The Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha [1 ed.] 9042935995, 9789042935990

Citation preview

The Dormition Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha (15)

and Assumption Apocrypha STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

PEETERS

THE DORMITION AND ASSUMPTION APOCRYPHA

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 1

29/10/18 13:03

STUDIES ON EARLY CHRISTIAN APOCRYPHA Edited by J.N. Bremmer (editor-in-chief), I. Czachesz, T. Nicklas, M. Pesthy and L. Roig Lanzillotta. In recent decades the so-called apocryphal literature has increasingly drawn the attention of scholars interested in early Christianity, ancient history and the ancient novel. New editions of the most important texts have already appeared or are being prepared. We are therefore pleased to announce a new series, StudiesonEarlyChristianApocrypha (formerly called StudiesontheApocryphalActsoftheApostles). The editors welcome contributions on individual aspects of the main texts, be they proceedings of conferences or monographs.

1. TheApocryphalActsofJohn, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Kampen 1996 2. The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Kampen 1996 3. TheApocryphalActsofPeter:Magic,MiraclesandGnosticism, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 1998 4. TheActsofJohn:aTwo-stageInitiationintoJohannineGnosticism, P.J. Lalleman, Leuven 1998 5. TheApocryphalActsofAndrew,J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 2000 6. TheApocryphalActsofThomas, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 2001 7. The Apocalypse of Peter, J.N. Bremmer and I. Czachesz (eds.), Leuven 2003 8. CommissionNarratives:AComparativeStudyoftheCanonical andApocryphalActs, I. Czachesz, Leuven 2007 9. TheVisioPauliandtheGnosticApocalypseofPaul, J.N. Bremmer and I. Czachesz (eds.), Leuven 2007 10. ThePseudo-Clementines, J.N. Bremmer (ed.), Leuven 2010 11. The Ascension of Isaiah, J.N. Bremmer, T.R. Karmann and T. Nicklas (eds.), Leuven 2016 12. Thecla:Paul’sDiscipleandSaintintheEastandWest, J.W. Barrier, J.N. Bremmer, T. Nicklas and A. Puig i Tàrrech (eds.), Leuven 2017 13. Figures of Ezra, J.N. Bremmer, V. Hirschberger and T. Nicklas (eds.), Leuven 2018 14. RingenumIsrael.IntertextuellePerspektivenaufdas5.BuchEsra, V. Hirschberger, Leuven 2018

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 2

29/10/18 13:03

The Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

PEETERS

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 3

29/10/18 13:03

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2018, Uitgeverij Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-3599-0 eISBN 978-90-429-3778-9 D/2018/0602/103 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 4

29/10/18 13:03

In Memory of Michel van Esbroeck

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 5

29/10/18 13:03

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 6

29/10/18 13:03

Contents

Acknowledgements

ix

List of abbreviations

xi

Introduction

1

I

Death and the Maiden: The Early History of the Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha

19

Gender at the Virgin’s Funeral: Men and Women as Witnesses to the Dormition

56

III

Asceticism in the Early Dormition Narratives

64

IV

A Peculiar Version of the InventioCrucis in the Early Syriac Dormition Traditions

74

“Let Us Go and Burn Her Body”: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions

83

II

V VI

Rethinking the “Gnostic Mary”: Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala in Early Christian Tradition 137

VII

Apocrypha and Liturgy: The Case of the “Six Books” Dormition Apocryphon

VIII Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century IX

The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Attributed to Evodius of Rome (Morgan MSS 596 & 598): An Edition and Translation

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 7

181

195

226

29/10/18 13:03

CONTENTS

viii X

A New Dormition Fragment in Coptic: P. Vindob. K 7589 and the Marian Apocryphal Tradition

273

XI

New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library 298

XII

Apocalyptic Traditions in the Armenian Dormition Narratives

323

Bibliography

337

Index

355

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 8

29/10/18 13:03

Acknowledgements

1. “Death and the Maiden: The Early History of the Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha,” Saint Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 50 (2006) 59-97. 2. “Gender at the Virgin’s Funeral: Men and Women as Witnesses to the Dormition,” SP 34 (2001) 552-58. 3. “Asceticism in the Early Dormition Narratives,” SP 44 (2010) 509-13. 4. “A Peculiar Version of the Inventio crucis in the Early Syriac Dormition Traditions,” SP 41 (2006) 75-81. 5. “‘Let Us Go and Burn Her Body’: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions,” CH 68.4 (1999) 775-823. 6. “Rethinking the ‘Gnostic Mary’: Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala in Early Christian Tradition,” JECS 9 (2001) 555595. 7. “Apocrypha and Liturgy in the Fourth Century: The Case of the “Six Books” Dormition Apocryphon,” in J. H. Charlesworth and L. M. McDonald (eds), JewishandChristianScriptures:TheFunctionof‘Canonical’and‘Non-canonical’ReligiousTexts (London, 2010) 153-63. 8. “Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Later Fourth Century,” JECS 16 (2008) 369-99. 9. “The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Attributed to Evodius of Rome: An Edition of Morgan MSS 596 & 598 with Translation,” AB 117 (1999) 241-83. 10. “A New Dormition Fragment in Coptic: P. Vindob. K 7589 and the Marian Apocryphal Tradition,” in D. Bumazhnov, etal. (eds), Bibel,ByzanzundChristlicherOrient.FestschriftfürStephenGerö zum65.Geburtstag (Louvain, 2011) 203-29.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 9

29/10/18 13:03

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

11. “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library: Presentation, Edition and Translation,” Mus 124 (2011) 259-78. 12. “Apocalyptic Traditions in the Armenian Dormition Narratives,” in K. D. Bardakjian and S. LaPorta (eds),TheArmenianApocalypticTradition:AComparativePerspective (Leiden, 2014) 53850.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 10

29/10/18 13:03

List of Abbreviations

AB  ANRW BLE Byz ByzZ CH  DOP EO  HSCP HTR JBL JECS JFSR JJS  JPOS JTS Mus NT  NTS OCP OKS OrChr PG

AnalectaBollandiana AufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt Bulletindelittératureecclésiastique Byzantion ByzantinischeZeitschrift ChurchHistory DumbartonOaksPapers Echosd’orient HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology HarvardTheologicalReview JournalofBiblicalLiterature JournalofEarlyChristianStudies JournalofFeministStudiesinReligion JournalofJewishStudies JournalofthePalestineOrientalSociety JournalofTheologicalStudies LeMuséon NovumTestamentum NewTestamentStudies OrientaliaChristianaPeriodica OstkirchlicheStudien OriensChristianus PatrologiaGraeca, ed. J. P. Migne, etal.(Paris, 1857- )

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 11

29/10/18 13:03

100214_Shoemaker_SECA-15_00_VW.indd 12

29/10/18 13:03

Introduction

As I finalize this volume of collected studies on the early Dormition and Assumption traditions, it is now almost twenty years exactly since I finished my dissertation on the same topic. Two of these articles, now chapters five and six of this volume, began in that dissertation but were published separately from the resulting monograph, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford, 2002). The ten additional chapters are the products of continued research on this topic in the years since, the earliest of which was published in 1999 and the most recent in 2011. Of course, over the course of two decades my mind has changed on several points related to these traditions, some of which I will highlight below in this introduction. Nevertheless, my fundamental understanding of the early history of traditions about the Virgin’s Dormition and Assumption remains largely unaltered. The study of these traditions based on their literary relations and history, as inaugurated especially by Antoine Wenger and Michel van Esbroeck, clearly holds the most promise for understanding their complex and convoluted early history. Each chapter in this volume was previously published in another venue, and I thank the relevant publishers for graciously allowing us to reprint them here. I also thank Jan Bremmer and Tobias Nicklas, the editors of this series, both for their initial encouragement to prepare this collection for publication and their extraordinary assistance in realizing this project. The articles republished here have not simply been reproduced without alteration. Most obviously, they have been repaginated and reformatted to a uniform style in order to present them together as a coherent collection of studies on the early Dormition apocrypha. There are more subtle changes as well. Where the articles refer to one another, or, in the case of subsequent publications, should have, I have introduced specific references to the corresponding chapters of this volume. Likewise, I have made relatively minor updates to the sources identified in the footnotes, particularly to relevant publications of my own that have appeared more recently, but other important recent studies have also been indicated when deemed appropriate.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 1

29/10/18 13:02

2

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

I have included in this volume only articles that focus primarily on the ancient Dormition traditions, excluding others of my publications that touch on these texts more tangentially in the course of studying the history of Marian piety or the closely related Lives of the Virgin Mary, for instance. The early narratives of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption form a large and very complicated corpus, including approximately forty distinct narratives from before the middle of the seventh century that survive in nine very different ancient and medieval languages, ranging from Old Irish to Old Georgian. These texts describe, in varied fashion, the miraculous events of the end of the Virgin Mary’s life. As one will learn from the studies in this volume, these events take place in Jerusalem, occasionally with a brief side trip to Bethlehem. Several or, in most cases, all of the apostles are present for these events, and they often arrive by miraculous means. Mary’s physical death is of course at the center of these narratives, and although this event is frequently referred to euphemistically as her “Dormition” (i.e., “falling asleep”) or her “passing” (transitus), the reality of her physical death is regularly underscored. Mary’s son Jesus Christ is present for her expiry, and he usually receives her soul himself, after which Mary is miraculously transferred in body and/or soul to Paradise, concluding then with her Assumption in those narratives that bring her to Paradise in the body. One should note that I regularly refer to these texts collectively as the “Dormition traditions” or “Dormition narratives.” Such expressions are intended simply a shorthand for “Dormition and Assumption” and are in no way meant to indicate the absence of Mary’s bodily Assumption or the priority of traditions lacking this feature. This point needs to emphasized, given the extent to which modern dogmatic concerns regarding the Virgin Mary’s Assumption have often determined the scholarship on these traditions in the previous century. Indeed, exposing the distorting effects of this theological perspective and developing alternative models for analysis has been a primary focus of my research on these narratives. I will not say much more by way of introduction to these traditions, since the first chapter actually serves this purpose quite well. This opening chapter presents an overview of the corpus of Dormition narratives and is effectively a summary of my previous monograph on this topic. It is worth making a few observations, however, about some of the most important developments in scholarship on these traditions during the last fifteen years. Since publishing my monograph, no other scholar

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 2

29/10/18 13:02

INTRODUCTION

3

has influenced my thinking on this topic more than Enrico Norelli, who published many important studies on early Marian apocrypha, including the Dormition narratives. The sum of these studies is most readily accessible in his Mariedesapocryphes:enquêtesurlamèredeJésus danslechristianismeantique (Geneva, 2009). In this book as well as in other studies, Norelli particularly challenges my identification of certain elements from The Book of Mary’s Repose (Liber Requiei Mariae) with prominent themes and motifs that are commonly associated with early gnostic Christianities.1 I must admit that I have been persuaded by his arguments on this point. Accordingly, I have decided that it is better not to impose the very slippery and problematic category of “gnostic” onto this early apocryphon. It is interesting, however, that Pierluigi Piovanelli has recently acknowledged that the hypothesis of an intertextual relationship between the “Mary” of certain early Coptic apocrypha and representations of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in other writings now seems, in his judgment, to be “increasingly less speculative.”2 Nevertheless, the sharply “heterodox” theologoumena of this early apocryphon (“heterodox,” at least, from the perspective of post-Constantinian Christianity) need to 1

In this regard, one should see also, in addition to Norelli,Mariedesapocryphes, 129-42, E. Norelli, “La letteratura apocrifa sul Transito di Maria e il problema delle sue origini,” in E. M. Toniolo (ed.), Ildogmadell’assunzionedeMaria:problemiattualietentatividericomprensione (Rome, 2010) 121-65; and E. Norelli, “Les premières traditions sur la Dormition de Marie comme catalyseurs de formes très anciennes de réflexion théologique et sotériologique. Le cas du Paradis terrestre,” in J. Schröter (ed.), TheApocryphal GospelsWithintheContextofEarlyChristianTheology (Leuven, 2013) 40346 2 P. Piovanelli, “Rewriting: The Path from Apocryphal to Heretical,” in W. Mayer and B. Neil (eds), ReligiousConflictfromEarlyChristianitytothe RiseofIslam (Berlin, 2013) 87-108. It is extremely odd, however, that despite a wide engagement with the literature on this topic in the article, Piovanelli never refers to any of my articles that first raised the possibility of such a relationship, e.g., S. J. Shoemaker, “Rethinking the ‘Gnostic Mary’: Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala in Early Christian Tradition,” JECS 9 (2001) 555-95 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 6); S. J. Shoemaker, “A Case of Mistaken Identity?: Naming the Gnostic Mary,” in F. S. Jones (ed.), WhichMary?: TheMarysofEarlyChristianTradition (Atlanta, 2002) 5-30; S. J. Shoemaker, “Jesus’ Gnostic Mom: Mary of Nazareth and the Gnostic Mary Traditions,” in D. Good (ed.), Mariam, the Magdalen, and the Mother (Bloomington, 2005) 153-83.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 3

29/10/18 13:02

4

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

be understood on their own terms, and we should not to try to pin this text too closely to one particular form of early Christianity or another.3 Indeed, it seems that TheBookofMary’sRepose is best understood as an important witness in its own right to manifold diversity of early Christianity. This Dormition apocryphon reveals to us yet another distinctive and previously unknown articulation of the early Christian faith, one stands out as seemingly unique and needs to be appreciated alongside of gnostic Christianities and other esoteric forms of early Christianity. Moreover, I find Norelli’s arguments for dating this Marian apocryphon to the second century largely persuasive, although not entirely compelling, and so I continue to hedge on the date of this text, dating it most likely to the third century – at the latest. The possibility that it developed earlier in the second century seems very likely to me, although it remains somewhat uncertain in the current state of our evidence.4 In this regard, it should be noted, that the dating of the earliest Dormition narratives is another point on which I have changed my mind. In my monograph, as well as in some of the earlier articles reproduced here, I was more cautious about dating the earliest Dormition narratives to much before the fifth century. Now, I am convinced that The BookofMary’sRepose, the earliest representative of the Palm of the Tree of Life literary tradition, dates to the at least third century and may be even earlier (see chs. 2 and 3 in this volume).5 Furthermore, I now also think that the traditions of the SixBooksApocryphon, the earliest representative of the other major literary tradition, the Bethlehem tradition, were already in circulation by the middle of the fourth century (see ch. 4 and ch. 8 in this volume).6

3

The same holds true, in my opinion, with regard to R. van den Broek, “Manichaean Elements in an Early Version of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption,” in A. Houtman, etal. (eds), EmpsychoiLogoi—ReligiousInnovations inAntiquity (Leiden, 2008) 293-316. The parallels are striking and significant, but they should not lead one to conclude that this apocryphon had its origin within a Manichaean milieu (which, it should be noted, van den Broek does not go so far as to propose). 4 OnTheBookofMary’sRepose and early gnostic Christianities, see now S. J. Shoemaker, MaryinEarlyChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016) 100-29. 5 See also ibid. 6 See also ibid., 130-65.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 4

29/10/18 13:02

INTRODUCTION

5

I am also grateful to Prof. Norelli for drawing my attention to the important work of Tedros Abraha on The Book of Mary’s Repose. Abraha has argued, persuasively in my opinion, that the Ethiopic translation that best preserves this early Christian apocryphon reflects a very early stage in the history of the Ethiopic language and is seemingly one of the best witnesses to the earliest form of the language.7 Accordingly, we may be fairly certain that this apocryphon was translated into Ethiopic at a time close to the introduction of Christianity to Axum. One should also note the extremely important edition of extensive fragments of the SixBooksApocryphon that Sebastian Brock and Grigory Kessel have published from a palimpsest at Mount Sinai. The publication of these fragments is truly an extraordinary advance in our knowledge of this ancient Dormition apocryphon.8 It is thus becoming increasingly clear that these two texts are the earliest extant narratives of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. Of course, such a conclusion is sharply at odds with the hypotheses of Simon Mimouni regarding the earliest history of the Dormition traditions. As many readers likely will know, my 2002 monograph presents, among many other things, a strong critique of Mimouni’s work on the Dormition traditions, which he published during the late 1980s and early 1990s and culminating in his substantial monograph, DormitionetAssomptiondeMarie:Histoiredestraditionsanciennes (Paris, 1995). My estimate of Mimouni’s work on this topic has changed very little over the past fifteen years, and to my knowledge neither he nor anyone else has issued a satisfying response to the criticisms that 7

T. Abrahà, “La Dormitio Mariae in Etiopia,” in E. M. Toniolo (ed.), Ildogmadell’assunzionedeMaria:problemiattualietentatividericomprensione (Rome, 2010) 167-200; and T. Abraha, “Some Philological Notes on the Mäṣǝḥafä‘ƎräfǝtäläMaryam‘Liber Requiei’ (LR),” Apocrypha 23 (2012) 223-45. Abraha also proposes that we should, on account of the antiquity of its language, not attempt to clarify this narrative’s expression through comparison with other, closely related early Dormition narratives. While one can perhaps appreciate the underlying interest to recover the early history of the Ethiopic language in this way, from the point of view of someone interested in understanding and recovering the early history of this particular apocryphal tradition, such an approach would be detrimental and is fatally flawed. 8 S. P. Brock and G. Kessel, “The ‘Departure of Mary’ in Two Palimpsests at the Monastery of St. Сatherine (Sinai Syr. 30 & Sinai Arabic 514),” KhristianskiĭVostok 8 (2017) 115-52.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 5

29/10/18 13:02

6

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

I raised regarding his overall approach and his interpretation of specific texts. Indeed, Mimouni has published very little on the Dormition since my monograph appeared, which is unfortunate, although he has been prolific in other areas. In 2003, he published (with Sever Voicu) French translations of five early Greek Dormition narratives, together with very brief introductions that reiterate positions about these texts published already in his monograph.9 Excepting this collection of translations, Mimouni’s only publication focusing specifically on the Dormition traditions during this interval is, so far as I am aware, a very brief article on the earliest Dormition narratives in Latin.10 Yet this article is not a new study but instead an eleven-page excerpt from an article published more than ten years earlier in 1996.11 2011 saw the publication of a collection of Mimouni’s articles entitled LestraditionsanciennessurlaDormitionetl’Assomptionde Marie:étudeslittéraires,historiquesetdoctrinales (Leiden, 2011).12 This book gathers thirteen articles, all previously published between 9 S. C. Mimouni and S. J. Voicu, La tradition grecque de la Dormition et de l’Assomption de Marie: Textes introduits, traduits et annotés (Paris, 2003). 10 S. C. Mimouni, “Les plus anciennes Dormitions de Marie en latin,” in N. Nabert and M.-G. Grossel (eds), LafiguredeMarieenChartreuse–Une Dormition de la Vierge. Manuscrit inédit de la Grande-Chartreuse (Paris, 2009) 141-51. 11 S. C. Mimouni, “De l’Ascension du Christ à l’Assomption de la Vierge à partir des Transitus Mariae: Représentations anciennes et médiévales,” in D. Iogna-Prat et al. (eds), Marie. Le culte de la Vierge dans la société médiévale (Paris, 1996) 458-96. 12 See also my review of this book, which I largely reproduce in this paragraph and this note: S. J. Shoemaker, “Review of Simon Mimouni, Les traditions anciennes sur la Dormition et l’Assomption de Marie. Études littéraires,historiquesetdoctrinale,” JournalofEcclesiasticalHistory 63.4 (2012) 796-7. The volume’s preface is unfortunately marred by some personal attacks against me, including reference to me on the first page as a “‘scholar’,” with quotation marks (ix). Likewise, the preface disparages my monograph as “an extremely aggressive and polemical critique” of Mimouni’s earlier work that is marked by “a gleefully belligerent tone” (ix). I certainly would not deny that my critique of Mimouni’s earlier work was thoroughgoing, and I still maintain that his hypotheses and interpretations need substantial correction. Yet in the absence of a more constructive response in this volume to the critique presented in my monograph, I leave it to readers to judge for themselves between what is scholarship and what polemic.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 6

29/10/18 13:02

INTRODUCTION

7

1992 and 2007. Despite the volume’s title, however, only five of the articles focus specifically on the ancient traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. The remaining eight articles treat various topics related to different aspects of Mary’s representation in Christian literature, ranging from the Protevangelium of James to the HypomnestikonofJoseph to images of Mary as spouse of Christ in the medieval West. There is very little, then, in this volume that is new (although, as in the present volume, some of the articles have received minor bibliographic updates and a new format). Only the preface and introduction present new perspectives on the ancient Dormition traditions. The introduction briefly surveys some of the most important works on the Dormition traditions that have been published since Mimouni’s own important monograph on this topic, including much of my own work, which it regularly evaluates negatively.13 Just as the present volume was headed to press, a new publication by Mimouni on the Dormition traditions appeared, in a collection of essays honoring Sever Voicu.14 The article in question, however, is, as Mimouni notes at the outset, primarily a revision and expansion of the earlier introduction to his collected studies. It is also a work in the same vein: largely an evaluative summary of scholarship from the past two decades. At the beginning of the article, Mimouni re-presents 13

In response to my review, Mimouni sadly published an ugly and offensive diatribe against me: S. C. Mimouni, “Reply to Stephen J. Shoemaker. From a Senior Scholar to a Junior Scholar,” Annalidistoriadell’esegesi 32 (2015) 301-03. Those interested can read it for themselves; it speaks for itself. I will not dignifiy it with a response other than to rebut its most scurrilous and defamatory assertion. In his invective, Mimouni suggests that my scholarly criticisms of his interpretations of the ancient Dormition traditions may possibly be motivated by anti-Semitism on my part. This is truly a step too far, and it is no less outrageous that an editor allowed this to be published. Suffice to say that when I wrote my monograph while a graduate student and an out-of-work Ph.D., I knew nothing at all about Mimouni beyond what he had published in his scholarly works. My criticisms of his work remain now as then grounded exclusively in its content. 14 S. C. Mimouni, “Traditions sur le sort final de Marie. Remarques et réflexions fragmentaires sur une question en débat,” in F. P. Barone, etal. (eds), Philologie,herméneutiqueethistoiredestextesentreOrientetOccident:MélangesenhommageàSeverJ.Voicu (Turnhout, 2017) 641-70. My thanks to Jan Bremmer for providing a scan of the article immedately after its publication.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 7

29/10/18 13:02

8

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

the main outlines of his earlier work on the Dormition traditions, and then procedes to summarize much of the subsequent scholarship by other researchers, offering a brief evaluation of each item.15 Inasmuch as Mimouni reiterates here his earlier positions on the Dormition and Assumption traditions, I do not have much to add in response to this publication. Nevertheless, Mimouni is correct in noting a fundamental difference between his studies of the Dormition narratives and the approaches of most other scholars. Mimouni, as I have noted from the beginning of my own work on this topic, deliberately eschews the value of literary relations among texts as the foundation for study of this corpus. Rather, he continues to maintain that the traditions should instead be understood in light of a posited doctrinal evolution from belief in Mary’s Dormition alone to a belief in her Assumption, with an intermediate set of traditions that the reflect the stage of dogmatic transition. Yet another difference that comes to light from this article is that Mimouni is seemingly unwilling to hypothesize about the history of a given text much beyond its terminusantequem. While such caution is perhaps admirable to a certain extent, the long tradition of scholarship in early Christian studies has nevertheless routinely engaged in efforts to assign earlier dates to texts and traditions appearing only in more recent witness. Indeed, this is another fundamental difference in our approaches. I have made my objections to such a doctrinally oriented approach quite clear elsewhere, and there is no need to repeat them at length here. The narratives themselves simply do not fit into the neat groupings that Mimouni constructs on the basis of modern dogmatic categories. Indeed, the final fate of the Virgin in the earliest extant narratives belies the hypothesis of an originally “Assumptionless” tradition. 15

At the end of the article, however, Mimouni does engage more substantially with recent publications by Norelli, indeed, the very works signalled above in n. 1. See ibid., 663-67. In essence, Mimouni does not agree with Norelli’s identification of TheBookofMary’sRepose as witnessing to a very early Dormition narrative. Nevertheless, I have argued for its antiquity extensively in my first monograph and elsewhere, and most scholars, excepting only Mimouni it would seem, are largely agreed in this assessment. Mimouni’s position, in fairness, is consistent with his rejection of the importance of literary relations between texts and reluctance to date materials much before their terminusantequem, as noted below.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 8

29/10/18 13:02

INTRODUCTION

9

Moreover, in my recent monograph MaryinEarlyChristianFaithand Devotion, I underscore more broadly the deep problems with interpreting early Marian piety primarily through the prism of patristic theology, and Christology in particular. The privileged position granted to this dogmatic discourse has often regularly caused scholarship to read the early history of Marian piety incorrectly, and accordingly, its interpretive hegemony needs to be eliminated. Moreover, in this recent article Mimouni reasserts his belief that there is a close connection between the early Dormition traditions and the controversies over Chalcedon, both with respect to their initial emergence and their early development. Again, I will not repeat my arguments regarding the lack of evidence for such a proposal; interested readers may instead consult the final chapter of my 2002 monograph. Mimouni also emphasizes in this article what he takes to be the neglected importance of topography and liturgy in studies of the early Dormition narratives. I disagree with this assessment. I have myself given considerable attention to the early history of Marian devotion and its geography, as have numerous other scholars. The problem is not, therefore, a lack of attention, but rather the failure of the evidence from the early Dormition narratives to correspond with this topography in the manner that Mimouni contends. Ultimately, in fact, his arguments for reading the development of the Dormition traditions according to two orderly narratives of doctrinal and topological development rest on flawed readings of certain texts. For instance, as others have noted as well, the claim that some narratives locate Mary’s house in Bethlehem without also assigning her a house in Jerusalem is simply not correct; likewise, no early narrative that I have seen concludes with Mary’s “unresurrection” in Paradise, as Mimouni maintains. Both claims are erroneous, and their inaccuracy impinges significantly on the metanarratives of doctrine and topography that Mimouni deploys to explain the early history of the Dormitoin narratives. My disagreements with Mimouni’s interpretation of this corpus are of course far greater than just these two points, to be sure, but in my opinion these misreadings are fundamental to and emblematic of its problems. Altogether, this recent publication does not introduce any analysis of the Dormition traditions that would cause me to alter my earlier arguments. As they stand, they still represent my response to Mimouni’s model, in this most recent publication as well as his previous ones.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 9

29/10/18 13:02

10

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

The main points of my criticisms of Mimouni’s earlier studies on the ancient Dormition traditions, as well as their rearticulation in this recent article, can be found in chapter one of this volume, where my objections and their scholarly basis can be readily ascertained and evaluated. As noted already above, this chapter is effectively a summary of the principal arguments advanced in my earlier monograph on the ancient Dormition traditions. For the most part, my basic understating of the early history of this corpus has strayed very little from the views presented in this chapter: the two most significant changes have already been indicated above, namely, the relation of The Book ofMary’sRepose to gnostic Christianities and the dating of both it and the SixBooksApocryphon. This first chapter describes the general nature of this corpus of traditions and the literary relations of its components. After introducing many of the most important early Dormition narratives, I critique previous approaches to these traditions (including Mimouni’s as the most recent example) that interpret their narrative diversity and early history according to an imagined process of linear, orderly doctrinal development regarding belief in the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. Instead, I argue that a model based on the literary relations evident among the various texts through comparison of their content offers a more promising approach. As an example of such an approach that eschews the definitions of more recent Mariological dogmas, I propose that we should interpret Mary’s final presence in the Garden of Paradise at the end of these narratives according to a correlate diversity of opinion regarding the eschatological significance of Paradise in late antiquity, rather than seeking to align these ancient texts with the categories of modern Roman Catholic dogmatics. The next three chapters focus on specific issues that are significant for determining the date and development of the earliest Dormition narratives, and in many respects these chapters revise and refine some of the positions expressed on these topics in the initial chapter. Chapter two makes a brief analysis of certain inconsistencies regarding who is present and awake for the departure of Mary’s soul. The presence of the apostles for Mary’s death and burial is, as noted, one of the hallmarks of the early Dormition traditions, appearing in almost all the narratives. Indeed, many of the narratives recount at length the miraculous journey of the apostles from the ends of the earth and even from beyond the grave to honor Mary as she goes forth from the world. Yet several of the earliest narratives bear traces of a different, seemingly

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 10

29/10/18 13:02

INTRODUCTION

11

older tradition according to which only women were witness to the Virgin’s departure from this life. In one set of traditions, Christ and his apostles must leave the room before Mary can leave her body. Other narratives show evidence of a different early tradition in which the male apostles are put to sleep before Mary’s expiry, so that only Christ and her virgin attendants are witnesses to her death. There are possibly some similarities, I propose, between these accounts of Mary’s Dormition and the report of her son’s resurrection by women in the Fourth Gospel. There were perhaps also similar concerns to ensure a male, apostolic witness to the end of Mary’s life, much as there seems to have been in the case of her son’s triumph over the grave. Chapter three similarly explores a peculiar episode from some of the earliest narratives that seems to have been quickly erased during the transmission and revision of these traditions, no doubt on account of its deviance from emerging orthodoxies about the apostles and asceticism. This chapter focuses on a brief conversation that takes place among several of the apostles as they await Christ’s return after his mother’s death to resurrect her body and bring it to Paradise. The topic of their discussion concerns the degree of ascetic renunciation that one should expect from new converts. The best preserved account of this early apostolic council survives in The BookofMary’sRepose. There, after Mary’s death, Paul asks the other apostles to reveal to him the secret mysteries that Christ taught them, which he does not know since he did not follow Christ in the flesh. The others are not sure whether Paul is worthy of this secret knowledge, and so they refuse. Paul then asks the others what they preach as they seek to spread the gospel among the nations. Peter, John, and Andrew all relate a highly ascetic, even encratite faith. Paul is shocked at their severity and can hardly believe that such preaching would convert anyone. Instead, he describes a more moderate program of fasting, marriage, and restraint. When he finishes, Christ returns to champion Paul and his gospel of moderation and marriage against the excesses of Peter, John, and Andrew. This episode is significant inasmuch as, among other things, it seems to indicate the relatively early composition of this apocryphon, by the third century at the latest and quite possibly even in the second. Controversies over Paul’s status among the apostles and his teachings on asceticism belong primarily to this period. Likewise, such association of Mary with a full-throated endorsement of marriage, and by her son no less, seems to reflect a time before she became the paragon of the virginal life, beginning in the fourth century.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 11

29/10/18 13:02

12

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

The following chapter focuses specifically on a tradition about the discovery of the True Cross that is seemingly unique to the ancient Dormition traditions, and more specifically, to certain early versions of the SixBooksApocryphon. This relic makes an appearance as the result of a debate organized by the Roman governor of Palestine between the “lovers of Christ” and the unbelievers, all of whom seem to be ethnically Jewish. The governor judges the lovers of Christ victorious in the debate, at which point they demand that the unbelievers should be forced to reveal the location of the implements of the Crucifixion, which they have hidden in their possession, falsely maintaining that these wonderworking relics are instead sacred artifacts from the Exodus. The Cross is exhumed, along with the nails, the spear, the sponge, and the crown of thorns, only to be reburied, presumably to maintain consistency with their subsequent discovery by Constantine’s mother Helen. In my analysis of this peculiar version of the inventioCrucis I conclude that this is a fourth ancient tradition that needs to be studied alongside of the three other more well-known traditions. More importantly, however, I demonstrate that this legend about the discovery of the Cross in no way contradicts a dating of the SixBooksApocryphon to the fourth century, as I had previously suggested.16 The following two chapters present much longer studies of two important themes that bring the ancient Dormition traditions into dialogue with broader issues from the study of ancient Christianity, namely, the representation of Jews and Judaism in early Christian literature and the history of early gnostic and esoteric forms of Christianity respectively. Chapter five treats the pervasive anti-Judaism of the ancient Dormition traditions, which regularly portray the Jews as vicious enemies of the Christian faith in general and of Mary especially. The chapter begins by looking at the often volatile and violent relationship between the Christian Empire and its Jewish inhabitants in late antiquity, entering into debates as to whether Christian and Jewish literature of the early Byzantine period bears any relation to the historical realities of Jewish and Christian interaction in this era.

