi, avec le concours de la grâce de Dieu et selon nos forces, le discours atteindra une clarté parfaite, non à partir de nos propres raisonnements, mais à partir de ce qu’on nous a enseigné. Car la source est commune, et les dons qui nous sont présentés sont communs, si seulement nous voulons nous y appliquer avec tout notre cœur. À présent, tournons notre discours vers un autre sujet: la conduite morale.66

Cette parénèse traite différents thèmes: le sacrifice spirituel, l’appel à une vie vertueuse et la suprématie de celle-ci sur le jeûne. Mais à côté de ces thèmes qui apparaissaient déjà dans les homélies précédentes, un motif fait son apparition, sous la forme d’un «refrain»: l’éloge de la chasteté, «sœur du sacerdoce», par laquelle le fidèle offre à Dieu un sacrifice semblable à celui qu’offre le prêtre.67 Homélie 3, § 8 (PG, 56, col. 456, l. 7): «Ἀλλὰ δεῖ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἠθικὸν κινῆσαι λόγον». Sur le lever et le coucher des astres, figures de la résurrection (homélie 3, § 5; PG, 56, col. 453, ll. 31-53); sur la nuit et la mort, qui voilent la multiplicité des visages et des corps (ibidem, coll. 453, l. 53 – 454, l. 5); sur la puissance de Dieu, qui accomplit chaque jour des choses surprenantes dans le ciel et dans les océans (ibidem 3, § 6; PG, 56, coll. 454, l. 6 – 455, l. 32); ou encore sur l’action de grâce que devrait susciter, chez le fidèle, la considération de ces merveilles (ibidem, § 7; PG, 56, coll. 455, l. 33 – 456, l. 6). Nous développerons ces éléments ci-dessous, pp. 154-156. 66 Homélie 4, § 8 (PG, 56, col. 468, ll. 32-40): «Ἀλλ’ ἔνι περὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ εἰπεῖν· τηρεῖται δὲ τὸ διήγημα τῇ ἑξῆς ἐν τῇ ἕκτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ἐπλάσθη, ἵνα, τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτος συνεργούσης, ἐντελέστερον σαφηνισθῇ κατὰ δύναμιν τὴν ἡμετέραν ὁ λόγος· οὐκ ἐξ ὧν λογιζόμεθα, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ὧν παιδευόμεθα. Κοινὴ γὰρ ἡ πηγή, κοινὰ πάντα τὰ προκείμενα δῶρα, ἐὰν μόνον θέλωμεν ἡμεῖς μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας σπουδάζειν. Τρέψωμεν δὲ τὸν λόγον ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ἠθῶν ἐπιμέλειαν». 67 Voir ci-dessous, p. 159. 64

65

149

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

Ainsi, la série Sur les six jours de la Création fournit deux enseignements. Sur un plan formel, elle montre que le prédicateur pouvait adopter consciemment un découpage entre commentaire et parénèse, tel qu’on le trouve typiquement chez Jean Chrysostome.68 Sur le fond, elle présente un Sévérien attentif à la portée d’édification que peut receler le texte biblique; non seulement dans les sections explicitement parénétiques, mais aussi dans des passages marqués par la controverse doctrinale; déployant non seulement le thème du jeûne – appelé par le contexte liturgique –, mais aussi d’autres thèmes parénétiques. 2. L’ENSEIGNEMENT SPIRITUEL DE LA SÉRIE La présence d’un enseignement spirituel dans ce cycle homilétique ne doit pas nous surprendre: l’évêque affirme lui-même dès l’exorde de l’homélie 1 que l’unique objectif de l’Écriture sainte et de chacun de ses livres est l’édification des fidèles.69 Au-delà des quatre éléments brièvement mentionnés par J. Zellinger,70 on peut identifier un certain nombre de passages destinés à nourrir et édifier les fidèles. Notre visée étant la valeur exégétique de ces développements, nous nous contenterons dans cette partie de suivre un fil particulier, qui traverse les trois homélies contenant une parénèse: le motif du jour et de la nuit, que Sévérien met en lien avec le sacrifice du soir. 2.1. Une lecture spirituelle de Gn 1.5 (homélie 1) Dans cette homélie, le thème parénétique est lié au contexte liturgique (le carême) et traite donc du jeûne, indépendamment des sujets traités dans le commentaire. En revanche, la fin de celui-ci introduit plusieurs thèmes à la résonance spirituelle. Premièrement, l’homme est la lumière du monde. Cette 68

Le tableau montre la place occupée par la parénèse dans chacune des homélies de la série. Homélie 1 Homélie 2 Homélie 3 Homélie 4 Homélie 5 Homélie 6

Exorde

8%

Commentaire

75 %

Controverse Parénèse

17 %

Nb de colonnes (PG)

7,5

69

28 %

4%

2%

9%

9%

91 %

91 %

13

15

42 %

38 %

59 %

30 %

49 %

22 %

9%

17 %

10

14

8,5

Homélie 1, § 1 (PG, 56, col. 429, ll. 28-31): «Car tout (ce qu’il y a dans l’Écriture), c’est pour nous et à cause de nous, afin que, en nous hâtant de nous amender, nous soyons jugés dignes de recevoir la piété. Chaque livre saint, en effet, a pour raison d’être notre salut» («Πάντα γὰρ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς, ἵνα πρὸς διόρθωσιν δραμόντα τὰ ἡμέτερα τῆς εὐσεβείας καταξιωθῇ. Πᾶσα μὲν οὖν βίβλος ἁγία ἀφορμὴν ἔχει τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν»). 70 ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala [voir note 10], p. 65.

150

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

affirmation intervient dans l’explication du verset Gn 1.3a («Et Dieu dit: Que la lumière soit»), alors que rien dans le texte biblique n’évoque encore la création de l’être humain. Celle-ci s’appuie néanmoins sur des éléments scripturaires: d’abord, l’idée que le début et la fin du récit de la Création doivent se faire écho.71 Ensuite, une parole explicite du Christ à ses disciples.72 Un troisième élément est fourni par Sévérien lui-même: une réflexion sur l’intelligence de l’homme, qui transforme les matières fournies par la nature pour en tirer le pain, le vin, les vêtements, les pierres précieuses. Lumière, ici, rime avec science (ἐπιστήμη) et art (τέχνη): Comment l’être humain est-il lumière? Voici. La lumière est ce qui rend les choses visibles. Or l’être humain est la lumière du monde. À peine y est-il entré qu’il a fait briller à vos regards la lumière de l’art et la lumière de la science. La lumière nous révèle le blé, l’intelligence humaine en fait du pain; la lumière nous révèle le raisin, l’intelligence transforme le jus du raisin en vin; la lumière nous montre la laine, l’intelligence la transforme en vêtements; la lumière nous montre la montagne, l’intelligence en extrait le diamant.73

Deuxièmement, au soir de sa vie, l’être humain s’enfonce dans la mort, comme le soleil dans l’obscurité. Mais la lumière du monde ne saurait disparaître pour toujours: ce «coucher» (δύσις) prépare un nouvel avènement, le «lever de la résurrection». Pourquoi les appelle-t-il lumière? Ce n’est pas seulement pour leur faire honneur, c’est de plus pour fortifier l’espérance de la résurrection. De même que la lumière, en disparaissant le soir, ne s’évanouit pas, et qu’elle se montre de nouveau après avoir été quelque temps cachée; de même l’homme ne se couche dans le sépulcre, au soir de sa vie, que pour participer au grand bien de la résurrection.74

Troisièmement, les mots «jour» et «nuit» qui apparaissent en Gn, 1.5a («Dieu appela la lumière jour et la ténèbre il l’appela nuit») évoquent respectivement 71 Homélie 1, § 5 (PG, 56, col. 436, ll. 24-28): «Ensuite, puisque la lumière est la première œuvre de Dieu et l’être humain sa dernière, Dieu réalise d’abord la lumière par sa parole, et ensuite (il réalise) l’être humain par son œuvre, achevant (sa création) d’une lumière à une autre lumière» («Ἐπειδὴ πάλιν πρῶτον ἔργον Θεοῦ φῶς, τελευταῖον δὲ ἔργον Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος ἦν· πρῶτον ἐργάζεται Θεὸς λόγῳ τὸ φῶς, ὕστερον δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔργῳ, ἀπὸ φωτὸς εἰς φῶς συμπληρῶν»). 72 Mt, 5.14a: «Vous êtes la lumière du monde» («ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου»). 73 Homélie 1, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 436, ll. 29-36): «Καὶ πῶς φῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπος, ἄκουε. Τὸ φῶς δείκνυσι τὰ ὄντα· τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου ὁ ἄνθρωπος· εἰσελθὼν ἔδειξέ σοι φῶς τέχνης, φῶς ἐπιστήμης. Τὸ φῶς ἔδειξε σῖτον, ἡ σύνεσις ἐποίησεν ἄρτον· τὸ φῶς ἔδειξε τὸν βότρυν τῆς ἀμπέλου, τὸ φῶς τῆς συνέσεως ἔδειξε τὸν οἶνον τὸν ἐν τῷ βότρυϊ· τὸ φῶς ἔδειξε τὸ ἔριον, τὸ φῶς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔδειξεν ἱμάτιον· τὸ φῶς ἔδειξεν ὅρος, τὸ φῶς τῆς συνέσεως ἔδειξε λατομίαν». 74 Homélie 1, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 436, ll. 38-45): «Διατί καλεῖ αὐτοὺς φῶς; Οὐχ ἵνα αὐτοὺς τιμήσῃ μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἵνα καὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς ἀναστάσεως δείξῃ. Ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ φῶς ἑσπέρας δῦνον οὐκ ἀπόλλυται, ἀλλὰ κρύπτεται, καὶ κρυβόμενον πάλιν φαίνεται· οὕτως καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὡς εἰς δύσιν τινὰ τῷ τάφῳ παραπεμφθεὶς, πάλιν τῇ ἀνατολῇ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τετήρηται».

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

151

la gaieté et la tristesse. En effet, Sévérien relie ἡμέρα et ἥμερος, or le second «désigne tout ce qui est brillant et joyeux» (πᾶν φαιδρὸν καὶ ἱλαρόν).75 Le jour est donc le temps de la lumière et de la gaieté. Au contraire, la nuit évoque non seulement l’obscurité, mais aussi la mort.76 Pour cette raison – peut-on conjecturer, quoique Sévérien ne soit pas explicite à cet endroit –, la nuit est le temps des pleurs et de la componction,77 i.e. le moment où le croyant rentre en lui-même et se prépare à mourir. Quatrièmement, l’auteur ne se contente pas d’associer ainsi la nuit qui revient quotidiennement et la nuit (métaphorique) de la mort. Il achève en effet son commentaire par une formule ambiguë: «Mais nous avons assez parlé du premier jour. Car le soir est venu (Κατέλαβε γὰρ ἡ ἑσπέρα), comme alors le premier soir, et nous avons exposé cela comme nous le pouvions, même si les pensées étaient profondes».78 Ici, la situation présente du prédicateur et de ses auditeurs (la fin de la journée)79 fait écho au texte commenté (la fin du premier jour de la Création). La parénèse qui va suivre s’inscrit dès lors dans une double continuité: d’une part, puisque le commentaire est achevé, c’est le temps de l’exhortation; d’autre part, si la nuit est le temps de la componction et de la mortification, il est logique d’aborder maintenant la question du jeûne. Certes, parler du jeûne n’a rien d’original en temps de carême, et l’appel à vivre ce jeûne de manière intérieure constitue un motif parénétique classique.80 Deux éléments rappellent en revanche le commentaire qui précède: la création et la lumière. La création est évoquée à travers les mentions du ciel et de la terre, des anges et des brebis: autant d’éléments qui doivent être «sanctifiés», à l’instar du fidèle que le jeûne sanctifie.81 Implicitement, Sévérien suggère le parallèle entre la Création et la Rédemption82 ou plutôt la «sanctification» de

75

Homélie 1, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 436, l. 58). Homélie 1, § 6 (PG, 56, coll. 436, l. 62 – 437, l. 1): «Par le mot nuit, (Dieu) porte l’être humain endormi à se souvenir de la mort» («Νυκτὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον καθεύδοντα εἰς ὑπόμνησιν θανάτου φέρει»); cf. Homélie 3, § 5 (PG, 56, col. 453, l. 53), où le prédicateur s’écrie ironiquement: «La nuit n’est-elle pas l’image de la mort?» («Ἡ νὺξ οὐκ ἔστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θανάτου;»). 77 Homélie 1, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 437, l. 3): «La nuit, c’est la componction» («Ἡ γὰρ νὺξ κατανυγή ἐστιν»). 78 Homélie 1, § 6-7 (PG, 56, col. 437, ll. 12-15); voir ci-dessus, note 62. 79 Cf. ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala [voir note 10], p. 8. 80 La première partie de la parénèse commente l’expression «Sanctifiez-vous par le jeûne» (Jl, 1.14); la seconde dénonce le jeûne accompagné de comportements mauvais; la troisième affirme que manger relève des actes moralement neutres. Plus que d’une réflexion, il s’agit ici d’un enchaînement de citations bibliques – car ces thèmes se trouvent explicitement tout au long de l’Écriture. Ce thème apparaissait déjà dans l’homélie De legislatore [voir ci-dessus, note 40]. 81 Homélie 1, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 437, ll. 18-47). 82 Dans l’exorde de cette homélie, le prédicateur affirmait déjà que toute l’Écriture avait pour but le salut des croyants, et que le livre de la Genèse constituait «le principe, le fondement et la puissance» («ἀρχὴ καὶ πηγὴ καὶ δύναμις») de tous les autres livres (homélie 1, § 1; PG, 56, col. 429, ll. 21-33). Dans la parénèse, plus que de rédemption, il conviendrait de parler de sanctification. 76

152

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

l’univers entier. D’autre part, l’autel, le temple et ses parvis fournissent un arrière-plan au sacrifice spirituel que doit offrir le fidèle: jeûner, mais surtout se nourrir de la Parole divine constitue l’authentique offrande (θυσία) à laquelle il est invité.83 Se nourrir, c’est justement ce que l’assemblée vient de faire en profitant du commentaire de Sévérien. Elle est, pour reprendre une expression chère au prédicateur, éclairée et illuminée par la Parole.84 Ainsi le thème de la lumière peut-il resurgir à la fin de l’homélie: La lumière sensible a lui pour proclamer l’auteur de la lumière. Le soir est venu mettre un terme à la course du jour (κατέλαβεν ἡ ἑσπέρα σφραγίζουσα τῆς ἡμέρας τὸν δρόμον). Le commencement fut beau, qu’il en soit de même pour la fin. Ne repoussez pas la vérité, prêtez l’oreille à ce conseil de David: À la fin, ne détruis pas (Ps, 75/74.1). Que le Dieu de la lumière qui nous éclaire nous illumine par sa parole, sa loi, sa foi, par la justice et la chasteté; en Jésus-Christ notre Seigneur, par lequel et avec lequel gloire soit au Père et au Saint-Esprit, dans les siècles des siècles. Amen.85

Le soir était venu interrompre le récit de la Création (Gn, 1.5), et il était de ce fait venu suspendre le commentaire exégétique.86 Il vient finalement mettre un terme à la parénèse et, partant, à l’homélie. Le temps de l’assemblée liturgique coïncide alors avec le temps de la clarté et de la joie, tandis que le retour des fidèles chez eux est associé à un retour au temps des ténèbres et de la pénitence. L’expression «Le commencement fut beau; qu’il en soit de même pour la fin» se comprend alors soit de la série homilétique – ce qui irait avec 83 Homélie 1, § 7 (PG, 56, coll. 437-438), en particulier le passage suivant: «Il convient en outre de tourner le regard vers nos offrandes. La parole de Dieu, donc, se présente à nous comme une table pour l’âme. Un corps qui jeûne se sanctifie, mais une âme qui n’est pas nourrie se détruit. Que le corps s’abstienne des péchés, et que l’âme se délecte des enseignements divins» («Ἔτι ἄξιον ἐπιβλέψαι ἐπὶ τὰς θυσίας ἡμῶν. Πρόκειται οὖν τράπεζα ψυχῆς ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος. Σῶμα νηστεῦον ἁγιάζεται, ψυχὴ μὴ τρεφομένη φθείρεται. Γένοιτο δὲ τὸ μὲν σῶμα νηστεύειν ἀπὸ ἁμαρτημάτων, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ἐντρυφᾷν τοῖς θείοις δόγμασιν»). 84 Homélie 2, § 1 (PG, 56, col. 438, ll. 45-49): «La parole de Dieu réveille la soif de l’âme, et comme un flambeau elle l’entoure de joie, afin de rendre brillantes ses pensées et de faire resplendir son intelligence, de la purifier de ses péchés et d’illuminer ses réflexions» («Ψυχῆς πόθον ἐγείρει Θεοῦ λόγος, καὶ ὥσπερ τινὰ λαμπάδα περιτίθησιν αὐτῇ τὴν χαράν, ἵνα καὶ τοὺς λογισμοὺς λαμπρύνηται, καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν φαιδρύνηται, καὶ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καθαίρηται, καὶ τὰ νοήματα φωτίζηται»). 85 Homélie 1, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 438, ll. 31-40): «Ἀλλ’ ἐπέλαμψε τὸ αἰσθητὸν φῶς, ἵνα κηρυχθῇ ὁ τοῦ φωτὸς ἐργάτης. Κατέλαβεν ἡ ἑσπέρα σφραγίζουσα τῆς ἡμέρας τὸν δρόμον. Καλὴ ἡ ἀρχή, προστεθήτω τὸ τέλος. Μὴ ἀπώθει κακῶς, ἀλλ’ ἄκουε τοῦ Δαυΐδ· Εἰς τὸ τέλος, μὴ διαφθείρῃς. Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τοῦ φωτὸς τούτου πάντας ὑμᾶς φωτίσῃ λόγῳ, νόμῳ, πίστει, δικαιοσύνῃ, σωφροσύνῃ, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, δι’ οὗ καὶ μεθ’ οὗ τῷ Πατρὶ δόξα, ἅμα τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.» 86 Les quatre premières homélies sont à peu près découpées en fonction des six jours de la Création: l’homélie 1 correspond au premier jour, l’homélie 2 au deuxième jour, l’homélie 3 aux troisième et quatrième jours, et l’homélie 4 aux cinquième et sixième jours. L’homélie 5 reprend le récit de la création de l’homme, en associant Gn, 1.26 et Gn, 2; quant à l’homélie 6, elle est consacrée au récit de la chute (Gn, 3).

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

153

les autres marques d’auto-affirmation du prédicateur –, soit de la mort (τέλος), réelle ou figurée, qui attend les chrétiens retournés dans le monde. Dans cette homélie, le thème parénétique semble imposé par les circonstances (le jeûne et la piété véritable) et sans lien avec le texte commenté. Pourtant, le thème de la lumière et des ténèbres fournit, dès le commentaire exégétique, l’ouverture vers une lecture spirituelle de Gn, 1.3-5: l’homme, sommet et lumière de la Création, a pour mission de sanctifier toute celle-ci, par un geste d’offrande intérieure. Celle-ci se réalise à la fois par l’écoute de la Parole illuminatrice, et par la plongée dans la nuit du jeûne, du repentir et de la componction. Au passage, un lemme biblique a été oublié («Il y eut un soir, il y eut un matin: premier jour»). Semble s’y substituer une expression, «le soir est venu», qui est revenue deux fois dans cette homélie et que nous retrouverons dans l’homélie suivante. Or la répétition d’un verset biblique – ou d’une reformulation due à l’exégète – constitue l’un des traits propres de la pratique de Sévérien, que J. Kecskeméti nomme le «verset-refrain exégétique».87 Notre hypothèse est que l’expression κατέλαβεν ἡ ἑσπέρα, bien qu’elle ne soit pas biblique, constitue un tel refrain exégétique. 2.2. Le sacrifice du matin et celui du soir (homélie 3) L’homélie 3 reprend les thèmes développés dans l’homélie 1 et les approfondit. Cette homélie aborde en effet les versets 1.14-18, consacrés à la création des «deux luminaires» dans le ciel. Dans le commentaire exégétique, Sévérien reste cantonné dans des explications d’ordre physique, justifiant le jugement de J. Zellinger: On n’a pas tellement l’impression d’être placé dans une église et devant un prédicateur dont le but serait d’éveiller chez l’auditoire des décisions éthiques, mais bien plus dans une salle de conférence de physique. La chaire y est occupée par un mathématicien qui discute à fond des questions de cosmographie, sèchement, à force de cercles et de craie, en s’écartant continuellement de son sujet.88

Le rayonnement du soleil, les phases de la lune, le calcul des calendriers et l’inanité de l’astrologie sont ainsi abordés. Ce développement est interrompu lorsque Sévérien décide de remonter des créatures au Créateur, et de s’en prendre encore une fois aux anoméens.89 Mais lorsque le commentaire reprend, 87 Cf. KECSKEMÉTI, Une rhétorique au service de l’antijudaïsme [voir note 15], pp. 21-28; 170-172. L’auteure distingue un verset-refrain rhétorique (qui sert à capter l’attention de l’auditoire), un verset-refrain explicatif, qui permet d’éclairer un passage de l’Écriture par des vagues successives de commentaire, et enfin un verset-refrain exégétique, «répété par l’orateur afin que les auditeurs collaborent avec lui pour trouver le sens caché du verset» (p. 24). Ce dernier procédé «semble être un trait propre à l’œuvre de Sévérien de Gabala» (p. 170). 88 ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala [voir note 10], p. 64. 89 Cette argumentation, qui constitue le premier temps de la partie polémique (PG, 56, coll. 451, l. 21 – 452, l. 49), est scandée par deux apostrophes: «Ici aussi, (applique) ton intelligence. Quel est l’artisan de ces choses? Qui les a faites? Le Père? Nul ne le conteste. Le Fils? Même les

154

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

avec la question du mouvement du soleil, le ton a changé: le lever et le coucher du soleil, comme la croissance et la décroissance de la lune, évoquent en effet le devenir de l’humanité90 et en particulier la résurrection à venir.91 Les astres deviennent ceux qui «garantissent» (ἐγγυῶ) les biens à venir.92 La fin de l’homélie baigne dans une sorte de clair-obscur, et le mot soir en vient à cristalliser la situation paradoxale du croyant. D’abord, l’orateur met l’accent sur les prodiges accomplis par Dieu pendant que nous dormons: un homme qui s’endort le soir sous un ciel étoilé peut se réveiller en sursaut, et voir l’horizon rempli de nuages.93 Puis la lune, qualifiée de «flambeau du soir», reçoit une nouvelle fonction. À l’instar du soleil, elle suscite par sa clarté la louange des êtres humains envers le Dieu qui gouverne la nuit comme le jour: À la lumière du jour a succédé celle de la nuit. Le soleil brille, le flambeau (du soir) répand sa clarté; c’est la fin du jour et le début de la nuit. Quant à toi, lorsque tu vois (ce) flambeau et (ce) soleil, dis: À toi le jour, à toi aussi la nuit; tu as mis à leur place la lumière et le soleil (Ps, 74/73.16). Mais cette clarté n’interrompt pas

hérétiques en conviennent, mais pas comme il faudrait» (col. 451, ll. 21-25: «Λοιπὸν ὧδε τὸν νοῦν· Τίς ὁ τούτων τεχνίτης; τίς ταῦτα ἐποίησεν; ὁ Πατήρ; Οὐδεὶς ἀντιλέγει. Ὁ Υἱός; Καὶ αἱρετικοὶ συντίθενται μέν, οὐ καλῶς δέ»); et «Quel est le (Dieu) vivant? Celui qui a fait le ciel. Est-ce qu’elles tiennent encore, les définitions des hérétiques? Leur impiété ne s’écroule-telle pas? Leur (fausse) piété n’est-elle pas percée à jour? Leurs machinations coupables ne se dissipent-elles pas? Tu n’es pas capable de concevoir les œuvres du créateur, et tu te livres, à l’égard de l’artisan, aux investigations d’une indiscrète curiosité?» (col. 452, ll. 14-19: «Τίς ὁ ζῶν; Ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανόν. Μὴ ἑστήκασι τῶν αἱρετικῶν οἱ ὅροι; οὐ πίπτει αὐτῶν ἡ ἀσέβεια; οὐκ ἐλέγχεται ἡ θεοσέβεια; οὐ διαλύεται ἡ σκαιωρία; Τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ποιητοῦ καταλαβεῖν οὐκ ἰσχύεις, καὶ τὸν τεχνίτην περιεργάζῃ καὶ ἐξιχνεύσεις;»). 90 Homélie 3, § 5 (PG, 56, col. 453, ll. 36-40): «(La lune) devient l’image de nous, les êtres humains soumis à la mortalité. (…) Elle est l’image de nos propres corps» («Γίνεται δὲ καὶ εἰκὼν ἡμῶν τῶν θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων. [...] Εἰκών ἐστι τῶν ἡμετέρων σωμάτων»). 91 Homélie 3, § 5 (PG, 56, col. 453, ll. 40-45): «Elle naît, elle grandit, elle atteint sa plénitude, elle diminue, elle s’amoindrit et elle se couche; puisque nous aussi nous naissons, nous grandissons, nous atteignons notre plénitude, nous perdons notre vigueur, nous achevons notre course, nous vieillissons, nous mourons, nous nous couchons. Mais la lune naît de nouveau, puisque nous aussi nous devons ressusciter, et qu’il nous reste une autre vie» («Γεννᾶται, αὔξει, πληροῦται, ἐλαττοῦται, μειοῦται, δύνει· ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς γεννώμεθα, αὐξάνομεν, πληρούμεθα, παρακμάζομεν, λήγομεν, γηρῶμεν, ἀποθνήσκομεν, δύνομεν. Ἀλλὰ πάλιν γεννᾶται, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἡμεῖς μέλλομεν ἀνίστασθαι, καὶ μένει ἡμᾶς γέννησις ἄλλη»). 92 Homélie 3, § 5 (PG, 56, col. 453, ll. 48-53): «La lune (nous) garantit la résurrection. Vous me regardez me cacher et réapparaître, dit-elle, et vous renoncez à vos espérances? Le soleil n’existe-t-il pas à cause de nous? La lune n’existe-t-elle pas à cause de nous? Et tout ce qui existe? Car quelle est (la créature) qui ne garantit pas notre résurrection?» («Ἐγγυᾶται ἡ σελήνη τὴν ἀνάστασιν. Ἐμέ, φησί, βλέπετε κρυπτομένην, καὶ πάλιν φαινομένην, καὶ ἀπαγορεύετε ὑμῶν τὰς ἐλπίδας; Ὁ ἥλιος οὐ δι’ ἡμᾶς ἑγένετο; ἡ σελήνη οὐ δι’ ἡμᾶς; τὰ γενόμενα πάντα; Τί γὰρ οὐκ ἐγγυᾶται ἡμῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν;»). 93 Homélie 3, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 454, ll. 18-21): «Aujourd’hui, dans la soirée, nous laissons le ciel dégagé; et nous réveillant en sursaut, nous découvrons un autre firmament, composé de nuages» («Σήμερον καταλιμπάνομεν τὸν οὐρανὸν γυμνὸν ἀπὸ ἑσπέρας, καὶ ἀθρόον ἐγερθέντες, εὑρίσκομεν ἄλλο στερέωμα ἀπὸ τῶν νεφελῶν παγέν»).

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

155

notre discours. Il faut en effet que le soleil s’élance à son appel (…) afin de montrer que le Christ est le Maître de toutes les créatures.94

La prédication, qui est au service de la Parole divine, a quelque chose de solaire, pourrait-on dire: la force du Christ la pénètre, et lui permet de déborder sur l’espace normalement réservé aux ténèbres. Enfin, la parénèse proprement dite est consacrée à une réflexion sur le sacrifice du soir, auquel se réfère le psalmiste dans un verset spontanément invoqué par Sévérien: «Le soir est venu (κατέλαβεν ἑσπέρα) afin que nous disions: Que ma prière soit placée devant toi comme un encens et l’élévation de mes mains comme un sacrifice du soir (Ps, 141/140.2)».95 Le prédicateur s’interroge: pourquoi le sacrifice du soir, et non du matin? Il répond en mentionnant les deux sacrifices offerts chaque jour au Temple de Jérusalem, et leur sens: L’action de grâce du matin était pour la nuit, car celui qui a été préservé durant la nuit rend grâce le jour venu. Le sacrifice du soir était une action de grâce pour le jour: puisque tu m’as gardé durant le jour, dit-on, je te rends grâce pour toute la journée.96

Mais pour cela, il faut être resté pur: celui qui a passé la journée à faire le mal ne peut en toute honnêteté offrir le sacrifice du soir; pas plus que celui qui a péché durant la nuit ne peut présenter l’action de grâce matinale.97 Si la référence explicite est à la liturgie du Temple, le contexte immédiat est celui de la liturgie cathédrale: le Ps, 63/62 est chanté à l’office du matin et le Ps, 141/140 à l’office du soir, au moment précisément où l’on allume les lumières.98 94 Homélie 3, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 455, ll. 39-48): «Ἐπεισῆλθε τῷ τῆς ἡμέρας φωτὶ τὸ τῆς ἑσπέρας. Ἥλιος λάμπει, καὶ λύχνος δᾳδουχεῖ· ἡμέρας τέλος, καὶ νυκτὸς προοίμιον. Ἀλλὰ σύ, ὅταν ἴδῃς λύχνον καὶ ἥλιον, εἰπέ· Σή ἐστιν ἡ ἡμέρα, καὶ σή ἐστιν ἡ νύξ· σὺ κατηρτίσω φαῦσιν καὶ ἥλιον. Ἀλλ’ οὐ διακόπτει τὸν λόγον ἡ δᾳδουχία. Δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἥλιον δραμεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ κέλευσιν (…), ἵνα δειχθῇ, ὅτι Χριστὸς πάντων τῶν δημιουργημάτων Δεσπότης ἐστί». 95 Homélie 3, § 8 (PG, 56, col. 456, ll. 9-12): «Κατέλαβεν ἑσπέρα ἵνα λέγωμεν· Κατευθυνθήτω ἡ προσευχή μου ὡς θυμίαμα ἐνώπιόν σου, ἔπαρσις τῶν χειρῶν μου θυσία ἑσπερινή». 96 Homélie 3, § 8 (PG, 56, col. 456, ll. 17-21): «Ἡ ὀρθρινὴ εὐχαριστία ἦν ὑπὲρ τῆς νυκτός. Ὁ γὰρ διασωθεὶς τὴν νύκτα, εὐχαριστεῖ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. Ἡ ἑσπερινὴ θυσία εὐχαριστία ἦν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμέρας. Ἐπειδὴ διετήρησάς με, φησίν, ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, εὐχαριστῶ σοι ὑπὲρ ὅλης τῆς ἡμέρας». 97 Homélie 3, § 8 (PG, 56, col. 456, ll. 44-52): «Le soir exige de nous les œuvres du soir. Tu étends les mains, l’Artisan t’examine. Vient l’heure matinale, et si tu n’as pas la main ou la conscience pure, tu n’oses même pas regarder cette heure matinale; l’expérience nous l’enseigne. Lorsque quelqu’un demeure pur, considère comme il s’avance avec confiance, comme s’il arpentait la cour de sa propre maison. Ce qui lui donne confiance, en effet, en cette heure matinale, c’est la maîtrise de soi dont il a fait preuve durant la nuit» («Ἡ ἑσπέρα ἀπαιτεῖ ἡμᾶς τὰ τῆς ἑσπέρας ἔργα. Ἁπλοῖς τὰς χεῖρας· ἐρευνᾷ ὁ τεχνίτης. Ἔρχεται ὁ ἑωθινὸς καιρὸς, καὶ ἑὰν μὴ ἔχῃς καθαρὰν τὴν χεῖρα ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν, ἑωθινὸν καιρὸν οὔτε ἰδεῖν τολμᾷς· ἡ πεῖρα διδάσκαλος. Ἐννόησον ὅταν τις καθαρὸς διαμείνῃ, πῶς εἰσέρχεται διὰ παρρησίας, ὡς ἱδίαν αὐλὴν πατῶν. Παρρησίαν γὰρ αὐτῷ δίδωσιν ἐν τῷ ἑωθινῷ καιρῷ ἡ ἐν νυκτὶ σωφροσύνη»). 98 R. F. TAFT, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: the Origins of the Divine Office and its Meaning for Today, Collegeville (Minn.), 1985, pp. 31-56. L’auteur décrit avec précision le déroulement de l’office à Antioche (pp. 42-48), dont devait s’inspirer l’office cathédral à

156

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

L’exhortation est donc alimentée autant par le texte biblique que par le moment liturgique où prend place l’homélie.99 Dans cette brève parénèse, Sévérien a réintroduit son refrain exégétique «le soir est venu», qui évoque à la fois la fin du jour, la fin de l’homélie et la fin d’une étape dans le récit de la Création. De plus, l’évêque est revenu sur le thème de l’offrande, évoquée dans l’homélie 1. Mais ces deux éléments, alors à peine suggérés, sont ici développés et explicités à l’aide de la lecture du rituel juif et de sa reprise dans la liturgie chrétienne: les deux sacrifices quotidiens deviennent l’expression d’une nécessité de la vie spirituelle, à savoir l’action de grâce continuelle pour les bienfaits de Dieu. En retour, la dimension liturgique du récit de Gn, 1 est pleinement honorée: le rythme fourni par le texte biblique devient le rythme même de la vie. Le refrain «Dieu vit que cela était bon», qui n’est toujours pas cité ni commenté, trouve ainsi un nouvel écho: l’action de grâce du croyant, non pour la Création, mais pour les merveilles accomplies par Dieu dans sa propre vie.100 2.3. Un sacrifice spirituel: jeûne et tempérance (homélie 4) L’homélie 4 commente les cinquième et sixième jours de la Création, où Dieu crée successivement les animaux et le premier couple humain. À travers des images empruntées à l’univers familial, Sévérien souligne la profonde harmonie de cette Création et la sagesse du Dieu qui a créé chaque être au moment opportun. La métaphore principale est celle du maître de maison: La terre fut remplie, elle se garnissait de fruits, elle produisit les animaux; il ne manquait plus que le maître de maison; le ciel était délicatement apprêté, la terre s’était ornée de diverses couleurs, la mer était remplie, l’air était paré d’une foule d’oiseaux. Tout était prêt, et il manquait l’être humain. Mais ce n’est pas une insulte d’arriver en dernier, c’est plutôt un honneur: car on prépare la maison, et on y fait entrer le maître de maison. Dieu, en effet, ne fait rien à contre-temps ou Constantinople (pp. 50-51). Nous remercions le professeur Harald Buchinger, qui a attiré notre attention sur ce point. 99 Jean Chrysostome, en évoquant la liturgie des vêpres et spécialement le Ps, 141/140, offre des développements semblables à celui de Sévérien. On peut toutefois noter deux différences: d’abord, il considère la question «pourquoi le sacrifice du soir, et non du matin?» comme sans intérêt, et due à une curiosité indiscrète – tout au plus consent-il à répondre que le sacrifice du soir est plus complet que celui du matin (Homélie sur le Psaume 140, § 3; PG, 55, col. 431, ll. 23-31). Ensuite, il admet que le chrétien puisse pécher dans la journée, et fait de la récitation liturgique des psaumes une occasion de purification (ibidem, § 1; PG, 55, col. 427, ll. 40-47; Huit catéchèses baptismales [SC, 50bis], Paris, 1970, pp. 256-257; cf. TAFT, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West [voir note précédente], pp. 42-43). Au contraire, pour Sévérien, seul le juste peut prononcer de telles paroles (voir l’extrait cité ci-dessus, note 96, et toute la fin de l’homélie 3; PG, 56, col. 456, ll. 17-52). 100 Dans son commentaire de Gn, 3.8, qui développe également une réflexion théologique et spirituelle sur le «soir» (homélie 6, § 5-6; PG, 56, coll. 490, l. 49 – 491, l. 25), Sévérien semble en revanche ne tirer aucun profit des réflexions élaborées dans les homélies précédentes à ce sujet.

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

157

sans mesure, mais il fait tout en vue d’une certaine utilité. Et observe l’ordre: d’abord, Dieu a fait l’herbe et le fourrage, et ensuite les bêtes sauvages à nourrir. S’il n’y avait pas de nourriture, la création des animaux intervenait à contre-temps, car (ceux-ci) étaient condamnés au manque de fruits. Il a donc fait la nourriture, et alors il a produit les êtres à nourrir. Ainsi, il introduit d’abord ce qui sera utile, puis ceux qui en jouiront. (Dieu) agit de même avec les Écritures. En premier sont venues les Écritures qui annonçaient le Christ, et alors est venu celui à qui elles rendaient témoignage. Les témoignages sont venus en premier, pour que l’on croie à celui auquel ils rendaient témoignage. La Loi est venue en premier, pour annoncer le Législateur. Les prophètes sont venus en premier, pour être les interprètes de celui qu’ils prophétisaient.101

Dans ce passage, Sévérien mêle deux thèmes importants: d’abord, l’être humain en tant que couronnement de la Création et son ornement principal.102 Il est comme le maître de maison (οἰκοδεσπότης) créé en dernier lorsque tout est prêt pour l’accueillir.103 Ensuite, la providence divine, i.e. l’harmonie du dessein de Dieu qui se déploie comme il convient, chaque élément venant en son temps occuper la place qui l’attend. Cela concerne non seulement la création des plantes – précédant celle des animaux qui s’en nourriront104 – mais aussi 101 Homélie 4, § 5 (PG, 56, coll. 462, l. 44 – 463, l. 3): «Ἐπληρώθη ἡ γῆ, ἐκόμα τοῖς καρποῖς, προήνεγκε τὰ ζῶα· ἔλειπε λοιπὸν ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης· ὁ οὐρανὸς ἐκεκαλλώπιστο, ἡ γῆ ἐπεποίκιλτο, ἡ θάλασσα ἐπεπλήρωτο, ὁ ἀὴρ ὀρνίθων ἐκεκόσμητο πλήθει. Πάντα ἦν ἕτοιμα, καὶ ἔλειπεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος. Οὐχ ὑβρίζεται δὲ τῷ εἶναι τελευταῖος, ἀλλὰ τιμᾶται· παρασκευάζεται γὰρ ὁ οἶκος, καὶ εἰσάγεται ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης. Οὐδὲν γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς οὔτε ἀκαίρως, οὔτε ἀμέτρως ποιεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντα διὰ τὴν χρείαν. Καὶ βλέπε τὴν τάξιν. Πρῶτον ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς βοτάνην καὶ χόρτον, καὶ τότε τὰ θηρία τρεφόμενα. Καὶ εἰ οὐκ ἦν τὰ τρέφοντα, ἄκαιρος ἦν ἡ δημιουργία τῶν ζώων, ζημιουμένη τῶν καρπῶν τὴν ἔνδειαν. Ἐποίησε τὰ τρέφοντα, καὶ τότε τὰ τρεφόμενα προπαρασκευάζει· πρῶτον τὰς χρείας, καὶ οὕτως εἰσάγει τὰ τῆς χρείας μεθέξοντα. Οὔτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν Γραφῶν ἐποίησε. Προέλαβον τὸν Χριστὸν αἱ Γραφαὶ πρῶτον κηρύττουσαι, καὶ τότε ἦλθεν ὁ μαρτυρούμενος. Προέλαβον αἱ μαρτυρίαι, ἵνα πιστευθῇ ὁ μαρτυρούμενος. Προέλαβεν ὁ Νόμος, ἵνα κηρύξῃ τὸν Νομοθέτην. Προέλαβον προφῆται, ἵνα ἑρμηνεύσωσι τὸν προφητευόμενον». 102 Cf. Homélie 1, § 5-6 (PG, 56, col. 436, ll. 24-45); voir ci-dessus, notes 71-76. 103 Un développement semblable apparaissait déjà quelques pages plus haut dans la même homélie: «D’abord en effet, il prépare la nourriture; ensuite, il introduit ceux qui doivent jouir de cette nourriture, de même qu’il a fait avec l’être humain. D’abord il a achevé la maison; puis il y a introduit le maître de maison» (PG, 56, col. 460, ll. 38-42: «Πρῶτον γὰρ παρασκευάζει τὰς τροφάς· εἶθ’ οὕτως εἰσάγει τὰ τῆς τροφῆς ἀπολαύσοντα, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐποίησεν. Πρῶτον τὸν οἶκον ἀπήρτισε, καὶ οὕτω τὸν οἰκοδεσπότην εἰσήγαγεν»). Dans l’homélie 5, une autre image apparaît au sujet d’Adam introduit dans le paradis: «Lorsque l’on invite quelqu’un à un banquet, on prépare d’abord la maison, et alors on introduit l’invité; il en est de même ici aussi: (Dieu) a préparé (à Adam) le paradis, une habitation de qualité, et alors il y a introduit l’invité» (PG, 56, coll. 477, l. 60 – 478, l. 2: «Ὥσπερ ὁ καλῶν τινα εἰς ἑστίασιν, πρῶτον παρασκευάζει τὸν οἶκον, καὶ τότε εἰσάγει τὸν κεκλημένον· οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα· παρεσκεύασεν αὐτῷ ἐνδιαίτημα ἀξιοπρεπὲς τὸν παράδεισον, καὶ οὕτως εἰσήγαγε τὸν κεκλημένον»). Sur l’apparition tardive (et glorieuse) de l’homme, soulignée de Philon d’Alexandrie à Jean Chrysostome, voir Sermons sur la Genèse (SC, 433), Paris, 1998, p. 187, note 3. Dans le Sermon 4, Jean Chrysostome ajoute que cette intronisation advient sans que l’homme ait rien fait pour la mériter, par la seule grâce et la philanthropie divines (ibidem, p. 221). 104 Voir les citations précédentes.

158

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

l’organisation de la famille – conçue pour que s’y développent progressivement les éléments d’affection nécessaires.105 Mais cette harmonie est surtout à l’œuvre dans l’économie de la Révélation. L’Écriture, en effet, justifie l’autorité des prophètes avant de leur faire communiquer le message divin.106 Il en est de même pour la venue du Christ, annoncée avant que celui-ci ne paraisse.107 Par la même providence, les oracles qui prouvent l’Incarnation ne se trouvent pas chez les chrétiens eux-mêmes, mais chez les Juifs, i.e. dans l’Ancien Testament.108 Une dernière illustration: par le passé, Dieu a préservé le peuple juif non pas en raison de ses mérites, mais dans la prévision du peuple nouveau qui sortirait d’Israël.109 L’image qui ressort 105 Homélie 4, § 4 (PG, 56, coll. 461, l. 47 – 462, l. 6): dans ce passage, Sévérien montre comment Dieu a voulu que se bâtissent progressivement les relations familiales. Il décrit ainsi les étapes de la constitution d’un couple, et celles de la naissance d’un enfant: dans les deux cas, le temps est nécessaire non seulement pour que s’accomplissent les processus naturels, mais aussi pour que se construisent des relations d’affection mutuelles. 106 C’est ainsi que Moïse, avant de promulguer la Loi, commence par raconter la Création, légitimant ainsi l’autorité de celui qui l’avait envoyé: «S’il ne l’avait pas d’abord montré (agissant) comme créateur du monde, il n’aurait pas semblé digne de foi en tant que législateur du monde. En effet, donner des lois à des étrangers, c’est de la violence; alors qu’éduquer les siens, c’est logique. (…) Lorsqu’il eut dit que (Dieu) était l’Artisan et le Créateur, alors il l’introduisit comme maître et législateur universel» (homélie 1, § 2; PG, 56, col. 431, ll. 39-52: «Εἰ μὴ γὰρ πρῶτον ἔδειξεν αὐτὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦ κόσμου, οὐκ ἂν ἀξιόπιστος ἐδείχθη νομοθέτης τοῦ κόσμου. Τὸ γὰρ ἀλλοτρίοις νομοθετεῖν, βίας· τὸ δὲ τοὺς ἰδίους παιδεύειν, ἀκολουθίας. [...] Ὅτε εἶπεν αὐτὸν Ποιητὴν καὶ Δημιουργόν, τότε εἰσάγει αὐτὸν διδάσκαλον καὶ νομοθέτην τοῦ παντός»). 107 Homélie 4, § 5 (PG, 56, coll. 462, l. 58 – 463, l. 3), voir ci-dessus, n. 101. 108 Homélie 4, § 5 (PG, 56, col. 463, ll. 4-43): «Admire la sagesse de Dieu! Il n’a pas permis que les Écritures des prophètes soient seulement (conservées) dans l’Église, mais également chez les Juifs (…). Pourquoi donc a-t-il fait cela, et ne les leur a-t-il pas retirées? (…) Pour que notre proclamation soit au-dessus de tout soupçon» («Καὶ ὅρα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν σοφίαν. Τὰς Γραφὰς τῶν προφητῶν οὐ συνεχώρησεν ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ μόνον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς Ἰουδαίους [...]. Διατί οὖν τοῦτο πεποίηκε, καὶ μὴ ἔλαβεν αὐτὰς παρ’ αὐτῶν; [...] Ἵνα ἀνύποπτον ᾖ τὸ ἐμὸν κήρυγμα»). À quels passages de l’Ancien Testament Sévérien fait-il allusion? Dans ce passage, il se contente d’évoquer «que Moïse, Isaïe ou l’ensemble des autres prophètes ont parlé à propos du Christ et des événements qui devaient se produire au temps de sa venue» (col. 463, ll. 13-16: «ὅτι εἶπε Μωϋσῆς, ἢ εἶπεν ῾Ησαίας, ἢ εἶπε τὸ λοιπὸν τῶν προφητῶν τάγμα, περί τε Χριστοῦ, καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ γενησομένων»). Par la suite, l’évêque recourt aux témoignages de «Moïse» (Gn, 1.26: col. 463, ll. 46-7; Gn, 18.27: col. 464, ll. 26-27), d’Isaïe (Is 9.6: col. 465, ll. 29-34), de Daniel (Dn, 7.10: col. 464, ll. 18-20), de Job (Jb, 38.7: col. 465, ll. 8-9), des Psaumes (Ps, 8.5-6: col. 464, ll. 7-10; Ps, 104/103.4: col. 464, ll. 28-30)… 109 Homélie 4, § 8 (PG, 56, coll. 466, l. 56 – 467, l. 23), où Sévérien justifie l’absence de châtiment divin à l’égard des Juifs du passé: «Dieu ne voyait pas seulement l’extrême impiété des Juifs, mais également la piété des croyants qui viendraient après cela; il savait d’avance que devait sortir de la Judée la sainte Vierge mère de Dieu; il voyait par avance le chœur des apôtres, il voyait par avance les rangs des confesseurs et les myriades de Juifs destinés à croire. (…) Tandis qu’il observait Adam en train de pécher, il voyait également par avance les justes qui seraient issus de lui; il le regardait être expulsé du paradis, mais il voyait par avance qu’il lui préparerait un royaume» («Ὁ Θεὸς οὖν οὐ μόνον ἔβλεπε τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀκμάζουσαν ἀσέβειαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν μετὰ ταῦτα τῶν πιστῶν εὐσέβειαν· προῄδει ὅτι ἔμελλε προϊέναι ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἡ ἁγία θεοτόκος Παρθένος· προεώρα τὸν χορὸν τῶν ἀποστόλων, προέβλεπε τὰ τάγματα τῶν ὁμολογητῶν, τὰς μυριάδας τῶν Ἰουδαίων τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν. [...] Τὸν

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

159

de tout cela est celle d’un maître bienveillant, prévoyant et plein de sagesse, jusque dans sa façon de bénir non pas toutes les créatures, mais seulement celles qui sont destinées à grandir et à se multiplier.110 Ces considérations amèneraient tout naturellement une invitation à la louange. Pourtant, la parénèse ne se rattache pas au commentaire qui précède, mais elle reprend le fil de la parénèse de l’homélie 3, et particulièrement l’invitation du psalmiste à «élever les mains» vers Dieu.111 Cette image est à nouveau développée, mais le sacrifice du Temple est tiré dans un autre sens: les deux autels correspondent aux différents peuples qui constituent l’Église (les Grecs et les barbares)112 et les quatre éléments entrant dans la composition du parfum désignent quatre piliers de la vertu (la prière, le jeûne, l’aumône et la foi).113 Surtout, le sacerdoce est remplacé par sa «sœur», la tempérance (σωφροσύνη).114 Plus largement, la pratique du jeûne est à nouveau évoquée et relativisée au profit des bonnes actions.115 Ἀδὰμ εἶδεν ἁμαρτάνοντα, προεώρα καὶ τοὺς ἐξ αὐτοῦ μέλλοντας δικαίους, ἔβλεπεν αὐτὸν ἐκβαλλόμενον τοῦ παραδείσου· ἀλλὰ προεώρα, ὅτι ἡτοίμασται αὐτῷ βασίλειον»). 110 Homélie 4, § 3 (PG, 56, col. 460, ll. 15-18): «Les astres n’avaient pas besoin d’une bénédiction, pour que celle-ci leur accorde la grâce de se multiplier. En revanche, les créatures du ciel et de la mer ainsi que l’être humain aspiraient à cette bénédiction, à cause de leur descendance à venir» («Οἱ ἀστέρες εὐλογίας οὐκ ἔχρῃζον· οὔτε γὰρ αὐτοῖς αὕτη τὸν πληθυσμὸν ἐχαρίζετο. Πετεινὰ δὲ καὶ νηκτὰ καὶ ἄνθρωπος τῆς εὐλογίας ταύτης ἐφίετο διὰ τὰς διαδοχάς»). 111 Ps, 141/140.2; cf. Homélie 3, § 8 (PG, 56, col. 456, ll. 7-62). 112 Homélie 4, § 9 (PG, 56, coll. 468, l. 54 – 469, l. 10): «Dieu ordonne à Moïse de faire l’autel situé à l’extérieur avec des pierres non taillées, et celui situé à l’intérieur de la tente avec de l’or ciselé. Il convient de rechercher ce que la grâce de Dieu entend signifier par ces deux autels: deux peuples au service de la gloire de Dieu, l’un ignorant et l’autre instruit. Celui dont le langage est incorrect et barbare, ses paroles sont des pierres non taillées; et pourtant elles participent à (la construction de) l’autel. Quant à la pierre précieuse, elle est nommée or ciselé; et l’un n’est pas exalté ni l’autre rejeté. Ici, en effet, il y a un autel de Dieu, et là aussi, un autel de Dieu» («Καὶ τὸν μὲν ἔξω βωμὸν κελεύει ὁ Θεὸς τῷ Μωϋσεῖ ἐκ λίθων ἀπελεκήτων ποιῆσαι· τὸν δὲ ἔνδον ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ, ἐκ χρυσίου τετορνευμένου. Τί αἰνίττεται ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ χάρις διὰ τούτων, ἀναγκαῖον ζητῆσαι. Δύο λαοὺς ὑπηρετουμένους τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ δόξῃ, καὶ τὸν μὲν ἀπαίδευτον λαὸν, τὸν δὲ πεπαιδευμένον. Ὁ περὶ λέξιν σολοικίζων ἢ βαρβαρίζων, τοὺς λόγους ἔχει λίθους ἀπελεκήτους· ἀλλ’ ὅμως εἰς θυσιαστήριον προχωροῦνται. Πάλιν τετορνευμένος χρυσὸς ὁ ἔντιμος λέγεται λίθος· καὶ οὔτε οὗτος ὑπεραίρεται, οὔτε οὗτος ἐκβάλλεται. Καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ Θεοῦ θυσιαστήριον, καὶ ἐνταῦθα Θεοῦ θυσιαστήριον»). 113 Homélie 4, § 9 (PG, 56, col. 469, ll. 10-19): «Le parfum était composé de quatre éléments: storax, onyx, galbanum et pur encens. Donc, puisque le parfum est composé d’éléments différents, la vertu l’est aussi (…). Lorsque s’avance quelqu’un qui, avec la prière, possède le jeûne, l’aumône et la foi, il dit: que la vertu aux quatre formes soit semblable à cet encens qui s’élève devant toi» («Ἦν δὲ ἐκ τεσσάρων εἰδῶν συγκείμενον τὸ μύρον, στάκτης, ὄνυχος, χαλβάνης, λιβάνου. Ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ τὸ μύρον ἐκ διαφόρων σύγκειται, καὶ ἡ ἀρετὴ δὲ ἐκ διαφόρων […]. Ἐπειδὴ μετὰ τῆς εὐχῆς εἰσέρχεταί τις νηστείαν ἔχων, ἐλεημοσύνην, πίστιν, ἀπεικασθήτω, φησὶν, ἡ τετραπλῆ ἀρετὴ ἐκείνῳ τῷ θυμιάματι τῷ ἐνώπιόν σου κατευθύνοντι»). 114 Homélie 4, § 9 (PG, 56, col. 469, ll. 26-28): «Possèdes-tu la tempérance? Tu es le frère du prêtre. (…) Ma tempérance est la sœur de ton sacerdoce» («Ἔχεις τὴν σωφροσύνην; Ἀδελφὸς εἶ τοῦ ἱερέως. […] Ἀδελφή ἐστιν ἡ ἐμὴ σωφροσύνη τῆς σῆς ἱερωσύνης»); cf. col. 469, ll. 41-42. 115 Homélie 4, § 9-10 (PG, 56, coll. 469, l. 54 – 471, l. 15); cf. Homélie 1, § 7 (PG, 56, coll. 437, l. 18 – 438, l. 40).

160

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

Ainsi, les motifs parénétiques de cette quatrième homélie rejoignent ceux de la première (jeûne et sainteté), en s’appuyant sur l’image biblique du sacrifice vespéral, développée dans la troisième homélie. Néanmoins, l’élément proprement exégétique de cette troisième homélie (qui résidait dans l’actualisation du rythme liturgique de la Création et dans la reprise des termes «jour», «nuit» et «soir») a disparu: ne restent que les éléments d’exhortation, dépourvus d’un lien substantiel au texte commenté. 3. UN REFRAIN EXÉGÉTIQUE AU SERVICE DE

LA THÉOLOGIE SPIRITUELLE

Cette étude nous a permis de mettre en évidence, dans le cycle Sur les six jours de la Création, la présence de parénèses explicitement présentées comme telles, et celle d’un enseignement spirituel consistant, qui se lit non seulement dans les parénèses mais également au fil du commentaire continu du texte biblique. Ces éléments rapprochent ce cycle de la pratique habituelle à Jean Chrysostome. Il nous reste à examiner un dernier élément, spécifiquement chrysostomien: la fonction exégétique de tels développements parénétiques. Autrement dit: ces enseignements sur l’être humain, sur le jour et la nuit, sur la lumière et les astres, enfin sur le sacrifice du soir, peuvent-ils être considérés comme une explication du texte biblique?116 3.1. Une omission surprenante Sur le plan de l’exégèse, un élément original dans le commentaire de Sévérien est l’absence, parmi les lemmes bibliques commentés, d’un refrain qui scande le premier récit de la Création: «Il y eut un soir, il y eut un matin. Ce fut le xème jour» (καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωὶ ἡμέρα μία).117 Cette omission répétée est surprenante pour deux raisons. D’abord parce que le commentaire de Sévérien est quasiment systématique: les autres lemmes passés sous silence sont presque tous de simples répétitions, ou bien les expressions «et Dieu fit» (καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς)118 ou «il en fut ainsi» (καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως),119 ou encore les actes de «séparer» (διαχωρίζω)120 et de «nommer» (καλῶ).121 116 Dans cette dernière partie, nous reprendrons les éléments exposés ci-dessus, en les organisant de manière synthétique. Nous nous contenterons donc d’indiquer en note les passages de Sévérien auxquels nous nous référons, et de renvoyer aux citations effectuées plus haut dans l’article. 117 Ce refrain apparaît à la fin de chacune des six journées de la Création: Gn, 1.5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31. 118 Gn, 1. 7, 24. 119 Gn, 1. 6, 9, 20, 24. 120 Gn, 1. 4, 7. 121 Gn, 1. 8, 10.

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

161

Sévérien laisse également de côté le refrain «Et Dieu vit que cela était bon» (καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν)122 dans les premières homélies, mais il traite globalement ces versets dans l’homélie 4 à l’occasion du commentaire du verset 21.123 En revanche, le refrain «Il y eut un soir…» est systématiquement oublié.124 122

Gn, 1. 4, 8, 10, 12, 18. Homélie 4, § 2 (PG, 56, col. 459, ll. 46-58): «Et Dieu vit que toutes ces choses étaient bonnes (Gn, 1.21). Pourquoi a-t-il dit: bonnes? N’est-ce pas du fait de leur nombre important, que cela était bon? Mais lorsqu’il a fait les étoiles, le soleil et la lune, alors que cela faisait beaucoup de choses, (l’Écriture) dit: Dieu vit que cela était bon (Gn, 1.18). Il y avait beaucoup d’étoiles, et leur multitude était impossible à dénombrer; pourtant il n’a pas dit: Dieu vit qu’elles étaient bonnes, mais que cela était bon. Pourquoi? Parce que, s’il y avait beaucoup de luminaires, ils provenaient d’une unique lumière et tous avaient la même utilité: on leur avait confié la mission d’éclairer. Ici, en revanche, il y a une grande diversité parmi les reptiles, ainsi que parmi les oiseaux et les poissons (…), et à l’intérieur de chaque espèce, il y a encore une grande diversité; voilà pourquoi (l’Écriture) dit: Dieu vit que ces choses étaient bonnes» («Καὶ εἶδεν ὁ Θεός, ὅτι πάντα καλά. Διατί εἶπε, Καλά; οὐχὶ καλὸν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος; Ἀλλ’ ὅτε ἐποίησε τοὺς ἀστέρας καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην, πολλῶν ὄντων τῶν γενομένων, λέγει· Εἶδεν ὁ Θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. Πολλοὶ ἀστέρες, καὶ ἀναρίθμητοι τούτων αἱ μυριάδες· καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, Εἶδεν ὁ Θεὸς ὅτι καλά, ἀλλ’, ὅτι καλόν. Διατί; Ὅτι εἰ καὶ πολλοὶ φωστῆρες, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἑνὸς φωτός, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἅπαντες χρείας· φωτίζειν γὰρ ἐτάχθησαν. Ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἐπειδὴ πολλὴ τῶν ἑρπετῶν ἡ διαφορά, καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν καὶ τῶν νηκτῶν […], καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῳ γένει πολλὰ καὶ διάφορα, λέγει· Εἶδεν ὁ Θεὸς ὅτι καλά»). 124 Sévérien ne cite pas l’intégralité du texte de Gn, 1. À défaut de présenter l’intégralité du chapitre (pour des raisons de place), voici le texte commenté dans les homélies 1 à 3, tel qu’il apparaît dans l’édition d’A. RALPHS. Les passages omis par Sévérien sont en gras, et le refrain «Il y eut un soir…» est souligné: 1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. 2 Ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου· καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος. 3 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτω φῶς· καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς. 4 Καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ὅτι καλὸν· καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους. 5 Καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν, καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐκάλεσεν νύκτα. Καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα μία [homélie 1]. 6 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος, καὶ ἔστω διαχωρίζον ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος· καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. 7 Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα· καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος ὃ ἦν ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος. 8 Καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανὸν· καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. Καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα δευτέρα [homélie 2]. 9 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Συναχθήτω τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν, καὶ ὀφθήτω ἡ ξηρά· καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. Καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά. 10 Καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν ξηρὰν γῆν, καὶ τὰ συστήματα τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκάλεσεν θαλάσσας· καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. 11 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Βλαστησάτω ἡ γῆ βοτάνην χόρτου, σπεῖρον σπέρμα κατὰ γένος καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα, καὶ ξύλον κάρπιμον ποιοῦν καρπόν, οὗ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ γένος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. 12 Καὶ ἐξήνεγκεν ἡ γῆ βοτάνην χόρτου, σπεῖρον σπέρμα κατὰ γένος καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα, καὶ ξύλον κάρπιμον ποιοῦν καρπόν, οὗ τὸ σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ γένος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. 13 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα τρίτη. 14 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτωσαν φωστῆρες ἐν τῷ στερεώματι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς φαῦσιν τῆς γῆς, τοῦ διαχωρίζειν ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς νυκτὸς· καὶ ἔστωσαν εἰς σημεῖα καὶ εἰς καιροὺς καὶ εἰς ἡμέρας καὶ εἰς ἐνιαυτοὺς· 15 καὶ ἔστωσαν εἰς φαῦσιν ἐν τῷ στερεώματι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὥστε φαίνειν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς· καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως. 16 Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τοὺς δύο φωστῆρας τοὺς μεγάλους, τὸν φωστῆρα τὸν μέγαν εἰς ἀρχὰς τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τὸν φωστῆρα τὸν ἐλάσσω εἰς ἀρχὰς τῆς νυκτός, καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας. 17 Καὶ ἔθετο αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῷ στερεώματι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὥστε φαίνειν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 18 Καὶ ἄρχειν τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς, καὶ διαχωρίζειν ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους· καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. 19 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα τετάρτη [homélie 3]. 123

162

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

Ensuite, parce que le prédicateur, friand d’érudition,125 connaissait probablement le potentiel exégétique de ces versets, qui avait déjà été souligné par plusieurs commentateurs.126 Ainsi, Origène et Basile s’arrêtent sur la première occurrence du verset («jour un») pour réfléchir sur les notions de temps et d’éternité.127 Le refrain pouvait aussi nourrir une réflexion sur le sens des mots «jour» et «nuit» dans la culture hébraïque: Basile évoque la métonymie par laquelle le récit biblique désigne, sous les noms de «soir» et de «matin», l’ensemble de la journée et de la nuit.128 Jean Chrysostome, de son côté, 125 Y compris sur l’astronomie et les calendriers (voir homélie 3, § 2-5; PG, 56, coll. 449, l. 4 – 453, l. 31, ainsi que les commentaires de ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala [voir note 10], pp. 69-90). 126 Selon ZELLINGER (Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala [voir note 10], pp. 56-57), Sévérien avait certainement connaissance des ouvrages de Théophile d’Antioche, Basile de Césarée, Diodore de Tarse et de Jean Chrysostome; et peut-être d’Hippolyte de Rome et d’Origène. 127 ORIGÈNE. Homélie 1 sur la Genèse (SC, 7bis, pp. 26-27, trad. fse de L. DOUTRELEAU modifiée): «Voyons pourquoi Dieu, après avoir dit: (…) Il y eut un soir et il y eut un matin, n’a pas dit: Premier jour, mais Jour un. C’est parce que le temps n’existait pas avant le monde. Mais le temps commence d’exister avec les jours suivants. Le second jour, en effet, le troisième, le quatrième et tous les autres commencent à indiquer le temps» (uideamus quid sit quod, cum Deus […] dixerit quia factum est uespere et factum est mane, non dixit: dies prima, sed dixit: dies una. Quia tempus nondum erat, antequam esset mundus. Tempus autem esse incipit ex consequentibus diebus. Secunda namque dies et tertia et quarta et reliquae omnes tempus incipiunt designare); BASILE DE CÉSARÉE, Homélie 2 sur l’Hexaéméron, § 8 (SC, 26bis, pp. 178-185, trad. fse de S. GIET): de ce long développement de Basile, nous ne citerons que la conclusion: «C’est aussi le propre de l’éternité, de revenir sur soi, sans finir jamais. Aussi le commencement du temps n’est-il pas appelé le premier jour, mais Jour un: (l’auteur a voulu) marquer ainsi la parenté du temps et de l’éternité. Car il était convenable et naturel que ce qui offre le caractère d’être unique et d’exclure tout partage, fût appelé un. (…) Ainsi, que tu dises jour ou éternité, c’est la même pensée que tu exprimeras: si l’on appelle jour cette durée, il y a un jour et non plusieurs; si on lui donnait le nom d’éternité, elle serait solitaire et non multiple. C’est donc pour reporter notre pensée vers la vie future que l’Écriture a nommé un ce jour qui est l’image de l’éternité, les prémices des jours, le contemporain de la lumière, le saint jour du Seigneur, celui que le Maître a honoré de sa résurrection» («Ὃ δὴ καὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἴδιον, εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀναστρέφειν, καὶ μηδαμοῦ περατοῦσθαι. Διὰ τοῦτο τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ χρόνου οὐχὶ πρώτην ἡμέραν, ἀλλὰ μίαν ὠνόμασεν· ἵνα καὶ ἐκ τῆς προσηγορίας τὸ συγγενὲς ἔχῃ πρὸς τὸν αἰῶνα. Τοῦ γὰρ μοναχοῦ ἀκοινωνήτου πρὸς ἕτερον ἡ τὸν χαρακτῆρα δεικνύουσα, οἰκείως καὶ προσφυῶς προσηγορεύθη μία. […] Ὥστε κἂν ἡμέραν εἴπῃς, κἂν αἰῶνα, τὴν αὐτὴν ἐρεῖς ἔννοιαν. Εἴτε οὖν ἡμέρα ἡ κατάστασις ἐκείνη λέγοιτο, μία ἐστὶ καὶ οὐ πολλαί· εἴτε αἰὼν προσαγορεύοιτο, μοναχὸς ἂν εἴη καὶ οὐ πολλοστός. Ἵνα οὖν πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν ζωὴν τὴν ἔννοιαν ἀπαγάγῃ, μίαν ὠνόμασε τοῦ αἰῶνος τὴν εἰκόνα, τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τῶν ἡμερῶν, τὴν ὁμήλικα τοῦ φωτὸς, τὴν ἁγίαν κυριακὴν, τὴν τῇ ἀναστάσει τοῦ Κυρίου τετιμημένην»). 128 BASILE DE CÉSARÉE, Homélie 2 sur l’Hexaéméron, § 8 (SC, 26bis, pp. 178-179): «Et il y eut donc un soir, et il y eut un matin. Ce qui s’entend de la durée d’un jour et d’une nuit. Dans la suite du texte, (l’auteur) n’a plus parlé de jour et de nuit, mais il s’est servi de la partie principale pour indiquer l’ensemble. On trouverait ce même usage dans toute l’Écriture: dans la mesure du temps, les jours seuls sont comptés, sans qu’il soit fait mention des nuits avec les jours» («Ἐγένετο οὖν ἑσπέρα, καὶ ἐγένετο πρωΐ. Τὸ ἡμερονύκτιον λέγει. Καὶ οὐκέτι προσηγόρευσεν, ἡμέρα καὶ νὺξ, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἐπικρατοῦντι τὴν πᾶσαν προσηγορίαν ἀπένειμε. Ταύτην ἂν καὶ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ Γραφῇ τὴν συνήθειαν εὕροις, ἐν τῇ τοῦ χρόνου μετρήσει ἡμέρας ἀριθμουμένας, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ νύκτας μετὰ τῶν ἡμερῶν»).

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

163

mentionne la différence entre la manière juive et la manière chrétienne de compter les jours, en partant du soir ou du matin.129 Rien de tout cela chez Sévérien, qui privilégie une valorisation pastorale de ce refrain. En soi, faire le lien entre la fin de l’homélie et la fin de la journée n’est pas original: lorsque le commentaire s’inscrit dans un cadre liturgique, il arrive que la fin de l’exposé coïncide avec la fin du jour, comme le montre l’exemple de Basile.130 Dans ce cas, il est tout naturel de conclure l’homélie en passant du registre cosmologique ou philosophique à des considérations spirituelles.131 Mais il s’agit, chez le Cappadocien, d’une simple remarque faite en passant. Au contraire, cette situation devient chez Sévérien la clé de voûte de l’actualisation, qui prend la forme d’une explication spirituelle des notions de jour, de nuit et de soir. Reprenons-en les éléments de manière systématique. 3.2. La course de l’être humain et la course des astres À plusieurs reprises et de multiples façons, Sévérien compare la vie de l’homme à la course des astres (le soleil et la lune). D’abord, l’homme est la lumière du monde. Cette affirmation s’appuie à la fois sur l’observation du rôle civilisateur de l’être humain au sein de la Création, sur une considération formelle du chapitre 1 de la Genèse et sur une parole du Christ. Puisqu’il est la lumière – ce qui apparaît dès le commentaire du premier jour de la Création –, l’homme est prédestiné à être comparé aux astres du ciel, et en particulier au soleil.132 Ensuite, l’homme est en mouvement. Placé dans le paradis terrestre «à l’Orient», il est ainsi placé comme le soleil lorsqu’il apparaît dans le ciel chaque jour. Sa course s’entend, bien sûr, de manière métaphorique: comme le 129 Jean Chrysostome, Homélie sur la Genèse 5, § 5 (PG, 53, col. 52, ll. 8-32), qui commente Gn, 1.13. Dans ce passage, Jean précise que les mots «Il y eut un soir, il y eut un matin. Ce fut le xème jour» n’ont pas été prononcés sans raison (col. 52, l. 14: «οὐχ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ εἰκῆ»), et que même leur répétition a une valeur pédagogique (col. 52, ll. 9-11). Jean commente brièvement ce même refrain biblique en Gn, 1.5 (homélie 3, § 3; PG, 53, col. 35, ll. 36-40), Gn, 1.8 (homélie 4, § 6; PG, 53, col. 45, ll. 9-23), Gn, 1.19 (homélie 6, § 5; PG, 53, col. 60, ll. 36-43). Il se contente en revanche de citer Gn, 1.23 (homélie 7, § 5; PG, 53, col. 66, ll. 32-33) et Gn, 1.31 (homélie 10, § 6-7; PG, 53, col. 87, ll. 11-12; col. 88, ll. 22-23) sans les commenter. 130 BASILE DE CÉSARÉE, Homélie 2 sur l’Hexaéméron, § 8 (SC, 26bis, pp. 178-185): «Mais voici que les considérations sur ce premier soir, rejointes par le soir du jour présent, mettent un terme à notre entretien» («Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ οἱ περὶ τῆς ἑσπέρας ἐκείνης λόγοι ὑπὸ τῆς παρούσης ἑσπέρας καταληφθέντες, ἐνταῦθα ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον ὁρίζουσιν»); cf. Homélie 9, § 6, pp. 522523: «Mais le soir qui, depuis longtemps, a fait disparaître le soleil à l’occident, m’impose désormais le silence» («Ἀλλὰ σιωπὴν γὰρ ἡμῖν ἐπιτάσσει λοιπὸν ἡ ἑσπέρα πάλαι πρὸς δυσμὰς τὸν ἥλιον παραπέμψασα»). 131 Comme le fait Basile (BASILE DE CÉSARÉE, Homélie 2 sur l’Hexaéméron, § 8 [SC, 26bis, pp. 184-187]). 132 Homélie 1, § 5-6 (PG, 56, col. 436, ll. 24-36; voir ci-dessus, notes 71 et 73); homélie 4, § 5 (coll. 462, l. 44 – 463, l. 3; voir ci-dessus, note 101).

164

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

soleil ou la lune, l’être humain naît, il grandit, il accomplit son œuvre, puis il diminue pour finalement «se coucher» et mourir.133 Enfin, cette métaphore est filée pour rendre compte non seulement de la mort, mais aussi de la résurrection. Le cycle de la vie humaine ne s’achève donc pas avec le soir, mais avec le matin suivant: de même que la Création s’inscrit pour les chrétiens entre le premier jour et le huitième, jour de la résurrection; de même la vie humaine s’inscrit entre deux «matins» – celui de la naissance et celui de sa résurrection. Néanmoins, cette comparaison demeure implicite: Sévère n’évoque jamais le second matin à côté du premier, mais le second à côté du soir – comme dans le texte de Gn, 1.134 3.3. Le rôle du refrain exégétique «Le soir est venu…» À plusieurs reprises, Sévérien formule le refrain κατέλαβεν ἡ ἑσπέρα.135 Or cette formule assure le lien entre trois objets distincts. Premièrement, le soir qui clôt chaque journée du premier récit de la Création. Dans le texte biblique, en effet, plusieurs refrains scandent le récit: «Dieu vit que cela était bon» et, à la fin de chaque journée: «Il y eut un soir, il y eut un matin: xème jour».136 Deuxièmement, le soir qui clôt une section du commentaire – car le découpage des premières homélies suit celui des jours de la Création. Dès lors, le soir ne vient pas seulement, dans le texte biblique, marquer une césure; ce même soir vient, dans le commentaire, marquer la fin de la partie de l’homélie consacrée à l’explication exégétique. Ainsi, dans l’homélie 1, la formule κατέλαβε γὰρ ἡ ἑσπέρα marque la fin du commentaire, et suit immédiatement l’explication du verset 5a: on peut légitimement penser qu’elle se substitue au verset

133 Homélie 5, § 5 (PG, 56, col. 477, ll. 38-50): «Dieu planta un paradis en Éden, à l’Orient (Gn, 2.8). Et pourquoi le paradis n’a-t-il pas été planté dans une autre région, mais à l’Orient? Là où commence la course des luminaires, c’est là que commence la course de la vie humaine. Dieu annonce ce qui doit arriver: il place l’être humain à l’Orient, dans le paradis, pour montrer que, de même que ces luminaires se lèvent, courent vers le déclin, et se couchent, de même lui aussi doit courir de la vie vers la mort, et se coucher à l’image des luminaires, pour recevoir encore un autre lever par la résurrection des morts. Adam a couru vers son déclin, et il s’est couché dans un tombeau; les choses de la terre l’ont accompagné et ont été enterrées avec lui qui se couchait» («Ἐφύτευσεν ὁ Θεὸς παράδεισον ἐν Ἐδὲμ κατ’ ἀνατολάς. Διατί μὴ εἰς ἄλλο κλίμα, ἀλλὰ κατ’ ἀνατολὰς ὁ παράδεισος; Ὅθεν ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ δρόμου τῶν φωστήρων, ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς διαγωγῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Προμηνύει ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέλλον· κατ’ ἀνατολὰς ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ τίθησι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἵνα δείξῃ, ὅτι ὥσπερ οὗτοι οἱ φωστῆρες ἀνατέλλοντες τρέχουσιν εἰς δύσιν, καὶ δύνουσιν· οὕτω καὶ τοῦτον δεῖ ἀπὸ ζωῆς εἰς θάνατον δραμεῖν καὶ δῦσαι κατὰ τὸν τύπον τῶν φωστήρων, καὶ ἄλλην ἀνατολὴν πάλιν λαβεῖν ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν. Ἔδραμεν ὁ Ἀδὰμ εἰς δύσιν, ἔδυσεν εἰς τάφον· ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ τὰ πράγματα τῆς γῆς, καὶ συνετάφη τῷ δύσαντι»). 134 Homélie 1, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 436, ll. 38-45; voir ci-dessus, note 74). 135 Homélie 1, § 6 (PG, 56, col. 437, l. 13); § 7 (col. 438, ll. 32-33); homélie 3, § 8 (col. 456, l. 9). 136 Voir ci-dessus, notes 117 et 122.

UN EXEMPLE D’ACTUALISATION EXÉGÉTIQUE

165

biblique 5b.137 Dans l’homélie 3, le phénomène est moins net, mais la partie polémique qui sépare le commentaire de la parénèse comprend plusieurs mentions du soir, dont la formule ἐπεισῆλθε τῷ τῆς ἡμέρας φωτὶ τὸ τῆς ἑσπέρας.138 Or, dans ces deux homélies, le prédicateur ne s’arrête pas là. Après ce «soir», il y a un «matin»: celui des développements parénétiques qui vont suivre. Troisièmement, le soir qui achève l’homélie. Ainsi, la formule κατέλαβεν ἡ ἑσπέρα σφραγίζουσα τῆς ἡμέρας τὸν δρόμον apparaît également à l’extrême fin de l’homélie 1.139 Dans ce cas, le soir correspond à la fin de la prédication, et peut-être de l’assemblée liturgique. La nuit qui suit est comparée au temps de la pénitence et des larmes: après avoir été nourri par l’explication liturgique (la Parole est en effet une lumière qui illumine les auditeurs), les fidèles retournent à la vie quotidienne, où ils auront à mener concrètement le combat spirituel.140 3.4. Le sacrifice du Temple Le soir évoque encore le «sacrifice du soir» offert au Temple. Or le sacrifice cultuel et son parallèle intériorisé dans la vie chrétienne sont également un élément récurrent dans ces homélies. Il y a d’abord «le sacrifice du matin et celui du soir». Sévérien justifie l’existence de ces deux sacrifices dans le rituel du Temple par une lecture typologique: le chrétien doit rendre grâce le matin et le soir – le matin, pour avoir été gardé pur pendant la nuit; le soir, pour avoir été protégé dans la journée.141 Ensuite, Sévérien rappelle «le sacrifice, comme élévation des mains». L’élément qui symbolise le sacrifice, c’est l’élévation des mains «comme l’encens du soir». Le fidèle est invité à reproduire une telle «élévation» – et toutes les pratiques ascétiques, comme le jeûne et la vigilance, sont des éléments par lesquels se réalise cette liturgie intérieure.142 Enfin, «le sacrifice s’élargit à la Création entière». Le contexte liturgique de l’offrande (le Temple, l’autel, les animaux qui y sont offerts) est évoqué dans la parénèse de l’homélie 1, et associée au langage de la sanctification. De fil en aiguille, toute la Création doit être ainsi sanctifiée – or c’est l’homme qui est responsable d’une telle sanctification.143

137

Homélie 1, § 6-7 (PG, 56, col. 437, ll. 12-20; voir ci-dessus, note 62). Homélie 3, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 455, ll. 39-48; voir ci-dessus, note 94); § 8 (col. 456, ll. 9-12; voir ci-dessus, note 95). 139 Homélie 1, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 438, ll. 31-40); voir ci-dessus, note 85. 140 Cf. Homélie 1, § 6 (PG, 56, coll. 436, l. 62 – 437, l. 3; voir ci-dessus, notes 76 et 77); homélie 3, § 5 (col. 453, l. 53; voir note 76). 141 Homélie 3, § 8 (PG, 56, col. 456, ll. 17-21; voir ci-dessus, note 96). 142 Homélie 3, § 8 (PG, 56, col. 456, ll. 44-52; voir ci-dessus, note 97); homélie 4, § 9-10 (coll. 468, l. 54 – 471, l.15; voir ci-dessus, notes 112-115). 143 Homélie 1, § 7 (PG, 56, col. 437, ll. 18-47; voir ci-dessus, note 81). 138

166

PIERRE MOLINIÉ

4. CONCLUSION: L’ACTUALISATION

PASTORALE DE L’ÉCRITURE

ET SA VALEUR EXÉGÉTIQUE

En résumé, ce qui se joue ici est une actualisation de l’Écriture: un verset structurant du texte biblique n’est pas expliqué sur le plan littéral, mais il nourrit une réflexion symbolique unifiant à son tour la démarche parénétique. De même que le lemme biblique apparaît à chaque jour de la Création, de même la symbolique de l’offrande du soir réapparaît, de manières variées, dans trois homélies de la série – alors que le texte commenté, pas plus que les motifs de polémique antihérétique, ne fournissent d’élément justifiant un tel passage. L’actualisation constitue une option exégétique forte: quittant l’exégèse littérale ou la transposition doctrinale, Sévérien propose une théologie spirituelle déployée dans une sorte d’ellipse. L’un des foyers, c’est l’image scripturaire de la lumière et de sa perpétuelle disparition et renaissance; l’autre, c’est le verset du Psaume 141/140 associant le soir avec un moment privilégié de la vie spirituelle. Le premier foyer appelle la considération anthropologique du rythme quotidien et la perspective de la mort et de la résurrection; le second évoque le contexte de la liturgie du Temple et celui des vêpres à la cathédrale de Constantinople. Mais il s’agit d’une prédication, et non d’un exposé théorique. Ces deux univers ne sont pas explicitement mis en relation, et l’élément qui dessine l’ellipse est emprunté au moment concret de la prédication: un moment lumineux, mais qui se situe en fin de journée, au moment où la lumière naturelle décline, comme une avancée de la lumière au sein des ténèbres. Cette actualisation pourrait passer inaperçue, si le texte de Sévérien ne fournissait pas deux éléments concrets et originaux – un retrait et un ajout. Un retrait: l’omission systématique d’un verset récurrent du texte biblique. Un ajout: l’insertion par le prédicateur d’une expression elle aussi récurrente (κατέλαβεν ἡ ἑσπέρα) qui devient, selon l’expression de Judith Kesckeméti, un refrain exégétique et semble se substituer au texte scripturaire.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF FOUR PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMIAN HOMILIES ON JOB (CPG 4564; BHG, 939D-G) Juditha OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER

Among the works that have come down to us under the name of John Chrysostom are four homilies on Job (CPG 4564; BHG, 939d-g). A critical edition of these four homilies, a full account of their textual transmission, and a discussion of their authorship formed the topic of my PhD thesis.1 In the present article, I would like to revisit the question of authorship.2 Before embarking on this discussion, however, several observations are in order concerning the contents and coherence of these homilies and their place in the liturgical year. The first homily stands apart from the other three. It is an encomium in which Job is highly praised and depicted as an invincible hero. Since in the Byzantine church Job was commemorated on the 6th of May,3 this first homily could have been delivered on that liturgical occasion.4 The other three homilies form a series and were probably read during Holy Week.5 They discuss the first two chapters of the Book of Job, a few verses from the last chapters, and a few verses from the discourses of Job and his friends.6 1 J. J. OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies on Job (CPG 4564; BHG 939d-g), Transmission, Critical Edition, and Translation, Amsterdam, 2015. 2 The main part of this article can also be found in chapter 7 of OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies. 3 See E. DASSMAN, Hiob, in RAC, 15 (1989), col. 438. 4 Three manuscripts give this homily as a reading for the 6th of May (Monacensis gr., 366 and its derivative Vaticanus Pal. gr., 27, as well as Parisinus gr., 1534). In some other manuscripts, however, this homily serves as a reading for the Monday of Holy Week (Athous Docheiariou, 77; Athous Lawra, 453; Oxoniensis Bodl. Holkham, 22; Parisinus gr., 454; Taurinensis, B., III.28; Vaticanus gr., 519, Venetus Marc., II, 26) or for the Tuesday of Holy Week (Oxoniensis Bodl. Auct., E., 2.6; Oxoniensis New College gr., 82; Parisinus gr., 520; Parisinus gr., 582; Parisinus gr., 635; Parisinus supl. gr., 1031 and Thessaloniki Vlatadon, 12). One group of manuscripts, in Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies indicated by the siglum σ1, gives not only Homily 1, but also Homilies 2 and 3, as readings for the Monday of Holy Week. 5 Homily 2 as a reading for the Monday of Holy Week may be found in the codices Athous Dionysiou, 71; Athous Iviron, 592; Athous Pantokratoros, 90; Athous Panteleeimonos, 92; Athous Vatopedi, 111; Athous Lawra, 1368; Mosquensis B. Syn., 38; Sinaiticus gr., 528; Venetus Marcianus gr., II., 26; and Vindobonensis hist. gr., 62; the same homily is a reading for the Tuesday of Holy Week in Vaticanus gr., 519. Homily 3 is a reading for the Tuesday of Holy Week in the codices Athous Dionysiou, 71; Athous Pantokratoros, 90; and Parisinus gr., 582; that homily is a reading for the Wednesday of Holy Week in Vaticanus gr., 519 and Vaticanus Ottob. gr., 14. Homily 4 is a reading for the Tuesday of Holy Week in Oxoniensis New College, 82; this homily is assigned to Wednesday in Athous Dionysiou, 71 and Athous Pantokratoros, 90. Due to the varying quality of the photocopies and microfilms consulted, I was not able to read the rubrics of all codices. 6 See further OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies, pp. 1-3.

168

JUDITHA OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER

1. THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP The four homilies on Job are attributed to John Chrysostom in all extant Greek manuscripts, and in the Arabic, Slavonic, and Latin translations of the homilies.7 George the Monk, who wrote in the 9th century and quoted parts of the second and third homily in his Chronicon, also considered Chrysostom to be the author of the homilies.8 Chrysostom’s authorship, however, has been questioned since Henry Savile placed the four homilies, qualifying them as very inadequate, among the “λόγοι ἀμφιβαλλόμενοι” in his edition of Chrysostom’s works.9 Montfaucon and Migne shared Savile’s opinion and published the homilies among the Spuria.10 The first to propose a name for a possible author was B. Marx. In 1940 he suggested that the four homilies could be attributed to Proclus of Constantinople.11 The arguments he adduces in favour of this supposition, however, are not convincing. The second scholar to seriously address the authenticity question was Sever Voicu. In 1983 he argued that Severian of Gabala is the author of Homilies 2, 3 and 4.12 His hypothesis is based on a stylistic analysis of the three homilies, the occurrence of certain expressions, and the discovery of textual parallels between CPG 4564 and other homilies by Severian. Interestingly, in two manuscripts of the ancient catenae, recently edited by Ursula and Dieter Hagedorn, one fragment that derives from the fourth homily appears under the name of Severian of Gabala.13 This could be a further argument to corroborate Voicu’s claim concerning Severian’s authorship. It is to be noted, however, that three other catena fragments that derive from the third and fourth homily do not bear the name of Severian but that of Olympiodorus.14 From this it is clear that one should treat lemmata For a discussion of these translations, see OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies, chapter 5. 8 “Ὃν (i.e. Ἰὼβ) ἐγκωμιάζων ὁ θεῖος Χρυσόστομος λέγει·”, C. DE BOOR (ed.), Georgii Monachi Chronicon, vol. 1, Stutgardiae, 1904, repr. 1978, p. 108. For a discussion of the fragments from Homilies 2 and 3 quoted by George the Monk, see OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four PseudoChrysostomian Homilies, pp. 181-182. 9 Hisce 4 in Iobum orationibus perineptis …, H. S. SAVILE, Ioannis Chrysostomi Opera Omnia, Eton, 1612-1613, vol. 8, Notae 757. 10 Ineptas jure dicit Savilius, nec est quod pluribus demonstremus esse illas spurias, et Joanne nostro indignas, B. DE MONTFAUCON, Sancti Ioannis Chrysostomi opera omnia quae extant vel eius nomine circumferuntur, vol. 4, Pariis, 1724, p. 579. See also PG, 56, coll. 563-564. 11 B. MARX, Procliana: Untersuchung über den homiletischen Nachlaß des Patriarchen Proklos von Konstantinopel (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 23), Münster, 1940, pp. 57-58. 12 S. J. VOICU, Nuove restituzioni a Severiano di Gabala, in RSBN, 30-31, n.s., 20-21 (19831984), pp. 14-16. 13 U. HAGEDORN – D. HAGEDORN, Die älteren griechischen Katenen zum Buch Hiob, vol. 1: Einleitung, Prologe und Epiloge, Fragmente zu Hiob, 1, 1-8, 22 (PTS, 40), Berlin – New York, 1994, pp. 103, 282-283. 14 HAGEDORN – HAGEDORN, Die älteren griechischen Katenen zum Buch Hiob, pp. 103-104, 196, 241, 256. See further OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies, pp. 183184. 7

THE AUTHORSHIP OF FOUR PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMIAN HOMILIES ON JOB

169

information of the catenae with caution. There are two questions I would like to address here. Firstly, is Voicu right in attributing Homilies 2, 3 and 4 to Severian, and secondly, is Homily 1 written by the same author as Homilies 2-4? 2. AUTHORSHIP: HOMILIES 2, 3

AND

4

In order to resolve the question of whether Severian is the author of Homilies 2-4, I have made a list of all the characteristics of a Severianic homily which have been brought forward by learned scholars such as Zellinger,15 Dürks,16 Marx,17 Aubineau,18 and Voicu,19 and I have checked whether they are applicable to the homilies on Job too. In this article, I would like to highlight three of them.20 2.1. Severian’s exegesis Most scholars indicate that Severian belongs to the Antiochene school of exegesis. He takes the Scriptures literally and historically, and he rejects the allegorical method of exegesis, favouring typological exegesis instead. Severian makes every effort to elucidate the meaning of words and occasionally pays attention to the peculiarities (“ἰδιώματα”) of scriptural usage. If we compare this exegetical approach with that of the homilies on Job, it is evident that, like other Antiochene exegetes, the homilist reads the Book of Job literally and historically. Job is fifth after Abraham and lived in the land Ausitis. Everything that is described in the Book of Job took place at a certain moment in history. When, however, a literal interpretation results in absurdity, the author appeals to scriptural modes of expression, though he does not use the word “ἰδιώματα” as Severian sometimes does. For example, in the third homily the author emphasises that the slanderer was not physically present in heaven, and he explains that the word “παράστασις” (“standing by”) in fact means “ὑπουργία” (“service”). As a parallel, he adduces the description of Elijah as standing before the Lord, though the prophet was not actually present in heaven but was rather serving the Lord on earth (3, 64-69). J. ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen, 7[1]), Münster i. W., 1916. J. ZELLINGER, Studien zu Severian von Gabala (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 8), Münster i. W., 1926. 16 G. DÜRKS, De Severiano Gabalitano, Kiloniae, 1917. 17 B. MARX, Severiana unter den spuria Chrysostomi bei Montfaucon-Migne, in OCP, 5 (1939), pp. 281-367. 18 M. AUBINEAU, Un traité inédit de christologie de Sévérien de Gabala in Centurionem et contra Manichaeos et Apollinaristas (Cahiers d’Orientalisme, 5), Genève, 1983. 19 VOICU, Nuove restituzioni, pp. 3-24 [see note 12]. 20 For more homiletical characteristics, see OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies, pp. 201-209. 15

170

JUDITHA OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER

Furthermore our author pays considerable attention to determining and clarifying the exact meaning of words and phrases. For example, in the second homily he explains the meaning of the words “ἄμεμπτος”, “δίκαιος”, and “ἀληθινός”, which occur in Job, 1,1. Regarding “ἄμεμπτος”, he exhorts the audience to examine the word (“βασάνισον τὴν λέξιν”, 83), and points out that there is a difference between “ἄμεμπτος” (“blameless”) and “ἀνέγκλητος” (“free from accusation”), “ἄμεμπτος” being a greater quality than “ἀνέγκλητος”. It is interesting to note that, according to Voicu, the combination of a verb form derived from “βασανίζω” (“to examine”) and “τὴν λέξιν/τὰς λέξεις/τὸν λόγον” occurs in several homilies attributed to Severian. Finally, it should be noted that the three homilies contain only a few instances of figurative exegesis: In Homily 2 (151-152) it is stated that the sufferings of the saints shone before the passion of Christ; in Homily 3 (28-30) the three daughters of Job are compared to faith, hope, and love; and in Homily 4 (8889) Job’s suffering outside the city is regarded as an image (“εἰκών”) of the cross of Christ. Our author does not explicitly reject allegorical exegesis, as Severian sometimes does. 2.2. Severian’s language In almost all literature dealing with the style of Severian’s homilies, we find a description of a restricted set of words and phrases, for which Severian seems to have a predilection. They include imperatives, short questions, and exclamations such as “πρόσεχε/προσέχετε ἀκριβῶς, πρόσεχε ἀκριβῶς παρακαλῶ, ὅρα γάρ, ὅρα οὖν, ἀλλ’ ὅρα τὸ θαυμαστόν, ὅρα πῶς, βλέπε πῶς, βλέπε τὸ θαυμαστόν, καὶ τί θαυμαστόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ θαυμαστόν, ἄκουε” mostly followed by a genitive (for example “ἄκουε Παύλου λέγοντος”), “καὶ ὅπως ἄκουε, διὰ τί, τί βούλεται”, and phrases such as “ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς τοσοῦτον, εἰς δὲ τὸ προκείμενον ἐπανέλθωμεν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἔφθην εἰπών” and “ἵνα συντέμω”. It is further pointed out that Severian seems to have a preference for addressing the congregation as “ἀδελφοί” or “ἀδελφέ” instead of “ἀγαπητοί” or “ἀγαπητέ”. Part of Voicu’s argument for attributing Homilies 2, 3, and 4 to Severian is based on the occurrence of these stock phrases. He provides a list of these formulae and records their frequency in Homilies, 2, 3, and 4. Some exemples:21 – – – – –

“ἀδελφοί”: twelve instances “πρόσεχε ἀκριβῶς / πρόσεχε ἀκριβῶς, παρακαλῶ”: five instances “εἰς δὲ τὸ προκείμενον ἐπανέλθωμεν”: one instance “καὶ ὅπως ἄκουε”: two instances “ταῦτα μὲν εἰς τοσοῦτον”: one instance 21

For the complete list, see VOICU, Nuove restituzioni, pp. 8-11 [see note 12].

THE AUTHORSHIP OF FOUR PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMIAN HOMILIES ON JOB

171

Besides these statistics, Voicu also supplies a list of other expressions and phrases encountered in Homilies 2, 3, and 4, for which parallels may be found in the homilies by Severian. Some examples:22 – “Ἠσαῦ ἀδελφοκτόνος ὅσον εἰς πρόθεσιν”, 2, 42 ≈ “(Ἠσαῦ) οὐκ ἀδελφοῦ φονεὺς ὅσον εἰς πρόθεσιν”; PG, 49, col. 324, l. 26 (CPG 4186). – “τὸ πρωτότυπον κάλλος”, 3, 16 = PG, 48, col. 1081, l. 20 (CPG 4185). – “τοῖς γεγραμμένοις στοιχοῦμεν”, 3, 99 = PG, 52, col. 786, ll. 6-7 (CPG 4187); cf. PG, 56, col. 416, l. 3 (CPG 4193). – “βλέπε τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν σοφίαν”, 4, 30 ≈ “ὅρα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν σοφίαν”, PG, 56, col. 463, l. 4 (CPG 4194). To the list of parallels supplied by Voicu the following examples should be added:23 – “τίς ὁ ταῦτα μαρτυρῶν; Αὐτός”, 2, 38 ≈ “τίς ὁ τούτῳ μαρτυρῶν τῷ λόγῳ; Αὐτὸς ὁ σωτήρ”, In illud: Pone manum tuam, p. 194, l. 30 (CPG 4198).24 – “εἰσὶ φανεροὶ στρατιῶται...καὶ εἰσὶν ὁμολογούμενοι στρατιῶται”, 3, 71-72 ≈ “ὁ Πατὴρ φανερούς τινας καὶ ὁμολογουμένους προσάγει τῷ Υἱῷ”, PG, 63, col. 536, ll. 8-9 (CPG 4209). – “(τὴν αὐτὴν γῆν πατεῖς) ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς τρέφῃ, εἰς αὐτὴν ὑποστρέφεις”, 4, 233-235 ≈ “ὁ ἀπὸ γῆς τρεφόμενος καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀποστρέφων”, PG, 59, col. 659, ll. 17-18 (CPG 4202). 2.3. Selbstplagiat Sometimes Severian repeats a section that is also found in another homily, a phenomenon referred to by Zellinger as Selbstplagiat.25 Such repetitions can be a weighty argument in the question of authorship, although it cannot be wholly excluded that people other than the author himself have copied certain passages. Nevertheless, there is good, if hitherto unremarked, evidence that Selbstplagiat has also taken place in the case of CPG 4564. Three homilies of Severian contain phrases that are of the same import as certain parts of the fourth homily on Job. These three homilies are the following: In mundi creationem (CPG 4194, II), In illud: In principio erat verbum (CPG 4210), and In sanctam pentecosten (CPG 4211). The last two homilies are included among the Spuria Chrysostomi in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca but are attributed to For the complete list, see VOICU, Nuove restituzioni, pp. 13-16 [see note 12]. For more parallels, see OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies, p. 204. 24 A. P. STEHOUWER, Severian von Gabala, In illud: Pone manum tuam, et in diversa testimonia (CPG 4198). Kritische Edition mit Einleitung und Übersetzung; im Anhang zwei Fallstudien zur Sprache Severians, Amsterdam, 1995, p. 194. 25 ZELLINGER, Studien zu Severian von Gabala, p. 55. 22 23

172

JUDITHA OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER

Severian of Gabala in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, and the authenticity of the first homily is widely acknowledged. The corresponding parts of the homilies are presented in the appendix. The following similarities can be noted: Firstly, in three texts, namely, in the fourth homily on Job (172-176), in CPG 4194, II (441, 38-41), and in CPG 4211 (937, 49-52), we find the same notion that the three friends did not know the aim of God and preferred to condemn Job as suffering what he deserved rather than to say that God had judged in an unworthy manner. Secondly, lines 310-311 of the fourth homily on Job show some agreement with CPG 4210, 548, 34-37 and CPG 4211, 938, 2-5, in that all three sections contain an a fortiori argument. In Homily 4, the argument runs as follows: Εἰ τὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ λέγοντα κατὰ τὸ δίκαιον οὐ δέχεται, τοὺς κατὰ τοῦ δικαίου λέγοντας παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον δέξεται; If He does not accept one who speaks justly about Him, will He accept those who unjustly speak against a just man?26

In CPG 4210 we read: Εἰ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰὼβ εἰρηκότας τοὺς φίλους καὶ αὐτὸν δοξάσαντας οὐκ ἐδέξατο, τοὺς τὸν Υἱὸν ἀθετοῦντας καὶ αὐτὸν ὁμολογοῦντας, δέξηταί ποτε; Οὐδαμῶς: If He did not accept the friends who spoke against Job yet glorified Him, would He ever accept those who reject the Son yet confess Him? Never!

In CPG 4211 we read: Εἰ κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντος τοὺς ὀρθὰ μὴ λαλήσοντας ἀποσείεται, τὸν κατὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἀκονοῦντα τὴν γλῶτταν δέχεται; Ἄπαγε. If He rejects who, against his servant, have not spoken what is right, does He accept him who sharpens his tongue against the Only-begotten? Far from it.

Although these sentences are not completely identical and do not mean precisely the same thing, they nevertheless show a striking similarity in language and reasoning. Finally, the homilies contain two almost identical scriptural quotations which deviate from the Septuagint. In Homily 4 (194-195) Job asks: “Τίς δώσει κριτὴν ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ, ἵνα γνῶ πόσαι εἰσὶν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου, ὅτι οὕτω με ἔκρινας;” The second part of the question is from Job, 13, 23 and 10, 2. The first part of this question cannot be found in the Book of Job. It bears a vague resemblance to Job, 9,33: “εἴθε ἦν ὁ μεσίτης ἡμῶν καὶ ἐλέγχων καὶ διακούων ἀνὰ μέσον ἀμφοτέρων”. Interestingly, we find a similar question in CPG 4211 (47-49) with almost exactly the same wording: “Τίς δώσει κριτὴν 26 On the textual confusion and difficulties in this passage, see OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies, p. 164.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF FOUR PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMIAN HOMILIES ON JOB

173

ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ, καὶ εἰδῶ πόσαι εἰσὶν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου, ὅτι οὕτω με ἔκρινας;” Can this be due to coincidence? The second biblical quotation deserving particular attention occurs in lines 306-308 of Homily 4: “Ἵνα τί οὐκ ἐλαλήσατε ὀρθὰ κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντός μου Ἰώβ;” We find more or less the same question in the other three homilies, the only differences being that in two homilies (CPG 4194, II, and CPG 4210) the question is not introduced with “ἵνα τί” but “διὰ τί”, and that CPG 4210 reads “κατελαλήσατε” for “οὐκ ἐλαλήσατε ὀρθά” (see appendix). This question is a free rendering of Job, 42, 8g, where it is not a question but a statement.27 A search of the TLG texts shows that the unusual wording of this verse does not occur outside of the three homilies.28 That in different homilies these verses are quoted in a similar way, diverging considerably from the Septuagintal text, whether transmitted directly or quoted by other Greek writers, suggests that the three homilies have a common author. Conclusion The striking agreements between sections of Homily 4 and sections of three homilies which are generally accepted as belonging to Severian are, in my opinion, quite a strong argument in favour of the hypothesis that Severian is the author of Homily 4. If we accept Severian as the author of Homily 4, it follows that he should also be considered the author of Homilies 2 and 3, as these three homilies are closely connected and form a series. The other similarities between Homilies 2-4 on Job and the homilies by Severian pertaining to exegesis and language can be adduced as additional evidence in favour of Severian’s authorship. 3. AUTHORSHIP: HOMILY 1 As Homilies 2, 3, and 4 belong together and form a unity, it seems likely that they were originally transmitted as a group of three, to which the first homily was added at a later stage. At what point in the transmission this addition happened is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. There are some interesting parallels between CPG 4564 and an anonymous author’s Latin commentary on Job.29 “οὐ γὰρ ἐλαλήσατε ἀληθὲς κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντός μου Ἰώβ.” The verse is quoted in a similar way in Testimonia e scriptura de communi essentia patris et filii et spiritus sancti, by Pseudo-Athanasius (PG, 28, col. 41, ll. 19-20). This Pseudo-Athanasian treatise, however, contains lengthy selections from CPG 4211. See S. J. VOICU, Il florilegio De commune essentia (CPG 2240), Severiano di Gabala e altri Padri, in SE, 60 (2016), pp. 129-130, 132, 133. 29 K. B. STEINHAUSER – H. MÜLLER – D. WEBER, Anonymi in Iob commentarius (CSEL, 96), Wien, 2006. 27

28

174

JUDITHA OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER

It seems as if this author knew all four homilies on Job, which could provide us with a terminus ante quem for the addition of the first homily to the group of Homilies 2-4.30 It cannot be excluded, however, that both authors (or all three authors?) drew on a common source which is now lost31 or that the author of the Latin commentary knew all four homilies but not as a group. The question to be considered now is: is it possible to determine whether the first homily was written by the same author as the other three homilies? The first homily is too short to answer this question with certainty. Still, I would like to point out a few arguments in favour of the possibility that Homily 1 comes from the same hand as Homilies 2-4, and some arguments against it.32 Let me begin with two arguments against a common author. First, none of the formulaic features of Severian’s homilies, mentioned by Voicu, occurs in the first homily. The shortness of the first homily, however, might account for this lack of formulae. Secondly, Homily 1 and Homily 3 differ in their explanation of Job, 1, 14-19, where it is described how in rapid succession four messengers report disasters to Job. In the first homily only the fourth messenger is identified with the slanderer, whereas in the third homily the slanderer is considered as having reported not only the fourth disaster but also all previous ones. The following arguments can be brought forward in favour of the possibility of a common author. Firstly, in codex Vaticanus graecus, 1920 (s. x-xi), which contains the first homily on Job (ff. 398v-403v), a hand from the 14th century wrote the following in the margin of f. 398v: “οὐ δοκεῖ τοῦ Χρυ(σοστομου) 30 For the relationship between CPG 4564 and the Latin commentary, see L. DOSSEY, The Last Days of Vandal Africa: An Arian Commentary on Job and its Historical Context, in JThS, 54 (2003), pp. 65, 72-76, 83, 89, 105, 107. Scholars vary in their opinion regarding the date of composition: Dossey thinks the commentary was written in the early 6th century (pp. 105-116), whereas Steinhauser dates it to the end of the 4th century (pp. 41-47). 31 STEINHAUSER – MÜLLER – WEBER, Anonymi in Iob, p. 22. 32 At the Leuven conference on John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala (November 2016), S. J. Voicu stated that the first homily should be dated much later, perhaps to the 9th century, for the reason that feasts of Old Testament saints were not yet celebrated in Constantinople during the 5th century. He might be right. On the other hand, we do not know when exactly the feast of Job began to be celebrated. Dassman: “Das Jahrgedächtnis des hl. H. wird in der byz. Christenheit ... am 6. Mai begangen ... Genaueres Alter und Motiv der Datenwahl sind nicht bekannt,” (DASSMAN, Hiob, col. 438 [see note 3]). Furthermore, Chrysostom did deliver panegyrics on Old Testament saints such as the Maccabees and their mother (see J. QUASTEN, Patrology, vol. 3, Washington, 1961, p. 456). Lastly, the first homily on Job bears strong resemblance to a homily on Job (BHGa, 939p), which in the manuscripts is attributed to Basil of Seleucia. This homily concludes with the following doxology: “Τοῦτον ἐπιγραψώμεθα παιδευτήν ... τῇ τούτου μνήμῃ τὸν βίον εὐθύνωμεν ἐν Χριστῷ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα κτλ.” (J. M. TEVEL, BHGa, 939p, Een preek van Basilius van Seleucië [unpublished MA thesis], Amsterdam, 1983, p. 39). The word “μνήμη” is often used in connection with the commemoration of saints. Although the doxology does not prove that Old Testament saints were celebrated in the 5th century, it does show that by that time sermons were being delivered in remembrance of Job, with particular attention to him as an example of patience and endurance.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF FOUR PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMIAN HOMILIES ON JOB

175

ὁ λογ(ος)· ἀλλὰ τοῦ δεῖνος: ἠγ(ουν) (ὡς) οἶμαι οὗ (καὶ) οἱ ἐν τῶ βιβλίω τῶδε ἓξ λόγοι οἱ ἐν τῆ ἀρχῆ τ(ῆς) κτισ(εως)”.33 By “ἓξ λόγοι οἱ ἐν τῆ ἀρχῆ τ(ῆς) κτισ(εως)” Severian’s six homilies De mundi creatione are meant (CPG 4194), which are found on ff. 81-146v of the same codex. The scribe does not explain why he thinks the author of the homily on Job could be the same as the author of the six homilies on the creation. Although his observation may not be right, it is worth being mentioned, as it is the only instance in the entire manuscript transmission of the four homilies on Job that reference is made to Severian. Secondly, although none of the formulae described and counted by Voicu appears in the first homily, still its text contains three instances of “βλέπε”, in one instance followed by “πῶς”. The combination “βλέπε πῶς” belongs to the favourite expressions of Severian,34 but I am aware that Severian is not the only preacher who uses these words. Thirdly, the homily contains a sentence which at first sight seems corrupt (I, 52): “Ἐκεῖνος ἐνδεδυμένος ἦν ἀφθαρσίαν ὡς οἶδεν ὁ πλάσας αὐτόν”: “This one [viz. Adam] was clothed with incorruptibility, as the One who formed him knows.” However, I have found the following comparable expressions in some homilies on the creation by Severian of Gabala: – CPG 4194, V; PG, 56, col. 479, ll. 8-10: “Ἐκεῖθεν φέρεται εἰς ὑπόνομόν τι χάος καὶ δύνει ὑπὸ γῆν ἄπειρον, ὡς οἶδεν ὁ τὴν ὁδὸν στρώσας Δεσπότης”: “From there it [viz. the river] moves into a subterranean cave and makes its way beyond the bounds of earth, as the Lord knows who paved its path”.35 – CPG 4194, VI, 493, 40-42: “ᾜδει, ὡς πλάστης, τοῦ πλάσματος τὴν φύσιν”: “As his maker, He knew the nature of what he has made.” These phrases are not exactly parallel. Still they convey the same notion of the Creator knowing what He has made. Fourthly, Homilies 1, 2 and 3 show agreement in the combination of certain biblical quotations. In the first homily Job, 29, 13b and 31, 20b are quoted together, preceded by a quotation from Job, 31, 34b. In the second homily and in the third homily again Job, 29, 13b and 31, 20b are quoted together, but the order is reversed and in Homily 2 they are preceded by Job, 31, 32b (see 33 P. CANART, Codices Vaticani Graeci: Codices, 1745-1962, vol. 1, Codicum enarrationes, Città del Vaticano, 1970, p. 679. 34 MARX, Severiana unter den Spuria, p. 327 [see note 17]; AUBINEAU, Un traité inédit, p. 50 [see note 18]. 35 The translation, with my modifications, is from M. GLERUP – R. C. HILL – C. S. HARDIN (eds), Commentaries on Genesis 1-3: Severian of Gabala and Bede the Venerable (Ancient Christian Texts), Downers Grove, IL, 2010, p. 68.

176

JUDITHA OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER

diagram below). So in all three homilies Job, 29, 13b and 31, 20b are quoted together. According to a TLG search, this combination of quotations occurs nowhere else in Greek homiletic literature. This might suggest a common author, but the possibility that different authors have drawn on a common lost source cannot be excluded. Hom. 1, 83-83

Hom. 2, 138-141

Hom. 3, 203-204

Job, 31, 32b “Ἡ θύρα μου ἀνέῳκται παντὶ θλιβομένῳ” Job, 31, 34b “Οὐκ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου μου ἐπιδεόμενος κόλπῳ κενῷ·” Job, 29, 13b “στόμα χήρας εὐλόγησέ Job, 31, 20b με”

Job, 31, 20b

Job, 31, 20b “ἀπὸ δὲ κουρᾶς προβάτων Job, 29, 13b μου ἐθερμάνθησαν ὦμοι πενήτων”

Job, 29, 13b

Still there is something more interesting to note about one of these quotations. The Septuagint text of Job, 31, 20b runs as follows according to Ziegler’s edition:36 Ἀπὸ δὲ κουρᾶς ἀμνῶν μου ἐθερμάνθησαν οἱ ὦμοι αὐτῶν

This verse is quoted as follows in Homilies 1, 2 and 3: Hom. 1, 82-83: “ἀπὸ δὲ κουρᾶς προβάτων μου ἐθερμάνθησαν ὦμοι πενήτων” Hom. 2, 139: Ὤμους πενήτων ἐθέρμανα (2, 140): Ἐκ τῆς κουρᾶς τῶν προβάτων μου ἐθερμάνθησαν ὦμοι πενήτων Hom. 3, 203: Ἐκ τῆς κουρᾶς τῶν προβάτων μου ἐθερμάνθησαν ὦμοι πενήτων

In Homilies 1, 2 and 3 the word “ἀμνῶν” is replaced by “προβάτων”. The reading “προβάτων” is not preserved in the Greek quotations of this verse,37 but a word with the meaning “sheep” is found in the Masoretic text and in the works of some Latin patristic authors. More interestingly, in Homilies 1, 2 and 3 the word “αὐτῶν” is replaced by “πενήτων”. No Greek commentary or homily reads “πενήτων”, whereas the Masoretic text omits the words “οἱ 36 Some text-critical information, mainly derived from Ziegler’s edition: ἀμνῶν] τῶν προβάτων Ps.Chr. (Hom., 1, 82; Hom., 2, 140; Hom., 3, 203); ovium Anonymous (1, 18, 15), La, Amb, Spec, Cass, Caes = Vulg; ἀρνῶν A, V et alii || αὐτῶν] πενήτων Ps. Chr. (Hom., 1, 83; 2, 139, 140; Hom., 3, 203), pauperum Anonymous (1, 18, 16), infirmorum Amb, Caes, Cass; ὦμοι αὐτῶν om. La, Spec, Mas. Cf. J. ZIEGLER, Septuaginta, Iob (Vetus Testamentum Graecum, 11[4]), Göttingen, 1982, p. 349. 37 I found one exception. A free rendering of this verse is given by John Chrysostom in Ad populum Antiochenum: “ὅτε ἀπὸ τῆς κουρᾶς τῶν προβάτων τοὺς γυμνοὺς περιέβαλεν” (PG, 49, col. 29, l. 51).

THE AUTHORSHIP OF FOUR PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMIAN HOMILIES ON JOB

177

ὦμοι αὐτῶν”. Only some Latin works contain words of similar import: pauperum (Anonymous!), infirmorum (Ambrosius, Caesarius Arelatensis, Cassianus Massiliensis). So in Homilies 1, 2 and 3, Job, 31, 20b is quoted in a very similar way, deviating from the Septuagint text and from the texts of other Greek authors. This might point to a common author for the three homilies. There is, however, another possibility. The author of Homily 1 may have found the group of three homilies (2-4) and composed another homily in which he draws on them. Perhaps he composed this new homily because he needed a homily on Job for a feast day. Still, if the author of Homily 1 really did draw on Homilies 2-4, I would expect to find more material from these homilies in Homily 1. CONCLUSION The occurrence of the same combination of quotations in Homilies 1, 2 and 3, and the fact that in these homilies Job, 31, 20b is quoted in a very similar way, deviating from the Septuagint text, seem to point to a common author for these homilies. Combined with the scribal reference to the author of the six homilies on the creation of the world in the margin of codex Vaticanus graecus, 1920, they should make us cautious to summarily reject Severian as the author of Homily 1. On the other hand, the possibility that a later author composed Homily 1 using some material from Homilies 2-4 cannot be excluded. FINAL REMARK It is a hazardous undertaking to settle the question of authorship of Byzantine homilies on the basis of linguistic and stylistic criteria only. Although there is much to say in support of Voicu’s claim regarding Severian’s authorship of Homilies 2, 3 and 4, and although there is some evidence that makes us cautious to summarily reject the possibility of a common author for Homily 1 and Homilies 2-4, I am still waiting for the moment that somewhere, in a dusty monastery library, an Armenian, Coptic, or Arabic translation of the four homilies pops up bearing the name of Severian of Gabala.38

38 I would like to thank dr. Richard W. Bishop for corrections of the English text of this article and for other valuable suggestions.

194-195: (Ἰὼβ) λέγει· «Τίς δώσει κριτὴν ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ, ἵνα γνῶ πόσαι εἰσὶν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου, ὅτι οὕτω με ἔκρινας;» 172-176: Οἱ φίλοι ἀγνοοῦντες τὸν σκοπὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀγνοοῦντες καὶ τοῦ Ἰὼβ τὴν δοκιμασίαν, εἵλοντο ὡς ἐν συγκρίσει ἀγνοίας μᾶλλον καταδικάσαι τὸν Ἰὼβ ὡς ἄξια πάσχοντα ἢ καταγνῶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ ὡς ἀναξίως δικάσαντος. Πρόσεχε ἀκριβῶς. Εἵλοντο κατακρῖναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὡς ἄξια πάσχοντα τῆς αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτίας ἢ εἰπεῖν κατὰ Θεοῦ, ὅτι ἀναξίως ἐδίκασεν. 184-186: Πολλάκις δὲ χήραν ἠδίκησας, ὀρφανοὺς ἔθλιψας. Εἰ δὲ ταῦτα γέγονεν, καὶ Θεὸς δικαίως ταύτην τὴν ψῆφον ἐπήγαγεν. 306-308: τοὺς δὲ φίλους τοῦ Ἰὼβ ἐλέγχει παρρησίᾳ καὶ λέγει ὁ Θεός· «Ἵνα τί οὐκ ἐλαλήσατε ὀρθὰ κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντός μου Ἰώβ;» «Ἀλλ’, ὦ δικαιοκρίτα, ὑπὲρ σοῦ τὸν λόγον ἐθέμεθα ...» 310-311: Εἰ τὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ λέγοντα κατὰ τὸ δίκαιον οὐ δέχεται, τοὺς κατὰ τοῦ δικαίου λέγοντας παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον δέξεται;

CPG 4564 (IV)

34-43 οἷον οἱ τρεῖς φίλοι τοῦ Ἰώβ, θεασάμενοι αὐτὸν ἐν πειρασμῷ, κατέκριναν τὸν ἅγιον ὡς δικαίως πάσχοντα, καὶ ἔλεγον· «Εἰ μὴ χήρας ἐλύπησας, εἰ μὴ ὀρφανοὺς ἐπλεονέκτησας, οὐκ ἄν σοι ὁ Θεὸς ἐπήγαγε ταῦτα.» Καὶ ὅμως ἐπειδὴ ἠγνόουν τὸν σκοπὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἵλαντο μᾶλλον κατακρῖναι τοῦτον ὡς δικαίως πάσχοντα, ἢ καταψηφίσασθαι τοῦ Θεοῦ ὡς ἀδίκως ἐπαγαγόντος. Ὑπὲρ Θεοῦ ἐποίησαν, καὶ ἐλέγχει αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεός· «Διὰ τί οὐκ ἐλαλήσατε ὀρθὰ κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντός μου.»

CPG 4194 (II), PG 56, 441, 34-43

Εἰ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰὼβ εἰρηκότας τοὺς φίλους καὶ αὐτὸν δοξάσαντας οὐκ ἐδέξατο, τοὺς τὸν Υἱὸν ἀθετοῦντας καὶ αὐτὸν ὁμολογοῦντας, δέξηταί ποτε; Οὐδαμῶς.

30-37 Καὶ γὰρ οἱ φίλοι τοῦ Ἰὼβ τῷ Θεῷ μὲν συνῆλθον, τὸν δὲ Ἰὼβ κατέκριναν· ὁ δὲ Θεὸς οὐδὲ τοὺς συνηγορήσαντες αὐτῷ ἀπεδέξατο, ἀλλὰ λέγει· «Διὰ τί κατελαλήσατε κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντός μου Ἰώβ;»

CPG 4210, PG 63, 548, 30-37

Εἰ κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντος τοὺς ὀρθὰ μὴ λαλήσοντας ἀποσείεται, τὸν κατὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἀκονοῦντα τὴν γλῶτταν δέχεται; Ἄπαγε.

Οἱ φίλοι τοῦ Ἰὼβ ἐδικαίουν τὸν Θεόν, ἀγνοουμένης τῆς ὑποθέσεως, καὶ τὸν μὲν δίκαιον μᾶλλον κατέκριναν ὡς ἁμαρτήσαντα, Θεῷ δὲ συνηγόρουν ὡς ἐπάγοντι. Καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· «(...) Κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπήγαγεν. Εἰ μὴ πολλαί σου ἦσαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, οὐκ ἂν μεμάστιξαι.» Καὶ ἐδόκουν συνηγορεῖν Θεῷ, τὸν δὲ δίκαιον κατέκριναν. Ἆρα ἐδέξατο τοὺς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ λέγοντας παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον ὁ Θεός; Εἰ ἐδέξατο τὴν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ συνηγορίαν, ἀτιμαζομένου τοῦ δικαίου, δέχεται καὶ τὴν εἰς ἑαυτὸν τιμὴν ἀτιμαζομένου τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Ἄκουε τί λέγει ὁ Κύριος τοῖς φίλοις Ἰώβ· «Ἵνα τί οὐκ ἐλαλήσατε ὀρθὰ κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντός μου;»

46 Ὁ δὲ Ἰὼβ ἔλεγε τῷ Θεῷ· «Τίς δώσει κριτὴν ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ, καὶ εἰδῶ πόσαι εἰσὶν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου, ὅτι οὕτω με ἔκρινας;»

CPG 4211, PG 63, 937,46 – 938,5

APPENDIX AGREEMENTS IN IOBUM (CPG 4564, IV), IN MUNDI CREATIONEM (CPG 4194, II), IN ILLUD: IN PRINCIPIO ERAT VERBUM (CPG 4210), IN S. PENTECOSTEN (CPG 4211)

178 JUDITHA OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION, TEXTS, AND CANON Katherin PAPADOPOULOS INTRODUCTION1 Severian of Gabala, as Voicu rightly points out, warrants further study, if only because he can fill gaps in our knowledge of Eastern exegesis.2 Such exegetical studies however, are largely lacking.3 Absent too are comparative studies with Chrysostom – his contemporary, compatriot, colleague and eventually opponent.4 Moreover, incidental remarks in the secondary literature are sometimes based on insufficient evidence, long discarded assumptions, or unfounded expectations. It is commonly held for example, that Severian’s native language was Syriac as it was reported he had a guttural accent,5 but that does not necessarily follow.6 Even if he were bilingual in Greek and Syriac, an 1 I owe thanks to Prof. Wendy Mayer and the two anonymous reviewers for their many valuable comments and to the librarians at Australian Lutheran College, Australian Catholic University, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam for their assistance. All remaining deficiencies and errors are mine. 2 S. J. VOICU, Pentecost According to Severian of Gabala, in R. W. BISHOP ET AL. (eds), Preaching after Easter: Mid-Pentecost, Ascension, and Pentecost in Late Antiquity (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 136), Leiden, 2016, p. 293. 3 The only extended treatments are in Zellinger, who focuses on sources and style in the Genesis homilies and Hill’s comments in his introduction and translation notes for In Cosmogoniam (CPG 4194) and Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (CPG 4195). Voicu’s survey is over 20 years old. Otherwise most observations on Severian’s exegesis are found in introductions to critical editions or translations, or an occasional comparative study like that by Gil-Tamayo (see n. 4): J. ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen, 7[1]), Münster i. W., 1916, pp. 54-121; R. C. HILL, Translator’s Acknowledgements, in M. GLERUP – R. C. HILL – C. S. HARDIN (eds), Commentaries on Genesis 1-3: Severian of Gabala and Bede the Venerable (Ancient Christian Texts), Downers Grove, IL, 2010, p. 3; IDEM, Translator’s Introduction, in M. GLERUP (ed.) ET AL., Commentaries on Genesis 1-3, pp. 5-22; IDEM, Severian of Gabala: Homilies on the Creation and Fall, in M. GLERUP (ed.) ET AL., Commentaries on Genesis 1-3, pp. 23-93; S. J. VOICU, Sévérien de Gabala, in DSp, 14, Paris, 1989, cols. 752-753. 4 Severian is sometimes included in studies of an exegetical theme, e.g. J. A. GIL-TAMAYO, Todo esto tiene un sentido alegórico (Ga, 4, 24): la exégesis antioquena de Gálatas 4, 21-31, in Scripta Theologica, 40(1), 2008, pp. 35-63. 5 VOICU, Pentecost [n. 2], p. 294. 6 Both Sozomen and Socrates compare Severian with Antiochus, whom Sozomen says was also named Chrysostom for his fine voice and delivery. Historia Ecclesiastica, 8, 10, 1: “ὁ δὲ Σευηριανὸς τὴν Σύρων δασύτητα”: “but Severian had the harshness of the Syrians” (G. C. HANSEN, Sozomenus. Historia ecclesiastica – Kirchengeschichte [Fontes Christiani, 73(4)], Turnhout, 2004, p. 986); Historia Ecclesiastica, 6, 11, 3: “Σευηριανὸς δὲ δοκῶν πεπαιδεῦσθαι, οὐ πάνυ τῇ φωνῇ τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν ἐξετράνου γλῶσσαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἑλληνιστὶ φθεγγόμενος Σύρος

180

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

accent can also be caused by a second language’s influence on the first.7 And again: despite the increasing challenge to the long-held Alexandrian-Antiochene exegetical divide,8 Severian and Chrysostom are still characterised as Antiochene exegetes, with Severian a flat-earth, iron-clad imitator of Chrysostom: “Er ist Antiochener strengster Observanz,” wrote Zellinger of Severian in 1916.9 “Belonging to the strict Antiochene school,” writes Hidal in 1996.10 “A servile follower of Chrysostom,” wrote Chase in 1887.11 “Still in his debt,” writes Hill in 2007.12 But even a cursory look at Severian inevitably throws out contradictions, as Voicu also observes,13 and a closer look at Chrysostom shows he is no more “Antiochene” than Severian.14 Who is an Antiochene exegete anyway? Another: Robert Hill, to whom we owe much gratitude for his copious English translations, often derided Chrysostom and Severian for their Hebrew knowledge,15 but is it reasonable to expect 4th-century exegetes to be 21stcentury text critics and historical linguists? ἦν τὴν φωνήν”: “but although Severian was a very learned man, he did not succeed in using the Greek language perfectly; and so while speaking Greek he betrayed his Syrian origin” (G. C. HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus. Historia ecclesiastica [GCS, N.F., 1], Berlin, 1995, p. 329). 7 For a brief overview of bilingualism see: F. GROSJEAN – P. LI, The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism, Malden, MA, 2013, pp. 5-26. A non-technical overview on the causes of accents: F. GROSJEAN, Bilingual: Life and Reality, Cambridge, 2010, pp. 77-84. On bilingualism in Late Antique Syria, the classic study remains: D. G. K. TAYLOR, Bilingualism and Diglossia in Late Antique Syria and Mesopotamia, in J. N. ADAMS – M. JANSEN – S. SWAIN (eds), Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text, Oxford, 2002, pp. 298-331. See also the introduction by J. N. ADAMS and S. SWAIN on pp. 1-22. 8 Key proponents being C. SCHÄUBLIN, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese, Köln – Bonn, 1974; F. M. YOUNG, The Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristic Exegesis, in H. CHADWICK – R. WILLIAMS (eds), The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 182-199; F. M. YOUNG, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, Cambridge, 1997, pp. 161-216. Further: A. CAMERON, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse (Sather Classical Lectures, 55), Berkeley, 1991. See also: J. J. O’KEEFE, A Letter that Killeth: Toward a Reassessment of Antiochene Exegesis, or Diodore, Theodore, and Theodoret on the Psalms, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 8(1) (2000), pp. 83-103; D. FAIRBAIRN, Patristic Exegesis and Theology: The Cart and the Horse, in Westminster Theological Journal, 69 (2007), pp. 1-19. 9 ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala [n. 3], p. 56. 10 S. HIDAL, Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Antiochene School with its Prevalent Literal and Historical Method, in M. SÆBØ (ed.), Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300); Part 1: Antiquity, Göttingen, 1996, p. 567. 11 F. H. CHASE, Chrysostom: A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation, Cambridge, 1887, p. 21. 12 HILL, Translator’s Ackowledgements [n. 3], p. 3. 13 VOICU, Pentecost [n. 2], p. 295. 14 For example, Fairbairn finds Chrysostom’s Christology to be more Cyril of Alexandria than Theodore of Mopsuestia: D. FAIRBAIRN, Grace and Christology in the Early Church (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, 2003, pp. 204-211. 15 For Chrysostom, see for example R. C. HILL (trans.), St. John Chrysostom Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 1, Brookline, MA, 1998, pp. 26-27. For Severian: HILL, Translator’s Introduction [n. 3], p. 10; IDEM, Severian of Gabala: Homilies on the Creation and Fall [n. 3], p. 63 n. 13.

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

181

Instead of assessing Chrysostom and Severian relative to some ill-defined standard of “Antiochene exegesis”, I propose to compare them directly. A good choice for a comparative study is Severian and Chrysostom’s exegesis of Genesis as both have left a series of homilies on that book,16 but before one can begin that task, it is necessary to re-examine their basic tools – their Bible, particularly their Old Testament, and how they accessed it. This is the focus of the present study. Severian and Chrysostom worked with a Greek Bible, of course, so I begin by comparing their understanding of the legend of the Seventy – the ancient myth of the Old Testament’s translation in Greek – and their attempts to access the Hebrew text behind their text. I then consider how they navigate textual variants within their Greek text, again focusing on the Old Testament. Finally, I review their understanding of canon and revisit their canon list. This survey has been completed by means of targeted searches through the genuine works of Chrysostom,17 and those of Severian edited in Greek.18 Some 16 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 1-67 (PG, 53, coll. 21-385; PG, 54, coll. 385-580); L. BROTTIER (ed.), Jean Chrysostome. Sermons sur la Genèse (SC, 433), Paris, 1998; Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 1-6 (PG, 56, coll. 429-500); Severian of Gabala, Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (H. SAVILIUS, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων, vol. 5, Etonae, 1611-1613, pp. 648-653); Severian of Gabala, In Noe et filios eius, de cherubim et in prophetam Oseam (K. H. UTHEMANN – R. F. REGTUIT – J. M. TEVEL, Homiliae Pseudo-Chrysostomicae: Instrumentum studiorum (HPC), vol. 1, Turnhout, 1994, pp. 89-102); Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, pp. 124-138); Severian of Gabala, Hom. de Noe et de arca (HPC, vol. 1, pp. 146153); Severian of Gabala, In illud: Secundum imaginem et similitudinem (S. KIM, Севериан Гавальский На Слова: По Образу И Подобию [БЫТ. 1, 26], CPG 4234 Часть I Введение, editio princeps, русский перевод [= Severianus Gabalensis. In illud: Secundum imaginem et similitudinem (Gen, 1, 26), CPG 4234 / Introduction, еditio princeps, Russian translation], in Богословский вестник, 24-25 [2017], pp. 468-527); Severian of Gabala, In Genesim sermo, 1 (PG, 56, coll. 519-522); Severian of Gabala, In Genesim sermo, 2 (PG, 56, coll. 522-526). Many other homilies by Severian also have OT readings or themes, e.g., In pretiosam et uiuificam crucem (SAVILIUS Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων, vol. 5, pp. 898-906); De serpente (PG, 56, coll. 499-516), In psalmum, 96 (PG, 55, coll. 603-612), In psalmum, 95 (PG, 55, coll. 619-630), De legislatore (PG, 56, coll. 397-410), In Iob sermones, 2-4 (J. J. OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies on Job (CPG 4564, BHG, 939d-g): Transmission, Critical Edition, and Translation, Amsterdam, 2015, http://hdl.handle.net/1871/537182015, pp. 226-275) and so on. While Chrysostom has left a considerably large output of NT exegesis, no systematic analysis of a particular NT book by Severian is extant. Instead, Severian’s NT exegesis is dispersed among various homilies or preserved in catenae. Staab’s edition of Severian’s Pauline fragments relies heavily on the author attribution in the manuscript tradition and needs independent verification. K. STAAB (ed.), Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, 15), Münster i.W., 1933, pp. xxx-xxxv, 213-351. 17 For a list of authentic works along with editions and translations, see W. MAYER, Editions and Translations of Chrysostom’s Works, http://www.cecs.acu.edu.au/onlineresources_editions.html (accessed 15 November 2017). 18 See the list of Greek homilies and editions Appendix 2 of S. J. VOICU, A Century of Progress on the Homilies of Severian of Gabala at pp. 280-284 in this volume. I was unable to access the text for In illud: Genimina uiperarum (CPG 4947). I have only lightly surveyed Severian’s works extant in Armenian (in Latin translation) and Georgian (in French translation).