16

My previous views were expressed in S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford, 2002) 54-7.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 12

29/10/18 13:02

INTRODUCTION

13

The second section turns specifically to the early Dormition narratives and their anti-Judaism. I argue that their hostile representation of Jews arises from actual debates between Jews and Christians about Mary’s virginity, beginning already in the second century, if not even earlier. Presumably, Jewish questioning of Mary’s virginity, as is evident in the early rabbinical literature and other sources, inspired early Christians to fashion them as enemies of the Virgin. Section three expands the lens to situate the hostile Jews of the Dormition traditions within a broader clash between Jews and Christians over the power of holy relics, an issue evident to some degree in early rabbinical literature as well as in the ancient Dormition narratives. Finally, this chapter concludes by aligning these findings with Mary’s portrayal in the SeferZerubbabel, a Jewish apocalypse of the early seventh century. There we find that Mary has been adopted as a Jewish symbol of the Roman Empire’s persecution of Jews, an image that resonates well with the portrayal of the Jews in the early Dormition narratives. Chapter six examines the emphasis on salvation through esoteric knowledge in certain early Dormition traditions, namely The Bookof Mary’sRepose and other closely related narratives. In these Marian apocrypha we frequently find vocabulary and themes that are more familiar from early Christian “gnostic” and other esoteric groups and writings, such as the identification of Christ with a “great angel,” a heavenly book revealing the cosmic mysteries, and a secret prayer that is necessary to ascend past the cosmic creator and his minions at death. Indeed, these elements are strong indications that this apocryphon was almost certainly composed by the third century at the latest, as we have already noted. Yet the clear association of Mary of Nazareth with these ideas in the earliest Dormition narrative more than invites us to reconsider the identity of a certain Mary who appears in many of the Nag Hammadi and other related texts in association with such esoteric knowledge. Scholars have long assumed that this apocryphal Mary can be straightforwardly identified with some confidence as a representation of Mary of Magdala. Nevertheless, as I argue in this chapter, it turns out that the evidence for this Mary’s identification with the Magdalene is not at all decisive. To the contrary, this woman is most frequently identified simply as Mary, without further specificity, and in those texts where Mary of Magdala is occasionally specified, so too is Mary the mother of Jesus, thus complicating any

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 13

29/10/18 13:02

14

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

simple equation of this woman with the Magdalene.17 In light of this “new” evidence it seems clear that we cannot fix the identity of this literary character with either Mary. Rather, this Mary’s identity is not simple or unified but rather is a composite produced out of fragments from related cultural texts, images, and discourses. Although in this article I refer to this character as the “gnostic Mary,” I have since decided that it is better to identify her instead as the “apocryphal Mary,” since not all of the texts in question, including TheBookof Mary’sRepose, are in fact properly “gnostic.”18 The next two chapters focus on the liturgical traditions present in certain early Dormition narratives and especially in the SixBooks Apocryphon. Chapter seven argues that although apocryphal texts have frequently been pigeonholed as “failed scriptures,” in some instances, they are perhaps better understood as successful hagiographical and liturgical texts, particularly since the boundaries between apocrypha and these two categories is notoriously vague and porous.19 For instance, the SixBooksApocryphon enjoins upon its audience a detailed liturgical program that is to be observed at three different times during the year. On each occasion, the SixBooks mandates, “let the New and Old Testaments be read, and the volume of the decease of the blessed one,” that is, the SixBooksApocryphon. This Dormition apocryphon is not unique in this regard, however, and other Marian apocrypha were similarly used as liturgical and hagiographical texts. Accordingly, we need to expand our understanding of early Christian apocrypha to 17

In this regard one should see also Shoemaker, “A Case of Mistaken Identity?” 18 See also Shoemaker, “Jesus’ Gnostic Mom”; and S. J. Shoemaker, “Mary in Early Christian Apocrypha: Virgin Territory,” in P. Piovanelli etal. (eds), RediscoveringtheApocryphalContinent:NewPerspectivesonEarlyChristianandLateAntiqueApocryphalTextsandTraditions (Tübingen, 2015) 17590 at 186-90, where this improved terminology is employed. 19 See also on this topic my studies: “Early Christian Apocryphal Literature,” in S. A. Harvey and D. G. Hunter (eds), OxfordHandbookofEarly ChristianStudies (Oxford, 2008) 521-48; “The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century: A Fresh Look at Some Old and New Sources,” in C. Maunder (ed.), TheOriginsoftheCultoftheVirginMary (London, 2008) 71-87 and “The Ancient Dormition Apocrypha and the Origins of Marian Piety: Early Evidence of Marian Intercession from Late Ancient Palestine,” in L. M. Peltomaa etal. (eds), PresbeiaTheotokou,TheIntercessoryRoleofMaryacrossTimes andPlacesinByzantium(4th–9thcentury) (Vienna, 2015) 23-39.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 14

29/10/18 13:02

INTRODUCTION

15

involve significant overlap between this corpus and these other genres, especially in the case of Marian apocrypha.20 Chapter eight explores this liturgical aspect of the Six Books Apocryphon at greater length, identifying decisive points of contact between this Dormition apocryphon and an early Christian group known as the “Kollyridians” first described by Epiphanius of Cyprus (d. 403). The Kollyridians have long been known for their practice, according to Epiphanius, of offering bread in the Virgin’s honor, a practice that he excoriates as tantamount to idolatry. Accordingly, scholars of early Christianity have long interpreted these Kollyridians, who also allegedly allowed women to serve as liturgical leaders, as some sort of continuation of ancient Mediterranean goddess worship in Christian guise. Remarkably, however, an almost identical set of practices is ordained by the SixBooksApocryphon. At each of its three annual Marian feasts, bread is offered on Mary’s behalf, either at vespers or matins. The similarities to the practices ascribed to the Kollyridians is uncanny. To my knowledge, these are the only two instances from ancient Christianity where regular bread offerings in Mary’s honor are prescribed. On its own, this similarity invites us to link the SixBooksApocryphon with Epiphanius’ opponents. Yet there is more. As one carefully studies Epiphanius’ invectives against the Kollyridians in both section 78 and 79 of the Panarion, one finds a perplexing interest in countering certain traditions about the end of Mary’s life. Such concern to address traditions about the end of Mary’s life in the context of opposing Christians who were offering bread in her honor finds a ready explanation in the SixBooks Apocryphon. The similarities are too striking and the practice itself too exceptional to be mere coincidence. On this basis, then, we can place the traditions of the SixBooksApocryphon as early as the middle of the fourth century, most likely in Palestine, where Epiphanius would have encountered them before moving to Cyprus. Moreover, on the basis of the SixBooks, we can see that Epiphanius’ opponents were not in fact worshipping Mary as a goddess, but were instead merely offering her the sort of veneration that was increasingly being offered to holy men

20

On this point see also and S. J. Shoemaker, “Between Scripture and Tradition: The Marian Apocrypha of Early Christianity,” in L. DiTommaso and L. Turcescu (eds), TheReceptionandInterpretationoftheBibleinLate Antiquity (Leiden, 2008) 491-510.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 15

29/10/18 13:02

16

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

and women in this age. Indeed, equipped with this new knowledge, a close reading of Epiphanius’ rhetoric reveals that he himself seems to know that opponents are not in fact worshipping Mary as a goddess. Instead, he distorts his opponent’s practices for polemical gain and reveals himself to be an opponent of the emerging veneration of saints. The four remaining chapters address more narrow topics regarding the early Dormition traditions, focusing especially, in the case of the first three, on new textual editions. Chapter nine presents the critical edition and translation of a previously unpublished Dormition narrative, a Sahidic Coptic HomilyontheDormition attributed to Evodius, the second bishop of Rome according to Coptic tradition. The narrative is noteworthy for several reasons, including the fact that it seems to predate certain liturgical changes within the Coptic tradition, locating its composition to sometime before the middle of the sixth century, as well as its peculiar report concerning the witnesses to Mary’s death, which are discussed at some length in chapter two. Moreover, this Sahidic version of the homily differs significantly from a previously published Bohairic Coptic homily on the same subject attributed to Evodius (which also survives in some Sahidic fragments), and indeed it is clear that it must be regarded as a separate but related composition. On the basis of this new text, we can see that the earliest traditions about the end of Mary’s life in late ancient Egypt were even more diverse and complex than was previously thought. Another Coptic text forms the subject of chapter ten, namely, a brief fragment from a stray folio (P. Vindob. K 7589) that was published along with two other fragments in 2006 by Hans Förster. The two companion fragments had long been known, but Förster’s text from the Vienna collection was indeed a new discovery. These editions appear at the beginning of a monograph in which Förster subsequently argues that the Vienna fragment is in fact the earliest extant Dormition narrative, dating it to the second century. For the reasons provided in this chapter, Förster’s dating and interpretation of the fragment are highly improbable. Rather, it seems far more likely, as I argue, that this fragment was part of some larger early medieval text. This hypothesis has since been largely confirmed, one should note, by Alin Suciu, who has identified additional fragments, seemingly from the same manuscript, indicating that this fragment was instead part of a medieval

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 16

29/10/18 13:02

INTRODUCTION

17

homily on the Virgin.21 The chapter concludes with the first English translation of this interesting Marian fragment. Chapter eleven presents another textual edition, in this case the edition and translation of several Syriac fragments from TheBookof Mary’sRepose and the SixBooksApocryphon witnessed by palimpsest manuscripts of the late fifth and early sixth century. The fragment from TheBookofMary’sRepose is particularly significant for its confirmation that this apocryphon’s tradition of Mary’s intercessions for the damned is not a medieval insertion, as some have occasionally suggested, but instead belongs to the ancient tradition, affording some of the earliest evidence for belief in the efficacy of Mary’s intercessions. The fragments from the SixBooks, which are more extensive, are valuable for the evidence that they provide for this apocryphon’s circulation in several distinct Syriac versions already by the late fifth and early sixth centuries, versions that themselves derive ultimately from a now lost Greek original. These fragments add important evidence for the relative antiquity of the Greek original of this apocryphon, as well as for the diversity with which it had come to be reinterpreted by the fifth and sixth centuries. These fragments are also an important part of my efforts to produce a new critical edition of earliest versions of the SixBooksApocryphon in Syriac, an edition that has been long delayed due to problems with manuscript access, although fortunately it would appear that these problems may be resolved in the near future.22 The final chapter focuses on a specific topic, apocalypticism, in the Dormition narratives of a specific linguistic tradition, in this case Armenian. Apocalypticism is indeed an important element of the ancient Dormition traditions, reaching far beyond just the Armenian narratives, whose focus in this chapter is merely a matter of the 21 A. Suciu, “About Some Coptic Fragments on the Dormition of the Virgin,” http://alinsuciu.com/2011/09/15/coptic-fragments-on-the-dormition-of-thevirgin/ (posted on September 15, 2011; accessed 3 August 2017). 22 This project has been long delayed due to difficulties in obtaining images of palimpsest manuscripts at Sinai. These photographs have now been made, and one of the two remaining palimpsest manuscripts has recently been published: S. P. Brock and G. Kessel, “The ‘Departure of Mary’ in Two Palimpsests at the Monastery of St. Catherine (Sinai Syr. 30 & Sinai Arabic 514),” KhristianskiĭVostok 8 (2017) 115-52. It now only remains for Sinai Arabic 588 to be edited before an edition can be completed.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 17

29/10/18 13:02

18

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

circumstances in which the original article was commissioned. To be sure, most of the ancient Dormition narratives convey an apocalyptically charged milieu, and all of the earliest apocrypha conclude with an apocalyptic journey by Mary, and in some instances, the apostles. On these cosmic tours Mary learns the secrets of the heavens and the earth, which are in turn disclosed to her devotees through these apocalypses of the Virgin. Indeed, this subject, the apocalypticism of the ancient Dormition narratives, is one that warrants much greater attention that it has thus far received. Many other topics as well from the ancient Dormition apocrypha await further investigation. The study of the early Dormition traditions, and indeed of early Christian devotion to the Virgin Mary itself, is still largely in its infancy. In the most general terms, the Dormition traditions need to be more thoroughly integrated with the study of early Christian apocrypha, and with the study of ancient Christianity more broadly. For too long they have stood on the sidelines of both endeavors. Also, we need new editions of many texts, although in some cases, owing to the large number of manuscripts, this will be a Herculean task. TheBookofMary’sRepose in particular needs a new edition and even more so needs to be carefully studied for its unique witness to the complexity of early Christianity. The studies in this volume, it is hoped, will complement my earlier monograph on this topic by charting the outlines of vague path through this tangle of narratives that can facilitate such future research. Much remains to be done, and in this regard the words of Mary’s son still ring true: “the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.”

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_00_Introduction.indd 18

29/10/18 13:02

I. Death and the Maiden: The Early History of the Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha

Apocryphal traditions rarely come with simple histories, and the Dormition and Assumption apocrypha are certainly no exception. The rather awkward position of apocrypha along the margins of the canon almost ensures them a complex and unstable process of transmission. Inasmuch as the early Christian apocrypha exist rather precariously in an ill-defined space somewhere between the Scriptures and the other writings of ancient Christianity, their history is often subject to a variety of different, and even divergent, pressures.1 On the one hand, because of their frequent generic similarity to the writings of the New Testament and their claims of apostolic authority they pose an implicit – if not explicit – challenge to the boundaries of the biblical canon. In many instances, this made them targets for ecclesiastical opposition, as evident in the so-called Gelasian decree, for instance.2 Such institutional censorship has severely impacted the preservation of numerous ancient apocrypha, particularly in the case of writings whose contents 1 See e.g., S. J. Shoemaker, “Early Christian Apocryphal Literature,” in S. A. Harvey and D. G. Hunter (eds), OxfordHandbookofEarlyChristian Studies (Oxford, 2008) 521-48; F. Bovon and P. Geoltrain (eds), Écritsapocrypheschrétiens, vol. 1 (Paris, 1997) xxv-xxxvi, li-lvi; F. Bovon, “Byzantine Witnesses for the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in F. Bovon, etal. (eds), TheApocryphalActsoftheApostles (Cambridge, Mass., 1999) 87-98; F. Bovon, “Editing the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in F. Bovon,ibid., 1-35, esp. 916; J.-D. Kaestli, “Les écrits apocryphes chrétiens. Pour une approche qui valorise leur diversité et leurs attaches bibliques,” in J.-D. Kaestli and D. Marguerat (eds), Le mystère apocryphe: introduction à une littérature méconnue (Geneva, 1996) 27-41, 31-4; J.-C. Picard, “Mémoire des origines chrétiennes,” Lecontinentapocryphe:essaisurleslittératuresapocryphes juiveetchrétienne (Turnhout, 1999) 271-87. 2 E. von Dobschütz, DasDecretumGelasianumdelibrisrecipiendisetnon recipiendisinkritischemText (Leipzig, 1912).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 19

29/10/18 13:02

20

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

strained against the limits of an increasingly narrow orthodoxy. The result is that many ancient texts now survive only in disconnected fragments that when gathered offer mere glimpses of early Christianity’s once rich extra-biblical traditions. In other cases, church authorities successfully buried certain traditions, and while many eventually resurfaced in rare and unexpected places, innumerable other texts have simply been erased. At the opposite end of the spectrum are apocrypha that achieved an almost “quasi-canonical” status in the medieval Christian tradition. In such cases one is not infrequently deluged with manuscripts, each with a multitude of variants that can confound efforts to identify the most primitive version of the text.3 The widespread use of these “quasi-canonical” apocrypha, coupled with their extra-canonical status, created circumstances inviting the introduction of local modifications or additions to the narrative.4 Because these writings owe their preservation largely to “popular” rather than “official” interests, their contents have often been shaped by the individual communities that found these narratives authoritative or inspiring. Since they stood outside the biblical canon, presumably there was less at stake in adjusting their contents to suit the particular circumstances or even individual tastes of these communities.5 They belong (together with liturgical texts and 3

The Protevangelium of James and the Apocalypse of the Virgin are excellent examples of this: both are known in hundreds of manuscripts. See S. J. Shoemaker, “Between Scripture and Tradition: The Marian Apocrypha of Early Christianity,” in L. DiTommaso and L. Turcescu (eds), The ReceptionandInterpretationoftheBibleinLateAntiquity (Leiden, 2008) 491-510; É. Amann, LeProtévangiledeJacquesetsesremaniementslatins (Paris, 1910) 119-21; Kaestli, “Les écrits apocryphes chrétiens,” 31-2; Picard, “Comment découvrir”; Bovon, “Byzantine Witnesses,” 86-91. 4 In fact, Bovon and Geoltrain identify such variation in process of transmission as one of the primary features that distinguishes apocrypha from the “fixed” texts of the canon: Bovon and Geoltrain, Écritsapocrypheschrétiens, xx-xxii, xxv-xxviii, lii-liv. 5 Jane Baun observes the following of such “quasi-canonical” apocrypha: “The Byzantines themselves seemed to have ‘inverted the values’ of their own classical philology when it came to popular religious literature. For the apocrypha like the canonical classics, the basic measure of esteem is how many times the text was copied. Manuscripts of the canonized classics, for Byzantines above all Homer, the Bible, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the canons of the church councils, abound, all copied as correctly as humanly

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 20

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

21

hagiography) to the category of “living literature,” which Paul Bradshaw defines as “material which circulates within a community and forms a part of its heritage and tradition but which is constantly subject to revision and rewriting to reflect changing historical and cultural circumstances.”6 Consequently, many of these medieval “best-sellers” survive today in a number of rather different versions, making it frustratingly difficult for the modern scholar to reconstruct their textual history. Both of these tendencies have left quite a mark on the Dormition and Assumption apocrypha, or the Dormition traditions, as I have chosen to call them. These ancient Christian narratives present a complex tangle of traditions whose early history has proven particularly difficult to unravel.7 Around forty different Dormition texts survive from before the mid-seventh century, and while many of these are very clearly related to one another, the lines of filiation have often been difficult to establish and open to question. A few of these narratives did possible. Byzantine scribes and scholars would never have dreamed of altering or adding a single word of their own invention to such works. Manuscripts of apocrypha also abound, but copied according to totally different principles. Here, to love a text was to make it one’s own. Editors, patrons, and scribes became personally involved with the texts that they copied.” J. Baun, “The ApocalypseofAnastasia in its Middle Byzantine Context” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1997) 36. See esp. ch. 2 and pp. 33-8. Now published as J. Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium: Celestial Journey and Local CommunityintheMedievalGreekApocrypha (Cambridge, 2006). See also P. J. Alexander, “Medieval Apocalypses as Historical Sources,” American HistoricalReview 73 (1968) 997-1018 at 999-1004. 6 P. F. Bradshaw, TheSearchfortheOriginsofChristianWorship:Sources andMethodsfortheStudyofEarlyLiturgy, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2002) 1-20, at 5; see also P. F. Bradshaw, “Liturgy as ‘Living Literature,’” in P. F. Bradshaw and B. Spinks (eds), LiturgyinDialogue:EssaysinMemoryofRonaldJasper (Collegeville, MN, 1995) 139-54 at 141-3. 7 See now S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormitionandAssumption (Oxford, 2002). Also valuable, but to be used with great caution, is S. C. Mimouni, DormitionetAssomptiondeMarie:Histoiredes traditionsanciennes (Paris, 1995). See also the collected studies of Michel van Esbroeck in M. van Esbroeck, Aux origines de la Dormition de la Vierge: Etudes historiques sur les traditions orientales (Brookfield, VT, 1995), and especially M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’assomption avant le Xe siècle,” in F. Bovon (ed.), Les actes apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva, 1981) 265-85.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 21

29/10/18 13:02

22

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

in fact achieve a “quasi-canonical” status during the Middle Ages, particularly in the context of the liturgy, and their literary history bears the marks of this status.8 In the Eastern church there were two such “canonical” versions, the so-called Transitus of Ps.-John the Theologian and the HomilyontheDormition by John of Thessalonica. While the latter is not properly speaking an apocryphon, its contents depend almost entirely on an earlier apocryphal writing, which it reproduces nearly verbatim in a theologically sanitized version (as Antoine Wenger has demonstrated), thus making John’s homily of critical importance for understanding the earliest history of the Dormition apocrypha.9 Both of these narratives survive in a prodigious and as yet unknown number of manuscripts. The Ps.-John Transitus is preserved by perhaps as many as one-hundred Greek manuscripts and over one-hundred known Church Slavonic manuscripts, as well as in Georgian, Latin, and Arabic versions.10 John of Thessalonica’s homily is presently known 8

S. J. Shoemaker, “Apocrypha and Liturgy in the Fourth Century: The Case of the “Six Books” Dormition Apocryphon,” in J. H. Charlesworth and L. M. McDonald (eds), JewishandChristianScriptures:TheFunction of‘Canonical’and‘Non-canonical’ReligiousTexts (London, 2010) 153-63 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 7); Shoemaker, “Between Scripture and Tradition”; van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires,” 269; Kaestli, “Les écrits apocryphes chrétiens,” 31-2. See also S. C. Mimouni, “La lecture liturgique et les apocryphes du Nouveau Testament: Le cas de la Dormitio grecque du Pseudo-Jean,” OCP 59 (1993) 403-25; S. C. Mimouni, “Les Transitus Mariae sont-ils vraiment des apocryphes?,” SP 25 (1993) 12228. 9 A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantine duVIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 17-67. On several occasions, Simon Mimouni has suggested that the early Dormition narratives as a whole are not properly classified as apocrypha since they appear to have been intended for liturgical use: see Mimouni, “Les Transitus Mariae”; Mimouni, “La lecture liturgique”; and S. C. Mimouni and S. J. Voicu, La traditiongrecquedelaDormitionetdel’AssomptiondeMarie:Textesintroduit,traduitsetannotés (Paris, 2003) 19. Such liturgical usage, however, does not at all exclude them from the corpus of apocrypha: see, e.g., Bovon and Geoltrain, Écritsapocrypheschrétiens, xxviii; lii-liii; Bovon, “Editing the Apocryphal Acts,” 3-15; Bovon, “Byzantine Witnesses”; Picard, “Le continent apocryphe.” 10 Wenger, L’Assomption, 17; van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires,” 2669; A. de Santos Otero, DiehandschriftlicheÜberlieferungderaltslavischen Apokryphen, 2 vols (Berlin, 1978-81) 2:161-95

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 22

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

23

in around thirty Greek manuscripts and thirty-five Church Slavonic manuscripts, although without question many more remain to be identified: Simon Mimouni conjectures that this manuscript tradition is likely just as rich as that of the Ps.-John Transitus.11 In the West, Ps.-Melito’s Transitus was by far the most popular narrative, surviving in around fifty medieval manuscripts, although perhaps many more are yet to be discovered.12 All of these “canonical” narratives exhibit considerable diversity in their various manuscripts, with the result that their editors have often been forced to print separate editions of the different versions. In the case of John of Thessalonica’s homily, for instance, the narrative’s conclusion exhibits such multiplicity in the manuscript tradition that Jugie had to publish twelve distinct conclusions separately.13 Furthermore, the editions of these “canonical” narratives come with rather abundant critical apparatus, where a number of ancient readings are to be found buried among the numerous variants. Unfortunately, however, none of these “canonical” narratives has yet received a satisfactory critical edition. Jugie’s edition of John of Thessalonica’s homily was made from about half of the known manuscripts (and

11

Martin Jugie identified seventeen manuscripts: M. Jugie, Homéliesmariales byzantines(II) (Paris, 1926) 349-57; Wenger identified several more: Wenger, L’Assomption, 26-7. Mimouni adds a few more manuscripts, particularly from Mt. Athos: Mimouni, DormitionetAssomption, 140-4; de Santos Otero, Die handschriftlicheÜberlieferung, 2:161-95. 12 M. Haibach-Reinisch, Einneuer“TransitusMariae”desPseudo-Melito (Rome, 1962) 31-2, 55-9; several additional manuscripts are signaled in Mimouni, DormitionetAssomption, 266 n. 32. 13 Jugie, Homélies mariales byzantines (II), 401-5, 431-8. Although Jugie judged one of these endings to be the earliest, his choice seems somewhat unlikely in light of subsequent discoveries. Jugie’s “primitive” ending concludes with Mary’s burial and the disappearance of her body, but comparison with the earlier narratives of the Palm tradition on which John has drawn, including the earliest Greek narrative in particular (G1), it seems considerably more likely that his narrative would have concluded with the Virgin’s resurrection and miraculous transfer in the body to Paradise. Such a conclusion is found in several manuscripts of the version that Jugie judged to be “interpolated,” and the conclusion of Paris gr. 1190 is in fact closest to the early Dormition traditions that were utilized by John, and thus it is most likely the most “primitive” conclusion to this homily (among published manuscripts at least): see ibid., 369-70, 434-5.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 23

29/10/18 13:02

24

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

probably a much smaller fraction of the actual number of manuscripts). Ps.-Melito’s Transitus is slightly better served, at least in part: of its two rather distinctive recensions, one has received a fairly comprehensive edition,14 while the other exists only in an edition made from a single late manuscript (out of twenty-six that are now known).15 Yet the situation is worst in the case of Ps.-John’s Transitus: Tischendorf’s edition of this text rests on only five out of hundreds of known manuscripts.16 All of these narratives (excepting perhaps the one version of Ps.-Melito) stand in desperate need of new editions that will take into account – and also search out – new manuscript discoveries. By way of contrast, most of the early Dormition narratives are known only from one or two manuscript witnesses, many of which are fragmentary. Yet among these are some of the earliest and most historically significant narratives. The piecemeal survival of these narratives is largely a consequence of either their heterodox contents or their dissonance with the “canonical” versions of John, Ps.-John, and Ps.-Melito (or in some cases, both). Perhaps the most valuable of these less common narratives is the BookofMary’sRepose (the “Liber Requiei”), which in its complete form survives only in two Ethiopic manuscripts, although it is also witnessed by several Georgian and Syriac fragments, some of which date to the fifth century.17 This rather heterodox apocryphon is almost certainly the earliest extant narrative of the end of Mary’s life, composed probably in the third century,

14

Haibach-Reinisch, Einneuer“TransitusMariae”, 63-87, although Mimouni identifies two additional manuscripts that were not included in her edition: Mimouni, DormitionetAssomption, 266. 15 C. Tischendorf, ApocalypsesapocryphaeMosis,Esdrae,Pauli,Johannis, itemMariaedormito(Leipzig, 1866) 124-36. 16 Ibid., 95-110. 17 The two complete Ethiopic manuscripts have been edited together with a third brief fragment of the conclusion in V. Arras, De transitu Mariae apocryphaaethiopice, 2 vols (Louvain, 1973). The Georgian fragments have been published in M. van Esbroeck, “Apocryphes géorgiens de la Dormition,” AB 92 (1973) 55-75, and the Syriac fragments have been published by W. Wright, ContributionstotheApocryphalLiteratureoftheNewTestament (London, 1865) 11-16, 42-51, and Íé-Íæ. An English translation of all these witnesses now appears in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’s Dormition, 290-350.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 24

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

25

if not perhaps even earlier.18 Several other narratives survive in very early manuscripts, from the fifth and sixth centuries, which allows us to be certain that these apocrypha, although less well attested, are among the very earliest traditions of the end of Mary’s life.19 Furthermore, many of these less common early narratives were sources of the canonical traditions of the Middle Ages. A single Greek manuscript, for instance, preserves a version of the ancient apocryphon that John of Thessalonica used as the core of his seventh-century homily,20 while four Syriac manuscripts from the fifth and sixth centuries witness to different versions of an earlier and much lengthier apocryphon that Ps.-John’s Transitus has condensed.21 Likewise, careful comparison of Ps.-Melito’s Transitus with other early Latin versions indicates a much earlier, now lost apocryphon on which the extant narratives all collectively depend, an apocryphon which is ultimately related to the Ethiopic BookofMary’sRepose.22 18

See Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 3846, 146-68, 232-56. 19 This is the case particularly with the various Syriac versions of the Six Books apocryphon, which survives in several manuscripts of the fifth and sixth centuries: see A. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca (London, 1902) ëÚù-u, Ûçù-èù, iii, x, 12-69; W. Wright, “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World,” TheJournalofSacredLiteratureandBiblicalRecord 6-7 (1865) 108-60 and 417-48; Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’s Dormition, 46-9. There is also another unpublished version of this narrative preserved in a sixth-century manuscript now in Göttingen. I have prepared an edition of this manuscript and will soon publish it in a new edition of the Syriac Dormition apocrypha. 20 Wenger, L’Assomption, 17-67, 210-41; see also B. Capelle, “Les anciens récits de l’Assomption et Jean de Thessalonique,” RecherchesdeThéologie ancienneetmédiévale 12 (1940) 209-35. 21 Regarding these manuscripts, see n. 19 above. On Ps.-John’s relation to the Six Books, see the compelling arguments presented by M. Bonnet, “Die ältesten Schriften von der Himmelfahrt Mariä,” ZWT 23 (1880) 227-47. See also van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires,” 269-75; É. Cothenet, “Marie dans les Apocryphes,” in H. Du Manoir de Juaye (ed.), Maria:étudessurlaSainte Vierge, 7 vols (Paris, 1952) 6:117-56, 119. 22 Wenger, L’Assomption, 17-92; B. Capelle, “Vestiges grecs et latins d’un antique ‘Transitus de la Vierge’,” AB 67 (1949) 21-48; van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires,” 266-76; M. Clayton, “The Transitus Mariae: The Tradition and Its Origins,” Apocrypha 10 (1999) 74-98, 85-93; M. Clayton, TheApocryphalGospelsofMaryinAnglo-SaxonEngland (Cambridge, 1998) 66-100.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 25

29/10/18 13:02

26

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

1. DogmaticApproachesandDevelopmentalTypologies Among this rather large collection of early Dormition traditions, one finds a number of very different accounts of the end of Mary’s life, and the difficulty of determining the relationships among these extraordinarily diverse and even contradictory narratives is one of the most vexing problems in the study of the early Dormition apocrypha. Although certain features are relatively consistent across all of the early Dormition narratives, one finds in them a wide range of opinions concerning the exact circumstances of the Virgin Mary’s departure from this life, and the remarkable diversity of their accounts impedes any simple understanding of this complex corpus of traditions. Nearly all of the early narratives agree on the following few points: Mary’s death in Jerusalem; the involvement of at least a few of the apostles; Christ’s return and his reception of his mother’s soul; the transfer of Mary in body and/or soul to Paradise; and the imagined hostility of the Jews toward Mary.23 While this suggests a rather basic outline that may perhaps represent a primitive layer of the Dormition traditions, beyond this slim core, the differences pile up very quickly. The list of variants is unfortunately too vast to catalogue here, but a few in particular have figured prominently in previous discussions of the early Dormition traditions, largely because of their significance in the conversations leading up to and issuing from the Vatican’s 1950 definition of the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption as a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.24 These variants include, rather obviously, differences concerning the nature of Mary’s death and the ultimate fate of her body 23

Regarding this depiction of the Jews in the early Dormition traditions, one can now see S. J. Shoemaker, “‘Let Us Go and Burn Her Body’: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions,” CH 68 (1999) 775-823 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 5); concerning certain narrative differences regarding those involved in the events of Mary’s death, see S. J. Shoemaker, “Gender at the Virgin’s Funeral: Men and Women as Witnesses to the Dormition,” SP 34 (2001) 552-58 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 2). 24 P. Pius XII, “Munificentissimus Deus,” ActaApostolicaeSedis 42 (1950) 753-71; Eng. trans.: J. C. Fenton, “Munificentissimus Deus,” TheCatholic Mind 49 (1951) 65-78. For a general discussion of the Assumption dogma, its context, and its consequences, see P. E. Duggan, “The Assumption Dogma: Some Reactions and Ecumenical Implications in the Thought of EnglishSpeaking Theologians” (S.T.D. diss., International Marian Research Institute, University of Dayton, 1989).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 26

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

27

and soul and, somewhat more surprisingly, the location of her house.25 Much previous scholarship on the Dormition apocrypha has sought in these variants a sort of skeleton key capable of unlocking the complex history of these traditions, at times narrowly pursuing these features with a single-mindedness that has occasionally overlooked unmistakable literary relations among certain narratives. In general, the aim of such approaches has been to explain the narrative diversity of the early Dormition traditions according a theological narrative of dogmatic development, and their literary history is frequently subordinated to this interest. Such approaches are highly problematic, however, inasmuch as they occasionally distort or misrepresent the literary relations and historical development of the earliest narratives in order to conform these traditions to an assumed pattern of doctrinal development. No other feature has garnered more attention, nor engendered more controversy, than the differences regarding the final status of Mary’s body and soul in these narratives.26 Perhaps more than any other issue, scholarship on the early Dormition traditions has focused squarely on interpreting the various fates ascribed to Mary after her death. According to many early Dormition narratives, for instance, the Virgin’s body and soul were separated only temporarily, usually for three or four days, after which she was, like her son, resurrected and taken bodily into Paradise, where she presently exists as a living witness to the reward awaiting all the just at the end of time.27 This conclusion is of course rather amenable to the modern dogma of the Virgin’s bodily Assumption, and many scholars of the Dormition traditions have understood these narratives as espousing something more or less equivalent to the 1950 dogma. Yet other early narratives omit any mention of

25

These concerns are especially evident the foundational work of Martin Jugie, who was one of two scholars charged by the Vatican with investigating the historical basis for the proclamation of the Assumption dogma: M. Jugie, Lamortetl’assomptiondelaSainteVierge,étudehistorico-doctrinale (Vatican City, 1944). On Jugie’s role in this process of dogmatic definition, see Duggan, “Assumption Dogma,” 57-63. 26 See the discussion of this issue in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsofthe VirginMary’sDormition, 179-204. 27 Early examples include the earliest members of the Palm tradition, such as the BookofMary’sRepose (the LiberRequiei or the ObsequiesoftheVirginMary as this text is entitled in the fifth-century Syriac fragments) Wenger’s early Greek narrative, and Ps.-Melito’s Transitus.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 27

29/10/18 13:02

28

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Mary’s resurrection or bodily Assumption, and these generally conclude simply with Christ’s descent to receive his mother’s soul, followed by the transfer of Mary’s body to a hidden place where it awaits reunion with her soul at the end of time.28 This outcome, by way of contrast, seems to contradict the modern Assumption dogma, and consequently, much previous scholarship has sought to divide up the early Dormition traditions according to whether or not they espouse the Virgin’s bodily Assumption. Once the various narratives have been classified as either “pro-Assumption” or “no-Assumption,” their differences are frequently explained according to a developmental model of either dogmatic evolution or decline over time. In such a view, the theological positions represented by the early Dormition narratives correspond to a related progression in the history of Christian thought, according to which one interpretation of the end of Mary’s life is replaced by another to match changing Christian beliefs regarding the Virgin’s death and Assumption. Surprisingly enough, the location of Mary’s house in these narratives often plays a prominent role in the efforts to construct a developmental typology of the Dormition traditions, inasmuch as many interpreters have sought to establish a link between the location of Mary’s house and particular views concerning the ultimate fate of her body and soul.29 The matter in question is whether or not Mary had a house in Bethlehem in addition to her Jerusalem home. Without exception, all of the Dormition narratives locate a house belonging to Mary somewhere in the Jerusalem area, but a significant group of narratives also identifies a second house in Bethlehem, where a number of key events take place.30 Several scholars have sought to interpret the history of the 28

This conclusion is best exemplified in Ps.-John’s Transitus and perhaps as well in the fifth-century Syriac palimpsest published by Agnes Smith Lewis, although it is somewhat difficult to be entirely certain of the fate ascribed to Mary’s body by the latter, since its conclusion is missing. 29 See the more extended discussion of this matter and other related issues in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 78-141, 168-79. 30 Mimouni is simply in error when he identifies certain narratives as naming only a Bethlehem house, with no indication of a Jerusalem house. According to Mimouni, several early narratives, including especially the various versions of the Six Books apocrypha identify only a Bethlehem house and donot mention a Jerusalem house: Mimouni, DormitionetAssomption, 345-47. Although this position is fundamental to his larger hypothesis about the history of the

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 28

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

29

early Dormition apocrypha by arguing for a correlation between the tradition of the Virgin’s Bethlehem house and certain liturgical and archaeological evidence for the early veneration of Mary in Jerusalem. Subsequent developments in Jerusalem’s Marian liturgies are then correlated with the master narrative of theological evolution, in an effort to connect the tradition of Mary’s Bethlehem house with a particular position on the ultimate fate of Mary’s body. In this way, it is sometimes argued that the development of Marian cult in Jerusalem parallels and thus can confirm the narrative and theological development that is proposed to explain the diversity of the early Dormition traditions. There are, however, numerous problems with such interpretations. In the first place, the effort to link the tradition of Mary’s second house in Bethlehem with certain early liturgical practices is rather far-fetched. The Marian liturgies of late ancient Palestine give no indication of a liturgical station in Bethlehem, and even those scholars who advance such theories will more or less concede this point. Instead, they try to invent such a station by identifying the church of the Kathisma with this tradition of Mary’s Bethlehem house. Yet this is entirely unfounded. The church of the Kathisma was an ancient Nativity shrine located halfway between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, just to the east of the main road. And while the Kathisma church is in fact connected with Jerusalem’s earliest Marian piety, there is, to my knowledge, no tradition, ancient, medieval, or modern, identifying the Kathisma church with a house of the Virgin (or any events of the Dormition narratives, for that matter). Nor can the simple existence of a Marian shrine equidistant to both Jerusalem and Bethlehem somehow be correlated with the narrative traditions of the Virgin’s Bethlehem house: this shrine is just as close to Jerusalem and thus is just as likely to be associated with the Jerusalem centered traditions.31 early Dormition traditions, it is not correct, as his predecessor Cothenet had already observed: “l’habitation de Marie à Bethléem apparaît comme un doublet de l’habitation à Jérusalem.” Cothenet, “Marie dans les Apocryphes,” 119. See the extensive discussion in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’sDormition, 171-4 at 172 n. 69. 31 See Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 8198, 115-41, 168-79; S. J. Shoemaker, “The (Re?)Discovery of the Kathisma Church and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antique Palestine,” Maria: A JournalofMarianStudies 2 (2001) 21-72. For a rather different perspective on this same church, see S. J. Shoemaker, “Christmas in the Qur᾿ān: The

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 29

29/10/18 13:02

30

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Other efforts to correlate developments in the liturgical traditions of Jerusalem either with particular Dormition narratives or with changes in theological belief also fail. Perhaps the most specious of these is Martin Jugie’s attempt to argue that the veneration of Mary’s tomb is relatively late development, a point which he ardently maintained in order to justify his own theological belief in the Virgin’s immortality.32 Jugie’s conviction that Mary remained immortal so pervades his study that it frequently determines its direction, leading him to disregard important evidence regarding the early date of Mary’s tomb and to dismiss the historical value of the apocrypha largely because of their unanimous testimony to Mary’s death. Yet contrary to Jugie’s thinly veiled efforts to manufacture historical support for the dogma of the Assumption on the basis of Mary’s immaculate immortality, the archaeology of the church of Mary’s tomb shows rather unambiguously that from at least the early fifth century, the Christians of Jerusalem commemorated the Virgin’s tomb.33 In the end, despite much scrutiny and speculation, Jerusalem’s liturgical traditions and archaeological sites so far have been of relatively little assistance in trying to reconstruct the earliest history of the Dormition apocrypha. Efforts by other scholars to explain the diversity of the early Dormition apocrypha according to a hypothetical process of unilinear dogmatic and literary development are equally problematic.34 Donato Baldi Qur᾿ānic Account of Jesus’ Nativity and Palestinian Local Tradition,” JerusalemStudiesinArabicandIslam 28 (2003) 11-39. 32 Jugie, La mort et l’assomption, 70-6, 85-92, 507-82, 681-7. For a discussion of Jugie’s immortalist belief and its relation to the definition of the Assumption dogma in 1950, see Duggan, “Assumption Dogma,” 13, 5763. See also the criticisms of Jugie’s clear and strong “immortalist” bias in M. F. Cavallera, “À propos d’une enquête patristique sur l’Assomption,” Bulletindelittératureecclésiastique 27 (1926) 97-116; and B. Capelle, “Les homélies liturgiques de prétendu Timothée de Jérusalem,” EphemeridesLiturgicae 63 (1949) 5-26. 33 Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 98-107. 34 Several scholars from the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum in Jerusalem have proposed a rather different process of literary and theological development to explain the diversity of the early Dormition narratives, basing their various interpretations on the rather peculiar and controversial views regarding the primitive “Jewish-Christian” community of Palestine that are associated with this school. Although their respective studies contain many useful insights, they nevertheless should be used with caution, as their conclusions

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 30

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

31

and Anacleto Mosconi first proposed such an understanding of the early Dormition traditions in a 1947 article, where they explained the diversity of the Dormition narratives as the result of a three-stage process of literary evolution that unfolded in concert with corresponding developments in the early Church’s Mariology.35 Although Baldi and Mosconi are to be credited with first suggesting this interpretation, it was only fully articulated by Édouard Cothenet in his 1961 article on Mary in Christian apocryphal literature.36 Here Cothenet interprets the various Dormition apocrypha as successive forms of what amounts to a single, unilinear tradition, in which one narrative type displaced its predecessor as changes occurred in early Christian belief. Based on the evidence available to him, Cothenet not unreasonably concluded that the earliest Dormition apocrypha were those identifying a house belonging to Mary in Bethlehem and ending with the miraculous transfer of her body to heaven, without her resurrection or bodily Assumption. From this original literary and theological tradition there was a coordinated unfolding of new beliefs and new narratives about the end of Mary’s life, passing first through an “intermediate” stage reflected are highly determined by the very speculative and tenuous reconstructions of Christian origins developed by Bagatti, Testa, and others at this institution. Interestingly enough, these propose theological and literary development in the opposite direction from Baldi/Mosconi, Cothenet, and Mimouni: they argue that the “Assumptionist” narratives are the earliest, while the “Assumptionless” traditions arose as revisions made to suit the theological interests of the “gentile church” and other dogmatic currents. See B. Bagatti, “La verginità di Maria negli apocrifi del II-III secolo,” Marianum 33 (1971) 281-92; B. Bagatti, “Ricerche sulle tradizioni della morte della Vergine,” Sacra Doctrina 69-70 (1973) 185-214; B. Bagatti, “La morte della Vergine nel Testo di Leucio,” TerraSancta 50 (1974) 44-48; L. Cignelli, “Il prototipo giudeo-cristiano degli apocrifi assunzionisti,” in B. Bagatti, et al. (eds), Studia Hierosolymitana in onorediP.BellarminoBagatti, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1976) 2:259-77; E. Testa, “Lo sviluppo della ‘Dormitio Mariae’ nella letteratura, nella teologìa e nella archeologìa,” Marianum 44 (1982) 316-89; E. Testa, “L’origine e lo sviluppo della Dormitio Mariae,” Aug 23 (1983) 249-62; F. Manns, LerécitdelaDormitiondeMarie(Vaticangrec1982)(Jerusalem, 1989). See also the discussion of this approach and its conclusions in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the VirginMary’sDormition, 212-32. 35 D. Baldi and A. Mosconi, “L’Assunzione di Maria SS. negli apocrifi,” AttidelcongressonazionalemarianodeiFrateiMinorid’Italia(Roma29aprile- 3maggio1947) (Rome, 1948) 75-125. 36 Cothenet, “Marie dans les Apocryphes,” 117-48.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 31

29/10/18 13:02

32

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

primarily in the narratives preserved in Coptic, and coming to maturity in those narratives that describe Mary’s resurrection and bodily Assumption, leaving out the Bethlehem house. In their steady progress towards more and more clear representations of Mary’s bodily Assumption, the Dormition apocrypha thus mirror the process by which the early Church gradually developed its belief in the Virgin’s Assumption out of the original apostolic deposit of faith. Cothenet’s approach is, like Jugie’s, unapologetically theological and is designed to lend support to the Vatican’s dogmatic definition by connecting the belief in Mary’s Assumption with the primitive Christian community. In contrast to Jugie, however, who rejected the theological value of the Dormition apocrypha (in part because they contradicted his immortalist belief with their unambiguous indications of Mary’s death), Cothenet saw the earliest Dormition narratives as evidence of “how, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the Church has become progressively aware of Mary’s total glorification.”37 Believing that the earliest apocrypha belonged to the second century, Cothenet saw in them proof that belief in the Assumption stands as an authentic development of the original apostolic deposit of faith, and although this doctrine may not have been clearly articulated for centuries, it was nonetheless implicit in the primitive faith of the church. In spite of the rather attractive cohesion and comprehensiveness of Cothenet’s hypothesis, it rests on inaccurate readings of several key texts and has been increasingly contracted by new textual discoveries, which, to his credit, Cothenet could not have known.38 Nevertheless, in the last decade, Simon Mimouni has revived Cothenet’s original hypothesis and extended it to encompass new textual discoveries as 37

Ibid., 143-8 at 146; see Jugie, Lamortetl’assomption, 167-68. Cothonet follows Jugie in misrepresenting the Six Books apocryphon as relating Mary’s “unresurrection” after her journey Paradise (they do not report this, except in the case of one very late, highly redacted version: see Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 149-51). Furthermore, Cothenet’s interpretation of the Six Books narratives as failing to describe Mary’s Assumption is not accurate (although this is an unfortunately common view, again owing to misreadings by Jugie). Finally, Cothenet’s effort to identify the Syriac Obsequies fragments as witnesses to the same literary tradition as the Six Books is quite misguided: Wenger’s study had already demonstrated that this was not the case, and subsequent discoveries have confirmed this fact, particularly the BookofMary’sRepose and the Georgian fragments of the same text. See the discussion in ibid., 151-68, 192-202; see also Clayton, “Transitus Mariae,” 77-8. 38

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 32

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

33

well as the evidence afforded by early Marian liturgical traditions in an exhaustive study.39 According to Mimouni’s reconstruction, the earliest apocrypha are those that fail to indicate Mary’s resurrection and body presence in Paradise and also identify a house of the Virgin in Bethlehem. These were followed and replaced initially by an “intermediate” narrative type, found particularly in certain Coptic accounts (and their Arabic and Ethiopic descendants), which describe the Virgin’s resurrection and removal to Paradise 206 days after her death. From this handful of Egyptian narratives, Mimouni proposes that the most recent Dormition apocrypha ultimately emerged, and these are marked by their clear indication of Mary’s resurrection and bodily presence in Paradise as well as by their location of the Virgin’s house only in Jerusalem. Mimouni seeks confirmation of this narrative and theological evolution in the liturgical and archaeological evidence for the cult of Mary in late ancient Jerusalem, arguing that the earliest veneration of Mary focused on the church of the Kathisma, midway between Bethlehem and Jerusalem, and only gradually shifted to her tomb next to the garden of Gethsemane. Mimouni concludes that the initial veneration of Mary at the Kathisma church appears in the earliest narratives under the guise of Mary’s Bethlehem house, while the subsequent shift to the Jerusalem church is reflected in the elimination of this Bethlehem house from the later traditions. Unfortunately, however, the liturgical and archaeological evidence do not corroborate Mimouni’s hypothesis in the way that he proposes. As already noted, there is no indication of any connection between the church of the Kathisma and either Bethlehem or a house of Mary, and the evidence of both archaeology and the early pilgrimage accounts indicates that veneration of the Virgin at her Gethsemane tomb is at least as early as the church of the Kathisma.40 In fact, the inclusion of a Jerusalem house in all of the early Dormition narratives is something of a testament to the antiquity of this particular tradition in comparison with the Bethlehem house, which appears largely as an add-on.41 39

Although Mimouni has published numerous articles on this subject, most of these have been incorporated into his major study of the Dormition traditions, where his basic hypothesis can be found at Mimouni, Dormitionet Assomption, 55-73. 40 See Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 16879. 41 Towards the end of his study, Mimouni suddenly – and rather surprisingly – elaborates on his theory of the early history of the Dormition traditions

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 33

29/10/18 13:02

34

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Yet a more serious problem with the developmental hypotheses advanced by Mimouni and his predecessors is the fundamentally theological approach that they take in interpreting the corpus of Dormition traditions and their history. Clear evidence of literary relations is frequently ignored in favor of an analysis based primarily in dogmatic categories produced by modern Roman Catholic theological discourse.42 with an endorsement of the historical priority of the tradition of Mary’s Jerusalem house that patently contradicts his larger thesis. Mimouni explains the tradition of two houses as the result of conflicts subsequent to the council of Chalcedon. He supposes that prior to this council Marian cult in the Holy City centered around the church of Mary in the valley of Josaphat, which was identified with her house. In the discord that was subsequent to the council, the Jerusalem shrine was seized by opponents of Chalcedon, and consequently Juvenal had to invent a new Marian shrine to take its place that would be under Chalcedonian control. The result was the church of the Kathisma, which, according to Mimouni, Juvenal promoted as the site of a house of Mary in Bethlehem. Not only is there almost no evidence to support this highly speculative reconstruction, but it runs completely counter to Mimouni’s own identification of the Bethlehem tradition as primitive! See Mimouni, Dormitionet Assomption, 515-16, 530-2. 42 In identifying these approaches as especially theological and contrasting this with my own approach, I certainly do not intend to suggest that I offer an “un-theological” or “objective” account of the early Dormition traditions, which would somehow avoid the “distorting” influence of such theological commitments and concerns as are often evident in much previous scholarship. Quite to the contrary, my understanding of the Dormition traditions has been shaped by particular theological and ideological interests, commitments from which no scholar is ever free. I do not propose to give an “objective” account of the Dormition narratives, but one that is necessarily engaged with them, yet at the same time, one that maintains a critical coherence with the historical evidence. My conclusions arise from a conviction that the origins of the Christian tradition as a whole were diverse rather than singular, approaching early Christian culture in general as a “discourse of heterodoxy,” rather than adopting the traditional Christian “discourse of orthodoxy,” which imagines “truth” to be both singular and original. This is, I freely admit, hardly a theologically neutral presupposition, but it is one with a long tradition of historically rigorous scholarship following in the tradition of Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy andHeresyinEarliestChristianity (see nn. 57 and 58 below). The main point that I wish to emphasize here is not the presence of any inherent theological bias in these hypotheses so much as the determination of these approaches to focus their analysis almost entirely on the theology of the early narratives – as determined using modern dogmatic categories – to the exclusion of other more

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 34

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

35

This theological approach is not so much a matter of personal commitments by individual interpreters to a particular faith community or theological tradition, it should be made clear. Nor is it about taking an especially keen interest in the various theological positions expressed about Mary by the different narratives. Rather, it is about employing a method that inordinately privileges the theological content of narratives over other equally if not more important aspects, such as their literary history. Theology is the organizing principle of these interpretations: they classify and study narratives not so much on the basis of their literary relations, but instead according to whether or not they seem to espouse the (modern) dogma of the Assumption.43 In each case the ancient narratives are parsed according to the terms of modern theological discourse, which is a deeply problematic approach. While theological contents of these narratives are of course quite interesting and extremely important for understanding the history of Marian veneration, the historian must analyze them in relation to the conceptual world of early Christianity rather than according to modern dogmatic categories. Undoubtedly, the persistent use of these modern categories is an enduring legacy of the ecclesiastical commitments of those who pioneered the study of the early Dormition traditions, including Jugie, Baldi, Mosconi, and Cothenet, all of whom were Catholic priests. Yet even when such commitments are absent, as in the case of Mimouni’s work, the concern with demonstrating the discrete, successive evolution from one dogmatic position to another clearly owes a great deal to the more confessionally oriented research of his ecclesiastical predecessors, historically reliable and less ambiguous evidence afforded by literary relations among the various traditions. 43 Mimouni is quite explicit in this, stating it most strongly in the thesis which formed the basis of his book, “A notre avis la présence de thêmes littéraires dans un texte n’est pas signifiante.” S. C. Mimouni, “Histoire de la Dormition et de l’Assomption de Marie: Recherche d’histoire littéraire” (Thèse de diplôme, École Pratique des Hautes Études, 1988) 102. See also his critique of Michel van Esbroeck’s work, of which he writes: “Cette classification repose sur des thématiques littéraires. Or, la présence de thèmes littéraires dans un texte ne paraît pas suffisante. Une typologie, en effet, peut difficilement être établie uniquement sur la présence ou l’absence de thèmes littéraires dans des écrits.” Van Esbroeck’s typology fails, in his opinion, because “elle conduit à des contresens, aussi bien du point de vue topologique, ce qui n’est pas trop grave, que du point de vue doctrinal, ce qui est plus gênant.” Mimouni, DormitionetAssomption, 49.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 35

29/10/18 13:02

36

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

and most notably Cothenet, who sought in the development of dogma assurances of more “recent” beliefs.44 2. ProblemswiththeDevelopmentalModel This privileging of the theological over the literary seriously undermines the historical investigation of the early Dormition narratives by pushing valuable evidence of literary dependence and development to the margins.45 Yet the effective exclusion of this evidence is essential for such developmental typologies, inasmuch as the extremely complicated issues raised by the literary history of the early Dormition traditions fatally undermine their efforts to explain the different narratives as the outcome of an unfolding process of dogmatic development. The problem is that when the Dormition apocrypha first come into historical view towards the end of the fifth century, we find several highly diverse narrative and theological traditions already in existence. Although the first four centuries of Christianity are profoundly silent regarding the end of Mary’s life, in the later fifth century, a number of Dormition narratives suddenly appear, all with different endings and divergent views concerning the ultimate fate of both Mary and her body.46 Each of these distinctive traditions first comes into sight at almost exactly the same historical moment, and there are no obvious means of distinguishing one narrative as significantly earlier than – or as the source of – the others. The Syriac apocrypha published by William Wright and Agnes Smith Lewis are good examples of this, especially inasmuch as they clearly evidence the initial appearance of both “Assumptionist” and “Assumptionless” traditions simultaneously. Among these early Syriac narratives is the fragmentary ObsequiesoftheHolyVirgin, an 44

Mimouni, DormitionetAssomption, 7-21 begins his study with an extensive discussion of how to define the doctrines of the Dormition and Assumption that will serve as the cornerstones of his study, and here he draws his definitions from the blueprint of one of the Assumption dogma’s main architects, Jugie’s Lamortetassumption. 45 See also M. van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features in the Life of the Virgin,” Marianum 63 (2001) 297-308. 46 Regarding the long, profound silence about the end of Mary’s life in the early Church, see W. J. Burghardt, TheTestimonyofthePatristicAgeConcerningMary’sDeath (Westminster, MD, 1957); see also Shoemaker, Ancient TraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 9-32.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 36

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

37

apocryphon known also as the BookofMary’sRepose in its complete Ethiopic version: both the ancient Syriac fragments and the Ethiopic version of this text unmistakably describe Mary’s bodily resurrection and translation to Paradise in the body (i.e., her “Assumption”).47 Yet alongside this narrative stand the various Syriac versions of the “Six Books” apocryphon,48 which are themselves quite diverse in the fates that they ascribe to Mary. Some versions of this early narrative relate only the separation of Mary’s body and soul and the miraculous removal of her inanimate body from this world without her resurrection or “Assumption.” Other early versions of the Six Books, however, conclude in a manner that speaks more of Mary’s

47

Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 32-46, 146-68. The literary relationship between the Obsequies fragments and the Ethiopic BookofMary’sRepose make the interpretation of the former’s conclusion all but certain. See now also S. J. Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library: Presentation, Edition and Translation,” Mus 124 (2011) 259-78 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 11). Cothenet tried to interpret the Obsequies as an “Assumptionless” narrative, misled in part by Jugie’s inaccurate description of certain other narratives, but he did not have access to the Ethiopic Book of Mary’sRepose. Mimouni attempts to revive Cothenet’s interpretation of the Obsequies, since it is necessary for his hypothesis, but his efforts to separate the Obsequies from the Ethiopic Book of Mary’s Repose are entirely unconvincing. 48 In several instances Mimouni, DormitionetAssomption, 93-94 identifies the Six Books apocryphon as the Dormition narrative of “St. James,” which he compares with the Greek Dormition narrative of “St. John,” i.e., the Transitus of Ps.-John; see also Bovon and Geoltrain, Écritsapocrypheschrétiens, 165; Mimouni and Voicu, Latraditiongrecque, 31-2. Nevertheless, this identification of the Six Books apocryphon as if it were somehow the Transitus of “Ps.-James” is misleading and misguided and is to be avoided. Mimouni derives this label through an apparent misreading of a passage in the preface to the Six Books, where in response to a request from certain monks of Mount Sinai a book is discovered in the episcopal library of Jerusalem written by James, bishop of Jerusalem, in his own hand: Wright, “Departure of my Lady Mary,” {(Syr) and 131 (Eng). Careful reading of the passage in question will reveal that this book written by James is not in fact the Six Books apocryphon (as Mimouni implies) or even a Dormition narrative, but is instead a distinct writing that bears witness to this apocryphon. Furthermore, the important role played by John in the monks’ discovery of this narrative certainly does more to associate it with John than James.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 37

29/10/18 13:02

38

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

“Assumption” than not, despite the efforts of most scholars to interpret them otherwise.49 The paleography of the Syriac manuscripts preserving these apocrypha dates both the Obsequies and the Six Books to the later fifth century (at the latest), presenting us with the simultaneous appearance of both “Assumptionist” and “Assumptionless” traditions.50 Likewise, the earliest Coptic narratives, a pseudepigraphical homily of Cyril of Jerusalem and two distinct versions of a homily attributed to Evodius of Rome, are roughly contemporary with the early Syriac narratives, written prior to the middle of the sixth century.51 These Coptic accounts, very different both from the Syriac apocrypha as well as from each another, conclude without an “Assumption,” 49

An “Assumptionless” version of the Six Books apocryphon appears to be preserved in a late fifth-century palimpsest edited by Smith Lewis (although the loss of its ending leaves significant doubts regarding the details of its conclusion), while two closely related versions of the Six Books known from sixth-century manuscripts offer somewhat ambiguous conclusions that nevertheless describe something more like her Assumption than not. See Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 46-57, 193-203. 50 The date of both apocrypha is no doubt earlier, since the Syriac versions translate earlier Greek versions. For my most recent publication on the question of these two apocrypha’s dates, see esp. S. J. Shoemaker, MaryinEarly ChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016) 100-65. I now think that the traditions of the BookofMary’sRespose date most likely to the third century, while the traditions of the SixBooksApocryphon date, at least in some early form, to the middle of the fourth century. Wright dates the Obsequies (= Book ofMary’sRepose) fragments to the late fifth century on one occasion: Wright, ContributionstoApocryphalLiterature, 6, 10-11; and elsewhere to the beginning of the sixth: W. Wright, CatalogueofSyriacManuscriptsintheBritish Museum Acquired since the Year 1838, 3 vols. (London, 1870-72) 1:369. Regarding the Syriac versions of the Six Books, Smith Lewis’ two palimpsest versions date to the late fifth century: Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca, iii; A. Smith Lewis, CatalogueoftheSyriacMSS.intheConventofS.Catharine on Mount Sinai (London, 1894) 47; see also R. L. Bensly et al., The Four Gospels in Syriac (Cambridge, 1894) xv-xvii. Wright’s version of the Six Books is known from a sixth century manuscript: Wright, “Departure of my Lady Mary,” 417. 51 See Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 57-63; S. J. Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Attributed to Evodius of Rome,” AB 117 (1999) 241-83 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 9).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 38

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

39

relating only the separation of Mary’s soul from her body and the miraculous removal of her body from this world: in these narratives, Mary’s body disappears during her funeral procession, before the apostles even have a chance to bury her. Finally, Jacob of Serug’s Homily on the Dormition is also from approximately this same time, having been delivered in 489 at a local church council in Nisibis, according to its superscription in the manuscripts.52 While Jacob’s homily describes neither the fate of Mary’s body nor the moment of her death, it does relate the triumphal entry of her “soul” into Heaven, suggesting a conclusion somewhat different from the modern Assumption dogma. Thus, we have five very different and roughly contemporary narratives, some of which are extant in multiple versions and all of which ascribe various fates to Mary and her body after death, with no clear evidence of any one narrative significantly antedating or being a source of the others. The span of roughly fifty years during which these five early narratives first emerge from an uncertain past leaves very little time for any sort of doctrinal and narrative evolution from one type into another. Consequently, on the basis of their initial appearance almost simultaneously, these different narratives are best understood as coexistent, rival traditions of Mary’s Dormition, with none having a substantial claim to priority or parentage over the others.53 Although some significant doctrinal development may possibly have occurred before these first exemplars come into view, as of yet nothing has come to light that would suggest this. Only in the Coptic tradition is there clear evidence of such early doctrinal development: sometime around the middle of the sixth century, a feast celebrating the Virgin’s bodily resurrection and Assumption was added to the Coptic liturgical calendar, which previously had commemorated only Mary’s “death” and the miraculous disappearance of her body. Yet even this change did not result in the production of entirely new narratives, as the advocates of developmental typologies propose; instead, only minor revisions were made 52

Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 63-5. Trans. in ibid., 408-14. 53 See ibid., 142-68. Even though I now think that the traditions of the Book ofMary’sRepose can be dated to the third century, if not possibly earlier, and the SixBooksApocryphon so the mid-fourth century, I see no evidence that the latter depends on the former in any significant way. We are in fact dealing with two separate literary traditions whose geneses are clearly independent.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 39

29/10/18 13:02

40

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

to the conclusions of already existing narratives, updating them to include the Virgin’s resurrection and Assumption.54 Consequently, even if there may have been a systematic development of Marian doctrine during the Dormition traditions’ rather lengthy “tunnel period,” there is no reason to assume that such changes would necessarily have resulted in the production of entirely new narratives rather than the minor modification of already existing ones. Even in the face of such a possibility, the narrative diversity of the early Dormition apocrypha calls for a different explanation, as the Coptic traditions seem to indicate. The widely divergent representations of the end of Mary’s life in these narratives pose an additional set of problems, particularly inasmuch as the conclusions of many accounts do not correspond well with the modern theological categories that are so often used to interpret them. One of the biggest shortcomings of these developmental approaches is that they intrude modern dogmatic categories and definitions into these ancient narratives, where they are neither very appropriate nor helpful.55 The theological bifurcation of the early Dormition traditions according to whether or not they espouse the Virgin Mary’s “Assumption” is highly overdetermined in most scholarship and often quite misleading. In fact, this strict doctrinal division of the narratives would probably not have been made in the first place, but for the decisive influence of the modern Assumption dogma on the study of these traditions. The truth is that many if not most of the earliest traditions simply do not fit the theological categories employed in modern discussions of Mary’s Assumption, making this issue a very poor criterion for analyzing and classifying the early Dormition

54

This is most clear in the case of the various versions of the Ps.-Evodius HomilyontheDormition: see Shoemaker, “Sahidic Coptic Homily,” 242-47 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 9). Theodosius of Alexandria’s Homilyonthe Dormition, which is the most important evidence of this liturgical change, itself draws most of its narrative material from already existing “Palm of the Tree of Life” traditions, and Theodosius informs us that he has based his narrative on an ancient source originating from Jerusalem that he found in the library of St. Mark in Alexandria: Theodosius of Alexandria, Homilyon theDormition (M. Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose, Patriarche d’Alexandrie, sur la Dormition et l’Assomption de la Vierge,” ROC 29 (1933-34) 272-314 at 282 (Copt) and 304 (Fr)). 55 See also van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features,” 298-300.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 40

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

41

traditions, despite its frequent implementation in modern scholarship.56 We should instead look for alternative means of describing and explaining the disparate conclusions of the early Dormition narratives and their very different representations of Mary’s ultimate fate. Such an alternative may perhaps be found in the broad range of opinions regarding the eschatological significance of Paradise in late ancient Christianity and Judaism. This, I propose, provides a much more appropriate and illuminating context for understanding the different conclusions of these narratives, as I explain more fully below. Finally, the complex and diverse nature of early Christianity, as it is increasingly understood, makes rather unlikely the sort of ordered and integrated evolution of doctrine and document that these developmental theories envision. Each of these interpretations appears to posit a process of unilinear literary and theological development, according to which one narrative type evolved from and displaced another in succession as the early Christian community progressively changed its mind about the end of Mary’s life. The presumption appears to be that as opinions with regard to Mary’s death changed, there was the need to produce new narratives that would embody new dogmatic positions, and that once this was done, the older narratives were cast aside for newer, more theologically “correct” accounts. In this way, the different literary types are understood as successive forms of what amounts to a single, unified tradition, with one narrative type displacing its predecessor as changes occurred in Christian doctrine. It is as if the various narratives form part of a single conversation, with each new narrative arising in response to and replacing what had been said before it. These interpretations seem to presuppose an understanding of early Christianity as a much more unified and monolithic movement than many would today accept. Owing especially to the groundbreaking work of Walter Bauer,57 and the efforts to carry this forward by more recent scholars such as Helmut Koester, Bart Ehrman, and Karen King,58 to name only a few, the modern academic study of ancient 56 In addition to the discussion below, see Shoemaker, AncientTraditions oftheVirginMary’sDormition, 179-204. 57 W. Bauer, OrthodoxyandHeresyinEarliestChristianity, trans. R. A. Kraft and G. Krodel (Philadelphia, 1971). 58 See, e.g., H. Koester, IntroductiontotheNewTestament, 2 vols., vol. 2, HistoryandLiteratureofEarlyChristianity (New York, 19952); H. Koester, “GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 41

29/10/18 13:02

42

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Christianity increasingly envisions the early Church as much more diverse and fragmented than once was thought. Particular emphasis is now given to the highly localized nature of Christianity in different areas, and how even within these specific regions, Christianity was practiced with great variety of expression. From the moment when the earliest Christians began to reflect on the person of Jesus Christ and his teachings, there was debate and difference regarding his significance. The nascent Church had many different voices, some of which harmonized, and others, which sounded quite dissonant, as the New Testament itself bears witness, not to mention other early Christian literature. And while the relationship between Christianity and the Roman Empire that began in the fourth century brought a measure of unity and uniformity to the Christian faith, this by no means completely erased such differences. During late antiquity and the early middle ages, Christianity often continued to exhibit a strongly local character from region to region, as much of Peter Brown’s work has shown, for instance.59 In view of such circumstances, it seems rather strange to expect that early Christian discourse about the end of Mary’s life would have developed in such an orderly and uniform fashion. Rather, it makes far more sense to understand the variety of the early Dormition narratives as itself reflecting the remarkable diversity of the early Christian communities that produced them. This is all the more so given that many of the earliest narratives bear the marks of development outside of the “mainstream” of ancient Christianity, in theologically marginalized, heterodox communities. History of Early Christianity,” in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester (eds), TrajectoriesthroughEarlyChristianity (Philadelphia, 1971) 114-57; B. D. Ehrman, TheOrthodoxCorruptionofScripture:TheEffectofEarlyChristologicalControversiesontheTextoftheNewTestament (New York, 1993); B. D. Ehrman, LostChristianities:TheBattlesforScriptureandtheFaithsthatWeNever Knew (New York, 2003); K. L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, Mass., 2003). 59 See esp. P. Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity,A.D.200-1000 (Oxford, 20032); P. Brown, PowerandPersuasion inLateAntiquity:TowardsaChristianEmpire (Madison, 1992) 18-20. On the highly localized nature of the venerations of saints and holy people in particular, see P. Brown, TheCultoftheSaints:ItsRiseandFunctioninLatin Christianity (Chicago, 1981). See also G. W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor, 1990) 21, 67-8; A. Cameron, TheMediterraneanWorld inLateAntiquity,A.D.395-600 (London, 1993) 182-6.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 42

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

43

Such an understanding of early Christianity inspires an altogether different view of the “origins” of the Dormition apocrypha, one that respects their differences and envisions a diverse array of Christian communities that would have been capable of producing simultaneously and independently several different traditions of the end of Mary’s life. Instead of postulating an integrated process of dogmatic and narrative development within the context of a relatively unified Christian church, I propose a polygenetic understanding of the earliest Dormition traditions, which understands the different narrative traditions as products of multiple and distinct “origins.” The narrative diversity of these traditions, rather than being a product of successive developments stretching back in a row to a single origin, is instead a testament to their separate and concurrent descent from several distinct narrative “archetypes,” the precise nature of which is not entirely known at present. The theological diversity of ancient Christianity no doubt provided fertile ground for these diverse traditions to sprout forth.60 3. ParadiseFound:Eschatology,LiteraryHistory,andIndependent Origins Although the persistent silence regarding the end of Mary’s life in the first four Christian centuries makes any conclusion about the beginnings 60 This alternative understanding of the early Dormition traditions is not, it should be clear, an altogether new hypothesis. Already in the 1950s, Wenger advocated the idea that the literary and theological diversity of the ancient Dormition traditions is best explained by the existence of a “great variety of original types,” rather than by the progressive modification of a single primitive tradition: Wenger, L’Assomption, 17. To a certain extent, this was also Jugie’s conclusion: he rejected the dogmatic value of the Dormition apocrypha not only because of their witness to Mary’s “death,” but also because their remarkable diversity made it impossible to identify one particular tradition as primitive: Jugie, Lamortetl’assomption, 168-70. Wenger’s exceptional work along such lines was in many respects continued by Michel van Esbroeck, who in a very dense and seminal article proposed two discrete stemmata that outline the parallel, independent development of the two most important families of Dormition narratives. With these diagrams, van Esbroeck rather convincingly demonstrates in outline the independent origins of these two literary traditions. See van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires,” and the essays in van Esbroeck, Aux originesdelaDormition.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 43

29/10/18 13:02

44

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

of the Dormition traditions necessarily somewhat tentative, given the present state of our evidence, their independent origins seem relatively certain. A number of factors suggest the independent development of the earliest Dormition traditions, several of which we have already seen. Perhaps the most important of these is the almost simultaneous appearance of several very different narratives around the turn of the sixth century, all with rather different interpretations of Mary’s death, as already noted. Likewise, the related liturgical traditions and early pilgrimage accounts afford no indication that the location of Mary’s house(s) can identify a particular narrative tradition as primitive. In fact, the complexities of Jerusalem’s early Marian liturgies and the often divergent reports by early pilgrims present a likely context for the independent development of rival Dormition traditions. So too does the remarkable diversity of eschatological belief encountered in both the early Dormition traditions themselves and the religions of Mediterranean antiquity more generally. Indeed, the various narrative representations of Mary’s status after her death are more easily understood as reflecting the broad range of opinions in the ancient world concerning the eschatological role of Paradise than as the result of a unilinear process of dogmatic development. In spite of their substantial narrative differences, the early Dormition traditions agree rather remarkably on Mary’s final location after her death: almost without exception they conclude with Mary’s transfer in body and/or soul to the Garden of Paradise. Beyond this important point of unity, however, the individual accounts diverge considerably, offering various assessments of the Virgin’s return to the Garden and its eschatological significance. The descriptions of Paradise found in the Dormition narratives are often complex and ambiguous, even contradictory, as one frequently finds in apocalyptic literature. This is evident, for instance, in the frequent identification of Paradise as being simultaneously both terrestrial and celestial, a paradox well known from other ancient sources, including Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise perhaps most famously.61 In the early Christian imagination, 61

See S. P. Brock, Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood, N.Y., 1990) 51-4; R. Murray, SymbolsofChurchandKingdom:AStudyinEarlySyriacTradition (London, 1975) 306-10. This was also Epiphanius’ view, for instance: “Paradise, from which, in the person of our first ancestor, we were expelled, is obviously a particular place on this earth, set apart for the untroubled rest and residence of the saints.” Epiphanius, Panarion 64.47.1, trans., F. Williams,

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 44

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

45

Paradise was often a fluid category, whose precise nature and purpose did not always conform to the limits of human understanding, and this is certainly the case with the visions of Paradise reported in the early Dormition traditions. The ambiguous status of Paradise often makes uncertain the significance of Mary’s presence there, and consequently, we should not be altogether surprised in finding that the ancient Dormition apocrypha do not fit well at all within the sharp lines drawn by modern Roman Catholic theological discourse about the Assumption. In early Jewish and Christian eschatology, one finds two major trends concerning the importance of Paradise, although there are also numerous variations involving one or both of these possibilities, as the early Dormition narratives themselves bear witness. On the one hand, many ancient writers understood Paradise as being the eternal resting place of the righteous, where after their resurrection the elect will receive their final reward.62 Alternatively, other writers identified Paradise as a place where disembodied souls await the general resurrection, after which they will then move on in both body and soul to their final dwelling place in some other location.63 Depending on which of these eschatological traditions informed one’s thinking, Mary’s final presence in Paradise would have an entirely different meaning. For those who equated Paradise with the final resting place of the elect, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Leiden, 1994) 172. As Richard Bauckham notes, the location of ‘such mysterious places as the places of the dead at the furthest extremities of the earth’ is a very ancient notion, present in both the Odyssey and the EpicofGilgamesh: R. Bauckham, TheFateof theDead:StudiesonJewishandChristianApocalypses (Leiden, 1998) 84. See also N. Séd, “Les hymnes sur le Paradis de Saint Ephrem et les traditions juives,” Mus 81 (1968) 455-501, and the discussion in Shoemaker, Ancient TraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 179-88. 62 This is, for instance, quite clearly Ephrem’s (and Epiphanius’) view. See also Bauckham, FateoftheDead, 86-88; J. E. Wright, TheEarlyHistoryof Heaven (New York, 2000) 188-9; Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 83-8. 63 See Bauckham, Fate of the Dead, 49-96; R. Bauckham, “Early Jewish Visions of Hell,” JTS (n.s.) 41 (1990) 355-85; R. Bauckham, “Visiting the Places of the Dead,” ProceedingsoftheIrishBiblicalAssociation 18 (1995) 78-93. Among the Church Fathers this view is represented by Tertullian and Origen, for instance: see Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’s Dormition, 182-83.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 45

29/10/18 13:02

46

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Mary’s present existence there would essentially represent something very close to the modern dogma of her Assumption. Yet alternatively, if one viewed Paradise merely as a waiting place for souls, then Mary’s presence there would not be in any sense special, but rather typical of the blessed departed, who together in Paradise await their final reward. In the majority of narratives, however, the theological significance of Mary’s presence in Paradise is rather difficult to assess, since the eschatological function of Paradise is either unclear or confused. This is particularly true for the many of the earliest narratives, from the fifth and sixth centuries, in which the reader often follows Mary on an extensive tour of the heavenly realms, where the Garden of Paradise is seen in its relation to other districts within the eternal Kingdom. The images of Paradise that emerge from these apocalyptic visions are diverse and complex, and in this the Dormition legends reflect the variety of eschatological opinion that is witnessed more broadly in the religious traditions of late antiquity.64 Consequently, I propose that the diversity of eschatological belief in early Christianity, rather than any kind of ordered dogmatic development, can best account for the “theological” differences of the earliest Dormition traditions regarding Mary’s final state. Instead of positing a linear evolution from one theological position to another, we may instead identify the source of the early Dormition narratives’ theological diversity in the different understandings of Paradise and its eschatological purpose that were current in late antiquity. In this way, the apocalyptic and eschatological traditions of late antiquity can help us to both organize and analyze certain narrative differences in the early Dormition traditions, providing an alternative to the modern dogmatic categories utilized by much previous scholarship that is drawn from the cultural world of the ancient Dormition traditions themselves. It would appear that the tradition of Mary’s transfer to Paradise is in some sense primitive: it is a constant feature of these otherwise diverse traditions.65 What a particular writer (or community) made of this established tradition seems to depend primarily on how the 64

See the discussion in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 193-204; see also Bauckham, Fate of the Dead, 33262. 65 This is also attested in the ApocalypseofPaul 46 (M. R. James, ApocryphaAnecdota, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1893-7) 1:37-8).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 46

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

47

eschatological significance of Paradise was understood. The Dormition narratives generally give only a confused, if often colorful, indication of what this significance may be, without any effort to produce a clear and precise theological statement either for or against the Virgin’s Assumption. On the contrary, most narratives fit very poorly the categories offered by modern dogmatics, the overemphasis of which has led scholarship to overlook, and even occasionally misrepresent, various details of their conclusions. This is largely because the nature of such dogmatic pronouncements is generally to contain theological diversity: we must instead develop an approach to these ancient traditions that acknowledges and represents the polyphony of their voices. This is best accomplished, I propose, by allowing the texts to tell us the significance of Mary’s presence in the Garden of Paradise, rather than vice-versa. Given then the daunting complexities even in determining the theological position of individual narratives regarding the Virgin’s “Assumption,” the focus on dogma as a means of understanding the earliest history of the Dormition traditions is actually not very helpful or productive. Alternatively, the often clear evidence of literary relations among the early narratives offers a much more reliable and less ambiguous basis for investigating the earliest history and development of the Dormition apocrypha. Therefore, instead of arranging the ancient Dormition apocrypha according to some hypothetical process of dogmatic evolution, I have followed Antoine Wenger and Michel van Esbroeck in proposing a model for understanding the early history of these traditions that rests primarily on their literary history and posits multiple, independent “origins” and separate lines of descent for the various literary traditions. On this basis, I identify three major literary families, as well as a number of more or less unique narratives, which, although they are relatively early (i.e., before the Islamic conquests), do not fit into any of these larger literary traditions.66 Wenger identified the first of these narrative groups in his study of the early Byzantine Dormition traditions. Rather than attempting to explain all of the early Dormition traditions collectively in a single, totalizing explanation, Wenger instead had the insight to focus on a limited number of very closely related texts, which he successfully 66

See the more extensive discussion of these four narrative groups in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 32-71.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 47

29/10/18 13:02

48

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

arranged into a detailed stemma.67 Several decades later, van Esbroeck essentially updated this stemma, adding to it new discoveries and naming these narratives collectively “the Palm of the Tree of Life” traditions, or, more succinctly, the Palm traditions.68 The earliest narrative from this literary family is the Ethiopic BookofMary’sRepose, whose traditions also appear in very condensed and expurgated form in both John of Thessalonica’s Homily on the Dormition and Ps.-Melito’s Transitus. Van Esbroeck additionally turned his attention to another large group of related early apocrypha that Wenger did not consider, providing a stemma for these traditions and designating them the “Bethlehem and Incensings” traditions, or the Bethlehem traditions for short.69 The oldest exemplars of this tradition are the various Syriac versions of the “Six Books” apocryphon, whose narratives formed the basis for Ps.-John’s Transitus. The Coptic Dormition narratives comprise a third narrative tradition, and although the Coptic traditions do not exhibit the same kind of close literary relations as the Palm and Bethlehem traditions, certain distinctive Coptic liturgical traditions, still observed today by the Coptic and Ethiopian churches, have influenced all of the various Coptic narratives. This marks them off as a separate set of linked traditions that should be studied in relation to one another.70 Finally, in addition to these three literary groups, there are a number of “atypical” narratives that do not belong to any of these families, and several of these are among the earliest Dormition narratives, such as Jacob of Serug’s homily.71 Yet as already noted, there is no evidence suggesting that any one of these narrative types gave rise to the others. Rather, each of these literary traditions appears to have developed independently of the others, and they most likely arise from rather diverse and distinct “origins.”