182

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

caveats are in order. First, the findings are tentative pending closer analysis. Second, Chrysostom likely preached at various locations – including Antioch and Constantinople – over many years – but the provenance of nearly all his homilies are unknown,19 whereas Severian’s extant homilies were likely preached in Constantinople in 401-402 towards the end of his career.20 Consequently, we may unknowingly be comparing a mature Severian against an immature Chrysostom at times. Third, the relative size of Chrysostom’s corpus compared with Severian’s risks skewing the findings. Finally, the lack of critical texts presents its usual challenges. I have drawn attention to these matters where they are of importance. 2. LEGEND AND LANGUAGE 2.1. The legend of the Seventy Both Severian and Chrysostom worked from a Greek translation of the Old Testament. By the second century AD, “the Seventy” (οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα, septuaginta) had come to denote among Christians the “original” translators of all the Old Testament books, including some extra-canonical books originally composed in Greek.21 Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-339) began to use the term to differentiate the received Greek text prior to the three Jewish revisions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion,22 and this terminology persisted through 19 On the problem of assigning provenance, see W. MAYER, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom: Provenance. Reshaping the Foundations (OCA, 273), Rome, 2005; W. MAYER, At Constantinople, How Often Did John Chrysostom Preach? Addressing Assumptions about the Workload of a Bishop, in Sacris Erudiri, 40 (2001), pp. 83-105. 20 R. E. CARTER, The Chronology of Twenty Homilies of Severian of Gabala, in Traditio, 55 (2000), pp. 1-17, esp. p. 4. Carter’s chronology however must now be viewed against A. CAMERON ET AL., Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (Transformation of the Christian Heritage, 19), Berkeley, 1993, pp. 405-408 = Appendix 2, and his list of homilies expanded to reflect the current understanding of Severian’s authentic works. A Constantinople provenance for all homilies is often assumed because many of the extant homilies form a series. See for example: H. VILLADSEN, Det tidlige perikopesystem i Konstantinopel ifølge Severian af Gabala, in G. HALLONSTEN – S. HIDAL – S. RUBENSON (eds), Florilegium patristicum: En festskrift till Per Beskow, Delsbo, 1991, pp. 233-257. Kim makes a strong case that In ascensionem Domini (CPG 5208) at least, was preached at the church of Anastasia founded by Gregory of Nazianzus in Constantinople: S. KIM, Quelques observations sur l’homélie In ascensionem Domini de Sévérien de Gabala (CPG 4236a7, olim 5028), in Mus, 128(3-4), pp. 261-272. 21 The earliest attestation of “the Seventy” (“οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα”) in Christian sources is by Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo, 68, 7; 71, 1; 120, 3; 124, 3 (P. BOBICHON [ed.], Justin Martyr. Dialogue avec Tryphon: Édition Critique, Traduction, Commentaire, vol. 1, in Paradosis, 47(1-2), Fribourg, 2003, pp. 372; 278; 506; 518) and, more positively, in Irenaeus, Aduersus Haereses, 3, 21, 2 in Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, 5, 8, 11-15 (E. SCHWARTZ – T. MOMMSEN – F. WINKELMANN, Eusebius Caesariensis. Werke, Band 2, Teil 1-3, Die Kirchengeschichte, 2nd ed. [GCS, N.F., 6(1-3)], Berlin, 1999, 1, p. 448). 22 E.g., “Τὸ διάψαλμα παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήκοντα κεῖται, οὐκέτι δὲ παρὰ Θεοδοτίωνι καὶ Συμμάχῳ”: “The selah is with the Seventy, but never in Theodotion and Symmachus”: Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentaria in Psalmos (PG, 23, col. 81), extracted from catenae.

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

183

the 4th century and beyond.23 The name “the Seventy” echoes the legend of the 70 (or 72) translators of the Pentateuch, best known from the pseudonymous Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates, a Hellenistic Jewish work variously dated around the late 3rd to 2nd century BC.24 In the Letter of Aristeas, King Ptolemy II commissioned the translation of the Hebrew books in order to complete the king’s library in Alexandria.25 Since the translation was “so excellent and sacred and accurate” (“καλῶς καὶ ὁσίως διηρμήνευται καὶ κατὰ πᾶν ἠκριβωμένως”),26 the entire Jewish community placed a curse on anyone who would alter it “to ensure that the book might be preserved for all the future time unchanged” (“ἵνα διὰ παντὸς ἀένναα καὶ μένοντα φυλάσσηται”),27 and the king agreed that the books should be “sacredly guarded” (“συντηρεῖν ἁγνῶς”).28 This legend underwent several mutations as it was passed down in Jewish,29 Christian,30 and later, Muslim traditions,31 with the result that some 23

Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, 5, 8, 10; 6, 16, 1; cf. 6, 16, 4 (SCHWARTZ ET Eusebius Caesariensis. Die Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1, p. 446; vol. 2, p. 554). Augustine, De Ciuitate Dei, 18, 42B (B. DOMBART – A. KALB, Augustinus. De Civitate Dei, Libri XI–XXII [CCSL, 48], Turnout, 1955, p. 638). 24 The current critical text, with French translation is A. PELLETIER (ed.), Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate (SC, 89), Paris, 1962. Other important editions include C. KRAUS-REGGIANI (ed.), La lettera di Aristea a Filocrate: introduzione, esame analitico, traduzione, Roma, 1979 and F. RAURELL, Carta d’Arísteas, Introducció, text revisat, traducció i notes, Barcelona, 2002. See also: F. CALABI (ed.), Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate: Introduzione, traduzione e note; Testo greco a fronte, 4th ed. (Classici Greci e Latini), Milano, 2011. A recent English translation and commentary in B. G. WRIGHT III, The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’ (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature), Berlin – Boston, 2015. Unfortunately, Wright does not interact with much non-Anglophone scholarship. In addition to the Letter of Aristeas, the legend is also found in fragments of Aristobolus of Panea preserved by Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215), Anatolius (d. c. 282) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340). Details, along with English translation in A. Y. COLLINS, Aristobulus (Second Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction, in J. H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, Peabody MA, 1983, pp. 831-836. Analysis in: F. SIEGERT, Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style, in SÆBØ, Hebrew Bible [n. 10], pp. 159-162. On the relationship between the Aristobulus and Aristeas traditions see: WRIGHT, Letter of Aristeas, ad indicem; J. DINES, The Septuagint, Edinburgh, 2004, pp. 34-38. 25 Ps.-Aristeas, Letter of Aristeas, 9, 11, 29-31, 38-39 (A. PELLETIER [ed.], Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate [SC, 89], Paris, 1962, pp. 104; 104-106; 118-120; 124-126). 26 Ps.-Aristeas, Letter of Aristeas, 310 (PELLETIER, Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate, p. 232). 27 Ps.-Aristeas, Letter of Aristeas, 311 (PELLETIER, Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate, pp. 232-234). 28 Ps.-Aristeas, Letter of Aristeas, 317-318 (PELLETIER, Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate, pp. 236238). 29 E.g., Philo, De Vita Mosis, 2, 25-44 (L. COHN [ed.], Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 4, Berlin, 1902, pp. 206-210); Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, 12, 11-118 (B. NIESE [ed.], Flavii Iosephi Opera, vol. 3, Berolini, 1955, pp. 74-92). 30 E.g., Ps.-Justin, Cohortatio ad Graecos, 13 (B. POUDERON ET AL. [ed.], Pseudo-Justin. Ouvrages apologétiques [SC, 528], Paris, 2009, pp. 172-176). Also available is Marcovich’s 1990 edition of the Cohortatio ad Graecos in the Patristische Texte und Studien (PTS) series, but this has been criticised for its excessive emendations. Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio Evangelica, 8, 2 (K. MRAS [ed.], Eusebius Werke, 8. Bd.: Die Praeparatio Evangelica, 1. Teil: Einleitung, Die Bücher I bis X [GCS, 43(1)], Berlin, 1952, pp. 421-422). 31 The earliest attestation of the legend in Islamic sources comes from Abū ʻĪsā Aḥmad ibn al-Munajjim (fl.c. 850-900), whose account of the legend of the Seventy survives only in a fragAL.,

184

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

elements were transformed quite significantly.32 The legend however, remained the mainstay explanation of the Septuagint’s origins until the 19th century. 2.2. Severian and the Legend and Language of the Bible Neither the legend nor “the Seventy” are mentioned by Severian. While he holds that the books of the Bible are concerned with salvation,33 he offers no opinion on the origins of his Greek Old Testament except to note, with some animosity, that the scriptures were not only made available to the church but also to the Jews, “so that they may be convicted” (“ἵνα ἐλέγχωνται”).34 As Hill notes, this in contrast to Chrysostom who declares “the books are theirs” (“παρ’ ἐκείνοις μὲν τὰ βιβλία”).35 In Severian’s view too, the Jews are “unworthy” (“ἀναξίοι”) to keep them, but God does not remove the scriptures from them, otherwise an unbeliever would be able to gainsay a preacher.36 As it stands then, a Christian could not be refuted for citing the very texts in Jews’ possession.37 Nevertheless, Severian is aware that his Old Testament was originally translated from the Hebrew but his references to the Hebrew are limited to a few passing mentions, twice in conjunction with Syriac.38 All these mentions ment preserved in Abū al-Fidāʼ (1273-1221). A. WASSERSTEIN – D. J. WASSERSTEIN, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 175-176. 32 DINES, The Septuagint [n. 24], pp. 27-40; 63-80; WASSERSTEIN – WASSERSTEIN, The Legend of the Septuagint, esp. pp. 95-131 on The Church Fathers and the Translation of the Septuagint. Wasserstein and Wasserstein have traced the afterlife of the legend assuming all the traditions originated from pseudo-Aristeas. Some of their critical remarks are contestable. 33 “Πᾶσα μὲν οὖν βίβλος ἁγία ἀφορμὴν ἔχει τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν”: “So the whole holy book has our salvation as its occasion”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 1 (PG, 56, col. 429). Cf. “Εἶδες, ἀγαπητὲ, πῶς ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν τῇ θείᾳ Γραφῇ ἐγγεγραμμένων δι’ οὐδὲν ἕτερον μνήμῃ παρεδόθη, ἀλλ’ ἢ διὰ τὴν ὠφέλειαν τὴν ἡμετέραν, καὶ τὴν σωτηρίαν τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένους”: “Do you see, beloved, how every recollection recorded in sacred Scripture was passed down for no other purpose than our benefit and the salvation of the human race?”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 29 (PG, 53, col. 261). 34 “Καὶ ὅρα τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν σοφίαν. Τὰς Γραφὰς τῶν προφητῶν οὐ συνεχώρησεν ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησία μόνον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς Ἰουδαίους· ἵνα ἐλέγχωνται”: “Note God’s wisdom: he made the prophets’ writings available not only in the church but also for the Jews; so that they may be convicted”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 4 (PG, 56, col. 463). 35 HILL, Severian of Gabala: Homilies on the Creation and Fall, p. 54 n. 6. Cf.: “Νῦν δὲ παρ’ ἐκείνοις μὲν τὰ βιβλία, παρ’ ἡμῖν δὲ τῶν βιβλίων ὁ θησαυρός· παρ’ ἐκείνοις τὰ γράμματα, παρ’ ἡμῖν καὶ τὰ γράμματα καὶ τὰ νοήματα”: “Now the books are with them but the books’ treasure is with us; the letters are with them but both the letters and their meanings are with us”: John Chrysostom, Sermons on Genesis, 2, 1 (BROTTIER, Jean Chrysostome. Sermons sur la Genèse, p. 188). 36 Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 4 (PG, 56, col. 463). 37 Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 4 (PG, 56, col. 463). 38 (On Adam) “Ἡ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου προσηγορία τῇ Ἑβραΐδι φωνῇ πῦρ ἑρμηνεύεται. ... Ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ πῦρ λέγεται. ... Καλεῖται τοίνυν τῇ Ἑβραΐδι φωνῇ πῦρ”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 5, 3 (PG, 56, col. 473, ll. 47-48; 52-53; col. 474, l. 15); “Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἄβελ κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραίαν γλῶσσαν ἑρμνηνευόμενον πένθος”: De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 126, 99-100); “Ἐνὼς δέ ἐστιν

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

185

pertain to the interpretation of Hebrew names or words, and yet at other times, Severian interprets Hebrew names without mention of either language (see Table 1).39 Table 1. Severian’s Hebrew etymologies Name/Term

Meaning

Language

Provenance

“Ἀβέλ”

“πένθος”

Hebrew

Philo

“Ἀδάμ”

“πῦρ”

Hebrew

Josephus (?)

“Ἐδέμ”

“τρύφη”

—

Philo

“Ἐνώς”

“ἄνθρωπος”

Syriac and Hebrew

Philo

“μάνη”

“ἡρίθμησεν”

Syriac and Hebrew

OG-Dan

“Σήθ”

“Ποτισμός”

—

Philo

“χερουβίμ”

“πλῆθος γνώσεως” Hebrew “σοφία πεπληρωμένη” —

Philo

“ովսաննա”40 [“ὡσαννα”]

[μεγαλωσύνη (?)]

[Ps.-Justin (5th cent)]

[the Hebrew dialect]

Hill derided Severian’s attempts at Hebrew etymology as “limp”,’41 while Voicu observed that Severian sometimes “displays an exceptional philological erudition, but some of his biblical etymologies can only be explained by using ἄνθρωπος. Τοῦτο καὶ ἡ Σύρα καὶ ἡ Ἑβραία ἑρμηνεύει ὁτι Ἐνὼς ἄνθρωπος ἑρμηνεύεται”: De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 129, 218-219); “Τὰ χερουβὶμ ἑρμηνεύεται τῇ Ἑβραΐδι φωνῇ πλῆθος γνώσεως”: In Noe et filios eius (HPC, vol. 1, p. 91, 84-85); “Μανή· ἡρίθμησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὴν βασιλείαν σου, καὶ ἐπληρώθη (τοῦτο γὰρ ἑρμηνεύει ἡ Σύρα γλῶσσα καὶ ἡ Ἑβραϊκὴ ὁμοίως)”: In psalmum, 95 (PG, 55, col. 626, ll. 5-6). 39 “Ἑρμηνευέται ὁ Σὴθ ποτισμός”: Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, pp. 126, 113-127, 2). “Ἐδὲμ ἑρμηνεύεται τρυφὴ, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 5, 5 (PG, 56, col. 477, ll. 33-36); “Χερουβεὶμ γὰρ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἑρμηνεύεται, ἢ σοφία πεπληρωμένη”: Homilies on the Creation of the World, 2, 5 (PG, 56, coll. 444, l. 54-445, l. 4). 40 This etymology is found in Severian of Gabala, De aduentu domini super pullum, 22 (J. B. AUCHER [ed.], Severiani sive Seberiani gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae nunc primum editae, ex antiqua versione Armena in Latinum sermonem translatae, Venetiis, 1827, p. 408). The homily is also extant in a longer Armenian recension. The Georgian version omits this section with the etymology. A French translation of the longer Armenian and the Georgian is in: KIM, Sévérien de Gabala dans les littératures arménienne et géorgienne, Paris, 2014, pp. 106-107; 120-121. On the etymology see: H. J. LEHMANN, Hosanna. A Philological Discussion in the Old Church, in Students of the Bible in 4th and 5th Century Syria: Seats of Learning, Sidelights and Syriacisms, Århus, 2008, pp. 20-22, originally published Armeniaca (1969), pp. 165-174, now somewhat out of date. The most notable parallel is with Ps-Justin, Quaestiones ad orthodoxes which would seem to post-date Severian. Toth dates the Quaestiones ad orthodoxes to the 5th century, perhaps between Chalcedon (431) and Ephesus (451) and suggests it could be attributed to Theodoret of Cyrus: P. TOTH, New Questions on Old Answers: Towards a Critical Edition of the Answers to the Orthodox of Pseudo-Justin, in JThS, N.S., 65(2) (2014), pp. 550-599. I have excluded this from further analysis. 41 HILL, Translator’s Introduction [n. 3], p. 10.

186

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

the Syriac language as a point of departure.”42 I suggest instead that none of Severian’s etymologies show, much less require any knowledge of Hebrew (and therefore do not require Syriac either) and that his references to the Hebrew and Syriac are probably incidental. Firstly, the Septuagint translators generally transliterated proper names, technical terms, and unknown words.43 Naturally, for a Greek speaking exegete or preacher, these transliterated words would invite an explanation, and whatever explanation they offered would in their mind be “interpreting Hebrew”, whether they knew Hebrew themselves or not. This seems to be the case when Severian loosely cites Th-Daniel, 5.25 with the three transliterated words representing the inscription on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast (μανή, θεκέλ, φαρές), for Severian then tells his audience that these were Hebrew words (“τὰ ῥήματα ἦν Ἑβραϊκά”), something he can easily infer from the transliterated words (which are not Greek!), the narrative, and his own awareness of a Hebrew original behind his received text.44 Unfortunately, he seems unaware that this portion of Daniel was originally written in Aramaic or does not care to make that distinction. When he finally gives the interpretation of mane (“μανή”) – the first word of the writing on the wall – he merely cites his lemma of Daniel, 5.26, which follows Th-Daniel except that the verb “measured” (“ἐμέτρησεν”) is replaced with “reckoned” (“ἠρίθμησεν”).45 The latter is a form of the verb found in OG-Daniel (“ἠρίθμηται”), and one which happens to better interpret the Aramaic mÿne’ (“‫)”מנֵ א‬ ְ from a modern text critic’s point of view – see Table 2.46 Of course, Severian may have simply consulted OG-Daniel and cited 42 S. J. VOICU, Severian of Gabala, in A. DI BERARDINO (ed.), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, vol. 3, 2nd English ed., Downers Grove, IL, 2014, p. 563. This is heavily dependent on VOICU, Sévérien de Gabala [n. 3]. 43 Tov’s analysis suggests such transliterations may even be a feature of Theodotion’s version. Many transliterations however, were corrupted in their transmission: E. TOV, Loan-Words, Homophony, and Transliterations in the Septuagint, in E. TOV, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 72), Leiden, 1999, pp. 174-182, and IDEM, Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament: A Further Characteristic of the Kaige-Th Revision?, in E. TOV, The Greek and Hebrew Bible, pp. 501-512. 44 “καὶ τὰ ῥήματα ἦν Ἑβραϊκὰ, καὶ τὸ ξένον τοῦ θαύματος ἐξέπληττε τὸν τύραννον καὶ τοὺς συμπότας”: “and the words were Hebrew, and the strangeness of the miracle astounded the tyrant and his dinner guests”: Severian of Gabala, In psalmum, 95, 4 (PG, 55, col. 625, ll. 31-32). 45 “Μανή· ἠρίθμησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὴν βασιλείαν σου, καὶ ἐπληρώθη (τοῦτο γὰρ ἑρμηνεύει ἡ Σύρα γλῶσσα καὶ ἡ Ἑβραϊκὴ ὁμοίως)”: Severian of Gabala, In psalmum, 95 (PG, 55, col. 626, ll. 5-6). Montfaucon notes that all manuscripts have “ἡ ἑβραΐς” (“Omnes mss habent καὶ ἡ ἑβραὶς non male”). 46 There are two extant Greek versions of Daniel, the Old Greek (OG-Dan) which is extant only in fragments and Theodotion’s version (Th-Dan) which is closer to what we now know as the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT). Both OG-Dan and Th-Dan include the ‘additions to Daniel’ (that is, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon) which are not found in the MT, but they are placed differently in each version. Additionally OG-Dan and Th-Dan differ significantly from each other in Daniel, 4-6. At some point, and probably by

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

187

his lemma this way himself, but he could have merely done so because it made better sense, in Greek. It would be unlikely that he came up with that interpretation himself using the same verb as the Old Greek because the text does not make it clear what was numbered. In either case, there is no need for any Hebrew or Syriac knowledge. Severian’s mention of Syriac and Hebrew here could simply be because he has assumed these are Hebrew words and knows that Hebrew and Syriac are related. If he were also a Syriac speaker, the Syriac simply confirmed his received text.47 Table 2. Daniel 5.26 Severian:

“Μανή· ἠρίθμησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὴν βασιλείαν σου, καὶ ἐπληρώθη (τοῦτο γὰρ ἑρμηνεύει ἡ Σύρα γλῶσσα καὶ ἡ Ἑβραϊκὴ ὁμοίως)” “MANE, God reckoned your kingdom and it was fulfilled’ (for the Syrian tongue interprets it this way, and the Hebrew likewise)”

Dan-Th:

“Μανὴ ἐμέτρησεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν βασιλείαν σου καὶ ἐπλήρωσεν αὐτήν” “MANE, God has measured your kingdom and fulfilled it”

Dan-OG

“ἠρίθμηται ὁ χρόνος σου τῆς βασιλείας, ἀπολήγει ἡ βασιλεία σου” “the time of your kingdom has been reckoned; your kingdom is coming to an end”

Secondly, proper names which were transliterated in scripture drew attention, as both scripture and ancient cultures attached significance to names. Consequently, certain etymologies or interpretations developed into traditions which were passed down. Indeed, five of Severian’s etymologies repeat long established interpretations: his etymology of Seth (“ποτισμός”),48 Enosh the second half of the 3rd century, Th-Dan had replaced OG-Dan. S. JELLICOE, The Septuagint and Modern Study, Winona Lake, 1993, pp. 86-87. A. A. DI LELLA, The Textual History of SeptuagintDaniel and Theodotion-Daniel, in J. J. COLLINS – P. W. FLINT (eds), The Book of Daniel, vol. 2: Composition and Reception (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 83[2]), Leiden, 2001, pp. 586-607. See also: A. M. DAVIS BLEDSOE, The Relationship of the Different Editions of Daniel: A History of Scholarship, in Currents in Biblical Research, 13(2) (2015), pp. 175-190. 47 An example of using Syriac to confirm a received Hebrew interpretation is given by Theodoret of Cyrus in his own commentary on Dan, 8, 13: “Τὸ φελμουνὶ τὸν τινὰ σημαίνει τῇ Ἑλλάδι φωνῇ· μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τούτοις καὶ ἡ Σύρων φωνὴ γειτνιάζουσα τῇ Ἑβραίᾳ”: “The word phelmouni means ‘a person’ in Greek; this is also confirmed by the Syriac, which is close to Hebrew”: Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio in Danielem, 8, 13 (PG, 81, col. 1448). Here, Theodoret came close to the Hebrew text as “φελμουνί” is a transliteration of the Hebrew “a certain person” (‫)פלמוני‬. The transliteration of this common noun (technically a pronomial verb form) would mark an exception among LXX translators, who generally only transliterated proper names, unless, as Dines plausibly suggests, the translator mistook it for a proper name of an angel. J. DINES, Light from the Septuagint on the New Testament. Or Vice Versa?, in J. JOOSTEN – P. J. THOMSON (eds), Voces Biblicae: Septuagint Greek and its Significance for the New Testament, Leuven, 2007, p. 31. 48 “Ἑρμηνευέται ὁ Σὴθ ποτισμός”: Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 126, 113) ≡ “Σὴθ ἑρμηνεύεται ποτισμός”: Philo of Alexandria, De posteritate Caini, 125 (P. WENDLAND [ed.], Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 2, Berlin, 1897, p. 27, 19);

188

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

(“ἄνθρωπος”),49 cherubim (“πλῆθος γνώσεως”, “σοφία πεπληρωμένη”),50 Eden (“τρυφή”),51 and even Abel (“πένθος”),52 can all be traced back to Philo, who ironically probably did not know Hebrew himself.53 Philo’s etymologies are repeated by various Christian commentators – Origen,54 and Didymus the Blind55 in particular – and not necessarily always in homiletic or exegetical “τὸν Σήθ, τὸν ποτισμόν”: Philo of Alexandria, De Posteritate Caini, 170 (WENDLAND, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, p. 37, 29). 49 “Ἐνὼς ἄνθρωπος ἑρμηνεύεται”: Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 129, 216-221) ≡ “‘Enosh’ is interpreted as ‘man’”, Philo of Alexandria, Quaestiones in Genesim, 1, 79 (on Gen, 4, 26 LXX) (R. MARCUS [trans.], Philo, Suppl. 1: Questions and Answers on Genesis [Loeb Classical Library, 380], Cambridge, MA, 1953, p. 49. Philo’s Quaestiones in Genesim et Exodum are extant in a partial Armenian translation, an even less complete Latin translation, and in numerous Greek fragments, mostly in catenae and florilegia. Only two small portions of the original Greek (QG 2.1-7 and QE 2.72-68) have survived in the manuscript tradition. The Armenian texts have been edited by Charles MERCIER (Genesis) and Abraham TERIAN (Exodus) for the series Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 34a/34b/34c (Paris, 1979, 1984, 1992). 50 “Τὰ χερουβὶμ ἑρμηνεύεται τῇ Ἑβραΐδι φωνῇ «πλῆθος γνώσεως”: Severian of Gabala, In Noe et filios eius (HPC, vol. 1, p. 91, 84-85); “Χερουβεὶμ γὰρ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἑρμηνεύεται, ἢ σοφία πεπληρωμένη”: Homilies on the Creation of the World, 2, 5 (PG, 56, coll. 444, l. 54-445, l. 1) ≡ “ἃ πατρίῳ μέν γλώττῃ προσαγορεύεται Χερουβίμ, ὡς δ’ ἂν Ἕλληνες εἴποιεν, ἐπίγνωσις καὶ ἐπιστήμη πολλή”: Philo of Alexandria, De vita Mosis, 2, 97-98 (COHN, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 4, p. 223, 13-15); “(‘Cherubim’) is to be interpreted as ‘great recognition’, in other words, ‘knowledge poured out in abundance’”: Quaestiones in Exodum, 2, 62 (on Ex, 25, 17a [=MT, 18a] LXX) (R. MARCUS [trans.], Philo, Suppl. 2: Questions and Answers on Exodus [Loeb Classical Library, 401], Cambridge, MA, 1953, p. 108. 51 “Ἐδὲμ ἑρμηνεύεται τρυφή”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 5, 5 (PG, 56, col. 477, l. 34) ≡ “Ἐδέμ, τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τρυφή”: Philo of Alexandria, Legum allegoriarum, 1, 45 (L. COHN, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 1, Berlin, 1896, p. 72, 12-14); “ἑρμηνεύεται δὲ Ναὶδ μὲν σάλος, Ἐδὲμ δὲ τρυφή”, De cherubim, 12 (COHN, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 1, pp. 172, 25-173, 1); “Ἐδέμ - ἑρμηνεύεται δὲ τρυφή”: De plantatione, 38 (P. WENDLAND, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 2, Berlin, 1897, p. 141, 8-10); “Ἐδέμ, ἧς ἑρμηνεία τρυφή”: De somniis, 2, 242 (P. WENDLAND, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 3, Berlin, 1898, p. 297, 13); “συμβολικῶς δέ ἐστιν Ἐδὲμ ὀρθὸς καὶ θεῖος λόγος, παρὸ καὶ ἑρμηνείαν ἔχει τρυφήν”: De Posteritate Caini, 32 (WENDLAND, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 2, p. 8, 8-9); “But the name Eden when translated is certainly a symbol of delicacies, joy and mirth”: Quaestiones in Genesim, 1, 7 on Gen, 2, 8 (MARCUS, Philo, Suppl., 1, p. 5). 52 “Ἔστιν δὲ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἄβελ κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραίαν γλῶσσαν ἑρμνηνευόμενον πένθος”: Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 126, 99-100) ≡ “οὐχ ὁρᾷς τὸν Ἄβελ. ὄνομα δέ ἐστι τὰ θνητὰ πενθοῦντος καὶ τὰ ἀθάνατα εὐδαιμονίζοντος”: Philo of Alexandria, De migratione Abrahami, 74 (WENDLAND, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 2, 282, 24-26). Philo also interprets Abel as “ἀναφέρων ἐπὶ θεόν”: De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, 3 (COHN, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 1, 203, 4). 53 Philo’s lack of Hebrew knowledge was first suggested by E. STEIN, Die allegorische Exegese des Philo aus Alexandreia (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 51), Giessen, 1929; repr. Berlin, 2015. The debate among Philonic scholars since, seems to have been exhausted. 54 A. VAN DEN HOEK, Philo and Origen: a Descriptive Catalogue of Their Relationship, in Studia Philonica Annual, 22 (2000), pp. 44-121. 55 J. M. ROGERS, Didymus the Blind and the Alexandrian Christian Reception of Philo (Studia Philonica Monographs, 8), Atlanta, GA, 2017, pp. 119-142.

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

189

contexts,56 so a commentator, preacher or even an oral homiletic tradition, could have served as Severian’s source. In the case of Eden, Severian even hints that his interpretation comes from someone else (“ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις”, “as one might say”).57 If dependant, then just as for mane (“μανή”), Severian’s mention of Syriac in his Enosh etymology is likely a mere aside given the relationship between the two languages,58 or else the Syriac ᾿nāš (ÿæs) meaning “human” confirms his received interpretation of the transliterated Hebrew name “Enos” (“Ἐνώς”).59 Severian’s etymology for Adam as “fire” (“πῦρ”) which has perplexed modern scholars is also likely to be derivative.60 Severian himself points out that he is drawing his Adam interpretation from natural sciences (“φυσιολογῶ”).61 Indeed, his assertion that Adam was made from the four elements reflects the classic cosmology of his day. His Adam acrostic has a long and lively tradition.62 56 Abel’s etymology, for example is found in apologetic literature, and a novel: “καὶ ὁ Ἄβελ δὲ ἑρμηνεύεται πένθος”: Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparatio evangelica, 11, 6, 24 (K. MRAS – É. DES PLACES [eds], Eusebius Werke, Bd. 8: Die Praeparatio evangelica, Teil 2: Die Bücher XI bis XV [GCS, 43(2)], Berlin, 1956, p. 17, 14) and also the 4th century: “Ἄβελ, ὃ ἄνευ πάσης ἀμφιβολίας πένθος ἑρμηνεύεται”: Ps.-Clementine, Homiliae, 3, 26, 2 (B. REHM – G. STRECKER, Die Pseudoklementinen I. Homilien, 3rd ed. [GCS, 42], Berlin, 1969, p. 66, 3-4); “Ἄβελ, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται πένθος”: Homilia, 3, 42, 7 (REHM – STRECKER, Die Pseudoklementinen, p. 73, 4); Abel, quod interpretatur luctus, et eius fratre Seth, quod interpretatur resurrectio, “Abel which is interpreted ‘sorrow’ and his brother Seth, which is interpreted ‘resurrection’”: Augustine of Hippo, De civitate Dei, 15, 18 (CCSL, 48), p. 480. 57 Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 5, 5 (PG, 56, col. 477, l. 34). Hill’s translation omits PG, 56, col. 477, ll. 33b-38a, possibly because Severian repeated the lemma for Gen, 2, 8 and Hill inadvertently skipped the lines following the first lemma (haplography): HILL, Severian of Gabala: Homilies on the Creation and Fall, p. 67. 58 On early Christian understandings of Hebrew and Aramaic/Syriac, and the relationship between the two, see E. L. GALLAGHER, Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory: Canon, Language, Text (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 114), Leiden, 2012, pp. 123-142. Despite the title, Gallagher focuses on Jerome and Origen. At p. 128, Gallagher points to Epiphanius (Panarion, 26, 1, 5) who divided Hebrew into the “deep language” (“ἡ βαθεῖα γλῶσσα”), and “the Syriac dialect” (“Σηριακή διάλεκτος”). Y. MOSS, The Language of Paradise: Hebrew or Syriac? Linguistic Speculations and Linguistic Realities in Late Antiquity, in M. BOCKMUEHL – G. G. STROUMSA (eds), Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views, Cambridge, 2010, pp. 120-137, includes rabbinic views. R. VAN ROOY, “Πόθεν ἡ τοσαύτη διαφωνία;” Greek Patristic Authors Discussing Linguistic Origin, Diversity, Change and Kinship, in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, 23(1) (2013), pp. 21-54, includes Chrysostom, but not Severian. Van Rooy uses the standard Antiochene, Alexandrian, and Cappadocian categories (25) and concludes that those belonging to the same exegetical schools expressed different views on various language questions (47). T. DENECKER, Ideas on Language in Early Latin Christianity: From Tertullian to Isidore of Seville (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 142), Leiden, 2017, pp. 57-95. 59 See note 38. 60 Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 5, 3 (PG, 56, coll. 473-474). 61 “πάλιν φυσιολογῶ, κἂν μὴ θέλωσιν”: “I invoke natural sciences again, even if they object”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 5, 3 (PG, 56, col. 473, 55). 62 Key studies on this acrostic and associated themes are: E. TURDEANU, Dieu créa l’homme de huit éléments et tira son nom des quatre coins du monde, in Revue des études roumaines, 13-14 (1974), pp. 163-194 repr. Apocryphes slaves et roumains de l’Ancien Testament (Studia in Veteris

190

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

His interpretation of Adam as “fire” may be a corruption or transposition of Josephus’ report that among the Hebrews, Adam means “red” (“πυρρόν”) because he was made “from red earth” (“ἀπὸ τῆς πυρρᾶς γῆς”).63 A simple transposition would make Adam “red earth” (“γῆ πυρρά”).64 The Hebrew word for “red earth” is transliterated adama (“ἀδάμα”) in Greek, and easily corrupted to Adam (“ἀδάμ”).65 It is also not hard to misspell “red” (“πυρρά”) as “fire” (“πυρά”)66 and have a subsequent copyist correct it to (“πῦρ”). In fact, around 300 AD, the Hermetic alchemist Zosimos of Panopolis, who probably worked in Alexandria,67

Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, 5), Leiden, 1981, pp. 404-435; M. T. D’ALVERNY, L’homme comme symbole. Le microcosme, in Simboli e Simbologia nell’alto Medioevo, ed. Settimane di Studio del Centro ltaliano di Studi sull’alto Medioevo 23 (Spoleto, 1976), 123-195; D. CERBELAUD, Le nom d’Adam et les points cardinaux. Recherches sur un thème patristique, in VigChr, 38(3) (1984), pp. 285-301; C. BÖTTRICH, Adam als Mikrokosmos: Eine Untersuchung zum slavischen Henochbuch (Judentum und Umwelt, 59), Frankfurt, 1995; S. J. VOICU, Adamo, acrostico del mondo, in Apocrypha, 18 (2007), pp. 205-230; P. MARONE, L’acrostico ADAM e la ghematria nella letteratura cristiana antica e medievale, in Rivista Biblica, 63 (2013), pp. 225-229, and again, S. J. VOICU, Gematria e acrostico de Adamo: nuovi testimoni, in Apocrypha, 25 (2014), pp. 181-193. 63 “ὁ δ’ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος Ἄδαμος ἐκλήθη· σημαίνει δὲ τοῦτο κατὰ γλῶτταν τὴν Ἑβραίων πυρρόν, ἐπειδήπερ ἀπὸ τῆς πυρρᾶς γῆς φυραθείσης ἐγεγόνει· τοιαύτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ παρθένος γῆ καὶ ἀληθινή”: “This man was called Adam: which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red; because he was formed out of red earth compounded together: for of that kind is virgin and true earth”: Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, 1, 34 (NIESE, Flavii Iosephi Opera, vol. 1, Berolini, 1887, p. 10, 10-13). Cf. Hesychius, sv. ἀδάμα, παρθενικὴ γῆ (K. LATTE – P. A. HANSEN – I. C. CUNNINGHAM [ed.], Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon [Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, 11], Berlin, 1953–. First suggested by Altendorf although Voicu declares that it is not clear or otherwise attested how Adam came to be associated with fire: VOICU, Adamo, acrostico [n. 62], p. 213. 64 As another example of such transposition: Josephus also says red earth is characteristic of virgin and true earth. Chrysostom himself interpreted Eden as virgin earth and asserted it was a type of Mary, from which one can infer Mary means virgin earth: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 13, 3 (PG, 53, coll. 108, l. 13-109, l. 4); On the Changing of Names, 2, 3 (PG, 51, col. 129, ll. 11-12, ll. 19-21, ll. 27-31, ll. 35-37, l. 49). 65 See for example: “Ποία γλῶσσα ἀρχαιοτέρα; Δηλοῖ τὰ ὀνόματα· Ἀδὰμ γὰρ καὶ Κάϊν καὶ Ἄβελ καὶ Νῶε, τῆς Σύρων ἴδια γλώττης· ἀδαμθὰ γὰρ τὴν ἐρυθρὰν γῆν ἔθος τοῖς σύροις καλεῖν. Ἀδὰμ τοίνυν, ἢ ὁ γήϊνος ἢ ὁ χοϊκὸς ἑρμηνεύεται...”: “Which is the most ancient Language? The names give the clue: Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah belong to Syriac. Speakers of Syriac normally refer to red earth as ‘adamtha’ (‘ἀδάμθα’), Adam means ‘earthly’ or ‘made of dust’...”, Theoderet of Cyrus, Questions on the Octateuch, 60 (J. F. PETRUCCIONE [ed.] – R. C. HILL [trans.], Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, vol. 1: On Genesis and Exodus [Library of Early Christianity, 1], Washington, DC, pp. 122-125 = N. F. MARCOS – A. SÁENZ-BADILLOS, Theodoreti Cyrensis quaestiones in Octateuchum [Textos y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros, 17], Madrid, 1979, p. 56 [critical apparatus]). Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos’ critical apparatus indicates adamtha (“ἀδάμθα”) was often transmitted as Adam (“Ἀδάμ”) in the manuscript tradition. Hill’s note on Theodoret’s etymologies at PETRUCCIONE, Theodoret, p. 125 n. 1 betrays, once again, his anachronistic expectation that ancient etymologizing should reflect modern historical linguistics. 66 See for example “πυρά”, “fire” in 2 Mac, 1, 22; 7, 5; 10, 36; 4 Mac, 17, 1; Sir, 51, 4; Jdt, 7, 5; Acts, 28, 2; 3. 67 M. MERTENS, Zosime de Panopolis. Mémoires authentiques (Les alchimistes grecs, 4, 1), Paris, 1995, pp. xvii.

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

191

refers to an interpretation of Adam as “red earth” (“γῆ πυρρά”) among peoples of the near east, and in a clear reference to (yet another permutation of) the legend of the Seventy, even claimed to have found his interpretation in the translated Hebrew books which were held in the library of the Serapeum:68 Οἱ δὲ Χαλδαῖοι καὶ Πάρθοι καὶ Μῆδοι καὶ Ἑβραῖοι καλοῦσιν αὐτὸν Ἀδάμ, ᾧ ἐστιν ἑρμηνεία γῆ παρθένος καὶ γῆ αἱματώδης καὶ γῆ πυρρὰ καὶ γῆ σαρκίνη. Ταῦτα δὲ ἐν ταῖς βιβλιοθήκαις τῶν Πτολεμαίων ηὕρηνται ὧν ἀπέθεντο εἰς ἕκαστον ἱερόν, μάλιστα τῷ Σαραπείῳ, ὅτε παρεκάλεσεν Ἀσενᾶν τὸν ἀρχ Ἱεροσολύμων πέμψαντα Ἑρμῆν ὃς ἡρμήνευσε πᾶσαν τὴν Ἑβραΐδα Ἑλληνιστὶ καὶ Αἰγυπτιστί. The Chaldeans, Parthians, Medes, and Hebrews call him [the first man] Adam; whose interpretation is virgin earth, bloody earth, fiery-red earth and carnal earth. These things are found in the library of the Ptolemies, deposited in each sanctuary, notably in the Serapeum, when Asenan summoned the high priest of Jerusalem, who sent Hermes, who interpreted the whole of the Hebrew into Greek and into Egyptian.

Moreover, Zosimos also gives a form of the Adam acrostic linked to the four elements, just as Severian does.69 This is not to say Severian knew Zosimos,70 but to indicate such transmutations do occur, and that Severian’s Adam etymology can easily be dependent on other sources and independent of any knowledge of Hebrew or even Syriac. It is also possible that Severian innovated a transmutation from “πυρ[ρ]ά” to “πῦρ” himself.71 And as Severian’s subsequent explanation shows, he was not engaging in any Hebrew linguistics,72 but inquiring into the nature of man, and combining natural science with his biblical text.73 68 Zosimos of Panopolis, De omega elementa, 8 (MERTENS, Zosime de Panopolis. Mémoires authentiques, 4, 79-5, 86). WASSERSTEIN – WASSERSTEIN, Legend of the Septuagint [n. 31], pp. 275-290. 69 Zosimos of Panopolis, De omega elementa, 9-10 (MERTENS, Zosime de Panopolis. Mémoires authentiques, 5, 87-6, 103). 70 The question of how Severian may have come across the Adam acrostic, which seems to have a Jewish-Alexandrian provenance, yet is found in a Syrian or Constantinopolitan milieu, need not concern us here. The diffuson of Hermetic or alchemist writings is one possibility but alchemy is not mentioned in the extant Greek east literature until the 5th century. See the survey by: M. MERTENS, Graeco-Egyptian Alchemy in Byzantium, in P. MAGDALINO – M. MAVROUDI (eds), The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, Geneva, 2006, pp. 205-230. However Zosimos’s works were also translated into Latin, Syriac and Arabic and known by later Greek Christian authors (George Synkellos and Photios). Martens reports that the Syriac and Arabic versions of Zosimos have not yet been studied in depth (p. 215 n. 22); but surmises that the Greek texts of Zosimos must have been translated into Syriac before the 8th-11th century (p. 227 n. 69). There is nothing to suggest then, that they cannot have found their way to Syria earlier. One could also consider gematria traditions and Jewish lines of transmission. 71 I suspect that Severian chose “fire” as it is the universal element in Stoic cosmology and also fits with the nature of man and God as he perceives it from the biblical texts, allegorically. A subject for a future study. 72 Contra HILL, Severian of Gabala: Homilies on the Creation and Fall [n. 3], p. 63 n. 13. 73 Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 5, 3 (PG, 56, coll. 473-475) without the lens of Hill’s caustic translation notes at HILL, Severian of Gabala: Homilies on the Creation and Fall [n. 3], pp. 63-64.

192

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

Finally, the constellation of pithy etymologies converging on Philo suggests Severian may have consulted some form of word-list or glossary. Such glossaries – some call them onomastica – were common place in antiquity, and served all sorts of purposes, from training scribes to serving translators.74 Severian’s contemporary Jerome (c.347-c.420) translated one book of interpretations of Hebrew names (Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum) which he thought had been compiled by Philo and revised by Origen.75 He also reported that the book was “well known in the Greek world, and found in all libraries” (qui cum uulgo habeatur a Graecis et bibliothecas orbis inpleuerit), even if the various copies were so “discordant” (dissona) and disordered (confusum ordinem), that he felt compelled to correct them in his Latin version.76 While there is no indication Severian consulted a version of that particular book – coincidentally all of Severian’s etymologies except that of Adam are found there77 – it evidences the popularity of such exegetical aids, and the extent of their variation or corruption. Long lists of names with one-word interpretations devoid of any context are rife for turning “πυρρά” into “πυρά” and “πῦρ”. Moreover, as such onomastica usually provided a short etymology of a Hebrew name, often just one word, with no philological grounds, exegetes were compelled to provide their own explanations of the etymology to suit their biblical text, as 74 F. X. WUTZ, Onomastica Sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber Interpretationis Nominum Hebraicorum des heiligen Hieronymus, 2 vols. (TU, 41), Leipzig, 1914-1915, volume 2 contains a collection of onomastica (by no means comprehensive). Grabbe, translates two such onomastica found among the documentary papyri in his appendix: L. L. GRABBE, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (Brown Judaic studies, 115), Atlanta GA, 1988, pp. 239-252. 75 Jerome, Interpretations of the Hebrew Names, praef. (P. DE LAGARDE [ed.], Onomastica Sacra, Gottingae, 1870, pp. 25-26). Lagarde’s second Göttingen edition of the Liber interpretationis (1887, 26-116) is reprinted in P. DE LAGARDE ET AL., S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera. Pars I, Opera Exegetica 1 (CCSL, 72), Turnhout, 1959, pp. 57-161. The book on the interpretations of the Hebrew names was one of three works which Jerome completed around 389-391 shortly after he moved to Bethlehem, in preparation for his translation of the Bible: F. CAVALLERA, Saint Jérôme: Sa Vie et son Œuvre, vol. 2 (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense; Études et documents, 1-2), Louvain – Paris, 1922, pp. 26-28; J. N. D. KELLY, Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies, London, 1975, p. 153. The Greek has been lost, and scholars reject either Philo or Origen as author. See for example: WUTZ, Onomastica Sacra, vol. 1, pp. 14-24; N. R. M. DE LANGE, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in 3rd-century Palestine, Cambridge, 1976, pp. 118-121, posits an Alexandrian Greek-Jewish origin. 76 Jerome, Interpretations of the Hebrew Names (LAGARDE [ed.], Onomastica Sacra, 1, 5-6, 7, 8). 77 Adam homo siue terrenus aut indigena uel terra rubra. Abel luctus siue uanitas aut uapor uel miserabilis; Cherubin scientia multiplicata uel quasi plures; Eden uoluptas siue deliciae uel ornatus; Enos homo siue desperatus uel uiolentus; Seth positio siue positus aut poculum uel gramen aut semen seu resurrectio; mane numerauit: JEROME, Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum (LAGARDE, Onomastica Sacra, 2, 17-18 [Adam, Abel]; 4, 11 [Cherubin]; 5, 15 [Eden]; 5, 17-18 [Enos]; 56, 15 [mane]). If a book believed to have been authored by Philo and Origen was circulating, one can speculate that copies may have been destroyed during the Origenist controversies.

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

193

Severian does with Seth, hence a common etymology among exegetes can have a contrasting explanation.78 2.3. Chrysostom on the Legend and Language of the Bible In contrast, Chrysostom related the legend of the Seventy to his audiences on several occasions.79 In Chrysostom’s version, the entire Old Testament was translated by men from Jerusalem at the request of Ptolemy Philadelphus,80 and “the translated books of the prophets” (“τῶν προφητῶν αἱ ἑρμηνευθεῖσαι βίβλοι”) which have “their own holiness” (“τὴν οἰκείαν ἁγιότητα”) were placed in “the temple of Serapis” (“τὸ τοῦ Σεράπιδος ἱερόν”), likely the famed Serapeum at Rhakotis in Alexandria.81 Two centuries before Chrysostom, Tertullian (fl. c. 200) had already suggested that the legendary translations were held at the Serapeum,82 and a hundred years later, Zosimos of Panopolis 78 “Ἑρμηνευέται ὁ Σὴθ ποτισμός. Ὧδε τὸν νοῦν. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὴν διψῶσαν ῥίζαν τῆς μητρὸς καὶ τῷ πένθει τρυχωμένην καὶ νενεκρωμένην ὡς ὕδωρ ἐπελθὼν ἤρδευσεν καὶ πάλιν στέλεχος ἔδειξεν, ἐκλήθη Σήθ, τουτέστιν ποτισμός”: “Seth is interpreted ‘watering’. Here the sense: For since he, as water, approached the thirsting root of the mother, both worn out by mourning and necrotic, irrigated it and made the rootstock sprout again, he was called Seth, that is to say, ‘irrigation’”: Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, pp. 126, 113-127, 2). 79 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 4, 9-10 (PG, 53, coll. 42-43); John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 5, 2 (PG 57, col. 57); John Chrysostom, Orations against the Jews, 1, 6 (PG, 48, col. 851), and a passing mention in John Chrysostom, On the Epistle to the Hebrews, 8, 9 (PG, 63, col. 74); John Chrysostom, On the Obscurity of the Prophecies, 2 (S. ZINCONE [ed.], Giovanni Crisostomo. Omelie sull’oscurità delle profezie (Verba Seniorum, N.S., 12), Roma, 1998, p. 116, 34-39). 80 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 4, 9 (PG, 53, col. 42); John Chrysostom, Orations against the Jews, 1 (PG, 48, col. 851). 81 John Chrysostom, Orations against the Jews, 1 (PG, 48, coll. 851-852). The Serapeum dominated Alexandrian urban topography and was well known around the Mediterranean basin. 82 Adfirmauit haec uobis etiam aristaeus. Ita in graecum stilum exaperta monumenta hodie apud serapeum ptolemaei bibliothecae cum ipsis hebraicis exhibentur: “Aristeas, too, has declared this to you. Thus, these records made accessible in the Greek idiom are to this very day exhibited in the Serapeum of Ptolemy’s library with the Hebrew themselves”: Tertullian, Apologeticum, 18, 5, 7 (E. DEKKERS ET AL. [eds], Tertullianus. Opera I; Opera catholica; Adversus Marcionem [CCSL, 1], Turnhout, 1954, p. 119, 36-37). While it is true that the Greek fathers rarely read the Latin fathers, that does not mean that their exegetical or theological traditions could not come through intermediaries. Ps.-Martyrius informs that Chrysostom spoke fluent Latin: “μεταλλάξας τὴν φωνὴν ὁ ἅγιος οὕτως αὐτὸν Ἰταλικοῖς κατέχωσε ῥήμασι”: “the saint [= Chrysostom] switched languages and inundated him with Italian words”: Ps.-Martyrius, Oratio Funebris in laudi s. Johannis Chrysostomi, 50 (M. WALLRAFF [ed.] – C. Ricci [trans.], Oratio funebris in laudem sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi: epitaffio attribuito a Martirio di Antiochia [BHG, 871; CPG 6517] [Quaterni della Rivista di Bizantinistica, 12], Spoleto, 2007, p. 102, 9-10). Hull notes that elsewhere, Chrysostom gives an explanation of 1 Cor, 15, 29 “which agrees almost to the word” with Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem, 5, while Chase finds Chrysostom’s argument for the unity of the gospels to be reminiscent of Adversus Marcionem, 4. Did Chrysostom know Tertullian? M. F. HULL, Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor, 15, 29): An Act of Faith in the Resurrection, Leiden – Boston, 2005, pp. 24-25. CHASE, Chrysostom [n. 11], p. 118 n. 1.

194

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

(c. 300) claimed that the translated books of “the whole of the Hebrew” were stored in that place.83 In Chrysostom’s time, Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 340-410) clearly described the Serapeum as a shrine.84 An indirect association with the shrine and the translated text also emerges in Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315c. 403), who claimed the translations were placed “in the first library” (“ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ βιβλιοθήκῃ”) at Bruchion, and that later its “daughter” library (“ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτῆς”) was established at the Serapeum.85 The rhetorician Aphthonius of Antioch (fl. c. 350-400),86 held by some to be a pupil of Libanius (314c. 393),87 also described the Serapeum as a repository for books and a place of learning.88 Whether Chrysostom read Tertullian or not, or knew Aphthonius or not, Chrysostom’s association or deduction that the temple held the translated books was not without precedent.89 Given such an association, any references to the books’ continuing preservation are likely to have been uttered when Chrysostom was in Antioch as the Serapeum was destroyed in 391 or 392, well before Chrysostom’s elevation to the episcopacy in 397.90 83 Zosimos of Panopolis, De omega elementa, 8 (MERTENS [ed.], Zosime de Panopolis. Mémoires authentiques [n. 67], 4, 79-5, 86). 84 Writing in 402, Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 340-410), who spent eight years in Alexandria (c. 373-380), begins his description of the Serapeum’s destruction: Serapis apud Alexandriam templum auditum quidem omnibus puto, plerisque vero etiam notum: “I suppose that everyone has heard of the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria, and that it’s well known by most...”: Rufinus of Aquileia, Historia Ecclesiastica, 11, 23 (GCS, N.F., 6[2], p. 1026, 28-29). 85 Epiphanius of Salamis, De mensuris et ponderibus, 11 (Ἠ. Δ. ΜΟΥΤΣΟΥΛΑΣ [MOUTSOULAS] [ed.], Τὸ ‘Περὶ μέτρων καὶ σταθμῶν’ ἔργον Ἐπιφανίου τοῦ Σαλαμῖνος, in Θεολογία, 44 [1973], pp. 171, 324-327). Migne’s text at PG, 43, col. 256 includes some later accretions. 86 On Aphthonius, see either: H. RABE, Aphthonii Progymnasmata, Leipzig, 1926, pp. xxiixxvii, or H. RABE, Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften, in Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 62 (1907), pp. 262-264. 87 Aphthonius’s connection with Libanius is usually made on account of Libanius, Epistula, 1065 (R. FOERSTER [ed.], Libanii Opera, vol. 11: Epistulae, 840-1544 una cum pseudepigraphis et Basilii cum Libanio commercio epistolico, Fragmenta [Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana], Lipsiae, 1922, p. 189). But just as Chrysostom’s alleged connection with Libanius, that is contestable. 88 Aphthonius, Progymnasmata, 12 (RABE, Aphthonii Progymnasmata, pp. 39-40). 89 “To sum up: it is reasonably certain that in late antiquity the Serapeum housed a collection of books”, so writes: T. RAJAK, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora, Oxford, 2009, p. 46, cf. 43-46. Rajak places great weight on the literary evidence but the archaeological remains of the Serapeum also indicate that it may have housed a collection of books in late antiquity, thus leading early Christians to associate it with the library in the Letter of Aristeas. On the archaeological remains, see: J. MCKENZIE, The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, c. 300 B.C. to A.D. 700, New Haven – London, 2007, pp. 195-203; 245-248. 90 E.g., “μέχρι νῦν ἐκεῖ”, “up to the present day there”: John Chrysostom, Orations against the Jews, 1, 6 (PG, 48, col. 851). In this instance, the mention of the books still at the Serapeum adds weight to other internal criteria which point to a date of 386 for this homily (one of the few Chrysostom homilies that can be dated with certainty). On the dating see: W. PRADELS – R. BRÄNDLE – M. HEIMGARTNER, The Sequence and Dating of the Series of John Chrysostom’s Eight Discourses Adversus Iudaeos, in Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, 6(1) (2002), pp. 90-116. The Serapeum was destroyed (albeit not totally) by Christian rioters, perhaps instigated by Theophilus of Alexandria (c. 345-412). On the date of the Serapeum’s destruction (variously 391-392) see:

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

195

But the story also forms and informs Chrysostom’s view of Scripture and is part of his apologetic and exegetical arsenal. In his first homily Adversus Iudaeos he uses the books’ preservation in the pagan Serapeum to underscore his point that holy books do not render a place holy (“οὐχ ἁγιάζει τὸν τόπον τὰ βιβλία”) hence Christians should not venerate the synagogue because of the holy books.91 In his homilies on Matthew he points out that their translation prior to the coming of Christ (by those “continuing to be Jews” no less) also secured Christians against charges that they tampered with the scriptural text, while the number of translators carried the weight of multiple witnesses – as opposed to individual translations such as Aquila’s. Their date, and number, along with their agreement thus gave “the Seventy” priority over other translations, as in the case of the LXX’s reading of “virgin” in Isaiah, 7.14.92 Elsewhere, echoing Pseudo-Justin in parts,93 Chrysostom explains the translated books and their preservation as “a work of God’s economy” (“τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκονομίας ἔργον”).94 Out of “God’s unspeakable love of humanity” (“τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἄφατον φιλανθρωπίαν”), God arranged (“ᾠκονόμησεν”) for the books to be translated by the Seventy,95 and for the Old Testament to be available to “anyone living anywhere in the world” (“πάντας τοὺς τὴν οἰκουμένην οἰκοῦντας”), not just those proficient in Hebrew.96 This outlook allows Chrysostom to read C. HAAS, Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict (Ancient Society and History), Baltimore, 1997, pp. 159-168; J. HAHN, The Conversion of the Cult Statues: The Destruction of the Serapeum 392 A.D. and the Transformation of Alexandria into the ‘ChristLoving’ City, in J. HAHN – S. EMMEL – U. GOTTER (eds), From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 163), Leiden – Boston, 2008, pp. 335-366. 91 John Chrysostom, Orations against the Jews, 1, 6 (PG, 48, col. 851). 92 “Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει”: “Behold the virgin shall be with child”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 5, 2-3 (PG, 57, coll. 56, ll. 48-50; 57, l. 44; 57, ll. 46-47) citing Isaiah, 7, 14 LXX. “καὶ διὰ τὸν χρόνον, καὶ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος, καὶ διὰ τὴν συμφωνίαν μᾶλλον ἂν εἶεν πιστεύεσθαι δίκαιοι”: “(the Seventy) on account of the date, and of their number, and of their agreement, would have a better right to be trusted”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 5, 2 (PG, 57, col. 57, ll. 32-34). 93 Ps.-Justin, Cohortatio ad Graecos, 13 (POUDERON ET AL. [ed.], Pseudo-Justin. Ouvrages apologétiques [SC, 528], Paris, 2009, pp. 172-176). See also: E. J. PENTIUC, The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, Oxford, 2014, p. 113. 94 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 4, 9 (PG, 53, coll. 42-43). 95 John Chrysostom, On the Letter to the Hebrews, 8, 9 (PG, 63, col. 74). 96 “Ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκονομίας ἔργον, ὥστε μὴ μόνον τοὺς τὴν Ἑβραίων γλῶτταν ἠσκημένους, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντας τοὺς τὴν οἰκουμένην οἰκοῦντας τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν ὠφέλειαν καρπώσασθαι”: “And the consequence too, of this work of divine providence, was that the benefit [of the books of the Old Testament] were now available not only to people who were trained in the Hebrew language, but also to anyone living anywhere in the world”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 4, 9 (PG, 53, coll. 42-43); “ᾠκονόμησεν ἑρμηνευθῆναι αὐτὰς ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα”: “[God] arranged that they should be translated by the Seventy”: John Chrysostom, On the Letter to the Hebrews, 8, 9 (PG, 63, col. 74). Cf. “γνώτω ἀπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν ἐν ταῖς βίβλοις γεγραμμένων ὅτι οὐκ αὐτοῖς ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν ἡ ἐκ τούτων διαφέρει διδασκαλία Τὸ δὲ παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ἔτι καὶ νῦν τὰς τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ θεοσεβείᾳ διαφερούσας σώζεσθαι βίβλους θείας προνοίας ἔργον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γέγονεν”: “let him know from the very things written in the books,

196

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

inconsistent LXX renderings through a “teleological hermeneutic” of translation, as part of the author’s (translator’s) pedagogical intent, rather than as inaccurate or contradictory renderings that need to be resolved.97 Nevertheless, Chrysostom is also aware of the difficulties of dealing with a translation, suggesting it contributes to the obscurity of the text.98 Apart from these instances, Chrysostom refers to “the Seventy” almost exclusively in his Expositiones in Psalmos (CPG 4413) where it denotes the Greek version of the Old Testament in contrast to others such as those of the three Jewish interpreters, or even his own text. In this denotation he follows Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and probably Diodore before him.99 Chrysostom admitted to second hand knowledge of Hebrew and Syriac when he suggested those “precisely trained” (“ἀκριβῶς ἠσκημένοι”) in Hebrew and “those who know the language of the Syrians” (“οἱ τὴν Σύρων γλῶτταν ἐπιστάμενοι”) could confirm that “the name of the heaven” (“τὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὄνομα”) is plural in Hebrew.100 Nevertheless, he is well aware that Syriac and Hebrew are that not to them, but to us, does their instruction pertain. That the books pertaining to our religion are preserved among the Jews to this day, has been a work of divine providence on our behalf”: Ps.-Justin, Cohortatio ad Graecos, 13, 5 (POUDERON ET AL. [ed.], Pseudo-Justin. Ouvrages apologétiques, p. 176). 97 S. POMEROY, Numbering the Heaven(s): John Chrysostom’s Use of Greek Exegetical Traditions for Interpreting Gen, 1, 6-8 (Hom. Gen., IV), in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 92(2) (2016), sec. 5. 98 “Τίς οὖν ἐστιν ἡ Δευτέρα αἰτία, δι’ ἣν δυσκολωτέρα ἡ παλαιὰ Διαθήκη τῆς νέας ἐστίν; Οὐχὶ τῇ ἐγχωρίῳ φωνῇ ἔχομεν τὴν παλαιὰν Διαθήκην παρ’ ἡμῖν γεγραμμένην, ἀλλ’ ἑτέρᾳ μὲν συνετέθη γλώττῃ, ἑτέρᾳ δὲ ἔχομεν αὐτὴν ἀναγινωσκομένην ἡμεῖς. Τῇ γὰρ Ἑβραίων φωνῇ παρὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν συνεγράφῃ, ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτὴν τῇ Ἑλλήνων παρελάβομεν γλώττῃ· ὅταν δὲ γλῶττα ἐρμηνευθῇ εἰς ἑτέραν γλώτταν, πολλὴν ἔχει, τὴν δυσκολίαν”: “What therefore is the second reason why the old Testament is more difficult than the new? We don’t have the old Testament written in our native tongue with us, but it was put together in another tongue and we ourselves have it read in another. For it was originally written in the Hebrew language but we have received it in the language of the Greeks; and when a language is translated into another tongue, it presents considerable difficulties”: John Chrysostom, On the Obscurity of the Prophecies, 2, 2 (ZINCONE, Giovanni Crisostomo. Omelie sull’oscurità delle profezie, p. 114, 25-30). 99 E.g., “κατὰ τοὺς Ἑβδομήκοντα”: Origen, Homilia 1 in psalmum, 67 (L. PERRONE – M. MOLIN PRADEL – E. PRINZIVALLI – A. CACCIARI [eds], Origenes Werke, vol., 13: Die neuen Psalmenhomilien. Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus, 314 [GCS, N.F., 19], Berlin, 2015, p. 198, ll. 6-7); “ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα”: Origen, Homilia 3 in psalmum, 73 (GCS, N.F., 19) p. 253, ll. 5-7. “κατὰ τοὺς Ἑβδομήκοντα”: Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentarius in Isaiam, 1, 84 (J. ZIEGLER [ed.], Eusebius Werke, Bd. 9: Der Jesajakommentar [GCS, 66], Berlin, 1975, p. 160, 22). “ἔνθα οἱ μὲν Ἑβδομήκοντα εἰρήκασιν”: Diodore of Tarsus, Commentarius in psalmum, 3, 4 (J. M. OLIVIER [ed.], Diodore Tarsensis commentarii in Psalmos, vol. 1: Commentarius in Psalmos I-L [CCSG, 6], Turnhout, 1980, p. 18, 25). 100 “Λέγουσι τοίνυν οἱ τὴν γλῶτταν ἐκείνην ἀκριβῶς ἠσκημένοι, τὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὄνομα πληθυντικῶς καλεῖσθαι παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβραίοις, καὶ τοῦτο καὶ οἱ τὴν Σύρων γλῶτταν ἐπιστάμενοι συνομολογοῦσι”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 4 (PG, 53, col. 43, ll. 12-16). R. C. HILL (trans.), John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, 1-17 (Fathers of the Church, 74), Washington, DC, 1986, p. 57 n. 13 highlights Chrysostom’s admission of his ignorance of Hebrew but does not comment about his Syriac. See also “Καὶ ὅσοι τὴν Σύρων ἴσασι γλῶτταν, ἴσασι τὸ λεγόμενον”: “And as many as know the Syrians’ language know what I say”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 7, 2 (PG, 57, col. 74, ll. 28-29): “καὶ εἴ τις διαπιστεῖ, τοὺς τῆς γλώττης

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

197

closely related,101 even deducing the Italian contempt for the latter on the basis of their contempt for the former.102 Despite being the language of the Old Testament and the one spoken by Jesus103 and Paul,104 Chrysostom rarely mentions the language except when giving an etymology of a Hebrew name. There, like Severian, his mention of Hebrew seems incidental. Most of his etymologies appear to be dependent on Scripture or, as for Severian, on an exegetical tradition stemming from Philo (see Table 3 for a sample). It would therefore be difficult to argue that any were derived directly from a knowledge of Hebrew. Severian and Chrysostom do not share many etymologies – Adam, Eden and cherubim are interpreted by both preachers, but they differ on Adam and Eden.105 Table 3. A sample of Chrysostom’s Hebrew etymologies Name/Term

Meaning

Language

Provenance

“Ἄβραμ”

“περάτης”

Hebrew + Syriac Hebrew

Philo (indirect)

“Ἀδὰμ.”