67

Wenger, L’Assomption, 17-67, esp. 66. Van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires,” 268-72. 69 Ibid., 269-76. 70 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 57-63. See also Mimouni, DormitionetAssomption, 173-210, 447-50; S. C. Mimouni, “Genèse et évolution des traditions anciennes sur le sort final de Marie: Etude de la tradition littéraire copte,” Marianum 42 (1991) 69-143. 71 Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 63-71; see also van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires,” 272-3, which suggests a category of atypical narratives. 68

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 48

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

49

One final issue that must be addressed briefly in regard to the early history of the Dormition traditions is the question of their “original” milieu. With surprising frequency, one meets the assertion that the traditions of Mary’s Dormition had their origin among the opponents of the council of Chalcedon (451).72 Nevertheless, this commonly held view is simply not supported by the current state of our evidence. On the contrary, the earliest narratives seem deliberately to avoid taking a position on the debates over Christ’s humanity and divinity that issued from the council of Chalcedon. Instead, the early Dormition narratives are larded with the sort of theological commonplaces that were acceptable to those on both sides of this debate, while the language and formulae of the controversy over Chalcedon are completely absent. On a few occasions, one even finds theological formulae representative of various efforts to heal the theological rift occasioned by Chalcedon. Not only then is there no evidence to support an anti-Chalcedonian origin, but the contents of the narratives themselves seem to contradict such a hypothesis.73 72 Mimouni, DormitionetAssomption, 665-71; van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires,” 279; M. van Esbroeck, “La Dormition chez les Coptes,” in M. Rassart-Debergh and J. Ries (eds), Actes du IVe Congrès copte, vol. 2 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1992) 436-45; M. van Esbroeck, “Le culte de la Vierge de Jérusalem à Constantinople aux 6e-7e siècles,” REB 46 (1988) 181-90; M. van Esbroeck, “Les signes des temps dans la littérature syriaque,” Revue del’InsitutcatholiquedeParis 39 (1991) 113-49; M. van Esbroeck, “Étude comparée des notices byzantines et caucasiennes pour la fête de la Dormition,” in AuxoriginesdelaDormitiondelaVierge:Etudeshistoriquessurlestraditionsorientales (Brookfield, VT, 1995) 6-18; van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features”; H. Chadwick, “Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy,” JTS (n.s.) 2 (1951) 145-64 at 163-4; B. E. Daley, OntheDormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies (Crestwood, NY, 1998) 7; B. E. Daley, “‘At the Hour of Our Death’: Mary’s Dormition and Christian Dying in Late Patristic and Early Byzantine Literature,” DOP 55 (2001) 71-89 at 71-3, 81-2; Clayton, ApocryphalGospelsofMary, 25-6. 73 See the extensive discussion of these matters in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 256-78. Note that this silence regarding Chalcedon is broken by the early Byzantine homilies on the Dormition from the eighth century. These homilies regularly include discussions of the issues of Chalcedon, and this new theme is one of the main features that distinguish the Dormition accounts written after the Islamic conquests from the ancient narratives. See, e.g., (Ps.-)Modestus of Jerusalem, dorm. 3, 7, 10 (PG 86, 3288B, 3296A, 3304C); Andrew of Crete, hom.13 (PG 97, 1085B);

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 49

29/10/18 13:02

50

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Perhaps more importantly, however, it is almost impossible on purely historical grounds that the earliest Dormition narratives were first composed at such a late date (i.e., after 451). The earliest exemplars of both the Palm and Bethlehem traditions are preserved in Syriac manuscripts from the late fifth century which have been translated from Greek originals.74 It does not seem very likely that the process of their composition and transmission into Syriac occurred over the course of only a few decades. Furthermore, several of the very earliest narratives, particularly the earliest Palm narratives, are filled with various “heterodox” theologoumena that are rather peculiar for the early Byzantine context in which these narratives first emerged. These include, among other things, the identification of Christ as a “Great Angel,”75 a persistent emphasis on secret and often soteriological knowledge,76 and even reference to a common “gnostic” creation myth.77 There is fairly widespread agreement that these themes are indications of an earlier existence somewhere outside of the “mainstream” of early Christian orthodoxy.78 While many scholars have favored a “Jewish-Christian” origin,79 this is problematic for several reasons, and it seems that positing some sort of contact with “gnostic” Christianity (but not necessarily a gnostic “origin”) can best account for the unusual theology of these early narratives.80 Several among Germanus of Constantinople, or. 8 (PG 98, 361A); John of Damascus, hom.8, 3 (P. Voulet, ed., Homéliessurlanativitéetladormition (Paris, 1961) 88-9) and idem, hom9, 4 (ibid., 136-7). 74 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 36-42, 54-5. 75 See esp. BookofMary’sRepose 1-3, 52 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:1-3, 31 (Eth) and 1-2, 21 (Lat)); Wenger, L’Assomption, 210-15, 226-9. See also Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 215-20, 239-41. 76 E.g., BookofMary’sRepose 13-16 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:7-9 (Eth) and 5-6 (Lat)); Wenger, L’Assomption, 214-15. 77 E.g., BookofMary’sRepose 16-17 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:9 (Eth) and 6 (Lat)). 78 This was perhaps first observed by Bonnet, “Die ältesten Schriften,” 244-5. 79 Bagatti, “La verginità di Maria”; Bagatti, “Ricerche sulle tradizioni”; Bagatti, “La morte della Vergine”; Cignelli, “Il prototipo giudeo-cristiano”; Testa, “Lo sviluppo”; Testa, “L’origine e lo sviluppo”; Manns, Lerécitdela Dormition. 80 Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 232-53. See now also on this point Shoemaker, Mary, 100-29. See also L. S. B. MacCoull,

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 50

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

51

the second generation of extant narratives openly express discomfort with this aspect of the earlier traditions, and the authors of these narratives feel the need to explain for their audience that they have sanitized the earlier traditions for their protection, an editorial cleansing that is quite evident in the earliest transmission of these legends during the sixth and seventh centuries.81 On the basis of such “heterodox” theological content, it seems likely that an early version of the “Palm of the Tree of Life” apocryphon was most likely already in existence during the third century, if not perhaps even earlier. This date coincides roughly with the floruit of gnostic Christianities as well as with the relative disappearance of Angel Christology after the beginning of the fourth century. The initial composition of a document centered on these ideas sometime after this point seems comparatively unlikely.82 By way of contrast, the Bethlehem apocrypha, the other major literary tradition, give no similar indications of such an early, heterodox existence and appear to be somewhat more recent than the Palm traditions. In fact, in an earlier study I concluded that the earliest “More Coptic Papyri from the Beinecke Collection,” ArchivfürPapyrusforschung 35 (1989) 25-35, at 31-2; P. Sellew, “An Early Coptic Witness to the DormitioMariae at Yale: P. CtYBR inv. 1788 Revisited,” Bulletinof theAmericanSocietyofPapyrologists 37 (2000) 37-69 at 49-50; M. Erbetta, GliApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli:InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 410-11, 473 nn. 11, 17, 23. In regards to the possibility of a relation with the “gnostic” Mary of early Coptic apocrypha, see also S. J. Shoemaker, “Jesus’ Gnostic Mom: Mary of Nazareth and the Gnostic Mary Traditions,” in D. Good (ed.), Mariam, the Magdalen, and the Mother (Bloomington, 2005) 153-83; S. J. Shoemaker, “Rethinking the ‘Gnostic Mary’: Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala in Early Christian Tradition,” JECS 9 (2001) 555-95 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 6); S. J. Shoemaker, “A Case of Mistaken Identity?: Naming the Gnostic Mary,” in F. S. Jones (ed.), WhichMary?:TheMarysofEarlyChristian Tradition (Atlanta, 2002) 5-30. 81 Ps.-Melito, Transitus Mariae, prologue (Haibach-Reinisch, Ein neuer “TransitusMariae”, 64-5); John of Thessalonica, dorm.BMVA 1 (Jugie, Homéliesmarialesbyzantines(II) 376-7); Andrew of Crete, or.13 (PG 97, 1072B). See now S. J. Shoemaker, “From Mother of Mysteries to Mother of the Church: The Institutionalization of the Dormition Apocrypha,” Apocrypha 22 (2011) 11-47. 82 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 42-6, 253-6, 278-9, 284-6.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 51

29/10/18 13:02

52

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

versions of the Six Books are unlikely to be much older than the early fifth century, a terminusantequem indicated by the two Syriac translations (made from the Greek) preserved in manuscripts from the late fifth-century.83 As much is indicated, I proposed, by their inclusion of material paralleled by the DoctrinaAddai and a rather unique account of the invention of the True Cross, traditions which themselves first emerged around the turn of the fifth century, perhaps almost simultaneously with the Six Books apocryphon. After further study of the True Cross traditions from the Six Books, I am somewhat less convinced of this conclusion that I was previously.84 The traditions of the True Cross’ discovery in the Six Books narratives are quite different from the more well known traditions that first surface in the fourth and early fifth centuries, and they appear to represent a distinct, fourth version of these events that has not otherwise survived in the Christian tradition. Thus, it remains entirely possible that the account of the Cross’ discovery embedded within the Six Books apocrypha is in fact a rather early version that was forgotten as other traditions came to dominate. Likewise, the traditions from the Doctrina Addai may have been known to the author of the Six Books in an independent state, before their incorporation into this “official” account of Edessa’s evangelization.85 Consequently, there is a possibility that the Six 83

Ibid., 53-7, 286-7. See S. J. Shoemaker, “A Peculiar Version of the Inventio crucis in the Early Syriac Dormition Traditions,” SP 41 (2006) 75-81 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 4). 85 The DoctrinaAddai, as we now have it, was compiled over the course of several centuries, beginning in the third and culminating in the fifth. In the process, many independent traditions were progressively added to this foundation document of the Edessene church, including its account of the Cross’ invention (the so-called “Protonike” version) and the story of Abgar’s correspondence with Tiberius, both of which are connected with the Six Books apocryphon. See the remarks of A. Desreumaux in Bovon and Geoltrain, Écritsapocrypheschrétiens, 1473-81, and H. J. W. Drijvers in W. Schneemelcher (ed.), NewTestamentApocrypha, trans. R. M. Wilson, rev. ed., 2 vols. (Louisville, Ky., 1991-2) 1:492-4. See also S. H. Griffith, “The Doctrina Addai as a Paradigm of Christian Thought in Edessa in the Fifth Century,” Hugoye:JournalofSyriacStudies 6.2 (2003) http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/ Vol6No2/HV6N2Griffith.html, which notes that the DoctrinaAddai’s author composed his work using the city’s archives. Elsewhere Drijvers suggests that the legend of Abgar’s correspondence with Tiberius must be dated after 416: 84

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 52

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

53

Books narrative is somewhat earlier than I had initially allowed: further study of the Six Books’ rather peculiar account of the Cross’ invention and its relations to the traditions of the DoctrinaAddai may help to shed further light on this matter.86 Conclusion It is my hope that this “new” approach to the early Dormition apocrypha not only brings a measure of additional clarity to this very complicated set of traditions, but that it will also demonstrate the importance of better integrating these traditions into the study of earliest Christianity more generally and the study of ancient Jewish and Christian apocrypha more specifically. Heretofore, the Dormition traditions have been largely ignored in both endeavors: even many of the most important collections of Christian apocrypha either exclude them completely or treat them rather hastily, often relegating them to an appendix.87 Only Erbetta’s Italian collection has given these apocrypha the H. J. W. Drijvers, “Jews and Christians at Edessa,” JJS 36 (1985) 88102, 93. Yet even if this might be the correct date for the legend’s inclusion in the Doctrina Addai, I am increasingly convinced that this is too late to account for its incorporation in the Six Books apocryphon, and consequently it must have had an independent existence prior to its incorporation in the DoctrinaAddai. 86 As I have more recently argued, the apparent relations between these apocryphal traditions and the Kollyridians as described by Epiphanius seems to secure their origin by the middle of the fourth century, while an earlier origin is certainly not out of the question. See S. J. Shoemaker, “Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Later Fourth Century,” JECS 16 (2008) 371-401 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 8); and Shoemaker, Mary, 130-65. 87 Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha completely excludes these apocrypha. Bovon and Geoltrain, Écritsapocrypheschrétiens include only a single narrative, the Transitus of Ps.-John (pp. 165-88) which is essentially a précis of the Six Books apocrypha; the Palm, Coptic, and “atypical” traditions are not represented at all. James includes translations of Ps.-John and Ps.-Melito’s Transitus, as well as summaries of a few Syriac and Coptic narratives, although many of the most important narratives were not yet known when James made his collection: M. R. James, TheApocryphalNewTestament (Oxford, 1924) 194-227. Elliott’s presentation of the Dormition traditions mirrors James’ completely: the same narratives are translated and

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 53

29/10/18 13:02

54

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

full inclusion that they merit.88 One reason for this common oversight is no doubt the confusing diversity of the traditions themselves and the lack of any clear consensus regarding their earliest history.89 But certain lingering prejudices about Mary in early Christian studies may also be at work. There is a palpable tendency in much scholarship to minimize any evidence of Marian devotion in the ancient church, exemplified, for instance, in Hans von Campenhausen’s study The VirginBirthintheTheologyoftheAncientChurch, whose stated purpose is demonstrate that Mary was not an important figure in earliest Christianity.90 Nor is this tendency merely an isolated vestige from the past: the lingering impact of nineteenth-century Protestantism on early Christian studies continues to be seen particularly with regard to Mary.91 Although we have fortunately begun to see more balanced views of Mary’s importance in early Christian culture,92 much work summarized, which is unfortunate since many important new discoveries have been made since James made his selection, and in following James, Elliott does not include the earliest and most important narratives: J. K. Elliott, The ApocryphalNewTestament (Oxford, 1993) 691-723. 88 Erbetta, GliApocrifi, I/2:407-632. 89 Such is the explanation afforded by J. K. Elliott at least in his review of my book: J. K. Elliott, “Review of Stephen J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption,” JTS (n.s.) 55 (2004) 324-28. 90 “The aim of the present work is to open up a path through this scholastic wilderness, the so-called ‘Mariology’ of the early Church. It cannot be seriously disputed that the early Church, at any rate during its first few centuries, knew no real Marian doctrine, that is, no thematic theological concern with Mary’s person and her significance in the scheme of Salvation. Nevertheless, the flood of publications relating to the subject is now beyond computation, and under the pressure of present Catholic dogmatic interest it is still rising.” H. von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth in the Theology of theAncientChurch, trans. F. Clarke (London, 1964) 7. See also Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 280-89. 91 Regarding this influence generally, see J. Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine (Chicago, 1990). Regarding Mary in particular, see Shoemaker, “Rethinking the ‘Gnostic Mary,’” 589-95 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 6); Shoemaker, “Between Scripture and Tradition.”; see also B. R. Gaventa, Mary:Glimpses oftheMotherofJesus (Columbia, SC, 1995) 16. 92 See now especially in this regard Shoemaker, Mary. See, also e.g., A. Cameron, ChristianityandtheRhetoricofEmpire (Berkeley, 1991) 98106; N. Constas, ProclusofConstantinopleandtheCultoftheVirgininLate

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 54

29/10/18 13:02

DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

55

remains to be done in this regard. Hopefully the evidence of early devotion to Mary and concern with her theological significance afforded by the ancient Dormition traditions will help to overcome this not infrequent bias.

Antiquity:Homilies1-5,TextsandTranslations (Leiden, 2003); V. Limberis, DivineHeiress:TheVirginMaryandtheCreationofChristianConstantinople (London, 1994); M. F. Foskett, AVirginConceived:MaryandClassicalRepresentationsofVirginity (Bloomington, 2002); J. Knight, “The Portrait of Mary in the Ascension of Isaiah,” in F. S. Jones (ed.), WhichMary?: TheMarysofEarlyChristianTradition (Atlanta, 2002) 91-105; G. T. Zervos, “Dating the Protevangelium of James: The Justine Martyr Connection,” SBLSeminarPapers 33 (1994) 415-34; G. T. Zervos, “An Early Non-canonical Annunciation Story,” SBLSeminarPapers 36 (1997) 664-91; G. T. Zervos, “Seeking the Source of the Marian Myth: Have We Found the Missing Link?,” in Jones, WhichMary?, 107-20; T.R. Karmann, “Die Jungfrauengeburt in der Ascensio Isaiae und in anderen Texten des frühen Christentums,” in J.N. Bremmer etal.(eds), TheAscensionofIsaiah (Leuven, 2016) 347-86.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_01.indd 55

29/10/18 13:02

II. Gender at the Virgin’s Funeral: Men and Women as Witnesses to the Dormition

The story of the Virgin Mary’s death, or her Dormition, is told in a variety of late ancient narratives that often disagree with one another concerning the events of Mary’s final days.1 Among the matters in dispute are such major theological issues as whether or not the Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into heaven, as well as many less momentous details, including when, where, and in the presence of whom the Virgin completed her earthly life. It is with the latter issue in particular that this article will be concerned, tracing some important differences in those identified as present for the actual moment of the Virgin’s death, or her Dormition. While the majority of narratives record the presence of all the apostles, who have been miraculously reunited from the ends of the earth, several important variants also exist. For instance, some early Coptic traditions involve only a few of the apostles in the events of Mary’s final days,2 while another group of somewhat later narratives reports the apostle Thomas’ late arrival, after Mary’s Dormition.3 A few of the earliest texts, however, indicate a tradition according to which men were excluded from witnessing the 1

For a catalogue and overview of these narratives, see M van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’assomption avant le Xe siècle,” in F. Bovon (ed.), Lesactesapocryphesdesapôtres (Geneva, 1981) 265-85. 2 Only Peter, James, and John are involved in Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem’s HomilyontheDormition (E. A. W. Budge, MiscellaneousCopticTextsinthe Dialect of Upper Egypt (London, 1915) 49-73 (Copt) and 626-650 (Eng)), one of the earliest Dormition narratives. Likewise, another very early homily from the Coptic tradition, Theodosius of Alexandria’s HomilyontheAssumption (F. Robinson (ed.), CopticApocryphalGospels (Cambridge, 1896) 90127), mentions only Peter and John by name, although the references to the involvement of “apostles” toward the end of the homily might possibly include others in addition to these two. 3 See van Esbroeck, “Les textes,” 269-73.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_02.indd 56

29/10/18 13:02

GENDER AT THE VIRGIN’S FUNERAL

57

Virgin’s Dormition, an early tradition that subsequent narratives have revised to include the apostles as the primary wittnesses of Mary’s departure from this life. In some of these early narratives, the absence of men is quite clear, while in other traditions, the story is somewhat confused, seeming to convey two separate traditions at once: one in which only women are present and another in which the apostles also appear as witnesses. These latter texts seem to be caught in the midst of revision, as a tradition of exclusively female involvement was displaced by, or merged with, a tradition involving the male apostles as well. The most unambiguous exclusion of men from the moment of the Virgin’s death occurs in the Coptic homilies on the Dormition that are falsely ascribed to Evodius of Rome, both of which were probably composed sometime before 565.4 The first of these homilies has long been known, the so-called Bohairic homily edited at the close of the 19th century by Paul de Lagarde and translated by Forbes Robinson, who also published a number of Sahidic fragments of the same text.5 Robinson’s Sahidic fragments clearly preserve an earlier version of this text, which the Bohairic homily has modified significantly on a number of points, including specifically the inclusion of men at the Virgin’s Dormition.6 In the Sahidic fragments, as the moment of the Virgin’s death approaches, Christ instructs his apostles, “arise and let us withdraw outside for a little while; for Death cannot enter unto her while I sit with her, since I am the light of the whole world.”7 Then, Christ walks outside with his disciples, while the women remain inside, singing. When the women realize that Mary has died, they cry out, and

4

For the dates, see S. J. Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Attributed to Evodius of Rome,” AB 117 (1999) 24183 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 10). 5 P. de Lagarde (ed.), Aegyptiaca (Göttingen, 1883; repr. Osnabrück, 1972) 38-63; Eng. trans. & Sahidic fragments: Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels, 44-89. 6 See Shoemaker, “Sahidic Coptic Homily” (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 10). 7 Ps.-Evodius of Rome, HomilyontheDormition(White Monastery version) XI (Robinson (ed.), CopticApocryphalGospels, 74-75, translation slightly modified). For discussion of the different versions (e.g., “White Monastery,” “St. Michael’s Monastery,” and “St. Macarius’ Monastery”), see Shoemaker, “Sahidic Coptic Homily” (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 10).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_02.indd 57

29/10/18 13:02

58

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Salome rushes outside to deliver the news to Christ and the apostles, who then return within to help care for Mary’s body. The same sequence of events is also found in a closely related but quite distinct homily on the Dormition that also passes under Evodius’ name. This second homily, often known as the Sahidic homily, is preserved by two manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan collection that have long stood unedited. In this text, Evodius, who claims to be an eyewitness to the events that he describes, reports that “the Savior went outside, and we all followed him, since it is not possible for Death to come to a place where Life is.”8 As Christ discusses the mysteries of heaven with his disciples outside, the women tend to the dying Virgin within. When Mary dies, Christ and the apostles hear the women’s cries, and Salome and Joanna rush out together to inform the men of what has transpired. Again, as in the previous homily, Christ reenters with the apostles to care for the Virgin’s now lifeless body. Looking at the Bohairic version of the first homily, we can see that later Christians were uncomfortable with this tradition that not only stood at variance with other narratives of the Virgin’s Dormition but also excluded the apostles and even Christ from witnessing this important event. The Bohairic homily includes a transformed version of this episode, in which Christ and his apostles remain present for the Virgin’s death. At Death’s approach, Mary is so frightened by its appearance that her soul leaps into her son’s arms, in harmony with the vast majority of Dormition traditions. But immediately afterward there follows a literary seam that signals an imperfect revision of the earlier tradition. The women weep and groan as in the other homilies, after which we are told, “Salome went out, and fell at the feet of our Lord Jesus, and worshipped Him, saying, My Lord and my God, behold, she whom you love is dead.”9 As the Bohairic homily reports these events, Salome’s actions do not make very much sense: Christ is not outside, but has remained inside with his apostles in order to receive his mother’s soul. Furthermore, he already knows of his mother’s death, having just received her soul. Salome’s actions 8

Ps.-Evodius of Rome, HomilyontheDormition(St. Michael’s Monastery version) 19 (Shoemaker, “Sahidic Coptic Homily” (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 10)). 9 Ps.-Evodius of Rome, HomilyontheDormition (St. Macarius’ Monastery version) 12 (Lagarde, Aegyptiaca, 56; trans. Robinson, CopticApocryphal Gospels, 60).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_02.indd 58

29/10/18 13:02

GENDER AT THE VIRGIN’S FUNERAL

59

would only make sense if Christ were in fact outside, as he was in the earlier homilies. Thus, it appears that the Bohairic homily preserves an important trace of the tradition that it is trying to obscure, forgetting that Salome can no longer rush out to inform the men of Mary’s death, if in fact Christ and his apostles were, as the Bohairic homily relates, inside with the women at the Virgin’s bedside. Evidence of a similar tradition also appears among the earliest narratives of another major group of Dormition narratives, the so-called “Palm of the Tree of Life” texts, a group of narratives characterized by the presence of a palm from this mythical tree.10 Unlike the homilies attributed to Evodius, each of these texts reports the presence of Christ and the apostles at Mary’s death. Nevertheless, there are at the same time indications of an earlier tradition in which the apostles did not witness these events, but were put to sleep, leaving only Christ and three virgins as witnesses to Mary’s death. This is most clearly evident in the earliest Greek narrative, published by Antoine Wenger in his study of the early Byzantine Dormition traditions.11 While this narrative, along with the remaining Palm traditions, indicates an apostolic presence at the Virgin’s death, by reading between the lines, one can detect the sort of literary seams present in the Bohairic homily discussed above, tensions indicating a rival tradition that has not yet been completely assimilated. The first evidence of this comes just before Christ returns to claim his mother’s soul, when the narrative reports that “there was a great thunder and a sweet-smelling fragrance, so that everyone was driven off to sleep by the exceedingly sweet smell,” everyone, that is, “except for only the three virgins.” These three women alone were kept awake, we are told, “so that they could testify concerning the funeral of Mary the mother of our Lord and her glory.”12 As the text stands in this passage, one would assume that the apostles, who were present, had been put to sleep with the others, leaving only Christ and the three virgins awake to witness Mary’s departure from this life. But then 10

For a brief discussion and a stemma of this literary tradition, see van Esbroeck, “Les textes,” 268-72. 11 A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantine duVIeauXesiècle (Paris, 1955) 210-41. 12 Wenger, L’Assomption, 230-31. English trans. of this passage can be found in S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormitionand Assumption (Oxford, 2002) 364-65.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_02.indd 59

29/10/18 13:02

60

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

only a few sentences later we suddenly learn that “as soon as the Savior entered [Mary’s room], he found the apostles gathered around Mary, and he embraced them.”13 Thus we find that somehow, despite the fact that they have seemingly been put to sleep, the apostles were awake to greet Christ as he entered Mary’s room. Were this the only text to present this variant, one might well discount it, but this is not the case. It is also present in two of the earliest Palm narratives: the Ethiopic LiberRequiei, which perserves probably the oldest and most complete version of the Palm traditions,14 and one of the earliest Latin narratives, also published in Wenger’s study of the Byzantine Dormition traditions.15 Both of these texts indicate that following the thunder and the fragrance, everyone fell asleep except for the three virgins, who alone remained awake to witness to Mary’s Dormition. Again, this would presumably include the apostles among those who sleep, but before long, we find that, as in the Greek narrative, they are in fact awake, ready to greet the Saviour. This tension did not go entirely unnoticed, and the next generation of narratives in this textual tradition resolved the matter by specifically adding the apostles to the three virgins as being among those who were kept awake to witness the Dormition.16 13

Wenger, L’Assomption, 230-31. “And a beautiful, sweet fragrance, as the fragrance of Paradise. And sleep took hold of all those who were standing in Mary’s presence, except only the virgins: they [MS B reads instead “he”] caused them not to sleep, so that they would be witnesses concerning Mary’s funeral and her glorification.” Liber Requiei 66 (V. Arras (ed.), DeTransituMariaeAethiopice, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1973) 1:39 (Eth) & 26 (Lat)). English trans. in Shoemaker, AncientTraditions oftheDormitionandAssumption, 324-25. On the antiquity of this version, see especially the annotations in Arras, DeTransitu, 1:75-105 (Lat). See now also Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheDormitionandAssumption, 142-255; and S. J. Shoemaker, Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion (New Haven, 2016) 100-29. 15 Tonitruumfactumestetodorsuauitates,itautamultasuauitatesomnumoccuparetomnesquistabantcircamariam,exceptistribusuirginibus quas fecit vigilare ut testificarent de gloria qua suscepta est beata maria. Wenger, L’Assomption, 252-3. Concerning the antiquity of this narrative, see especially Wenger, L’Assomption, 66-92. 16 Examples include John of Thessalonica, Homily on the Dormition 12 (M. Jugie (ed.), Homéliesmarialesbyzantine(II) (Paris, 1926) 395-96); the early Irish narratives: C. Donahue (ed.), TheTestamentofMary:TheGaelic 14

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_02.indd 60

29/10/18 13:02

GENDER AT THE VIRGIN’S FUNERAL

61

The second indication that there is something unusual about the early textal tradition here also comes from the earliest Greek narrative. After Mary’s soul has left her body and Christ has given the apostles instructions concerning her burial, the narrative reports that the three virgins “attended to Mary’s body and placed it on a bier. After that, they woke up the apostles.”17 Suddenly, the apostles, who have just received Christ’s instructions for burying Mary’s body, are said to be asleep. The three virgins, who were alone exempted from the trance that overcame the others, now must awaken the sleeping apostles to obtain their help in completing the Virgin’s funeral. This is of course at odds with other parts of the text indicating the apostles’ alertness for the Dormition, but on the other hand it offers significant corroboration of the initial statement that all those present except for the three virgins fell asleep. It suggests that this is not just a vague remark that should be read as tacitly including the apostles among those who remained awake. On the contrary, the explicit notice here that the three virgins had to rouse the apostles after the Dormition confirms the previous indication that only the three virgins remained awake, while all others, including the apostles apparently, were put to sleep. Nevertheless, the problem remains that the text contradicts itself in this passage. Initially we are told that everyone except for the three virgins was overcome by sleep, and that only these three women remained awake to witness the Virgin’s Dormition. Then, we find that the apostles are somehow awake, as they embrace Christ and receive his instructions. Finally, we learn that the apostles have indeed fallen asleep, when suddenly the virgins awaken them after Mary’s death. Given this confusion, it seems most likely that the passage reflects an imperfect blending of two separate traditions: one in which the apostles are put to sleep along with the others, leaving only the three virgins to witness the separation of Mary’s body and soul, and another tradition in which the apostles are awake to embrace and converse with Version of the Dormitio Mariae together with an Irish Latin Version (New York, 1942) 44-5; and Ps.-Melito, TransitusMariae 6 (M. Haibach-Reinisch, Einneuer‘Transitus Mariae’desPseudo-Melito (Rome, 1962) 74). 17 διύπνησεν τοῦς ἀποστόλους. Wenger suggests that we read instead διύπνησεν τοῦς ἄλλος (L’Assomption, 232-3 n. 3 and critical apparatus; ibid., 47-8). This would bring the text roughly into agreement with John of Thessalonica and the LiberRequiei.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_02.indd 61

29/10/18 13:02

62

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Christ, as well as to witness the Virgin’s death. The contradictions in these early Dormition narratives appear to be the same kinds of seams that are present in the Bohairic homily attributed to Evodius: in joining one tradition to another, the compiler has neglected to smooth over certain contradictions of fact, creating tensions that the later tradition would eventually eliminate or resolve. Supposing then that we have identified traces of an early tradition or traditions that only women were present for the Virgin’s Dormition, what are we to make of this? Although this is a question deserving much thought and reflection, I will make only a couple of brief observations in the present context. Firstly, comparison with the life of Christ lends a certain plausibility to the existence of such a tradition. It is well known that Christian hagiography commonly patterns its stories after the life of Christ, and this tendency is frequently evident in the early Dormition traditions. At the moment of Christ’s death, the apostles were largely absent: with the exeption of only the fourth gospel’s Beloved Disciple, the main witnesses to Christ’s execution were “the many women,” including Mary Magdalene, among others. Therefore, an early tradition of an exclusively female presence at the moment of Mary’s death would conform to the pattern established by the gospels, making the existence of such a tradition somewhat plausible. If we can locate a credible precedent for this tradition in the passion narratives, we can also identify reasons why the Christian tradition eventually sought to efface it, and here again comparison with the gospels is helpful. The tradition of the empty tomb’s discovery by Mary Magdalene and various other women is undeniably quite early, being acknowledged by all four gospels, while three of the four report that the risen Christ made his first appearance to the Magdalene. Nevertheless, even in the gospels one can already sense some discomfort with these traditions, as well as efforts to minimize their significance, such as Luke’s focus on Peter and the appearance at Emmaus, and the footrace between Peter and the Beloved Disciple in John’s gospel. Moreover, Mark and Luke note that the women’s report was not believed by the apostles, a response also suggested by the rush to the tomb in the fourth gospel: the apostles only believe, we are told, after they have seen for themselves. According to the cultural prejudices of the time, the testimony of women was often not seen as entirely sufficient. This was a point that early Christianity’s opponents occasionally seized upon, such as, for instance, when Celsus’ Jew responds to

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_02.indd 62

29/10/18 13:02

GENDER AT THE VIRGIN’S FUNERAL

63

Christian claims concerning the resurrection by dismissing them as the testimony of a “hysterical” woman.18 Thus it was perhaps seen as necessary to include a male presence at the moment of the Virgin’s departure in order to assure a culturally prejudiced audience of the reliability of these traditions. Nevertheless, it was not such gender bias alone that supressed the tradition of female witness to the Virgin’s Dormition. Equally important was the (not unrelated) notion of apostolic witness, which scholars have identified as central to the formation of Christian orthodoxy and the opposition to various heresies. In response to heterodox claims of visions and direct revelations, often made to women, proto-orthodox Christianity responded by insisting on the primacy of the earthly, incarnate Jesus, and, consequently, the authority of the (male) apostles who had witnessed both his ministry and his resurrection. This apostolic witness provided the only reliable connection with God, and once the apostles were gone, their witness was preserved by their direct successors, the orthodox bishops. Only by clinging to the historical witness of the apostles, as preserved by the orthodox bishops, could one be certain of following the true path.19 Such concerns no doubt contributed equally to the effacement of the early tradition of female-only witness: a male, apostolic presence was seen as necessary to secure the truth of the Virgin’s Dormition for later generations.

18

Discussion of these different traditions, as well as the cultural prejudices, see C. Setzer, “Excellent Women: Female Witness to the Resurrection,” JBL 116 (1997) 259-72. 19 See, for instance, E. Pagels, “Visions, Appearances, and Apostolic Authority: Gnostic and Orthodox Traditions,” in B. Aland (ed.), Gnosis:Festschrift fürHansJonas (Göttingen, 1978) 415-30.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_02.indd 63

29/10/18 13:02

III. Asceticism in the Early Dormition Narratives1

Asceticism is a surprisingly marginal theme in the earliest Dormition narratives. When compared with the various fourth-century efforts to model female virginity after the Blessed Virgin, the relative absence of the ascetic impulse from these early apocrypha is somewhat striking. Beginning it would appear with Athanasius, the church fathers increasingly called female virgins to imitate the model established by the Virgin Mary.2 Others would follow, including Ambrose and Jerome, as well as Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nazianzus, all of whom proposed Mary’s virginity as the ideal to which Christian women should aspire.3 Yet this idea is strangely missing from earliest Dormition narratives. The Six Books apocryphon comes the nearest to portraying Mary as an ascetic archetype, when it opens with Mary living in Jerusalem with three virgins who served her, an arrangement reminiscent of the urban, household asceticism practiced by Christian women in the fourth century.4 Nevertheless, this seemingly peripheral 1

The present version of this article is slightly longer than the version originally published in StudiaPatristica. In particular, the notes are much more extensive. In order to meet StudiaPatristica’s strict length restrictions, the article had to be shortened for publication. 2 L. T. Lefort (ed.), S. Athanase: Lettres festales et pastorales en copte, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1955) 1:73-99; D. Brakke, AthanasiusandthePoliticsof Asceticism (Oxford, 1995) 52-4, 70-3, 276-9. 3 See Ambrose, Devirginibus 2 (PL 16, 220-2); Jerome, AdversusHelvidium (PL 23, 183-206); Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses 12.34 (PG 33, 768A769A); Gregory of Nazianzus, Carminum 1.2.2, 189-208 (PG 37, 537A-538A). See also J. Pelikan, MarythroughtheCenturies(New Haven, 1996) 113-22; P. Brown, The Body and Society (New York, 1988) 353-6. See now also S. J. Shoemaker, MaryinEarlyChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016) 167-74. Pace H. von Campenhausen, TheVirginBirthintheTheology oftheAncientChurch, trans. F. Clarke (London, 1964) 63-7. 4 W. Wright, “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World,” The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 6-7 (1865) 417-48 and

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_03.indd 64

29/10/18 13:02

ASCETICISM IN THE EARLY DORMITION NARRATIVES

65

plot element never comes into focus, and there is no strong call to celibacy as one might expect to find joined to a text devoted to the completion of the Virgin’s life.5 Likewise there is no special connection between Mary and the virginal ideal; in this text, Mary’s favors fall equally on all, male and female, married and unmarried. Far more unusual, however, are the ways in which asceticism figures in the earliest Dormition narrative, the Liber Requiei (or ObsequiesoftheVirgin), whose treatment of this topic holds important clues for understanding the early history of this text. This ancient Christian apocryphon survives intact only in an Ethiopic translation, although substantial fragments exist in Syriac, Georgian, and Coptic. The earliest manuscript witness is a Syriac palimpsest from the later fifth century, but internal elements suggest its composition much earlier, probably in the third century.6 The LiberRequiei’s representation of ascetic practice appears to confirm its early origins, almost certainly sometime before Mary became, as it were, the “poster girl” for female asceticism in the fourth century. This apocryphon not only fails to link Mary clearly with the practice of female continence, but 108-160, ÄÙ (Syr) and 135 (Eng); A. Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca (London, 1902) „(Syr) and 23-4 (Eng). On this early form of ascetic practice, see, e.g., Brown, BodyandSociety, 259-84. 5 In his review of Wright’s edition, Heinrich Ewald notes there is a mention of “convents” at the end of book four (Wright, “Departure of my Lady ? ? ? Mary,” Ëã(Syr) and 156 (Eng): ¿úÙ x|x¿çÞ þãÀ ÌÙËÂ{), which he A takes as a sign that the text cannot date before the second half of the fourth century. Nevertheless, this phrase is entirely absent from the sixth-century Göttingen MS (syr 10, 33a), and the Sinai palimpsest fragments from the later fifth century likewise make no mention of convents, identifying instead “the church” as the dwelling of the just: ¿ÑÚþãx z[ĀáÝ] ÀËðÂ{ ? ¿úÙx|x ¿çÞ[þã]. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca, Ëçù; trans. S. J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford, 2002) 372. The lacunae in the Sinai MS are not sufficient to have included the reading from Wright’s text. 6 See Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 32-46, 205-78. See now also Shoemaker, Mary, 100-29. See also M. van Esbroeck, “Bild und Begriff in der Transitus-Literatur, der Palmbaum und der Tempel,” in M. Schmidt (ed.), Typus,Symbol,AllegoriebeidenöstlichenVäternundihrenParallelenimMittelalter (Regensburg, 1982) 333-51; M. van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features in the Life of the Virgin,” Marianum 63 (2001) 297-308; R. Bauckham, TheFateoftheDead(Leiden, 1998) 344-6.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_03.indd 65

29/10/18 13:02

66

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

it misses some key opportunities to do so, such as Peter’s parables of the virgin and of the two servants.7 Instead, Mary is here more strongly associated with maternity, bearing such titles as “mother of the whole world” and “mother of the Twelve,” for instance.8 Yet far more remarkable are the explicit links forged in this apocryphon between Mary’s departure from this world and an unmistakable call for strict moderation of ascetic practice. The Liber Requiei’s critique of extreme asceticism unfolds in a dramatic scene near the end of the apocryphon, witnessed not only by the Ethiopic text and the fifth-century Syriac fragments but also found in the early Irish version, a translation made sometime before 700 CE.9 The episode begins just after the apostles have placed Mary in her tomb, as they sit outside waiting for Christ to return and take his mother’s body, according to his instructions. Paul then asks Peter to share with him the “great and glorious mystery” that Christ revealed to Peter and the others on the Mount of Olives, since, as Paul explains, he is a recent convert who “did not meet the master.” Peter replies that while he is pleased Paul has become a Christian, he and the others cannot reveal the mystery to Paul, for it would frighten him. Instead, when Christ returns after three days, they will ask him what to do, and if he allows, they will share their secret knowledge with Paul. A rather garbled passage follows, leading into a story about laughing demons taken from the TestamentofSolomon, apparently narrated by Paul. When Paul has finished, the apostles propose that he speak further, hoping to distract him so that he would not press them further to reveal the secret mysteries. Paul responds in essence with a question, asking, “[since] you are not willing to reveal the greatness of Christ our

7

LiberRequiei 60-5 (V. Arras, DetransituMariaeapocryphaaethiopice, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1973) 1:34-9 (Eth) and 23-6 (Lat); English trans., Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 322-4). See also M. van Esbroeck, “Apocryphes géorgiens de la Dormition,” AB 92 (1973) 55-75, 61 (Geor) and 65 (Lat). 8 LiberRequiei 40, 43 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:23, 26 (Eth) and 15, 17 (Lat); English trans., Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 314, 316). 9 On the date of the Irish version of this apocryphon, see C. Donahue, The TestamentofMary:TheGaelicVersionoftheDormitioMariaetogetherwith anIrishLatinVersion (New York, 1942) 25-7; M. Herbert and M. McNamara, IrishBiblicalApocrypha (Edinburgh, 1989) xxi, 184.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_03.indd 66

29/10/18 13:02

ASCETICISM IN THE EARLY DORMITION NARRATIVES

67

Savior to me, tell me, when you go forth to preach, what will you teach, so that I will teach from your doctrine.”10 Thus begins a conversation among several of the key apostles concerning the practices that they enjoin on their newly made Christian converts.11 Peter, thinking this an excellent idea, begins: “When I go forth to preach,” he says, “I will say that anyone who does not fast all of his days will not see God.” Peter’s answer surprises Paul, who asks almost in disbelief if Peter really preaches such a doctrine, supposing that when the people hear this, “they will rise up and kill us, because they worship gods and do not believe in God, nor in fasting.” Hoping for a somewhat more realistic response, Paul turns to John, who answers, “When I go forth to teach and preach, I will say that anyone who is not a virgin all of his days will not be able to see God.” Again, Paul is rather astonished by such strict preaching, asking John, “What are you saying? They will not believe in what you say, because they are people who worship trees and stones. If they hear this from us, they will stone us.” Disappointed with what he has heard from Peter and John, Paul turns hopefully to Andrew: perhaps Peter preaches such a stern message because he is a great bishop, and John because of his own commitment to virginity. Yet Andrew’s preaching is even more severe, and he warns his new converts that “everyone who does not leave father and mother, and brothers and sisters, and children and houses, and everything that he has, and go forth after our Lord, he will not be able to see God.” Paul can hardly believe his ears: “Andrew, the words of Peter and John are light compared with yours, for you have separated everyone from the earth

10

LiberRequiei 78-84 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:45-50 (Eth) and 30-3 (Lat); English trans., Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 332-7); W. Wright, ContributionstotheApocryphalLiteratureofthe NewTestament (London, 1865) Ïæ-Íæ(Syr) and 42-4 (Eng); Donahue, TestamentofMary, 40-3. The translation of a second early Irish version, without the original text, can be found in Herbert and McNamara, IrishBiblicalApocrypha, 125-6. Note that in the Irish version the setting is slightly different: the debate occurs in the place of the LiberRequiei’s all-night vigil, before Christ’s initial appearance and Mary’s death. 11 LiberRequiei 85-6 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:50-1 (Eth) and 33 (Lat); English trans., Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 337-8); Wright, ContributionstoApocryphalLiterature, Òæ-Ïæ(Syr) and 44-5 (Eng); Donahue, TestamentofMary, 42-3.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_03.indd 67

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

68

in a single moment. For who will hear your words at this time and place a heavy burden on himself?” The three apostles, having suffered Paul’s critique, turn the tables, asking Paul what he would have them preach instead. He responds to the encratic preaching of Peter, John, and Andrew with a message of ascetic moderation. If you will listen to me, do these things, and let us think of things that they will be able to do, because they are new, and do not know the truth. Let us say these things to them: “Let every man take his wife,” so that they will not commit adultery; and “let a woman take her husband, that she may not commit adultery.” And let us establish one or two days [of fasting] in the week for them, and let us not be too hard on them, lest they become negligent and turn away. But if they fast today and are a little weary, they will persevere for the time and say, “Tomorrow we will not fast.” And if they come to the time when they eat, and they find a poor person and give to him, they will say, “Why do we fast, if we do not give to the poor,” and they will know God in their hearts. And let us also say to them, “Let the one who is weary fast until the sixth hour, and the one who is able, until the ninth, and the one who is still able, until evening.” And when we have given them to drink as with milk, and we have turned them to us, then we will tell them the great and glorious things, words that will be useful to them.”12

Not surprisingly, the other apostles disagree with Paul’s program of moderate asceticism and begin to murmur against him. Then, as the apostles stand outside the Virgin’s tomb disputing the value of the ascetic life, Christ suddenly descends from heaven with Michael to claim his mother’s body.13 Quickly bringing the debate to an end, Christ declares Paul the uncontested victor, saying, “Greetings Paul, the advisor of good things. Truly I say to you, Peter, that your advice was always destructive: yours and Andrew’s and John’s. But I say to 12

LiberRequiei 87 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:51-2 (Eth) and 34 (Lat); English trans., Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 338-9); Wright, ContributionstoApocryphalLiterature,Õæ-Òæ (Syr) and 45 (Eng). In the Irish version, Paul’s answer is very abbreviated, reduced essentially to the issue of fasting: Donahue, TestamentofMary, 42-3. 13 LiberRequiei 88 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:52 (Eth) and 34 (Lat); English trans., Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 339-40); Wright, Contributions to Apocryphal Literature, Õæ (Syr) and 45-6 (Eng); Donahue, TestamentofMary, 42-5.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_03.indd 68

29/10/18 13:02

ASCETICISM IN THE EARLY DORMITION NARRATIVES

69

you that you should receive that of Paul, for I see that the whole world will be caught in Paul’s net.” Then, after promising to reveal the hidden mysteries to Paul, Christ brings Mary’s body to Paradise in the company of the apostles. This episode is remarkable for a number of reasons, only a few of which can be touched on here. For instance, after the second century such ringing endorsements of marriage in the face of a call to celibacy become increasingly rare. As David Hunter notes in his monograph (following Peter Brown), the third century saw the rise of a “moderate encratism,” which, while not fully condemning marriage, could not allow its equality in comparison with the celibate life.14 By the fourth century such ideas could lead to trouble, as Helvidius and Jovinian remind us.15 All the more striking, however, is to find such moderate views joined to this pivotal moment in the life of the Virgin, as her son arrives dramatically to retrieve her virginal body and takes the occasion to chastise the ascetic extremism of his disciples in favor of Paul’s endorsement of marriage and moderation. In comparison with the Mariological and ascetic literature of the fourth century and later, it is quite surprising to find the Virgin’s life used here as a platform for ideas of ascetic restraint, seemingly aimed at married householders rather than world-renouncing virgins.16 This unusual feature certainly suggests the LiberRequiei’s composition sometime before this image of the Virgin Mary had become the norm, adding to a list of other anomalies that point toward an early date for this text, probably in the third century. Likewise, the specific issues addressed in this section indicate something about the particular milieu in which the text first arose. The ideas of Peter, John, and Andrew are redolent of a kind of encratism such as one finds associated with Marcion and Tatian as well as in the apocryphal acts and certain other early Christian apocrypha. The question of whether all Christians must be held to these high standards of practice is a fairly early one, characteristic of the second 14

D. G. Hunter, Marriage,Celibacy,andHeresyinAncientChristianity: TheJovinianistControversy (Oxford, 2007) 113-15; Brown, BodyandSociety, 138-9. 15 D. G. Hunter, “Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome,” JECS 1 (1993) 47-71. See now also Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy,andHeresy, esp. 130-42. 16 See now S. J. Shoemaker, Mary, 167-74.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_03.indd 69

29/10/18 13:02

70

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

and third centuries.17 As Jean Gribomont observes in his brief study of this “second apostolic council” of Jerusalem, it would appear that this apocryphon had been composed prior to the establishment of monasticism, which essentially resolved the problem by creating two classes of Christians.18 Yet studies of early Christian apocrypha have drawn attention to the continued existence of encratite groups in Asia Minor as late as the fourth century, where they are associated with the Acts of Philip.19 While it is not inconceivable that this Dormition apocryphon responds to the encratic practices of these later Christians, these groups appear to have been both localized and increasingly marginalized, and it seems more likely that the broader encratite movement of the second and third centuries is in view here.20 The early Irish translation, itself produced within the highly ascetic milieu of Celtic Christianity, already shows signs of discomfort with this archaic element of the text, revising John’s preaching so that the apostle no longer enjoins virginity as required for salvation, preaching instead that a Christian must “avoid every evil” in order to be saved.21 Even more telling is the peculiar status of Paul among the apostles in this early Dormition narrative, a feature that strongly suggests its relatively early composition. From his initial appearance, Paul’s status as an apostle seems to be in question and is defended vigorously by the LiberRequiei. Yet the issues in focus in this controversy over Paul are not observance of the Law, as one might expect, but instead the knowledge of secret mysteries and appropriate levels of ascetic practice. When apostles first arrive in Jerusalem, having miraculously flown in on clouds from the ends of the earth, the LiberRequiei 17

See, e.g., Brown, BodyandSociety, 83-102, 154-9. J. Gribomont, “Le plus ancien Transitus Marial et l’encratisme,” Aug 23 (1983) 237-47, 246. 19 E.g., F. Bovon, “Les Actes de Philippe,” in H. Temporini and W. Hasse (eds), ANRW II.25.6 (Berlin, 1988) 4432-4527, 4522; É. Junod and J.-D. Kaestli, L’histoire des actes apocryphes des Apôtres du IIIe au IXesiècle:LecasdesActesdeJean (Lausanne, 1982) 30; R. N. Slater, “An Inquiry into the Relationship between Community and Text: The Apocryphal ActsofPhilip 1 and the Encratites of Asia Minor,” in F. Bovon, etal. (eds), TheApocryphalActsoftheApostles (Cambridge, 1999) 281-306. 20 Slater, “Relationship between Community and Text,” 297-8. 21 “sechnann na h-uili olc”: Donahue, TestamentofMary, 42-3; cf. Herbert and McNamara, IrishBiblicalApocrypha, 125. The preaching of Peter and Andrew remains unchanged. 18

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_03.indd 70

29/10/18 13:02

ASCETICISM IN THE EARLY DORMITION NARRATIVES

71

apologizes for Paul’s presence alongside Peter and the others, explaining that Paul too was one of the apostles and held the Christian faith with them.22 This merely foreshadows, however, the much more dramatic episode to follow outside the Virgin’s tomb. Here the issue of Paul’s authority is confronted directly, as Paul himself mouths the words of his detractors, acknowledging his inexperience and the fact that he never met nor was taught by the Lord. He admits that he does not know the fullness of the secret mysteries that Christ taught his disciples and pleads with the others to divulge these to him. Yet the other apostles are not certain that Paul has the capacity to receive these mysteries, and consequently they insist on waiting for Christ to return so that he may decide. The apostolic conference on preaching ensues, revealing that the differences between Paul and the others involve more than just a matter of who had followed Christ from Galilee to Jerusalem. Their theological differences are brought into relief as members of “the Twelve” outline an encratic gospel while Paul urges moderation as a more effective strategy for bringing new souls into the fold. Moreover, this portrayal of Paul is presumably intended to answer the far more ascetic representation of Paul in the Acts of PaulandThecla. Nevertheless, at the same time, one cannot align this Paul with the more moderate view of asceticism advanced in the Pastorals, given the many doctrinal “irregularities” ot this text. Here, then, we see yet another competing attempt to claim the legacy of Paul within early Christianity.23 This confrontation suggests that the LiberRequiei arose within a context where there was division between one group of Christians dedicated to a strict asceticism who looked to the authority of the Twelve while rejecting Paul, and another group, with which the Liber Requiei is aligned, advocating a more moderate ascetic program and claiming sanction from the apostle Paul. Such a SitzimLeben would appear to belong to the earliest Christian centuries, probably the second or third century, inasmuch as opposition to Paul is largely confined to this era.24 The closest parallels to the LiberRequiei’s defense of Paul 22

LiberRequiei 46 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:28 (Eth) and 18 (Lat); English trans., Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 316). 23 On this topic, see, e.g., D. R. MacDonald, TheLegendandtheApostle (Philadelphia, 1983). I thank Tobias Nicklas for suggesting this point. 24 See G. Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, trans. M. E. Boring (Minneapolis, 1989) esp. 197.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_03.indd 71

29/10/18 13:02

72

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

in response to encratism occur in book three of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis,25 and both Origen and Eusebius report encratite groups from this period that rejected Paul’s authority.26 Again, while it is not impossible that the Liber Requiei responds to some minor, later group, on the whole the second or third century, and more likely the latter, provides a much more plausible context for this apocryphon. As I have noted elsewhere, numerous other features of this text appear to locate its composition sometime in the third century, if not even earlier. The LiberRequiei’s angel Christology, its emphasis on soteriological power of esoteric knowledge, and its frequent use of certain “gnostic” technical terms all point to an origin in the third century or perhaps earlier.27 Likewise, various troubles within the Holy Family, such as Joseph’s complaints about having been burdened with this child that is not his or his admission that he at first thought that he might have impregnated Mary while drunk suggest a fairly early composition.28 Perhaps even more decisive is the moment when Mary is confronted by her fears of death and confesses to having sinned: as she explains to her friends and family, she once doubted her son, a failing for which he sternly rebuked her as a sinner. The idea that Mary could have sinned appears to have been limited to the second century, where it is expressed by Irenaeus and Tertullian, and such characterization of the Virgin seems unthinkable by the fourth century.29 To this list we should also now add the LiberRequiei’s rejection of encratism and its defense of Paul’s apostleship, features that feel more at home the second or third century than in subsequent years. 25

Hunter, Marriage,Celibacy,andHeresy, 107-10. Origen, ContraCelsum V.65; Eusebius, EcclesiasticalHistory IV.29. 27 See Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, esp. 254-6. See now also Shoemaker, Mary, 104-6, 110-17, 120-1. 28 Liber Requiei 6 (Arras, De transitu, 1:3-4 (Eth) and 2-3 (Lat)); van Esbroeck, “Apocryphes géorgiens,” 69-70 (Geor) and 74 (Lat); English trans., Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 293. On this point, see now esp. Shoemaker, Mary, 107-10. 29 LiberRequiei 39-41 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:22-5 (Eth) and 15-16 (Lat)); van Esbroeck, “Apocryphes géorgiens,” 60-2 (Geor) and 65 (Lat); English trans., Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 312-15. Regarding the question of Mary’s sinfulness, and idea expressed by Irenaeus and Tertullian, see T. Beattie, “Mary in Patristic Theology,” in S. J. Boss (ed.), Mary:TheCompleteGuide (London, 2007) 75-105, 99-102. On this point, see now esp. Shoemaker, Mary, 118-19. 26

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_03.indd 72

29/10/18 13:02

ASCETICISM IN THE EARLY DORMITION NARRATIVES

73

Not to be overlooked is the diffusion of this apocryphon far afield, from Ethiopia to Ireland, apparently reaching Ireland already by the seventh century. Consequently, the LiberRequiei’s composition sometime before the end of the third century seems increasingly likely, and further study of this apocryphon will hopefully shed light on emergent Marian devotion in this early period.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_03.indd 73

29/10/18 13:02

IV.

A Peculiar Version of the Inventio Crucis in the Early Syriac Dormition Traditions

The Syriac narratives of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption are among our most important sources for understanding the earliest history of Dormition traditions, particularly since they preserve the earliest exemplars of several different narrative types.1 Strangely enough, however, this same corpus may also have something important to add to our understanding of the late ancient traditions of the True Cross’ discovery. Certain of the earliest Dormition narratives, preserved in Syriac manuscripts of the fifth and sixth centuries, preserve an unusual account of the invention of the Cross, one that is quite distinct from the three known versions of this story but also shares a number of their key features. Given the nature of the Dormition narratives in which this tale of the True Cross is embedded, it seems that they have preserved at least the outline or part of a fourth tradition of the Cross’ discovery that circulated in the late ancient Near East. This new account of the inventio crucis is preserved within the so-called “Six Books” narratives of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, although the story does not appear in every version of the Six Books.2 The Six Books narrative is one of the earliest extant Dormition traditions, and it is known from a number of Syriac manuscripts, as well as in Arabic and Ethiopic versions. All of these versions relate essentially the same story, although they can vary considerably in details, and one of the main points on which they differ is the inclusion of the True Cross’ discovery. Consequently, we have no way of knowing if this episode was included in the original version of the “Six Books,” but in the end that is not particularly important: the antiquity of certain manuscripts allows us to be certain that this version of the Cross’ discovery circulated in the Near East by the early fifth century at the latest. 1

See, e.g., S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormitionandAssumption (Oxford, 2002) esp. 32-57; 62-4. 2 For more on the Six Books narrative and its versions, see ibid., 45-57.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_04.indd 74

29/10/18 13:02

INVENTIOCRUCIS

75

These Dormition traditions introduce the relics of the True Cross within a broader context of sustained conflict between Jews and Christians that pervades the narratives.3 When the Jewish leaders see Mary going to pray at her son’s tomb as the Six Books narrative begins, they persuade the Roman governor to banish her from Jerusalem to Bethlehem; after she begins working miracles, they repeatedly complain to the governor, asking him to intervene.4 In each instance, the governor accedes to the Jewish demands, until a miraculous fire consumes many of the Jews who had attempted to burn Mary alive in her house. Following this, the governor suddenly begins to reconsider his position, and near the middle of the narrative, he organizes a great debate between those Jews who did not believe in Christ and the “lovers of Christ,” who also seem to be ethnically Jewish. Unsurprisingly, given that this is a Christian text, the Christians triumph in the debate, and they demand of their opponents that they reveal to them, “Where is the wood hidden, on which Christ was crucified, and where are the nails that were fixed in his hands and in his feet, and where was the sponge 3 On the anti-Judaism of the Dormition traditions, see S. J. Shoemaker, “‘Let Us Go and Burn Her Body’: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions,” CH 68 (1999) 775-823 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 5), and on the traditions of the Cross’ discovery in particular see 801-3. 4 The following editions of Syriac version of the Six Books have been published: W. Wright, “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World,” TheJournalofSacredLiteratureandBiblicalRecord 6-7 (1865) 417-48 and 108-60; W. Wright, ContributionstotheApocryphalLiteratureoftheNew Testament (London, 1865) ¿æ-ÏÝ and 18-41; A. Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca (London, 1902) ÍÚù-u (Syr) and 12-69 (Eng). The version edited in E. A. W. Budge, TheHistoryoftheBlessedVirginMaryandTheHistory oftheLikenessofChristwhichtheJewsofTiberiasMadetoMockat, 2 vols. (London, 1899) is much later and is rather corrupt. I am presently working toward a republication of all these texts with new translations, together with a new edition of Wright’s version on the basis of an unpublished sixth-century manuscript in the Göttingen collection to be published in the Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum. This project has been long delayed due to difficulties in obtaining images of palimpsest manuscripts at Sinai. These photographs have now been made, and one of the two remaining palimpsest manuscripts has recently been published: S. P. Brock and G. Kessel, “The ‘Departure of Mary’ in Two Palimpsests at the Monastery of St. Catherine (Sinai Syr. 30 & Sinai Arabic 514),” KhristianskiĭVostok 8 (2017) 115-52. It now only remains for Sinai Arabic 588 to be edited before an edition can be completed.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_04.indd 75

29/10/18 13:02

76

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

placed, with which we offered him vinegar, and where is the spear that wounded him, and where is the crown of thorns that we placed on his head, and the garments of disgrace, with which we clothed him? Where are they hidden?”5 The governor orders the defeated non-Christian Jews to reveal where the implements of crucifixion are hidden. They explain that after the crucifixion, the crosses of Jesus and the two thieves were buried in a pit along with the other items and were covered with stones so that they could not be seen. Nevertheless, a small opening was left in the mound “so that a person’s hand could reach our Lord’s cross, so that whenever an affliction comes upon one of us, he goes and stretches out his hand to the head of the wood of our Lord’s cross, and he immediately receives help, and the one who is sick is healed.”6 “And not only is he healed,” they explain, “but if there is a sick person in his house, he takes some dust from that opening on his finger and goes and rubs it on the limbs of the one who is sick, and immediately he is healed.”7 Those who possessed the Cross maintain that over 5500 people from Jerusalem and its environs had been cured in this way, noting also that each one paid a fee for the therapy. They further confess that they formed a conspiracy among themselves, agreeing that anyone who revealed the true nature of their healing shrine would be slain with his wife, and the rest of his family would be cast out from the people. In order to maintain their secret, they also agreed that “if someone should ask us, ‘What is in that opening, by which the world is healed?’ let us say to him, ‘The pot of manna is there, and the water of trial, and the staff of Aaron, and these things give healing to all who go there.’”8 The keepers of the Cross further inform the governor that he should be sure to arrest a certain Jonadab, because he is in possession of one of the nails used to crucify Christ. With this nail he had saved 500 people from death and become quite rich in the process, all the while not knowing exactly what it was that he possessed.

5

Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca, Çï. I have consistently referred to this version, since its manuscript is seemingly the earliest, dating to the late fifth century. 6 Ibid. Ëï. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. Íï-Ëï.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_04.indd 76

29/10/18 13:02

INVENTIOCRUCIS

77

The governor is naturally rather impressed by these powerful relics that the Jews have carefully hidden among themselves. When he demands that they take him to the location of the Cross, they bring him there. He then asks the Christians what they would have him do. They suggest that he should “order that they raise up the cross on which our Lord was crucified, and let the two crosses of the two thieves be burned with fire. And let the cross of Jesus be placed in the temple of Jerusalem, and let it be worshipped by all people.”9 The governor refuses, however, explaining: “I have not been ordered by the emperor to do this, but I will put you to great shame before all creation. For I will not go near the cross of Christ: for the Christ who was crucified on it will raise it up from the earth in which it is buried.”10 Then the governor immediately orders that the crosses be buried with the other items under “earth and large stones” up to the height of ten men, and he says, “You used to come to this place and receive help from it. I have piled up earth and stones on it, so that help from the cross of Christ will no longer go forth to the children of Israel.”11 Immediately after this the governor’s son becomes gravely ill, and when he goes to Mary for a healing, it is clear that he has become a Christian. Nevertheless, this apparently did not inspire him to exhume the cross and its related relics; these remain buried without further comment, possibly so that they may be rediscovered roughly three centuries later by Constantine’s mother, Helen, although this is not indicated. This story of the Cross’ discovery differs considerably from each of the three late ancient versions that Jan Willem Drijvers identifies in his excellent monograph on these traditions.12 Consequently it is not possible to explain this account as either a derivation or combination of any of these more well known narratives, in the way that, for instance, Drijvers has shown that the Protonike version retells the story of Helen’s discovery of the Cross in a first-century setting.13 Instead, the version of the finding of the Cross preserved in the early 9

Ibid. Îï-Íï. Ibid. Îï. 11 Ibid. 12 J. W. Drijvers, HelenaAugusta:TheMotherofConstantinetheGreat andtheLegendofherFindingoftheTrueCross (Leiden, 1992) esp. 79180. 13 Ibid., 154-61. 10

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_04.indd 77

29/10/18 13:02

78

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Syriac Dormition narratives appears to be a fourth, independent tradition that was current in the late ancient Near East. Although this story of the Cross’ discovery and subsequent reburial is not present in every version of the Six Books narrative, it is preserved in its fullest form by a somewhat fragmentary palimpsest codex that was written in the late fifth century, most likely at the monastery of Mount Sinai.14 As I have explained elsewhere, the Syriac versions of this narrative depend on an earlier Greek source, which probably had been composed by the early fifth century at the latest.15 A somewhat abbreviated version of this episode is also included in a soon-to-be-published version of the Six Books preserved by a sixth-century manuscript in the Göttingen collection,16 and the full account, with slight variation, also occurs in several loose folios that were copied in 1197.17 Yet this peculiar description of the Cross’ discovery is absent from the sixth-century manuscript that was published by Wright in 1865,18 and also from the recently published sixth-century palimpsest from Sinai (although the latter is fragmentary, and it is possible that these fragments simply have not survived).19 This episode is also lacking in the version preserved by an unedited twelfth-century manuscript in Damascus (whose contents I know only from its Karshuni apograph).20 Likewise the 14

A. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca, x. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 54-7. See now also S. J. Shoemaker, “Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Later Fourth Century,” JECS 16 (2008) 371-401 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 8); and S. J. Shoemaker, MaryinEarlyChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016) 130-65. 16 Göttingen MS Syr 10, ff. 21b-22b. I have prepared an edition of this text to be published with translation in a new critical edition of this apocryphon to be published, as mentioned above, in the Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum. 17 Wright, ContributionstoApocryphalLiterature, ¿æ-Çà (Syr) and 2441 (Eng). 18 Wright, “Departure of my Lady Mary.” 19 Brock and Kessel, “The ‘Departure of Mary.’” 20 Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Damascus, MS no. 12/17, ff. 196b.1199b.1; see the catalogue published in Y. Dolabani et al., “Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du patriarchat Syrien Orthodoxe à Homs,” Parole del’Orient 19 (1994) 555-661, esp. 606 My knowledge of this manuscript’s contents, which I have not yet seen, depends on its Karshuni apograph, 15

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_04.indd 78

29/10/18 13:02

INVENTIOCRUCIS

79

Ethiopic and Arabic traditions, as they are presently known, do not include this episode.21 In view of these circumstances we unfortunately cannot be certain if this story was an original feature of the Six Books narrative that was later eliminated as other traditions about the finding of the Cross came to dominate, or if it was instead inserted at a relatively early stage by an individual transmitter, thus explaining its presence in only some versions of the Six Books. Moreover, it is uncertain whether this account of the Cross’ discovery was already a part of the Six Books in Greek or if it was added at the point of translation into Syriac. We do know, however, that this legend was in existence by the late fifth century, at which time the earliest manuscript recording it was produced.22 Yet it is likely that the tradition is even older than this. There is no reason to suspect that the individual who translated the Six Books from Greek into Syriac would have composed this episode. It is rather awkwardly joined to the rest of the Six Books narrative at both its beginning and end, and it is particularly difficult to understand in the context of the debate that frames it. Moreover, there is little connection between the story of the Cross’ discovery and the themes and contents of the Six Books narrative, excepting their shared anti-Judaism and their representation of the Jews as enemies of the Christian veneration of saints and relics. These features suggest that the story was an independent tradition that was at some point added to these traditions of Mary’s Dormition, most likely because its representation of the Jews as enemies of the Roman Empire and opponents of the emerging cult of saints and relics added to the emphasis of these same themes in the Six Books narrative.23 The fact that the Six Books has produced in 1732/3 and now in the collection of the Monastery of St. Mark in Jerusalem. John C. Lamoreaux and I have prepared an edition and translation of the Karshuni version of the narrative of Mary’s Dormition, and this version at least lacks this story of the Cross’ discovery. 21 Ethiopic: M. Chaîne, ApocryphadeBeataMariaVirgine, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1955) 21-49 (Eth) and 17-42 (Lat); see now also the translation in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 375-96. Arabic: M. Enger, ‫( اخبار يوح ّنا السليح في نقلة ا ّم المسيح‬AkhbârYûhannâas-salîhfinaqlat ummal-masîh),idestJoannisapostolidetransituBeataeMariaeVirginisliber (Elberfeld, 1854). 22 Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca, x. 23 See n. 3 above.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_04.indd 79