“ὁ γήϊνος, ὁ χοϊκὸς, ὁ γηγενής”

—

Philo (cf. ὁ γήινος Ἐδώμ) 1 Cor 15.47

“Ἐδέμ”

“παρθένος γῆ”

Hebrew

Josephus

τῆς Ἑβραίων ἐμπείρους διερωτάτω, καὶ θεάσεται ταύτην οὖσαν τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ Ἐδὲμ ὀνόματος”: “And if anyone disbelieves, let them ask those experienced in the Hebrew tongue, and observe that this is the interpretation of the name Eden”: On the Changing of names, 2, 3 (PG, 51, col. 129, ll. 28-31). 101 “Πολλὴ δὲ τῇ Σύρων φωνῇ πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ἑβραίων γλῶτταν ἡ συγγένεια”: “And there is a great commonality between the Syrian and the Hebrew tongue”: John Chrysostom, Sermons on Genesis, 9, 3 (PG, 54, col. 625, ll. 2-3). 102 Cf. “Ἑβραϊστὶ μόνον εἰδὼς, γλῶτταν διασυρομένην παρὰ πάντων, καὶ μάλιστα παρὰ τῶν Ἰταλῶν. Οὐ γὰρ οὕτω τοὺς τὴν βάρβαρον, οὔτε τὴν Ἑλλάδα, οὔτε ἄλλην τινὰ ἔχοντας γλῶτταν διασύρουσιν, ὡς τὴν Σύρων· αὕτη δὲ πολλὴν ἔχει τὴν κοινωνίαν πρὸς ταύτην”: “knowing only the Hebrew, a tongue despised by all, especially by the Italians. For they do not so much despise the barbarian, the Greek, or any other tongue as the Syriac, and this has commonality with the Hebrew”: John Chrysostom, In epistulam II ad Timotheum hom., 4 (PG, 62, col. 622, ll. 35-38). 103 “Διὸ καὶ προφητικὴν ἀφῆκέ τινα φωνὴν, μέχρις ἐσχάτης ὥρας μαρτυρῶν τῇ Παλαιᾷ· καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς προφητικὴν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἑβραϊκὴν φωνὴν, ὥστε αὐτοῖς γενέσθαι γνώριμον καὶ κατάδηλον”: “For this reason he also uttered a certain prophetic cry, even to his last hour bearing witness to the Old Testament, and not simply a prophetic cry, but also in Hebrew, so as to be plain and intelligible to them”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 88 (PG, 58, col. 776, ll. 14-17). 104 “Ἑβραϊστὶ μόνον εἰδὼς”: “knowing only Hebrew”: John Chrysostom, In epistulam II ad Timotheum hom., 4 (PG, 62, col. 622, l. 35). 105 “Ἀδὰμ τῇ Ἑβραίων φωνῇ· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν Ἑλληνικὸν τὸ ὄνομα, εἰς δὲ τὴν Ἑλλάδα μεταβαλλόμενον, οὐδὲν ἄλλο δηλοῖ, ἀλλ’ ἢ τὸν γήϊνον. ...Ἐδὲμ ἡ γῆ, Ἀδὰμ ὁ γήϊνος, ὁ χοϊκὸς, ὁ γηγενής”: “Adam is of the Hebrew language. For the name is not Greek, but translated into Greek, it means nothing other than the earthy one. ... Eden is earth, Adam the earthy, the made of earth, the earth-born”: John Chrysostom, On the Changing of Names, 2 (PG, 51, coll. 129, ll. 8-11, 129, l. 49). “Ἐδὲμ ... παρθένος γῆ”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 13, 3 (PG, 53, coll. 108, l. 13-109, l. 4); On the Changing of Names, 2, 3 (PG, 51, col. 129, ll. 11-12, 19-21, 27-31, 35-37, 49).

198

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

“Ἰακὼβ”

“πτερνισμός”

—

Philo (πτερνιστής)

“Ἰσραὴλ”

“ὁρῶν Θεόν”

—

Philo

“Ναῒδ”

“σάλος”

Hebrew

Philo

“Νῶε”

“ἀνάπαυσις”

Hebrew + Syriac Hebrew —

Philo

“σεραφίμ”

“ἔμπυρα στόματα”

Hebrew —

Isaiah 6.6

“Συμεὼν”

“ἠκούσθη”

Hebrew

Gen 29.33

“χερουβίμ”

“πεπληθυσμένη γνῶσις” —

Philo

In the case of Abram (“Ἄβραμ”), Chrysostom presents his etymology once with reference to Hebrew,106 but on another occasion with reference to both Hebrew and Syriac.107 Elsewhere Chrysostom even appears to deduce the Hebrew etymology from the Syriac for Noah (“Νῶε”).108 Gallagher observes that Christians would occasionally refer to Syriac (Aramaic) as Hebrew, given their close relationship,109 and it is possible Chrysostom conflates both into Hebrew too. But his references to Hebrew one time, and Hebrew and Syriac at another could simply reflect nothing more than different audiences, or even a mixed audience.110 Apart from etymologies, Chrysostom refers to Hebrew language experts and Syriac speakers as those who can confirm an interpretation he has just given, 106 “Ἄβραμ γὰρ περάτης ἑρμηνεύεται κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραίων γλῶτταν· καὶ τοῦτο ἴσασιν, ὅσοι τῆς γλώττης ἐκείνης εἰσὶν ἔμπειροι”, “For Abram, is interpreted ‘traveller’ according to the Hebrew tongue. And as many as are experienced in that tongue know this”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 39, 3 (PG, 53, col. 364, ll. 20-22). 107 “Καὶ γὰρ Ἄβραμ ἐκαλεῖτο τὸ πρότερον, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα οὐκ ἔστιν Ἑλληνικὸν, οὐδὲ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ γλώττῃ, ἀλλὰ τῇ τῶν Ἑβραίων οὕτω λέγεται. Τί οὖν ἐστιν ἑρμηνευόμενον τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο; Περάτης. Καὶ γὰρ τὸ Ἄβραμ τῇ Σύρων φωνῇ τὸ πέραν λέγεται, καὶ ἴσασιν ὅσοι τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης εἰσὶν ἔμπειροι. Πολλὴ δὲ τῇ Σύρων φωνῇ πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ἑβραίων γλῶτταν ἡ συγγένεια”: “For he was formerly called Abram, but this name is not Greek, and not our tongue, but that is how it is said in that of the Hebrews. How then is this name interpreted? Traveller. For even in the Syrian language Abram is called traveller, and as many as are experienced in this language know. For there is a great affinity between the Syriac language and the Hebrew tongue”: John Chrysostom, Sermons on Genesis, 9, 3 (PG, 54, coll. 624, l. 57-625, l. 3). 108 “Τὸ, Νῶε, τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα Ἑβραϊκῆ λέγεται γλώττῃ καὶ ἑρμηνεύεται, ὁ ἀναπαύων. Τὸ γὰρ, Νία, τῇ Σύρων φωνῇ, ἀνάπαυσίς ἐστιν”: “This Noë, this is a name said in the Hebrew tongue and is interpreted, ‘the one who brings rest’. For Nia in the Syrians’ language is rest”: John Chrysostom, Sermons on Genesis, 9, 5 (PG, 54, col. 628, ll. 46-48). Elsewhere, he simply gives the etymology: “ἑρμηνεύεται γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὸ ὄνομα ἀνάπαυσις”: “for his name is interpreted rest”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 21, 5 (PG, 53, col. 182, ll. 1-2). 109 GALLAGHER, Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory [n. 58], pp. 125-128. 110 Pomeroy correctly sees such references as evidence of biligualism in Northern Syria, but there is no evidence it is “likely Edessan Syriac”: POMEROY, Numbering the Heavens [n. 97], pp. 4-5.

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

199

as in the case for the Hebrew word for “heaven” which we mentioned above.111 Elsewhere he correctly gives the meaning of “Zorobabel” as “coming from Babylon”, and refers to “those who know the Syrian tongue” (“ὅσοι τὴν Σύρων ἴσασι γλῶτταν”) for support.112 Chrysostom makes one other reference to Syriac, when he explains that Syriac speakers say “raca” instead of “you” when addressing household servants, or an inferior person.113 In these three instances the reference to the Syriac language is integral to his exegetical strategy, rather than a mere aside, and whether he consulted a written source or discussed it with a contemporary expert, his sources were good. 3. TEXTS 3.1. Hexaplaric versions (The Three) Severian and Chrysostom preached in an environment of bewildering textual complexity. While each preached from their own received text, they were both aware of different Old Testament text forms, most notably those of the three Jewish translations into Greek found in the Hexapla. Chrysostom also knew of parahexaplaric versions.114 Both cite them, Chrysostom more so (perhaps a function of the fact that we have more of his Old Testament exegesis), but they differ subtly in how they used these alternative texts.

111 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 4, 4 (PG, 53, l. 43). Thoroughly analysed in POMEROY, Numbering the Heaven(s) [n. 97]. 112 “Οὐ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῇ Βαβυλῶνι ἐτέχθη· ὅθεν καὶ Ζοροβάβελ ἐκλήθη, διὰ τὸ ἐκεῖ σπαρῆναι. Καὶ ὅσοι τὴν Σύρων ἴσασι γλῶτταν, ἴσασι τὸ λεγόμενον”: “Not having been born in Judea but in Babylon, for which reason he is called Zorobabel, because he was born there. And as many know the Syrian tongue, know what I say”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 7, 2 (PG, 57, col. 74, ll. 26-29). See B. E. BEYER, Zerubbabel, in D. N. FREEDMAN (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, New York, 1992, pp. 1084-1086. 113 “Καθάπερ γὰρ ἡμεῖς ἢ οἰκέταις, ἤ τισι τῶν καταδεεστέρων ἐπιτάττοντες λέγομεν· Ἄπελθε σὺ, εἰπὲ τῷ δεῖνι σύ· οὕτω καὶ οἱ τῇ Σύρων κεχρημένοι γλώττῃ Ῥακὰ λέγουσιν, ἀντὶ τοῦ, Σὺ, τοῦτο τιθέντες”: “For just as we, when we give orders either to our household servants or to some inferior, say, ‘Away with you! You here, tell such an one!’ so too, those who make use of the Syrians’ language say, ‘raca’, putting that word instead of ‘you’”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 16, 7 (PG, 57, col. 248, ll. 47-49). 114 I define “hexaplaric” to be readings from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (and the anonymous Quinta, Sexta, and Septima) and the “parahexaplaric” to be variants which are not hexaplaric but have been traditionally collected with hexaplaric materials. The latter include readings from “the Syrian” (ὁ σύρος), “the Hebraicon” (τὸ ἑβραϊκόν) or “the Hebrew” (ὁ ἑβραῖος), “the Judaic” (τὸ ἰουδαϊκόν) and “the Samaritan” (τὸ σαμαρειτικόν). These two categories broadly correspond with types 2 and 3 of the three categories of hexaplaric material developed by B. TER HAAR ROMENY – P. J. GENTRY, Towards a New Collection of Hexaplaric Materials for the Book of Genesis, in B. A. TAYLOR (ed.), X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo 1998 (Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 51), Atlanta, 2001, pp. 286-287.

200

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

Severian unambiguously refers to “the interpreters” (“οἱ ἑρμηνευταί”) – presumably Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus – only twice, both times in In Cosmogoniam (CPG 4194). On the first occasion he commends their interpretation of Genesis 1.2.115 While we do not know the Hebrew Vorlage of Genesis, 1.2 LXX, the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) states that the earth was “a desolate void” (“‫”תהו ובהו‬, “tōhû wābōhû”).116 In the LXX it is generally translated as “invisible and unformed” (“ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος”)117 and this too is Chrysostom’s lemma.118 Chrysostom exegetes it as is, noting the earth was “invisible” (“ἀόρατος”) because it was covered by water and darkness.119 Without direct reference to any exegete by name, Severian deems such interpretations to be “pious” (“εὐσεβῆ”) but not necessarily “true” (“οὐκ ἀληθῆ δέ”).120 Severian then gives Aquila’s version which describes the earth as “an emptiness and nothing” (“κένωμα καὶ οὐθέν”),121 and this in turn leads Severian to explain that “invisible” (“ἀόρατος”) means “unadorned” (“ἀκόσμητος”). It is arguable whether Severian gives this alternative lemma from a glossed text or a commentary, but his choice of this reading seems to be guided by his assessment that it better suits the description in his Genesis text of what came after. In Severian’s view then, Aquila’s reading better fits the logical sequence of events described in the text. On the second occasion that he mentions “the interpreters”, Severian offers an otherwise unattested reading of “dragons” (“δράκοντες”) instead of “sea-monsters” (“κήτη”) in Genesis, 1.21,122 such “Οἱ ἑρμηνευταὶ ἡρμήνευσαν σαφῶς. Λέγει γὰρ ὁ Ἀκύλας· Ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν κένωμα καὶ οὐδέν”: “The translators translated it clearly. For Aquila says: Now the earth was an empty void”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 2 (PG, 56, col. 441). Note that Hill omits translating the phrase “Λέγει γὰρ ὁ Ἀκύλας”: “For Aquila says” and so fails to note this in his introduction. HILL, Translator’s Introduction [n. 3], p. 10; cf. IDEM, Homilies on the Creation and Fall [n. 3], p. 33. 116 Often translated as “formless and void” (NRSV) or similar in contemporary English translations. 117 Perhaps under the influence of Plato’s “ἀνόρατον ... καὶ ἄμορφον”: “invisible ... and formless” in Plato, Timaeus, 51a (I. BURNET [ed.], Platonis opera, vol. 4: Tetralogiam VIII Continens (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis), Oxonii, 1902, p. 51). 118 “Ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 3 (PG, 53, l. 31 (2×); l. 33 (3×); l. 34; l. 41 (2×); l. 50). See also John Chrysostom, Sermons on Genesis, 1 (PG, 54, col. 585); John Chrysostom, De statuis hom., 7 (PG, 49, col. 93). 119 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 3 (PG, 53, col. 34). 120 Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 2 (PG, 56, col. 441). 121 Theodotion’s version has “a nothing and a nothing” (“θὲν καὶ οὐθέν”) while Symmachus has “became unworked and indistinguishable” (“ἐγένετο ἀργὸν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον”). J. W. WEVERS, Genesis (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, 1), Göttingen, 1974, p. 75. Cf. Field who gives two readings for Theodotion, namely “an emptiness and a nothing” or “a nothing and a nothing” (“κενὸν/οὐθὲν καὶ οὐθέν”). FIELD, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta, vol. 1, Oxonii, 1875, p. 7. 122 “Οἱ γὰρ ἄλλοι ἑρμηνευταὶ λέγουσιν, Ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τοῦς δράκοντας τοὺς μεγάλους. Οὐκ εἶπον, Τὰ κήτη, ἀλλὰ, Τοὺς δράκοντας”: “In fact, the other interpreters say, God made the huge dragons. They didn’t say, the sea-monsters, but, the dragons”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 4 (PG, 56, col. 459). 115

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

201

that he is able to link this to the Psalms which speak of God forming “dragons”.123 On both occasions, Severian evinces a “universalising” tendency, related to his oft repeated hermeneutical principle of “sequence and order” (“ἀκολουθία καὶ τάξις”).124 Under this rubric, he attempts to fit every element in scripture into one coherent, interrelated whole, with every event following a logical sequence or having a logical outcome. Where no relationship or causal connection exists on the surface of the text, he often finds one by means of creative word association. Unable to find a connection in his received text at these points, he chooses a variant that allows him to make this connection. In a third but somewhat ambiguous reference, Severian mentions “some others” (“τινὲς ἡρμήνευσαν”) who support his interpretation of Genesis, 3.19, namely that in returning to dust, a human departs, but does not disappear into the earth.125 Severian’s alternative reading of “come back” (“ἐπανελεύσῃ”) is similar to, but not identical with Aquila’s reading “return” (“ἐπιστρέψῃ”),126 and it is possible that he is paraphrasing it from memory. On the other hand, it could be an otherwise unattested reading or simply an interpretation. Curiously, Isidore of Pelusium (d. c. 450 AD) echoes this language in a letter to the deacon Elias (“ἀφανισθήσῃ οὐδ’ οὐ μὴ ἐπανελεύσῃ”), and just as Severian, holds that Genesis, 3.19 refers to the resurrection (“τὴν ἀνάστασιν προσυπήκουσα”).127 This opens up the possibility of a common tradition used in

123

Severian cites Pss, 148, 7 (“δράκοντες”), 103, 26 (“δράκων”), 73, 13 (“δρακόντων”) LXX in that order. Hill gives the equivalent MT references, but his assertion that Severian knew Chrysostom’s commentary on the Psalms is neither explained nor proven. HILL, Homilies on the Creation and Fall [n. 3], p. 50 n. 16. 124 The clearest statement of this outlook is in Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 124, 8-10). References to “ἀκολουθία” and “τάξις” are also scattered throughout his Genesis homilies, sometimes as a pair. 125 “Οὐκ εἶπεν, Ἕως ἂν ἀφανισθῇς, ἕως ἂν λυθῇς, ἀλλ’, Ἕως τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι σε εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἐξ ἧς ἐλήφθης· ἵνα ὑποθῇς σεαυτῷ τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς ἀναστάσεως. Πέμπω σε ἐκεῖ, ὅθεν σε ἔλαβον· ὡς ἔλαβόν σε τότε, δύναμαι καὶ πάλιν σε λαβεῖν. Ὅτι γῆ εἶ, καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ. Οὖν ἀφανισθήσῃ, ἀλλ’ ἀπελεύσῃ. Τὸ Ἀπελεύσῃ, Ἐπανελεύσῃ τινὲς ἡρμήνευσαν”: “I despatch you to the place from where I took you; as I took you then, I can also take you again. Because earth you are, and to earth you shall depart – not ‘disappear’ but ‘depart’, some interpret ‘depart’ to mean ‘come back’”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 6 (PG, 56, coll. 499-500). 126 FIELD, Hexaplorum, vol. 1 [n. 121], pp. 16-17 ad Gen, 3, 20 (19). 127 “Ὅτι δὴ εἶπε, φησίν, ὁ Θεὸς τῷ Ἀδάμ· «Γῆ εἶ καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ», οὐ προσέθηκε δέ· Ἀφανισθήσῃ οὐδ’ οὐ μὴ ἐπανελεύσῃ, ἐγὼ διὰ τοῦ ταῦτα παρασεσιωπῆσθαι τὴν ἀνάστασιν προσυπήκουσα. Ἐλπίδα γὰρ ἐπανόδου τῷ ἐξορίστῳ δέδωκεν· ἡ γὰρ ἀπόφασις, μονότροπος εἶναι δοκοῦσα, ἐμφαίνει βασιλικὴν φιλανθρωπίαν καὶ ἐπανόδου τίκτει ἐλπίδα”: “Because indeed, it says, God said to Adam, Earth you are and to earth you shall depart. But it did not add, ‘disappear’, nor ‘never to return’. I myself, because of the silence on these things, understand the resurrection. For he gave hope of return to the exiled – the judgement is one of a kind, the kingly love of humanity manifests and generates hope of return”: Isidore of Pelusium, Epistula, 1525 (P. ÉVIEUX [ed.], Isidore de Péluse, Lettres, vol. 2: Lettres, 1414-1700 [SC, 454], Paris, 2000, pp. 206, 14-208, 20).

202

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

pastoral or polemical contexts against those who denied the resurrection rather than an alternative reading.128 Chrysostom’s references to hexaplaric versions in his homilies are likewise scant and limited to his homilies on Genesis. He makes one reference to “some other interpreter” (“ἕτερός τις ἑρμηνευτής”) in In Genesim hom. 15,129 which parallels In Genesim serm. 6,130 in order to support his interpretation of the uniqueness of Eve’s creation from the side of Adam. The alternative reading is found in both Symmachus and Theodotion.131 Chrysostom frequently, almost mechanically, refers to the hexaplaric versions in his Expositiones in Psalmos (CPG 4413), either by translator’s name or by referring to an(other) interpreter – although he does tire of it towards the last 50 or so Psalms. To the extent that the Fragmenta in Ieremiam (CPG 4447) extracted from the catenae are reliable, his Commentary on Jeremiah includes references to them as well.132 He rarely offers any opinion or discussion on the variant in his commentaries, content instead to interpret his lemma, but Hill also noted occasions where 128 Isidore never mentions Severian by name, but he was known to have been a Chrysostom supporter in the aftermath of John’s death. 129 “Ἕτερος δέ τις ἑρμηνευτής φησιν, ἀντὶ τοῦ Νῦν, Τοῦτο ἅπαξ, δηλῶν ὅτι νῦν τοῦτο μόνον γέγονε, καὶ οὐκέτι οὕτως ἔσται τῆς γυναικὸς ἡ διάπλασις”: “Yet some other interpreter renders it ‘This once’ instead of ‘Now’, to indicate that this happened only on this occasion, and there will be no repetition of the formation of woman”: John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 15 (PG, 53, col. 122). 130 “καὶ ἕτερος ἑρμηνευτὴς ἀκριβέστερον ἑρμηνεύων ἔλεγε, Τοῦτο ἅπαξ, ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγε, Νῦν μόνον γυνὴ γέγονεν ἐξ ἀνδρὸς μόνου· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα οὐκέτι οὕτως ἔσται, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων”: “another interpreter, who translates more precisely, said, ‘This once’, as if to say, ‘Only on this occasion did a woman become out of man only; but after this, she will no longer become this way, but out of both’”: John Chrysostom, Sermons on Genesis, 6, 2 (SC, col. 433, l. 292). 131 HILL, John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis [n. 100], p. 201 n. 5. 132 On the Fragmenta in Ieremiam (CPG 4447) see M. SÜTTERLIN-AUSSEDAT, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur le livre de Jérémie (chap., 1–4), PhD diss., Paris, 2006, pp. 31-35. There are some attestations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion by name in the Fragmenta in Iob (CPG 4444) also drawn from the catenae and attributed to Chrysostom, but I am reluctant to admit them as their authenticity has not been sufficiently established. Chrysostom’s Commentarius in Iob has been transmitted directly in two manuscripts (edited in SC and PTS series; both editors argue it is genuine Chrysostom) and indirectly through the catenae which include abundant spurious interpolated material – the so-called Fragmenta. To make matters more confusing, Pitra collated his Origen fragments on Job from catenae unanimously attributed to Chrysostom in the Γ Ν chains, without clearly explaining why! In any case, neither Chrysostom’s Commentarius in Iob (CPG 4443) nor for that matter Severian’s In Iob Sermones, 2-4 (CPG 4564, 2-4) refer to hexaplaric recensions (Note: In Iob sermo 1 [CPG 4564, 1] remains anonymous). U. HAGEDORN – D. HAGEDORN, Johannes Chrysostomos. Kommentar zu Hiob (PTS, 35), Berlin – New York, 1990, pp. ix-xli. H. SORLIN – L. NEYRAND (eds), Jean Chrysostome. Commentaire sur Job, 2 vols. (SC, 346, 348), Paris, 1988, pp. 11-12. OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies on Job (CPG 4564, BHG, 939d-g): Transmission, Critical Edition, and Translation, Amsterdam, 2015, p. 209. C. ZAMAGNI, Que savons-nous des Homélies sur Job (CPG 1424) d’Origène?, in G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds), Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious Practice of his Time; Papers of the 9th International Origen Congress, Pécs, Hungary, 29 August – 2 September 2005 (BETL, 228), Louvain, 2009, pp. 381-399.

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

203

Chrysostom constructs an interpretation from a Hexaplaric version without mentioning it.133 3.2. Parahexaplaric versions A similar pattern applies for the parahexaplaric versions, of which “the Hebraicon” (“τὸ ἑβραϊκόν”), “the Hebrew” (“ὁ Ἑβραῖος”) and “the Syrian” (“ὁ Σύρος”) are relevant here.134 “The Hebraicon” generally refers to the Hebrew text, while “the Hebrew” and “the Syrian” are more ambiguous, as they can refer to a person (a translator or teacher), or metaphorically to the Hebrew text or a Syrian text respectively.135 Severian does not mention any parahexaplaric reading at all but we should be cautious in stating he was unaware of them, as we have relatively little of his Old Testament exegesis compared with Chrysostom. Chrysostom however, refers to all three but again in limited circumstances. Chrysostom uses “the Hebraicon” rarely, and all but one reference are in his commentaries on Jeremiah and the Psalms.136 The exception is in homily 28 on Romans where he strings a list of psalm citations together to show how God, through scripture, explains the nature and purpose of the world. He finishes with a flourish by quoting Ps, 103.6 [=104.6 MT], and declaring that “the Hebraicon” (“τὸ ἑβραϊκόν”) has it.137 But the quote actually gives the Septuagint reading according to Origen, that is “the Seventy” or LXX138 and the reference to “the Hebraicon” does not seem to add any exegetical value. One can only wonder whether Chrysostom mechanically cited or recalled the verse from a commentary, where variants are usually listed straight after a lemma (less frequently at the end of the comments), or whether the exclamation is some form of idiom emphasizing the authority of the Hebrew text. Alternatively, the citation of Ps, 103.6 may have been standardized to some Byzantine text matching the LXX in either the manuscript tradition or the printed edition. 133 R. C. HILL (trans.), St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 1, Brookline, MA, 1998, pp. 7-10. 134 Other parahexaplaric versions such as “the Samaritan” (“τὸ σαμαρειτικόν”) and “the Judaic” (“τὸ ἰουδαϊκόν”) are not cited by Severian or Chrysostom. 135 B. TER HAAR ROMENY, A Syrian in Greek Dress: The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 6), Louvain, 1997, pp. 47-51; 71-86. 136 A citation attributed to Chrysostom from the catena on Job collected in Fragmenta in Iob (CPG 4444) is dubious; see note 132. 137 John Chrysostom, In epistulam ad Romanos hom., 28 (PG, 60, col. 652). 138 Field’s edition of the Hexapla lists this reading under sigla ο′ (“οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα”) “the Seventy”. The Syrohexapla preserves notations indicating this psalm is about creation. FIELD, Hexaplorum, vol. 2 [n. 121], p. 259.

204

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

Chrysostom gives a reading from “the Syrian” (“ὁ Σύρος”) when commenting on Genesis, 22.11–12 in a homily on 2 Corinthians.139 Here his interest is clearly theological and pastoral. In Chrysostom’s received text for Gen, 22.12, God tells Abraham: “now I know that you do fear God” (“νῦν γὰρ ἔγνων, ὅτι φοβῇ σὺ τὸν Θεὸν”).140 Chrysostom is concerned that his audience may interpret this to mean that God does not know everything. In order to eliminate that possibility, he quickly notes that “the Syrian” (“ὁ Σύρος”) reading is, “Now you have made known” (“νῦν ἐγνώρισας”), and that the object of the verb is “to people” (“τοῖς ἀνθρώποις”).141 He then explains that the “now I know” (“νῦν ἔγνων”) in his received text merely confirms that Abraham’s obedience was a greater work than before. The existence of the variant does not concern him, only its theological implications. Otherwise, Chrysostom reserves notices of parahexaplaric readings for his commentaries; the overwhelming bulk again in his Expositiones in Psalmos (CPG 4413) and in the Fragmenta in Ieremiam (CPG 4447).142 These readings are almost exclusively from “the Hebrew”. “The Hebrew and the Syrian” are mentioned together only twice, once on the Psalms143 and on another occasion in his commentary In Isaiam (CPG 4416), where Chrysostom even implies second-hand knowledge of the variant (“ὥς φασιν”).144 An additional reference 139

John Chrysostom, In epistulam II ad Corinthios hom., 3 (PG, 61, col. 413). The full lemma given by Chrysostom is: “Ἀβραὰμ, Ἀβραὰμ, μὴ ἐπενέγκῃς τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπὶ Ἰσαὰκ, μηδὲ ποιήσῃς αὐτῷ μηδέν. Νῦν γὰρ ἔγνων, ὅτι φοβῇ σὺ τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ οὐκ ἐφείσω τοῦ υἱοῦ σου τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ δι’ ἐμέ”: John Chrysostom, In epistulam II ad Corinthios hom., 3 (PG, 61, col. 413). 141 “Τί οὖν ἐστι τὸ, Νῦν ἔγνων; Ὁ μὲν Σύρος φησί· Νῦν ἐγνώρισας, τουτέστι, τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. Ἐγὼ γὰρ ᾔδειν πάλαι καὶ πρὸ τῶν ἐπιταγμάτων ἁπάντων ἐκείνων. Διὰ τί δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις νῦν;”: “What then means this, Now I know? The Syrian (“ὁ Σύρος”) has, ‘Now you have made known’; that is, to people. For I knew of old, even before all those commandments. And why, to people even, now?” John Chrysostom, In epistulam II ad Corinthios hom. 3 (PG, 61, col. 413). The English translation at NPNF, 1-12, 291 unhelpfully translates “ὁ Σύρος” as “the Syriac”. 142 The two references in John Chrysostom, Fragmenta in Iob (CPG 4444) can be ignored [see note 132]. There are no parahexaplaric readings in John Chrysostom, Commentarius in Iob (CPG 4443). 143 “Ἵνα τί φοβοῦμαι, φησὶν, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ πονηρᾷ; Ἄλλος, Ἐν ἡμέραις πονηροῦ. Ἄλλος, Κακοῦ. Ὁ Σύρος, Ῥᾶ”: “Why should I fear, it says, on an evil day? Another, on days of evil. Another, of harm. The Syrian, ra”: John Chrysostom, Expositiones in Psalmos ad Ps, 49, 5 (PG, 55, col. 266). 144 “Ὁ Σύρος καὶ ὁ Ἑβραῖος, ὥς φασιν, οὐ λέγουσι, μελίσσας, ἀλλά, Σφῆκας”: “The Syrian and the Hebrew, as they say, do not say ‘bee’ but ‘wasp’”: John Chrysostom, In Isaiam, 7, 8 ad Isaiam 7, 18 (J. DUMORTIER [ed.] – A. LIEFOOGHE [trans.], Jean Chrysostome. Commentaire sur Isaïe [SC, 304], Paris, 1983, p. 330, 37-38). Dumortier translates as “Le syriaque et l’hébreu” at p. 331. Garrett clouds this too by translating, “In Syrian and in Hebrew” and thinks Chrysostom has made mistake: D. A. GARRETT, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah, 1–8. With an English Translation (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, 12), Lewiston, NY, 1992, p. 152; cf. p. 191. Ter Haar Romeny considers this merely an interpretation as both the MT (‫ )דבורה‬and the Peshitta (À ÎÂx) refer to “hornets” or “bees”: B. TER HAAR ROMENY, The Peshitta of Isaiah. Evidence from the Syriac Fathers, in W. T. VAN PEURSEN – R. B. TER HAAR ROMENY (eds), Text, Translation, and Tradition. Studies in the Peshitta and its 140

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

205

to “Syrians” (“Σύροι”) who dispute a phrase in the Letter to Jeremias (“Λέγουσι δὲ Σύροι τὸ, ὡς δράκων, μὴ ἔχειν”) would need verification against the critical edition of the catenae. But the inference here is that he is referring to a particular Syrian community.145 Ter Haar Romeny has shown that about two thirds of the Hebrew readings and nearly all the Syrian readings on Genesis come from Eusebius of Emesa.146 In the case of “the Syrian”, these are likely Eusebius of Emesa’s own translation into Greek of an early form of the Peshitta text.147 But we have no evidence that Chrysostom knew Eusebius of Emesa’s work directly and their exegesis appears distinct.148 The most likely source of his “Hebrew” and “Syrian” readings are glossed biblical texts or commentaries, perhaps those of Diodore, Chrysostom’s mentor, who used Eusebius’ Genesis commentary “without restraint”.149 Severian’s very scant use of alternative readings may simply reflect the fact we have no Old Testament commentaries from him. But that itself could also reflect the gradual discard of Old Testament exegesis in favour of the New. Chrysostom on the other hand, limits his observations of textual variants to commentaries or similar exegetical contexts, and rarely mentions them in homilies.150 Even so he is hardly ever concerned about establishing the best text or Use in the Syriac Tradition Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden, 14), Leiden, 2006, p. 153. 145 John Chrysostom, In Ieremiam (PG, 64, col. 896A). 146 TER HAAR ROMENY, A Syrian in Greek Dress [n. 135], p. 51. 147 B. TER HAAR ROMENY, ‘Quis Sit ὁ Σύρος’ Revisited, in A. SALVESEN (ed.), Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments: Papers presented at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, 25th – 3rd August 1994 (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum, 58), Tübingen, 1998, pp. 396-398. 148 J. H. W. G. (Wolfgang) LIEBESCHUETZ, How God Made the World in Seven Days: The Commentaries on Genesis of John Chrysostom (Homilies, 1–12) and of Eusebius of Emesa (1–10), Two Distinct Representatives of the School of Antioch, in Antiquité Tardive, 22 (2014), pp. 243253. 149 TER HAAR ROMENY, A Syrian in Greek Dress [n. 135], pp. 19-22. Diodore’s heavy dependence on Eusebius of Emesa was first noted by F. PETIT, La tradition de Théodoret de Cyr dans les chaînes sur la Genèse. Vues nouvelles sur le classement de ces chaînes, in Mus, 92(3-4) (1979), p. 284. See also her general introduction in: La Chaîne grecque sur la Genèse, miroir de l’exégèse ancienne, in G. SCHÖLLGEN – C. SCHOLTEN (eds), STIMULI: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann (Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband, 23), Münster i W., 1996, pp. 243-253; and notes throughout her editions: F. PETIT (ed.), La Chaîne sur la Genèse. Édition intégrale, 4 vols. (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 1-4), Leuven, 1991-1996; F. PETIT – L. VAN ROMPAY – J. J. S. WEITENBERG (eds), Eusèbe d’Émèse. Commentaire de la Genèse. Texte arménien de l’édition de Venise (1980), fragments grecs et syriaques, avec traductions (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 15), Leuven, 2011. Extant fragments of Diodore’s Commentary on Exodus show far more independence and no instances of direct copying: R. B. TER HAAR ROMENY, Early Antiochene Commentaries on Exodus, in Studia Patristica, 30 (1997), p. 119; cf. F. PETIT (ed.), La Chaîne sur l’Exode. Édition intégrale, 2 vols. (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 10-11), Leuven, 2000-2001. 150 A survey which, despite its title, also includes an analysis of Old Testament variant readings is in: A. M. DONALDSON, Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings among Greek and Latin Church Fathers, PhD diss., Notre Dame, IN, 2009, esp. 231-280.

206

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

solving a textual crux, but focused on the interpretation.151 In general, both Severian and Chrysostom accepted their received texts but at times they chose a semantic form from a different textual variant which best fit the context and their rhetorical purpose. 3.3. Severian and Chrysostom’s received text But what of Severian and Chrysostom’s received text? While it is common to assert that both Severian and Chrysostom used an “Antiochene” text, we cannot assume they were using or recalling exactly the same text form. Ter Haar Romeny suspected possible variations in texts circulating around Antioch alone.152 Moreover, Severian and Chrysostom may have been bound to some form of lectionary text used in the churches where they preached which may have differed to some degree. This is more important as we cannot pin down the exact provenance of most of their works.153 For comparative purposes it is more useful to compare Severian’s biblical citations against Chrysostom’s rather than against a reconstructed Septuagint or a manuscript tradition. Such a comparison however, is both Herculean and hampered by a lack of critical editions so I conducted a small sample test and compared all the Biblical quotes in Severian’s De sacrificiis Caini (CPG 4208) with quotes of the same text by Chrysostom where they exist, supplemented by a few random selections from other works.154 This comparison indicated that one set of differences could be attributed to differences in citation technique rather than in 151 Many of Hill’s comments in his translations seem to criticize the authors from the standpoint of a modern textual critic, which is simply anachronistic. On Theodoret see J. N. GUINOT, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr (Théologie historique, 100), Paris, 1995. For Theodore, R. DEVREESE, Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste (ST, 141), Città del Vaticano, 1948. 152 TER HAAR ROMENY, A Syrian in Greek Dress [n. 135], p. 47. 153 See note 19. 154 The advantage here is that Severian’s text is from ms. ÖNB Theol. gr., 64 which has been edited without standardizing the biblical quotations. As this manuscript also stems from the stenographic corpus it may reveal actual citations rather than readings smoothed over by later editors. The disadvantage is that we are relying on a single manuscript which may stem from a poor exemplar. Matters are a little more problematic for Chrysostom given few modern critical texts of his works exist. Most of Chrysostom’s Genesis citations are in his Genesis homilies: The text tradition for Chrysostom’s Genesis homilies is complex – see for example: W. A. MARCOWICZ, The Text Tradition of St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Genesis and Mss. Michiganensis, 139, 78 and Holkhamicus, 61, Ann Arbor, MI, 1955. John Chrysostom, Sermons on Genesis, 1-8 (CPG 4410), which have been edited by Brottier, focus on earlier chapters in Genesis. Amato’s edition of Homilies on Genesis, 21 (CPG 4409, 21) is from one manuscript and most of the parallel citations are in homilies 20 and 22 anyway. Chrysostom’s homilies in Genesis however, are extant in many manuscripts among which is ms. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (BAV) Ottob. gr., 62 which has been digitized. I therefore checked some of Chrysostom’s parallel Genesis citations against Ottob. gr., 62. While this is not rigorous, and the manuscript may be a poor witness in the stemma codicum, or reflect a scribe’s own received text – it did provide some level of confidence in Montfaucon’s text in Migne.

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

207

texts.155 Other differences can potentially be explained without the need to posit a different text.156 Otherwise their citations agree except at the following points. Both seem to use a similar vulgar, non-Hexaplaric Septuagint text of Genesis with one significant difference at Genesis, 4.26. Severian cites this verse with a passive construction (“οὗτος ἤλπισεν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τῷ ὀνομάτι κυρίου”)157 while Chrysostom consistently cites it in his Genesis homilies as a middle with a direct object (“οὗτος ἤλπισεν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ”)158 which is how it is found in most Biblical manuscripts which postdate their era. Severian’s reading is not unattested. Eusebius of Emesa gives it as an alternative reading in his Commentary on Genesis, and it is also found in Alexandrian authors.159 More curious is that Chrysostom himself gives a similar reading to Severian when he cites Genesis, 4.26 in his commentary on Psalm, 49 (“ἤρξαντο ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ θεοῦ”).160 Given that Diodore, Chrysostom’s mentor, copied great slabs of Eusebius’ Genesis commentary,161 it is not unlikely that Chrysostom got his reading of Genesis, 4.26 from Eusebius via Diodore, or from a text glossed with their readings or a shared text. More than that cannot be said without further analysis in a future study to establish Chrysostom’s lemma (if possible), after which, a comparison of Severian and Chrysostom’s exegesis of Genesis, 4.26 may illuminate to what 155 For example, Chrysostom is generally careful to recite every word of a verse, including particles (e.g. δέ, γάρ) whereas Severian cites only the part of the verse he is interested in, and tends to omit introductory formulas such as “that (“ὅτι”) or “and he said” (“καὶ εἶπε”) as well as particles. However, such comparisons must consider the homilies’ manuscript tradition, in particular whether the text has been transmitted in a “stenographic” version or as a polished piece, and whether biblical texts may have been updated during subsequent copying or editing to conform to some Byzantine received text. On Chrysostom’s oral citation technique, see H. AMIRAV, Rhetoric and Tradition: John Chrysostom on Noah and the Flood (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 12), Leuven, 2003, pp. 68-73. 156 When citing Genesis, 10, 9, for example, Severian opts for the phrase “ἔναντι κυρίου” in contrast to Chrysostom’s “ἐναντίον κυρίου”. While “ἐναντίον κυρίου” is by far the most common form in Genesis, “ἔναντι κυρίου” is preferred elsewhere in the LXX, particularly Exodus to Numbers, and Severian may simply be replacing one with another. But Severian’s reading is also found in that same form in Hippolytus, Refutation against Heresies, 5, 11 (D. M. LITWA, Refutation against Heresies [Writings from the Graeco-Roman World, 40], Atlanta, 2016, p. 302). Another: when citing Psalm, 81, 6 (also cited in Jn, 10, 34), Severian’s “ἐγὼ δὲ εἶπον” (HPC, vol. 1, p. 129, 229) versus Chrysostom’s “ἐγὼ εἶπα” (PG, 53, col. 187, l. 54) is unlikely to indicate a difference in text. Severian may have been recalling this verse from the Gospel of John which consistently uses “εἶπον” (with the strong aorist ο ending) for the first person singular (14 times) except for the citation of Ps, 81, 6 and just got confused. 157 Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 129, 198-200, 203-204, 209-210, 212-213, 216), on one occasion substituting “ὁ Ἐνὼς” for “οὗτος”. 158 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 20 (PG, 53, col. 172, ll. 39-42, ll. 47-48; ll. 60-63; col. 179, ll. 2-4; col. 189, ll. 7-9). But at PG, 53, col. 189 note a, Montfaucon indicates other early editors (and seven manuscripts) have “τῷ ὀνόματι” at this point. 159 Also noted by: TER HAAR ROMENY, A Syrian in Greek Dress [n. 135], pp. 244-245. 160 John Chrysostom, Expositio in Psalmum, 49 (PG, 55, col. 241). 161 TER HAAR ROMENY, A Syrian in Greek Dress [n. 135], pp. 19-22, 89-91.

208

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

extent, if at all, their different text contributed to their exegetical outcome.162 Outside of Genesis, Severian seems to cite an Old Greek version for Jeremiah, 2.21.163 Both cite a Theodotion version of Daniel164 although Severian’s citations show interference from an Old Greek version.165 This however may be an adjustment for rhetorical purposes.166 But it would require significantly more analysis to posit a difference in their texts for these books. Among the New Testament quotations Severian and Chrysostom differ on Hebrews, 12.22-24, but Chrysostom simply cites some phrases in a different order,167 while Severian omits a phrase in verse 24, and quotes it using the first person plural “we have come” (“προσεληλύθαμεν”) instead of the second person plural (“προσεληλύθατε”).168 Such deictic shifts are sometimes necessary to fit the rhetorical context in which a citation is introduced, but that does not seem to be necessary here. I can only speculate that Severian is perhaps recalling this verse as it is recited in liturgy. A similar deictic shift can be found in Eusebius’s Commentary on Isaiah.169 In this work, Hebrews, 12.24 is Eusebius’s most frequently cited biblical verse170 yet he cites it five times as

162 For example, one must first exclude the possibility that the lemma cited in either Chrysostom’s Homilies on Genesis or his Commentary on the Psalms was amended in the manuscript tradition or in printed editions to conform with some received text before one can confirm the actual difference and proceed with the question of how it came about that Chrysostom used different Genesis texts (if at all). 163 “Τάδε λέγει κύριος· Ἐφύτευσά σε ἄμπελον καρποφόρον πᾶσαν ἀληθινήν. Πῶς δὲ ἐστράφης εἰς πικρίαν, ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀλλοτρία;” Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 134, 18-20). Chrysostom only cites a phrase in the Type A (2 person) catenae: “πᾶσαν ἀληθινήν”: John Chrysostom, Fragmenta in Ieremiam ad Jer, 2, 21 (SÜTTERLIN-AUSSEDAT, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur le livre de Jérémie, p. 25, 9). 164 “[A]s usual with the Antiochenes”: R. C. HILL, Reading the Old Testament in Antioch (Bible in Ancient Christianity, 5), Atlanta, GA, 2005, p. 60. 165 Compare Severian’s citation of Dan, 5, 23 (“Καὶ ἔδωκε...οὐκ ηὐλόγησας”) and Dan, 5, 26 (“Καὶ ταῦτα...ἐπληρώθη”) in Severian of Gabala, In psalmum, 95 (PG, 55, coll. 625, l. 70-626, ll. 4-5) with Th-Dan, 3, 4 and OG-Dan, 3, 4. Perhaps Chrysostom too? Compare Dan, 3, 4 (“Ὑμῖν...γλῶσσαι”) in John Chrysostom, De statuis hom., 4 (PG, 49, col. 64, l. 56) with Th-Dan, 3, 4 and OG-Dan, 3, 4. 166 “ἵνα συντέμω”, Severian of Gabala, In psalmum, 95 (PG, 55, col. 625, l. 71). 167 John Chrysostom, De beato Philogonio (PG, 48, col. 749, ll. 40-41) but almost right at John Chrysostom, On the Letter to the Hebrews, 32, 1 (PG, 63, col. 219, ll. 50-57). 168 Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 125, 68-73). Elsewhere, Severian conflates Heb, 12, 22 with Heb, 8, 13: Severian of Gabala, In incarnationem Domini (R. F. REGTUIT, Severian of Gabala: Homily on the Incarnation of Christ (CPG 4204): Text, Translation and Introduction, Amsterdam, 1992, p. 270, 537-539). 169 Eusebius not surprisingly uses a hexaplaric recension of the Septuagint, but Migne’s edition replaces Eusebius’ biblical text with that of the official Roman Sixtine edition. M. J. HOLLERICH, Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on Isaiah: Christian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford, 1999, p. 174, 18. On the Sixtine edition, based on Codex Vaticanus, see H. B. SWETE, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge, 1900, pp. 174-182. 170 HOLLERICH, Eusebius on Isaiah [n. 169], p. 174.

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

209

“you have come to the mountain of Zion” (“προσεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει”)171 and on three occasions switches person to “we have come” (“προσεληλύθαμεν”), even when introducing it as a direct quote by “the Apostle” (“ὁ ἀπόστολος”) or when the context does not seem to require it.172 The possibility that exegetes used lectionary or liturgical texts as a source of their readings or were influenced by the liturgy in their citations or even their exegesis is relatively unexplored,173 but given Severian’s frequent references to liturgical practices may warrant further investigation.174 4. CANON Both Severian and Chrysostom preached against the backdrop of continuing questions about authoritative texts. In the late 4th century, a number of councils and churchmen in various parts of the Roman empire had listed their own books of the Bible which they either used or recommended,175 but no such list is extant for Chrysostom’s native Antioch, nor for Constantinople where both Severian and Chrysostom preached, and some scholars have therefore sought

171 Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentarius in Isaiam, 1, 52; 1, 81; 1, 85; 2, 17; 2, 35 (GCS, 66), pp. 60, ll. 15-16; 144, ll. 5-6; 163, ll. 2-4; 252, ll. 12-14; 313, ll. 1-2). 172 Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentarius in Isaiam, 1, 73; 2, 9; 2, 55 (GCS, 66, pp. 123, ll. 34-35; 230, ll. 17-18; 394, ll. 14-17). 173 The difficulty lies in the lack of source material. The earliest extant reference to set readings outside of the New Testament is dated to the second century: “Ἡ μὲν γραφὴ τῆς Ἑβραϊκῆς ἐξόδου ἀνέγνωσται, καὶ τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ μυστηρίου διασεσάφηται· πῶς τὸ πρόβατον θύεται καὶ πῶς ὁ λαὸς σῴζεται”: “The writing of the Hebrew exodus has been read, and the words of the mystery explained; how the sheep was sacrificed, and how the people were saved”: Melito of Sardis, De Pascha, 1 (O. PERLER, Méliton de Sardes. Sur la Pâque et fragments [SC, 123], Paris, 1966, p. 60, 3-6). The earliest lectionaries (books of readings) date to the 4th century for the NT, albeit these are extant only in fragmentary form. The earliest for the OT are generally dated to the 8th century, although Engberg argues their development stretches back to some indeterminate point not later than the 4th century. C. D. OSBURN, The Greek Lectionaries of the New Testament, in B. D. EHRMAN – M. W. HOLMES (eds), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Grand Rapids, 1995, pp. 61-74. S. G. ENGBERG, The Prophetologion and the Triple-Lection Theory. The Genesis of a Liturgical Book, in BBGG, [Terzia serie], 3 (2006), pp. 89-91. Nevertheless, some reconstruction of lectionaries is possible. See VILLADSEN, Det tidlige perikopesystem; F. VAN DE PAVERD, Zur Geschichte der Messliturgie in Antiocheia und Konstantinopel gegen Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts. Analyse der Quellen bei Johannes Chrysostomos (OCA, 187), Roma, 1970; G. P. RACZKA, The Lectionary at the Time of John Chrysostom, PhD diss., Notre Dame, IN, 2015. 174 S. KIM, Литургические обычаи в проповедях Севериана Гавальского [= Liturgical Practices Mentioned in the Homilies of Severian of Gabala], in Bulletin of the Ekaterinburg Theological Seminary, 4(12) (2015), pp. 131-143. 175 E.g., Council of Laodicea (ca. 363); Council of Hippo (393); Council of Carthage (397). For a list of catalogues and councils, see: L. M. MCDONALD, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, vol. 2, London – New York, 2017, pp. 265-319 and Appendices; E. L. GALLAGHER – J. D. MEADE, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis, Oxford, 2018.

210

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

to reconstruct one.176 The nature and purpose of these localised lists however, and the socio-political contexts which generated them varied, and there is no reason to expect that every bishop or council would have felt compelled to advise on acceptable books. Those who seek such lists – and canon as list is the most typical concept of canon used by biblical and patristic scholars – more often than not hold to a definition of canon as a closed set of authoritative books, a view largely associated with Sundberg.177 The Greek word “canon” (“κανών”), however, was not applied to authoritative texts until the 4th century, and even then, it did not necessarily imply a list.178 On the other hand, the lack of such a list whether at Antioch, Constantinople or elsewhere does not necessarily mean there was no canon, if we broaden our concept of canon beyond just a list. 4.1. Canon as term In his Genesis homilies, Severian limits his use of the word “canon” (“κανών”) to the phrase “norm of nature” (“κανὼν τῆς φύσεως”) and renders “canon” as synonymous with “law” (“νόμος”). In Severian’s view “every olden word of God” (“πᾶν ῥῆμα θεοῦ ἀρχαῖον”)179 “every olden utterance of God” (“πᾶσα γὰρ φωνῆ θεοῦ ἀρχαία”)180 is a norm for nature, and while he first raises this in the context of male-female relations and marriage, in a curious extrapolation, he presents eating at the sixth hour as a “norm of nature” as well.181 Chrysostom similarly refers to the “law of nature” (“νόμος φύσεως”) in relation R. E. CARTER, The Antiochene Biblical Canon 400 AD, in OCP, 72 (2006), p. 417. Sundberg (arguing against von Campenhausen who used “Scripture” as synonymous to “canon”) defined “Scripture” as writings that are “in some sense authoritative” and “canon” as “a closed collection of scripture to which nothing can be added and nothing can be subtracted”, that is, as an exclusive collection which is authoritative with respect to all other books. A. C. SUNDBERG, Towards a Revised History of New Testament Canon, in Studia Evangelica, 4 (1968), p. 453; IDEM, The Bible Canon and the Christian Doctrine of Inspiration, in Interpretation, 29 (1975), p. 356. Kruger notes that this idea can be traced back to Staerk (1929), Hölscher (1905), and perhaps even further back to Semler (1771-1775). M. J. KRUGER, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate, Downers Grove, IL, 2013, p. 29. It is arguable to what extent this prevailing view of canon as list has also been influenced by Latin Christianity’s notions of canon. 178 The classic study on the Greek word “canon” (“κανών”) is: H. OPPEL, ΚΑΝΩΝ: Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte des Wortes und seiner lateinischen Entsprechungen (regula-norma) (Philologus Supplement, 30[4]), Leipzig, 1937. On the concept of canon see also: T. HÄGG, Canon Formation in Greek Literary Culture, in E. THOMASSEN (ed.), Canon and Canonicity. The Formation and Use of Scripture, Copenhagen, 2010, pp. 109-128. T. BOKEDAL, The Formation and Significance of the Christian Biblical Canon: A Study in Text, Ritual and Interpretation, New York, 2014, pp. 39-82, esp. 55-63 where Bokedal lays out how the church drew from the general Hellenistic meaning of “canon”. MCDONALD, Formation of the Biblical Canon [n. 175], vol. 1, 176-117. I use Bokedal’s categories for much of this section on “canon”. 179 Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 5 (PG, 56, col. 482). 180 Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 5 (PG, 56, col. 486). 181 Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 6 (PG, 56, col. 490). Did Severian think one would be defying God’s law if they ate at the fifth?! 176 177

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

211

to marriage.182 Outside of the Genesis homilies, a few (potentially spurious) fragments indicate Severian referring to “ecclesiastical canons” (“ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ κανόνες”)183 and to canon as “limit”.184 Severian’s only firm association of “canon” with Scripture is found in In qua potestate (CPG 4193), where he is at pains to tell his audience that 1 John is among those writings “used in the church” (“ἐκκλησιαζομένων”) while the fathers reject 2 and 3 John from the canon (“οἱ πατέρες ἀποκανονίζουσι”).185 It is unclear if he is referring to an established principle or contemporary events. Elsewhere in Severian’s homilies, as also in Chrysostom’s, “the fathers” mean “the bishops”, including the 318 council fathers at Nicaea.186 The designation

182

Cf. John Chrysostom, In epistulam ad Romanos hom., 13 ad Rom, 7, 25 (PG, 60, col. 512). Severian of Gabala, Commentary on 1 Tim, 1, 1; cf. 2 Tim, 1, 1 (STAAB, Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, p. 342). The same term is still in use for Canon Law in the east. Staab’s author attribution is problematic, therefore I am reluctant to place too much weight on these citations [see note 16 above]. 184 Severian of Gabala, Commentary on 2 Cor, 10, 15-16 (STAAB, Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, p. 296). 185 “ὁ ταῦτα κηρύξας (i.e. John the Evangelist), αὐτὸς ἐν τῇ Ἐπιστολῇ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ γράφων τῶν δὲ ἐκκλησιαζομένων, οὐ τῶν ἀποκρύφων μὲν ἡ πρώτη Ἐπιστολή· τὴν γὰρ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτη; οἱ Πατέρες ἀποκανονίζουσι”: Severian of Gabala, In illud: In qua potestate haec facis (PG, 56, col. 424). A better edition in Stehouwer (1990) not listed in CPG 2 is difficult to obtain. Cosmas Indicopleustes later reported Severian had doubts about 2 and 3 John. He may have been referring to this same homily. Cosmas Indicopleustes, Topographia Christiana, 7, 68-70 (W. WOLSKA-CONUS [ed.], Cosmas Indicopleustès. Topographie chrétienne, Tome, III [Livre VI-XII. Index] [SC, 197], Paris, 1973, pp. 129-133). On the acceptance of 1-3 John in the canon (and the source of my references), see J. LIEU, The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background (Biblical Studies, The Epistles), Edinburgh, 1986, repr. London, 2015, pp. 5-36. At page 15, Lieu expresses the prevailing opinion at that time that In qua potestate (CPG 4193) may not be from Severian, but its authenticity has since been argued and accepted. On this, S. KIM, Sévérien de Gabala dans les littératures arménienne et géorgienne [n. 40], p. 22. The Synopis Sacrae Scripturae which is attributed to Chrysostom and includes James, 1 Peter and 1 John is not Chrysostom’s. 186 “τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων and ἐπὶ ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν καὶ πατέρων”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 2 (PG, 56, coll. 441; 443); “τριακόσιοι δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ πατέρες”: Severian of Gabala, In incarnationem Domini (REGTUIT, Severian of Gabala, p. 282, 698); “τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων”: John Chrysostom, De statuis hom., 6 (PG, 49, col. 92). S. J. VOICU, Evidence of Authenticity: Severian of Gabala, In Ascensionem Domini (CPG 5028), in R. W. BISHOP ET AL. (eds), Preaching after Easter: Mid-Pentecost, Ascension, and Pentecost in Late Antiquity (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 136), Leiden, 2016, p. 421, notes that Severian’s usual appellation for Chrysostom is the “common father” or similar, e.g. “τὸν κοινὸν ὑμῶν πατέρα”, Severian of Gabala, In illud: In qua potestate haec facis (PG, 56, col. 428, ll. 15-18); “τοῦ κοινοῦ πατρός”: Severian of Gabala, In Genesim sermo, 1 (PG, 56, col. 521, l. 71); “ὁ θαυμάσιος ἡμῶν πατὴρ”: Severian of Gabala, De caeco nato (PG, 59, col. 545, ll. 71-74). To these one can add “ὁ κοινὸς ἡμῶν πατὴρ” and “τὸν κοινὸν πατέρα” in Severian of Gabala, De pace (A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias (Ανάλεκτα Ιεροσολυμιτικής Σταχυολογίας), vol. 1, Petroupolis, 1891, pp. 18, 5-6; 26, 18). Chrysostom refers to Diodore as “ὁ πατήρ”, and once as “ὁ σοφὸς οὗτος ἡμῶν πατήρ”, “this wise father of ours”: John Chrysostom, Laus Diodori (PG, 52, col. 763, ll. 19, 28, 20; col. 764, l. 17). Chrysostom also designates himself as father: Pater enim sum et necesse est me filiis consilium suadere.... Pater sum, et pater nimis super filios tremens, ita ut sanguinem meum pro vobis fundere paratus sim: “For I am a father and it is necessary to give advice to my sons. ... I am a father, and a father 183

212

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

of writings as “used by the church” (“ἐκκλησιαζομένων”) in opposition to “apocryphal” (“ἀποκρύφων”) writings was also used by Cyril of Jerusalem,187 but Severian’s canon – as will be discussed below – is not Cyril’s.188 Still, Severian’s careful elucidation of which letter he meant, suggests there were some doubts or controversy around accepted books – here, 2 and 3 John – and he is keen to highlight his own compliance with “the fathers”. Chrysostom on the other hand uses the word “canon” (“κανών”) across a broader semantic range, perhaps to be expected given so much more of his work is extant. In his exhortations to “follow the rule” (“κανών”) he regularly combines “canon” (“κανών”) with “boundary, term, definition” (“ὅρος”) or “law” (“νόμος”), at times inferring they are synonymous. He associates the word “canon” with Scripture in the phrase “norm of sacred Scripture” (“κανὼν τῆς ἁγίας Γραφῆς”), found only in his Genesis homilies where it seems to be shorthand for a hermeneutical principle.189 Should Jews, heretics or complainers dispute an interpretation, he enjoins his audience to be deaf to their arguments190 and “to follow after the norm of sacred Scripture” (“τῷ κανόνι τῆς ἁγίας Γραφῆς κατακολουθεῖν”).191 To do so offers protection for the soul.192 who also trembles for his sons, to such an extent that I am ready to pour out my blood for you”: John Chrysostom, De recipiendo Severiano (PG, 52, col. 425). 187 “Καὶ φιλομαθῶς ἐπίγνωθι, καὶ παρὰ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ποῖαι μέν εἰσιν· αἱ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βίβλοι, ποῖαι δὲ τῆς καινῆς. Καί μοι μηδὲν τῶν ἀποκρύφων ἀναγίνωσκε. Ὁ γὰρ τὰ παρὰ πᾶσιν ὁμολογούμενα μὴ εἰδὼς, τί περὶ τὰ ἀμφιβαλλόμενα ταλαιπωρεῖς μάτην; Ἀναγίνωσκε τὰς θείας γραφὰς, τὰς εἴκοσι δύο βίβλους τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης ταύτας, τὰς ὑπὸ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα δύο Ἑρμηνευτῶν ἑρμηνευθείσας”: “Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testament, and what those of the New. And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings (“μηδὲν τῶν ἀποκρύφων”): for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged (“ὁμολογούμενα”) among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed (“ἀμφιβαλλόμενα”)? Read the Divine Scriptures, the 22 books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the 72 Interpreters”: Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos, 4, 33; cf. 4, 35, 36 (W. K. REISCHL – J. RUPP [eds], Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 1, Monaci, 1848-1860; repr. Hildesheim, 1967, p. 124; cf. pp. 128, 130). And also: “Ταῦτα δὲ διδάσκομεν οὐχ εὑρεσιλογοῦντες, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν θείων ἐκκλησιαζομένων γραφῶν καὶ μάλιστα ἐκ τῆς ἀρτίως ἀναγνωσθείσης τοῦ Δανιὴλ προφητείας μεμαθηκότες”: “Now these things we teach, not of our own invention, but having learned them out of the divine Scriptures used in the Church, and chiefly from the prophecy of Daniel just now read”: Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos, 15, 13 (REISCHL – RUPP [eds], Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera, vol. 2, p. 170). The term is also used in Ps.-Athanasius, Synopsis scripturae sacrae (PG, 28, col. 437) which is generally dated later. 188 Cyril accepted all the Catholic Epistles and excluded Revelation. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos, 4, 36 (REISCHL – RUPP [eds], Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera, vol. 1, p. 128; 130). 189 So too, HILL, John Chrysostom. Homilies on Genesis, pp. 173 n. 7 and 175 n. 9. 190 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 13, 3 (PG, 53, col. 108). 191 The verb “κατακολουθεῖν” not only denotes taking a set direction, but is also used of following a philosophical or historical authority, e.g. Polybius, Histories, 2, 56, 2 (L. A. DINDORF – T. BÜTTNER-WOBST, Polybii Historiae (Πολυβίου Ἱστορίαι): Editio altera, vol. 1 [Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana], Lipsiae, 1905, p. 191). 192 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 5, 15 (PG, 53, col. 53).

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

213

Not to do so “upsets their sense of balance and undermines the solid orthodoxy of dogmas with endless disputes and questioning” (“ταράττει τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ λογομαχίας καὶ ζητήσεις ἀπεράντους ἐπιφέρει τῇ ὑγιεῖ τῶν δογμάτων ὀρθότητι”).193 If Scripture shows one practice and society follows another, then “imitate the norm of sacred Scripture” (“μιμώμεθα τῆς θείας Γραφῆς τοὺς κανόνας”) exhorts Chrysostom.194 While the phrase “norm of sacred Scripture” does not occur in his other exegetical works, he repeatedly applies this principle.195 4.2. Ideas of canon Nevertheless, both Severian and Chrysostom express the idea of canon without using the term, and presuppose it in their exegesis. For example, both refer to “scripture” (“γραφή”), or a collection of authoritative writings (“αἱ γραφαί”, canon as Scripture). Both refer to the “Old Testament” (“ἡ παλαιά, ἀρχαία”),196 and to the New (“ἡ νέα, καινή”),197 thereby expecting their hearers to understand a set of authoritative texts of some designated even if unstated scope (canon as Old and New Testament). Both refer to the apostles and the prophets either by name or as a group of texts – designations which both invite objective assessment on who or what is included or excluded, but eschew a precise canonical delimitation (canon as prophetic and apostolic Scriptures),198 and which recall Greek conceptions of a canon as a list of authors (rather than

193

John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 14, 6 (PG, 53, col. 113). John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 23, 16 (PG, 53, col. 204). 195 Chrysostom even uses “divine Scripture” to redefine a Greek term. “Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἀναμφισβήτητος οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ κανὼν, καὶ ἀκριβὴς οὗτος συνωνύμων ὅρος παρὰ τῇ θείᾳ Γραφῇ”: “Therefore, since this without dispute is the canon, and this [is] the exact definition of a synonym by divine Scripture”: John Chrysostom, Laus Diodori (PG, 52, col. 764). 196 “ἐν τῂ παλαιᾷ”: Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 132, 319); “τῆς ἀρχαίας διαθήκης”: Severian of Gabala, De Christo pastore et oue (PG, 52, col. 830); “τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης”: John Chrysostom, De statuis hom., 4 (PG, 49, col. 62). 197 “τῆς νέας διαθήκης”: Severian of Gabala, De Christo pastore et oue (PG, 52, col. 830); “ἡ διαθήκη ἡ καινή”: John Chrysostom, On the Letter to the Hebrews, 32, 1 (PG, 63, col. 219); “Ἐζητήσαμεν τότε, τίνος ἕνεκεν ἀσαφεστέρα τῆς Καινῆς ἡ παλαιὰ Διαθήκη”: “we have inquired then, why the Old Testament is more obscure than the New”: John Chrysostom, De prophetiarum obscuritate hom., 2, 1 (ZINCONE, Giovanni Crisostomo. Omelie sull’oscurità delle profezie, p. 110, 44-45). 198 In addition to names, (e.g. Ἠσαΐας, Παῦλος), Severian and Chrysostom use terms such as “the law” (“ὁ νόμος”), “the prophets” (“οἱ προφῆται”), “the apostles” (“οἱ ἀπόστολοι”), “the evangelists” (“οἱ εὐαγγελισταί”) either individually or in various combinations. Most common is “the apostles and prophets” (“οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ προφῆται”); cf. Eph, 2, 20. For example: “Οὐ μόνον δὲ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ προφῆται προέλεγον ὅτι ἔρχεται ὁ Χριστός”: “Not only the apostles but also the prophets foretold that Christ would come”: Severian of Gabala, In incarnationem Domini (REGTUIT, Severian of Gabala, p. 256, 332-333). “Οἱ δὲ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται τοὐναντίον ἅπαν ἐποίησαν·”: “But the apostles and prophets did the very opposite”: John Chrysostom, De Lazaro hom., 3 (PG, 48, col. 994, ll. 44-53). 194

214

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

works). In fact, Severian refers to “the prophetic chorus” (“ὁ προφητικὸς χορός”)199 – Chrysostom to “a chorus of prophets” (“προφητῶν χορὸς”)200 – and both refer to the “chorus of the apostles” (“ὁ χορὸς τῶν ἀποστόλων”).201 Echoing Clement of Alexandria,202 Chrysostom speaks of the “harmony” (“σuμφωνία”) between the prophetic and apostolic teachings, and therefore necessarily between the Old and New Testaments.203 Severian draws attention to this harmony too, ascribing it to their common author.204 Chrysostom however was the first Christian author to explicitly refer to the collection as “the books” (“τὰ βιβλία”), thereby pre-empting Western conceptions of canon (canon as the book[s] of the Bible).205 Both refer to “readings” (“ἀναγνώσεις”), 199

Severian of Gabala, In Noe Et Filios Eius (HPC, vol. 1, pp. 99, 442-100, 443). John Chrysostom, Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae lib., 3 (PG, 47, col. 362, l. 7). 201 Severian of Gabala, In illud: Quando ipsi subiciet omnia (S. HAIDACHER [hrsg.], Drei unedierte Chrysostomus-Texte einer Baseler Handschrift, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 31 [1907], p. 161, 19); John Chrysostom, On the Changing of Names, 2, 4 (PG, 51, col. 139, l. 3). 202 “κανὼν δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἡ συνῳδία καὶ ἡ συμφωνία νόμου τε καὶ προφητῶν τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ διαθήκῃ”: “the ecclesiastical rule (“κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός”) is the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord”: Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, 6, 15, 125, 3 (O. STÄHLIN – L. FRÜCHTEL – U. TREU, Clemens Alexandrinus, Zweiter Band, Stromata Buch I-VI, 4th ed. [GCS, 52], Berlin, 1985, repr. Berlin, 2011, p. 495, ll. 5-7). Cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, I, 8, 1-10, 1. 203 “Εἶδες ἑκατέρων τῶν Διαθηκῶν τὴν συγγένειαν; Εἶδες τὴν συμφωνίαν τῶν διδαγμάτων;”: “Do you see the relationship of both testaments? Do you see the harmony in their teachings?”: John Chrysostom, In Genesim serm., 1 (PG, 54, col. 583, ll. 39-41). “Εἶδες προφητικῶν καὶ ἀποστολικῶν ῥημάτων συμφωνίαν;”: “Do you see the harmony of the prophetic and apostolic statements?” John Chrysostom, Expositiones in Psalmos ad Ps, 109 (PG, 55, col. 268, ll. 23-24). “Εὔδηλον ὅτι πολλὴ συγγένεια προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων, καὶ ἀνάγκη πολλὴν Παλαιᾶς καὶ Καινῆς εἶναι τὴν συμφωνίαν”: “it is evident that there is a strong relationship between the prophets and apostles, and there must necessarily be great harmony between the Old and New ”: John Chrysostom, In illud: Habentes eundem spiritum (PG, 51, col. 291, ll. 40-43). See further: A.M. MALINGREY, L’harmonie des deux Testaments dans les homélies Contra Anomoeos, in Studia Patristica, 27 (1993), pp. 198-201, although the reference to In Matthaeum at p. 199 n. 7 is incorrect; R. C. HILL, Chrysostom on the Obscurity of the Old Testament, in OCP, 67(2) (2001), pp. 371-372. Hill obscures Chrysostom’s words by translating as “the harmony of Old and New Testament statement” in R. C. HILL, St. John Chrysostom: Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 2, Brookline, MA, 1998, p. 16. 204 “Καλεῖ αὐτὴν καὶ δευτέραν Διαθήκην. Διὰ τί δευτέραν; Ἵνα τῇ γνώμῃ συνάψῃ. Τὸ γὰρ ἀπεσχοινισμένον τινὸς δεύτερον οὐ λέγεται. Ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ θεὸς ἐλάλησε καὶ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ, καὶ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ, ὁ αὐτὸς καλεῖ πρώτην καὶ δευτέραν, τῷ ἀριθμῷ τὴν συμφωνίαν ἐργαζόμενος”: “He [Paul] also calls it the second Testament. Why second? So as to intentionally join . For that which is excluded from something is not said to be second. But since God spoke both in the first and in the second, he himself calls first and second, declaring their harmony by the number”: Severian of Gabala, De Legislatore (PG, 56, col. 398). “Ἀδελφαὶ γὰρ αἱ δύο Διαθῆκαι, ἐξ ἑνὸς Πατρὸς τεθεῖσαι· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ συμφώνως τὸν λόγον προφέρουσι”: “For the two testaments are sisters, born from one father; hence the teaching they offer is also in harmony”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 1, 3 (PG, 56, col. 433, ll. 3-5) 205 John Chrysostom, Sermons on Genesis, 2, 1 (BROTTIER [ed.], Jean Chrysostome. Sermons sur la Genèse, p. 188); In principium Actorum hom., 3, 2 (PG, 51, l. 90, 9). There were however, some anticipations of this usage. B. M. METZGER, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Oxford, 1987, p. 214, n. 9. See too Ps.-Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 200

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

215

that is, texts that are read in a liturgical setting (canon as divine lection).206 Such references to “readings” denote an understanding of a set of writings that carry authority in an ecclesiastical setting, or which are worth repeated reading.207 The idea of canon also functions in their exegesis. Both hold to the principle of scripture interpreting scripture, by which the meaning of a text is determined in relation to other texts which carry equal authority (canon as intertext).208 Conversely their canon functions to limit the range of interpretations available to them in their exegesis and reinforces their exegetical tradition. 4.3. Canon as list The construction of a canon list is still useful for comparative purposes. While neither Severian nor Chrysostom provided their own list, of course, Severian does describe the arrangement of his books: “the law” is followed by “the prophets” in the Old Testament, while “the gospel” comes before “the apostles” in the New. As regards the prophets, the “twelve” who are “in the company of Hosea” (“οἱ περὶ Ὠσηέ”), precede the “four”, which he orders Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.209 While there was no uniform order of books in Greek Old Testaments, this order of the prophets accords with Epiphanius’ Jewish canon list,210 and several Christian lists given by Severian’s near Ars Rhetorica, 8, 4 (H. USENER – L. RADEMACHER, Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant, vol. 6: Opusculorum volumen secundum; Editio stereotypa editionis prioris [1904-1929] [Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana], Lipsaie, 1965, p. 298, l. 1) where PseudoDionysius refers to the acceptable models for rhetorical teaching as “the books”. 206 “αἱ ἀναγνώσεις”: Severian of Gabala, De sacrificiis Caini (HPC, vol. 1, p. 124, 11); “τῇ τῶν Γραφῶν ἀναγνώσει”: John Chrysostom, De Christi divinitate (PG, 48, col. 812; A. M. MALINGREY [ed.], Jean Chrysostom. Sur l’égalité du Père et du Fils: Contre les Anoméens, homélies VII-XII [SC, 396], Paris, 1994); “ποίαις ἀκοαῖς ἀκούσῃ τῶν ἀναγινωσκομένων ἐκεῖ Γραφῶν;”: “with what ears will you listen to the reading of the scriptures there?”: John Chrysostom, Oration against the Jews, 8, 11 (PG, 48, col. 937). 207 However, the absence of public reading does not necessarily imply a text lacks authority as “scripture”. 208 E.g., “Ὁρᾷς πῶς ἑαυτὴν ἑρμηνεύει ἡ Γραφὴ, καὶ δείκνυσι νοερὰν οὖσαν τὴν νίκην καὶ πνευματικήν”: “Do you see how scripture interprets itself, and shows the victory to be intellectual and spritual?”: John Chrysostom, Expositiones in Psalmos (PG, 55, col. 191, ll. 38-39). 209 “Ἀμἐλει καὶ ἐν τῇ Παλαιᾷ Διαθήκῃ προηγεῖται νόμος, καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσι προφῆται, καὶ ἐν τῇ νέᾳ χάριτι προηγεῖται τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ ἀκολουθούσιν ἀπόστολοι. Ἐκεῖ δώδεκα προφῆται, ἕκαστος τῶν δώδεκα· δώδεκα οἱ περὶ Ὠσηέ· τέσσαρες. Ἡσαΐας, Ἱερεμίας, Ἰεζεκιὴλ, Δανιήλ”: Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 1, 3 (PG, 56, col. 433, ll. 9-14). Cf: “οὐ νόμον ἀναγνοὺς, οὐ προφήτας διελθὼν, οὐκ Εὐαγγελίοις ἐντυχὼν, οὐκ ἀποστόλοις βεβαιωθεὶς”: “not having read the law, nor passed through the prophets, nor met with the gospels, nor been confirmed by apostles”: Severian of Gabala, De caeco et Zacchaeo (PG, 59, coll. 599, ll. 43-45). 210 Epiphanius of Salamis, De mensuris et ponderibus, 22-23 (MOUTSOULAS, Τὸ ‘Περὶ μέτρων καὶ σταθμῶν’ ἔργον Ἐπιφανίου τοῦ Σαλαμῖνος, pp. 190, 675-192, 707).

216

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

contemporaries.211 In De sigillis (CPG 4209) Severian also confirms four gospels in the order Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.212 Absent any further details, we can only loosely reconstruct the scope of Severian and Chrysostom’s “canon”. Here one needs only update Carter’s surveys of Severian’s and Chrysostom’s scripture quotations,213 bearing in mind that a citation alone does not necessarily equate a book with “Scripture” nor does the absence of a quotation mean a book was considered “uncanonical”. To complicate matters, some of Severian and Chrysostom’s contemporaries differentiated between three groups of writings which generally speaking were “canonical”, “uncanonical yet still useful in some way”, and “uncanonical and to be avoided”, and would even cite “useful” books in the same way as a “canonical” book.214 Carter noted that Severian explicitly cited all the “canonical” OT books215 except Ruth, Esther, Obadiah and 1 and 2 Esdras.216 Notable here is that Severian 211 See lists by Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Salamis (De mensuris et ponderibus, 4; Panarion, 1, 1, 6-8), Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilocius, Jerome, Council of Carthage canon 26 (397 AD), as well as Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus in MCDONALD, Formation of the Biblical Canon, vol. 1, pp. 491-494, 497, and corresponding source texts in GALLAGHER – MEADE, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity [n. 175]. It should be recalled that many early Bibles did not demarcate books in the same way as we do today: W. HORBURY, Jews and Christians on the Bible: Demarcation and Convergence (325-451), in J. OORT – U. WICKERT (eds), Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicaea und Chalcedon, Kampen, 1992, pp. 72-103; J. ZSENGELLÉR, Addition or Edition? Deconstructing the Concept of Additions, in G. G. XERAVITS – J. ZSENGELLÉR, Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books: Selected Studies (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies, 5), Berlin, 2010, pp. 1-15. 212 “Τέσσαρες μέντοι εἰσὶν εὐαγγελισταὶ, Ματθαῖος, Μάρκος, Λουκᾶς, καὶ Ἰωάννης· ... ὁ Ματθαῖος ἀρχὴν. ... πάλιν ὁ μακάριος Μάρκος. ...Ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀκολουθεῖ τρίτος. ...Ἰωάννης τοίνυν ὁ υἱὸς τῆς βροντῆς τελευταῖος...μετὰ τοὺς τρεῖς ἐκείνους κήρυκας”: Severian of Gabala, De sigillis (PG, 63, coll. 540, l. 42-544, l. 46; col. 541, ll. 3-4, ll. 15-16, ll. 34-37). 213 R. E. CARTER, An Index of Scriptural References in the Homilies of Severian of Gabala, in Traditio, 54 (1999), pp. 323-351. R. E. CARTER, The Antiochene Biblical Canon 400 AD, in OCP, 72 (2006), pp. 417-431. I have checked Carter’s Chrysostom list against Hill’s translation notes for Chrysostom’s Genesis homilies and commentary on the Psalms, as well as results from BIBLIndex (http://www.biblindex.info/), and reviewed Carter’s Severian list against Hill’s translation notes for Severian’s Genesis homilies, and Chatzoglou-Balta, Kim and Oosterhuis-den Otter’s editions of Severian homilies. 214 General discussion in MCDONALD, Formation of the Biblical Canon, vol. 1 [n. 175], pp. 97-108, 340-371. For individual books see for example: C. LARCHER, Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse, Paris, 1969, pp. 30-63; J. LEEMANS, Athanasius and the Book of Wisdom, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 73(4) (1997), pp. 350-351, 368 et passim. 215 I define “canonical” OT books as the 39 books corresponding to the present-day Hebrew Bible. For simplicity’s sake, I include 1 and 2 Esdras LXX among the canonical books as a substitute for Ezra-Nehemiah MT. For the relationship between Ezra-Nehemiah MT and 1 and 2 Esdras LXX see: C. BALZARETTI – M. TAIT (trans.), The Syriac Version of Ezra-Nehemiah: Manuscripts and Editions, Translation Technique and Its Use in Textual Criticism, Rome, 2013, pp. 14-15. 216 Carter lists three citations of 1 Esdras in his index of Severian’s scripture citations, and in his 2006 article, he reasoned from one of them that Severian probably accepted 1 and 2 Esdras in his canon. But Severian’s citations of Esdras are all drawn from the catenae fragments published

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

217

cites books such as Nahum217 and Judges218 which were not frequently cited by other early Christian authors. Chrysostom similarly did not cite Ruth, Esther and Obadiah, 1 and 2 Esdras but also omits 1 Chronicles. Chrysostom’s omission of 1 Chronicles may not be of significance given both 1 and 2 Chronicles are generally not well attested in Greek Christian authors of the period.219 Chrysostom however knows the story of Ruth,220 and both pairs her with Rahab as evidencing God’s mercy,221 and compares her with Tamar in his remarks on Levirate marriage.222 One suspects therefore that he both knew the Book of Ruth, and that it also held some elevated status, perhaps even “scripture”.223 Similarly, Chrysostom knows the story of Esther224 and seems to quote a clause from her prayer which is included in both the Old Greek (OG) and Alpha Text (AT) of the book of Esther.225 Carter nevertheless suggests Esther was probably not in the canon at Antioch in 387, as Chrysostom introduces her story as if his audience did not know it.226 But elsewhere Chrysostom observed many did not by Staab, whose authorship attribution is problematic. CARTER, An Index of Scriptural References in the Homilies of Severian of Gabala [n. 213], p. 330; CARTER, The Antiochene Biblical Canon 400 AD [n. 213], p. 427. 217 At the time of writing, BIBLIndex (http://www.biblindex.info/) records 79 patristic citations for Nahum. It is most commonly cited by Didymus the Blind (13×), Eusebius of Caesarea (8×), Athanasius of Alexandria (7×), Gregory Nazianzen (6×), Jerome (6×), Ambrose of Milan (6×) and Procopius of Gaza (6×). Chrysostom only cites Nahum 3 times. Carter’s index shows Severian cites Nahum more than 8 times. CARTER, An Index of Scriptural References in the Homilies of Severian of Gabala [n. 213], p. 336. 218 Additional Judges citations in Severian of Gabala, In illud: Christus est oriens (KIM, Sévérien de Gabala dans les littératures arménienne et géorgienne, p. 200). 219 CARTER, The Antiochene Biblical Canon 400 AD [n. 213], pp. 423-424. 220 CHRYSOSTOM, Homilies in Matthew, 3, 4 (PG, 57, coll. 35, l. 40-36, l. 19). 221 CHRYSOSTOM, Homilies in Matthew, 1, 6 (PG, 57, col. 21, l. 30-31); hom., 3, 4 (PG, 57, col. 35, ll. 45-46). 222 CHRYSOSTOM, Homilies in Matthew, 70, 2 (PG, 58, col. 657, l. 41). 223 CARTER, The Antiochene Biblical Canon 400 AD [n. 213], p. 423 asserts Chrysostom’s characterizations of Ruth as a “foreigner” (“ἀλλογενής”) and “alien” (“ἀλλόφυλος”) could only be known from the Book of Ruth. Those terms however, are not used in Ruth LXX (cf. “ἐγώ εἰμι ξένη”: Ruth, 2, 10). In the LXX, the adjective “ἀλλογενής” is most frequently applied to women in the regular injunctions to put away “foreign wives” (“γυναίκες ἀλλογενεῖς”) in 1 Esdras, 8, 89, 90; 9, 7, 9, 12, 17, 18, 36. Moreover, it is Eusebius of Caesarea who refers to Ruth as “ἀλλόφυλος”: Eusebius of Caesarea, Quaestiones evangelicae ad Stephanum, 9 (C. ZAMAGNI [ed.], Eusèbe de Césarée. Questions évangéliques [SC, 52], Paris, 2008, pp. 150-159). 224 John Chrysostom, De Statuis hom., 3 (PG, 49, col. 50, ll. 8-41). 225 “δὸς λόγον εὔρυθμον εἰς τὸ στόμα μου”: John Chrysostom, De Statuis hom., 3 (PG, 49, col. 50, ll. 18-19). Cf. “δὸς λόγον εὔρυθμον εἰς τὸ στόμα μου”: OG-Esther, C, 24 [Göttingen versification]; AT-Esther, C, 25 [Göttingen] = AT-Esther, 4, 17s. [Ralfs]. CARTER, The Antiochene biblical canon 400 AD, p. 424 only refers to the Lucianic (= Ralf’s = Alpha Text = Göttingen L) but the Lucian designation has been abandoned in current scholarship. On the different Greek versions of Esther and their relationships, see D. A. J. CLINES, The Esther Scroll: the Story of the Story (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series, 30), Sheffield, 1984; C. V. DOROTHY, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre, and Textual Integrity (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series, 187), Sheffield, 1997. 226 CARTER, The Antiochene Biblical Canon 400 AD [n. 213], p. 424.

218

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

know the Book of Acts,227 and in his own homilies on that book, Chrysostom referred to Mordecai as if the audience was familiar with his story.228 It is possible therefore that, just as for Ruth, Chrysostom both knew the book of Esther as either “useful” or “canonical”. Chrysostom also refers to Obadiah by name in connection with Amos as a prophet,229 while Severian refers to “the Twelve” which would include Obadiah.230 Both are therefore likely to have understood Obadiah as “scripture”. Of the extracanonical OT texts,231 Severian cites Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, Susannah, and Bel and the Dragon,232 although it is not clear whether he considered Tobit – which he only cites once – to be “scripture”.233 To this list one may add the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three.234 Chrysostom cites the same texts including the Prayer of Azariah

227 “Πολλοῖς γοῦν τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο οὐδὲ γνώριμόν ἐστι”: “Certainly, there are many to whom this Book is not even known”: John Chrysostom, In principium Actorum hom., 1, 3 (PG, 51, col. 71, l. 22). 228 John Chrysostom, In Acta Apostolorum hom., 38 (PG, 60, col. 273, ll. 55-62), cf. Esther, 6, 2-11. 229 “Κἂν μὲν ἐρωτήσῃς, τίς ἐστιν ὁ Ἀμὼς, ἢ ὁ Ἀβδιοῦ, ἢ ποῖος τῶν προφητῶν ὁ ἀριθμὸς, ἢ τῶν ἀποστόλων, οὐδὲ χάναι δύνανται. Ὑπὲρ δὲ ἵππων καὶ ἡνιόχων, σοφιστῶν καὶ ῥητόρων δεινότερον ἀπολογίαν συντιθέασι·”: “If you ask [Christians] who is Amos or Obadiah, or how many prophets there were or apostles, they can’t even raise a yawn; but if you ask them about the horses or drivers, they construct more formidable apologies than sophists and rhetors”: John Chrysostom, Homilia 58 in Ioannem, 9, 17 (PG, 59, col. 321, ll. 4-8). Carter seems unaware of this reference. Cyril of Alexandria, Asterius “the Sophist”, Didymus the Blind, and Eusebius of Caesarea, also mention Obadiah by name, and Didymus and Eusebius explicitly cite the book. Eusebius of Caesarea, Generalis elementaria introductio [= Eclogae propheticae] (T. GAISFORD [ed.], Eusebii Pamphili episcopi Caesariensis eclogae propheticae, Oxonii, 1842, pp. 115, 23-25). Didymus the Blind, Commentarii in Zacchariam, 1, 319 (L. DOUTRELEAU, Didyme l’Aveugle. Sur Zacharie: Texte inédit d’après un papyrus de Toura, vol. 1 [SC, 83], Paris, 1962, p. 360). 230 CARTER, The Antiochene Biblical Canon 400 AD [n. 213], p. 427; cf. Severian of Gabala, De serpente (PG, 56, col. 507, ll. 8-10); Homilies on the Creation of the World, 1, 3 (PG, 56, col. 433, ll. 12-14). 231 I define OT “extra canonical” as those books variously termed apocryphal (deuterocanonical), pseudepigraphia or Hellenstic Jewish works which may be found in versions of the Greek OT. See: J. J. COLLINS, The “apocryphal” Old Testament, in J. C. PAGET – J. SCHAPER (eds), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge, 2013, pp. 166-167, Cambridge Histories Online, Web. 11 March 2016, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139033671.012. 232 CARTER, An Index of Scriptural References in the Homilies of Severian of Gabala [n. 213], p. 337; CARTER, The Antiochene Biblical Canon 400 AD [n. 213], p. 427. 233 Severian of Gabala, In illud: Pater, transeat a me calix iste (J. ZELLINGER, Studien zu Severian von Gabala [Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 8], Münster i. W., 1926, p. 20, 3) citing Tob, 4, 10 [= 12, 9]; cf. CARTER, The Antiochene Biblical Canon 400 AD [n. 213], p. 427. 234 Severian of Gabala, Homilies on the Creation of the World, 1 (PG, 56, col. 434, l. 38), hom., 5 (PG, 56, col. 475, ll. 50-55); De Spiritu Sancto (PG, 52, coll. 818, ll. 68-72; 819, ll. 1-4, ll. 7-8); De tribus pueris sermo, 3 (PG, 56, coll. 598-599); In Tentationem domini nostri Iesu Christi (HPC, vol. 1, p. 61, 94-100, 110-12). The Prayer of Azariah (vv. 1-22), the Song of the Three Jews (vv. 28-68), and a brief prose paragraph concerning the fate of the three in Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace (vv. 23-27), are commonly known as “the additions to Daniel” and placed by

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

219

and Song of the Three235 – and possibly, the Letter of Jeremiah.236 Chrysostom seems to cite Tobit as scripture,237 but as he and Severian limit their citations to aphorisms from Tobit, 4:7-15 which can easily be construed as paraphrases of other biblical injunctions, it is more likely Tobit was “useful” at best, rather than canonical.238 It is well known that Chrysostom preached on the Maccabees without citing any of the books carrying their name, but it would be unusual if they were not considered “useful” at least.239 Severian makes one passing reference to the Maccabees as martyrs, and compares them with the three children in the book of Daniel, suggesting perhaps that they are on a par.240 Chrysostom also places Judith alongside Deborah as an exemplar “of a pious and sensible woman” (“γυναικὸς εὐλαβοῦς καὶ συνετῆς”) who can subdue men,241 and both Deborah and Judith “displayed the successes of men who are generals” (“ἀνδρῶν στρατηγῶν κατορθώματα ἐπεδείξαντο”).242 As for Ruth and Esther,

ancient manuscripts between Dan, 3, 23 and 3, 24. Carter does not list the additions separately, but simply includes them under citations of Daniel. CARTER, An Index of Scriptural References in the Homilies of Severian of Gabala [n. 213], pp. 335, 337; CARTER, The Antiochene biblical canon 400 AD [n. 213], pp. 427-428. 235 John Chrysostom, Homilies in Matthew, 3, 7 (PG, 57, col. 37, ll. 40-44); De statuis hom. (PG, 49, coll. 75, l. 58; 118, l. 26; 180, l. 31); De sanctis martyribus (PG, 50, col. 645, ll. 37-38). Indeed, the motif of “the three children” (“οἱ τρεῖς παῖδες”) runs through Chrysostom’s works. See for example: H. F. STANDER, Chrysostom’s Interpretation of the Narrative of the Three Confessors in the Fiery Furnace, in Acta Patristica et Byzantina, 16(1) (2005), pp. 91105. 236 John Chrysostom, In Ieremiam ad Jer, 14, 6 (PG, 64, col. 896A). 237 John Chrysostom, De statuis hom., 13, 3 (PG, 49, col. 140, ll. 14-15, 17) citing Tob, 4, 15; In Acta apostolorum hom., 21 (PG, 60, col. 166, ll. 25-26) citing Tob, 4, 10 [= 12, 9]; In Phil hom., 4, 5 (PG, 62, col. 212, ll. 13-14) citing Tob, 4, 10 [= 12, 9]. A further “citation” in In Heb. hom., 13, 5 (PG, 63, col. 109, ll. 36-37) may allude to Tob, 4, 7. 238 Tob, 4, 15 as a paraphrase of the “golden rule” at Matt, 7, 12; Luk, 6, 31. Tob, 4, 10 [=12, 9] as pithy summation of Sir, 3, 30 or 29, 12. Compare the allusion to Tob, 4, 7 with Prov, 3, 9. In fact Chrysostom seems to quote Tobit 4, 15 as a paraphrase of the Golden Rule of Matthew, 12, 9: John Chrysostom, De statuis hom., 13, 3 (PG, 49, col. 140, ll. 14-15, 17). 239 John Chrysostom, De Macabeis hom., 1-2 (PG, 50, coll. 617-622, 623-626); De Eleazaro et septem pueris [= nova hom., 13] (PG, 63, col. 523-530 + A. WENGER, Restauration de l’Homélie de Chrysostome sur Eléazar et les sept frères Macchabées (PG, 63, coll. 523-530), in J. DUMMER – J. IRMSCHER – F. PASCHALIS – K. TREU (eds), Texte und Textkritik: Eine Aufsatzsammlung [TU, 133], Berlin, 1987, pp. 599-604). De Macabeis hom., 3 (PG, 50, coll. 625-628) is considered spurious, on which see: R. ZIADÉ, Les martyrs Maccabées: De l’histoire juive au culte chrétien: Les homélies de Grégoire de Nazianze et de Jean Chrysostome (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 80), Leiden, 2007, pp. 345-350. 240 “παρεδόθησαν διαφόροις βασανιστηρίοις οἱ Μακκαβαῖοι”: “and the Maccabees were handed over to various tortures”: Severian of Gabala, In illud: Secundem imaginem et similitudinem, 43 (KIM, Severianus Gabalensis. In illud: Secundum imaginem et similitudinem [n. 16], p. 520, 318-319); cf. 2 Macc, 6, 18-7, 42. 241 John Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 61, 3 (PG, 59, col. 340, ll. 53-56). 242 John Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom., 61, 4 (PG, 59, col. 341, ll. 9-11).

220

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

this hints at some elevated status of Judith or the book bearing her name.243 Judith is uncited by Severian, and absent from his lists of valorous women.244 Both Severian and Chrysostom cite all New Testament books except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.245 We have seen Severian explicitly state that 2 and 3 John were not used in the church. In In Noe et filios eius (CPG 4232), Severian also refers to “the catholic epistle of Peter” and cites 1 Peter.246 Its specification as among the “catholic” could imply that there were other “noncatholic” letters, perhaps including 2 Peter, that were not accepted either locally or, in Severian’s mind, by the universal church. Kim finds an allusion to Revelation 4.4 in Severian’s homily In uenerabilem trinitatem consubstantialem (CPG 4248) which is extant only in Armenian.247 This strikes me as a little tenuous,248 but no more so than the possible allusions to Revelation in Chrysostom highlighted by Bady.249 Still, it must be allowed that imagery drawn

243 The mention of Judith is not entirely unusual. An anonymous Cappadocian who preached in Constantinople in the final years of the fourth century or the first years of the fifth also held up Judith as a virtuous and “manly” woman. In de Turture he lists Judith with Moses’ sister Miriam and Esther: Ps.-Chrysostom, In psalmum, 75 (PG, 55, col. 595, ll. 1-2, ll. 38-40); De turture seu de ecclesia sermo (PG, 55, col. 602, 49); De remissione peccatorum (PG, 60, col. 761, ll. 53-54, 77). For a brief history of research, including a bibliography of the key studies leading to the identification of “the Cappadocian” and his works and sources, see: S. J. VOICU, L’omelia Quod filii debeant honorare parentes (CPG 5092) di uno pseudocrisostomo cappadoce, in A. M. PIAZZONI (ed.), Studi in Onore del Cardinale Raffaele Farina II (ST, 478), Città del Vaticano, 2013, pp. 1197-1221. Judith also featured in the highly popular Physiologus from its earliest recension (which was also a source for the anonymous Cappadocian): Ps.-Epiphanius, Physiologus, 17 (with Esther, Susannah, and Thecla) and 40 (with Susannah, Esther and the three children) (F. SBORDONE [ed.], Physiologi graeci singulas variarum aetatum recensiones, codicibus fere omnibus tunc primum excussis collatisque in lucem protulit Franciscus Sbordone, Mediolani, 1936, p. 66, 124). Chrysostom knew the Physiologus but it is an unlikely source for his mention of Judith. 244 E.g., Severian of Gabala, De legislatore, 7 (PG, 56, col. 409, ll. 4-32). The title “theotokos” (“θεοτόκος”) at PG, 56, col. 409, 29 and 410, 34 are Byzantine additions. See S. J. VOICU, Kyriotokos e Theotokos nelle omelie di Severiano di Gabala, in Theotokos, 12 (2004), pp. 329-335. 245 CARTER, The Antiochene Biblical Canon 400 AD [n. 213], pp. 425, 428. At 428, Carter explicitly rejects Staab’s suggestions that Severian quoted or alluded to some of these books. 246 “Πέτρος δὲ ἐν ταῖς καθολικαῖς λέγει τοῖς πιστοῖς· Ἀδελφοὶ ἡγιασμένοι, οἵ ποτε ‘Οὐ λαός’, νῦν δὲ λαός”: “And in the catholic Peter says to the faithful: ‘Sanctified brethren, those once ‘not a people’; but now a people’”: Severian of Gabala, In Noe et filios eius (HPC, vol. 1, p. 99, 437-439). 247 KIM, Sévérien de Gabala dans les littératures arménienne et géorgienne [n. 40], pp. 80, 83. The first editor had proposed Heb, 2.7-9 which I think Kim was right to reject. 248 For example, the Armenian text refers to “this holy father” which Kim suggests refers to Chrysostom. However Severian’s usual appellation for Chrysostom is “common father” [see note 186]. If the reference is to Chrysostom and Revelation it would mean Severian is saying Chrysostom was seated in a position akin to god. This seems inflammatory. Severian’s allusion could just as easily be referring to a highly regarded (even deceased) predecessor co-reigning with other believers. KIM, Sévérien de Gabala dans les littératures arménienne et géorgienne [n. 40], p. 80, cf. Matt, 19, 28. 249 G. BADY, Did John Chrysostom Quote the Book of Revelation? BIBLINDEX: Research Notebook and Blog, 14 June 2013, https://biblindex-en.hypotheses.org/127, accessed 12 May

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

221

from Revelation may have formed part of the common theological and cultural grammar for both preachers and their audiences, even though they were not cited, much less denoted as Scripture.250 This would be no different to say, Cyril of Jerusalem, who excluded Revelation without explanation from his list of recommended books,251 but nevertheless seemed to allude to it.252 Of the NT apocrypha, both Severian and Chrysostom are familiar with the Acta Pauli et Theclae: Severian refers to Thecla as a protomartyr (“πρωτομάρτυς”) worth admiration,253 Chrysostom as a virtuous woman worth imitation.254 Severian perhaps provides the earliest attestation of Thecla as “protomartyr”,255 2017. Bady also dismisses eight entries for Revelation in Krupp’s index, and finds the ninth “trivial”. R. A. KRUPP, Saint John Chrysostom. A Scripture Index, Lanham, MD, 1984, p. 253. 250 The Byzantine rite which developed from Constantinople never included the Book of Revelation in its lectionary and yet elements of the book’s imagery are found it its liturgy. The standard explanation is that Revelation had been rejected by the East at that time and only “readmitted into the canon” later in the seventh century when the rites had been established and solidified (the East, as a rule, being generally far more conservative in terms of revising its liturgy). This has been contested in recent years. Bokedal for example, notes that the Byzantine textual tradition includes two peculiar features in certain NT books: redactional addition of “amen” (“ἀμήν”), as well as prescripts or subscripts. He suggests these features, particularly the “amen”, may indicated these texts were used for public reading. On this basis, he speculates the Byzantine NT canon for corporate worship was the Gospels, Pauline Letters and for some at least, the Book of Revelation. BOKEDAL, The Formation and Significance of the Christian Biblical Canon [n. 178], pp. 250, 271-273. I am not convinced. Moreover, reasons for its exclusion from liturgical reading on theological grounds, without rejecting its contents, have not yet been properly explored (this may also explain why Revelation is only read on Holy Saturday in the Coptic and Orthodox traditions today). 251 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos, 4, 36 (REISCHL & RUPP, Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 1, pp. 128, 130). 252 E.g., “ἀλλ’ ὡς λέων δυνατὸς ἐκ φυλῆς Ἰούδα”: “but as the strong lion of the tribe of Judah”: Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos, 10, 3 (REISCHL & RUPP, Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 1, pp. 264, 12); cf. “ὁ λέων ὁ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα”: “the lion from the tribe of Judah”: Revelation, 5, 5. 253 “τί ἔβλαψε τὴν πρωτομάρτυρα Θέκλαν τὸ ἐν θεάτρῳ γυμνὴν παλαίειν;”: “What harmed the protomartyr Thecla contesting naked in the theatre?”: Severian of Gabala, De caeco nato, 2 (PG, 59, col. 544, ll. 70-71); cf. Acta Pauli et Theclae, 22 (R. A. LIPSIUS, Acta apostolorum Apocrypha, vol. 1: Acta Petri, Acta Pauli, Acta Petri et Pauli, Acta Pauli et Theclae, Acta Thaddaei, Lipsae, 1891, pp. 250-251); “Ἡ γὰρ ἁγία Θέκλα καὶ θῆρας κατεπάτησε καὶ πυρὸς φλόγα ἔσβεσεν”: “For holy Thecla both trod down beasts and extinguished flames of fire”: In illud: Secundem imaginem et similitudinem (Gen. 1, 26), 44 (KIM, Severianus Gabalensis. In illud: Secundum imaginem et similitudinem (Gen. 1, 26) [n. 16], p. 520, 326-327); cf. Acta Pauli et Theclae, 33-39 (LIPSIUS, Acta apostolorum Apocrypha, vol. 1, pp. 258-265). 254 John Chrysostom, In Acta Apostolorum hom., 25, 4 (PG, 60, col. 198, ll. 10-15); cf. Acta Pauli et Theclae, 18 (LIPSIUS, Acta apostolorum Apocrypha, vol. 1 [n. 253], p. 247). 255 Perhaps, because at PG, 59, col. 544 note f, Montfaucon notes that Savile and one manuscript have “τὴν ἁγίαν”. Still, some manuscripts of the Acta Pauli et Theclae include the appellation “Protomartyr” in the Title. See LISPIUS, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha [n. 253], p. 235 n. 1. In the early 5th century we find Thecla as martyr: “Θέκλα ἡ οὐρανοπολῖτις, ἡ πολύαθλος μάρτυς”: “a citizen of heaven, a martyr who conquered in many contests”: Anonymous, Vita Olympiadis, 1 (A. M., MALINGREY, Jean Chrysostome. Lettres à Olympias [SC, 13bis], Paris, 1988, p. 406, ll. 14-15). The first clear literary attestation to Thecla as “protomartyr” comes from Isidore of Pelusium (d. c. 450 CE): “ἀλλὰ τὸν Θέκλης τῆς πρωτομάρτηρος καὶ

222

KATHERIN PAPADOPOULOS

nevertheless his nod to the Acta seems no more than acknowledging a panegyric to a martyr. Chrysostom likely views the Acta in the same way, for unlike Ruth, Judith and Esther, Chrysostom does not pair Thecla with a biblical figure. Mitchell observes that Chrysostom is also reluctant to draw on many of the Pauline traditions in the Acta Pauli to supplement his portraits of Paul,256 except for occasional remarks on Paul’s death which shows familiarity with the Martyrium Pauli and (intentional?) confusion with Martyrium Petri.257 Chrysostom’s reluctance, argues Mitchell, may in part be due to the absence of such details in canonical works and his probable rejection of apocryphal traditions as “on a par with canonical witness”.258 5. CONCLUSION In this paper, I have briefly examined Severian and Chrysostom’s understanding of their Bible’s origin, canon, and multiplicity of texts and how they accessed and used those texts, as a prolegomenon to a comparative study of their exegesis. Such a comparison, absent any assumptions and categorisations, has highlighted a number of subtle differences between the two. Severian offers no opinion on the origins of his Greek Old Testament, nor does he situate its origins and development within the context of salvation history. Instead, he perceives them almost as the rightful property of the church. Chrysostom on the other hand views both the origins and purpose of the biblical texts through the lens of salvation history, and presents the Old Testament as books which belong to the Jews but which God has providentially made available to all in translation. Neither Severian nor Chrysostom show any interest in accessing the Hebrew text. On at least one occasion, Chrysostom even used the legend τρόπον καὶ σηκὸν ἀγαπήσαντα”: “but loving the conduct and tomb of Thecla, the protomartyr”: Isidore of Pelusium, Epistulae, 1, 160 (PG, 78, col. 289C). The appellation “protomartyr” became more common in the late 5th and 6th century, for example Ps.-Basil of Seleucia, De vita et miraculis sanctae Theclae, 1, 1, 11-18 (G. DAGRON [ed.], Vie et Miracles de Sainte Thècle. Texte grec, traduction et commentaire, avec la collaboration de Marie Dupré La Tour [SH, 62], Bruxelles, 1978) introduces her as a female counterpart to Stephen (Acts, 6-7). On the term “protomatyr” (“πρωτομάρτυς”) see: G. W. BOWERSOCK, Martyrdom and Rome, Cambridge, 1995; repr. 2002, pp. 75-76 (Appendix 1). 256 MITCHELL, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation, Tübingen, 2000, pp. 98-99, 364-374. 257 John Chrysostom, In epistulam II ad Timotheum hom, 5, 2 (PG, 62, col. 626, l. 37), hom., 10, 2 (PG, 62, col. 657, ll. 19-21). MITCHELL, Heavenly Trumpet [n. 256], p. 367 n. 830 points to the phrase “τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποτμηθῆναι” in Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica, 2, 25, 5. But Chrysostom uses the same phrase in Homilies on Genesis, 17, 9 (PG, 53, col. 147, l. 30); In Acta Apostolorum hom., 46, 3 (PG, 60, col. 325, l. 21); Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae, 1, 3 (PG, 47, col. 323, ll. 46-55). Further discussion in MITCHELL, Heavenly Trumpet [n. 256], pp. 364-374. 258 MITCHELL, Heavenly Trumpet [n. 256], p. 370.

SEVERIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ON THEIR BIBLE’S TRANSLATION

223

of the Seventy to argue for the superiority of the Greek translation. Their references to Hebrew are generally (in Severian’s case exclusively) confined to etymologies of Hebrew names and are likely incidental as all their etymologies are either derived from Scripture or from existing exegetical traditions. Severian’s etymologies are dominated by Philo traditions and he may have used an onomasticon. On the other hand, his etymology for Adam as “fire” seems unique to him. Apart from etymologies, only Chrysostom effectively uses Hebrew and Syriac in an exegetical context despite his confessed second-hand knowledge of the languages. Both Severian and Chrysostom are aware of other text forms apart from their received text. Both make limited use of them in their homilies yet in subtly different ways: Severian seems to use alternative readings to create intertextual connections in order to fashion a coherent, ordered biblical worldview, whereas Chrysostom employs textual variants in homiletic contexts for theological or pastoral purposes. Otherwise Severian and Chrysostom both seem to work from almost identical received texts. One significant difference at Genesis, 4.26, which Chrysostom also cites in two different forms, warrants further investigation. There is also a faint hint of liturgical influence in Severian’s biblical citations. Given Severian’s frequent references to liturgical practices as well, this may warrant further study and comparison with Chrysostom. The relationship between liturgy and exegesis is also understudied in general. Finally, both Severian and Chrysostom have a strong “canon consciousness”, but for Severian it tends towards a law and limit, whereas for Chrysostom it also acts as a hermeneutical principle and almost functions like a monastic rule. While neither list their canonical books, Severian describes the arrangement of the major prophets and the gospels and mentions the exclusion 2 and 3 John from the church. Both cite the same range of texts as Scripture bar some differences at the edges. Severian and Chrysostom cite all the canonical Hebrew books including the additions to Jeremiah and Daniel usually found in Greek versions of the Bible except for 1 and 2 Esdras, Esther and Ruth. Chrysostom surprisingly does not cite 2 Maccabees, neither does Severian, although both know the book. The absence of citations for these books may be due to their heavy emphasis on Jewish nationalism. Chrysostom nevertheless seems to ascribe some status to Maccabees, Ruth, Esther, and even Judith; Severian only for Maccabees. Both cited Wisdom and Sirach as Scripture but more analysis is required to determine if they were “useful” or “canonical”. Severian and Chrysosom share the same New Testament canon, which correlates with the fifth century version of the Peshitta, in that it includes only the three longer Catholic epistles (James, 1 Peter, 1 John), and omits Revelation. Both are aware of apocryphal traditions around Paul, and Severian may even provide the earliest attestation to Thecla as “protomartyr”.

THE SLAVONIC TRADITION OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA’S DE MUNDI CREATIONE ORATIONES (CPG 4194)* Lara SELS & Sarah VAN PEE

The Slavonic tradition has much to offer to those interested in the broader reception of the works of Severian, bishop of Gabala (d. after 408). Several of his homilies are known to have been translated,1 often widely distributed through popular homiletic collections of (pseudo-)Chrysostomic works such as the Zlatostruj or Chrysorrhoas.2 This paper, however, will focus on the Slavonic reception of the six orations On the Creation (CPG 4194; PG, 56, coll. 429-500).3 The Slavonic tradition is rich and complex, esp. when compared to the scant direct tradition in Greek, where we have no more than ten manuscripts (of the 10th to 17th century) with a (near-)complete corpus of the six orations.4

* We should like to thank the anonymous reviewer for useful comments. 1 F. J. THOMSON, Checklist of Slavonic Translations mentions, for the early period (9th/ 10th century), In filium prodigum (CPG 4200); De mundi creatione orationes, vi (part, in the Šestodnev ascribed to John the Exarch) (CPG 4194); Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (CPG 4159); In lotionem pedum (CPG 4216); for the later period (13th-15th century): De mundi creatione orationes, vi; Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (2nd and 3rd translation); Oratio in Dei apparitionem (two translations) (In theophaniam, CPG 4212); Synopsis orationum in mundi creationem; In illud: Pone manum tuam (CPG 4198); De paenitentia et compunctione (CPG 4186). The Sermones in Job (CPG 4564 = 4236a, 2) and In incarnationem Domini (CPG 4204), both first translated in the 9th/10th century, are listed under the name of John Chrysostom. Cf. F. J. THOMSON, Checklist of Slavonic Translations, in L. SELS, J. FUCHSBAUER ET AL. (eds), Editing Mediaeval Texts from a Different Angle. Slavonic and Multilingual Traditions. Together with Francis J. Thomson’s Bibliography and Checklist of Slavonic Translations (OLA, 276; Bibliothèque de Byzantion, 19), Leuven, 2018, pp. 43-129. Cf. the works sub Severianus Gabalensis in the Versiones slavicae database (Versiones Slavicae Homepage, accessed 24 February 2017, http://versiones-slavicae.com/db/.). 2 De paenitentia et compunctione, In filium prodigum, In incarnationem domini and Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus are all found in one or more of the different versions of the Chrysorrhoas, see a.o. F. J. THOMSON, Chrysostomica Palaeoslavica. A Preliminary Study of the Sources of the Chrysorrhoas (Zlatostruy) Collection, in Cyrillomethodianum, 6 (1982), pp. 1-65, and especially the fundamental monograph by J. MILTENOV, Zlatostruj: Starobălgarski chomiletičen svod, săzdaden po iniciativa na bălgarskija car Simeon. Tekstologičesko i izvorovedsko izsledvane, Sofija, 2013, cf. index, p. 550, sub Severianus Gabalensis. 3 See J. ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen, 7[1]), Münster in Westfalen, 1916. 4 Counting in the Oxoniensis Bodleianus Auct., E. 3.8 (misc. 51.8), which was made in the early 17th century to serve as a basis for the edition by Savile (see note 8) – see infra for witnesses and preliminary stemma. The tradition also includes 13 partial witnesses, each attesting only one of the orations. Moreover, the De mundi creatione has a considerable indirect tradition.

226

LARA SELS & SARAH VAN PEE

The aim of the present contribution is not to offer an exhaustive survey of every piece of Severian’s Hexaemeron commentary that can be found in the Slavonic tradition, but rather to take advantage of the first results of the recent work on the Greek tradition, which invites a comparison of the Greek with the Slavonic and allows for progress beyond the earlier work by Galina Barankova5 and the recent results of a Magistr’s thesis written by Marija Moiseeva.6 In the following, we will offer a concise overview of the Greek tradition of Severian’s Orationes de mundi creatione, to proceed to explore how the Slavonic translations fit in with the Greek tradition, and to assess the importance of the Slavonic versions as indirect witnesses to the Greek text. 1. THE GREEK TRADITION The following brief outline of the Greek tradition is, to some extent, partial and preliminary: the collation of all witnesses to all six orations has not yet been brought to a close. Moreover, some manuscripts are excluded from the overview below: the many witnesses that contain only one oration (in most cases the sixth, occasionally the fifth or the first) will not be taken into account for our present purposes.7 Only the ten witnesses with a (near-)complete corpus are listed. Currently, the results of the collations point to a stemma split up in two branches, one early (viz. containing the earliest complete witnesses, of the 10th and 11th century), the other later (apart from the 11th-century codex Ambrosianus, witnesses of the 14th to the 16th century). It is the latter branch that represents the version published in the Patrologia graeca.8 P Parisinus gr., 758 (Colbert, 853), 10th century (or., 1-6; no attribution as the beginning of the first homily is lost). K Vaticanus gr., 560 (olim, 384), 10th century (or., 1-5, ascribed to John Chrysostom). 5 Esp. G. S. BARANKOVA, K voprosu o perevodach Šestodneva Severiana Gaval’skogo v drevneslavjanskoj i drevnerusskoj knižnosti, in Lingvističeskoe istočnikovedenie i istorija russkogo jazyka, 2001 (2002), pp. 5-46. 6 M. V. MOISEEVA, Šestodnev Severiana Gaval’skogo i ego sud’ba v slavjanskoj pis’mennosti (under the direction of Prof. S. I. Nikolaev), Sankt-Peterburg, 2016 (http://hdl.handle.net/11701/3093). 7 It should be noted that the fragmentary nature of some of these witnesses is due to mechanical damage (for instance codex Ambrosianus gr., S 23 sup., in which Or., 6 is partly preserved). Our choice not to include any of the fragmentary (viz. selective or damaged) witnesses is strictly pragmatic and does not imply a judgement on the text critical value of these witnesses. 8 The PG text is a reprint of Montfaucon’s edition of 1724, which, in its turn, relies on Sir Henry Savile’s 1612 edition. The text is based on cod. Vindobonensis theol. gr., 105 (16th century; sigl. w); to fill some gaps and emend the former witness, Savile used cod. Vindobonensis theol. gr., 278 (14th century; sigl. W). Cod. Bodleianus Auct., E. 3.8 (misc., 51.8) (sigl. E) is the model that was prepared to establish Savile’s printed text.

THE SLAVONIC TRADITION OF DE MUNDI CREATIONE ORATIONES

227

V Vaticanus gr., 1920, 10-11th century (or., 1-6; correct attribution to Severian by a 12th-century hand). B Vaticanus gr., 1641, 10-11th century (or., 1-6; correct attribution to Severian). A Ambrosianus, A 116 sup., 11th century (or., 1-6, with Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus [CPG 4195] inserted between 5 and 6; no original attribution as the beginning of the first homily is not preserved, but ascribed to Severian by a 17th/18th-century hand). W Vindobonensis theol. gr., 278, first half of the 14th century (or., 1-6; originally ascribed to John Chrysostom, but to Severian by a later hand). Note that the position of W on the stemma is still highly insecure, as it has variant readings proper to either of the two major branches. This witness has not yet been assigned a fixed place on the stemma. M Mosquensis Synod. gr., 293 (Vlad., 394), second half of the 14th century (or., 1-4; ascribed to John Chrysostom). Q Parisinus gr., 777A, second half of the 14th century (or., 1-6, with Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus [CPG 4195] inserted between 5 and 6; no attribution as the first folio is lost). w Vindobonensis theol. gr., 105, second half of 1563 – mid 1564 (or., 1-6, with Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus [CPG 4195] inserted between 5 and 6; ascribed to John Chrysostom). E Bodleianus Auct., E. 3.8 (misc. 51.8), 17th century (= basis for the edition by Savile)

228

LARA SELS & SARAH VAN PEE

2. THE SLAVONIC TRADITION Before turning to the Slavonic translations of the Orationes, it needs to be pointed out that a huge amount of excerpts from Severian’s orations De mundi creatione can be found in a broad range of Slavonic manuscripts of varied contents. Part of this fragmentary tradition merely reflects the Greek indirect tradition: early fragments are found, for instance, in the Slavonic Pseudo-Caesarius (CPG 7482);9 there is a fragment from the second oration in a catena on Jesaja;10 another example is a fragment in the gnomological collection Melissa, in Slavonic called Pčela;11 in the 14th century, six excerpts from Severian’s Orationes were translated as scholia to the text of Basil of Caesarea’s Homiliae in Hexaemeron.12 Standing out in the Greek indirect tradition and also translated into Slavonic is the Topographia christiana ascribed to Cosmas Indicopleustes, a voluminous vulgar-scientific work in 12 books, written by a Nestorian Christian traveller with a flat earth world view.13 Its sections X, 20-38

9 Under the title Questions and Answers of Sylvester and Antonius on various subjects concerning the Faith – see Y. MILTENOV, The Segmentation of the Erotapokriseis of Pseudo-Kaisarios as a Source for the History of its Slavonic Translation, in Scripta & e-Scripta, 2 (2004), pp. 311324. LEONID (archim.) (ed.), Četyre besedy Kesarija ili voprosy Svjatogo Sil’vestra i otvety Prepodobnogo Antonija (Izdanija Imperatorskogo obščestva ljubitelej drevnej pis’mennosti, xcv), Moskva, 1890; text online: Text corpus - Erotapokriseis, accessed 9 January 2018, http://histdict. uni-sofia.bg/textcorpus/show/doc_32. Fragments from Severian are QQ 54.5; 61.3; 64.1-2; 87.5; 92.5-7; 95.1-14, agreeing with PG, 56, coll. 434, ll. 18-19; 436, l. 58; 442, l. 1; 448, ll. 52-53; 449, ll. 10-11; 450, ll. 29-34. 10 Agreeing with PG, 56, col. 444, ll. 23-29, 31-43, 46-53, 55-56; col. 445, ll. 3-4, 6-9, 16, 17-32. The Slavonic catena is probably the result of an early translation (c. 10th century) for which no Greek model has been found up till now. It is included in the Macarian Reading Menaia, E. WEIHER – S. O. SMIDT – A. I. SKURKO (eds), Die Grossen Lesemenäen Des Metropoliten Makarij. Uspenskij Spisok, 9.-23. Mai. (Monumenta Linguae Slavicae Dialecti Veteris, 53[2]), Freiburg i. Br., 2009, pp. 710-753 (Severian, 4194). 11 The fragment agrees with PG, 56, col. 444, ll. 2-4 (cf. V. F. SEMENOV – A. A. PIČCHADZE – I. I. MAKEEVA [eds], ‘Pčela’: drevnerusskij perevod [Pamjatniki slavjano-russkoj pis’mennosti, novaja serija, 54(4)], Moskva, 2008, p. 283. 12 Corresponding to PG, 56, col. 431, ll. 8-14; col. 432, ll. 50-51 and col. 441, ll. 47-53; coll. 431, l. 52 – 432, l. 1; col. 436, ll. 14-45; coll. 436, l. 57 – 437, l. 5; col. 458, ll. 42-43; coll. 473, ll. 47-48, 53-55, 55-62 – 474, ll. 1-15, 35-40. They belong to a corpus of scholia that also has fragments from Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom; the Severian scholia have recently been edited by the present authors: L. SELS – S. VAN PEE, Scholia from Severian of Gabala’s In Cosmogoniam Homiliae in the 14th-Century Slavonic Hexaemeron Collection, in A. ANGUŠEVA – M. DIMITROVA ET AL. (eds), Vis et Sapientia: Studia in honorem Anisavae Miltenova. Novi izvori, interpretacii i podchodi v medievistikata, Sofija, 2016, pp. 89-110. The Greek scholia-tradition is clearly close to witness B (Vaticanus gr., 1641) of the direct tradition. 13 W. WOLSKA-CONUS (ed.), Topographie chrétienne, I-III (SC, 141; 159; 197), Paris, 19681973 (For translations and comments see J. W. MCCRINDLE [trans.], The Christian Topography of Cosmas, an Egyptian Monk [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, ser. 1(98)], London, 1897 [digital repr. 2016], and H. SCHNEIDER, Kosmas Indikopleustes, Christliche Topographie – Textkritische Analysen: Übersetzung. Kommentar, Turnhout, 2010).

THE SLAVONIC TRADITION OF DE MUNDI CREATIONE ORATIONES

229

consist of excerpts from Severian’s Orationes de mundi creatione 1-4 and 6.14 We need to dwell on the Christian topography somewhat longer. 2.1. The Topographia christiana In the first centuries of Slavonic literacy15 the Slavs got to know Severian’s De mundi creatione orationes not only through its first direct (but partial) translation (on which see infra), but also through substantial excerpts from orations 1-4 and 6, found in the 10th/11th-century translation of the Christian topography (henceforth TopChr).16 This is all the more significant as the translated fragments in TopChr have preserved the correct author attribution, viz. are ascribed to Severian of Gabala, which is not the case in the early direct translation. Remarkably, an almost identical selection of fragments, viz. from orations 1-4 and 6, is also found independently in a different translation, under the title Skazanie ot Šestod’n’nik or Account from the Hexaemeron, found in some Russian manuscripts of the 15th-17th centuries.17 The earliest witnesses, however, are South-Slavonic and of the 14th century, both associated with the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Alexander (1331-1371):18 (1) a manuscript of 1345 – written by Pop Filip and known for being the earliest copy of the 14th-century translation of the Chronicle of Manasses, viz. Codex Mosquensis, Musei historici (GIM), Sin., 38;19 (2) the Lovčanski sbornik, a mixed-content manuscript written by a certain For the fragments from Severian (TopChr, X, 20-38), see WOLSKA-CONUS, Topographie chrétienne, III (1973) [see note 13], pp. 259-277; they agree with PG, 56, coll. 433, l. 42 – 434, l. 3; col. 434, ll. 16-20; col. 434, ll. 24-25; col. 434, ll. 30-37; col. 435, ll. 8-11 (Or., 1); coll. 441, l. 58 – 442, l. 53; col. 443, ll. 1-18 (Or., 2); col. 449, ll. 1-17; col. 449, ll. 44-61; coll. 452, l. 29 – 453, l. 9; col. 455, ll. 6-16 (Or., 3); coll. 464, l. 59-465, l. 9; col. 467, ll. 20-30 (Or., 4); col. 488, ll. 48-58 (Or., 6). 15 The origins of Slavonic literacy are closely tied up to the Christianization of the Slavs and the so-called Moravian mission (865) by the “apostles of the Slavs” Constantine and Methodius. After the Cyrillomethodian period during which liturgical and Biblical texts were made available, translation literature flourished in 10th-century Bulgaria. 16 For the edition of the Slavonic text, see V. S. GOLYŠENKO – V. F. DUBROVINA, Kniga naricaema Koz’ma Indikoplov, Moskva, 1997. The fragments from Severian are on pp. 273-278. 17 The text has been published twice, once by Galina Barankova, who identified the translation: G. BARANKOVA, K voprosu [see note 5] – comments on pp. 12-14, text edition on pp. 32-42 (based on codex Petrogradensis, RNB, Pogodin, 1941 [d. 1472], ff. 118r-124v) – and once more in V. V. MIL’KOV – S. M. POLJANSKIJ, Kosmologičeskie proizvedenija v Knižnosti Drevnej Rusi, vol. 2, Teksty ploskostno-komarnoj i drugich kosmologičeskich tradicij (Pamjatniki drevnerusskoj mysli: Issledovanija i teksty, 4[2]), Sankt-Peterburg, 2009, pp. 96-106 (based on codex Mosquensis, RGB, f. 304. I [Troice Sergieva Lavra], 760, ff. 282v-289r). For its inclusion in the “Russian Chronograph”, see D. M. BULAMIN, Utračennyj rukopisnyj istočnik russkogo chronografa (opyt rekonstrukcii sostava), in Rossica antiqua, 2016, 1/2, pp. 99-136, esp. 110-115. 18 See MOISEEVA, Šestodnev [see note 6], pp. 36-40. In MIL’KOV – POLJANSKIJ, Kosmologičeskie proizvedenija, 2 [see note 17], p. 91, the two manuscripts associated with Ivan Alexander are erroneously said to contain fragments of the second Slavonic translation of Severian’s De mundi creatione orationes, a translation in full apparently of the 13th/14th century (henceforth Slav2; see infra). 19 For a description of the manuscript, see T. N. P ROTAS ’ EVA , Opisanie rukopisej sinodal’nogo sobranija (ne vošedšich v opisanie A. V. Gorskogo i K. I. Nevostrueva), vol. 2 14

230

LARA SELS & SARAH VAN PEE

Pachomij,20 Codex Petropolitanus, Bibliothecae Academiae Scientiarum Russicae (BAN), 13.3.17.21 From a comparison of these Slavonic fragments to both the direct tradition of Severian’s Greek Orationes as well as to the indirect tradition of TopChr, several conclusions may be drawn. (1) The selection and range of the fragments is identical to those integrated in TopChr; the fourth fragment even has a short piece of text attached to it that does not belong to Severian but also occurs in TopChr.22 (2) The text has readings that are typical only of the indirect tradition of Severian’s orations.23 As a consequence, one would be inclined to think that the fragments were excerpted and translated from a copy of TopChr. However, the title of these excerpts, “¥¹¶¼ÄÛ´Á´
ØÃÅćô
·´¶´¿ÂÇ
ž´»´Á¼Ø
ă
ùĶ´·Â
ſ¶´
̹ÅƸÐÁÐÁ¼¾´”, has a near-parallel in a witness of the direct tradition, viz. Codex Vaticanus gr., 1641 (B) – “ἱστωρία σευηριανοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἀντιβόλων (sic)· εἰς τὴν ἑξαήμερον τῆς κοσμοποιείας· ἡμέρα α” –, which is the only witness in the Greek direct tradition to have preserved the correct attribution, although the name ‘Gabala’ is garbled.24 The agreement in the title of the Slavonic text (ž´»´Á¼é/skazanie = ἱστωρία) cannot be explained if the fragments were taken from TopChr. Closer scrutiny indeed reveals that the text

(n° 820-1051), Moskva, 1973, pp. 124-125 (nr 1035) (the fragments from Severian are on ff. 7-10), and M. A. SALMINA – D. S. LICHAČEV – I. DUJČEV, Srednebolgarskij perevod chroniki Konstantina Manassii v slavjanskich literaturach, Sofija, 1988, pp. 72-77, esp. 74. Also K. KUEV, Sădbata na starobălgarskata răkopisna kniga prez vekovete, 2, Sofija, 1986, pp. 253256. 20 The codex used to be dated to the fist half of the 14th century, but is now situated towards the end of that century – see BULAMIN, Istočnik [see note 17], p. 112. 21 A. I. JACIMIRSKIJ, Iz slavjanskich rukopisej. Teksty i zametki, Moskva, 1898, pp. 144-151, esp. p. 149; K. KUEV, Sădbata na starobălgarskite răkopisi prez vekovete, Sofija, 1979, pp. 182-185; V. GJUZELEV, Bulgarien zwischen Orient und Okzident: die Grundlagen seiner geistigen Kultur vom 13. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert, Wien, 1993, p. 242. 22 WOLSKA-CONUS, Topographie chrétienne, III [see note 13], Commentaire de Cosmas, pp. 278-279 (X, 39-40, 4) – see table below. 23 Two examples: Fragm., 2 has .¹ć. (BARANKOVA, K voprosu [see note 5], p. 34, 119a, l. 18) = πέντε, as in TopChr (X, 25, 7, WOLSKA-CONUS, Topographie chrétienne, III [see note 13], p. 265, l. 2: “Τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ ὑπερεῖχε, φέρε εἰπεῖν, τῆς γῆς πήχεις πέντε”, no variants recorded) where the direct tradition has “τριάκοντα” (PG, 56, col. 442, ll. 5-7: “Τοῦτο τὸ ὕδωρ ὑπερεῖχε, φέρε εἰπεῖν, τῆς γῆς πήχεις τριάκοντα”, no variant readings in the direct tradition); it also has ÅÛ¹ ž´»´ÁÛØ (BARANKOVA, K voprosu, p. 34, 119б, ll. 12-13), which corresponds to TopChr “τοῦτο τὸ δεῖγμα” (X, 26, 9-10, WOLSKA-CONUS, III, 265, ll. 15-16) rather than to “τὸ ὑπόδειγμα” (PG, 56, col. 442, l. 22; no variant readings) of the direct tradition. 24 Around the middle of the 6th century, Severian’s works ended up being transmitted under the name of John Chrysostom – see esp. S. VOICU, Il nome cancellato: la trasmissione delle omelie di Severiano di Gabala, in RHT, NS, 1 (2006), pp. 317-333; S. VOICU, Roma e l’ultimo manoscritto del corpus omiletico di Severiano di Gabala, in C. CARBONETTI – S. LUCÀ – M. SIGNORINI (eds), Roma e il suo territorio nel Medioevo: Le fonti scritte fra tradizione e innovazione. Atti del convegno internazionale di studio dell’Associazione Italiana Paleografi e Diplomatisti, Roma, 25-29 ottobre 2012, Spoleto, 2015, p. 77.

THE SLAVONIC TRADITION OF DE MUNDI CREATIONE ORATIONES

231

also has variants found in the direct tradition and not in TopChr.25 Moreover, the arrangement of the fragments – which respects the order of the texts in the direct tradition, while this is not the case in the Greek TopChr and its early Slavonic translation (see table infra) – also suggests that these Slavonic fragments have been translated from a Greek model that contained the excerpts in a textual stage preceding their inclusion in TopChr, in between the direct tradition and the version integrated in and structurally adapted to TopChr.

2

3

4

5

6

X, 20-24

X, 25-29

X, 30-34

X, 35

X, 36-37

X, 38

= PG, 56, coll. 433.42 – 434.3; col. 434.16-20; col. 434.24-25; col. 434.30-37; col. 435.8-11 (Or., 1)

= PG, 56, coll. 441.58 – 442.53; col. 443.1-18 (Or., 2)

= PG, 56, col. 449.1-17; coll. 452.29 – 453.9; col. 455.6-16 (Or., 3)

= PG, 56, col. 488.48-58 (Or., 6)

= PG, 56, coll. 464.59 – 465.9; col. 467.20-30 (Or., 4)

= PG, 56, col. 449.4461 (Or., 3)

Fr. Or., 1

Fr. Or., 2

Fr. Or., 3

Fr. Or., 6

Fr. Or., 4

Fr. Or., 32

TopChr Gr. & Slav.

“ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου λόγου” / “ă ´ć-·Â ſ¶´” / from Or., 1

“ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου λόγου” / “ă ¶ć-·Â ſ¶´” / from Or., 2

“ἐκ τοῦ τρίτου λόγου” / “·ć-·Â ſ¶´” / from Or., 3

“ἐκ τοῦ ἕκτου λόγου / ă Ùć-·Â ſ¶´” / from Or., 6

“ἐκ τοῦ τετάρτου λόγου” / “ă ¸ć-·Â ſ¶´” / from Or., 4

“ἐκ τοῦ τρίτου λόγου” / “ă ¸ć-·Â ſ¶´” / Gr: from Or., 3; Slav.: from Or., 4

Fr. Or., 1

Fr. Or., 2

Fr. Or., 3

Fr. Or., 32

Fr. Or., 4

Fr. Or., 6

“ă ÆĹƼȌ·Â (·ć) ſ¶´” / from Or., 3

“ă ˹ƶ¹ÄÆ´·Â (¸ć-·Â) ſ¶´” / from Or., 4

“ă ¹ć-·Â ſ¶´” / from Or., 5

“ă ̹ÅÆ´·Â (Ùć-·Â) ſ¶´” / from Or., 6

TopChr Severianus

1

Slav. Skazanie

Order of the fragments from the Orationes

“ă ùĶ´·Â ſ¶´” “ă ¶ÆÂÄ´·Â / from Or., 1 (¶ć-·Â) ſ¶´” / from Or., 2

X, 38-40,

X, 35

ad l.4 (διαλεγομένων) = PG, 56, col. 449.44-61 (Or., 3) + WOLSKA-CONUS 279.1-19

= PG, 56, col. 488.48-58 (Or., 6)

25 For instance Fragm. 1, żʹ (BARANKOVA, K voprosu [see note 5], p. 33, 118b, l. 25 – 119a, l. 1), which does not have a counterpart in TopChr but is present in the direct tradition, οὕτως, without variants (PG, 56, col. 435, l. 14); in Fragm., 2 it has ă þ¶´Ì´Òͼƿ Ø·Â
¶¹ÄÉÂÇ
¶åƳ (BARANKOVA, K voprosu, p. 32, 120а, ll. 17-18), which does not correspond to TopChr “διὰ τῶν ἀλειφόντων αὐτὸν ὑδάτων” (X, 28, 5-6; WOLSKA-CONUS, Topographie chrétienne, III [see note 13], p. 267, ll. 4-5), but rather to “ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν ἐπαλειφόντων αὐτὸν ὑδάτων” (PG, 56, col. 442, ll. 41-42) in the direct tradition. (Even if “ἄνωθεν” is also attested in some witnesses of TopChr, ă clearly corresponds to “ἐκ” and not to “διά”, and þ¶´Ì´Òͼƿ agrees better with “ἐπαλειφόντων” than with “ἀλειφόντων”).