29/10/18 13:02

80

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

elsewhere incorporated an episode taken from the DoctrinaAddai, as well as material from the TestamentofAdam increases the likelihood that this tradition too is borrowed.24 This leaves us with two possibilities. In the case that this story of the Cross’ discovery was present in the Greek version from which the Syriac was translated, then we know that it was already a part of the Six Books narrative prior to the early fifth century, and since it likely existed in some sort of independent state prior to this, we could then assume the existence of this tradition by around the year 400. Alternatively, however, there is the possibility that the Cross episode was not present in the now lost Greek archetype and was added in only after the Six Books was translated into Syriac. In this case, given the probability that the legend originally existed independently of the Six Books, it is likely that the tradition would have already been in circulation by the early fifth century. Yet the incorporation of material from the Doctrina Addai in the Six Books may allow us to date its traditions about the finding of the Cross even more precisely. The Doctrina Addai is itself the source of one of the earliest traditions of the Cross’ discovery, namely the story of the empress Protonike finding the Cross in the first century. Nevertheless, the earliest versions of the Doctrina Addai, which began to circulate in the later third century, did not originally include the Protonike legend, nor any other account of the Cross’ discovery, until after 400. Only at the beginning of the fifth century was the story of Protonike’s discovery of the Cross composed and added to the much earlier narrative of the DoctrinaAddai.25 The fact that the Six Books narrative includes an altogether different account of the Cross’ discovery suggests that it depends on an earlier version of the DoctrinaAddai that had not yet added the Protonike legend. If Six Books’ redactor had used a copy of the DoctrinaAddai containing 24

See, e.g., Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca, Ïà-Îà (Syr) & 21-22 (Eng) (DoctrinaAddai); Òé(Syr) & 41 (Eng) (TestamentofAdam). Although one might be tempted to conclude that the inclusion of material from the Doctrina Addai might seem to suggest composition of the Six Books in Syriac rather than Greek, note that while the Protonike narrative of the Cross’ discovery did not circulate outside of Syriac and Armenian, earlier versions of the DoctrinaAddai that lack the Protonike story, as well as other traditions from the DoctrinaAddai did circulate in Greek: see Drijvers, HelenaAugusta, 147-63, esp. 147 n. 1 and 151. 25 Drijvers, HelenaAugusta, 147-63.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_04.indd 80

29/10/18 13:02

INVENTIOCRUCIS

81

the Protonike story, one would expect him to have reproduced the Protonike tradition rather than the peculiar version of the Cross’ discovery that we find instead. Thus, it seems likely that the Six Books was compiled at a time before the Doctrina Addai traditions had added the Protonike story and, further, that the Six Books’ account of the cross’ “prediscovery” also predates the Protonike story. This suggests, somewhat tentatively, that the account of the cross’ discovery in the Six Books likely dates to the later fourth century, if not possibly even earlier. It would also indicate, rather significantly, the composition of the Six Books narrative at this same time, the later fourth century.26 In any case we may conclude with a fair amount of certainty that the tradition of the finding of the True Cross preserved in the Six Books narratives dates to the early fifth century at the latest, and quite possibly to the later fourth century, if not even earlier. This version of the Cross’ discovery is then contemporary with more well known late ancient accounts, particularly the so-called Protonike and Judas Kyriakos traditions, both of which were composed in the early fifth century.27 In light of this it will presumably be worthwhile to study this tradition in comparison with the other late ancient narratives of the Cross’ discovery in order to better understand the significance of the True Cross in late antiquity. Such comparison is especially invited by the facts that the Six Books quotes from the DoctrinaAddai, the source of one invention narrative, and includes in its prologue correspondence with Judas Kyriakos, the star of another True Cross tradition, in his legendary role bishop of Jerusalem.28 At the most general level, we may note that the narrative of the Cross’ discovery preserved by the Six Books shares the strong anti-Judaism of the other traditions, 26

This is somewhat earlier than I have previously suggested in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 54-7, although it comports with the suggestion by Richard Bauckham that the Six Books narrative is probably “from the fourth century at the latest, but perhaps considerably earlier”: R. Bauckham, TheFateoftheDead(Leiden, 1998) 34660, esp. 358-60. Again, see now also Shoemaker, Mary, 130-65. 27 Drijvers, HelenaAugusta, 153 (Protonike) and 174-5 (Judas Kyriakos). 28 Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca, ƒ-ÏÝ(Syr) and 16-17 (Eng); Wright, “Departure of my Lady Mary,” À{-{(Syr) & 130-1 (Eng). On the identity of this figure with Judas Kyriakos, see ibid., 131 n. m. According to the Judas Kyriakos narrative of the finding of the True Cross, Judas Kyriakos, who reveals the location of the Cross, is made bishop of Jerusalem at the story’s close: see Drijvers, HelenaAugusta, 170-1.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_04.indd 81

29/10/18 13:02

82

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

and more specifically their representation of the Jews as jealous opponents of the power of Christian relics. It also shares in reporting the involvement of imperial officials in the Cross’ discovery, as well as the use of violence to extract the location of the implements of crucifixion from the Jews, who have them under their control. It is, however, also strikingly different from these other traditions, perhaps most notably in that there is no empress or even a woman behind the Cross’ discovery, nor does the miraculous reanimation of a dead body distinguish Christ’s Cross from the others. But no doubt much remains to be learned beyond these superficial observations through further study of the traditions.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_04.indd 82

29/10/18 13:02

V. “Let Us Go and Burn Her Body”: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions1

In his book, MarythroughtheCenturies, Jaroslav Pelikan notes that “one of the most profound and persistent roles of the Virgin Mary in history has been her function as a bridge builder to other traditions, other cultures, and other religions.”2 This is particularly true of the late ancient Near East, where Mary’s significance frequently reached across various cultural and religious boundaries.3 But it is equally true that Mary often served to define boundaries between traditions, cultures, and religions. As Klaus Schreiner explains in his Maria:Jungfrau,Mutter, Herrscherin, “Brücken, die Juden und Christen miteinander hätten verbinden können, schlug Maria im Mittelalter nicht….Maria trennte, grenzte aus.”4 In the rather substantial chapter that follows, Schreiner presents perhaps the best overview of Mary’s role as a focus of Jewish/ Christian conflict in late antiquity and the middle ages.5 Scholars have long recognized the role played by the Virgin and her cult in the exclusion of Jews from Christian society during the Western Middle Ages,6 1

I would like to thank the following people for their contributions to this article: Alexander Alexakis, Melissa M. Aubin, Jorunn Jacobson Buckley, Elizabeth A. Clark, Derek Krueger, David Levenson, and two anonymous readers for ChurchHistory. Earlier versions of some of this material were presented at 1997 Annual Meeting of the AAR and the 1999 Southeast Regional Meeting of the AAR. 2 J. Pelikan, MarythroughtheCenturies (New Haven, 1996) 67. 3 Some of these “bridges” are thoughtfully explored in ibid., ch. 5. 4 K. Schreiner, Maria: Jungfrau, Mutter, Herrscherin (Munich, 1994) 413. 5 “Eine jüdische Mutter,” ch. 11 in ibid., 411-62. 6 See, e.g., H. Röckelein, “Marie, l’Église et la Synagogue. Culte de la Vierge et lutte contre les Juifs en Allemagne à la fin du Moyen Âge,” in D. IognaPrat etal. (eds), Marie.LecultedelaViergedanslasociétémédiévale (Paris, 1996) 513-31; P. M. Spangenberg, “Judenfeindlichkeit in den altfranzösischen

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 83

30/10/18 09:53

84

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Marian piety being, along with eucharistic devotion, the most antiJewish aspect of medieval piety.7 Throughout the medieval period,8 and likewise continuing into the Renaissance and Reformation, the Virgin Mary figured prominently in Christian anti-Jewish literature, where the (alleged) Jewish disparagement of Virgin Mary “weighed heavier than thefts of the host, ritual murders, and…well poisoning.”9 This phenomenon is not, however, as one such study might seem to suggest, particularly “une tradition de l’Occident chrétien.”10 In fact, its origins seem to have been primarily Eastern, and, as scholars of the medieval West have occasionally recognized, the earliest traditions of the Virgin’s Dormition laid important foundations for this anti-Jewish aspect of medieval Marian piety.11 The ancient Dormition traditions, the earliest accounts of the end of the Virgin Mary’s life, first come into historical view around the year 500, when they almost simultaneously Marienmirakeln. Stereotypen oder Symptome der Veränderung der kollektiven Selbsterfahrung?” in R. Erb (ed.), DieLegendevomRitualmord. ZurGeschichtederBlutbeschuldigunggegenJuden (Berlin, 1993) 157-77; R. W. Frank, “Miracles of the Virgin, Medieval Anti-Semitism, and the Prioress’s Tale,” in L. Benson and S. Wenzel (eds), TheWisdomofPoetry (Kalamazoo, 1982) 177-88; L. Fradenburg, “Criticism, Anti-Semitism, and the Prioress’s Tale,” Exemplaria 1 (1989) 69-117 at 85-90; and J. Y. Gregg, Devils, Women,andJews:ReflectionsoftheOtherinMedievalSermonStories (Albany, 1997) 194-7. 7 D. L. Despres, “Mary of the Eucharist: Cultic Anti-Judaism in Some Fourteenth-Century English Devotional Manuscripts,” in J. Cohen (ed.), From Witness to Witchcraft: Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought (Wiesbaden, 1996) 375-401 at 379. 8 This is perhaps most dramatically demonstrated for the medieval period by consulting the index of H. Schreckenberg, DiechristlichenAdversusJudaeos-Texte (11.-13. Jh.) (Frankfurt am Main, 1988) 696, s.v. “Maria, Marias Virginität, Jungfrauengeburt.” 9 H. Oberman, TheRootsofAnti-SemitismintheAgeofRenaissanceand Reformation, trans. James I. Porter (Philadelphia, 1984) 83. 10 Röckelein, “Marie,” 513. 11 See Gregg, Devils, 194; Frank, “Miracles of the Virgin,” 181-2; Röckelein, “Marie,” 513. The latter cites Gregory of Tours’ Liberingloriamartyrum as the source in which this theme was introduced to western Christian literature. This is a rather likely proposal, given the strong possibility that in this work Gregory introduced a tradition of Virgin’s Dormition to the West: see A. Cameron, “The Theotokos in Sixth-Century Constantinople,” JTS (n.s.) 29 (1978) 79-108 at 90.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 84

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

85

appear in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine.12 From these “origins,” these legends spread rapidly throughout the early medieval world, with the result that we currently possess over sixty different accounts from before the tenth century, preserved in nine ancient languages, ranging from Old Irish to Old Georgian.13 Although the narratives often differ greatly in detail, they are almost unanimous in their identification of the Jews as fierce enemies of both the Virgin in particular and the Christian faith more generally. With only one exception,14 the Dormition narratives frequently indulge in anti-Jewish harangues and report various episodes that depict the Jews as harassing and attacking the Virgin, actions for which they invariably receive violent divine punishment.15 While the hostile images of these traditions undoubtedly laid significant foundations for the Virgin’s anti-Jewish status in medieval Christendom, they also correspond with many of the anti-Jewish themes present elsewhere in late ancient literature. The strong connection in the Dormition traditions between Mary and anti-Judaism seems to have roots in the (actual) disagreements between Jews and Christians over the question of Mary’s virginity in late antiquity. The Jewish claims against Christ’s Virgin Birth during late antiquity are well known from Jewish, Christian, and even pagan sources. Such attacks inevitably extended to the Virgin, whom the Jews accused of sexual improprieties of varying severity; in the course of the Christian response, the Virgin developed into a figure with anti-Jewish associations. These 12

See S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition andAssumption (Oxford, 2002) esp. 9-76. 13 A catalogue of these is available in M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’assomption avant le Xe siècle,” in F. Bovon (ed.), Lesactesapocryphesdesapôtres (Geneva, 1981) 265-85 and in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 419-28. 14 The HomilyontheDormition attributed to Modestus of Jerusalem (PG 86, 3277-3312). This homily’s authenticity has been challenged by M. Jugie: “Deux homélies patristiques pseudépigraphes: Saint Athanase sur l’Annonciation; Saint Modeste de Jérusalem sur la Dormition,” EO 39 (1940-42) 285-9; idem, Lamortetl’assomptiondelaSainteVierge (Vatican City, 1944) 214-23. 15 This feature of the Dormition traditions was briefly noted by J. Parkes in hisTheConflictoftheChurchandSynagogue(London, 1934) 103. More recently, see also B. Dehandschutter, “Anti-Judaism in the Apocrypha,” SP 19 (1989) 345-50.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 85

30/10/18 09:53

86

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Jewish accusations against the Virgin’s purity also appear in the early Dormition traditions, where they are an important part of the strong animus for the Virgin that the Jews are represented as holding. In addition, many of the earliest narratives of Mary’s Dormition portray the Jews as hostile to certain developments of late ancient Christian piety, most notably the veneration of the saints, relics, and, in later narratives, images. This image of the Jews is found elsewhere in late ancient Christian literature, and when joined to their identification as enemies of the Virgin, this served to mark them as the bitter enemies of the Christian faith. In the later Roman Empire, citizenship was increasingly linked with orthodox Christian faith, and religious deviants, including Jews and Christian heretics, were legally excluded from the civic body.16 At the same time, the cults of the saints and relics, and of the Virgin in particular, were identified with and promoted by the imperial establishment,17 making opposition to such practices tantamount to civil disloyalty. In this atmosphere, such hostile stereotypes, as Nicholas de Lange notes, “must surely have had practical consequences for the treatment of Jews,”18 consequences which no doubt include the intensifying conflict between the empire and its Jewish inhabitants in the sixth and seventh centuries. 1. JewsandChristiansinEarlyByzantium During the early Byzantine period, the Roman Empire adopted an increasingly hostile stance toward the Jews living within its borders; such actions in many ways continued a practice of the “pagan” empire, where religious deviance was considered both a sign of civic disloyalty and a threat to the empire’s divine favor. Indeed, it was in accord 16

J. B. Bury, HistoryoftheLaterRomanEmpire, 2 vols (London, 1923) 2:361; P. Brown, AuthorityandtheSacred(Cambridge, 1995) 53-4; A. Cameron, The MediterraneanWorldinLateAntiquity:AD395-600 (London, 1993) 141-4; eadem, ChristianityandtheRhetoricofEmpire (Berkeley, 1991) 190208. A good summary of the various late Roman laws against “pagans,” Jews, and heretics may be found in A. H. M. Jones, TheLaterRomanEmpire284602, 2 vols. (Norman, Okla., 1964; reprint, Baltimore, 1986) 2:338-56. 17 J. Haldon, “Ideology and Social Change in the Seventh Century: Military Discontent as a Barometer,” Klio 68 (1986) 162. 18 N. R. M. de Lange, “Jews and Christians in the Byzantine Empire,” in D. Wood (ed.), ChristianityandJudaism (Oxford, 1992) 15-32 at 26.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 86

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

87

with this policy that the early Christians had themselves been persecuted for stubbornly standing outside the religious establishment of Greco-Roman society.19 But with the change in imperial religious ideology that began with the accession of Constantine, Christianity slowly transformed itself from a persecuted faith into a persecuting faith, thus continuing the “pagan” empire’s intolerance for religious deviance. Early Byzantine religious ideology held that the empire’s divine favor rested on uniformity of doctrine, and any challenge to the empire’s theological unity was viewed ultimately as a threat to imperial stability.20 Deviant religious groups saw their legal status diminished, and in many cases were eventually eliminated from the empire.21 The Jews, however, remained, as they had been in the “pagan” empire, a special case. The Roman Empire had always protected the Jewish right to practice their religion, as well as their privilege to abstain from participation in the Roman civic cults, a concession not generally made for other ancient religions.22 The inertia behind this legal privilege seems to have protected the Jews through the early years of the Christian empire, but as time passed, and the empire became increasingly Christianized, this tolerance likewise diminished.23 Several factors seem to have contributed to this change, but among the most important were the direct challenges that Judaism posed to Christianity on a variety of fronts. On the one hand, there is rather persuasive evidence that during late antiquity Christianity faced competition from Judaism for the hearts and minds of the Roman populus, both from Jewish “proselytism” and the disruptive presence of “Judaizers,” Christians who also observed Jewish practices, within the Christian communities. Although there is some debate surrounding the issue of Jewish proselytism in the earliest Christian centuries,24 the issue 19

W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965) 104-26. 20 Jones, LaterRomanEmpire, 2:934-35; C. Mango, Byzantium:TheEmpire oftheNewRome (New York, 1980) 88-9. 21 Jones, LaterRomanEmpire, 2:939-56; Cameron, MediterraneanWorld, 140-4; eadem, Christianity, 190-208; Mango, Byzantium, 89-97. 22 Mango, Byzantium, 91; J. Juster, Lesjuifsdansl’empireromain, 2 vols. (Paris, 1914) 1:244-5. 23 Jones, LaterRomanEmpire, 2:946; Cameron, MediterraneanWorld, 140-1. 24 In favor of Jewish proselytism throughout the early Christian period, see especially M. Simon, VerusIsrael (Paris, 19832) 271-305; J. Gager, The

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 87

30/10/18 09:53

88

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

of Christian Judaizers seems to have generated less controversy.25 Yet for the period under consideration here, there is near unanimity concerning the existence of both Jewish proselytism and Christian Judaizers: even those who dispute such activities in earlier centuries will generally concede the significance of Judaizers and some form of Jewish proselytism for understanding Jewish/Christian relations in the post-Constantinian period.26 These phenomena indicate not only OriginsofAnti-Semitism(Oxford, 1983) 55-66; B. Bamberger, Proselytismin theTalmudicPeriod (Cincinnati, 1939; reprint: New York, 1968); W. Horbury, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh, 1998) 98-102; 136-40; and L. Feldman’s extensive discussion in JewandGentileintheAncientWorld(Princeton, 1993) 288-415. Critiques of this view have been posed by M. Goodman, MissionandConversion:Proselytizing intheReligiousHistoryoftheRomanEmpire (Oxford, 1994); M. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (Leiden, 1995); and Leonard V. Rutgers’ critical review of Feldman’s book, “Attitudes to Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period: Reflections on Feldman’s JewandGentileintheAncient World,” Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1995) 361-95. See also Feldman’s response to Rutgers’ article: “Reflections on Rutgers’s ‘Attitudes to Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period,’” Jewish Quarterly Review 86 (1995) 15370, and the discussion of Taylor’s work in Horbury, Jews and Christians, 21-25. 25 See, among others, Simon, VerusIsrael, 306-38; Gager, Origins, 113-33 and R. Wilken, JohnChrysostomandtheJews (Berkeley, 1983) 66-94. 26 See Goodman, MissionandConversion, 129-53; Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity, 29-32. Rutgers too concedes this point, but somewhat more reluctantly it would seem. Rutgers agrees that in Chrysostom’s Antioch the city’s Christian masses both were attracted to Jewish practices and associated freely with the city’s Jewish inhabitants (Rutgers, “Attitudes to Judaism,” 381-85). He then concludes, somewhat strangely, that “the reaction of the masses tells us little about what people in antiquity generally thought about Jews and Judaism” (ibid., 385). To the contrary, although it may tell us little about what the intellectuals of late antiquity thought (contra Feldman), it most certainly does reveal a great deal “about what people in antiquity generally thought about Jews and Judaism.” Seemingly as if to minimize the significance of this point, Rutgers notes that “in these very same years Christians further east, in Callinicum on the Euphrates, related to Jews in a much less peaceful manner: they destroyed a local synagogue” (ibid.). Nevertheless, if one considers the (roughly) contemporary evidence offered by Aphraat’s writings, we can see that the incidents at Antioch were not isolated but were characteristic of late ancient Christianity generally and in Mesopotamia specifically (see Simon, VerusIsrael, 318-20; J. Neusner, Aphraat

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 88

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

89

the attractiveness of Judaism to the Christian masses but also provide evidence of some real contact between the two religious communities in late antiquity. Judaizing Christians no doubt posed a particular challenge for the Christian leadership of the early Byzantine Empire, presenting a major source of Jewish/Christian conflict that persisted at least until the seventh century.27 This can be seen in a well known set of incidents from fourth-century Antioch, where John Chrysostom faced a Jewish “missionary” effort that yielded many Jewish sympathizers among the Christians at Antioch.28 As a result, these Judaizing Christians adopted certain Jewish customs in addition to their Christian practices,29 so that on certain Jewish feasts, for instance, the churches would be almost empty.30 Moreover, because Christian identity relied so heavily on its distinction from Judaism and the related claim that Christians, rather than the Jews, were now “the people of God,” these Judaizers compromised the truth of Christianity by collapsing this distinction and implying that Christianity without Judaism was not complete.31 In addition to the social pressures of Jewish proselytism and Judaizing Christians, the continued existence of the Jews simply in itself presented a constant challenge to the truth of Christianity along different lines: if Jesus was truly the Jewish Messiah, and Christianity was, as it claimed, the completion of Judaism, why then did Jews remain? This was the difficult theological question posed by the abiding presence of the Jews in the Christian empire.32 In general, the Christian and Judaism (Leiden, 1971)). That one should find at the same time both Judaizers and anti-Jewish violence in Mesopotamia is neither contradictory nor surprising. 27 See especially the article of G. Dagron, “Judaïser,” TravauxetMémoires 11 (1991) 359-80; Simon, VerusIsrael, 395. For evidence of Judaizing Christians in early Islamic sources see P. Crone, “Islam, Judeo-Christianity and Byzantine Iconoclasm,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 2 (1980) 59-95. 28 On this, see especially Wilken, JohnChrysostom. 29 Simon, Verus Israel, 289, 337. See his general discussion of this phenomenon, pp. 306-38. 30 Wilken, JohnChrysostom, 77-9. 31 Ibid. 32 See, e.g., Sozomen, h.e. I.1.1-8 (B. Grillet etal. (eds), Sozomène:Histoire ecclésiastique,LivresI-II (Paris, 1983) 108-3); see also Mango, Byzantium,

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 89

30/10/18 09:53

90

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

response alleged that although the Jews in fact knew in their hearts the truth of the Christian claims, they remained, despite this recognition, inexplicably obstinate.33 As Christianity became increasingly joined with the late Roman state, this “deliberate” resistance to the truth of imperial religious ideology was a source of mounting social and political friction. The empire’s Christians resented this Jewish challenge to the truth of imperial Christianity, and the “obstinacy” of the Jews was viewed as a constant threat to the empire’s divine favor that began to take on connotations of civic disloyalty.34 Consequently, increasingly restrictive imperial laws were adopted against the Jews, culminating in forced baptisms of Jews in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, which were aimed at purging this religious “other” from the empire.35 The Jews and their Samaritan cousins (who also posed a similar threat to imperial religious unity and received much the same legal treatment36) responded to this legal pressure at times with violence. The late sixth and early seventh centuries bear witness to increasing violence between Jews and Christians in the East, in the context of generally increasing social and religious unrest in the region. Although the period from Theodosius II to Justinian saw a hiatus in imperial legislation against the Jews, relations between the Jews and the empire remained occasionally turbulent.37 All of this changed, however, and for the worse, with Justinian’s accession: vigorous imperial anti-Jewish legislation resumed, and over the course of the subsequent century relations between the Jews and the empire grew steadily worse.38 The beginning of this period saw several revolts in Palestine, 91; de Lange, “Jews and Christians,” 18-19; J. Lieu, “History and Theology in Christian Views of Judaism,” in J. Lieu etal. (eds), TheJewsamong PagansandChristiansintheRomanEmpire (London, 1992) 84-5. 33 Simon, VerusIsrael, 208-9; 215-6; Parkes, Conflict, 102-3. 34 J. F. Haldon, ByzantiumintheSeventhCentury (Cambridge, 19972) 345-7. 35 Ibid.; Jones, LaterRomanEmpire, 2:944-50. Although Heraclius was the first emperor to force baptism on the Jews, there were sporadic incidents of forced baptism as early as the fifth century, and beginning with Justinian’s reign, they were increasingly frequent in the East. 36 A. Sharf, ByzantineJewryfromJustiniantotheFourthCrusade (London, 1971) 30. 37 Sharf, ByzantineJewry, 26-9. 38 Mango, Byzantium, 92-3; M. Avi-Yonah, TheJewsofPalestine (Oxford, 1976) 246-51. See also P. Browne, “Die Judengesetzgebung Justinians,”

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 90

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

91

commencing with the Samaritan revolt of 529, in which the Samaritans temporarily gained control of all of ancient Samaria.39 While it appears that no Jews were involved in this uprising, it nevertheless did not improve their standing in the eyes of the empire, since, although imperial legislation clearly distinguished between Samaritans and Jews, “the connection between the two communities was as obvious in official eyes as the difference between them.”40 But in the next uprising, probably in 555,41 the Jews joined the Samaritans in attacking the Christians and their churches, as well as the palace of the provincial governor, whom they murdered.42 Numerous similar uprisings followed, as the conflict between the Samaritans, Jews, and the empire continued to escalate throughout the later sixth and early seventh centuries, culminating in the Jewish collaboration with the invading Persian armies in their conquest of the Holy Land.43 AnalectaGregoriana 8 (1935) 109-46; and A. Rabello, Giustiniano,Ebreie Samaritaniallalucedellefontistorico-letterarieecclesiasticheegiuridiche, 2 vols. (Milan, 1988), the latter of which is largely a collection of sources translated into Italian. 39 John Malalas, chron. 18 (L. Dindorf (ed.), Ioanneis Malalae Chronographia (Bonn, 1831) 445-47) and Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabas 70 (Schwartz, Kyrillos, 171-73). N.B., this is probably the same uprising described by John of Nikiu, Chronicle 93 (H. Zotenberg (ed.), ChroniquedeJean,évêque deNikiu:texteéthiopien (Paris, 1883) 164-65 (Eth) and 397-98 (Fr)). 40 Sharf, ByzantineJewry, 30. 41 There is some contradiction in our sources regarding the actual date, and it may have occurred as early as 552 or as late as 556. 555 is the date chosen by Stein and Juster. For the details, see their discussions in Stein, Histoire, 2:374, n. 2; and Juster, Lesjuifs, 2:198, n. 1. 42 Theophanes, Chronographia, A.M. 6048 (Classen, TheophanisChronographia, 355-57). 43 See the summaries of these events in A. Sharf, “Byzantine Jewry in the Seventh Century,” ByzZ 48 (1955) 103-15; J. Starr, “Byzantine Jewry on the Eve of the Arab Conquest (565-638),” JPOS 15 (1935) 280-93; G. and V. Déroche, “Juifs et Chrétiens dans l’Orient du VIIe siècle,” Travaux et mémoires 11 (1991) 17-273 at 17-43. Although the reports of Jewish participation in the violence against the Christians of Palestine in 614 are undoubtedly exaggerated, they almost certainly contain some kernel of truth. Consequently, the precise nature of Jewish involvement has been a matter of some debate: for more on this, see the discussion below, as well as in E. Horowitz, “‘The Vengeance of the Jews Was Stronger Than Their Avarice’: Modern Historians and the Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614,” JewishSocialStudies 4.2 (1988) 1-39 [http://www.indiana.edu/~iupress/journals/jss4-2.html].

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 91

30/10/18 09:53

92

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

These heightened tensions between the Jews and the empire also found cultural expression in contemporary literature, both Christian and Jewish.44 Nevertheless, the degree to which this literature reflects actual relations between Jews and Christians has been an issue of longstanding debate, and this is a matter of some importance for approaching the anti-Judaism of the ancient Dormition traditions. Toward the end of the 19th century, Adolf von Harnack famously concluded that the Christian anti-Jewish literature was “apologetic,” rather than “polemical,” literature: that is, it was designed for internal consumption only, to reassure Christians of the truth of their faith.45 It was not intended as a response to Jewish criticism, nor to convert the Jews. On the contrary, Harnack believed that the Jew in Christian literature was “not the Jew as he really was, but the Jew as the Christian feared him,” which was actually, according to Harnack, not the Jews at all, but rather, “the pagans.”46 The Jews of early Christian literature are then “straw men,” bearing no resemblance to the actual Jews of antiquity or their objections to Christianity, but representing instead the criticisms of pagans, both outside and later inside (i.e., heretics) the church.47 This “Jew” is only a literary device, a “devil’s advocate” that enables the Christians to reassure themselves against the doubts raised, not by the objections of real Jews, but by “pagan” criticisms raised not only by “pagans” inside and outside the fold, but also by “the pagan that lurked under the skin of every Christian convert.”48 In a recent study near to the present topic, David Olster presents an intriguing interpretation of the early Byzantine AdversusJudaeos tradition that is nevertheless of an entirely different spirit than the present work. Despite all of its profuse objections to Harnack,49 it is, 44

The Christian literature is discussed below, along with some of the Jewish material. For more on the Jewish literature, see Simon, VerusIsrael, 179-201; A. Segal, TwoPowersinHeaven:EarlyRabbinicReportsaboutChristianity andGnosticism (Leiden, 1977), and B. Visotzky, “Anti-Christian Polemic in Leviticus Rabbah,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 56 (1990) 83-100; idem, “Trinitarian Testimonies,” Union SeminaryQuarterlyReview 42 (1988) 73-85. 45 A. von Harnack, Die Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani (Leipzig, 1883) 64. 46 Ibid., 63-4. 47 Ibid., 64; 73. 48 Simon, VerusIsrael, 137. 49 See especially the extended criticism in D. Olster, RomanDefeat,Christian Response,andtheLiteraryConstructionoftheJew (Philadelphia, 1994) 14-21.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 92

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

93

in my opinion, a work cast in the same mold, psychologizing the Jews of this literature into an ahistorical projection of Christian self-doubt. Following Harnack closely in spirit, Olster sets out explaining that these writings “addressed intra-Christian social and political issues. More importantly, they used the Jew as a rhetorical device to personify the doubts within their own community with a recognizable, evil, and most important, eminently defeatable opponent. For this reason, the Jews’ place in Christian society had relatively little to do with their sudden prominence in seventh century literature.”50 Such an approach does not in my opinion venture very far from Harnack’s understanding, with which it shares the conviction that the Jews of these texts bear no relation to historical Jews, nor can they afford us any real insight into the relations of Jews and Christians during this period. These characters are instead understood as psychological projections of the self-generated fears and doubts from the collective Christian consciousness, placed in the mouths of Jews, where they may be easily assuaged. While Olster is quite correct in noting the significance of this literary assault on Judaism in the formation of Christian social and political identity, I strongly disagree with his deliberate disregard for the real social contact between Jews and Christians in the early Byzantine period.51 Significant Jewish populations were scattered throughout the early Byzantine Empire, and interreligious contact was an unavoidable consequence of the late ancient city’s cramped quarters. As Han Drijvers explains: “Pagans, Jews, and Christians did not live in splendid isolation in an antique town in which a good deal of life was 50

Ibid., 3. Concerning this contact see V. Déroche, “La polémique anti-judaïque au VIe at au VIIe siècle,” Travauxetmémoires 11 (1991) 284-90; G. Stroumsa, “Religious Contacts in Byzantine Palestine,” Numen 36 (1989) 16-42; R. Wilken, “The Jews and Christian Apologetics after Theodosius I Cunctos Populos,” HTR 73 (1980) 451-71 at 467-71; idem, JohnChrysostom, 43-49; 68-73; idem, JudaismandtheEarlyChristianMind:AStudyofCyrilofAlexandria’sExegesisandTheology (New Haven, 1971) 39-53; idem, TheLand Called Holy (New Haven, 1992) 194-202; A. Cameron, “The Eastern Provinces in the 7th Century A.D.: Hellenism and the Emergence of Islam,” in S. Said (ed.), Hellenismos:quelquesjalonspourunehistoiredel’identité grecque (Leiden, 1991) 287-313 at 303; Gager, OriginsofAnti-Semitism, 117-73; Simon, VerusIsrael, chs. 1 and 2, esp. p. 64; R. Gregg and D. Urman, Jews,Pagans,andChristiansintheGolanHeights(Atlanta, 1996) 289322. 51

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 93

30/10/18 09:53

94

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

lived in public, and privacy was an almost unknown concept. Ideological conflicts and struggles like those between Christians, Jews, and pagans found their origin in daily experiences of different religious, and consequently social, behaviour because religion in the ancient world was mainly a matter of public conduct according to traditional standards.”52 Olster does not venture to deny this fact, freely admitting that during this period “Jews and Christians debated; Jews and Christians had extensive social contacts.”53 Nevertheless, he determines to ignore this important context, proceeding on the assumption that despite this contact, the various images of Jews present in early Byzantine literature “were not inspired by Jewish-Christian theological debate or social relations.”54 Rather strangely then, Olster examines Christian anti-Judaism as an ideology with substantial social and political implications, while at the same time neglecting almost entirely the very real social matrix of Jewish-Christian interaction, an important context alongside of which (at the very least) such rhetoric evolved. This decision seems to be the result of a false dichotomy: there is no reason why one cannot approach this phenomenon as a social and political ideology that is deeply embedded in such social-historical realities as extensive social contact between these two religious traditions. To do otherwise is to perpetuate Harnack’s separation of the Christian tradition from its social context.55 Yet in order to understand the relationship between this literature and its social-historical environment one need not adopt the somewhat extreme view embraced by Arthur Lukyn Williams, who regarded this literature as an accurate representation of the real interactions between ancient Jews and Christians. These treatises had been composed, he believed, either to convert the Jews to the Christian faith, or, at the very least, to strengthen the Christians in the face of a Jewish ideological assault. In order to have been effective, Lukyn Williams supposed that 52

H. J. W. Drijvers, “Jews and Christians at Edessa,” Journal of Jewish Studies 36 (1985) 88-102 at 89. See also Sharf, Byzantine Jewry, 2; and Wilken, JohnChrysostom, 78. Gregg and Urman, Jews,Pagans,andChristians, 289322 argues for similar contact in a more rural setting. 53 Olster, RomanDefeat, 19. 54 Ibid. 55 As Olster correctly characterizes Harnack and his influence on early Christian studies: RomanDefeat, 8.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 94

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

95

these writings would have to preserve an historically accurate representation of ancient Judaism and its theological objections to Christianity,56 and it was with this in mind that he turned to this ancient material for inspiration in the effort to convert the Jews of his own age.57 The preferred approach, I would argue, lies somewhere between the two extremes represented in Harnack and Lukyn Williams. We need not approach such literature as credulously as has Lukyn Williams in order to provide a convincing relationship to its social-historical context,58 nor must the artificiality of this genre lead us to overpsychologize these writings into projections of Christian self-doubt as Harnack and, more recently, Olster have done.59 As many scholars have recognized, there is a “middle ground” on this point. This intermediate position was perhaps first articulated by Marcel Simon in his influential VerusIsrael,60 a work whose approach can with some accuracy be identified as representing the “scholarly consensus” on this matter.61 The tenor of this work and others following in its wake 56