232

LARA SELS & SARAH VAN PEE

On the basis of the arrangement of the Slavonic fragments, Galina Barankova already assumed that the Greek model of the Skazanie was the same as the source used by the compiler of the Topographia christiana.26 Indeed, these Slavonic fragments apparently point to a now lost piece of the Greek tradition, which (as the fragments integrated in the Topographia christiana) belong to the “early branch” of the Greek tradition.27 The indication of the origin of the excerpts in the text itself (see table above) indicates that this source may have had a numbering/division of the orations that differed from the main tradition. However, the main focus of this article is not on the indirect and fragmentary tradition, to which the excerpts in the Topographia christiana belong, but on the main translations of Severian’s work, which, however, are mostly not ascribed to him in the manuscripts. In the following we will briefly introduce these translations and discuss the results of sample collations, comparing the Slavonic (from an edition or directly from available text witnesses) with the variant readings in the Greek tradition. 2.2. The partial translation in the Šestodnev/Hexaemeron (9th-10th century) The Šestodnev (= Hexaemeron), ascribed to John the Exarch and dated between 893 and 917,28 is perhaps the most important exegetical work of medieval Slavonic theology. It is an exegetical compendium in six books, dealing with the account of Creation (Gen 1-2), and it was pivotal for the Slavonic BARANKOVA, K voprosu [see note 5], p. 13. Severian readings in the Greek TopChr as well as in both Slavonic versions of the fragments (viz. the isolated fragments of the Skazanie and the fragments embedded in the Slavonic TopChr) often match readings in branch PB of the direct tradition. An example from Fragm., 2: Or., 2: “ἐκούφισε τὰ ἡμίσε[ι]α τῶν ὑδάτων ἄνω” (PG, 56, col. 442, l. 25), ἄνω] καὶ τὰ ἤμισοι ἀφῆκεν κάτω add. P καὶ τὰ ἥμισυ ἀφεῖκεν κάτω add. Β ~ TopChr Χ, 26, 12-13: “ἐκούφισε τὰ ἡμίσεια τῶν ὑδάτων ἄνω, καὶ τὰ ἡμίσεια ἀφῆκε κάτω”; Slavonic TopChr, “¶Î»¶¿¹Ë¹ ÿ¶¼ÁȀ ¶Â(¸) ·ÂÄç, ´ ÿΠåÅÆ´¶¼ ¸Â¿ç” (GOLYŠENKO – DUBROVINA, Koz’ma Indikoplov [see note 16], p. 274, f. 117v, ll. 14-15); Skazanie: “¶Â»(¸)¶¼º¹ ÿ¶¼ÁȀ ă ¶Â¸Ï ·ÂÄç. ´ ÿ¶¼ÁÂÇ ÂÅÆ´¶¼ ¸Â¿ç” (BARANKOVA, K voprosu [see note 5], p. 34, f. 119r, ll. 21-23). 28 Still fundamental is A. V. GORSKIJ – K. I. NEVOSTRUEV, Opisanie slavjanskich rukopisej Moskovskoj Sinodal’noj Biblioteki, vol. 2: Pisanija svjatych otcov, č. 1, Tolkovanie Svjaščennogo Pisanija, Moskva, 1857, pp. 1-43. A good introductory article remains I. DUJČEV, L’Hexaémeron de Jean l’Exarque, in Bsl, 39 (1978), pp. 209-223. For further bibliography, see Ž. IKONOMOVA, Ioan Ekzarch (Kirilo-Metodievska Encyklopedija, vol. 2: I-O), Sofija, 1995, pp. 169-194, and G. PODSKALSKY, Theologische Literatur des Mittelalters in Bulgarien und Serbien: 865-1459, München, 2000, pp. 227-233. See also V. V. MIL’KOV – S. M. POLJANSKIJ, Kosmologičeskie proizvedenija v knižnosti drevnej rusi, vol. 1: Teksty geocentričeskoj tradicij (Pamjatniki drevnerusskoj mysli: Issledovanija i teksty, 4[1]), Sankt-Peterburg, 2008, pp. 110-209 and MIL’KOV – POLJANSKIJ, Kosmologičeskie proizvedenija, vol. 2 [see note 17], pp. 117-157. In the preface Symeon of Bulgaria is addressed as “Lord, Prince, famous Symeon”, so the work must have been written during the latter’s reign, which started in 893, but not after 917 – Symeon is not addressed as “Tsar/ªçÅ´ÄД (Greek “Βασιλεύς”) but as “Prince/žÎÁë»Ð” (Greek “Ἄρχων”), so it must be situated before August 917, when Symeon proclaimed himself Tsar. See DUJČEV, Hexaémeron, p. 212. 26 27

THE SLAVONIC TRADITION OF DE MUNDI CREATIONE ORATIONES

233

reception of Byzantine cosmogony and anthropology – for many centuries it remained influential throughout the Slavia orthodoxa. The compilation work is a treasury of translated and at times reworked excerpts of Greek texts, both Classical and Byzantine, secular and Christian. It draws on fragments from Aristotle, Plato, Philo, John Damascene, Gregory of Nyssa and many others (and these sources are incorporated in a variety of ways: as translations, paraphrases, implicit references etc.), but it is mainly built around two main sources, viz. on the one hand Basil of Caesarea’s Homiliae in Hexaemeron (CPG 2835), and, on the other, Severian of Gabala’s orations De mundi creatione. A scholarly edition of the Šestodnev in seven volumes was published by the Austrian scholar Rudolf Aitzutmüller between 1958 and 1975 in Graz.29 Juxtaposed in the edition are (1) a transcription of the earliest copy of the text, viz. Codex Mosquensis Musei historici (GIM), Sin. 213 of 1263, unfortunately (because of the bad condition of the manuscript) based on the edition of 1879 by Osip Bodjanskij; (2) a reconstructed text in normalized Old Church Slavonic; five other witnesses of the 15th to 17th centuries have been collated to establish the text;30 and (3) the Greek source texts, as far as they have been identified, presented alongside the Slavonic according to the edition of the Patrologia Graeca (the use of which, as we will argue, affected Aitzetmüller’s assessment of the Exarch’s translation); and finally, (4) a German translation. In the preface of the Šestodnev mention is made of the work’s sources: “We have not composed these six books all by ourselves, but have taken from Saint Basil’s Hexaemeron now the true words, then the ideas; in the same way [we have taken something] from John, and, again, something else from others…”.31 The vague mention of a certain John at a place where one would expect a reference to 29 R. AITZETMÜLLER, Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes, 7 vols. (Editiones Monumentorum Slavicorum Veteris Dialecti), Graz, 1958-1975. This critical edition – which replaced the diplomatic edition of 1879 (O. M. BODJANSKIJ, Šestodnev sostavlennyj Ioannom Eksarchom Bolgarskim. Po charatejnomu spisku Moskovskoj Sinodal’noj biblioteki 1263 goda, Moskva, 1879) – remains the standard reference text, although more recent editions of the early Russian redaction of the work have appeared: G. S. BARANKOVA, Šestodnev Ioanna ėkzarcha bolgarskogo: rannaja russkaja redakcija, Moskva, 1998, and G. S. BARANKOVA – V. V. MIL’KOV, Šestodnev Ioanna ėkzarcha bolgarskogo (Pamjatniki drevnerusskoj mysli: issledovanija i teksty, 2), SanktPeterburg, 2001, pp. 301-651 (both editions are based on the 15th-century East-Slavonic codex Mosquensis, RGB, f. 173.1 [MDA], 145). Excerpts from this edition are included in MIL’KOV – POLJANSKIJ, Kosmologičeskie proizvedenija, 1 [see note 28], pp. 125-169 and (for the fragments taken from Severian) MIL’KOV – POLJANSKIJ, Kosmologičeskie proizvedenija, 2 [see note 17], pp. 120-140. 30 However, over 50 witnesses are known; for the Slavonic tradition, see BARANKOVA – MIL’KOV, Šestodnev [see note 29], pp. 289-294. 31 “¥¼ º¹ ſ¶¹Å´ ̹ÅÆÐ, ·ÂÅø¼ À¼, Á¹  Źµç ÀÏ éÅÀÎ ÅÎÅÆ´¶¼¿¼, ÁΠ¶ ÂÆÎ é¾ÎÅ´À¹Ä´ ŶëÆ´´·Â ¶´Å¼¿¼Ȍ ¼Åƶ´Ȍ ſ¶¹Å´, ¶ º¹ ¼ Ä´»ÂÇÀÏ ÂÆÎ Á¹·Â ¶Î»¹À¿ñ͹; Æ´¾Âº¸¹ ¼ ÂÆÎ ¼Â´ÁÁ´, ´ ¸ÄÂÇ·Âé ÂÆÎ ¸ÄÂǷϼÉÎ, ´Í¹ éÅÀÎ ¾ÎºÎ¸Â ËÐÆ ÃÂ˼ƴ¿¼ ¼Áη¸´.” (AITZETMÜLLER, Hexaemeron, 1 [1958] [see note 29], pp. 43-44, 6b).

234

LARA SELS & SARAH VAN PEE

the second main source of the Šestodnev, viz. to Severian’s Orations on the Creation, leaves ample room for interpretation, and invites the idea that John Chrysostom was meant, to whom the Orationes de mundi creatione were commonly ascribed.32 However, a later scribe recognised the text and added the name of the bishop of Gabala to his copy, besides the unspecified John of the original preface.33 Clearly, one would expect the Šestodnev to be important as an indirect witness to the Greek original of Severian’s Orationes, (1) because of the early date of its composition, viz. late 9th – beginning 10th century (even though its documented tradition sets in rather late, in the second half of the 13th century); note that our earliest witnesses of the Greek direct tradition are of the 10th century; (2) because it contains substantial parts of text, taken from five of the six orations (viz. 1-5);34 note that less than half of the Greek witnesses contain all six orations.35 However, little is known about the Šestodnev’s value as a witness for the textology of the Greek text. In the following, we will establish the position of the Šestodnev on the stemma of the Greek tradition on the basis of a sample collation of the Slavonic according to Aitzetmüller’s edition. Presented here is a fragment from Or., 2, rendered according to the PG edition, from which the Šestodnev’s readings diverge in four instances, each time following the reading of branch PB on the Greek stemma. PG, 56, col. 440, ll. 31-38 τὸ στόμα τῶν ἀποστόλων ἦν νεκρὸς ἐγειρόμενος1, χωλὸς περιπατῶν. Ὅτι δὲ τοῖς θαύμασιν ἀκολουθεῖ2 ἡ πίστις, μαρτυρεῖ ἡ Γραφὴ λέγουσα· Διὰ γὰρ τῶν χειρῶν3 τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγένετο σημεῖα μεγάλα καὶ τέρατα ἐν τῷ λαῷ. Καὶ ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες, καὶ μᾶλλον προσετίθεντο καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀνδρῶν καὶ γυναικῶν πλήθη. Προέλαμπε τὰ θαύματα, καὶ ἠκολούθουν τὰ δόγματα4.

32

Šestodnev, 2, 39a.22-b.20 (Aitz., II, pp. 31-34) ÂÇÅÆ´ ´ÃÂÅƿО´ µç´Éï ¶ÎÅÆ´¶¿çñÍ´ ÀÄÐƶÏí ¼ Å¿çÃÏ ÂŶçÍ´ñÍ´1 ¼ ÉÄÂÀÏ Æ¶ÂÄëÍ´ ɸ¼Æ¼. ´ Ȍ¾Âº¹ ¶ÎÅ¿ç¸Î ËÒ¸¹ÅÎ ·Äë¸ç´Ì¹2 ¼ ¶çÄ´, Æ  ÆÂÀÐ Åζç¸çƹ¿ÐÅÆ ¶ÂÇéÆÎ £¼Å´Á¼é ·¿´·Â¿ë: Äï¾´À¼3 ´ÃÂÅƿО´À¼ µÏÌë »Á´À¹Á¼Ȍ ¶¹¿¼¾´ ¼ ËÒ¸¹Å´ ¶Î ¿Ò¸çÉÎ; ¸¼¶¿ç´Éï º¹ Åë ¶Ðż ¼ ô˹ Ãļ¿´·´´Éï Åë [¾Î ·ÂÅøÒ] à¶ÐÅë ¸ÐÁ¼, ÀïºÐžΠÃ¿Π¼ º¹ÁОΠÀÎÁ·Î. ÃÄç¸ÎżȌ´Éï ËÒ¸¹Å´, ´ ¶ÎÅ¿ç¸Î ·Äë¸ç´Éï ¸ç¿¹Å´4.

See the witness list supra. See BARANKOVA – MIL’KOV, Šestodnev [see note 29], p. 833, note 50. 34 Šestodnev (according to the edition by AITZETMÜLLER) I, 7c-7d = PG, 56, coll. 429, l. 12 – 430, l. 5; 10b-16a = PG, 56, coll. 432, l. 28 – 436, l. 57 (Or., 1); II, 35c-47a = PG, 56, coll. 438, l. 46 – 447, l. 8 (Or., 2); III, 71c-72a = PG, 56, col. 447, ll. 16-26; col. 447, ll. 37-38; coll. 447, l. 55-448, l. 5 (Or., 3); IV, 158b-170a = PG, 56, coll. 447, l. 39 – 452, l. 51; coll. 453, l. 2 – 456, l. 62 (Or., 3); V, 190b-205b = PG, 56, coll. 459, l. 52-471, l. 15 (Or., 4); VI, 249b-267a = PG, 56, coll. 471, l. 20 – 484, l. 3 (Or., 5); on this translation see also MOISEEVA, Šestodnev [see note 6], pp. 24-28. 35 In sum eight witnesses contain all six homilies, versus one with five homilies, one with four, and 13 with only one homily. 33

THE SLAVONIC TRADITION OF DE MUNDI CREATIONE ORATIONES

1 2 3 4

τυφλὸς φωτιζόμενος add. PB (~ Slav) ἠκολούθη PB (~ Slav) τῶν χειρῶν om. VK AwQM (Q Slav) πράγματα P (~ Slav); τάγματα B

1 2 3 4

235

¼ Å¿çÃÏ ÂŶçÍ´ñÍ´ ~ PB ¶ÎÅ¿ç¸Î ·Äë¸ç´Ì¹ ~ PB Äï¾´À¼ ~ PB EW ¸ç¿¹Å´ ~ P

Aitzetmüller’s comment to the last variant – Slavonic ¸ç¿¹Å´ where the PG text has δόγματα – is a nice illustration of how the juxtaposed PG text hampered a correct assessment of the Slavonic translation: “Eigenartig ist ¸ç¿¹Å´. Leskien nimmt an, daß der Exarch πράγματα statt δόγματα gelesen habe. Vielleicht stand im Urtext ſ¶¹Å´?”36 In this case, August Leskien correctly guessed the underlying Greek word,37 even without an accurate idea of the nature of the Greek model. Other examples narrow down the affiliation and allow to establish a link between the Šestodnev and witness B of the Greek direct tradition, the isolated Vaticanus gr., 1641 (B):38 PG, 56, col. 429, ll. 12-17 Αὕτη δὲ ἡ τῆς δημιουργίας βίβλος, ἀρχὴ καὶ πηγὴ καὶ1 δύναμίς ἐστι πάντων τῶν ἐν νόμῳ καὶ προφήταις. Καὶ ὥσπερ οἶκον οὐχ οἷόν τε στῆναι, θεμελίου μὴ ὑποκειμένου, οὕτως οὐδὲ τὰ τῆς δημιουργίας κάλλη λάμψαι, μὴ τῆς δημιουργίας τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπολαβούσης2. 1 2

ρίζα καὶ add. B (~ Slav) ἀπολαμπούσης B (~ Slav)

Šestodnev, 1, 7c.25 – 7d.14 (Aitz., I, pp. 53-56) ¾ÎÁ¼·Ï º¹ żí, Ȍ¾Âº¹ ·¿´·Â¿´ÉÎ, ƶ´ÄÐÁÏí Á´Ëë¿Â ÅïÆÎ ¼ ¼ÅÆÂËÐÁ¼¾Î ¼ ¾ÂĹÁÐ ¼1 ż¿´ ¶ÐÅçÉÎ ¶¹ÆÎÉÏÉÎ, Ĺ¾Î̹ »´¾ÂÁÂÇ ¼ ÃÄÂľÂÀÎ. ¦¼ Ȍ¾Âº¹ ÉÄ´ÀÂÇ ÁçÅÆÎ ¿Ð»ç ÅƴƼ, ´Í¹ ¾ÂĹÁ¼é Á¹ µï¸¹ÆΠÿº¹Á ÃÄ纸¹, Æ´¾Âº¸¹ ¼ ÂÇƶ´Ä¼ Å¹í ¸ÂµÄÂÆ´ÀÎ ÁçÅÆÎ ¿Ð»ç ÃÄÂżȌƼ, ´Í¹ »Ð¸´Á¼Ȍ Ź·Â Á´Ëë¿Â Á¹ żȌéÆÎ2. 1 2

¾ÂĹÁÐ ¼ ~ B żȌéÆÎ ~ B

Here too Aitzetmüller comments upon the perceived divergence from the Greek (viz. ´Í¹ Á¹ … żȌéÆÎ for μὴ … ἀπολαβούσης in PG): “żȌéÆÎ, so in allen Hss. Wohl unrichtig nimmt Leskien Fehler für µÏ¶´éÆÎ an;39 der Exarch ist von der Vorlage abgewichen.”40 In fact, the Slavonic translator stays close to his Greek model, which clearly had a text close to that of our Greek witness B. As the Slavonic follows some individual readings typical only of B but not all of B’s particularities (as in the case above, where ¸ç¿¹Å´ follows P’s reading AIZETMÜLLER, Hexaemeron, 2 (1960) [see note 29], p. 34 (comm. to l. 20). Cf. A. LESKIEN, Zum Šestodnev des Exarchen Johannes, in Archiv für Slavische Philologie, 26 (1904), p. 13. 38 For this witness – whose kinship with the indirect tradition (both scholia and TopChr fragments) has already been mentioned [see notes 12 and 27 above] – see VOICU, Roma e l’ultimo manoscritto [see note 24], pp. 73-87. 39 LESKIEN, Šestodnev [see note 37], p. 7. 40 AITZETMÜLLER, Hexaemeron, 1 (1958) [see note 29], p. 56 (comm. on l. 13). 36 37

236

LARA SELS & SARAH VAN PEE

πράγματα, not B’s peculiar reading τάγματα), we may assume that both B and the Greek model of this first Slavonic translation (henceforth called Slav1) ultimately go back to a common ancestor. This is consistent from the point of view of chronology and allows us to pinpoint the model of Slav1 on the Greek stemma.

Our conclusion throws light on the many discrepancies between the printed Greek text and Slav1, done away by Aitzetmüller as secondary mistakes or free translations. The Greek text juxtaposed to the early Slavonic translation of Severian’s orations De mundi creatione in the Šestodnev edition is a mismatch, as it belongs to another branch of the Greek tradition. 2.3. The 13th/14th-Century Translation in Full It is not at all unusual for a work that was translated in the early period of Slavonic literacy to be translated once more around the 14th century. This later period is a time of book revision, of retranslation, and of a new approach to textual authority and the Greek source texts. The case of Severian of Gabala’s Orationes de mundi creatione is similar to that of Basil of Caesarea’s Homiliae in Hexaemeron: known from the early period as one of the main sources of the Šestodnev, Basil’s homilies were translated again in the 14th century, this time

THE SLAVONIC TRADITION OF DE MUNDI CREATIONE ORATIONES

237

in full and much more literal.41 The same can be said of Severian’s Orationes. Interestingly, the later translation of Basil’s homilies does not seem to have been very popular and apparently never reached the East Slavs. The translation of Severian’s Orationes, on the other hand, is more widely attested in the manuscripts, many of which are East Slavonic, and in this translation, Severian’s Orationes are mostly ascribed to Basil. No critical edition of this later Slavonic translation (Slav2) exists, nor is there an in-depth study on its textual transmission.42 The earliest attestation of this later translation dates back to the late 14th or early 15th century (and not to the first half of the 14th century as has been claimed43), viz. in Codex Bucuresti Bibliothecae Academiae Scientiarum, 148 (formerly in the monastery of Neamţ), which transmits Severian’s Orationes without a title and is written in Serbian orthography.44 Another early witness that belongs to the 15th century is Codex Mosquensis, Musei historici (GIM), Sin., 367, which has the De mundi creatione as its first – but unfortunately acephalous – entry.45 Apparently some twenty more Serbian, Bulgarian and Russian codices from the 15th to 18th century preserve the text in full or fragmentary, but a reliable list of witnesses still needs to be drawn up.46 41 In the 14th century Basil’s homilies were translated and transmitted together with his brother Gregory of Nyssa’s anthropological treatise De opificio hominis (CPG 3154) as one single Hexaemeron collection (Šestodnevnik). For the text witnesses, see L. SELS, Gregory of Nyssa. De hominis opificio. O obrazě člověka. The Fourteenth-Century Slavonic Translation. A Critical Edition with Greek Parallel and Commentary (Bausteine zur Slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte, NF, Reihe B, Editionen, 21), Köln, 2009, pp. 20-29. 42 For her Magistr’s thesis, Moiseeva made a partial transcription of one of the earliest East Slavonic copies, viz. the 15th-century codex Petropolitanus, Bibliothecae Publicae (RNB), Solov., 873/983 (Porfir’ev, 117) – MOISEEVA, Šestodnev [see note 6], pp. 54-81. See for Slav2 ibidem, pp. 28-36. See also BARANKOVA, K voprosu [see note 5]; MIL’KOV – POLJANSKIJ, Kosmologičeskie proizvedenija, 2 [see note 17], pp. 91-95. See also F. J. THOMSON, The Corpus of Slavonic Translations Available in Muscovy. The Cause of Old Russia’s Intellectual Silence and a Contributory Factor to Muscovite Cultural Autarky, in B. GASPAROV – O. RAEVSKY-HUGHES (eds), Christianity and the Eastern Slavs: Slavic Cultures in the Middle Ages, Berkeley – Los Angeles – Oxford, 1993, pp. 184 and 203, n. 60. 43 As the witnesses referred to support this claim contain the Skazanie and not fragments from this translation in full – see supra, note 18. 44 See MOISEEVA, Šestodnev [see note 7], p. 28; for catalogue entries see A. I. JACIMIRSKIJ, Slavjanskie i russkie rukopisi rumynskich bibliotek, Sankt-Peterburg, 1905, pp. 734-737 and P. PANAITESCU, Manuscrisele slave din Biblioteca Academiei R.P.R., vol. 1, Bucuresti, 1959, p. 188. 45 A. V. GORSKIJ – K. I. NEVOSTRUEV, Opisanie slavjanskich rukopisej Moskovskoj Sinodal’noj Biblioteki, vol. 2, Pisanija svjatych otcov, č. 2, Pisanija dogmatičeskie i duchovno-nravstvennye, Moskva, 1859, pp. 628-641, nr. 203/367. 46 For preliminary lists of witnesses see BULAMIN, Istočnik [see note 17], p. 111, MOISEEVA, Šestodnev [see note 6], p. 36 and MIL’KOV – POLJANSKIJ, Kosmologičeskie proizvedenija, vol. 2 [see note 17], pp. 91-92; as mentioned by the authors, most of these witnesses have not yet been studied. Clearly it is also this version of Severian’s Orationes that is included in the Šestodnev/ Hexaemeron compiled by the Serbian monk Nikon of Jerusalem of 1439-1440, see A.-L. CAUDANO, Cosmography, Asceticism and Female Patronage in Late Byzantine and Slavic Miscellanies, in Almagest, 8[2] (2017), p. 31, n. 8 and N. RADOŠEVIĆ, Nikonov Šestodnevnik u

238

LARA SELS & SARAH VAN PEE

For the sample collations in the present contribution, two witnesses have been used that are freely available online on the website of the Trinity Monastery of St Sergius (or Troice Sergieva Lavra), both from the collection of the Moscow Theological Academy, viz. codd. Mosquenses, RGB, f. 173, Academiae Theologicae (MDA), 63 (ff. 2r-99r) and 32 (ff. 13r-147r), of the 16th/17th century. In MDA 32, the orations are ascribed to Basil of Caesarea, while MDA 63 is left without an author ascription because the title is missing (as the work of the rubricator was left undone). A first important observation is that this translation has seven orations in its corpus. The translator has used a model with the homily Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (CPG 4195) inserted between the fifth and sixth oration.47 Looking at the stemma, this seems to place the translation a priori in the second branch, as three of its witnesses – A, Q, w – have the same particularity. Looking at the same brief excerpt already discussed when dealing with the earlier Šestodnev, it becomes immediately clear that this translation was made on the basis of a totally different Greek model, apparently belonging to the other branch of the Greek tradition. PG, 56, col. 440, ll. 31-38

Slav1 Šestodnev, 2, 39a.22-b.20 (Aitz., II, pp. 31-34)

Slav2 (~ cod. MDA 63, f. 9v)

τὸ στόμα τῶν ἀποστόλων ἦν νεκρὸς ἐγειρόμενος1, χωλὸς περιπατῶν. Ὅτι δὲ τοῖς θαύμασιν ἀκολουθεῖ2 ἡ πίστις, μαρτυρεῖ ἡ Γραφὴ λέγουσα· Διὰ γὰρ τῶν χειρῶν3 τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγένετο σημεῖα μεγάλα καὶ τέρατα ἐν τῷ λαῷ. Καὶ ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες, καὶ μᾶλλον προσετίθεντο καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀνδρῶν καὶ γυναικῶν πλήθη. Προέλαμπε τὰ θαύματα, καὶ ἠκολούθουν τὰ δόγματα4.

ÂÇÅÆ´ ´ÃÂÅƿО´ µç´Éï ¶ÎÅÆ´¶¿çñÍ´ ÀÄÐƶÏí ¼ Å¿çÃÏ ÂŶçÍ´ñÍ´1 ¼ ÉÄÂÀÏ Æ¶ÂÄëÍ´ ɸ¼Æ¼. ´ Ȍ¾Âº¹ ¶ÎÅ¿ç¸Î ËÒ¸¹ÅÎ ·Äë¸ç´Ì¹2 ¼ ¶çÄ´, Æ  ÆÂÀÐ Åζç¸çƹ¿ÐÅÆ ¶ÂÇéÆÎ £¼Å´Á¼é ·¿´·Â¿ë: Äï¾´À¼3 ´ÃÂÅƿО´À¼ µÏÌë »Á´À¹Á¼Ȍ ¶¹¿¼¾´ ¼ ËÒ¸¹Å´ ¶Î ¿Ò¸çÉÎ; ¸¼¶¿ç´Éï º¹ Åë ¶Ðż ¼ ô˹ Ãļ¿´·´´Éï Åë [¾Î ·ÂÅøÒ] à¶ÐÅë ¸ÐÁ¼, ÀïºÐžΠÃ¿Π¼ º¹ÁОΠÀÎÁ·Î. ÃÄç¸ÎżȌ´Éï ËÒ¸¹Å´, ´ ¶ÎÅ¿ç¸Î ·Äë¸ç´Éï ¸ç¿¹Å´4.

ÂÇÅÆ´ ´Ã(Å ċ)¿ÂÀÎ µëÉȀ. À¹ÄƶÏë ¶ÂÅÆ´¶¿ë¹ÀÏ. 1 ÉÄÂÀ¼ ɸëÆÎ. Á ËÒ¸¹Å¹ÀÎ ÃÂÅ¿ç(¸)ÅƶȀ¹Æ’ 2 ¶çÄ´. Ŷç¸çƹ¿ÐÅÆ
¶Ȁ¹(Æ) üŴÁÛ¹ ·¿ćÒ͹¹. ¼µÂ Ä´¸¼
3 ´Ã(Å ċ)¿Î µÏÌë »Á´À¹ÁÛ´ ¼ ËÒ¸¹Å´ ¶¹¿Û´ ¶’ ¿Ò¸¹ÉÎ. ÂǺ´Å´ÉȀÅë ¶Å¼. ¼ ô˹ ÃļÉ庴Éï Á´ ¶Åë¾Î. ÀȀºÛ¹ ¼ º¹ÁÏ ÀÁºÅƶ´ ¸Â¶Â¿Á´. ÃĹ(¸)ÅÛ´ÉȀ º¹ ËÒ¸¹Å´. ¼ ÃÂÅ¿ç¸Â¶´ÉȀ ÂÇ˹ÁÛ´4.

rukopisu Manastira Savine, 21, in Nikon Jerusalimac at https://www.rastko.rs/bogoslovlje/nikon/ simposion/nradosevic-sestodnevnik_c.pdf (last consulted 27.03.2018). 47 On the insertion of Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus, see ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien [see note 3], pp. 40-47; S. KIM, Propoved’ Severiana, episkopa Gaval’skogo, iz cikla gomilij o sotvorenii mira (CPG 4195), in Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoj duchovnoj seminarii, vyp. 2 (2011). Clearly the version found here is different from the two versions found in the Chrysorrhoas (L1/S1 on the one hand and app. 23 on the other, see MILTENOV, Zlatostruj, pp. 37, 92 and 112) and published in the Macarian Velikie Čet’i Minei, Nov. 13-15, vyp. 8, Sankt-Peterburg, 1899, pp. 1184-1190 and 1865-1873.

THE SLAVONIC TRADITION OF DE MUNDI CREATIONE ORATIONES

1

2 3

4

τυφλὸς φωτιζόμενος add. PB ~ Slav1; ↔ Slav2 ἠκολούθη PB ~ Slav1; ↔ Slav2 τῶν χειρῶν om. VK AwQM ↔ Slav1; ~ Slav2 πράγματα P ~ Slav1; ↔ Slav2

1 2 3 4

¼ Å¿çÃÏ ÂŶçÍ´ñÍ´ ~ PB ¶ÎÅ¿ç¸Î ·Äë¸ç´Ì¹ ~ PB Äï¾´À¼ (´ÃÂÅƿО´À¼) ~ PB EW ¸ç¿¹Å´ ~ P

1 2 3 4

239

ø (VK AwEWQM) ÃÂÅ¿ç(¸)ÅƶȀ¹Æ’ ~ ἀκολουθεῖ (VK AEWQM) ø (VK AwQM) ÂÇ˹ÁÛ´ ~ δόγματα (VK AwEWQM)

The example of some variant readings from Or., 2 indeed reveals that Slav2 has to be situated on the second branch of the Greek stemma. The following examples allow us to narrow down the affiliation to witness Q, Codex Parisinus gr., 777A. PG, 56, col. 439, ll. 5-7; col. 440, ll. 22-24 Ζῶν γὰρ, φησὶν, ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐνεργὴς,1 καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον. Ἔδειξε πρῶτον ὑπακούοντα τὰ στοιχεῖα, καὶ τότε ἡρμήνευσε διὰ τῶν ἔργων2, ὅτι πάντα δι ̓ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. 1 2

καὶ ἐνεργὴς om. AwWQM (~ Slav2) λόγων AwWQM (~ Slav2)

Slav2 Cod. MDA 63, ff. 8r; 9v º¼¶Â µÂ Ĺ˹ ſ¶ µćºÛ¹.1 ¼ µÏÅÆÄç¼Ì¼*. ô˹ ¶Åë¾Â·Â À¹Ë´ åµÂÒ¸Ȁ åÅÆÄ´. £Â¾´»´ ùĶ¹ ÅƼɼëÀÎ Æ· ÃÂÅ¿ȀÌ´Òͼ(É) ¼ Æ·¸´ åö縴 ſ¶¹ÅÏ.2 Ȍ¾Â ¶Åë ¹·Â Ä´¸¼ µÏÌ´. 1

ø (AwWQM) * pro ÂÅÆÄç¼Ì¼ (cf. MDA 32, f. 24r, ÿÅÆÄç¼Ì̏) 2 ſ¶¹ÅÏ ~ λόγων (AwWQM)

PG, 56, col. 438, ll. 41-44

Cod. MDA 63, f. 8r

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ3 εἰς τὴν δευτέραν ἡμέραν τῆς κοσμοποιίας, καὶ πρὸς τὸν εἰπόντα αὐτῷ· Οὐκ ἔδει ἡμᾶς τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς λέγειν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἁγιάσματος· Κύριος Σαβαώθ.4

¦Â·Âº¸¹ µ¹Å縴3 ¶Â ¶ÎÆÂÄϼ ¸ćÁÐ ÅÎƶÂĹÁ¼Ȍ À¼ÄȀ ¼ ¾’ Ĺ¾Î̹ÀȀ ¹ÀȀ. Á¹Ã¸µ´¹ÆÎ Á´ÀÎ ÉÄÛ(Å ċ)ÆÛ´ÁÂ(À) ·¿ć´Æ¼ Á´ ÅćÆÂ(À) ¾Äć͹ÁÛ¼ ·ć¸Ð Å´¶´å÷Î. Å¿Â¶å ¶ć.4

3 4

ὁμιλία add. AQM (~ Slav2) λόγος β´ add. Q (~ Slav2)

3 4

µ¹Å縴 ~ ὁμιλία (AQM) Å¿Â¶å ¶ć. ~ λόγος β’ (Q)

Although readings found exclusively in Q and liable to comparison with the Slavonic are scarce, some further examples are found in Or., 6: PG, 56, col. 485, ll. 5-13

Slav2 Cod. MDA 63, f. 62r

Πολλάκις (…) ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν1 εὑρίσκει παιδίου2 ψυχαγωγίαν, καὶ τὸ σκληρὸν τῶν πόνων ἀλείφει τὸ ἁπαλὸν τῆς διανοίας. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀθυμοῦντι οὐ γυνὴ προσέρχεται παραμυθουμένη, ὡς3 ἄκαιρον ἔχουσα τὴν παραμυθίαν, οὐκ οἰκέτης τολμᾷ παραμυθήσασθαι, (…)

ÀÁ·´Í¼ (...) ¶’̹¸ º¹ ¶Â ÉÄ´À¼ÁȀ Ú1 åµÄçÆÎ åÆÄÂË´2 ÂÇÆçÉȀ. ¼ º¹ÅƾȀÒ µÂ¿ç»ÁÐ Ä´Å
ÆÄ´ë¹ÆÎ À¹¾Ë¼ÁȀ ÃÂÀÏÅ¿Ȁ. ÃÂÁ¹º¹ µÂ åÁÂÀȀ º´¿ëÍȀ. Á¼ º¹Á´ Ãļɸ¼Æ’ ÂÇÆçÌ´ÒͼÅë 3 µ¹»¶Ä¹À¹ÁÁÂ. ¼ÀçÒÍÛ´ ÂÇÆç̹ÁÛ¹. Á¼ Ä´µÎ ¸¹Ä»Á¹ÆÎ ÂÇÆç̼Ƽ[¼]. (...)

240 1 2 3

LARA SELS & SARAH VAN PEE

καὶ add. Q (~ Slav2) παιδίον Q (~ Slav2) ὡς ligatura vix legibilis Q

PG, 56, col. 488, ll. 5-6

1 2 3

Ú ~ καὶ (Q) åÆÄÂË´ ~ παιδίον (Q) ø (~ Q)

Cod. MDA 63, f. 65r

(…) ἀλλὰ θέλει μὴ εἶναι μετὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ (...) Á ÉÂ͹ÆÎ ¸´ Á¹ µȀ¸¹ÆÎ ÅÎ µ¿ć·ÏÀÎ τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ κακοῦ1. Ä´»ȀÀÎ ¸ÂµÄÂÀȀ1 (...) 4

καλοῦ Q (~ Slav2)

4

¸ÂµÄÂÀȀ ~ καλού (Q)

In our sample collations Slav2 follows Q in most of its peculiar readings, though not all of Q’s particularities are shared by the Slavonic text: the best example is a hiatus in Or., 3 due to a saut du même au même found exclusively in Q ([τέσσαρας.] Ἐὰν γὰρ οὕτω ψηφίσῃς τὸν μῆνα ἀπὸ εἴκοσι ἐννέα ἥμισυ ἡμερῶν, γίγνονται τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἡμέραι τριακόσιαι πεντήκοντα τέσσαρες)48 but not in Slav2. This allows us to conclude that Q and Slav2 go back to a common ancestor. The assumption that there is a close affiliation between Parisinus gr. 777A (Q) and the second Slavonic translation is intriguingly supported by a note in Q that points to a Bulgarian connection: on f. 327v the text of Q is followed by a note – repeated underneath in another hand – that links the copy to a metropolitan of Tărnovo: “The present book has been finished by me, / the humble and the least (of all men), patriarch / of Tărnovo 6898, 13th indiction (= 1390)”.49 The note is not without problems – cf. the description by Augustin and Sautel: Cette souscription est problématique. Elle semble due à une main différente de celles qui ont transcrit le texte (cf. l’encre différente du texte). D’autre part, son orthographe et son accentuation sont très fautives. Faut-il supposer que le métropolite en question était un illettré? S’agirait-il d’une «subscriptio copiata»?

The note seems to refer to the famous last Bulgarian Patriarch Euthymius of Tărnovo (1375[?]-1393). An additional argument in favour of the dependence of Slav2 on a model of Greek witness Q is the fact that it may provide an explanation for the ascription of this second Slavonic translation to Basil of Caesarea rather than to Severian or to John Chrysostom: in the acephalous Parisinus Severian’s cycle of Hexaemeral homilies (ff. 1-111) is followed directly by Basil’s Homiliae in Hexaemeron (ff. 111-209v) (followed by further hexaemeral works by Basil and Gregory of Nyssa). With some caution – viz. a caveat due to the fact that this conclusion, for the time being, relies on sample (not full) collations50 – we 48

PG, 56, col. 449, ll. 7-4 ab imo – om. Q. We should like to thank Pierre Augustin of the IRHT for kindly providing us with an as yet unpublished and highly interesting manuscript description of Codex Parisinus gr. 777A (described as a “notice encore provisoire et incomplète”), prepared together with Jacques-Hubert Sautel in 2013 (email d.d. 24/12/2016). 50 We hope to further explore the relationship between Codex Parisinus gr. 777A and Slav2 in a future publication. 49

THE SLAVONIC TRADITION OF DE MUNDI CREATIONE ORATIONES

241

propose to posit Slav2 on the Greek stemma as a sibling of Q, going back to a common ancestor. Augustin-Sautel propose to date Q to the second half of the 14th century,51 which does not contradict the date generally accepted for Slav2, viz. the late 13th or early 14th century.52

2.4. Other versions It is remarkable to see how the different translations eventually touched each other: fragments from both the Skazanie as well as from Slav2 are found inserted in late Russian copies of the Šestodnev (Slav1).53 Besides the Slavonic translations that reflect the Greek indirect tradition discussed at the beginning, there is also an indirect tradition that is properly Slavonic: fragments from the main Slavonic translations are found in various 51

In the correspondence and manuscript description mentioned above, note 49. As in MIL’KOV – POLJANSKIJ, Kosmologičeskie proizvedenija, vol. 2 [see note 17], p. 91, but note that the authors based their date on the erroneous assumption that the codex of 1345 written by Pop Filip and the one written by Pachomij before 1331 contained fragments from this full translation rather than the Skazanie [see note 18]. However, MOISEEVA, Šestodnev [see note 6], p. 28, dates the translation to the 13th-14th century as well. 53 See MIL’KOV – POLJANSKIJ, Kosmologičeskie proizvedenija, vol. 2 [see note 17], p. 94, and BARANKOVA, K voprosu [see note 5], pp. 9-11, 14 (who also points to the fact that some of these later insertions ended up in Aitzetmüller’s edition as if they were part of the original text). 52

242

LARA SELS & SARAH VAN PEE

new contexts. Interesting in this regard is the example of the Slavonic Palaea interpretata, a commented free paraphrase of Old-Testament history with many additions from various canonical and apocryphal texts. The Palaea has among its sources John the Exarch’s Šestodnev and Cosmas Indicopleustes’ Christian topography, which accounts for several fragments from Severian’s Orationes.54 More remains to be said about the Slavonic tradition of Severian of Gabala’s De mundi creatione orationes. In 2002 Galina Barankova noted the existence of yet other excerpt versions – one substantial, the other shorter – in a 15th-century codex kept in the National Library in Saint-Petersburg (Codex Petropolitanus [RNB], Sof. 1285, ff. 59r-60r and 108r-121r), which was published in 2013.55 This witness is said to go back on an earlier, 12th or 13th-century compilation, which also suggests a respectable age for the excerpts from Severian’s Orationes. Without mentioning an exact date, Barankova argues for an early origin of these texts, situating them in Kiev Russia on linguistic grounds. Furthermore, she suggests that the excerpt versions may have been produced on the basis of an unknown Russian translation in full (as this seems more plausible than the existence of Greek parallels).56 Though Barankova treats Sof., 1285 as a unique witness, in her magistr’s thesis Moiseeva points to some additional manuscript evidence for these rare versions.57 The short version (ff. 59r-60r) consists of brief (at time paraphrased) excerpts from orations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, knitted together with short phrases. The compiler calls the excerpts stichi (ÅƼɼ, στίχοι), verses, and he makes his approach explicit: “ă ÀÁ·´ À´¿Â ¼»ëÉÂƸ ÅÆÚÌо¶Δ (Sof. 1285, f. 59r), “From many I have taken few lines”. Because of its abridged, concise character, it is hardly possible to situate this version on the Greek stemma. 54 See the monograph on the sources of the Palaea interpretata by T. DIMOVA SLAVOVA, Tălkovnata paleja v konteksta na starobălgarskata knižnina (Universitetska biblioteka, 418), Sofija, 2002, esp. ch. 4, pp. 168-177 (for the Šestodnev; for the fragments from Severian see the list on pp. 171-173 and the table on p. 175) and 187-195 (for TopChr; for the two Severian fragments see the overview p. 187). It should be mentioned that Pseudo-Caesarius is also among the Palaea’s sources, but no questions with material from Severian’s Orationes are included. 55 Part of the material from this codex was already published in 2002 – viz. (1) a passage from the first oration taken from the longer excerpt version (synoptically with the first part of the TopChr fragment ~ PG, 56, coll. 433, l. 47 – 434, l. 3) (BARANKOVA, K voprosu [see note 5], p. 15) and (2) the entire short excerpt version, which consists of (at time paraphrased) excerpts from orations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 (Ibidem, pp. 42-46). In 2013 the codex was published in full: G. S. BARANKOVA – N. V. SAVEL’EVA – O. S. SAPOŽNIKOVA (eds), Antologija pamjatnikov literatury domongol’skogo perioda v rukopisi XV v: Sofijskij sbornik, Moskva – Sankt-Peterburg, 2013, with the two versions of Severian’s De mundi creatione orationes on pp. 185-187 and 283-309 and a comment section on pp. 488-504. (See also A. M. MOLDOVAN, Review: Antologija pamjatnikov literatury domongol’skogo perioda v rukopisi XV v. Sofijskij sbornik. izd. podgot. G. S. Barankova, N. V. Savel’eva, O. S. Sapožnikova. Pod red. N. V. Savel’evoj. M.-Spb., 2013, in Russkij jazyk v naučnom osveščenii, 1[29] [17 April 2016], pp. 313-314). 56 BARANKOVA ET AL., Antologija [see note 55], pp. 501-504. 57 See MOISEEVA, Šestodnev [see note 6], pp. 41-44.

THE SLAVONIC TRADITION OF DE MUNDI CREATIONE ORATIONES

243

The longer version (ff. 108r-121r) has a remarkable structure, organized in ten sections (ſ¶´/slova = λόγοι) that do not follow the original order of the Orationes and of which some contain material not proper to Severian’s text (in part, apparently, written by text’s compiler). The table below is a representation of the text’s structure, based on Barankova’s table in the comment section of the 2013 edition:58 Slov.,1

Slov.,2 Slov.,3 Slov.,4

Slov.,5

Slov.,6

compiler Or., 5, Or., 1, Or., 5 (abr. Or., 6 + Or., 7, + Or., 2 Or., 1 Or., 4 & rearr.) compiler Or., 3

Slov.,7 Slov.,8 Slov.,9 Or., 3

Or., 6 (abr.)

Slov.,10

Text ascr. Or., 3 to John Chrys.

A comparison of the Slavonic with the Greek reveals that the translation is free and that the text deviates from its Greek model not only structurally but also lexically. The text is close to the version found in Greek witness W, which has characteristics of both branches and has not been assigned a fixed place in the stemma.59 The fact that this excerpt version clearly reflects another Greek text than Slav1 or Slav2 confirms Barankova’s conclusion that it reflects another independent translation. 2.5. To conclude The rich Slavonic tradition of Severian’s Orationes de mundi creatione has much to offer to scholars working on the Greek Severian as it provides valuable information on the textual history of the Greek text: the Severian passages in the Šestodnev (Slav1), for instance, can help to reconstruct the scantily documented Greek branch now solely represented by B. On the other hand, a new critical edition of the Greek Orationes will enable Slavists to examine the Slavonic texts from a solid basis, that is, (1) the excerpts from Severian in the Šestodnev, (2) both the isolated and the embedded Severian fragments of the Topographia christiana, (3) the still unedited 13th/14th-century translation 58 Ibidem, p. 501. It is not clear why, in her table, Barankova refers to Or., 6 as •[¹Å¹¸´]7; apparently, she counts the Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus in as •6, even if this text was not used for this excerpt version. In the table above, I have changed •7 into Or., 6. 59 Some examples: from Slov., 1 – Or., 2: “καὶ διέμενε λεπρός” (PG, 56, col. 444, ll. 36-37), λεπρός] νεκρὸς AwQΜ; Sof., 1285, f. 108r: “¼ ÃÄçµÏ(Å )ċ Ãľ´º¹ÁÎ [= λεπρός]” (~ Slav1: “Ƽ ÃĹµÏ¶´Ì¹ Ãç·ÂƼ¶Î [= λεπρός]”; Q Slav2: “¼ ÃÄçµÏ(Å )ċ ÀāƶР[= νεκρὸς]”); from Slov., 2 – Or., 1: “τὸ φῶς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔδειξεν ἱμάτιον” (PG, 56, col. 436, ll. 34-35), τοῦ ἀνθρώπου] τῆς συνέσεως AWwEΜ; Sof., 1285, f. 110v: “ŶçÆ´ Ä´»ÂÇÀ´ [= τῆς συνέσεως] þ´»´ ļ»ÂÇ” (Q Slav1: “Á ŶçÆÎ Ë¿ćËÐ [= τοῦ ἀνθρώπου] ÅÎÅÆ´¶¼ ļ»Ȁ ă Á¹ë”, ~ Slav2: “Ŷçƾ Ä´»ȀÀ´ [= τῆς συνέσεως] 붼 ļ»ÂÇ”); from Slov., 1 – Or., 2: “εἶδον τὸν κύριον καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου ὑψηλοῦ” (PG, 56, col. 444, ll. 45-46), καθήμενον] om. W; Sof., 1285, f. 108v: “¶¼¸çÉÂÀÎ ·(Åċ)¸´ [ø] Á´ ÃÄ(Å )ċ Æ¿ç ¶ÏÅÂÊç” (Q Slav1: “¶¼¸çƿ ·ć´ Åç¸ëÍ´ [=καθήμενον] Á´ ÃÄ(Å )ċ Æ¿ç ¶ÏÅÂÊç”; Q Slav2: “¶¼¸çƿ Ú(Å )ċ ´ Åç¸ëÍ´ [=καθήμενον] Á´ ÃÄçÅÆÂ¿ç ¶ÏÅÂÊç”).

244

LARA SELS & SARAH VAN PEE

(Slav2), apparently translated from an ancestor of Codex Parisinus gr. 777A (Q), and, finally, (4) the as yet under-researched excerpt versions in the Codex Petropolitanus (RNB), Sof., 1285.

BOUNDLESS AMBITION OR A FRIENDSHIP THAT WENT WRONG? NARRATING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AND SEVERIAN OF GABALA Peter VAN NUFFELEN

John N.D. Kelly opened his account of the conflict between John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala by stating that “it is not difficult for us to reconstruct, in a very broad outline, what had actually been happening.”1 I am not so confident. In their biographies of John, J.N.D. Kelly and Claudia Tiersch have pieced together a plausible narrative on the basis of the few sources we have,2 and scholarship on Severian, for whom we have hardly any information except in relation to John, has done the same.3 Such a way of proceeding, common among historians, may not be the most appropriate, given that the accounts we possess were all produced during and shortly after the Johannite schism, which was caused by John’s exile in 404 and was only healed after the return of John’s remains in 438. Our earliest sources, Pseudo-Martyrius (writing in the autumn of 407)4 and Palladius (c. 408/9-418),5 both partisans of John, are deeply involved in the schism and composed highly tendentious texts, which in the past have been accepted at face value by scholars in the absence of 1 J. N. D. KELLY, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom - Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, London, 1996 (2nd ed.), p. 182. 2 KELLY, Golden Mouth [see note 1], pp. 181-191; C. TIERSCH, Johannes Chrysostomus in Konstantinopel (398-404): Weltsicht und Wirken eines Bischofs in der Hauptstadt des oströmischen Reiches (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 6), Tübingen, 2002, pp. 220-224. 3 M. AUBINEAU, Un traité inédit de christologie de Sévérien de Gabala: In centurionem et contra Manichaeos et Apollinaristas: exploitation par Sévère d’Antioche (519) et le Synode du Latran (649), Genève, 1983, pp. 11-17; S. J. VOICU, Sévérien de Gabala, in DSp, 14 (1990), pp. 752-763; K. H. UTHEMANN, Severian von Gabala, in Biographisch-Bibliographisch Kirchenlexikon, 9 (1995), pp. 1496-1502; J. KECKSEMÉTI, Sévérien de Gabala, exégète et théologien antiochien méconnu, in Euphrosyne, 24 (1996), pp. 99-126; J. KECKSEMÉTI, Une rhétorique au service de l’antijudaïsme: IVe siècle - VIIe siècle (Bibliothèque d’études juives, 26. Série histoire, 22), Paris, 2005, pp. 131-132. 4 M. WALLRAFF – C. RICCI, Oratio funebris in laudem Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi: epitaffio attribuito a Martirio di Antiochia (BHG, 871; CPG 6517) (Quaderni della Rivista di bizantinistica, 12), Spoleto, 2007; T. D. BARNES – G. BEVAN, The Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom (Translated Texts for Historians, 60), Liverpool, 2013. 5 A. M. MALINGREY (ed. trad.), Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome (SC, 341-342), 2 vols., Paris, 1988; D. S. KATOS, Palladius of Helenopolis: The Origenist Advocate (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford – New York, 2011; P. VAN NUFFELEN, Theophilus against John Chrysostom: The Fragments of a Lost Liber and John’s Deposition, in Adamantius, 19 (2013), pp. 139-155; P. VAN NUFFELEN, Palladius and the Johannite Schism, in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 64 (2013), pp. 1-19.

246

PETER VAN NUFFELEN

critical voices about John.6 The schism’s battle lines still influenced the church historians Socrates and Sozomen, writing c. 440 and c. 445. The Church historian Socrates was critical of John, but, writing after the end of the schism, still included many pro-Johannite traditions, whilst his successor Sozomen was clearly in favour of John and had frequented followers of John.7 Before we can attempt to construct a narrative, then, we should deconstruct the narratives transmitted to us. Johannite sources usually designate a quartet as the main plotters against John: Theophilus of Alexandria, Acacius of Beroia, Antiochus of Ptolemaïs, and Severian of Gabala, often with Cyrinus of Chalcedon as an honorary fifth.8 The first two are seen as the major instigators, though Theophilus gets most of the attention in ancient and modern accounts. Antiochus of Ptolemaïs and Severian are often mentioned together, but the first remains a rather vague figure who at best appears as the doppelgänger of Severian.9 For Severian himself, we get some more circumstantial detail, but it raises as many questions as it answers. Let us look at the various accounts in their order of composition. 1. PSEUDO-MARTYRIUS Our earliest source is the fiercely Johannite Epitaphius for John Chrysostom, composed by Pseudo-Martyrius shortly after the news of John’s death (14 September 407) reached Constantinople. Although it singles out Severian as one of John’s main enemies, the Epitaphius has remarkably little to say about Severian and especially about the precise causes of his hostility towards John. PseudoMartyrius emphasises one basic fact, namely, that Antiochus and Severian intended to achieve leadership in the church of Constantinople through rhetorical success: The others acted because by using his sermons not to flatter the ears as they did, but rather to nourish souls, had completely deprived them of the opportunity to make money, and because, having resolved to say something earlier at the 6 As explained by W. MAYER, John Chrysostom: Deconstructing the Construction of an Exile, in Theologische Zeitschrift, 62 (2006), pp. 248-258; W. MAYER, Media Manipulation as a Tool in Religious Conflict: Controlling the Narrative Surrounding the Deposition of John Chrysostom, in W. MAYER – B. NEIL (eds), Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 121), Berlin, 2013, pp. 151-168; VAN NUFFELEN, Theophilus [see note 5]. 7 P. VAN NUFFELEN, Un héritage de paix et de piété: étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène (OLA, 142), Leuven – Dudley, Ma, 2004, pp. 20-37, 73-77; See also M. WALLRAFF, Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates: Untersuchungen zu Geschichtsdarstellung, Methode und Person (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte, 68), Göttingen, 1997, pp. 55-75. 8 Pseudo-Martyrius, Epitaphius, 45, 108; Palladius, Dialogue, 3, 50, 9, 74-75; Synod of the Oak, 3-5 (in MALINGREY, Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome [see note 5]). 9 Palladius, Dialogue, 9, 101.

BOUNDLESS AMBITION OR A FRIENDSHIP THAT WENT WRONG?

247

time of the famine and imagining that because of this they could control that church, they thought that now, once our father had been expelled, they would fully realize that unlawful and insane desire.10

Presumably, “famine” refers to the trip John made to Asia in the winter of 401/402 to settle the episcopal succession there.11 Antiochus and Severian are accused of both trying to make money out of oratory and seeking to take the position of John as the leader of the Constantinopolitan Church. Unsurprisingly, then, Pseudo-Martyrius attacks Severian on both accounts. It happened that someone, who had come here, had gathered a few things out of many, and was bishop of the smallest of all cities in Syria, watered the thirsty people with those small and many-fathered orations – to a thirsty person a small drop of not even clear water is already much.12 10 Pseudo-Martyrius, Epitaphius, 45: “οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι, ὅτι τε τοῖς λόγοις χρώμενος οὐκ εἰς τὸ θέλγειν ἀκοὰς ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοι, ἀλλ’εἰς τὸ τρέφειν ψυχάς, τῆς ἐμπορίας αὐτοῖς τὰς ἀφορμὰς παντελῶς περιῄρητο καὶ ὅτι, δόξαντές τι πρώην λαλεῖν ἐν τῷ τοῦ λιμοῦ καιρῷ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκείνης τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐμφαντασθέντες, ᾤοντο νῦν γοῦν, ἐκβληθέντος τοῦ πατρός, ἐπιτεύξεσθαι πάντως τῆς ἀθέσμου τε καὶ μανικῆς ἐπιθυμίας ἐκείνης. συνελθόντες οὖν οὗτοι βέλτιστον εἰργάσαντο ἅρμα μηχανορράφον καὶ ζεῦγος παρανομίας ταῖς τοῦ διαβόλου χερσὶν ἡνιοχούμενον” (BARNES – BEVAN (trans.), Funerary Speech [see note 4], p. 65. On the Epitaphius, see now J. BARRY, Diagnosing Heresy: Ps.-Martyrius’s Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 24 (2016), pp. 395-418. 11 BARNES – BEVAN, Funerary Speech [see note 4], p. 65; P. VAN NUFFELEN, A War of Words. Sermons and Social Status in Constantinople under the Theodosian Dynasty, in L. VAN HOOF – P. VAN NUFFELEN (eds), Literature and Society in the Fourth Century A.D. (Mnemosyne Supplements, 373), Leiden, 2014, pp. 201-217, p. 205 states that Antiochus and Severian preached during the tenure of Nectarius, John’s predecessor on the see of Constantinople. In fact, the only indication we have of the arrival of Severian (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 6, 11, 7) states that Severian arrived when John was already bishop. 12 Pseudo-Martyrius, Epitaphius, 17: “συνέβη τινὰ ἐκεῖσε ἐλθόντα, ὀλίγα ἐκ πολλῶν συνειληχότα, ὄντα τῆς ἐλαχιστοτάτης τῶν ἐν Συρίᾳ πόλεων ἐπίσκοπον, διψῶντα ποτίζειν τὸν λαὸν τοῖς μικροῖς ἐκείνοις καὶ πολυπάτορσι λόγοις—πολὺ δὲ τῷ διψῶντι τὸ μήτε διειδὲς ὕδωρ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ βραχύτατον. ἡ γοῦν μεγαλόφρων καὶ ταπεινόφρων ψυχὴ ἑκάτερον οὖσα ...”. The passage is a difficult one and has been translated differently by BARNES – BEVAN, Funerary Speech [see note 4] and WALLRAFF – RICCI, Oratio funebris [see note 4]. The following remarks aim at elucidating the text. (1) Given the reference to Syria, this passage must refer to Severian and not to Antiochus, whose see was in Phoenicia. (2) Both translations (WALLRAFF – RICCI, Oratio funebris [see note 4], p. 64; BARNES – BEVAN, Funerary Speech [see note 4], p. 48, followed by VAN NUFFELEN, War of Words [see note 11], p. 205) relate “διψῶντα” to “τινὰ”: Severian was someone who was “thirsting to make the people drink” and “ed era assetato di abbeverare la gente”. Willy Clarysse (correspondence of 8.11.2016) suggests that it is more logical to link “διψῶντα” to “τὸν λαὸν” and relate “ποτίζειν” directly to “συνέβη”, as I did in the translation above. This makes the structure of the sentence more natural and its meaning more accurate: Severian did not just intend to preach but indeed did preach to the people during the absence of John. (3) Clarysse also suggests that, contrary to the edition of WALLRAFF – RICCI (but in line with their translation), a new sentence should start with “ἡ γοῦν μεγαλόφρων...” (4) “ὀλίγα ἐκ πολλῶν συνειληχότα” is glossed by WALLRAFF – RICCI as “dopo aver messo insieme pochi discorsi dai molto”, by BARNES – BEVAN, as “to sum things up briefly”. Intercalated between two accusatives qualifying “τινὰ”, the latter proposition is very unlikely and presupposes moreover the wrong construction of “διψῶντα ποτίζειν τὸν λαὸν”. On the other hand, the gloss by WALLRAFF – RICCI would, strictly speaking, require “ὀλίγους [λόγους]”. The phrase can also

248

PETER VAN NUFFELEN

In contrast to John, so Pseudo-Martyrius suggests, Severian cannot be taken seriously as an orator: he produces brief sermons, rehashed from earlier work and full of borrowings from others. As Severian’s sermons do not bear these characteristics, Pseudo-Martyrius clearly seeks to demean his rhetorical qualities. The desire for power is reiterated in Pseudo-Martyrius’ account of John’s first exile, where John’s enemies are said to have tried to persuade him to acquiesce in the order of exile and “to retire, surrendering care of it to people who had no connection with it”.13 In an earlier paper, I have argued that Pseudo-Martyrius’ polemic is a negative interpretation of the nexus of rhetorical performance, social status, patronage, and material benefits that characterised Constantinople around 400. Crucially, John’s own success was tributary to the same mechanism. Pseudo-Martyrius therefore does not criticise the mechanism itself, but questions Severian’s qualities and motives, suggesting a desire to supplant John at the helm of the Church of Constantinople.14 Pseudo-Martyrius’ account of greed and ambition can, then, be understood as reflecting a situation of competition. Yet competition does not need to result in jealousy and acrimony, motives that are simply attributed to Severian because he was an enemy of John and were never really explained. This may have sufficed for a Johannite audience, but it is not very satisfactory to us. PseudoMartyrius also fails to explain precisely what Severian’s ambitions were. He did not become bishop of Constantinople, as the audience of Pseudo-Martyrius knew in 407, nor is there any hint he ever tried. It is, then, easy to see what produced the portrait of Severian in Pseudo-Martyrius, but much harder to figure out exactly how it related to reality. Crucially, however, the dual accusation of greed and ambition would colour most subsequent portraits of Severian, with one exception: the Dialogue of Palladius.

mean that Severian grasped just a few things and thus was not very learned. At any rate, we are dealing with a slur directed against Severian. (5) BARNES – BEVAN, Funerary Speech, [see note 4] p. 48 n. 55 understand “πολυπάτορσι” as meaning that Pseudo-Martyrius accuses Severian of producing orations that lack patristic authority. I fail to see how the adjective could mean precisely that; moreover the requirement that one’s ideas had to be backed up by earlier patristic citations postdates the time of John. In fact, the insult implies the opposite from what Barnes and Bevan allege: Severian was unoriginal in his preaching. For a parallel, see VAN NUFFELEN, War of Words [see note 11], p. 209. This criticism of Severian may hint at his use of the diatribe: K. H. UTHEMANN, Formen der Kommunikation in den Homilien Severians von Gabala, in IDEM, Christus, Kosmos, Diatribe. Themen der frühen Kirche als Beiträge zu einer historischen Theologie (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 93), Berlin, 2005, pp. 381-421. 13 Pseudo-Martyrius, Epitaphius, 87: “ὥστε ἑκόντα αὐτὸν ἀφέντα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἠρεμεῖν παραδόντα αὐτῆς τὴν φροντίδα τοῖς οὐδὲν προσήκουσι”. 14 VAN NUFFELEN, War of Words [see note 11].

BOUNDLESS AMBITION OR A FRIENDSHIP THAT WENT WRONG?

249

2. PALLADIUS Palladius has remarkably little to say on Severian. He enters the scene relatively early in the work, as one of the bishops writing to Innocent of Rome to accuse John of having put fire to the church of St Sophia. The accusation is immediately brushed aside as baseless, and Palladius thus introduces Severian as an inventor of baseless accusations. The Dialogue never gives a reason for Severian’s hostility: he is depicted as someone who was hostile from the very outset, a useful conduit for the anger of Acacius of Beroia, part of the group that called on Theophilus,15 and later one of the organisers of the synod of the Oak and the subsequent imperial condemnation.16 Once, Severian is said to have received the support of noble ladies, because John had demanded them to lead a simpler life,17 a fact that is confirmed by a later allusion to support by Olympias.18 It has been shown that the dialogue by Palladius is a highly strategic work: it takes up the accusations brought against John at the synod of the Oak and in later correspondence, yet avoids discussing most of them, focusing instead on only two (the reception of Egyptian Origenists and the ordinations in Asia).19 Seeking to build a case for the defence, the dialogue paints the protagonists of the events in black-and-white, but it does not address any more than Pseudo-Martyrius why Severian disliked John. As we know, Palladius is silent on many things and usually for strategic reasons: for example, a discussion of the accusation of Origenism brought against John would unavoidably bring up Palladius’ own Origenist sympathies. If the report of Socrates, that the conflict between Severian and John started in relation to the deacon Sarapion and culminated in an accusation of heresy brought against Severian,20 reflects an accurate tradition, we can suggest reasons why Palladius did not mention the causes of the hostility between Severian and John: the disrespectful behaviour of Sarapion did not fit well the uniformly positive picture that Palladius paints of John and his followers, and the accusation of heresy brought against Severian might invite the retort that John too had defended heretical views.21 Yet, as we shall see presently, we cannot be sure that Socrates reports a correct version of the events.

15

Palladius, Dialogue, 6, 8-19. Palladius, Dialogue, 9, 73-87; 101; 166-170; 10, 19-27; 11, 75-78; 16, 95-109. 17 Palladius, Dialogue, 8, 76-90. 18 Palladius, Dialogue, 17, 201-205. 19 See the works cited in note 5. 20 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 6, 11. 21 See VAN NUFFELEN, Theophilus [see note 5] for the importance of accusations of Origenism in John’s condemnation. 16

250

PETER VAN NUFFELEN

3. SOCRATES

OF

CONSTANTINOPLE

Socrates is our most important source for the relations between Severian and John.22 He was associated with the anti-Johannite successors of John Chrysostom and hence offers an account of his tenure that does not fail to highlight mistakes on the part of the bishop. At the same time, Socrates is writing after the final rehabilitation of John in 438 and is hence also indebted to the positive traditions that circulated about him. His account of Severian, then, apportions blame to all parties. It is not only his critical perspective that makes Socrates unique: we also have two versions of his chapter on Severian. The chapter opens with an ambiguous characterisation of Severian. Socrates underlines his rhetorical talent and that of Antiochus, and notes that Severian “seemed to be well educated,”23 but then adds that he never seemed to have lost his Syrian pronunciation. Moreover, his motivation to come to Constantinople is anything but noble: having seen the profit that Antiochus derived from delivering sermons, he hoped to do the same and arrived in Constantinople with a pile of sermons in his luggage. Actively seeking the favour of John, even flattering him, he was appreciated by John and the secular elite. In a milder way, we encounter here the double accusation of greed and lust for power already present in Pseudo-Martyrius. Except for the rhetorical talent, there is little positive in this image – and even that talent is qualified. In this way, the scene is set for the rupture between both characters. At this point, the history of Socrates offers two accounts, a longer (A) and a briefer one (B). The short version clearly is by Socrates himself, but the nature of version A is disputed. M. Wallraff has proposed that it represents the source of Socrates, found by a scribe and inserted into the manuscript. It is, however, also possible that a Johannite scribe reworked the chapter to bring it in line with Johannite sensibilities. Whatever origin one prefers for version A, it is clear that it is strongly pro-Johannite.24 22

Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 6, 11 and the works cited in note 11. Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 6, 11, 3: “δοκῶν πεπαιδεῦσθαι”. 24 I call version A the left-hand column (G. C. HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus. Historia ecclesiastica [GCS, N.F., 1], Berlin, 1995, pp. 329-333) and version B the right-hand column (HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus, pp. 329-331), as does P. MARAVAL, Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres IV-VI (SC, 455), Paris, 2006, pp. 306-315. WALLRAFF, Sokrates [see note 7], p. 65 n. 185 corrects the reconstruction of HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus, pp. lviii-lix, arguing that for the first three paragraphs of the double version (6, 1, 9-11) Hansen has mistakenly printed version A as version B and vice versa. Wallraff bases his argument on the manuscript tradition, but it is confirmed by the characterisation of John in the text: in version A as printed by Hansen, John is the cause of the riot in Ephesus, in version B the conflict predates John’s arrival and he solves it. This would be the only positive characterisation of John in version B, whilst Socrates is otherwise critical or at least ambivalent towards John. MARAVAL, Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire ecclésiastique, pp. 306-313 fails to take into account Wallraff’s argument and prints the text as found in Hansen. He moreover has confused the sigla of Hansen’s apparatus and 23

BOUNDLESS AMBITION OR A FRIENDSHIP THAT WENT WRONG?

251

In A, John leaves for Ephesus to arrange the succession there. In his absence, Severian becomes very popular – a fact that is brought to the attention of John by Sarapion, his deacon and locum tenens. At John’s return, Severian and Sarapion become jealous of one another: Sarapion because he suspects Severian of wishing to outclass his bishop in oratorical success, Severian because John likes Sarapion and has entrusted the practical running of the episcopacy to him. Then the conflict escalates: one day Sarapion refuses to rise when Severian enters, as befits a deacon when a bishop enters, or, as Sarapion claims, he did not rise because he had not seen Severian. The latter then calls an assembly of bishops and deposes and excommunicates Sarapion, thus angering John. There is much that is mysterious here, not at least the possibility of Severian calling John’s deacon to an ecclesiastical tribunal, in the city of John, and with John present in the city, but apparently without John knowing about it. Even accepting the flexibility in legal matters typical for Antiquity, such a proceeding still would constitute a serious trespass into John’s field of competence. As if one puzzle is not enough, the narrative then simply proceeds with the account of a second assembly, this time with John present. It asks Severian to accept Sarapion again after an apology and John even proposes to depose him for a week. erroneously talks (p. 306 n. 2) about a Georgian version that would preserve the double version, whereas Hansen refers to the life of John by George of Alexandria (BHG, 873). WALLRAFF, Sokrates [see note 7], p. 66 n. 186 convincingly argues that version B is the one by Socrates (though Wallraff’s account requires one minor nuance regarding the linguistic arguments: “μικροψυχία” [6, 11, 14] indeed only occurs in Version A but “μικροψυχήσαντες” is used by Socrates elsewhere [5, 23, 10]). Wallraff is also right in rejecting the earlier explanation for the presence of this double version, whereby it would be a trace of an earlier version by Socrates himself (HANSEN, Socrates Scholasticus, p. lix, with reference to earlier literature). Indeed, version A does not fit the characterisation of John in Socrates at all. Yet, his own proposal, that a later scribe found the source used by Socrates (version A) and inserted it into the manuscript, does not work for the entire chapter. Indeed, versions A and B only have verbal parallels until 6, 11, 17 (version A) and 6, 11, 15 (version B), and both versions give irreconcilable information about what happened after the deacon Sarapion refused to stand up for Severian. If version A was the source of Socrates, we need to accept that he either used an additional source or made up his own particular version of the conflict between Sarapion and Severian. There is an alternative solution: Version A is a pro-Johannite reworking of version B, a reworking that relies on a different tradition regarding the conflict between Sarapion and Severian. A possible explanation for why only this chapter was reworked could be that it is the only one in Socrates that bears on a conflict in the church of Constantinople and one that reflects moreover negatively on the personnel of John. This could be an explanation for why a Johannite member of the clergy thought it useful to rework this particular chapter. At present, I see no way to decide between Wallraff’s solution and mine, except that one can find parallels for the reworking of existing texts on the basis of new sources and different views: e.g. the rewriting of and additions to Eusebius’ church history in Rufinus’ tradition (M. HUMPHRIES, Rufinus’s Eusebius: Translation, Continuation, and Edition in the Latin Ecclesiastical History, in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 16 [2008], pp. 143-164); the various versions of the Anonymus Valesianus I (I. KONIG, Aus der Zeit Theoderichs des Grossen: Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar einer anonymen Quelle [Texte zur Forschung, 69], Darmstadt, 1997, pp. 1-14); or more hypothetically, the various versions of Malalas (P. VAN NUFFELEN, John of Antioch, Inflated and Deflated: Or How [Not] to Collect Fragments of Early Byzantine Historians, in Byz, 82 [2012], pp. 437-450).

252

PETER VAN NUFFELEN

At the refusal of Severian, John leaves, apparently refusing to choose between his deacon and Severian. The assembly then suspends judgement but blames Severian for not accepting John’s offer of compromise. John breaks with Severian and asks him to leave for Gabala. Version A is clearly written from a pro-Johannite perspective, for it connects with various themes one finds in Johannite writings. The reasons for the conflict with Sarapion are the dual accusation of rhetorical competition and ambition we first encountered in Pseudo-Martyrius. The apparent insult of Severian recalls the reason given by Palladius for Acacius of Beroia becoming hostile to John: he felt slighted because no proper housing was offered to him at his arrival in Constantinople. Just like Severian, Acacius immediately started to plot against John.25 More speculatively, the questionable nature of the first assembly may well be designed to recall the Johannite representation of the Synod of the Oak which condemned John and which was decried for lack of respect for procedure – procedure that was obviously upheld by John himself. Indeed, Palladius has the supporters of John respond to the summons of the Synod of the Oak with explicit reference to canon 5 of Nicea, stipulating that a bishop should not occupy himself with matters outside his diocese.26 Severian’s condemnation of Sarapion would fall foul of the same canon. Version A, then, picks up many pro-Johannite themes and may be understood as reflecting the Johannite idea that the enemies of John trampled on proper legal procedure. It would, then, have originated at the earliest after the synod of the Oak. In the much briefer version B, by Socrates himself, blame is shifted to John and Sarapion: John becomes jealous of the success of Severian and the arrogance of Sarapion is highlighted. B then adds an original element: at Sarapion’s refusal to stand up, Severian is said to have exclaimed “If Sarapion dies a Christian, Christ has not become man”.27 Sarapion reported this to John leaving out the conditional, effectively accusing Severian of heresy. At this, John chases Severian from the city. In this version, the disciplinary matter and the two assemblies have disappeared and the issue has become one of heresy. In addition, both versions differ in the attribution of agency: in version A it is Severian who is slighted and refuses to accept the compromise offered by John; in B it is Sarapion who accuses Severian of heresy. The emphasis on the arrogance of Sarapion recalls an accusation brought against John by Severian later in the history, that John deserved his deposition for his arrogance alone28 – a 25

Palladius, Dialogue, 6, 8-14. John Chrysostom, Letter to Innocent, 47-52 (MALINGREY, Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome [see note 4]); Pseudo-Martyrius, Epitaphius, 56; Palladius, Dialogue, 8, 167-186. The same argument was used earlier by Theophilus: Palladius, Dialogue, 7, 129-136. 27 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 6, 11, 16: “Εἰ Σαραπίων Χριστιανὸς ἀποθάνοι, Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐνηνθρώπησεν”. 28 Socrates, Ecclesiastical history, 6, 16, 4. 26

BOUNDLESS AMBITION OR A FRIENDSHIP THAT WENT WRONG?

253

feature of John’s character that is already present in the portrait Socrates paints of John in 6.3.14. Socrates had knowledge of a different version of the conflict between Sarapion and Severian, one that emphasised an accusation of heresy brought against Severian. It was a version that was used by Socrates to shift blame away from Severian: he still appears as impetuous, but Sarapion’s distortion of the truth is responsible for Severian’s dismissal by John. As such, it fits well the tendency of Socrates’ view of John and Severian: both have their vices, but in this particular instance Sarapion is to blame. At the same time, the accusation of heresy directed at Severian interestingly resonates with one of the five accusations against John actually withheld at the Synod of the Oak, namely, that the prayer of Christ was not heard because he had prayed wrongly.29 It is possible that Socrates’ version also originated in a pro-Johannite context as a tit-for-tat for the accusation of heresy levelled against John and was then adopted and adapted by Socrates. The different versions stop here. In the rest of the chapter, Severian and John are only reconciled by the intervention of Eudoxia, who has Severian recalled from Chalcedon and who puts her own son on the knees of John.30 In public they were then reconciled, but the damage was done. The reconciliation was a high profile event, for we still have the sermons preached by John and Severian at the occasion. Sozomen, finally, who is much more in favour of John, copies mostly Socrates’ account, of which he only knew version B, but he changes some details.31 He states that John had appointed Severian as his locum tenens during his trip to Asia. This may be a misinterpretation of Socrates or he may have thought it odd that a deacon would perform the role of a bishop during the latter’s absence. Sozomen accepts the negative portrayal of Sarapion in Socrates, but he emphasises much more the unacceptable nature of Severian’s remark, having John condemn both the full and the truncated version. There is no need to suppose Sozomen had additional sources for this: he clearly only rewrites Socrates. The two versions found in Socrates project a different image of the relationship between John and Severian, for they include a period of friendship between both instead of the immediate conflict in Pseudo-Martyrius and Palladius. They agree that Sarapion was the cause of the conflict, but they disagree about what exactly was at stake and how it was handled. The conflict ended with Severian being sent home and a forced reconciliation. 29 Synod of the Oak, ll. 99-102, 119. See Facundus of Hermiane, Defence of the Three Chapters, 6, 5, 19 = Theophilus, Libellus against John, F2 (VAN NUFFELEN, Theophilus [see note 5], pp. 146-150). 30 On Eudoxia, see W. MAYER, Doing Violence to the Image of an Empress. The Destruction of Eudoxia’s Reputation, in H. DRAKE (ed.), Violence in Late Antiquity, Aldershot, 2006, pp. 205213, with VAN NUFFELEN, Palladius [see note 5], p. 3. 31 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 8, 10.

254

PETER VAN NUFFELEN

Two pieces of contemporary evidence confirm that there was a conflict about Sarapion and that Severian was sent away, but they do not offer additional detail.32 First, we have the sermons preached by John Chrysostom and Severian when they were reconciled. Two features are relevant here. John alludes to popular disturbances,33 which could imply that Severian too had a popular following.34 Severian concludes his sermon with a reference to the story of Acts 15.37-40, describing the conflict between Paul and Barnabas concerning John Mark.35 Paul thought it better not take him with him, as John Mark had withdrawn (ἀποστάντα) from them in Pamphylia. In the end, Paul takes Silas and Barnabas John Mark. Severian does not miss the chance to assimilate himself with Paul and John with the lesser Barnabas. Depending on how far one wishes to push the comparison, Severian could imply that Sarapion, alias John Mark, had indeed been suspended from communion, which would concur somewhat better with version A than with version B in Socrates.36 Second, Palladius mentions that the summons to the synod of the Oak regarded John and his presbyters Tigrius and Sarapion.37 The account of the synod indeed lists as one of the accusations brought against John by a deacon, also named John, that John Chrysostom had ordained Sarapion a priest when the latter was under accusation. When this ordination took place is uncertain (after winter 401/402,38 and before September 403): it could have been before or after the official reconciliation in the autumn of 402. At any rate, it concords with version A in that there too the case of Sarapion has not received final judgement yet. In version B, there is no such uncertainty regarding the position of Sarapion, as he has never been subject to trial. What the precise meaning was of the ordination of Sarapion, is another matter. J. Kelly suggests this may 32

See the chapter by Bishop, who argues that we have traces of the tension between Severian and John in some sermons of Severian. 33 John Chrysostom, De recipiendo Severiano (PG, 52, col. 423, l. 6). See also Severian, De pace, 16, 19-22; 17, 13-15; 18, 9-14 (in A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias [Ανάλεκτα Ιεροσολυμιτικής Σταχυολογίας], vol. 1, Petroupolis, 1891). 34 This may be linked to the accusation at the Synod of the Oak (ll. 25-26) that John incited the decani (grave-diggers?) against Severian. There clearly was a conflict not just between John and Severian but also between Severian and the clergy loyal to John. Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 6, 16, 4 and Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 8, 18, 3 have Severian address the rioting crowds after John’s condemnation at the Synod of the Oak. They knew or thought that Severian would dare to address such crowds. 35 Severian, De pace, p. 24 (in A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Analecta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias); Cf. J. ZELLINGER, Studien zu Severian von Gabala, Münster, 1909, pp. 48-52; KELLY, Golden Mouth [see note 1], pp. 187-188; TIERSCH, Johannes [see note 2], pp. 223-224. 36 See the chapter by Mayer for further analysis of these sermons. 37 Palladius, Dialogue, 8, 159; cf. Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 8, 17, 7. 38 For the date of John’s trip to Asia, see A. CAMERON – J. LONG – L. F. SHERRY, Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 19), Berkeley, 1993, pp. 405-408; TIERSCH, Johannes [see note 2], p. 318. The older date of a return of John by Easter 401, is sometimes still cited: e.g. KECKSEMETI, Une rhétorique au service de l’antijudaïsme [see note 3], p. 134.

BOUNDLESS AMBITION OR A FRIENDSHIP THAT WENT WRONG?

255

have been a concession by John, who effectively removed his right-hand man,39 but it could also be interpreted as a swipe at Severian, since presbyter was a higher ordination than deacon. Whatever the meaning of the ordination, it clearly happened with the accusation still standing. These two pieces of contemporary evidence, then, suggest that there was a problem with the status of Sarapion (Was he excommunicated? Was his ordination to presbyter proper?). Recognition of this problem lends credence to version A, as version B only mentions steps being taken against Severian and not against Sarapion. Probably Socrates emphasised that John only acted against Severian in order to demonstrate the partiality of John in dealing with Sarapion. This does not mean, however, that we should accept version A as it stands, for the questions about the procedure remain. Clearly version A constructs the various proceedings against Sarapion in such a way so as to shift blame to Severian. The fact that there was, apparently, a real problem with Sarapion may help to explain better the silences of Pseudo-Martyrius and Palladius. Palladius mentions Sarapion as a victim of the persecution after John’s deposition,40 whereas Pseudo-Martyrius is completely silent. Silence is not an admission of guilt, but given the public prominence of the reconciliation between Severian and John, it is remarkable. Whatever version one believes, A or B, in both cases the Sarapion-episode recalled not only that Severian and John had been friends but it also risked shedding negative light on John’s closest collaborator and, by association, John himself. 4. CONCLUSIONS Ultimately, then, we have only pro-Johannite versions of the conflict between John and Severian. The earliest two, Pseudo-Martyrius and Palladius, are content to disparage Severian as an enemy of John, without going into much detail and effectively obscuring the initial friendship. Pseudo-Martyrius’ attacks on his greed and ambition set the tone for the later portrait of Severian as found in Socrates. Version A of Socrates is undoubtedly of Johannite origin, whereas Socrates himself in version B relies on another story, which may well be Johannite too. All sources paint a negative portrait of Severian. Even Socrates, who disliked John, did not deem Severian fit to be properly defended, contrary to his laudatory portrayals of the immediate successors of John, Arsacius and Atticus.41 One reason could be that, contrary to Arsacius and Atticus, Severian 39 KELLY, Golden Mouth [see note 1], p. 190. He suggests that the deacon John, who was the prime accuser at the Synod of the Oak, was Sarapion’s replacement, but there is no evidence to support such a claim (cf. Palladius, Dialogue, 8, 63-68). 40 Palladius, Dialogue, 20, 44. 41 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 6, 19-20 and 7, 1-22.

256

PETER VAN NUFFELEN

was not a member of the clergy of Constantinople and had left Constantinople in 403. At the same time, a corpus of Severian’s homilies seems to have been composed and to have soon circulated in Constantinople, suggesting that there still was a group of people who cared about his texts.42 These, however, have not left their version of the events to us. All the material can be reduced to two basic story-lines. In the first, Severian seeks to beat John on his home turf and in his own game, preaching, out of greed and ambition. This representation recognises the fact that Severian was indeed a high-profile preacher in Constantinople,43 but by attacking Severian’s motives and the quality of his sermons, it clearly seeks to emphasise John’s unique status as a preacher, an important topic in pro-Johannite sources.44 As we have it, the story is not without its problems. It is doubtful that Severian could reasonably have hoped to succeed John, for Severian was already a bishop. Even if translationes were not unheard of (despite being contrary to canon law), one of the reasons for local dissatisfaction with John was that he was an Antiochene import.45 That the accusation of ambition was a topos may be most evident in Pseudo-Martyrius levelling it against Antiochus of Ptolemaïs too. Most importantly, the idea of a fundamental incompatibility between John and Severian is contradicted by the second story line, which emphasises initial good relations – a fact that is confirmed by John’s inviting Severian to preach in his presence.46 The versions offered by Socrates represent the second story-line. In them, the initial cordial relationship is thwarted by the Sarapion affair. It is certain something happened even if we cannot know precisely what. Version A seems construed with the aim of mirroring the warped procedure ascribed to the Synod of the Oak, whereas version B anticipates later accusations of heresy brought against John. We know that there was a Sarapion affair and that it may have spilled out onto the streets, but the anachronistic colouring of the event by Socrates renders it dangerous to presume that either version accurately reflects reality. Both versions reflect negatively on Severian, whom, as I have noted above, none of our sources felt obliged to defend. With such sources, any reconstruction can only be tentative. Let me risk a version of my own, which seeks to avoid the obvious mud-slinging that 42 S. J. VOICU, Roma e l’ultimo manoscritto del corpus omiletico di Severiano di Gabala, in C. CARBONETTI – S. LUCA – M. SIGNORINI (eds), Roma e il suo territorio nel medioevo. Le fonti scritte fra tradizione e innovazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio dell’Associazione italiana dei Paleografi e Diplomatisti (Roma, 25-29 settembre 2012) (Studi e ricerche, 6), Spoleto, 2015, pp. 73-87; S. J. VOICU, Il florilegio De communi essentia (CPG 2240) Severiano di Gabala e altri Padri, in SE, 55 (2016), pp. 129-155. 43 Cf. R. E. CARTER, The Chronology of Twenty Homilies of Severian of Gabala, in Traditio, 55 (2000), pp. 1-17. 44 Cf. Pseudo-Martyrius, Epitaphius, 17-18. 45 Cf. P. VAN NUFFELEN, Episcopal Succession in Constantinople (381-450 C.E.): The Local Dynamics of Power, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 18 (2010), pp. 425-451. 46 Cf. ZELLINGER, Studien zu Severian von Gabala [see note 35], p. 94.

BOUNDLESS AMBITION OR A FRIENDSHIP THAT WENT WRONG?

257

characterises our sources. Preachers in Constantinople clearly found themselves in a competitive context, in which success in preaching could result in material rewards and patronage. This does not mean that I extend the accusations brought against Severian in the first story-line to John too, as if both were driven by greed.47 Rather, popular success could be a means to channel resources to the places and persons that needed it in the eye of the preacher. Obviously, competition can cause conflict. Yet, as the initially good relationship between John and Severian shows, competition does not necessarily entail conflict. For conflict to arise, other factors must come into play. The second story-line singles out John’s trip to Ephesus in winter and spring 401/402 as the moment the crisis began. In fact, 401 was the year the problems started for John, with the arrival of the Long Brothers causing the hostility of Theophilus and Epiphanius. John’s decision to consecrate one of his deacons, Heraclidas, as new bishop of Ephesus was also controversial, being a forthright claim to supreme authority in Asia Minor. After his return, conflicts with Severian and Eudoxia arose – a series of tensions leading to the Synod of the Oak in September 403. From 401 onwards, then, John was under pressure regarding his relations with other churches. During his absence, Severian indeed seems to have occupied the role as first preacher in Constantinople, as he baptised the emperor Theodosius II at Epiphany 402, in the absence of John.48 John may have had the feeling that, at the time he needed all the authority he could muster, he was also losing his home base. In the context of a Church that started to split between those liking and those disliking John, any doubt about his preeminence could be dangerous. One may even speculate that Severian may have become the public rallying point for those dissatisfied with John, as none of the presbyters who succeeded him, Arsacius and Atticus, had much rhetorical talent. As his support for Sarapion and Heraclidas shows, John was loyal to his own people and may have responded to this perceived threat not by reaching out but by caving in. The competition with Severian may have been unproblematic in normal circumstances, but was too much to bear in a context of mounting pressure. It was time to send Severian home, with the clear aim of starving his brilliant career to death. Yet the intervention of Eudoxia forced John into an uneasy compromise that allowed Severian to preach again in Constantinople. It was one of the many open wounds that continued festering until September 403.49

See VAN NUFFELEN, War of Words [see note 11]. CARTER, Chronology [see note 42], pp. 2-3 with T. D. BARNES, The Baptism of Theodosius II, in Studia Patristica, 19 (1989), pp. 8-12. 49 The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement n. 313153. I thank R. Bishop and the reviewers for their helpful comments on this paper. 47 48

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA Sever J. VOICU

A century ago, in 1916, Johannes Zellinger [1]1 inaugurated the systematic research on the homilies of Severian of Gabala. His book was preceded by a number of studies and editions summarized in Appendix 1, which – except for a first, rather clumsy attempt by Ellies Dupin [59] – were unsystematic. Modern investigations have followed an uneven, sometimes tortuous path with dead ends and recantations, operating in a very peculiar context: in the Greek direct tradition Severian’s authentic homilies often survive exclusively under John Chrysostom’s name.2 Nevertheless, the current result is largely satisfactory: Severian’s homiletical corpus now comprises – in my opinion – 62 complete texts (#1-62), plus several fragments (# 63-67), as listed in Appendix 2.3 This overview will introduce in chronological order the bibliographical entries that have significantly contributed to the current situation. It not only focuses on discussions concerning authenticity and text editions but also summarizes a large amount of secondary literature. The exposition is divided into seven subsections, each of which marks important changes in approach. 1. 1916-1935: FROM ZELLINGER TO MARTIN During this early phase, scholars first and foremost explored the direct and indirect tradition of Severian’s homilies, with occasional editions of new texts and some unsystematic attempts to describe his style. 1 The numbers within square brackets refer to the bibliographical items discussed in this paper. The numbers in parentheses (# x) refer to the list of the authentic homilies in Appendix 2. Other patristic texts are identified by their CPG numbers. I am deeply indebted to Katherin Papadopoulos, Johan Leemans and an anonymous reader for patiently reading a draft of this article, correcting my prose, pointing to a number of mistakes and raising significant questions. Remaining shortcomings are mine. 2 Conversely, some manuscript attributions to Severian – in Greek and other languages – are unreliable. See e.g. VOICU, Il nome cancellato [43]. 3 A number of fragments appear under Severian’s name (CPG 4219) in the catenae on the Pauline Corpus. However, it is only fair to leave them aside for two reasons: as has been underlined by ALTENDORF, Untersuchungen [13], their edition is defective; see K. STAAB, Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, 15), Münster i. W., 1933 [1984], pp. 213-351. In addition, the authenticity of these quotations has not been established, some of them being obviously spurious.

260

SEVER J. VOICU

[1] In 1916 Zellinger devoted his first book mainly to the six homilies of De mundi creatione (# 10-15) and their direct and indirect tradition.4 In addition, he defended the authenticity of Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (# 50)5 and In filium prodigum (# 25). In the same book, Zellinger also published a German translation by Georg Graf of a small portion of a homily transmitted in Arabic – in poor condition – under Severian’s name. Hans Dietrich Altendorf [13] would later recognise it as a fragment from the authentic homily In Noe et filios eius (# 39).6 [2] In 1917, in the wake of Zellinger’s book, Wilhelm Dürks published his Inauguraldissertation – now a fairly rare booklet.7 Dürks began with a thorough overview of both the direct and indirect tradition in several languages. He admitted the eight Greek homilies considered authentic by Zellinger and defended the authenticity of De serpente (# 16),8 In qua potestate (# 9), De sigillis sermo (# 31), In pretiosam et uiuificam crucem (# 51), In illud: Pater, transeat (# 47) and De incarnatione (# 54). After a section devoted to Severian’s style, Dürks listed further homilies he judged authentic based on a variety of criteria: In illud: Pone manum tuam (# 52), Contra Iudaeos, in serpentem aeneum (# 30), In theophaniam (# 34), De pace (# 48), In Psalmum 96 (# 6), and five homilies (# 55-59) published by Aucher in 1827 [62]. Dürks’ work has two shortcomings. He rated the homily De fide (CPG 3531.3) – number 1 in Aucher’s edition – as authentic, while it belongs to Eusebius of Emesa. Even more disappointing is his defense of In natale Domini nostri Iesu Christi (CPG 4657), since Dürks’s stance is the starting point of a long and fruitless discussion about its authenticity.9 In sum, 24 attributions are correct, two are false. J. ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien des Bischofs Severian von Gabala (Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen, 7[1]), Münster i. W., 1916. His research showed that many catena fragments from De mundi creatione were attributed to other authors, mainly to Serapion of Thmuis (pp. 30-37). See also their critical edition by Françoise PETIT, La chaîne sur la Genèse (quoted under # 64). 5 Unsurprisingly, this homily is transmitted only under John Chrysostom’s name in the direct tradition, but some quotations and at least one catena fragment attribute it to Antiochus of Ptolemais. Sebastian HAIDACHER, Pseudo-Chrysostomus: Die Homilie des Antiochus [67] defended Antiochus’ authorship, but some quotations by Victor of Capua and the contents of the homily conclusively proof Severian’s authorship. 6 A strange accident happened to the Greek quotation used by Altendorf. In the manuscript used by Dyovuniotis [69] its title is transmitted after the text. That is why the homily was listed under two different numbers in CPG: 4217 and 4232. In the CPG Supplementum 4217 has been suppressed and 4220 has been assigned to an authentic fragment from a homily, the title of which is lost (Homilia sine titulo: # 63). 7 G. DÜRKS, De Severiano Gabalitano, Kiloniae, 1917. 8 The attribution is correct, but its foundation is shaky, since the fragment quoted by John Damascene is taken from the spurious In dedicationem pretiosae et uiuificae crucis (CPG 4270), which is in fact – among other things – a reworking of De serpente. 9 We cannot retrace here the long discussion about this homily. Suffice to say that it quotes the Proteuangelium Iacobi, an apocryphon never used by Severian, and unheard of among the 4

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

261

In addition, Dürks mentioned eight unpublished homilies transmitted in Armenian. Five (# 1, 27, 32 and 60-61) would be published by Akinian in 1956-1959 [14]; one is spurious; nothing is known about the other two. [3] In 1922 Dürks drew attention to the mysterious Armenian fragment In matrem filiorum Zebedaei (# 66) that had been wrongly attributed to Irenaeus, summarizing the evidence in order to prove that it belongs to Severian.10 [4] Zellinger’s second book, published in 1926, is a turning point of sorts, since it endorses the genuineness of 13 additional homilies,11 namely In illud: Pater, transeat (# 47), In illud: In qua potestate (# 9), De serpente (# 16), De sigillis sermo (# 31), In illud: In principio erat uerbum (# 32), In illud: Pone manum tuam (# 52), De pace (# 48), In pretiosam et uiuificam crucem (# 51), Contra Iudaeos, in serpentem aeneum (# 30), In Psalmum 96 (# 6), De legislatore (# 8), In incarnationem Domini (# 49) and De Christo pastore et oue (# 68). Zellinger described the Armenian homilies published by Aucher [62], whilst also exploring other Oriental traditions and publishing a German translation by Sebastian Euringer of a homily attributed to Severian in the Ethiopian Qērellos (i.e. an Ethiopian recension of the proceedings of the Council of Ephesus of 431.12 Zellinger also collected an impressive number of references to fragments and published, on the basis of a fragmentary copy, the final part of In illud: Pater, transeat (# 47), as well as two spuria: In dedicationem pretiosae et uiuificae crucis (CPG 4270) and In proditionem Iudae. The latter belongs to the mysterious collection of Pseudo-Eusebius of Alexandria (CPG 5523).13 [5] In 1929 Joseph Lebon published an analysis of the Greek sources quoted by the Armenian florilegium “Seal of Faith” [Կնիք հաւատոյ Knikʻ hawatoy], showing that the fragments from Severian depend on an early form of the Armenian collection published by Aucher in 1827 [62].14

Antiochene authors; see S. J. VOICU, Note sull’omelia pseudocrisostomica In natale Domini nostri Iesu Christi (CPG 4567) [read 4657!], in Mémorial Dom Jean Gribomont (1920-1986) (Studia ephemeridis “Augustinianum”, 27), Roma, 1988, pp. 621-626. Moreover, its attribution to Severian stems from a problem in the transmission or even the redaction of Theodoret’s Eranistes; see VOICU, Il nome cancellato [43]. 10 G. DÜRKS, Eine fälschlich dem Irenäus zugeschriebene Predigt des Bischofs Severian von Gabala, in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 21 (1922), pp. 64-69. See also VOICU, Il florilegio [52] and L’Encomium [50]. 11 J. ZELLINGER, Studien zu Severian von Gabala (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 8), Münster i. W., 1926. 12 In 1927 Charles Martin identified it with the homily De fide (CPG 4206). See Jean Simon’s review of Zellinger’s book in AB, 45 (1927), pp. 382-384. In any case, De fide is spurious; see VOICU, L’omelia “In lotionem pedum” [36]. 13 See R. GOUNELLE, Les éditions de la Collectio sermonum d’Eusèbe d’Alexandrie, in AB, 127 (2009), pp. 249-272. 14 J. LEBON, Les citations patristiques grecques du “Sceau de la foi”, in RHE, 25 (1929), pp. 5-32. See also LEHMANN, Severian of Gabala: Fragments [29].

262

SEVER J. VOICU

[6] In 1930 Charles Martin showed that the homily De paenitentia et compunctione (# 2) is attributed to Severian in several exegetical catenae.15 Martin also issued a “golden rule”: “…a homily transmitted by a double tradition, namely by both Chrysostom and another, less-known author, has to be considered – unless the opposite is proved – to belong to the latter author”.16 It is a common sense statement, but often the restrictive clause “unless the opposite is proved” has been overlooked and some scholars have engaged in sterile discussions about works wrongly attributed to Severian in the manuscript tradition. [7] In 1932 Ferdinand Cavallera showed that De fide et lege naturae (# 1) is attributed to Severian by a Catena on Acts (CPG C 150).17 [8] 1935 Martin published the initial part of the homily In illud: Pater, transeat (# 47),18 completing Zellinger’s previous partial edition of the final part [4]. 2. 1939-1953: FROM MARX TO GARITTE During this research phase, several editions of more authentic fragments were published. Equally important for the future of research on Severian was Marx’s contention that it is possible to use Severian’s style as a tool to recognize his authentic homilies. [9] In 1939 Benedikt Marx began a series of investigations devoted to patristic homilies. His method reminds of Dupin’s ill-fated attempt to detect Severian’s authentic works on the basis of style [59]. Even if the assumption is correct, its implementation was uneven, since Marx underestimated the complexity of the authenticity analysis and often relied on mere impressions. Whereas his 1940 volume devoted to Proclus is an unmitigated disaster,19 and his 1941 article on Basil of Seleucia has several shortcomings,20 his 1939 paper on Severian fares notably better:21 of his 12 proposals, 10 are now deemed authentic: In ascensionem D.n.I.C. (# 3), De Spiritu sancto (# 4), De caeco 15 Ch. MARTIN, Une homélie De poenitentia de Sévérien de Gabala, in RHE, 26 (1930), pp. 331-343. The catenae are CPG C 2 (Octateuch), C 150 (Acts of the Apostles) and C 176 (Catholic Letters). 16 “Aussi faut-il considérer comme une règle solide de la critique qu’une homélie transmise par une double tradition: l’une chrysostomienne, l’autre d’un auteur moins connu, doit être considérée, jusqu’à preuve du contraire, comme appartenant au second” (p. 338). 17 F. CAVALLERA, Une nouvelle homélie restituée à Sévérien de Gabala, in Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, 33 (1932), pp. 141-142. 18 Ch. MARTIN, Note sur l’homélie de Sévérien de Gabala in illud: Pater, transeat a me calix iste (Mt. 26,39), in Mus, 48 (1935), pp. 311-321. 19 B. MARX, Procliana. Untersuchung über den homiletischen Nachlaß des Patriarchen Proklos von Konstantinopel (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 23), Münster, 1940. 20 B. MARX, Der homiletische Nachlass des Basileios von Seleukia, in OCP, 7 (1941), pp. 329-369. 21 B. MARX, Severiana unter den spuria Chrysostomi bei Montfaucon-Migne, in OCP, 5 (1939), pp. 281-367.

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

263

nato (# 23), De caeco et Zacchaeo (# 24), In illud: Quomodo scit litteras (# 26), In Chananaeam et Pharaonem (# 27), In illud: Non quod uolo facio (# 28), In proditionem seruatoris (# 28), In Psalmum 95 (# 7), and De sacrificiis Caini (# 41). His two mistaken attributions are De paenitentia (CPG 4614) and In Iordanem fluuium (CPG 4648). [10] In 1948 Cyril Moss published a Christmas homily transmitted in Syriac with no known Greek counterpart (CPG 4260).22 Using a quotation by John Maro, Michael Breydy later showed that the text had undergone some revisions.23 However, since this homily shows no decisive parallels with the authentic corpus, it seems wiser to class it among the spuria until a detailed analysis can settle the issue. [11] In 1952 Antoine Wenger published – amidst a number of historical notes – one page from a Sinai manuscript that supplements the end of the homily In theophaniam (# 34).24 [12] In 1953, Gérard Garitte published a Georgian version of the homily In illud: Pater, transeat (# 47). It is a shortened texts that depends on the Armenian translation published by Aucher [62].25 This is the first instance of the rich textual contribution of the Georgian versions to Severian-research. 3. 1957-1982: FROM ALTENDORF TO LEHMANN Several new texts and ancient translations were published and/or identified during this period, with Armenian showing again its relevance as a source of authentic homilies. [13] In 1957 major progress was made by Hans Dietrich Altendorf’s unpublished dissertation.26 He considered 45 homilies authentic, and the only questionable items are the Christmas homily published by Moss [10] and De fide (CPG 4206).27 Altendorf justifiably denied the authenticity of several texts 22 C. MOSS, Homily on the Nativity of our Lord by Severian, Bishop of Gabala, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 12 (1947-1948), pp. 555-566. 23 See M. BREYDY, Jean Maron, Exposé de la foi et autres opuscules. I-II (CSCO, 497-498 / Syr., 209-210), Lovanii, 1988, I, p. 70 (text) and II, pp. 30-31 (translation). 24 A. WENGER, Notes inédites sur les empereurs Théodose I, Arcadius, Théodose II, Léon I, in REB, 10 (1952), pp. 47-59. A reminder: the last part of the homily is still unpublished. Later Wenger also published the editio princeps of De cruce et latrone (CPG 4728), attributing it to Severian; see A. WENGER, Le sermon LXXX de la collection de Mai restitué à Sévérien de Gabala, in Augustinus magister: Congrès international augustinien. I: Communications, Paris, 1954, pp. 175-185. Wenger’s contention was almost immediately rejected by ALTENDORF, Untersuchungen [13]. 25 G. GARITTE, Un fragment géorgien de l’homélie IX de Sévérien de Gabala, in Mus, 60 (1953), pp. 97-102. 26 H. D. ALTENDORF, Untersuchungen zu Severian von Gabala, Tübingen, 1957 [diss.]. 27 Altendorf’s list of authentic homilies was published by LEHMANN, Per Piscatores [19, pp. 18-20].

264

SEVER J. VOICU

attributed (sometimes occasionally) to Severian in the manuscripts, such as the homilies In dedicationem pretiosae et uiuificae crucis (CPG 4270), In proditionem Iudae (CPG 5523), In natale Domini nostri Iesu Christi (CPG 4657), and In natiuitatem Domini (CPG 5008).28 However, he went too far in two cases, rejecting also De caeco nato (# 23) and De caeco et Zacchaeo (# 24), that had been rightly deemed authentic by Marx.29 It is a pity that such an important work, with its many useful remarks (but no index!), was never formally published. [14] In 1957-1959 the Armenian language reasserted its importance, when Nerses Akinian published 13 homilies from the only known manuscript. The first eight homilies are attributed to and actually belong to Eusebius of Emesa. Homilies 9-13 are ascribed to Severian and are indeed authentic. Three of them were already known in Greek (## 1, 27 & 32), but two are lost (## 60-61).30 This edition would later be studied by Henning J. Lehmann [18, 19]. [15] In 1960 Jean Kirchmeyer published a fragment of a homily on the Holy Cross from a Sinaitic manuscript.31 Both the incipit and the explicit of the text are lost, but the pinax shows it was attributed to Severian. According to Kirchmeyer this fragment belongs to De serpente (# 16), but some readings seem to indicate another source, namely the spurious In dedicationem pretiosae et uiuificae crucis (CPG 4270). Anyway, this text shows that Severian’s name has survived in some remote areas of the Greek world. [16] In 1960 Maxime Rodinson convincingly showed that the spurious homily De fide (CPG 4206), attributed to Severian by the Qērellos, was translated directly from Greek.32 [17] In 1967 Antoine Wenger made an important addition to the corpus of Severian’s homilies with the editio princeps of In lotionem pedum (# 53), showing that it was quoted by Severus of Antioch.33 In the same paper Wenger hinted at the existence of the homily De centurione et contra Manichaeos (# 35), later published by Michel Aubineau [26]. This homily has been attributed to Leontius of Constantinople. See S. J. VOICU, Dieci omelie di Leonzio di Costantinopoli, in Miscellanea Metreveli = Studi sull’oriente cristiano, 5(1) (2001), pp. 165-190, mainly pp. 183-184. 29 Marx was later vindicated; see VOICU, Nuove restituzioni [28]. 30 N. AKINIAN, Եւսեբեայ Եպիսկոպոսի Եմեսացւոյ ճառք [Ewsebeay Episkoposi Emesacʻwoy Čaṙkʻ = The homilies of Eusebius bishop of Emesa], in Handes Amsorya, 70 (1956), coll. 291300, 385-416; 71 (1957), coll. 101-130, 257-267, 357-380, 513-524; 72 (1958), coll. 1-22, 161182, 449-474; 73 (1959), coll. 1-30, 161-182, 321-360. 31 J. KIRCHMEYER, L’homélie acéphale de Sévérien sur la Croix dans le Sinaiticus gr. 493, in AB, 78 (1960), pp. 18-23. 32 M. RODINSON, L’homélie sur la foi en la Trinité de Sévérien de Gabala, in Atti del convegno internazionale di studi etiopici (Roma, 2-4 aprile 1959), Roma, 1960, pp. 387-396. A more recent French translation of this text seems unaware of the authenticity problem. See G. COLIN, L’Homélie sur la foi en la Trinité de Séverien de Gabala, in Aethiopica, 6 (2003), pp. 70-109. 33 A. WENGER, Une homélie inédite de Sévérien de Gabala sur le lavement des pieds, in Mélanges V. Grumel. II (= REB, 25), Paris, 1967, pp. 219-234. 28

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

265

[18] In 1970 Henning J. Lehmann identified three Armenian homilies published by Nerses Akinian [14] with their Greek originals, whilst also showing that the Greek text of two of the homilies, namely De fide et lege naturae (# 1) and In illud: In principio erat uerbum (# 32), has suffered an important accident, since the final part of the latter has replaced the conclusion of the former. The third homily is In Chananaeam et Pharaonem (# 27).34 [19] In 1975 Lehmann produced a lengthy commentary on the Armenian collection published by Akinian [14], in which he sought to confirm the author attributions in Akinian’s manuscript.35 His book is difficult to read, since the quotations in several languages (Greek, Latin, Armenian and Syriac) are never translated. However, Lehmann’s extensive resumé of the homily In uenerabilem trinitatem consubstantialem (# 61) still supplies the only access to this text for those who have no Armenian. [20] In 1978, Judit Kecskeméti mainly devoted her unpublished dissertation to the critical edition of the homily In illud: Genimina uiperarum (# 45), which is transmitted under John Chrysostom’s name in the direct tradition, but explicitly attributed to Severian by a catena on Acts (CPG C 150). This dissertation is still the sole source of this text.36 [21] In 1978 Michel van Esbroeck published the French translation of two homilies transmitted in Georgian under Severian’s name,37 namely In sanctam Pentecosten (# 33) and De aduentu Domini super pullum (# 60), adding a useful synopsis of the three forms of the latter. [22] In 1979 van Esbroeck published an article on the Georgian Homilia in apostolos (CPG 4285),38 a homily made up mostly using excerpts from Armenian homilies 3-4 (# 55-56) published by Aucher [62]. [23] In 1979 Sever J. Voicu identified the initial part of the homily In theophaniam (# 34) in Latin among Augustine’s spuria.39 [24] In 1982 Henning J. Lehmann collected a number of instances of Greek homilies attributed to Severian in the Armenian tradition, notably in the Galata 34 H. J. LEHMANN, The Attribution of Certain Pseudo-Chrysostomica to Severian of Gabala Confirmed by the Armenian Tradition, in F. L. CROSS (ed.), Studia Patristica X. Papers Presented to the Fifth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford, 1967. I. Editiones, Critica, Philologica, Biblica, Historica, Liturgica et ascetica (TU, 107), Berlin, 1970, pp. 121130. 35 H. J. LEHMANN, Per Piscatores – Որսորդաւք: Studies in the Armenian Version of a Collection of Homilies by Eusebius of Emesa and Severian of Gabala, Århus, 1975. 36 J. KECSKEMÉTI, Sévérien de Gabala. Homélie inédite sur le Saint-Esprit (CPG 4947), Paris, 1978 [diss.]. 37 M. VAN ESBROECK, Deux homélies de Sévérien de Gabala (IVe-Ve siècle) conservées en géorgien, in Bedi Kartlisa, 36 (1978), pp. 71-91. 38 M. VAN ESBROECK, L’homélie “sur les apôtres” de Sévérien de Gabala en version géorgienne, in Bedi Kartlisa, 37 (1979), pp. 86-101. 39 S. J. VOICU, Due sermoni pseudoagostiniani tradotti dal greco, in Augustinianum, 19 (1979), pp. 517-519.

266

SEVER J. VOICU

Florilegium.40 As regards the authenticity problem, his results are mixed. Some homilies are undoubtedly authentic: In matrem filiorum Zebedaei (# 66), In illud: Quomodo scit litteras (# 26), De serpente (# 16). In addition, the Florilegium conveys a precious new long fragment – still unpublished – from the lost homily In illud: Confiteor tibi, pater domine (# 67). However, using the witness of the Armenian tradition, Lehmann also favoured the attribution to Severian of several homilies that actually belong to an early PseudoChrysostom: In natale Domini nostri Iesu Christi (CPG 4657), In illud, Ignem ueni mittere in terram (CPG 4669), De remissione peccatorum (CPG 4629), Quod mari similis sit haec uita (CPG 4699).41 4. 1982-1991: FROM VOICU TO

VAN

ESBROECK

Stylistical analysis begins to emerge as a useful tool for solving problems of authenticity. [25] In 1982 Sever J. Voicu showed that the homily In illud: Quando ipsi subiciet omnia (# 37) belongs to Severian.42 This article is something of a turning point, since it is apparently the first systematic attempt to investigate Severian’s style using objective criteria instead of subjective assessments. Despite its gaps and defects, it is still valuable, especially for its list of Severian’s typical phatic expressions. [26] In 1983 Michel Aubineau devoted an entire volume to the edition with French translation of the homily De centurione et contra Manichaeos et Apollinaristas (# 35), preserved in its entirety in one manuscript, along with some fragments from the indirect tradition.43 [27] In 1984 Pierre Nautin reviewed Aubineau’s edition, making a number of suggestions for emending the text, but also showing that Severian used an exemplum derived from a popular Stoic source.44 40 H. J. LEHMANN, Severian of Gabala: New Identifications of Texts in Armenian Translation, in Th. J. SAMUELIAN (ed.), Classical Armenian Culture: Influences and creativity. Proceedings of the First Dr. H. Markarian Conference on Armenian Culture (Armenian Texts and Studies, 4), University of Pennsylvania, 1982, pp. 113-124. As it is obvious from p. 123, fn. 19, this article was written later but published before LEHMANN, Severian of Gabala: Fragments [29]. 41 See S. J. VOICU, Trentatré omelie pseudocrisostomiche e il loro autore, in Lexicum philosophicum, 2 (1986), pp. 73-141. 42 S. J. VOICU, In illud: Quando ipsi subiciet omnia (CPG 4761), una omelia di Severiano di Gabala?, in RSBN, 27-29, n.s. 17-19 (1980-1982), pp. 5-11. 43 M. AUBINEAU, Un traité inédit de christologie de Sévérien de Gabala “in Centurionem et contra Manichaeos et Apollinaristas” (Cahiers d’Orientalisme, 5), Genève, 1983. 44 P. NAUTIN, L’homélie de Sévérien de Gabala “Sur le Centurion contre les Manichéens et les Apollinaristes”. Remarques sur le texte et l’interprétation, in VigChr, 38 (1984), pp. 393-399. See also R. GOULET, Un nouveau fragment stoïcien chez Sévérien de Gabala, in Études philosophiques, 1985, pp. 251-255.

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

267

[28] Also in 1984 Voicu tried to demonstrate that nine homilies transmitted among the spuria of John Chrysostom actually belong to Severian because of their style.45 In one instance, namely his attribution of the homily De exaltatione crucis (CPG 4872),46 Voicu is mistaken and further research is needed to assess the significance of the homily’s (rare) parallels with the authentic homilies. Next, contra Altendorf [13], Voicu argued that In Genesim sermo 1 (# 17), De caeco nato (# 23) and De caeco et Zacchaeo (# 24) truly belong to Severian. The authenticity of the two last items had already been proposed by Marx [9]. Lastly, Voicu argued that In Iob sermones 2-4 (# 19-21), In Genesim sermo 2 (#18; already accepted by Altendorf) and De tribus pueris sermo (# 22) also truly belong to Severian. [29] In 1986, Henning J. Lehmann identified the provenance of some more fragments attributed to Severian in the Galata Florilegium.47 Their source is a version of the Armenian Aucher collection [62] that begins with the homily De fide (CPG 3531.3) – number 1 in Aucher’s edition – and therefore is a revision of the form used by the Seal of Faith [5]. [30] In 1988 Cornelis Datema outlined a plan for an edition project of Severian’s homilies in Greek that never came to fruition.48 Datema listed 38 entries, in fact 43 homilies as De mundi creatione (# 10-15) is counted as one text.49 The article finishes with the mention of several “homilies which perhaps have also to be attributed to Severian”. These homilies are mentioned in a final note.50 However, it is not clear why this note has two parts. It begins with 9 homilies that “(maybe) can be attributed to Severian”, namely In Genesim sermo 2 (# 18); In lotionem pedum (# 53); Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 15 (CPG 4272)51; De tribus pueris sermo (# 22); De caeco nato (# 23); In illud, Attendite ne eleemosynam (CPG 4585); De cruce et latrone (CPG 4728); Encomium in sanctos martyres (# 40); In postremum ieiunium (# 43). Then the note continues with 23 homilies “which possibly have Severian as their author”, namely In caecum natum (CPG 4231); In dedicationem pretiosae et uiuificae S. J. VOICU, Nuove restituzioni a Severiano di Gabala, in RSBN, 30-31, n. s. 20-21 (19831984), pp. 3-24. 46 Editio princeps in V. S. PSEFTOGAS [Ψευτογκᾶς], Ἡ ψευδοχρυσοστόμεια ὁμιλία στόν Τίμιο καί Ζωοποιό Σταυρό (BHG3 415m καί 415n) εἶναι τοῦ Σεβεριανοῦ Γαβάλων;, in Γρηγόριος ὁ Παλαμᾶς, 62 (1979), pp. 299-318. 47 H. J. LEHMANN, Severian of Gabala: Fragments of the Aucher Collection in Galata Ms 54, in D. KOUYMJIAN (ed.), Armenian Studies – Études arméniennes in memoriam Haïg Berbérian, Lisboa, 1986, pp. 477-487. This article was submitted before Lehmann’s article of 1982 [24], but published later. 48 C. DATEMA, Towards a Critical Edition of the Greek Homilies of Severian of Gabala, in OLP, 19 (1988), pp. 107-115. 49 Datema’s is wrong on number 37 (De fide; CPG 4206). But its authenticity will be denied only in 1994 by VOICU, L’omelia “In lotionem pedum” [36]. 50 See p. 115, fn. 20. 51 Identified by M. AUBINEAU, Un “sermo acephalus ineditus” – CPG 4272: “Sévérien de Gabala?” – restitué à Cyrille de Jérusalem, in VigChr, 41 (1987), pp. 285-289. 45

268

SEVER J. VOICU

crucis (CPG 4270); In sanctum Pascha (CPG 4408)52; De fugienda simulata specie (CPG 4505); In illud, Exiit edictum (CPG 4520); In Pentecosten sermo 1 (CPG 4536)53; In Iob sermones 1-4 (# 19-21; but Sermo 1 is spurious; CPG 4564.1); In principium indictionis, in martyres (CPG 4586); De paenitentia (CPG 4614); De paenitentia (CPG 4631)54; In Herodem et infantes (CPG 4638)55; In natale Domini nostri Iesu Christi (CPG 4657)56; In sancta lumina (CPG 4735); De exaltatione crucis (CPG 4872; see the note to [28]); De epiphania (CPG 4882)57; In temptationem D.n.I.C. (# 38); In illud, Nemo bonus nisi solus deus (CPG 4916)58; Sermo de agricolis in uinea laborantibus (CPG 4966)59; In illud, Iesus autem fatigatus ex itinere sedebat (CPG 5003)60. In fact both parts mix authentic and spurious homilies. Some of these attributions will later be endorsed by Karl-Heinz Uthemann.61 [31] In 1989 Voicu published the entry Sévérien de Gabala in the Dictionnaire de spiritualité.62 After almost 30 years it has not been replaced and still remains the authoritative encyclopedia article on Severian.63 52 Now shown to be a late concoction; see N. RAMBAULT, Jean Chrysostome, Homélies sur la résurrection, l’ascension et la pentecôte. I. Introduction, texte critique, traductions, notes et index (SC, 561), Paris, 2013, pp. 229-313. 53 This is an early Pseudo-Chrysostomic homily derived from authentic and spurious homilies attributed to Chrysostom. See S. J. VOICU, In Pentecosten sermo 1 (PG 52, 803-808; CPG 4536): il problema dell’autenticità, in M. MARITANO (ed.), Historiam perscrutari. Miscellanea di studi offerti al prof. Ottorino Pasquato (Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose, 180), Roma, 2002, pp. 849-861. 54 This is another early Pseudo-Chrysostomic homily. About its author see S. J. VOICU, Trentatré omelie pseudocrisostomiche e il loro autore, in Lexicum philosophicum, 2 (1986), pp. 73-141, mainly pp. 94-95. 55 This homily was later attributed to Leontius of Constantinople; see S. J. VOICU, Dieci omelie di Leonzio di Costantinopoli, in Studi sull’oriente cristiano, 5(1) (2001), pp. 165-190, mainly pp. 173-174. 56 About this homily, see above notes 9 and 41. 57 Attributed to Nestorius; see S. J. VOICU, Nestorio e la Oratio de epiphania (CPG 4882) attribuita a Giovanni Crisostomo, in Augustinianum, 43 (2003), pp. 495-499. 58 Published with Russian translation and comment (but no summary) by S. KIM [Ким], “Проповедь на слова Никто не благ, как только один Бог” (Mф. 19, 17), о гостеприимстве Авраама, об украшающих себя женщинах и о чревоугодии (CPG 4916, BHG 2003e). Свт. Iоанн Златоуст (Dub.) [Homily on the word: “No one is good except God” (Matth. 19, 17), on Abraham’s hospitality, on women that adorn themselves and on gluttony (CPG 4916, BHG 2003e). St John Chrysostom (Doubtful)], Богословские труды [Bogoslovskie Trudy], 47-48 (2018), pp. 11-37. It clearly has nothing to do with Severian. 59 About its author see S. J. VOICU, Ancora due omelie pseudocrisostomiche di matrice cappadoce (CPG 4669 e 4966), in Ricerche patristiche in onore di Dom Basil Studer OSB = Augustinianum, 32,1-2 (1993), pp. 467-497, mainly pp. 481-484. 60 About its author see VOICU, Trentatré… (see fn. 54), mainly p. 115. 61 For instance, Uthemann’s article criticised below at fn. 63 lists CPG 4270, 4408, 4520, 4536, 4735, 4916, 4966 and 5003. 62 S. J. VOICU, Sévérien de Gabala, in Dsp 14 (1989), coll. 752-763. This article has two dates. It appeared in an instalment issued in 1989, but the whole volume of the Dictionnaire bears the date 1990. 63 Sadly, a similar article by K.-H. UTHEMANN, Severian von Gabala, in Biobibliographisches Kirchen-Lexikon, 9 (1995), coll. 1487-1504 harbours factual errors. Moreover, it is confusing as concerns the transmission of Severian’s homilies and their authenticity, affirming the existence

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

269

[32] In 1991 Michel van Esbroeck published the Georgian version of In lotionem pedum (# 53), endorsing the authenticity of two additional sections absent from Wenger’s edition [17].64 However, the long central interpolation and the new ending are both taken from Chrysostom.65 5. 1992-1994: FROM REGTUIT TO HPC These three years see the first critical edition of a homily and several editiones principes, but there is also ongoing research on authenticity and the Oriental tradition. [33] In 1992 Remco Regtuit’s dissertation contained the first properly published critical edition of a Severian homily – namely In incarnationem Domini (# 49) – based on a large number of witnesses but dismissing the comparatively early quotation(s) by Photius.66 Since no external witness has kept the attribution to Severian, Regtuit embraces a non liquet position concerning its authenticity, its numerous stylistic marks notwithstanding.67 This critical edition also raises a perplexing question. Given that its text is almost identical to that published in PG, 59, should we assume that the promised new critical edition in the GCS series will mostly confirm the already published texts?68 [34] In 1993, Henning J. Lehmann compared the two Armenian translations of In Chananaeam et Pharaonem (# 27).69 The one published by Akinian [14] of an artificial category of dubia, without neither explicit criteria concerning its constitution nor an acceptable proposal about how to deal with them. The latter remarks also apply to an earlier article that – despite its title – deals only marginally with Severian; see K.-H. UTHEMANN, Severian von Gabala in Photios’ Bibliothek und Amphilochia. Überlegungen zu den dubia Seueriani, in JÖB, 43 (1993), pp. 61-86. 64 M. VAN ESBROECK, L’homélie géorgienne de Sévérien de Gabala CPG 4216, in Mus, 104 (1991), pp. 73-108. 65 About the central interpolation see VOICU, L’omelia “In lotionem pedum” [36]. About the final addendum see LUCCHESI, Un témoin copte [44]. 66 R. F. REGTUIT, Severian of Gabala, Homily on the Incarnation of Christ (CPG 4204): Text, Translation and Introduction, Amsterdam, 1992. In his review of this edition, Voicu contended that the fragments quoted by Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 274, should not be discarded as useless for the constitution of the text. See OCP, 60 (1994), pp. 316-317. On the usefulness of Photius’ quotations of the Encomium in sanctos martyres (# 40), see the detailed analysis by VOICU, L’Encomium [50]. 67 On its authenticity “Dupin’s first suggestion, as well as the remarks of Zellinger should be accepted until someone demonstrates that the text can never have been written by Severian of Gabala” (p. 228; emphasis added). Of course, “written” instead of “delivered” is a slip of the pen. 68 There are reasons to suspect that this will often be the case, since, according to VOICU, Il nome cancellato [43], in Greek we rely on an incomplete 6th-century corpus, and the earliest Armenian versions are free and liable to have been more or less heavily revised; see Lehmann [34]. 69 H. J. LEHMANN, What Translators Veil and Reveal. Observations on Two Armenian Translations of One Greek Homily, in H. LEHMANN – J. J. S. WEITENBERG (eds.), Armenian Texts: Tasks and Tools (Acta Jutlandica, 69:1; Humanities Series, 68), Aarhus, 1993, pp. 75-84.

270

SEVER J. VOICU

has kept the attribution to Severian and was produced along with other free translations in the first half of the 5th century (the so-called Golden Age of Armenian literature); often it is quite different from the known Greek text.70 The second translation, published in 1862 by the Mekhitarists [64], was transmitted under John Chrysostom’s name and should be dated to a later period (6th-7th century?) because of its literalism. [35] In 1994 Sever J. Voicu published two articles. The first identified a fragment of Severian in Sahidic, namely a folio of De serpente (# 16).71 [36] Voicu’s second article confirmed the authenticity of the homily In lotionem pedum (# 53) by means of a stylistic analysis, and debunked the myth – defended by Michel van Esbroeck [32] – of the Greek and Georgian longer forms by showing that both were taken from Chrysostom’s authentic works.72 In a footnote, Voicu raises suspicions about the authenticity of De fide (CPG 4206), recanting his own previous stance.73 [37] In 1994 Remco Regtuit tried a statistical approach to the authenticity problem, comparing similar linguistical features in both Chrysostom and Severian.74 The results seem undecisive. [38] Still in 1994, a provisional text of six authentic homilies was published for the first time in the volume Homiliae Pseudo-Chrysostomicae: In Noe et filios eius, Encomium in sanctos martyres, De sacrificiis Caini, De Noe et de arca, In postremum ieiunium, Contra Iudaeos et Graecos et haereticos (# 39-44).75 The preface to the volume remains disappointingly vague on the topic of attribution, even forgetting that In Noe et filios eius is attributed to Severian in an Arabic translation.76 In addition, the volume contains the puzzling homily In temptationem D.n.I.C. (# 38). As it would become apparent

70 On one point, however, the published Greek text shows a defect that is not general, namely the inversion of text in coll. 662-664, since the correct sequence is kept, e.g. in Lond. Add. 19703, ff. 94v-110r. 71 S. J. VOICU, Fogli copti di Severiano di Gabala, De serpente (CPG 4196), in Augustinianum, 34 (1994), pp. 471-474. 72 S. J. VOICU, L’omelia “In lotionem pedum” (CPG 4216) di Severiano di Gabala: Due note, in Mus, 107 (1994), pp. 349-365. On the final part of the Georgian version see further LUCCHESI, Un témoin copte [44]. 73 See p. 352, n. 4. For Voicu’s earlier postition, see S. J. VOICU, Una nuova fonte dell’omelia In annuntiatione (CPG 3224): Severiano di Gabala, De fide, in OCP, 55 (1989), pp. 197-198. The subsequent recognition that De fide should be rated as spurious stems from the fact that it never presents significant parallels with the authentic homilies. Moreover it has none of the stylistic devices typical of Severian, such as those listed by Voicu [25, 28 and 50-51]. 74 R. REGTUIT, Severian of Gabala and John Chrysostom: The Problem of Authenticity, in A. SCHOORS – P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii (OLA, 60), Leuven, 1994, pp. 135-149. 75 K.-H. UTHEMANN – R. F. REGTUIT – J. M. TEVEL (eds.), Homiliae Pseudo-Chrysostomicae. Instrumentum studiorum. I. Editio princeps…, [S.l.], 1994. 76 See ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien [1] and ALTENDORF, Untersuchungen [13].

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

271

from Robert Carter’s critical edition, this text is poorly transmitted and its final part is probably missing.77 6. 1995-2006: FROM STEHOUWER TO VOICU This period of research on Severian featured rather few publications on a variety of questions: a critical edition, a new catena fragment, a scriptural index and two essays of historical nature. [39] In 1995 Arie Pieter Stehouwer defended his unpublished dissertation containing a critical edition of In illud: Pone manum tuam (# 52),78 and including an extensive discussion on the role of the Armenian translation published by Aucher [62] in establishing the text.79 Despite a detailed discussion of the Greek tradition, Stehouwer could not identify the manuscript used in 1581 by Gabius for the editio princeps [55]. The manuscript seems to have disappeared. [40] The four volumes published in 1997-2000 by Ursula and Dieter Hagedorn on the catena in Iob contain one fragment from In Iob sermo 4 that has kept the attribution to Severian.80 [41] In 1999 Robert Carter published an index of scriptural references.81 It is still a very useful tool, since the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae has included only 12 homilies by Severian. [42] In 2000 Carter tried to establish the dates of twenty homilies by Severian.82 The results are rather unconvincing, since no homily is assigned to the year 402, when Severian – in charge of the “official” predication in Constantinople – probably spoke quite frequently. Moreover, his proposed sequence De mundi creatione (# 10-15) – Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (# 50) is chronologically impossible, even if it has become something of a traditional assumption that was already affirmed by Zellinger [1]. [43] In 2006 Voicu published an article on the vexing problem that has largely conditioned research on Severian’s homilies: why did most of them 77 R. E. CARTER, A Greek Homily on the Temptation (CPG 4906) by Severian of Gabala: Introduction, Critical Edition and Translation, in Traditio, 52 (1997), pp. 47-71. 78 A. P. STEHOUWER, Severian von Gabala, In illud: Pone manum tuam, et in diversa testimonia (CPG 4198). Kritische Edition mit Einleitung und Übersetzung, im Anhang zwei Fallstudien zur Sprache Severians, Amsterdam, 1995 [diss.]. 79 The Armenian omits the final section of the Greek after Stehouwer, line 656. 80 U. HAGEDORN – D. HAGEDORN, Die älteren griechischen Katenen zum Buch Hiob. I: Einleitung, Prologe und Epiloge, Fragmente zu Hiob 1,1-8,22; II. Fragmente zu Hiob 9,1-22,30; III. Fragmente zu Hiob 23,1-42,17; IV. Register. Nachträge und Anhänge (PTS, 40, 48, 53 & 59), Berlin – New York, 1994-2004. See I, p. 103. 81 R. E. CARTER, An Index of Scriptural References in the Homilies of Severian of Gabala, in Traditio, 54 (1999), pp. 323-351. 82 R. E. CARTER, The Chronology of Twenty Homilies of Severian of Gabala, in Traditio, 55 (2000), pp. 1-17.