A. L. Williams, AdversusJudaeos (Cambridge, 1935) xv-xvi. This is also the view of A. Hulen, “The ‘Dialogues with the Jews’ as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity,”JBL 51 (1932) 58-70. 57 Williams, AdversusJudaeos, xv-xvi. 58 See, however, John Moschus, Pratumspirituale 172 (PG 87.3, 3040-41), where John tells of an Alexandrian Christian named Cosmas who specialized in the composition of anti-Jewish literature. John also notes that Cosmas often sent him to debate the Jews, in order that they convert. 59 The problems with both orientations are well noted by Simon, Verus Israel, 136-40. 60 Although as Horbury rightly notes (JewsandChristians, 23), Simon’s approach owes important debts to both Juster’s Les juifs dans l’empire romain and the work of Bernhard Blumenkranz (see for instance his collected essays in Juifs et Chrétiens: Patristique et Moyen Age (London, 1977)). 61 This status is recognized, for instance, in the subtitle of Taylor’s recent critique of this approach: Anti-JudaismandEarlyChristianIdentity:ACritiqueoftheScholarlyConsensus. Nevertheless, see Horbury, JewsandChristians, 21-22, where he notes that beginning with Harnack and Juster, “modern study [of the adversusJudaeos literature] has continued to exhibit a division between students of the literature for whom its SitzimLeben within the church is decisive, and those prepared to envisage Christian-Jewish contact as part of its setting.” Here Horbury also categorizes the various modern studies of the Christian AdversusJudaeos tradition according to which of these approaches

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 95

30/10/18 09:53

96

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

is perhaps best summarized by Simon’s conclusion that “an artificial form may well conceal material drawn from life.”62 Dispensing with the notion that this literature was aimed at converting the Jews, Simon considers instead how this literature represents an internally directed Christian response to shore up the faithful against the real threats of Jewish proselytism and Judaizing Christians.63 As Gilbert Dagron and Vincent Déroche have demonstrated, this approach continues to be valid during the sixth and seventh centuries, when Judaizing Christians and Jewish proselytism remained a persistent source of friction between Jews and Christians.64 Déroche’s study of the early Byzantine anti-Jewish tradition in particular effectively extends Simon’s hypothesis into this later period. Here he concludes (with Simon) that although this literature is indeed artificial and was circulated only within the Christian communities, it nevertheless reflects real ideological conflict between Jews and Christians, in the face of which it aims to strengthen belief and focus Christian identity.65 Given this context, one might reasonably expect to find that in many instances (although certainly not all) these texts afford us some indirect insight into the real conflicts and relations between late ancient Jews and Christians. The surest way to identify these instances seems to be the approach suggested by David Berger, who proposes that we may critically assess the representations of these Christian texts by comparing them with the polemics found in Jewish sources, scant though these may be.66 In those instances where a correlation is found, we have a high probability that the given issue was one that generated at they exemplify. As should be clear, the present study stands in the tradition of those works willing to recognize the significance of Christian-Jewish contact for understanding certain aspects of the early Christian depiction of Jews and Judaism. 62 Simon, VerusIsrael, 140. 63 Ibid., 145-6. 64 See Déroche, “La polémique,” and Dagron, “Judaïser.” For evidence of Judaizing Christians in the early Islamic sources see P. Crone, “Islam, JudeoChristianity,” 59-95. 65 Déroche, “La polémique,” 275, 283-90. See also de Lange, “Jews and Christians,” 25, where he concludes similarly that despite often conventional substance, such texts were prompted by real-life concerns. 66 D. Berger, The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus with and Introduction, Translation, andCommentary (Philadelphia, 1979) 7-8.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 96

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

97

least some real conflict between ancient Jews and Christians, even though there may be misrepresentations on both sides. Such is the understanding of Christian anti-Judaism adopted in this study, in light of which I will situate the anti-Judaism of the Dormition traditions in two separate but related contexts: as an internally oriented response to Jewish criticisms of Christianity and as an effort to strengthen Christian identity through the identification of the Jew as a social and religious “other.” In doing so, I will focus on the three main aspects of the Jewish portrayal in the early Dormition traditions: their identification as enemies of the Virgin, their opposition to certain practices of late ancient Christian devotion, and the imagined relationship between the Jews and the Roman state. Each of these themes will be investigated in the context of sixth and early seventh-century Near East, where the initial emergence of the Dormition traditions into the historically well preserved “mainstream” of Christian discourse coincided with these mounting tensions between the Christian empire and its Jewish citizens. 2. “His Mother was Stada:…she was unfaithful to her husband”: TheQuestionofMary’sVirginity “The Jews,” the early Dormition legends frequently inform us, “hated the Lady Mary greatly.”67 On account of this a sixth-century Syriac apocryphon advises, “Let no one who loves God and my Lady Mary, who bore him, be a companion and friend of the Jews; for if he is so, the love of the Messiah is severed from him.”68 Of the over sixty narratives of the Virgin’s Dormition surviving from before 67

A. Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca (London, 1902) Òò (Syr) and 52 (Eng). Similar statements to this effect occur throughout the Dormition traditions. 68 W. Wright, “The Departure of my Lady Mary from this World,” The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 7 (1865) Íà (Syr) and 149 (Eng). Although the manuscript in question is from the sixth century, it now seems clear that the origins of this apocryphon belong to the middle of the fourth century, if not possibly even earlier: see S. J. Shoemaker, “Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Later Fourth Century,” JECS 16 (2008) 371401 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 8); S. J. Shoemaker, MaryinEarlyChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016) 130-65.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 97

30/10/18 09:53

98

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

the tenth century,69 only one omits the canonical anti-Jewish scenes, which invade even the Dormition’s iconography. With the notable exception of the homily OntheDormition attributed to Modestus of Jerusalem, the ancient Dormition legends persistently attack the Jews and Judaism, casting them as enemies of both the Christian faith in general and the Virgin in particular through a variety of anti-Jewish episodes. Although some of these scenes are peculiar to only a single narrative, others have permeated large segments of the early Dormition traditions, including particularly the story of “Jephonias,” as he is often named, a Jew who attacks the Virgin Mary’s body as the apostles transport it to her tomb. This episode appears in every early Dormition narrative but two70 and has even found its way into the iconography.71 Although the details of this story vary somewhat from version to version,72 the overall structure is remarkably uniform, suggesting its incorporation at a very early stage. The episode takes place as the Virgin’s funeral procession passes along the outside of the Jerusalem city walls from Sion to Gethsemane, when the apostles’ singing and the general commotion attract the attention of the Jewish leaders, who plot to seize her body and burn it. As they start out of the city, the Jews are suddenly stricken with blindness, except for one, Jephonias, who rushes the Virgin’s bier and grabs it in an attempt to upset it. 69

A catalogue of these is available in M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires,” 265-85. 70 The above mentioned homily of (Ps.-)Modestus of Jerusalem and the Sahidic homily OntheDormition attributed to Evodius of Rome. The latter is, however, rabidly anti-Jewish. 71 This scene is found in one of the earlier representations of the Dormition, found in Cappadocia at Yilanli Kilisse and dating to around the ninth or tenth centuries. Subsequent examples including this episode, however, are somewhat later, belonging to the twelfth or thirteenth century. See E. Revel-Neher, TheImageoftheJewinByzantineArt, trans. D. Maizel (Oxford, 1992) 81-3, and A. Wharton Epstein, “Frescoes of the Mavrotissa Monastery near Kastoria: Evidence of Millenarianism and Antisemitism in the Wake of the First Crusade,” Gesta 21 (1982) 21-7. 72 The Coptic tradition in particular preserves a slightly different form of this episode. “Jephonias” is not named, and the Jews collectively attempt to burn the Virgin’s body. See, e.g., Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, HomilyontheDormition (E. A. W. Budge, MiscellaneousCopticTextsintheDialectofUpperEgypt (London, 1915) 71-2 (Copt) and 648-9 (Eng)).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 98

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

99

Immediately, however, an angel with a flaming sword appears to defend her body and cuts off Jephonias’ hands, leaving the unfortunate man writhing in pain while his severed hands remain clinging to the bier. When Jephonias begs the apostles to heal him, they reply that only the Virgin can help him, suggesting that he should pray for her aid. When he does, he is healed and consequently becomes a Christian, which in some texts prompts a damning confession, in which Jephonias explains how the Jewish leaders conspired to turn the Temple into a money-making racket, and when they recognized Christ as the son of God, they killed him to protect their avaricious scheme.73 Afterwards, the apostles send Jephonias back into the city to heal the Jews of their blindness, as a result of which many convert to the Christian faith, thereby regaining their sight. To this nearly universal episode the various individual accounts usually add an assortment of anti-Jewish episodes and polemic too vast to catalogue completely in this article. We will instead address the more general question of why these traditions link the Virgin so strongly with anti-Jewish sentiment and portray the Jews as having a particular hatred for Mary. No doubt this is to some degree an attempt to make the events of Mary’s death parallel those of her son, a tendency often apparent in these narratives. Yet Christian hagiography commonly patterns the death of a saint after the death of Christ,74 and so this does not explain completely the particularly violent antiJudaism present in the Dormition traditions. Instead, an answer more 73

Liber Requiei 72-7 (V. Arras (ed.), De Transitu Mariae apocrypha Aethiopice, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1973-74) 1:42-5 (Eth) and 27-30 (Lat); trans. in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 329-32); A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantinedu VIeauXesiècle (Paris, 1955) 234-9; trans. in Shoemaker, AncientTraditions oftheVirginMary’sDormition, 366-8; John of Thessalonica, dormBMV 13 (M. Jugie (ed.), Homéliesmarialesbyzantines[II] (Paris, 1925) 399-400; 429); E. Revillout (ed.), Évangiledesdouzeapôtres (Paris, 1907) 175. Other texts give a much shorter confession, in which the Jew’s malice is attributed to, among other things, “the enemy of the human race,” who has blinded their hearts. See the Latin Transitus “W” 41 (A. Wilmart, AnalectaReginensia (Vatican, 1933) 352) and Ps.-Melito, Transitus12 (M. Haibach-Reinisch (ed.), Einneuer“TransitusMariae”desPseudo-Melito (Rome, 1962) 81). 74 See, e.g., D. Krueger, SymeontheHolyFool:Leontius’LifeandtheLate AntiqueCity (Berkeley, 1996) 108-25, where this is discussed in the context of the LifeofSymeontheFool.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 99

30/10/18 09:53

100

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

specific to the Virgin’s life is to be found in the ideological struggles between Jews and Christians in late antiquity. In the centuries before the Dormition traditions made their initial emergence into the Christian “mainstream,”75 the Virgin Mary and her sexual status were the subject of an intense debate between Jews and Christians, manifest in both Jewish and Christian sources. In general, the early Christians asserted that Mary had conceived and given birth to Christ while remaining a virgin. This claim was persistently challenged by the Jews throughout late antiquity and the middle ages, who insisted that Christ was a bastard and Mary hardly a virgin, but a woman of somewhat questionable morals who had conceived out of wedlock. This dispute was fueled by the Christian use of the Septuagint, which in Isaiah 7.14 translates the Hebrew ‫עלמה‬, meaning simply “a young woman,” with the Greek παρθένος, which more specifically indicates “a virgin.” The Jews, who had access to the Hebrew original, seem to have brought this “mistake” to the Christians’ attention, and this issue specifically, as well as the Virgin’s sexual status more generally, formed an important topic of the early Christian and Jewish debate.76 This was no mere Christian self-doubt: the testimony of the early rabbinic literature is clear that this was a point emphasized by early Judaism in defining itself against Christianity, and not just an intra-Christian discourse. The Jewish counter-claim against Mary’s virginity is first known from the pagan Celsus’ second-century attack on Christianity,77 where 75

The presence of various heterodox theologoumena in many of the earliest narratives makes an origin somewhere outside of proto-orthodox Christianity a strong possibility. For more on this, see Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsof theVirginMary’sDormition, 232-53; and now Shoemaker, Mary, esp. 10029, 236-7. 76 Beginning with Justin Martyr’s DialoguewithTrypho, 43. The importance of Isa 7.14 in the Christian anti-Jewish literature can be seen in Schreckenberg, DiechristlichenAdversus-Judaeos-Texte: see the index, p. 662, s.v. “Isaias, 7.14” for references. See also Simon, Verus Israel, 159-60 and Schreiner, Maria, 423-26. 77 Jane Schaberg, however, proposes that there are hints of a tradition of Christ’s illegitimacy in the gospel narratives, where the tradition is always associated with the Jews. See J. Schaberg, TheIllegitimacyofJesus:AFeminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives (San Francisco, 1987) 145-65. Note that Justin’s dispute with Trypho, mentioned above, is centered more on the appropriate understanding of Is 7.14 in relation to

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 100

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

101

he reports to have learned from a Jewish informant that “he [Christ] fabricated the story of his birth from a virgin; he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. She was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery. After she had been driven out by her husband and while she was wandering about in a disgraceful way she secretly gave birth to Jesus.”78 Later, Celsus adds the name of Mary’s lover, “Panthera,”79 a detail which signals the relation of his story to similar accounts that were circulating in Jewish circles. These Jewish counter-traditions are well known from early rabbinic literature, making it highly unlikely that the elements of this story are the invention of either Celsus or Origen. Rather, it seems quite probable that Celsus acquired this information as he reports: from a Jewish informer.80 The early rabbinic sources frequently identify Jesus as either “ben Pantera” (the son of Pantera) or “ben Stada” (the son of Stada),81 for reasons which the following passage from the Babylonian Talmud explains: “The son of Stada is the son of Pandira. Rab Chisda said ‘the husband was Stada, but the lover was Pandira.’ The husband was

the Messiah. It does not concern the issue of Mary’s virginity specifically, but rather, whether the Messiah would in fact be born of a virgin or a young woman. 78 Origen, Contra Celsum 1.28 (M. Borret (ed.), Origène: Contre Celse, 5 vols. (Paris, 1967-76) 1:150-2; translation from H. Chadwick, Origen: ContraCelsum (Cambridge, 1953) 28). 79 Ibid., 1.32 (Borret, Origène:ContraCelse, 1:162; Chadwick, Origen: ContraCelsum, 31). 80 See M. Lods, “Etudes sur les sources juives de la polémique de Celsus contre les Chrétiens,” Revued’histoireetdephilosophiereligieuses 21 (1941) 1-33, although one need not suppose, as Lods, that the transmission was via a written source. Celsus probably encountered these traditions in the manner that he reports: through a Jewish informant. See also Schaberg, Illegitimacyof Jesus, 245-6, n. 82; M. Smith, JesustheMagician (San Francisco, 1978) 59; and R. Wilken, TheChristiansastheRomansSawThem (New Haven, 1984) 109-10. See now also A. Baumgarten, “The Rule of the Martian in the Ancient Diaspora: Celsus and His Jew,” in P. Tomson and J. Schwartz (eds), Jewsand ChristiansintheFirstandSecondCenturies:HowtoWritetheirHistories (Leiden, 2014) 398-430. 81 See G. Dalman, Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the LiturgyoftheSynagogue, trans. A. W. Streane (Cambridge, 1893) 7-25.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 101

30/10/18 09:53

102

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Paphos the son of Jehuda. His mother was Stada and his mother was Miriam the women’s hairdresser: as we say in Pumbeditha, she was unfaithful (‫ סטת דא‬/ stath da) to her husband.”82 According to this Jewish counter-tradition, the name ben Pantera referred to Jesus’ biological father, who was not Mary’s husband, while ben Stada appears to have two explanations: it refers either to Mary’s husband, Stada, who actually was not the father of Jesus, or it refers to Mary herself, who was “unfaithful,” stathda in the Aramaic, to this husband.83 Similar references abound in the early rabbinic literature, identifying Jesus as a bastard and, by implication, the Virgin Mary as an adulteress,84 one passage perhaps even going so far as to describe the Virgin as a prostitute.85 As Burton Visotzky writes, the “idea of Mary as Motherof-God, Theotokos, must have been seized upon in equal measure by Jews and Christians. The Christians found it a solace, a source of hope, a miracle; while the Jews found it an absurdity, a theological impossibility, a source of parody.”86 Such Jewish claims continued during the early Byzantine period, when many of the later rabbinic collections were redacted and versions of a Jewish life of Jesus known as the Toledoth Jeshu began 82

b.Shabb. 104b and b.Sanh. 67a (Text in R. Travers Herford, ChristianityinTalmudandMidrash (London, 1903) 401). 83 This probably is not the origin of the name ben Stada, but was suggested later to explain its use. See the discussions in Dalman, Jesus Christ, 7-25 and Herford, Christianity, 35-41, where various explanations for the origins of both titles are considered. 84 Many examples are given in Dalman, JesusChrist, 25-39. 85 Pesiq. R. 100B-101A (Text in Herford, Christianity, 426), where the teaching that there are “two Gods” is attributed to “the son of a harlot.” Neither Jesus nor Mary is named explicitly, but there is good reason to believe that they are intended. See the discussions in Herford, Christianity, 304-6 and Segal, TwoPowers, 56-57. Shaberg (IllegitimacyofJesus, 164-65) links this accusation with the logion 105 of the GospelofThomas, which says “He who knows the father and the mother will be called the son of a harlot” (GospelofThomas 105 (Bentley Layton (ed.), NagHammadiCodexII,2-7, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1989) 1:90-91). Schaberg also claims that the Yemenite text of the ToledothYeshu repeats this charge that Mary was a prostitute (Illegitimacy of Jesus, 249, n. 135), but this is not immediately obvious from the text, where Jesus is referred to only as “the son of a menstruous woman,” or perhaps less rigidly, “an impure woman”: ‫( נדה בר‬Text in S. Krauss, Das LebenJesunachjüdischenQuellen (Berlin, 1902) 118). 86 See also Visotzky, “Anti-Christian Polemic,” 96-100; quote at 96.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 102

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

103

to circulate among the Jews of the Byzantine and Persian empires. Drawing on older traditions, such as those found in the rabbinic collections, these popular legends, which were probably first compiled during the fifth century, tell the story of Mary’s seduction by a man named Joseph Pandera.87 Although she was already betrothed to another man named Yohanan, Mary and Joseph Pandera had sexual relations, which resulted in pregnancy. The son she bore was named Yeshu, and when later in his life it became known that he was a bastard, he was forced to flee to Galilee where he gathered followers and proclaimed himself the Messiah, born of a virgin.88 This Jewish counter-tradition of the Virgin’s conception thus remained strong in the early Byzantine period. In defiance of Christian claims that she had virginally conceived by the Holy Spirit, the ancient Jews asserted that her conception was hardly miraculous, nor her virginity intact. On the contrary, Mary had conceived by natural means and moreover with a man who was not her husband, making her an adulteress. While of course, there is no reason to suppose that any ancient Christians ever read these texts, early Christian literature reveals an awareness of what the Jews were saying about Christ and the Virgin.89 Originally oral traditions,90 these Jewish legends doubtlessly continued to circulate orally, in which form they probably reached the Christians by any of the means identified above: Jewish proselytizing efforts, Judaizing Christians within the churches, or even the casual contact generated by the crowded quarters of the ancient city.91 Once known, 87

Krauss, DasLebenJesu, 242-8, esp. 246. Summarized in ibid., 28-9, n. 1. 89 In addition to Origen’s response in Cels., see also, for instance, Ephrem, HymnsontheNativity 6.3.2-3, where the Virgin says: “Because of your pure conception, the wicked have slandered me.” (E. Beck (ed.), Desheiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Nativitate (Louvain, 1959) 51 (Syr) and 43 (Germ)). Proclus also rebuts the Jewish denial of Mary’s virginity in his second oration on the incarnation: “And the children of the Jews, who ridicule the virgin birth, are shameful, saying: ‘If she gave birth while a virgin, she did not remain one.’” (Proclus of Constantinople, oratio 2 (PG 65, 696B)). 90 See for instance, Celsus, who first encountered this tradition orally: see n. 80. 91 For more on the intercultural circulation of such stories in the early medieval Near East, see R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It (Princeton, 1997) 40-4. 88

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 103

30/10/18 09:53

104

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

however, it was certain to provoke a Christian reaction, since Mary was increasingly revered in Christian late antiquity, particularly as an ascetic model honored for her virginity and purity.92 In this context, the Jewish charge that Mary was a woman of low sexual morals could not fail to elicit forceful Christian response. Such a Christian response is evident as early as the second-century, especially in the efforts of the ProtevangeliumofJames “to defend the purity and nobility of Mary against Jewish and pagan detractors.”93 This is manifest, for instance, in such episodes as Mary and Joseph’s subjection to the ordeal of the “water of trial” by the temple priests, and the withering of Salome’s hand when she doubts Mary’s virginity antepartum.94 Both of these elements explicitly address Jewish doubts regarding Mary’s virginity, putting them to rest in the first instance by Mary and Joseph’s successful endurance of a traditional Jewish ordeal, the sotah,95 and in the latter by adducing a Jewish eyewitness. The ancient Dormition traditions often draw on these earlier traditions in connecting their portrait of relentless Jewish animosity for the Virgin with the real-life Jewish “slander” against Mary’s virginity. This is the case, for instance, in the sixth-century Syriac apocrypha, where the Jews plead with Mary to repent of her sins and confess what is known to all, that she is not a Virgin, but Christ is the son of Joseph the carpenter and not the Messiah.96 In one of these earliest 92

See Pelikan, Mary, 113-22; Cameron, ChristianityandtheRhetoricof Empire, 164-88; K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial DominioninLateAntiquity (Berkeley, 1982) 139-2. 93 M. Clayton, TheApocryphalGospelsofMaryinAnglo-SaxonEngland (Cambridge, 1998) 13-16; quotation at 15. See also Schreiner, Maria, 41523; W. Schneemelcher (ed.), NewTestamentApocrypha, 2 vols., trans. ed. R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia, 19912) 1:417; 425; for the date, see ibid., 423. 94 ProtevangeliumIacobi 16 & 20 (C. Tischendorf (ed.), EvangeliaApocrypha (Leipzig, 18762; reprint, Hildesheim, 1966) 30-31, 37-39). 95 For a recent discussion of this biblical and rabbinic ordeal, see J. Hauptman, RereadingtheRabbis:AWoman’sVoice (Boulder, CO., 1998). Note also that despite Joseph’s participation in the Protevangelium, the sotah was traditionally reserved for women. 96 Wright, “Departure,” A[ (Syr) and 134-35 (Eng); idem, Contributions totheApocryphalLiterature (London, 1865) ¿Ù (Syr) and 20 (Eng); Smith Lewis, Apocrypha, ÕÝ (Syr) and 22-23 (Eng).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 104

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

105

narratives, Mary refers explicitly to the sotah ordeal described in the ProtevangeliumofJames as proof of her Virginity, verified according to their own traditions.97 Similarly, the Coptic homilies attack the Jews for doubting “that the holy Virgin brought forth Christ without intercourse with a man,”98 and for bearing false witness to Pilate that “it is through fornication that Mary gave birth to Christ,”99 to which the earliest Armenian version adds that the Jews harassed Mary “to deny the truthful birth of the Messiah.”100 If the charges of Mary’s sexual immorality implicit in the Jewish sources are occasionally somewhat muted in these Christian texts, this is probably a deliberate action by Christian writers who found such accusations too shocking to reproduce accurately. Nevertheless, the relation between these portraits of the Jews as especially hostile toward the Virgin and the Jewish claims about her sexual morality seems quite clear in these and other similar passages. This connection is elsewhere confirmed in late antique literature, where the Virgin often appears as a strongly anti-Jewish figure, particularly in the context of refuting Jewish claims against her sexual purity. Among the many possible examples from ancient Christian literature, the AdversusJudaeos tradition in particular stands out. Here, Mary and her virginity frequently appear as points of dispute in Jewish and Christian “dialogue,” where the Jewish denial of her virginity is both raised and summarily refuted. For example, in an anonymous 97

Smith Lewis, Apocrypha, Òà (Syr) and 23 (Eng). Ps.-Evodius of Rome, HomilyontheDormition(St.Mac.)4 (P. de Lagarde, Aegyptiaca (Göttingen, 1883; reprint, Osnabrück, 1972) 41). 99 ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ ⲙⲡⲉⲡⲉⲕⲗⲁⲥ ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲕⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ ⲱ ⲡⲉⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟϥ ⲙⲡⲛⲁⲩ, ⲛⲧⲁⲕϫⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲙ ⲡⲉⲕⲗⲁⲥ ⲛϣⲟⲩϣⲁⲁⲧϥ Ⲙⲡⲓⲗⲁⲧⲟⲥ ϫⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ϫⲡⲟ ⲘⲡⲉⲬ⳱Ⲥ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲡⲟⲣⲛⲓⲁ· Ps.-Evodius of Rome, HomilyontheDormition(St.Mic.) 10 (S. J. Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Attributed to Evodius of Rome,” AB 117 (1999) 241-83 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 9)). 100  Եւ մարﬓոյ իմոյ զգոյչ լեր ի հըրեիցն յատելեացն Քրիստոսի, զի գիտես զնոցաչարութիւնն, որքաննեղեցինզիսեւտառապեցուցին,ուրանալզճչմարտութեան ծնունդն Օծելոյն. E. Tayets῾i. “Երանելոյն Նիկոդիմոսի ասացեալ յաղագս ննջման Մարիամու Աստուածածնի եւ Միշտ Կուսին (A Narration Concerning the Dormition of the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary by the Blessed Nicodemus).” In ԱնկանոնգիրքՆորԿտակարանաց(Ankanongirk῾ NorKtakaranats῾[ApocryphalBooksoftheNewTestament]) (Venice, 1898) 451-78 at 460. 98

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 105

30/10/18 09:53

106

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

anti-Jewish dialogue, probably from the sixth century, the Jewish interlocutor, who has already been convinced of the truth of the incarnation, objects that “it is impossible for a virgin to give birth without a man.”101 Thereupon the Christian defends Mary’s virginal conception at length, arguing exclusively from the Hebrew Scriptures and focusing primarily on Isaiah’s prophecies concerning the “virginal” conception.102 Other anti-Jewish works from the sixth century also address this theme specifically, such as Ps.-Gregentius’ DisputationwiththeJewHerban and Jacob of Serug’s HomiliesagainsttheJews,103 both of which identify Mary and her virginity in particular as key features of the Christian polemic against Judaism. This debate also appears in the Mariological literature of late antiquity, which occasionally responds to the Jewish challenge to Mary’s virginity. This is a theme, for instance, of Jacob of Serug’s Marian homilies,104 just as it is in his anti-Jewish homilies. Proclus too rebukes the Jews in his second oration for their denial of the Virgin 101

Anonymus dialogus cum Iudaeis 5,1-12 (J. Declerck (ed.), Anonymus dialoguscumIudaeis,saeculiutvidetursexti (Turnhout, 1994) 34); for the date see ibid., XLII-LI. 102 When one of the Jews present objects that in the Hebrew, the prophecies do not refer to a virgin, but to a young woman, the Christian responds that these mean the same thing in the Hebrew scriptures. Ibid., 5, 263-99 (Declerck, Anonymusdialogus, 41-2). 103 Ps.-Gregentius, Disp. (PG 86, 656A) and Jacob of Serug, Homilies againsttheJews 1.79-80 (F. Graffin (ed.), JacquesdeSaroug:Homéliescontrelesjuifs (Turnhout, 1976) 48 (Syr) and 49 (Fr)). One might also include the TestimoniaadversusJudaeos attributed to Gregory of Nyssa. This collection of biblical answers to Jewish objections to Christianity contains a lengthy section devoted to defending the Virgin Birth against the Jews (PG 46, 2079). While this work is generally recognized as spurious, there is no consensus about its date. A. C. McGiffert suggests that it was “composed long after his [Gregory’s] time,” and proposes that it belongs to the seventh century (A. C. McGiffert (ed.), DialogueBetweenaChristianandaJew (Ph.D. diss., University of Marburg, 1889) 15, 34). Otto Bardenhewer, on the other hand, argues that it belongs to Gregory’s time, but nevertheless cannot be considered authentic (O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, 5 vols. (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1912) 3:202). 104 Jacob of Serug, HomilyontheTheotokosandEver-VirginMary (P. Bedjan (ed.),S.MartyriiquietSahdona,quaesupersuntomnia (Leipzig, 1902) 688). See also C. Vona, OmeliemariologichedeS.GiacomodiSarug:Introduzione,traduzionedalsiriacoecommento (Rome, 1953) 41.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 106

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

107

Birth,105 and Ephrem’s HymnsontheNativity respond emphatically to these Jewish charges, defending Mary’s virginal conception against Jewish “slanders” at several points.106 More dramatic is the sixth oration of Hesychius of Jerusalem, in honor of Mary the Theotokos.107 This homily, probably pronounced on the feast of the Memory of Mary on 15 August,108 contains an extensive harangue against the Jews that comprises over half of the homily. The homily begins with material appropriate for the occasion, which was a celebration of Mary’s role in the nativity. Hesychius reflects first on the Annunciation and then ponders the Magi’s faith, which he contrasts with the unbelief of the Jews. He castigates the disbelief of Jews, who unlike the Magi, have ample testimony from their own tradition indicating that Jesus was the Messiah. In an effort to demonstrate this, the remainder of the homily adduces twelve passages from the Hebrew Scriptures. Strangely, enough, only two of these concern the virginity of Mary,109 which is not directly addressed as an issue of Jewish unbelief. Nevertheless, this homily marks an important moment in the development of Mary and her cult especially as elements of the Christian anti-Jewish tradition. To be sure, not all, or not even most of late ancient Mariological literature exhibits this anti-Jewish emphasis. Nevertheless, it was certainly a significant theme, especially in the early Dormition traditions, which would eventually develop into the strong anti-Judaism of the medieval cult of the Virgin. It was also an association that Mary maintained as she was adopted by the other religious traditions of the early medieval Near East. Although this is not the place to explore such connections in detail, it is worth noting that in both the early 105

Proclus of Constantinople, oratio2 (PG 65, 696B). See K. McVey, “The Anti-Judaic Polemic of Ephrem Syrus’ Hymns on the Nativity,” in H. Attridge etal. (eds), OfScribesandScrolls:Studiesonthe HebrewBible,IntertestamentalJudaism,andChristianOriginsPresented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (Lanham, MD, 1990) 229-40. The passages in which Ephrem attacks the Jews for “slandering” Mary are collected at p. 233, n. 28. 107 Text, translation, and introduction: M. Aubineau, Leshoméliesfestales d’HésychiusdeJérusalem, 2 vols. (Brussels, 1978-80) 1:171-205. 108 See Mimouni, Dormition, 394-95, but see also Aubineau, Leshomélies, 184-89, where he suggests that the homily formed part of the celebration of Epiphany. 109 Isa 7.14 and Ezek 44.2-3. 106

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 107

30/10/18 09:53

108

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Islamic and Mandean traditions Mary appears as a strongly antiJewish figure, at least on occasion.110 In both of these traditions, as in the Christian tradition, the main issue is the Jewish sexual “slander” of the Virgin, an issue which serves to define all three of these religious traditions from their Jewish source. Although this rhetoric undoubtedly served to construct identity in all of these traditions, it is equally clear that the portrayal of the Jews as “opponents” of the Virgin who challenged her virginity was not merely a Christian invention, unrelated to “real” Jews and designed merely to strengthen identity. On the contrary, the prominence of claims against Mary’s virginity within the Jewish tradition itself shows it to have been a “real” issue to which certain Christians chose to create an internally directed response, in the early Dormition traditions as well as elsewhere. 3. “Thecustomersofagatheringofbones”:Mary,theJews,andthe CultoftheSaints One of the main issues increasingly separating Christianity from the other religious traditions of late antiquity and the early middle ages was the Christian veneration of various “created” objects, ranging from saints and their relics to icons. The Dormition traditions, emerging in the context of this change in the patterns of Christian devotion, reflect its influence, frequently showing reverence for the Cross, the tombs and bodies of holy people, and, in later narratives, even icons.111 110

SeeQur’an 4.156 and 19.27-28; and TheMandeanBookofJohn 34-35 (M. Lidzbarski (ed.), DasJohannesbuchderMandäer (Gießen, 1915) 127-42 (Mandean) and 126-38 (Germ); E. S. Drower, TheCanonicalPrayerbook oftheMandeans (Leiden, 1959) 173 (trans. 130); M. Lidzbarski, Mandäische Liturgien (Berlin, 1920) 210-1. See also the article by J. J. Buckley, “The Mandean Appropriation of Jesus’ Mother, Miriai,” NT 35 (1993) 181-96. For more on this, see S. J. Shoemaker, “Rethinking the ‘Gnostic Mary’: Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala in Early Christian Tradition,” JECS 9 (2001) 577-81, 585-8 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 6), although the subject merits yet further study. 111 A fine example of the latter is Ps.-Theophilus of Alexandria, Homily on the Assumption (W. H. Worrell (ed.), The Coptic Texts in the Freer Collection (New York, 1923) (Copt) and 359-80 (Eng)). Nevertheless, this text is rather difficult to date, and although it may be as early as the late sixth

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 108

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

109

Certain rival religious traditions, however, as well as many within the Christian fold itself considered such practices blasphemous, generating a resistance that would later erupt in the iconoclastic efforts of the middle Byzantine period. In late antiquity, however, such veneration of the created was especially opposed by Judaism, as both our Jewish and Christian sources attest. Presumably this Jewish criticism explains, at least in part, the relatively uniform portrayal of the Jews in the ancient Dormition traditions as opponents of the veneration of relics and saints, and of the Virgin in particular. Although these representations of Jewish opposition are undeniably fictionalized, they nevertheless are revealing of Christian perceptions of Jews in late antiquity, and, furthermore, their spirit finds some confirmation in Jewish literature of the period. The different early Dormition narratives portray such Jewish opposition in a variety of ways, but perhaps most persistently in the efforts of the Jewish leaders to destroy the Virgin’s body, a plot which culminates in Jephonias’ botched assault on Mary’s funeral procession. Knowing their intentions in advance, the Virgin warns the apostles before her death to guard her body against the Jews, who have threatened to burn it,112 and as the apostles carry her lifeless body to the tomb, the Jews seize the opportunity to destroy the body that begot “the seducer of Israel.”113 Although the Jewish will to destroy the Virgin’s body is not always explained, certain texts attribute it to Jewish fears that her bodily relics will work wonders, luring even more Jews into the Christian faith. In the homily attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, for instance, the Jews decide that they “must not let century, we may only be certain of its existence by 906, the date of its earliest manuscript. 112 For examples among the earliest texts, see LiberRequiei 43 (Arras, De Transitu, 1:26 (Eth) and 17 (Lat)); Wenger, L’Assomption, 220-21; Wright, “Departure,” ‚ (Syr) and 140 (Eng); Smith Lewis, Apocrypha, Íæ (Syr) and 32 (Eng); Tayets῾i, “Երանելոյն Նիկոդիմոսի ասացեալ,” 460. 113 Again, examples from the earliest texts: Liber Requiei 72 (Arras, De Transitu, 1:42 (Eth) and 27-28 (Lat)); Wenger, L’Assomption, 23435; Wright, “Departure,” Ëà (Syr) and 149 (Eng); idem, Contributions, Ïã (Syr) and 37 (Eng); Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, Homily on the Dormition (Budge, MiscellaneousCopticTexts, 71 (Coptic) and 649 (Eng)); Theodosius of Alexandria, HomilyontheDormition (F. Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels (Cambridge, 1896) 116-17); Tayets῾i, “ԵրանելոյնՆիկոդիմոսի ասացեալ,” 472.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 109