272

SEVER J. VOICU

survive exclusively under John Chrysostom’s name?83 From the indirect tradition Voicu inferred two important facts: 1. the homilies were organised and published as a corpus of unknown size; 2. they circulated exclusively under Severian’s name until about the mid-6th century,84 when – for unknown reasons85 – the Greek corpus was ascribed to John Chrysostom. 7. 2009-2017: FROM LUCCHESI TO BISHOP AND RAMBAULT The research on Severian gains some momentum, with more editions, identifications and essays on authenticity. [44] In 2009 Enzo Lucchesi identified an additional Sahidic translation: a fragment of In lotionem pedum (# 53).86 Moreover, he affirmed that the final addendum to the Georgian version of In lotionem pedum (# 53) depends on both In diem natalem D. N. Iesu Christi (CPG 4334) and De paenitentia homilia 9 (CPG 4333.9). [45] After 2009 Eleni Chatzoglu-Balta published an imposing volume containing a critical edition of six homilies on the Lord’s Ascension. Among them we can find In Ascensionem Domini (# 36)87, but its introduction does not even mention Severian’s name. [46] In 2015 Sergey Kim published two articles on Severian. The first makes parts of the homily In illud: Christus est oriens (# 62) accessible to those who are ignorant of both ancient and modern Georgian.88 [47] Kim’s second article contains a number of useful remarks about the homily In Ascensionem Domini (# 36).89 Kim’s approach to the authenticity problem is rather peculiar, as he underrates the relevance of the phatic expressions. 83 S. J. VOICU, Il nome cancellato: la trasmissione delle omelie di Severiano di Gabala, in Revue d’histoire des textes, n.s. 1 (2006), pp. 317-333. 84 Incidentally, the article shows that no authentic homilies were attributed to Chrysostom during the 5th century and debunks a long-standing myth. 85 Paradoxically, the operation was apparently aimed at protecting the homilies from disappearance, lest they share the fate of Severus of Antioch’s oeuvre, that was condemned in 536 by the emperor Justinian. Both names – admittedly rare – were often confused in the tradition. See S. J. VOICU, Confusioni e restituzioni: Severo e Severiano, in Orpheus, n.s. 16 (1995), pp. 434-440. 86 E. LUCCHESI, Un témoin copte de l’homélie de Sévérien de Gabala sur le Lavement des pieds, in AB, 127 (2009), pp. 299-308. 87 H. S. CHATZOGLOU-BALTA [Χατζόγλου-Μπαλτᾶ], Ἓξ λόγοι εἰς Ἀνάληψιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἐπιγραφόμενοι ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματι τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (Εἰσαγωγή – Κριτικὴ ἔκδοσις), in Κατάθεσις εἰς μνήμην τοῦ καθηγητοῦ Δημητρίου Ζ. Σοφιανοῦ (= EEBS, 53), Ἀθῆναι, 2007-2009, pp. 303-376. About the shortcomings of this edition, the publication date of which is unknown, see VOICU, Evidence of Authenticity [51]. 88 S. KIM, L’homélie géorgienne CPG 4235 et le cod. 277 de la “Bibliothèque” de Photius, in Oriens Christianus, 98 (2015), pp. 99-108. 89 S. KIM, Quelques observations sur l’homélie In ascensionem Domini de Sévérien de Gabala (CPG 4236a.7, olim 5028), in Mus, 128 (2015), pp. 261-272.

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

273

[48] In 2015 Sever J. Voicu collected evidence that a Greek manuscript of Severian’s homilies survived in Rome until at least the early 9th century. This manuscript was the source of a few quotations in florilegia and a late copy of De mundi creatione (# 10-15).90 [49] In 2015 Juditha Oosterhuis-den Otter defended a dissertation containing a critical edition of the four sermons In Iob printed in PG, 56, graciously publishing it on the internet.91 She maintains that Sermons 2-4 (# 19-21) – delivered during the Holy Week – are authentic,92 but is apparently undecided about the author of sermo 1 (CPG 4564.1) – devoted to the annual memory of Job. In any event this homily cannot be by Severian, since it lacks his stylistical marks. [50] In 2016 Sever J. Voicu published two articles on authenticity questions. The first one explores the complex relation between the published Greek text of the Encomium in sanctos martyres (# 40) and an Armenian translation connected with the fragment In matrem filiorum Zebedaei (# 66).93 However, since the Armenian text is unpublished, his conclusions are far from definitive. The article also analyses the quotation by Photius, showing that it can occasionally contribute to the constitution of the Greek text. [51] Voicu’s second article contains a synopsis of the stylistic and transmissional evidence that applies to all the Greek homilies. Moreover, he defends the authenticity of In Ascensionem Domini (# 36) and shows that it was delivered in Constantinople, probably in the year 402.94 [52] Also in 2016 Voicu published an analysis of the Greek florilegium De communi essentia (or Testimonia e scriptura; CPG 2240), reprinted in PG, 28, 29-80.95 Its main sources are Severian’s homilies, in particular long sections from In sanctam Pentecosten (# 33). Notably, the florilegium transmits fragments of two homilies that are lost in Greek: In matrem filiorum Zebedaei 90 S. J. VOICU, Roma e l’ultimo manoscritto del corpus omiletico di Severiano di Gabala, in C. CARBONETTI – S. LUCÀ – M. SIGNORINI (eds.), Roma e il suo territorio nel medioevo. Le fonti scritte fra tradizione e innovazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio dell’Associazione italiana dei Paleografi e Diplomatisti (Roma, 25-29 settembre 2012) (Studi e ricerche, 6), Spoleto, 2015, pp. 73-87. This article fails to mention the lost Greek manuscript that, according to Ioannes Alexander Brassicanus, contained 14 homilies attributed to Severian [54]. 91 J. J. OOSTERHUIS-DEN OTTER, Four Pseudo-Chrysostomian Homilies on Job (CPG 4564, BHG 939d-g). Transmission, Critical Edition, and Translation, Amsterdam, 2015 [diss.]. 92 On the authenticity of Sermons 2-4 see also VOICU, Nuove restituzioni [28]. 93 S. J. VOICU, L’Encomium in sanctos martyres di Severiano di Gabala (CPG 4950): l’autenticità e altre note, in Prometheus, 42 (2016), pp. 231-248. 94 S. J. VOICU, Evidence of Authenticity: Severian of Gabala, In Ascensionem Domini (CPG 5028), in R. W. BISHOP [ET AL.] (eds.), Preaching after Easter: Mid-Pentecost, Ascension, and Pentecost in Late Antiquity (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 136), Leiden, 2016, pp. 407-424. Useful remarks can also be found in KIM, Quelques observations [47]. 95 S. J. VOICU, Il florilegio De communi essentia (CPG 2240), Severiano di Gabala e altri Padri, in SE, 55 (2016), pp. 129-155. The florilegium is transmitted under Athanasius’s name. The published version contains an obvious final interpolation.

274

SEVER J. VOICU

(# 66) and In illud: Christus est oriens (# 62). It also quotes a large number of fragments that have not been identified, but their style often reveals features that are also encountered in the authentic homilies. The florilegium mainly argues that the three persons of the Trinity are equal. Conversely, the scarcity of christological items may be construed as evidence that it predates the Council of Ephesus (431). [53] Several articles appeared in 2017, while this article was being revised, showing that Severian’s importance is deservedly and increasingly being recognized. [53a] Sergey Kim published the text and a Russian translation of the homily In illud: Secundum imaginem et similitudinem (# 46).96 This represents an important milestone in Severian research, as it is the last of Severian’s known homilies transmitted in Greek to be published.97 [53b] Kim also showed that a Greek fragment transmitted by the florilegium De communi essentia [see 52] indeed derives from In illud: Christus est oriens (# 62), a homily almost completely lost in Greek but extant in a Georgian translation [see also 46].98 [53c] Last but not least, Richard W. Bishop and Nathalie Rambault published a critical edition of In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (# 3), replacing the defective text printed in PG, 52. They defend Severian’s authorship and date the sermon on 17 May 402.99 8. BY WAY OF SUMMARY At the end of this lengthy itinerary, we may summarize the events. Before 1916, research on Severian of Gabala was mostly occasional, but scholars noticed that at least some of his homilies were transmitted under Chrysostom’s name [57]. In addition, the Armenian tradition revealed itself as an important witness to his oeuvre [62]. Between Zellinger and Martin (1916-1935), research concentrated almost exclusively on the direct and indirect witnesses of the manuscript tradition, namely on explicit attributions to Severian. 96 S. KIM, Севериан Гавальский, На слова: По образу и подобию (Быт. 1, 26), CPG 4234. I. Введение, editio princeps, русский перевод [Severianus Gabalensis. In illud: Secundum imaginem et similitudinem (Gen. 1, 26), CPG 4234. I. Introduction, editio princeps, Russian translation], Богословский Вестник [Bogoslovskij Vestnik], 24-25 (2017), pp. 468-527. 97 The largest unpublished fragment is the ending of In theophaniam (# 34). In addition, Migne’s edition of In illud: In qua potestate (# 9) depends on a damaged manuscript. 98 S. KIM, Severiano di Gabala: un nuovo frammento greco, in OCP, 83 (2017), pp. 485-490. 99 R. W. BISHOP – N. RAMBAULT, Severian of Gabala, In ascensionem et in principium Actorum (CPG 4187). Introduction and Critical Edition, in SE, 56 (2017), pp. 113-236. Unfortunately, this edition is marred by dozens of typos.

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

275

In 1939 Marx revived Dupin’s approach by attempting an unsystematic review of the stylistic contents of the homilies, with mixed results. Marx was met with criticism by Altendorf and almost forgotten until 1982, when Voicu inaugurated systematic research on Severian’s style. As of now, the authentic oeuvre of Severian amounts to 62 homilies plus a number of fragments from lost homilies. The current size of his corpus is comparable to the Commentary on John by Chrysostom as published in Migne’s volume 59. We are entitled to hope that this is not the end of the story, since unknown authentic homilies may still be hidden among the dozens of unpublished Pseudo-Chrysostomica and florilegia. Everything indicates that Severian’s homiletical corpus is worth the critical edition promised by Cordula Bandt as a Langzeitvorhaben of the BerlinBrandenburgerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. The sustained thorough investigation of this homiletical corpus will add to our knowledge of his exegetical and theological peculiarities,100 leading also to a more precise understanding of the church life and liturgy in Constantinople in the years 401-402. I would like to finish this section with a word of caution: if my personal experience is worth anything, even reputable scholars can be tempted to accept attribution(s) in the manuscript tradition as sufficient and/or absolutely necessary for settling an authenticity problem. The history of research has shown the peril of succumbing to such a view. It would be like buying a can labeled “peaches”, finding that it contains peas, yet persisting with the assumption that the label is accurate. The ultimate criterion of authenticity is not to be found in the label, but in the contents of a text, more precisely, not in what the text says, but how it says what it says. Only at this linguistical level the author truly reveals himself. This may require protracted searches for parallels, that must also be evaluated, but in the case of Severian of Gabala it is a fairly easy game, since his style is very redundant and peculiar.

100 See S. J. VOICU, Due antiocheni periferici: le Quaestiones et responsiones ad Orthodoxos (CPG 6285) e Severiano di Gabala, in Augustinianum, 55 (2015), pp. 543-557.

276

SEVER J. VOICU

APPENDIX 1. BEFORE ZELLINGER Even if formal investigation of Severian’s homilies began almost exactly a century ago, a number of findings that predate Zellinger’s 1916 book deserve to be recalled. [54] In 1530, Ioannes Alexander Brassicanus, a late humanist and anti-protestant polemicist, mentioned a Greek manuscript containing 14 homilies on Genesis by Severian.101 The manuscript is lost and its precise contents and date are unknown. It has not been found among Brassicanus’s manuscripts now kept in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek.102 At least his indication implies that one Greek manuscript of Severian’s corpus still existed somewhere after the Fall of Constantinople.103 [55] In 1581, Gabius (Giovanni Battista Gabbia) published in Rome the editio princeps of ten Greek homilies attributed to John Chrysostom. However, six of the homilies are now considered to be Severian’s. The edition was promoted by cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto,104 and it stands to reason that Gabius had access to Sirleto’s personal library, but so far the manuscripts he used have not been identified, and at least one seems lost; see Stehouwer [39]. [56] In 1611 Jacques Sirmond correctly affirmed that De serpente (# 16) belongs to Severian, as witnessed by some late quotations.105 His opinion was accepted by Bernard de Montfaucon in his monitum to the reprint of this homily (PG, 56, 489-480 Latin). [57] In his 1612 edition of Chrysostom,106 Henry Savile was the first to notice that some homilies which circulated under Chrysostom’s name were in fact Severian’s, namely the six homilies De mundi creatione (# 10-15) attributed 101

“…in Bibliotheca nostra sunt innumera, & præcipue græca, nempe (…) Seueriani Gabalorum Episcopi in Genesim conciones xiiii” (Io. A. BRASSICANUS, D. Salviani Massyliensis Episcopi, De vero iudicio et prouidentia dei, ad S. Salonium Episcopum Vienensem Libri VIII (…) Anticimenon lib. III. in quibus quaestiones ueteris ad noui Testamenti, de locis in speciem pugnantibus, incerto Autore, Basileae: in Officina Frobeniana, 1530, p. 10). See also PG, 65, coll. 9-10. I am grateful to prof. Thomas Cerbu, who reminded me of Brassicanus’s text. 102 See ZELLINGER, Die Genesishomilien, pp. 39-40 [1]. 103 Compare with VOICU, Roma e l’ultimo manoscritto [48]. 104 Io. B. GABIUS [G. B. Gabbia], Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἁρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ὁμιλίαι δέκα διάφοροι, ἐξαίρετοί τε, καὶ πάνυ ὠφελεῖς… τανῦν πρῶτον ἐκδεδομέναι, Romae: apud Franciscum Zanettum, 1581. 105 Sirmond’s essay on Ennodius (in which this notice of Severian’s homily appears) was apparently written in 1611, but only printed among his “collected papers”: “…Severianus Gabalorum Episcopus a serpente illo, quia symbolum erat crucis Christi, salutem καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐπικαταράτου εὐλογίαν, a maledicto benedictionem fluxisse ait in Oratione II. e decem quas Chrysostomi nomine in lucem dedit Card. Sirletus. Sed Severiano hanc afferunt, quam dixi, Damascenus, & Hadrianus Papa, cum Synodo Parisiensi” (J. SIRMOND, Opera varia nunc primum collecta, ex ipsius schedis emendatiora, notis posthumis, epistolis, et opuscolis aliquibus auctiora. Accedunt S. Theodori Studitae epistolae, aliaque scripta dogmatica, numquam antea graece vulgata, pleraque Sirmondo interprete. I-V, Parisiis, 1696, I, coll. 1841-1842). 106 H. SAVILE, Iohannis Chrysostomi opera omnia… I-VIII, Etonae, 1612.

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

277

to Severian in a marginal note of a manuscript kept in Vienna107 and De sigillis sermo (# 31) attributed to Severian in Theodoret’s Eranistes. Montfaucon and Migne would essentially adopt the same position. As far as Severian is concerned, Savile’s edition has not been wholly replaced, since the homilies Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (# 50) and In pretiosam et uiuificam crucem (# 51) escaped Montfaucon’s attention, and both were hence largely ignored until the 20th century. See also [58]. [58] In 1656 François Combefis made a new edition of In pretiosam et uiuificam crucem (# 51).108 Combefis explicitly attributed the homily to Severian and contended that the manuscript he transcribed was better than the one(s) used Savile’s. Anyway, this edition still goes largely unnoticed. [59] In 1693 Ellies Dupin was the first to contend that Severian’s homilies may be sorted out from among Chrysostom’s spuria by means of an analysis of their stylistic characteristics.109 Even if the theory is perfectly sound, his results are at best confusing. Dupin endorses the findings of his predecessors about nine homilies [56-58]. His own proposals add only eight texts which are considered authentic today: In illud: Pone manum tuam (# 52); De fide et lege naturae (# 1); De Spiritu sancto (# 4); In illud: In principio erat uerbum (# 32); De Christo pastore et oue (# 5); De caeco nato (# 23); In incarnationem Domini (# 49); De pace (# 48). In 16 cases Dupin’s proposals were later rejected: De sancta trinitate (CPG 4507); In pentecosten sermo 1 (CPG 4536); De occursu domini, de deipara et Symeone (CPG 4523?); In illud: Sufficit tibi gratia mea (CPG 4576); In parabolam de filio prodigo (CPG 4577); In saltationem Herodiadis (CPG 4578); In illud: Collegerunt Iudaei (CPG 4579); In decem uirgines (CPG 4580); In meretricem et pharisaeum (CPG 4199); In illud: Attendite ne eleemosynam (CPG 4585); In principium indictionis, in martyres (CPG 4586); In parabolam de ficu (CPG 4588); De pharisaeo (CPG 4589); De Lazaro et diuite (CPG 4590); In psalmum 92 (CPG 4548 = 7900.5); In natalem Christi diem (CPG 4560). [60] In 1718-1738 Montfaucon’s Chrysostom edition printed only De mundi creatione orationes 1-6 (# 10-15), De serpente (# 16) and De sigillis sermo (# 31), 107 See SAVILE, VIII, 871-872: “Hasce nouem orationes sequenteis ideo adieci, quia in Bibliothecis passim reperiantur sub nomine Chrysostomi, cùm tamen ipsius non sint, & in alijs correctioribus libris alijs auctoribus, idque verè, adscribantur. De his sex orationibus alia etiam ratio fuit, quòd non abs re putarem extare publicè monumentum eloquentiae ferreae illius ætatis, quæ tamen cum nostro aureo flumine iudicio aurium eius seculi comparanda videretur. (…) Porrò has Seueriani damus ex cod. Ms. Cæsareo emendatas ex alio Ms. ibidem, & coniecturis doctissimi Alleni nostri: ita tamen, vt aliqua, etsi non multa, supersint, quae opem alterius codicis desiderare videantur” (partially reprinted in PG, 56, 429-430 Latin). 108 F. COMBEFIS, Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi de educandis liberis liber aureus…, Parisiis, 1656, pp. 211-282. 109 L. E. DUPIN, Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques… III, Parisiis, 1693, pp. 25-30 (on Chrysostom) and 76 (on Severian).

278

SEVER J. VOICU

as Severian’s, whereas De legislatore (# 8) and In illud: In qua potestate (# 9) were considered incerta.110 The same situation occurs in Migne’s reprint [63]. [61] In 1779 Christian Friedrich Matthaei published the editio princeps of a short form of In theophaniam (# 34) from a manuscript in Moscow that has kept the attribution to Severian.111 His text will be reprinted in PG, 65 [63] and later supplemented with a longer ending by Wenger [11]. [62] In 1827 a Venice Mekhitarist, Joannes Baptista Aucher (Mkrtič Awgeryan), published fifteen homilies transmitted in Armenian – some of them unknown in Greek –, with a facing Latin translation.112 It is the first appearance of an Oriental language, indeed the most important Oriental language for Severian: Armenian. However only eight homilies and a fragment are now recognized as authentic (# 47, 52 and 54-60). [63] In 1859-1864 Migne replicated Montfaucon’s edition [60] in PG, 47-64. In PG, 65, In theophaniam (# 34) is preceded by a list of homilies – both authentic and spurious – attributed to Severian.113 Nevertheless, Migne is still the only viable Greek edition for 34 of Severian’s homilies. [64] In 1862 the Mekhitarists of Venice published the Armenian remains of Chrysostom’s authentic commentaries on Paul’s Letters in two volumes.114 An appendix to volume 2 contains a large number of spurious homilies, among them In lotionem pedum (# 53), Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (# 50) and In Chananaeam et Pharaonem (# 27). The latter would be analyzed by Lehmann in 1993 [34]. [65] In 1891 Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus published the editio princeps of the Greek text of De pace (# 48), also reprinting its considerably shorter Latin version,115 which was probably produced at the beginning of the 5th century and transmitted along with the so-called Collection of the 38 Homilies.116 110 B. de MONTFAUCON, Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπ. Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τὰ εὑρισκόμενα πάντα… Sancti Patris nostri Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera omnia quæ exstant, vel quæ eius nomine circumferentur, ad mss. codices Gallicanos, Vaticanos, Anglicanos, Germanicosque; necnon ad Savilianam & Frontonianam editiones castigata, innumeris aucta: nova interpretatione ubi opus erat, præfationibus, monitis, notis, variis lectionibus illustrata, nova Sancti Doctoris vita, appendicibus, onomastico & copiosissimis indicibus locupletata. I-XIII, Parisiis, sumtibus L. Guerin [etc.], 1718-1738. 111 C. F. MATTHAEI, Lectiones mosquenses. I-II, Lipsiae: sumtu E. B. Schwickerti, 1779, II, pp. 1-6. 112 J. B. AUCHER, Severiani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae…, Venetiis, 1827. 113 PG, 65, coll. 9-12. 114 Յովհաննու Ոսկեբերանի Կոնստանդնուպօլսի Եպիսկոպոսապետի Մեկնութիւն Թղթոցն Պաւղոսի [Explanation on the Pauline Letters by John Chrysostom Archbishop of Constantinople]. I-II, ի Վենետիկ [in Venice]: ի Վանս Սրբոյն Ղազարու, 1862. 115 A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς σταχυολογίας. I, Petroupolis, 1891, pp. 15-26. 116 S. J. VOICU, Le prime traduzioni latine di Crisostomo, in Cristianesimo latino e cultura greca sino al sec. IV. – XXI Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma, 7-9 maggio 1992 (Studia ephemeridis “Augustinianum”, 42), Roma, 1993, pp. 397-415.

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

279

[66] In 1907-1908 Sebastian Haidacher published three articles related in various ways to Severian. The earliest is the editio princeps of In illud: Quando ipsi subiciet omnia (# 37). Haidacher contended that the homily is an authentic work by John Chrysostom.117 His assumption was later shown to be wrong by Voicu [25]. [67] In 1908 Haidacher inferred from some indirect witnesses that Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (# 50) belongs to Antiochus of Ptolemais. His position was opposed by Zellinger [4] and the homily is currently considered authentic.118 [68] Haidacher’s third article (the second of 1908) showed that the authentic homily In illud: In qua potestate (# 9) is attributed to Severian in the indirect tradition.119 [69] In 1914 Konstantinos Dyovouniotis published a set of unknown works purportedly by John of Damascus, but actually a florilegium made up of excerpts from Severian’s homilies, mostly De mundi creatione (# 10-15).120 Among them is a fragment from Homilia sine titulo (# 63) and another from In Noe et filios eius (# 39). His edition went unnoticed until Altendorf’s dissertation [13].

APPENDIX 2: A LIST OF SEVERIAN’S AUTHENTIC HOMILIES AND FRAGMENTS 1. Greek Complete Homilies (53) 1. De fide et lege naturae (CPG 4185): ed. PG, 48, coll. 1081-1086, 46; also in Armenian [14]; Greek text is defective; see Lehmann [18]. 2. De paenitentia et compunctione (CPG 4186): ed. PG, 49, coll. 323-336; also in Slavonic. 3. In ascensionem D.n.I.C. (CPG 4187): ed. PG, 52, coll. 773-792, from a defective manuscript, has been replaced by the critical text published by Bishop and Rambault [53c].

117 S. HAIDACHER, Drei unedierte Chrysostomus-Texte einer Baseler Handschrift. II: Die Homilie Εἰς τὸ ἀποστολικὸν ῥητόν· Ὅταν αὐτῷ ὑποταγῇ τὰ πάντα κτἑ, I. Cor. 15, 28, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 31 (1907), pp. 141-171, here 150-167. This article is the second in a series of three. Haidacher tried to collect evidence that the three homilies he published were genuinely Chrysostom’s. However, they are all spuria, belonging to three different authors. Disquieting as it is – since Haidacher was well acquainted with Chrysostom’s authentic oeuvre – this fact shows that only a very careful analysis can lead to a firm conclusion about the authorship of a text. 118 S. HAIDACHER, Pseudo-Chrysostomus: Die Homilie des Antiochus von Ptolemais über die Seele Adams und über das Leiden Christi, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 32 (1908), pp. 408-410. 119 S. HAIDACHER, Pseudo-Chrysostomus: Die Homilie über Mt. 21, 23 von Severian von Gabala, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 32 (1908), pp. 410-413. 120 K. I. DYOVOUNIOTIS [Δυοβουνιώτης], Ἰωάννου Δαμασκηνοῦ Λόγοι ἀνέκδοτοι, in Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς Φάρος, 13 (1914), pp. 58-69 & 119-149.

280

SEVER J. VOICU

4. De Spiritu sancto (CPG 4188): ed. PG, 52, coll. 813-826. 5. De Christo pastore et oue (CPG 4189): ed. PG, 52, coll. 827-836; also in Georgian. 6. In Psalmum 96 (CPG 4190): ed. PG, 55, coll. 603-612. 7. In Psalmum 95 (CPG 4191): ed. PG, 55, coll. 619-630. 8. De legislatore (CPG 4192): ed. PG, 56, coll. 397-410. 9. In illud: In qua potestate (CPG 4193): ed. PG, 56, coll. 411-428, from a damaged manuscript; also in Georgian. 10-15. De mundi creatione orationes 1-6 (CPG 4194): ed. PG, 56, coll. 429500; also in Sahidic, Georgian, Armenian, Arabic and Slavonic. 16. De serpente (CPG 4196): ed. PG, 56, coll. 499-516; also in Sahidic. 17. In Genesim sermo 1 (CPG 4561): ed. PG, 56, coll. 519-522. 18. In Genesim sermo 2 (CPG 4197): ed. PG, 56, coll. 522-526. 19-21. In Iob sermones 2-4 (CPG 4564): ed. PG, 56, coll. 567-582; see also [49]; also in Arabic and Slavonic. 22. De tribus pueris sermo (CPG 4568): ed. PG, 56, coll. 593-600. 23. De caeco nato (CPG 4582): ed. PG, 59, coll. 543-554; also in Latin. 24. De caeco et Zacchaeo (CPG 4592): ed. PG, 59, coll. 599-610; also in Slavonic. 25. In filium prodigum (CPG 4200): ed. PG, 59, coll. 627-636; also in Georgian and Slavonic. 26. In illud: Quomodo scit litteras (CPG 4201): ed. PG, 59, coll. 643-652. 27. In Chananaeam et Pharaonem (CPG 4202): ed. PG, 59, coll. 653-664; also twice in Armenian; see Lehmann [34]. 28. In illud: Non quod uolo facio (CPG 4203): ed. PG, 59, coll. 663-674. 29. In proditionem seruatoris (CPG 4205): ed. PG, 59, coll. 713-720. 30. Contra Iudaeos, in serpentem aeneum (CPG 4207): ed. PG, 61, coll. 793802. 31. De sigillis sermo (CPG 4209): ed. PG, 63, coll. 531-544. 32. In illud: In principio erat uerbum (CPG 4210): ed. PG, 63, coll. 543-550, 27 + 48, 1086, 46-1088; complete text only in Armenian; Greek text is defective; see Lehmann [18]. 33. In sanctam Pentecosten (CPG 4211): ed. PG, 63, coll. 933-938; also in Georgian: CPG [4286]. 34. In theophaniam (CPG 4212): ed. PG, 65, coll. 15-26 + A. WENGER, Notes inédites sur les empereurs Théodose I, Arcadius, Théodose II, Léon I, in Revue des études byzantines, 10 (1952), pp. 48-49; the final part is still unpublished; also in Latin and Slavonic. 35. De centurione et contra Manichaeos et Apollinaristas (CPG 4230): ed. M. AUBINEAU, Un traité inédit de christologie de Sévérien de Gabala in Centurionem et contra Manichaeos et Apollinaristas” (Cahiers d’Orientalisme, 5), Genève, 1983, pp. 108-140.

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

281

36. In ascensionem Domini (CPG 5028): ed. H. S. CHATZOGLU-BALTA [Χατζόγλου-Μπαλτᾶ], Ἓξ λόγοι εἰς Ἀνάληψιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἐπιγραφόμενοι ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματι τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου (Εἰσαγωγή – Κριτικὴ ἔκδοσις), in Κατάθεσις εἰς μνήμην τοῦ καθηγητοῦ Δημητρίου Ζ. Σοφιανοῦ (= EEBS, 53), Ἀθῆναι, 2007-2009, pp. 303-376; text: pp. 333-344. 37. In illud: Quando ipsi subiciet omnia (CPG 4761): ed. S. HAIDACHER, Drei unedierte Chrysostomus-Texte einer Baseler Handschrift. II, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 31 (1907), pp. 141-171; text: pp. 150-167. 38. In temptationem D.n.I.C. (CPG 4906): ed. K.-H. UTHEMANN – R. F. REGTUIT – J. M. TEVEL (eds.), Homiliae Pseudo-Chrysostomicae (= HPC). Instrumentum studiorum. I. Editio princeps…, [S.l.] 1994, pp. 59-65; critical edition: R. E. CARTER, A Greek Homily on the Temptation (CPG 4906) by Severian of Gabala: Introduction, Critical Edition and Translation, in Traditio, 52 (1997), pp. 47-71; the final part is probably spurious. 39. In Noe et filios eius, de cherubim et in prophetam Oseam (CPG 4232): ed. HPC pp. 89-102; also in Arabic. 40. Encomium in sanctos martyres (CPG 4950): ed. HPC, pp. 107-117; see also # 66. 41. De sacrificiis Caini (CPG 4208): ed. HPC, pp. 124-138; also in Arabic. 42. De Noe et de arca (CPG 4271): ed. HPC, pp. 146-153. 43. In postremum ieiunium (CPG 4968): ed. HPC, pp. 165-172. 44. Contra Iudaeos et Graecos et haereticos (CPG 4233 & 5027): ed. HPC, pp. 185-201. 45. In illud: Genimina uiperarum (CPG 4947): ed. J. KECSKEMÉTI, Sévérien de Gabala. Homélie inédite sur le Saint-Esprit (CPG 4947), Paris, 1978 (diss.); also in Georgian. 46. In illud: Secundum imaginem et similitudinem (CPG 4234): ed. S. S. Kim, Севериан Гавальский, На слова: По образу и подобию (Быт. 1, 26), CPG 4234. I. Введение, editio princeps, русский перевод [Severianus Gabalensis. In illud: Secundum imaginem et similitudinem (Gen. 1, 26), CPG 4234. I. Introduction, editio princeps, Russian translation], in Богословский Вестник [Bogoslovskij Vestnik], 24-25 (2017), pp. 468527; text: pp. 486-522, with facing Russian translation. 47. In illud: Pater, transeat (CPG 4215): ed. initial part: Ch. MARTIN, Note sur l’homélie de Sévérien de Gabala in illud: Pater, transeat a me calix iste (Mt. 26,39), in Mus, 48 (1935), pp. 311-321; text: pp. 313-320; final part: J. ZELLINGER, Studien zu Severian von Gabala (Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie, 8), Münster i. W., 1926, pp. 10-21; also in Armenian and Georgian. 48. De pace (CPG 4214): ed. A. PAPADOPOULOS-KERAMEUS, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς σταχυολογίας. I, Petroupolis, 1891, pp. 15-26; also in Latin and Georgian.

282

SEVER J. VOICU

49. In incarnationem Domini (CPG 4204): ed. R. F. REGTUIT, Severian of Gabala, Homily on the Incarnation of Christ (CPG 4204): Text, Translation and Introduction, Amsterdam, 1992, pp. 232-286; critical edition that replaces PG, 59, 687-700; also in Slavonic. 50. Quomodo animam acceperit Adamus (CPG 4195): ed. H. SAVILE, Iohannis Chrysostomi opera omnia. V, Etonae, 1612, pp. 648-653; also in Armenian and Slavonic. 51. In pretiosam et uiuificam crucem (CPG 4213): ed. SAVILE 5, pp. 898-906; F. COMBEFIS, Sancti Iohannis Chrysostomi de educandis liberis liber aureus…, Parisiis, 1656, pp. 211-282. 52. In illud: Pone manum tuam (CPG 4198): ed. A. P. STEHOUWER, Severian von Gabala, In illud: Pone manum tuam, et in diversa testimonia (CPG 4198). Kritische Edition mit Einleitung und Übersetzung, im Anhang zwei Fallstudien zur Sprache Severian, Amsterdam 1995 [diss.]; text: pp. 192-254; critical edition that replaces PG, 56, 553-564; also in Armenian. 53. In lotionem pedum (CPG 4216): ed. A. WENGER, Une homélie inédite de Sévérien de Gabala sur le lavement des pieds, in Mélanges V. Grumel. II (= REB, 25), Paris, 1967, 219-234; text, pp. 225-229; also in Armenian and Georgian. 2. Armenian Homilies lost in Greek (8) 54. De incarnatione (CPG 4240): ed. J. B. AUCHER, Severiani sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliae…, Venetiis, 1827, pp. 16-55. 55. De dogmate baptismoque (CPG 4241): ed. AUCHER, Severiani…, pp. 56-128, partly in Georgian; see van Esbroeck [22]. 56. De apostolis (CPG 4242): ed. AUCHER, Severiani…, pp. 128-177, partly in Georgian; see van Esbroeck [22]. 57. De pascha, deque catharis (CPG 4243): ed. AUCHER, Severiani…, pp. 178-215. 58. In illud: Libri aperti sunt (CPG 4244): ed. AUCHER, Severiani…, pp. 216-251. 59. In sanctum martyrem Acacium (CPG 4245): ed. AUCHER, Severiani…, pp. 294-321; Greek quotations in the Catena on Genesim; see # 64. 60. De aduentu Domini super pullum (CPG 4246): ed. N. AKINIAN, Եւսեբեայ Եպիսկոպոսի Եմեսացւոյ ճառք [Ewsebeay Emesacʻwoy Čaṙkʻ = The homilies of Eusebius bishop of Emesa], in Handes Amsorya, 70 (1959), coll. 321-360; partly in AUCHER, Severiani…, pp. 402-409; Georgian translation: see M. VAN ESBROECK, Deux homélies de Sévérien de Gabala (IVe-Ve siècle) conservées en géorgien, in Bedi Kartlisa, 36 (1978), pp. 71-91, here pp. 80-90. 61. In uenerabilem trinitatem consubstantialem (CPG 4248): ed. AKINIAN…, coll. 449-474.

A CENTURY OF PROGRESS ON THE HOMILIES OF SEVERIAN OF GABALA

283

3. Georgian Homily lost in Greek (1) 62. In illud: Christus est oriens (CPG 4235, inc. [Χθὲς ἡμῖν, ὦ φιλόχριστοι; back translation from Georgian]): almost completely lost in Greek; surviving in Georgian; the Georgian edition is described by Kim [46]. Previously two fragments were published with English translation by M. SHANIDZÉ, An Old Georgian Grammatical Treatise in a Collection of Homilies attributed to John Chrysostom, in Bedi Kartlisa, 42 (1984), pp. 53-68, here pp. 61-62; Greek quotations by Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 277: P. Henry, Photius, Bibliothèque. VIII. (“Codices” 257-280), Paris, 1977, pp. 133-134 and in the florilegium De communi essentia; see Voicu [52] and Kim [53b]. 4. Greek Fragments from Lost Homilies (3) 63. Homilia sine titulo (CPG 4217): ed. K. I. DYOVOUNIOTIS [Δυοβουνιώτης], Ἰωάννου Δαμασκηνοῦ Λόγοι ἀνέκδοτοι, in Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς Φάρος, 13 (1914), pp. 58-69 & 119-149; text: pp. 148-149. 64. Fragments transmitted by the catena on Genesis (CPG C 2): critical edition in F. PETIT, La chaîne sur la Genèse. Édition intégrale. I: Chapitres 1 à 3 (Traditio exegetica graeca, 1), Lovanii, 1991; II: Chapitres 4 à 11 (Traditio exegetica graeca, 2), Lovanii, 1993; III: Chapitres 12 à 28 (Traditio exegetica graeca, 3), Lovanii, 1995; IV: Chapitres 29 à 50 (Traditio exegetica graeca, 4), Lovanii, 1996. Françoise Petit fails to mention that several fragments published by François Combefis belong to the homily In sanctum martyrem Acacium (# 59), lost in Greek, but extant in Armenian; see Zellinger [1, 4]. 65. Fragment of a lost homily: ed. PG, 63, 550, 27-38. 5. Armenian Fragments from Lost Homilies (2) 66. In matrem filiorum Zebedaei (CPG 4249): ed. H. JORDAN, Armenische Irenaeusfragmente… (TU, 36, 3), Leipzig, 1913, pp. 28-39 [text] and 178189 [German translation]; see also # 40. See also Voicu [52]. 67. In illud: Confiteor tibi, pater domine caeli et terrae… (CPG 4295.17-18): surviving in Syriac and Armenian; the Syriac fragment was published by J. LEBON, Severi Antiocheni Liber contra impium Grammaticum. Orationis tertiae pars posterior. [I.] Edidit; [II.] Interpretatus est (CSCO, 101-102 / Syr., 50-51 = IV, 6), Lovanii, 1933 [= 1952], I, 321-322; II, pp. 237-238; the unpublished Armenian fragment is quite longer; see Lehmann [24, pp. 118-120].

BIBLIOTHÈQUE DE BYZANTION 1. N.A. BRODSKY, L’iconographie oubliée de l’Arc Éphésien de Sainte-Marie Majeure à Rome. 2. M. SACOPOULO, Asinou en 1106 et sa contribution à l’iconographie. 3. P. KARLIN-HAYTER, Vita Euthymii patriarchae CP. Text, Translation, Introduction and Commentary. 4. J. LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE, Itinéraires archéologiques dans la région d’Antioche. Recherches sur le monastère et sur l’iconographie de S. Syméon Stylite le Jeune. 5. M. CANARD, H. BERBÉRIAN, Aristakès de Lastivert. Récit des malheurs de la nation arménienne. Traduction française avec introduction et commentaire. 6. L. HARDERMANN-MISGUICH, Kurbinovo. Les fresques de Saint-Georges et la peinture byzantine du XIIe siècle. 7. I. SHAHÎD, Byzantium and the Arabs. Late Antiquity I. 8. I. SHAHÎD, Byzantium and the Arabs. Late Antiquity II. 9. I. SHAHÎD, Byzantium and the Arabs. Late Antiquity III. 10. J. MOSSAY, Gregoriana. 11. S. LAVENNE, Histamenon et tetarteron. La politique monétaire des empereurs macédoniens entre Nicéphore II (963-969) et Michel IV (1034-1041). 12. A. BINGGELI, A. BOUD’HORS, M. CASSIN (eds.), Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia. Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l’honneur de Paul Géhin. 13. E. AMATO, A. CORCELLA, D. LAURITZEN (eds.), L’École de Gaza: espace littéraire et identité culturelle dans l’Antiquité tardive. 14. V. SOMERS, P. YANNOPOULOS (eds.), Philokappadox. In memoriam Justin Mossay. 15. D. KNIPP, The Mosaics of the Norman Stanza in Palermo. A Study of Byzantine and Medieval Islamic Palace Decoration. 16. K. LEVRIE, Jean Pédiasimos, Essai sur les douze travaux d’Héraclès. Édition critique, traduction et introduction. 17. M. PIASENTIN, F. PONTANI, Cristoforo Kondoleon, Scritti Omerici. 18. A. HILKENS, The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and its Sources. 19. L. SELS, J. FUCHSBAUER, V. TOMELLERI, I. DE VOS (eds.), Editing Mediaeval Texts from a Different Angle: Slavonic and Multilingual Traditions.

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA 1. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I. 2. J. QUAEGEBEUR, Le dieu égyptien Shaï dans la religion et l’onomastique. 3. P.H.L. EGGERMONT, Alexander’s Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahmin Town of Harmatelia. 4. W.M. CALLEWAERT, The Sarvangī of the Dadupanthī Rajab. 5. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East I. 6. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East II. 7. M.-C. DE GRAEVE, The Ships of the Ancient Near East (c. 2000-500 B.C.). 8. W.M. CALLEWAERT (ed.), Early Hindī Devotional Literature in Current Research. 9. F.L. DAMEN, Crisis and Religious Renewal in the Brahmo Samaj Movement (1860-1884). 10. R.Y. EBIED, A. VAN ROEY, L.R. WICKHAM, Peter of Callinicum, Anti-Tritheist Dossier. 11. A. RAMMANT-PEETERS, Les pyramidions égyptiens du Nouvel Empire. 12. S. SCHEERS (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata I. Numismatica Antiqua. 13. J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata II. Orientalia Antiqua. 14. E. PLATTI, Yahya ibn ῾Adī, théologien chrétien et philosophe arabe. 15. E. GUBEL, E. LIPIŃSKI, B. SERVAIS-SOYEZ (eds.), Studia Phoenicia I-II. 16. W. SKALMOWSKI, A. VAN TONGERLOO (eds.), Middle Iranian Studies. 17. M. VAN MOL, Handboek Modern Arabisch. 18. C. LAGA, J.A. MUNITIZ, L. VAN ROMPAY (eds.), After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. 19. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations. 20. S. WACHSMANN, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs. 21. K. VAN LERBERGHE, Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia. 22. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C. 23. M. HELTZER, E. LIPIŃSKI (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (1500-1000 B.C.). 24. M. VAN DE MIEROOP, Crafts in the Early Isin Period: a Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šu-Ilišu. 25. G. POLLET (ed.), India and the Ancient World. History, Trade and Culture before A.D. 650. 26. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Carthago. 27. E. VERREET, Modi Ugaritici. Eine morpho-syntaktische Abhandlung über das Modalsystem im Ugaritischen. 28. R. ZADOK, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. 29. W. CALLEWAERT, M. LATH, The Hindī Songs of Namdev. 30. A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy. 31. N. BAUM, Arbres et arbustes de l’Égypte ancienne. 32. J.-M. KRUCHTEN, Les Annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXIe-XXIIIe dynasties) et autres textes relatifs à l’initation des prêtres d’Amon. 33. H. DEVIJVER, E. LIPIŃSKI (eds.), Punic Wars. 34. E. VASSILIKA, Ptolemaic Philae. 35. A. GHAITH, La Pensée Religieuse chez Gubrân Halil Gubrân et Mihâ᾿îl Nu῾ayma. 36. N. BEAUX, Le Cabinet de curiosités de Thoutmosis III. 37. G. POLLET, P. EGGERMONT, G. VAN DAMME, Corpus Topographicum Indiae Antiquae. Part II: Archaeological Sites. 38. S.-A. NAGUIB, Le Clergé féminin d’Amon thébain à la 21e dynastie. 39. U. VERHOEVEN, E. GRAEFE (eds.), Religion und Philosophie im Alten Ägypten. Festgabe für Philippe Derchain zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. 40. A.R. GEORGE, Babylonian Topographical Texts. 41. A. SCHOORS, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qohelet. Part I: Grammatical Features.

42. G. REININK, H.E.J. VAN STIPHOUT (eds.), Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East. 43. C. TRAUNECKER, Coptos. Hommes et dieux sur le parvis de Geb. 44. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the Bible. 45. L. ISEBAERT (ed.), Studia Etymologica Indoeuropaea Memoriae A.J. Van Windekens dicata. 46. F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, Les relations entre les cités de la côte phénicienne et les royaumes d’Israël et de Juda. 47. W.J. VAN BEKKUM, A Hebrew Alexander Romance according to MS London, Jews’ College no. 145. 48. W. SKALMOWSKI, A. VAN TONGERLOO (eds.), Medioiranica. 49. L. LAUWERS, Igor’-Severjanin, His Life and Work — The Formal Aspects of His Poetry. 50. R.L. VOS, The Apis Embalming Ritual. P. Vindob. 3873. 51. Fr. LABRIQUE, Stylistique et Théologie à Edfou. Le rituel de l’offrande de la campagne: étude de la composition. 52. F. DE JONG (ed.), Miscellanea Arabica et Islamica. 53. G. BREYER, Etruskisches Sprachgut im Lateinischen unter Ausschluß des spezifisch onomastischen Bereiches. 54. P.H.L. EGGERMONT, Alexander’s Campaign in Southern Punjab. 55. J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. 56. A. VAN ROEY, P. ALLEN, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century. 57. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II. 58. F.R. HERBIN, Le livre de parcourir l’éternité. 59. K. GEUS, Prosopographie der literarisch bezeugten Karthager. 60. A. SCHOORS, P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii. 61. M. KRAUSE, S. GIVERSEN, P. NAGEL (eds.), Coptology. Past, Present and Future. Studies in Honour of R. Kasser. 62. C. LEITZ, Altägyptische Sternuhren. 63. J.J. CLÈRE, Les Chauves d’Hathor. 64. E. LIPIŃSKI, Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique. 65. K. VAN LERBERGHE, A. SCHOORS (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński. 66. G. POLLET (ed.), Indian Epic Values. Ramayana and its impact. 67. D. DE SMET, La quiétude de l’Intellect. Néoplatonisme et gnose ismaélienne dans l’œuvre de Hamîd ad-Dîn al-Kirmânî (Xe-XIe s.). 68. M.L. FOLMER, The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period. A Study in Linguistic Variation. 69. S. IKRAM, Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt. 70. H. WILLEMS, The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418). A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom. 71. C. EDER, Die Ägyptischen Motive in der Glyptik des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes zu Anfang des 2. Jts. v. Chr. 72. J. THIRY, Le Sahara libyen dans l’Afrique du Nord médiévale. 73. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras I. 74. P. ARÈNES, La déesse sGrol-Ma (Tara). Recherches sur la nature et le statut d’une divinité du bouddhisme tibétain. 75. K. CIGGAAR, A. DAVIDS, H. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations I. 76. M. BROZE, Mythe et Roman en Égypte ancienne. Les Aventures d’Horus et Seth dans le papyrus Chester Beatty I. 77. L. DEPUYDT, Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt. 78. P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon. A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the Temple of Edfu.

79. A. HASNAWI, A. ELAMRANI, M. JAMAL, M. AOUAD (eds.), Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque. 80. E. LIPIŃSKI, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 81. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara I. Traduction. 82. C. EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. 83. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras II. 84-85. W. CLARYSSE, A. SCHOORS, H. WILLEMS (eds.), Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years. 86. U. VERMEULEN, J.M. VAN REETH (eds.), Law, Christianity and Modernism in Islamic Society. 87. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Philosophy and Arts in the Islamic World. 88. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara II. Traduction. 89. G.J. REININK, A.C. KLUGKIST (eds.), After Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers. 90. C.R. KRAHMALKOV, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. 91. M. TAHTAH, Entre pragmatisme, réformisme et modernisme. Le rôle politicoreligieux des Khattabi dans le Rif (Maroc) jusqu’à 1926. 92. K. CIGGAAR, H. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations II. 93. A.C.J. VERHEIJ, Bits, Bytes, and Binyanim. A Quantitative Study of Verbal Lexeme Formations in the Hebrew Bible. 94. W.M. CALLEWAERT, D. TAILLIEU, F. LALEMAN, A Descriptive Bibliography of Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938). 95. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara III. Traduction. 96. K. VAN LERBERGHE, G. VOET (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm. 97. A. CABROL, Les voies processionnelles de Thèbes. 98. J. PATRICH (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present. Monastic Life, Liturgy, Theology, Literature, Art, Archaeology. 99. U.VERHOEVEN, Untersuchungen zur späthieratischen Buchschrift. 100. E. LIPIŃSKI, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. 101. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara IV. Traduction. 102. U. VERMEULEN, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III. 103. H. WILLEMS (ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms. 104. K. GEUS, K. ZIMMERMANN (eds.), Punica – Libyca – Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huß, zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. 105. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Les fêtes d’Hathor. 106. R. PREYS, Les complexes de la demeure du sistre et du trône de Rê. Théologie et décoration dans le temple d’Hathor à Dendera. 107. A. BLASIUS, B.U. SCHIPPER (eds.), Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten. 108. S. LEDER (ed.), Studies in Arabic and Islam. 109. A. GODDEERIS, Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period (ca. 2000-1800 BC). 110. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band I. 111. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band II. 112. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band III. 113. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band IV. 114. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band V. 115. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VI. 116. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VII. 117. M. VAN MOL, Variation in Modern Standard Arabic in Radio News Broadcasts.

118. M.F.J. BAASTEN, W.Th VAN PEURSEN (eds.), Hamlet on a Hill. Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 119. O.E. KAPER, The Egyptian God Tutu. A Study of the Sphinx-God and Master of Demons with a Corpus of Monuments. 120. E. WARDINI, Lebanese Place-Names (Mount Lebanon and North Lebanon). 121. J. VAN DER VLIET, Catalogue of the Coptic Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Copt.). 122. A. ŁAJTAR, Catalogue of the Greek Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Greek). 123. H. NIEHR, Ba῾alšamem. Studien zu Herkunft, Geschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines phönizischen Gottes. 124. H. WILLEMS, F. COPPENS, M. DE MEYER, P. DILS, The Temple of Shanhûr. Volume I: The Sanctuary, The Wabet, and the Gates of the Central Hall and the Great Vestibule (1-98). 125. K. CIGGAAR, H.G.B. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations III. 126. T. SOLDATJENKOVA, E. WAEGEMANS (eds.), For East is East. Liber Amicorum Wojciech Skalmowski. 127. E. LIPIŃSKI, Itineraria Phoenicia. 128. D. BUDDE, S. SANDRI, U. VERHOEVEN (eds.), Kindgötter im Ägypten der griechischrömischen Zeit. Zeugnisse aus Stadt und Tempel als Spiegel des Interkulturellen Kontakts. 129. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VIII. 130. E.J. VAN DER STEEN, Tribes and Territories in Transition. 131. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara V-VI. Traduction. Les cryptes du temple d’Hathor. 132. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara V-VI. Index phraséologique. Les cryptes du temple d’Hathor. 133. M. IMMERZEEL, J. VAN DER VLIET, M. KERSTEN, C. VAN ZOEST (eds.), Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies. Leiden, August 27 - September 2, 2000. 134. J.J. VAN GINKEL, H.L. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, T.M. VAN LINT (eds.), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. 135. J. MONTGOMERY (ed.), ‘Abbasid Studies. Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies, Cambridge, 6-10 July 2002. 136. T. BOIY, Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon. 137. B. JANSSENS, B. ROOSEN, P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 138. S. HENDRICKX, R.F. FRIEDMAN, K.M. CIAŁOWICZ, M. CHŁODNICKI (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. 139. R. ARNZEN, J. THIELMANN (eds.), Words, Texts and Concepts Cruising the Mediterranean Sea. Studies on the Sources, Contents and Influences of Islamic Civilization and Arabic Philosophy and Science. 140. U. VERMEULEN, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras IV. 141. H.T. DAVIES, Yusuf al-􀆴irbīnī’s Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-􀆴arh Qasīd Abī 􀆴aduf (“Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu 􀆴aduf Expounded”). Volume I: Arabic text. 142. P. VAN NUFFELEN, Un héritage de paix et de piété. Étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène. 143. A. SCHOORS, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qoheleth. Part II: Vocabulary. 144. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 1. 145. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 2.

146. M. CACOUROS, M.-H. CONGOURDEAU (eds.), Philosophie et sciences à Byzance de 1204 à 1453. Les textes, les doctrines et leur transmission. 147. K. CIGGAAR, M. METCALF (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean I. 148. B. MICHALAK-PIKULSKA, A. PIKULSKI (eds.), Authority, Privacy and Public Order in Islam. 149. E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. 150. J.-Cl. GOYON, C. CARDIN (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists. Actes du neuvième congrès international des Égyptologues. Grenoble, 6-12 septembre 2004. 151. S. SANDRI, Har-pa-chered (Harpokrates). Die Genese eines ägyptischen Götterkindes. 152. J.E. MONTGOMERY (ed.), Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy. From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank. 153. E. LIPIŃSKI, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. Historical and Topographical Researches. 154. M. MINAS-NERPEL, Der Gott Chepri. Untersuchungen zu Schriftzeugnissen und ikonographischen Quellen vom Alten Reich bis in griechisch-römische Zeit. 155. H. WILLEMS, Dayr al-Barsha Volume I. The Rock Tombs of Djehutinakht (No. 17K74/1), Khnumnakht (No. 17K74/2), and Iha (No. 17K74/3). With an Essay on the History and Nature of Nomarchal Rule in the Early Middle Kingdom. 156. J. BRETSCHNEIDER, J. DRIESSEN, K. VAN LERBERGHE (eds.), Power and Architecture. Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean. 157. A. CAMPLANI, G. FILORAMO (eds.), Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late Antique Monasticism. 158. J. TAVERNIER, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts. 159. P. KOUSOULIS, K. MAGLIVERAS (eds.), Moving Across Borders. Foreign Relations, Religion and Cultural Interactions in the Ancient Mediterranean. 160. A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. 161. B. LURSON, Osiris, Ramsès, Thot et le Nil. Les chapelles secondaires des temples de Derr et Ouadi es-Seboua. 162. G. DEL OLMO LETE (ed.), Mythologie et Religion des Sémites occidentaux. 163. N. BOSSON, A. BOUD’HORS (eds.), Actes du huitième congrès international d’études coptes. Paris, 28 juin - 3 juillet 2004. 164. A. BERLEJUNG, P. VAN HECKE (eds.), The Language of Qohelet in Its Context. Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. 165. A.G.C. SAVVIDES, Byzantino-Normannica. The Norman Capture of Italy and the First Two Invasions in Byzantium. 166. H.T. DAVIES, Yusuf al-􀆴irbīnī’s Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu 􀆴aduf Expounded (Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-􀆴arh Qasīd Abī 􀆴aduf). Volume II: English translation, introduction and notes. 167. S. ARGUILLÈRE, Profusion de la vaste sphère. Klong-chen rab-’byams (Tibet, 1308-1364). Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine. 168. D. DE SMET, Les Épîtres sacrées des Druzes. Rasa᾿il al-Hikma. Volumes 1 et 2. 169. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras V. 170. W.J. VAN BEKKUM, J.W. DRIJVERS, A.C. KLUGKIST (eds.), Syriac Polemics. Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink. 171. K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Continuity and Change in the Realms of Islam. Studies in Honour of Professor Urbain Vermeulen. 172. B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, J. ROWLAND, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2.

173. J.H.F. DIJKSTRA, Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion. A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298-642 CE). 174. I. UYTTERHOEVEN, Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period. Life and Death in a Fayum Village. 175. P. KOUSOULIS (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Demonology. Studies on the Boundaries between the Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic. 176. A. KARAHAN, Byzantine Holy Images – Transcendence and Immanence. The Theological Background of the Iconography and Aesthetics of the Chora Church. 177. J. NAWAS (ed.), ‘Abbasid Studies II. Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies, Leuven, 28 June - 1 July 2004. 178. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le temple d’Isis. Volume I: Traduction. 179. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le temple d’Isis. Volume II: Analyse à la lumière du temple d’Hathor. 180. M. ZITMAN, The Necropolis of Assiut. 181. E. LIPIŃSKI, Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite Deity. 182. C. KARLSHAUSEN, L’iconographie de la barque processionnelle en Égypte au Nouvel Empire. 183. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VI. 184. M. IMMERZEEL, Identity Puzzles. Medieval Christian Art in Syria and Lebanon. 185. D. MAGEE, J. BOURRIAU, S. QUIRKE (eds.), Sitting Beside Lepsius. Studies in Honour of Jaromir Malek at the Griffith Institute. 186. A. STEVENSON, The Predynastic Egyptian Cemetery of el-Gerzeh. 187. D. BUMAZHNOV, E. GRYPEOU, T.B. SAILORS, A. TOEPEL (eds.), Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient. Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag. 188. J. ELAYI, A.G. ELAYI, The Coinage of the Phoenician City of Tyre in the Persian Period (5th-4th Century BCE). 189. F. HAGEN, J. JOHNSTON, W. MONKHOUSE, K. PIQUETTE, J. TAIT, M. WORTHINGTON (eds.), Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East. Literary and Linguistic Approaches. 190. V. VAN DER STEDE, Les pratiques de stockage au Proche-Orient ancien du Natoufien à la première moitié du troisième millénaire avant notre ère. 191. W. CLAES, H. DE MEULENAERE, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Elkab and Beyond. Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. 192. M. MARÉE (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects. 193. I. JACOBS, Aesthetic Maintenance of Civic Space. The ‘Classical’ City from the 4th to the 7th c. AD. 194. H. KNUF, C. LEITZ, D. VON RECKLINGHAUSEN (eds.), Honi soit qui mal y pense. Studien zum pharaonischen, griechisch-römischen und spätantiken Ägypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen. 195. I. REGULSKI, A Palaeographic Study of Early Writing in Egypt. 196. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XIII. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Façade et colonnes. 197. M. KUHN, Koptische liturgische Melodien. Die Relation zwischen Text und Musik in der koptischen Psalmodia. 198. B. SNELDERS, Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction. Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area. 199. K. CIGGAAR, V. VAN AALST (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean II. 200. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics III. 201. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XIV. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Parois intérieures. 202. K. DUISTERMAAT, I. REGULSKI (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. 203. F.S. JONES, Pseudoclementina Elchasaiticaque inter Judaeochristiana. Collected Studies.

204. D. ASTON, B. BADER, C. GALLORINI, P. NICHOLSON, S. BUCKINGHAM (eds.), Under the Potter’s Tree. Studies on Ancient Egypt Presented to Janine Bourriau on the Occasion of her 70th Birthday. 205. R.F. FRIEDMAN, P.N. FISKE (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3. 206. S. DORPMUELLER (ed.), Fictionalizing the Past: Historical Characters in Arabic Popular Epic. 207. G. CONTU (ed.), Centre and Periphery within the Borders of Islam. 208. B. MAHIEU, Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and his Sons in their Struggle for Recognition. 209. M.M. BAR-ASHER, A. KOFSKY, Kitab al-Ma῾arif by Abu Sa῾īd Maymun b. Qasim al-Tabaranī. Critical Edition with an Introduction. 210. M. DE MEYER, Dayr al-Barsha Volume II. First Intermediate Period Restoration of Old Kingdom Tombs. 211. R. EL-SAYED, Afrikanischstämmiger Lehnwortschatz im älteren Ägyptisch. 212. P. VAN DEUN, C. MACÉ (eds.), Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? 213. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XV. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Plafond et parois extérieures. 214. L. EVANS (ed.), Ancient Memphis, “Enduring is the Perfection”. 215. V. KLEMM, N. AL-SHA῾AR (eds.), Sources and Approaches across Disciplines in Near Eastern Studies. 216. A.M. BAGG, Die Assyrer und das Westland. Studien zur historischen Geographie und Herrschaftspraxis in der Levante im 1. Jt. v.u. Z. 217. B. BADER, M.F. OWNBY (eds.), Functional Aspects of Egyptian Ceramics in their Archaeological Context. 218. F. HAGEN, An Ancient Egyptian Literary Text in Context: The Instruction of Ptahhotep. 219. I. REGULSKI, K. DUISTERMAAT, P. VERKINDEREN (eds.), Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East. Developments in Administration and Magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period. 220. T. BOIY, J. BRETSCHNEIDER, A. GODDEERIS, H. HAMEEUW, G. JANS, J. TAVERNIER (eds.), The Ancient Near East, A Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe. 221. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor : Analyse de la décoration. 222. N. TACKE, Das Opferritual des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches. 223. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VII. 224. J. YOYOTTE, Histoire, géographie et religion de l’Égypte ancienne. Opera selecta. Textes édités et indexés par Ivan Guermeur. 225. H. DAVIES, Yusuf al-􀆴irbīnī’s Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-􀆴arh Qasīd Abī 􀆴aduf (“Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu 􀆴aduf Expounded”). Volume III: A Lexicon of 17th-century Egyptian Arabic. 226. A. CILARDO (ed.), Islam and Globalisation. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 227. S. BROCK, L. VAN ROMPAY, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt). 228. G. POLLET, G. VAN DAMME, F. DEPUYDT, Corpus Topographicum Indiae Antiquae III: Indian Toponyms in Ancient Greek and Latin Texts. 229. M. DEPAUW, S. COUSSEMENT (eds.), Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World. 230. E. LIPIŃSKI, Semitic Linguistics in Historical Perspective. 231. M. DEPAUW, Y. BROUX (eds.), Acts of the Tenth International Congress of Demotic Studies. 232. S.H. AUFRÈRE, P.S. ALEXANDER, Z. PLEŠE (eds.), On the Fringe of Commentary. Metatextuality in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures. 233. C. WAERZEGGERS, Marduk-rēmanni. Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid Babylonia. 234. M. SOKOLOFF, A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. 235. M. SOKOLOFF, Texts of Various Contents in Christian Palestinian Aramaic.

236. R.A. FAZZINI, J. VAN DIJK (eds.), The First Pylon of the Mut Temple, South Karnak: Architecture, Decoration, Inscriptions. 237. E. LIPIŃSKI, Peuples de la Mer, Phéniciens, Puniques. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire méditerranéenne. 238. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Harsomtous. 239. A.S. LA LOGGIA, Engineering and Construction in Egypt’s Early Dynastic Period. 240. A.H. PRIES (ed.), Die Variation der Tradition. Modalitäten der Ritualadaption im Alten Ägypten. 241. P. KOUSOULIS, N. LAZARIDIS (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22-29 May 2008. 242. P. COLLOMBERT, D. LEFÈVRE, S. POLIS, J. WINAND (eds.), Aere perennius. Mélanges égyptologiques en l’honneur de Pascal Vernus. 243. A. BINGGELI, A. BOUD’HORS, M. CASSIN (eds.), Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia. Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l’honneur de Paul Géhin. 244. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VIII. 245. B. BADER, C.M. KNOBLAUCH, E.C. KÖHLER (eds.), Vienna 2 – Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century. 246. J. VAN DIJK (ed.), Another Mouthful of Dust. Egyptological Studies in Honour of Geoffrey Thorndike Martin. 247. P. BUZI, A. CAMPLANI, F. CONTARDI (eds.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. 248. M. REINKOWSKI, M. WINET (eds.), Arabic and Islamic Studies in Europe and Beyond. Études arabes et islamiques en Europe et au-delà. 249. E. AMATO, A. CORCELLA, D. LAURITZEN (eds.), L’École de Gaza: espace littéraire et identité culturelle dans l’Antiquité tardive. 250. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics IV. 251. V. SOMERS, P. YANNOPOULOS (eds.), Philokappadox. In memoriam Justin Mossay. 252. M.D. ADAMS, B. MIDANT-REYNES, E.M. RYAN, Y. TRISTANT (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 4. 253. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 3. 254. J. HÄMEEN-ANTTILA, P. KOSKIKALLIO, I. LINDSTEDT (eds.), Contacts and Interaction. 255. J. STAUDER-PORCHET, Les autobiographies de l’Ancien Empire égyptien. 256. N. BOSSON, A. BOUD’HORS, S. AUFRÈRE (eds.), Labor omnia uicit improbus. Miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy. 257. S. BICKEL, L. DÍAZ-IGLESIAS (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egyptian Funerary Literature. 258. L. MUEHLETHALER, G. SCHWARB, S. SCHMIDTKE (eds.), Theological Rationalism in Medieval Islam. 259. M. IMMERZEEL, The Narrow Way to Heaven. Identity and Identities in the Art of Middle Eastern Christianity. 260. B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, E.M. RYAN (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 5. 261. D. KNIPP, The Mosaics of the Norman Stanza in Palermo. A Study of Byzantine and Medieval Islamic Palace Decoration. 262. G. MINIACI, M. BETRÒ, S. QUIRKE (eds.), Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-1500 BC). 263. D. BRAKKE, S.J. DAVIS, S. EMMEL (eds.), From Gnostics to Monastics. Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton. 264. R. DEKKER, Episcopal Networks and Authority in Late Antique Egypt. Bishops of the Theban Region at Work. 265. C. JURMAN, B. BADER, D. ASTON (eds.), A True Scribe of Abydos. Essays on First Millennium Egypt in Honour of Anthony Leahy. 266. M. WISSA (ed.), Scribal Practices and the Social Construction of Knowledge in Antiquity, Late Antiquity and Medieval Islam. 267. E. LIPIŃSKI, Toponymes et gentilices bibliques face à l’histoire.

268. A. BATMAZ, G. BEDIANASHVILI, A. MICHALEWICZ, A. ROBINSON (eds.), Context and Connection. Essays on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of Antonio Sagona. 269. K. CIGGAAR, V. VAN AALST (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean III. 270. K. LEVRIE, Jean Pédiasimos, Essai sur les douze travaux d’Héraclès. Édition critique, traduction et introduction. 271. M. PIASENTIN, F. PONTANI, Cristoforo Kondoleon, Scritti Omerici. 272. A. HILKENS, The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and its Sources. 273. M. HONEGGER (ed.), Nubian Archaeology in the XXIst Century. 274. M. ABOU-ABDALLAH, L’histoire du royaume de Byblos à l’âge du Fer, 1080-333. 275. E. LIPIŃSKI, A History of the Kingdom of Israel. 276. L. SELS, J. FUCHSBAUER, V. TOMELLERI, I. DE VOS (eds.), Editing Mediaeval Texts from a Different Angle: Slavonic and Multilingual Traditions. 277. C. WAERZEGGERS, M. SEIRE (eds.), Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence. 278. K. D’HULSTER, G. SCHALLENBERGH, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras IX. 279. M.-J. ROCHE, Inscriptions nabatéennes datées de la fin du IIe siècle avant notre ère au milieu du IVe siècle. 280. W. CLARYSSE, A.I. BLASCO TORRES (eds.), Egyptian Language in Greek Sources. Scripta onomastica of Jan Quaegebeur.

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706