30/10/18 09:53

110

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

her be buried in the city, lest mighty deeds be worked [at her tomb] similar to those which her Son performed, and lest the people believe in her, and they change our Law,” resolving, “Let us go and burn her body.”114 Theodosius, in his sermon of 566/7, reports likewise that the Jewish attempt to destroy her body was aimed at preventing its miracles from making Christian converts: “if we let this [her body] be buried in our borders, there will appear from it signs and wonders, and many will be assembled to it and believe on Him.”115 One of the early Syriac apocrypha equally manifests this concern: after Jephonias’ failure to destroy the Virgin’s body, the Jews continued their efforts to prevent the body from manifesting its power. First they filled the tomb with corpses, hoping that the smell would keep people away, and when that failed they tried to burn the body in the tomb, only to have themselves enveloped in fire, so that “the heads of their chief men were set on fire, and the flames burnt the edges of all their beards.”116 To the ancient Christian mind, it was only natural to assume that Mary’s bodily relics would, like the remains of others among the blessed dead, be a constant source of miracles, a “reality” here presumed obvious to the Jewish leaders as well. In order to prevent her body from manifesting the truth of Christianity, they attempt to destroy it, but their attempt backfires when Jephonias’ failed attack demonstrates instead her body’s healing power. Jephonias, having lost his arms in the assault, only has them restored when he prays to the Virgin and embraces her body, demonstrating the power of both this holy woman and her relics.117 Then, the apostles give Jephonias either a palm from the Tree of Life or a staff, which he uses to heal those Jews 114

Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, HomilyontheDormition (Budge, Miscellaneous CopticTexts, 71 (Copt) and 648-9 (Eng)). 115 Theodosius of Alexandria, HomilyontheDormition (Robinson, Coptic ApocryphalGospels, 116-9). 116 E. A. W. Budge, HistoryoftheBlessedVirginMary andtheHistoryof theLikenessofChristwhichtheJewsofTiberiasMadetoMockat (London, 1899) 116 (Syr) and 122 (Eng). 117 This is especially characteristic of a large group of very closely related texts often known as the “Palm of the Tree of Life” texts, which are distinguished by, among other things, the presence of a palm from the Tree of Life (For more on this group of texts and their literary relations, see van Esbroeck, “Les textes,” 268-76). Examples from the earliest narratives may be found at LiberRequiei 76 (Arras, DeTransitu, 1:44-5 (Eth) and 29 (Lat)); Wenger, L’Assomption, 236-7.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 110

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

111

willing to accept the Christian faith of their “blindness” and “ignorance,” continuing the exhibition of the power of Christian relics.118 Thus, the Jews’ own malice is turned against them, and their worst fears are realized, as the miraculous powers of the Virgin’s body and the palm/staff result in numerous defections from the Jewish faith. In connection with the emerging reverence for the bodily relics of holy men and women, the tombs of these “very special dead” also became an important focus of Christian devotion during the fifth and sixth centuries.119 These were considered places where the distance between heaven and earth was at its narrowest, prompting the faithful to travel, often over great distances, to such holy sites in order to communicate more directly with a divine intercessor. The saint’s shrine, and the bodily relics it housed, were loci of divine dispensation, where prayers would be answered and “mighty deeds” worked.120 This phenomenon appears in certain Dormition traditions as the Virgin regularly visits her son’s tomb to pray and offer incense, exemplifying the Christian practice of prayer at the tombs of holy men and women. As in the attempts to prevent visits to the Virgin’s tomb, the Jews also appear here as opposing such veneration; often obtaining an injunction from the Roman governor, they prohibit Mary’s visits to Christ’s tomb.121 Although in certain narratives their intervention proves effective, prompting the Virgin to depart Jerusalem for her Bethlehem house,122 other traditions demonstrate the impotence of the Jewish efforts, reporting that Mary’s presence at the tomb was miraculously concealed from the Jewish watchmen, enabling her to continue to pray there.123 118

Selected examples from among the earliest texts include: palm: Liber Requiei 76 (Arras, DeTransitu, 1:44-45 (Eth) and 29 (Lat)); Wenger,L’Assomption, 238-39; staff: Wright, Contributions, Õã-Òã (Syr) and 38 (Eng); idem, “Departure,” Íà (Syr) and 149 (Eng). 119 The phrase is borrowed from P. Brown, TheCultoftheSaints:ItsRise andFunctioninLatinChristianity (Chicago, 1981) ch. 4. 120 See ibid. 121 This episode is characteristic of the entire “Bethlehem” tradition, another major literary group (for more on this group of text, see van Esbroeck, “Les textes,” 268-76). For examples from the earliest versions, see Tischendorf, Apocalypses, 95-6 (G2); Wright, “Departure,” ¿Ù-} (Syr) and 133-5 (Eng). 122 E.g., Wright, “Departure,” ¿Ù (Syr) and 134-5 (Eng). 123 E.g., Ps.-John the Evangelist, Transitus 2 (K. Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphae (Leipzig, 1866) 96).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 111

30/10/18 09:53

112

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

The sixth-century Syriac apocrypha preserve yet another instance of Jewish/Christian conflict over the veneration of Christian relics, this one centered around the relic of the True Cross. This relic, which had emerged as a focus of Christian veneration during the fifth century, developed into a powerful anti-Jewish symbol in late ancient Christianity, in apocryphal literature as well as the AdversusJudaeos tradition.124 In these Dormition narratives, the relic of the True Cross is sought by the Christians, who ask the Roman governor of Palestine to demand that the Jews reveal where they have hidden the implements of Christ’s crucifixion.125 When the governor, who has himself become a Christian, forces the Jews to disclose the location, the Jews confess to having buried the Cross beneath a pile of stones, leaving only a small opening through which one could touch the tip of the Cross with a hand. For a fee, the Jews allowed the sick to reach in and touch the Cross, which healed them of their affliction. But when the thousands who had been healed by this relic asked what had cured them, the Jews replied: “a pot of manna, and of the water of trial, and the staff of Aaron.”126 As was the case with the Virgin’s body then, the miraculous powers of a Christian relic are understood as obvious to both Jew and Christian alike. In this case, however, the Jewish 124

On the various legends concerning the discovery of the True Cross, see below. From the AdversusJudaeos tradition TheTeachingsofJacob, theNewlyBaptized, 1.34 (V. Déroche (ed.), “Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati,” 120-1 in G. Dagron and V. Déroche, “Juifs et Chrétiens dans l’Orient du VIIe siècle,” Travauxetmémoires 11 (1991) 17-273); Leontius of Neapolis, ApologyagainsttheJews (V. Déroche, “L’Apologie contre les Juifs de Léontios de Néapolis,” Travauxetmémoires 12 (1994) 69, 134-71, 194 (Grk) and 77-8 (Fr)). This issue is also addressed in Ps.-Athanasius, doct. Ant. (PG 28, 621). See also the HomilyontheCross attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem, where the veneration of the Cross is defended against both Jewish and Samaritan attacks (Budge, MiscellaneousCopticTexts, 183-230 (Copt) and 761-808 (Eng)). It is difficult to date this text, but its most recent editor suggests that the final redaction dates to the first half of the seventh century (A. Campagnano (ed.), Ps.CirillodiGerusalemme:Omeliecoptesullapassione,sullacroceesullavergine (Milan, 1980) 14). 125 The account of this debate is preserved in the early Syriac apocrypha, S2 and S3. See Smith Lewis, Apocrypha, {|-u| (Syr) and 43-46 (Eng); Wright, Contributions, „-Ïà (Syr) and 27-30 (Eng); Budge, Historyofthe BlessedVirginMary, 136-8 (Syr) and 150-3 (Eng). 126 Wright, Contributions, Õà (Syr) and 29 (Eng).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 112

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

113

recognition of the Cross’ power does not prompt an effort to destroy it, as in the case of the Virgin’s body. Instead, the Jews have attempted to disguise the relic, attributing its power to a different, Jewish source, thereby co-opting Christian relics and creating holy relics for their own faith. In this way the Jew is once again depicted as he is so frequently, not as ignorant, but rather as fully cognizant of the truth and inexplicably obstinate. This episode links the early Dormition traditions with another set of legends that developed in Syro-Palestine during the previous century: the various accounts of the discovery of the True Cross. Presumably in order to avoid conflict with these traditions, the Dormition traditions explicitly note that after its discovery, the cross was reburied by orders of the Roman governor, thus allowing for its rediscovery later, as related in the various legends of the True Cross’ discovery. The earliest of these True Cross legends are not especially anti-Jewish, but as the tradition develops, the stories display increasing hostility to Judaism.127 The most overtly anti-Jewish of the three main versions are the most recent, the so-called “Protonike” and “Judas Kyriakos” legends which developed during the fifth century, just prior to the earliest Dormition traditions.128 Perhaps not surprisingly, these two version are the ones with which certain of the earliest Dormition traditions are explicitly linked. The Kyriakos traditions are evoked as these Dormition narratives commence with a story designed to explain the sudden (re)appearance of the Dormition traditions after centuries of silence. These ancient narratives inform us that were recovered as a result of inquiries made by certain monks of Mt. Sinai. The monks’ ultimately successful search for traditions of the Virgin’s death began by contacting the bishop of Jerusalem, whose name is Kyriakos (or in some versions Kyros).129 127

J. W. Drijvers, HelenaAugusta:TheMotherofConstantinetheGreatand theLegendofHerFindingoftheTrueCross (Leiden, 1992) 143-5; 161-3; 177-80. 128 These three versions and their development are discussed in ibid., 79180. Dates: Protonike, ca. 400; Judas Kyriakos, 400-50 (ibid., 174-5). 129 Wright, “Departure,” { (Syr) and 130 (Eng); Smith Lewis, Apocrypha, ÏÝ (Syr) & 16 (Eng); M. Enger, ‫( اخبار يوح ّنا السليح في نقلة ا ّم المسيح‬Akhbâr Yûhannâ as-salîh fi naqlat umm al-masîh),idestJoannisapostolidetransitu BeataeMariaeVirginisliber (Eberfeld, 1854) 12-13. On Kyros for Kyriakos, see Wright, “Departure,” 131, n. m.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 113

30/10/18 09:53

114

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

This is undoubtedly a reference to Judas Kyriakos of the True Cross legends, who following the discovery of the cross converts and is named bishop of Jerusalem by Helena.130 Likewise these Dormition narratives also evoke the Protonike tradition, referring to an important anti-Jewish episode from this tradition’s literary source, Doctrina Addai. Both traditions share the story of Abgar’s desire to destroy the Jews for crucifying Christ, which he restrains only out of respect for Roman authority, as well as a first century setting for the discovery of the True Cross.131 Beyond these few points of contact, however, the Dormition traditions depart significantly from the more familiar versions of the True Cross’ discovery. The share the strong anti-Judaism of the later Cross traditions, but they have transformed these legends and made them their own.132 In both the Protonike and Judas Kyriakos versions of the True Cross legends, the Jews prevent Christians from having access to the True Cross, albeit with somewhat more drama in the Kyriakos version. Nevertheless, the reasons behind this Jewish obstruction, although they may be obvious, are not made clear. The early Dormition traditions, as we have seen, are explicit about this: the Jews are accused of having hidden the relics of the crucifixion and disguised them as Jewish relics, in order that their power bear witness to the truth of Judaism and not against it. In this way the early Dormition traditions transform the discovery of the True Cross into an incident that not only highlights the power of Christian relics, but also the unsuccessful Jewish effort to subvert these relics. Other contemporary Christian texts reveal similar perceptions of the Jews as especially hostile to the veneration of relics. This is the 130

H. J. W. Drijvers and J. W. Drijvers, TheFindingoftheTrueCross,The JudasKyriakosLegendinSyriac:Introduction,Text,Translation (Louvain, 1997) 50-1 (Syr) and 68-9 (Eng). 131 G. Howard, trans., TheTeachingofAddai (Chico, CA, 1981) { (Syr) & 13 (Eng); Wright, “Departure,” €- (Syr) and 134 (Eng); Smith Lewis, Apocrypha, Ïà-Îà (Syr) and 21-22 (Eng); M. Chaîne (ed.), Apocrypha de B.MariaVirgine, 2 vols. (Rome, 1909) 24-5 (Eth) and 20-21 (Lat); Enger, ‫اخبار يوح ّنا السليح في نقلة ا ّم المسيح‬, 22-25; for more on the Protonike version of the True Cross legends, see Drijvers, FindingoftheTrueCross, 147-63. 132 For more on this distinctive version of the inventiocrucis, see S. J. Shoemaker, “A Peculiar Version of the Inventio crucis in the Early Syriac Dormition Traditions,” SP 41 (2006) 75-81 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 4).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 114

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

115

case, for instance, in the Coptic HistoryoftheChurch, a work of the late fifth-century preserved in fragments now scattered among different European and American collections.133 In its account of Julian’s attempt to rebuild the Temple, the Coptic HistoryoftheChurch reports the following incident. Julian appointed an official to clear the Temple and prepare its foundation, so that he might build it. And he went to Persia to fight and put the holy ones in prison. Those destroying the Temple cleared it, and they did not leave stone upon stone, according to the words of the Lord. They began to build, and they built from morning until evening. And they arrived in the morning and found the building that they were building destroyed, not by a human hand. But they persisted, continuing their hard labor for two months. They accomplished nothing, according to the providence of God, which was hindering them. The Jews who were there told them, “Burn the tombs in which there are Christians, and you will be able to build.” And they listened to them and burned the tombs. But when they came to the tomb of John the Baptist and Elijah the Prophet, the fire did not touch them. For many days the fire filled their surroundings, and the fire did not touch them.134

The narrative continues to describe the translation of John and Elijah’s relics to Egypt, an event recorded similarly elsewhere.135 The entire episode as preserved in the Coptic HistoryoftheChurch depends on a number of older traditions, which it has modified in significant ways.136 The earliest traditions locate the discovery of these relics in 133

The majority of the published fragments are found in T. Orlandi, Storia dellaChiesadeAlessandria, 2 vols. (Milan, 1968-70). For the date, see ibid., 2:129-30. See also D. Johnson, “Further Fragments of a Coptic History of the Church: Cambridge Or. 1699R,” Enchoria 6 (1976) 7-17; T. Orlandi, “Nuovi frammenti della Historia Ecclesiastica copta,” in S. F. Bondi etal. (eds), Studi inonorediEddaBresciani (Pisa, 1985) 363-83. 134 Orlandi, Storia, 1:42-4 (Copt) and 65-6 (Lat). 135 See D. B. Levenson, “The Ancient and Medieval Sources for the Emperor Julian’s Attempt to Rebuild the Jerusalem Temple,” JournalfortheStudy of Judaism 35 (2004) 409-60; and idem, A Source- and Tradition-Critical StudyoftheStoriesoftheEmperorJulian’sAttempttoRebuildtheJerusalem Temple (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1980). 136 See also T. Orlandi, “Un frammento copto di Teofilo di Alessandria,” Revista degli Studi Orientali 44 (1969) 23-6; A. van Lantschoot, “Fragments coptes d’un Panegyrique de S. Jean-Baptiste,” Mus 44 (1931) 235-54; A. Mingana, “A New Life of John the Baptist,” WoodbridgeStudies, 7 vols.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 115

30/10/18 09:53

116

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Sebaste,137 while the Coptic HistoryoftheChurch relocates the story to Jerusalem, setting it in the context of Julian’s efforts to rebuild the temple. Here it further modifies the earlier traditions by attributing the suggestion to burn the tombs of the Christian saints to the Jews rather than the pagans, as in the earlier version. With this change the Coptic History of the Church brings these traditions into harmony with the stream of fifth and sixth-century Christian literature that depicted the Jews as opponents of Christian relics. Similar sentiments are expressed in another text from this period “discovered” by Alexander Alexakis.138 Here, however, hostility to the veneration of relics is not ascribed directly to Jews, but rather to a particular group of Judaizing Christians, the Sabbatians. In this “dialogue,” probably composed sometime during the late fifth or early sixth century,139 a monk named “Moschus” defends the Christian veneration of certain created objects, including the Cross, the Eucharist, the Gospels, and even icons, against his Sabbatian opponent. The Sabbatians were an early Byzantine Christian sect that originally separated from the Novatians during the late fourth century, primarily over the date of Easter, which the Sabbatians observed on the Jewish Pascha.140 Their founder, Sabbatius, was a Jewish convert to Christianity who

(Cambridge, 1927-34) 1:234-87 (reprinted from BulletinoftheJohnRylands Library 11 (1927)). 137 See O. Meinardus, “The Relics of St. John the Baptist and the Prophet Elisha,” OKS 29 (1980) 118-42, esp. 133. 138 Codex Parisinus graecus 1115, 278-80. Text, translation, and commentary by A. Alexakis, “An Early Iconophile Text: The Dialogue of the Monk and Recluse Moschus Concerning the Holy Icons.” To my knowledge, this article unfortunately never appeared. This text was previously signaled, with a brief description, by Jean Gouillard in “L’hérésie,” 311. 139 Alexakis tentatively suggests a date of 425-60, based primarily on the virtual disappearance of the Sabbatians and the Novatians, from which the Sabbatians are descended, after the fifth century. Timothy Gregory shares this general assessment that these sects were in decline during the latter half of the fifth century, after which point they pass for the most part out of view. Gregory also notes, however, that Justinian persecuted the Sabbatians, leaving the possibility that this dialogue was composed during the sixth century. See T. E. Gregory, “Novatianism: A Rigorist Sect in the Christian Roman Empire,” ByzantineStudies/ÉtudesByzantines 2 (1975) 1-18 at 16. 140 Socrates, Historiaecclesiastica 5.21 (PG 67, 621-25); Gregory, “Novatianism,” 13-16.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 116

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

117

reportedly continued observance of many Jewish customs after his conversion,141 a practice maintained by his followers, who, as described by the East-Syrian bishop Marutha Maipherkatensis (d. before 420), observed a Judaizing form of Christianity: The heresy of the Sabbatians, who are called in Syriac the Shabtâye. They say that instead of Sunday, the liturgy should be celebrated on the Sabbath, because this is the day of rest. And instead of the Gospels, the Pentateuch should be read at length before the people. And circumcision should not cease, nor should the observances of the Law be annulled. And also the example of Passover is retained, because the new is not opposed to the old. And even though they want to observe the Law, they call themselves Christians.142

Presumably, such adherence to the Jewish law led the Sabbatians to regard the veneration of created objects as a violation of the second commandment, a conclusion that Moschus’ dialogue aims to refute. Against his Sabbatian opponent, Moschus defends particularly the Christian veneration of the Cross and “the icons of martyrs,” practices considered idolatrous by his adversary.143 Interestingly, however, Moschus notes that his opponent has not extended this judgment to include such similarly hand-made items as the book of gospels or the Eucharist, objects which the Sabbatian distinguishes as “having divine power.” Nor apparently did the Sabbatians object specifically to the veneration of holy men and women, since Moschus later mentions their veneration of Sabbatius’ relics, a practice also recorded in Socrates’ Church History.144 These exceptions are not altogether strange in a As the church historian Socrates informs us: Σαββάτιος ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων Χριστιανίσας, ὑπὸ Μαρκιανοῦ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου προβηθεὶς ἀξίαν, οὐδὲν ἧττον τῃ Ἰουδαϊκῃ προλήψει δουλεύειν ἐσπούδαζε: Socrates, Historiaecclesiastica5.21 (PG 67, 621B-C). This would seem to belie Patricia Crone’s suggestion that the Sabbatians who broke off from the Novatians were a different group from those Sabbatians who were known in our ancient sources as Judaizers, contra Crone, “Islam,” 84. 142 Marutha Maipherkatensis, TractateonHeresies 1 (Ignatius Ephraem II Rahmani, ed., StudiaSyriaca, 4 vols. (Monte Libano, 1904-9) 4:~‹-}‹. 143 Alexakis, “Early Iconodule Text.” 144 δός μοι τὰ λείψανα Σαββατίου, οὗ σέβῃ, ὅτι παθῶν κατεκράτησαν ἤ νόσους ἰάσαντο. DialogueoftheMonkandRecluseMoschusConcerning theHolyIcons (Alexakis, “Early Iconodule Text”); Socrates: Historiaecclesiastica6.25 (PG 67, 793C-796A). 141

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 117

30/10/18 09:53

118

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

“Jewish” context, however, given the respect that Judaism affords its sacred texts,145 as well as the tradition of venerating holy men and women and their relics in ancient Judaism. This latter point is of special interest: pre-rabbinic Judaism frequently revered its holy men and women, building elaborate tombs in their memory and seeking their miracles and intercession. In fact, there are even hints of pilgrimage and relic veneration in early Judaism.146 Nevertheless, such practices are generally absent from the contemporary rabbinic literature, where many are explicitly condemned, prompting Joachim Jeremias to suggest that these were expressions of “popular” Jewish religion.147 While it is possible such practices continued to be a part of popular Jewish practice, in the ascendant version of late ancient Judaism represented by the rabbis, which presumably posed the most formidable Jewish challenge to Christianity, we meet an increasing resistance to the veneration of created objects, whether they be holy men and women, their bodily relics, or even images.148 This ancient Jewish practice becomes a specific issue of Christian anti-Jewish polemic in the extant fragments of Leontius of Neapolis’ early seventh-century ApologyagainsttheJews,149 in which Leontius 145

Regarding Torah scroll in particular, see, e.g., b.Meg. 27a; b.Mak. 22b; b.Shabb. 14a; m.Shabb.16:1; Mo‘edQat. 25a, 26a. 146 J. Jeremias, Heiligengräber in Jesu Umwelt: Eine Untersuchung zur Volksreligion der Zeit Jesu (Göttingen, 1958) 138-41. See also in the New Testament, Matt 23.29: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.” See also Brown, Cult of the Saints, 10. An example of Jewish intercessory prayer is preserved in the LiberRequiei 25-31 (Arras, DeTransitu, 1:13-17 (Eth) and 8-11 (Lat)), in the story of Rachel and Eleazar, where Rachel calls for and receives the intercession of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This tale appears several times in rabbinic literature: see F. Manns, LerécitdeladormitiondeMarie(Vaticangrec1982) (Jerusalem, 1989) 76 n. 14a. 147 Jeremias, Heiligengräber, 142-4. See also T. Klauser, “Christlicher Märtyrerkult, heidnischer Heroenkult, and spätjüdische Heiligenverehrung: Neue Einsichten und Neue Probleme,” Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des LandesNordrhein-Westfalen (Köln-Opladen, 1960) 27-38; reprinted in idem, GesammelteArbeitenzurLiturgiegeschichte,Kirchengeschichte,undchristlichenArchäologie (Münster, 1974) 221-9 at 224 in the reprint. 148 Jeremias, Heiligengräber, 142. 149 On the authenticity of this work, see V. Déroche, “L’Authenticité de l’‘Apologie contre les Juifs’ de Léontios de Néapolis,” BulletindeCorrespondanceHellénique 110 (1986) 655-69. Paul Speck’s reply is not convincing:

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 118

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

119

defends the veneration of various created objects, including the relics of saints, against the objections of a supposed Jewish opponent. Among his many arguments are several reminders to his Jewish “interlocutor” of similar Jewish practices, including particularly the reverence shown for the bones of certain Jewish saints, such as Moses and Elisha. This prompts Leontius to ask, “if it is impious to honor bones, how were the bones of Jacob and Joseph transported from Egypt with every honor? How was a dead man resurrected when he touched the bones of Elisha?”150 Unfortunately, Leontius’ Jewish “opponent” is not permitted a response, leaving us to wonder how Jews of the early seventh century might have regarded the reverence of their forebears for holy bones. Indeed, this remains an important question: is there any historical reality behind this Christian representation of Jewish opposition to the cult of the saints and relics? Although the specific details of many episodes are undoubtedly Christian inventions (such as the Jephonias incident), various early Jewish sources can to some degree confirm this Christian view that many late ancient Jews were increasingly uneasy with or opposed to such practices. These attitudes are especially present in the rabbinic literature’s persistent opposition to the Jewish veneration of “Jewish saints,” as noted above, as well as in explicit Jewish criticism of similar Christian practices.151 This suggests that in the rabbinic period the veneration of Jewish saints was in decline, if not abandoned, despite strong biblical precedent.152 Changes in Jewish burial practices during late antiquity and the related intensification of attention to corpse-impurity by the rabbis could also suggest such a change, albeit indirectly. During the Second Temple period, the Jews had commonly engaged in a practice known as secondary burial, in which the bodies of the deceased were initially P. Speck, “Der Dialog mit einem Juden angeblich des Leontius von Neapolis,” PoikilaByzantina 6 (1987) 315-22. 150 Εἰ ἀσεβές ἐστι τιμᾶν τὰ ὀστᾶ, πῶς μετὰ τιμῆς πάσης μετεκόμισαν τὰ ὀστᾶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου; Πῶς νεκρὸς ἄνθρωπος τῶν ὀστέων Ἐλισσαίου ἁψάμενος ἀνέστη; Leontius of Neapolis, Apologyagainstthe Jews(Déroche, “L’Apologie,” 69, 143-4 (Grk) and 77 (Fr)). N.B., Jeremias also finds hints of a Jewish relic cult in the traditions of the bones of Moses: Jeremias, Heiligengräber, 139-41. 151 Jeremias, Heiligengräber, 142; see also below. 152 Jacob: Gen 50.13-25; Joseph: Exod 17.6; Elijah: 2 Chr 13.21.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 119

30/10/18 09:53

120

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

lain on niches cut into the walls of rock-cut tombs. Here, their bodies were allowed to decompose, a process which was widely believed to atone for the sins of the deceased. Then, once their flesh had completely decayed, the bones were gathered together and placed in stone receptacles known as ossuaries.153 Sometime during the fourth century, however, the Jews discontinued this practice of secondary burial, which some have interpreted as a Jewish response to the emergent Christian veneration of the bodies of the holy dead,154 but despite the obvious attractions of this explanation, there is little evidence to support it.155 Likewise, the similarities between secondary burial and later Christian devotional practices prompted André Grabar to propose that the Christian veneration of the bones of the holy dead and their collection in reliquaries owes much to this earlier Jewish practice,156 but this hypothesis has been shown similarly problematic.157 Nevertheless, despite the lack of a direct relation with Christian practice, this change in funerary custom indicates a significant shift in Jewish attitudes toward dead bodies, which very well may have generated Jewish criticism of Christian veneration of relics. Judaism has always regarded corpses as a major source of ritual impurity, prompting a general avoidance of contact with either the dead or their tombs. But while this restriction had been a feature of Judaism during earlier periods, the rabbis possessed a special concern to define and extend the notion of corpse-impurity, which they considered so potent that it could be incurred merely by the passage of one’s shadow over a corpse or a tomb.158 In fact, the rabbis identified contact with 153

This practice is well described in P. Figueras, “Jewish Ossuaries and Secondary Burial: Their Significance for Early Christianity,” Immanuel 19 (1984/85) 41-57. 154 Figueras, “Jewish Ossuaries,” 55-7; idem, DecoratedJewishOssuaries (Leiden, 1983) 10-2. 155 B. McCane, “Bones of Contention? Ossuaries and Reliquaries in Early Judaism and Christianity,” SCe 8 (1991) 245-6. 156 A. Grabar, “Recherches sur les sources juives de l’art paléochrétien (Troisième article),” CahiersArchéologiques 14 (1964) 51-3. 157 L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collection of theStateofIsrael (Jerusalem, 1994) 60-1. 158 E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (Philadelphia, 1990) 33-4, 184-6. At first glance this might seem in contradiction with the practice of secondary burial during the early rabbinic period, but it is not. As Sanders explains, “for the ordinary person, contracting corpse impurity

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 120

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

121

the dead as the most serious of all ritual impurities.159 Excepting such corpse-impurity as was necessitated by the death of family members or close friends, contact with the dead was otherwise avoided inasmuch as it was possible.160 For this reason, the Jewish veneration of the holy dead was never extended to include an organized cult at their tombs, and actual contact with the “relics” of the deceased remained out of the question.161 The same also seems to have been initially true of early Palestinian Christianity, which continued observance of corpseimpurity until the fourth century.162 After this point, however, Jewish and Christian attitudes toward the dead diverged markedly, as indicated primarily by the simultaneous Jewish abandonment of secondary burial and the rise of the Christian cult of the saints. Yet even if we cannot simplistically attribute the disappearance of Jewish secondary burial to the emergent Christian veneration of the holy dead, its elimination and the rabbinic intensification of the corpse taboo signal heightened Jewish avoidance of contact with the dead that was bound to impact their judgment of the Christian veneration of relics. The elimination of the important exception to the separation of the living and the dead afforded in secondary burial would only have served to make the Christian fondness for these holy corpses appear all the more deviant in Jewish eyes. As a result of this widening divide, the manner in which the dead were respected emerged as an important point of Jewish and Christian self-definition in late antiquity, inspiring both Christian writers to polemicize against the Jewish avoidance of corpses and Jews to criticize the Christian veneration of dead bodies.163 Such Jewish criticism is evident in Jewish sources as well Christian, including especially two sixth-century hymns from the Cairo Geniza that polemicize against the Christian veneration of bodily relics.164 was not wrong; rather piety required care of the dead. The only transgression was to enter the temple while impure” (ibid., 33). 159 m.Kelim1.4d. 160 Sanders, JewishLaw, 187-8. 161 Klauser, “Christlicher Märtyrerkult,” 226. 162 B. McCane, “Jews, Christians, and Burial in Roman Palestine,” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1992) 202-13. See now also idem, RollBacktheStone: DeathandBurialintheWorldofJesus (Harrisburg, PA, 2003). 163 McCane, “Jews, Christians, and Burial,” 202-13. 164 These are given by Figueras, “Jewish Ossuaries,” 56-57; idem, Decorated, 12.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 121

30/10/18 09:53

122

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

These hymns, ascribed to Yannai, rebuke the Christians specifically for venerating bones, condemning them as “the customers of a gathering of bones” and “those that in the future will gather bones.”165 Coming approximately two-hundred years after the Jews had abandoned their practice of secondary burial, the “gathering of bones” was no longer an acceptable practice in Judaism. On the contrary, contact with the dead had become the most unholy of actions, in light of which the Christian veneration of the holy dead was reckoned a perverse violation of the corpse taboo. Similar sentiment appears in the Leviticus Rabbah, a collection redacted sometime between the fifth and sixth centuries.166 Here the rabbis appear to criticize the Christian practice offering intercessory prayers to the departed saints at their graves. The passage begins with the story of a man “who lost his child and went to inquire about him among the graves.” The rabbis ridicule this man, asking, “do the quick have need, then, of the dead,” continuing, “our God lives and endures for all eternity, while the god[s] of the gentiles is [are?] dead….they are dead! Shall we abandon the Eternal One bow to the dead?”167 Although the various elements of this passage perhaps took shape in an antiPagan context, it seems rather likely that by the time of their final redaction in the Leviticus Rabbah, they were primarily aimed at Christian practice.168 Such predilection for the dead was not the only element of late antique Christian piety offensive to Jewish sensibilities; in the case of bodily relics, any violation of the corpse-taboo merely added to the more serious blasphemy of worshipping the created rather than the creator. This was certainly the case with the increasing Christian veneration of holy images, which no doubt appeared to the Jews as a particularly glaring violation of the second commandment, as the Judaizing Sabbatians of Moschus’ dialogue are said to have regarded this practice. The first Jewish source to voice such objections is the Sefer Zerubbabel, an early seventh-century Palestinian apocalypse about which more will be said in the following section.169 Here Christian 165

Ibid. Visotzky, “Anti-Jewish Polemic,” 83, n. 1. 167 Ibid., 86-7. 168 Ibid., 87-8. 169 For the date and provenance see I. Lévi (ed.), “L’Apocalypse de Zorobabel et le Roi de Perse Siroès (Suite),” RevuedesÉtudesJuives 69 (1919) 108-15. B. Wheeler, however, suggests its composition in Edessa, without 166

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 122

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

123

images are explicitly identified as idols and their veneration as idol worship: “And from there, in Riblah, which is Antioch, he [Rome, or the Roman emperor] will begin to plant the idols [‫ ]אשרות‬of the nations and to worship their false gods [‫]בעלים‬, whom God hates.”170 Although these objects are identified using the names of the Canaanite deities Baal and Asherah, it is clear that these “idols” are Christian cult objects and not “pagan” statues.171 As is discussed in more detail below, this apocalypse comes in response to the Christian reconquest of the Holy Land following the Persian occupation of the early seventh century, and its polemics are directed at Christian, rather than pagan, practices. By using such language, however, the SeferZerubbabel attacks the nascent Christian veneration of images as a blasphemy no different from the pagan worship of false gods, placing it on par with the biblical idolatry of the Canaanites. Limited as they are, such Jewish polemics provide important confirmation of Christian reports of Jewish opposition to the cult of the saints and relics, indicating that alongside of the Christian effort to construct identity against its Jewish source stood real Jewish criticisms much explanation as to why: “Imagining the Sassanian Capture of Jerusalem: The ‘Prophecy and Dream of Zerubbabel’ and Antiochus Strategos’ ‘Capture of Jerusalem,’” OCP 57 (1991) 69-85, at 73. 170 SeferZerubbabel (I. Lévi (ed.), “L’Apocalypse de Zorobabel et le Roi de Perse Siroès,” Revue des Études Juives 68 (1914) 143; trans.: M. Himmelfarb, “Sefer Zerubbabel,” in D. Stern and M. J. Mirsky (eds),RabbinicFantasies:ImaginativeNarrativesfromClassicalHebrewLiterature (Philadelphia, 1990) 80, slightly modified). 171 I do not find convincing the suggestion by Paul Speck that the Sefer Zerubbabel was actually a Christian text and that the “idols” being opposed are actually pagan idols: “The Apocalypse of Zerubbabel and Christian Icons,” JewishStudiesQuarterly 4 (1997) 183-90. Speck here, as elsewhere, argues that the cult of icons was not in existence during the early seventh century. Most scholars, on the other hand, seem to agree that the origins of the cult of icons lie even earlier, in the later sixth century: see for instance A. Cameron, “Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late Sixth-Century Byzantium,” PastandPresent 84 (1979) 3-35; P. Brown “A Dark Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclast Controversy,” English Historical Review 88 (1973) 1-34; reprinted in SocietyandtheHolyinLateAntiquity (Berkeley, 1982) 251-301; E. Kitzinger, “The Cult of the Images before Iconoclasm,” DOP 8 (1950) 85-150 at 129-31; J.N. Bremmer, “Iconoclast, Iconoclastic, and Iconoclasm: Notes Towards a Genealogy,” Church History and Religious Culture 88 (2008) 1-17.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 123

30/10/18 09:53

124

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

of Christian practice. To be sure, many if not all of the details of these Christian narratives are pure fiction, and it is unlikely that these texts represent any kind of actual exchange, literary or otherwise. Likewise, it is equally certain that such representations of the Jews were meant more to reassure Christian doubt than to convert any unbelieving Jews. Nevertheless, we must remember Simon’s insightful conclusion, “an artificial form may well conceal material drawn from life.”172 Such seems to be the case in this instance: in spite of the artificiality of both the Christian and Jewish polemical traditions, the connections between the two seem to bear out the point that these polemics were developing with at least some awareness of what the other was actually doing and saying. Even if these depictions of Jewish opposition to the veneration of relics and saints were meant primarily to answer criticism coming from within the Christian fold, rather than from Judaism, it is equally important to recognize that contemporary Judaism occasionally raised such criticisms, which no doubt fueled the “orthodox” Christian response. 4. “Satanwillcomeandliewithher,andshewillbearason….He willdestroythepeople”:MaryandImperialAnti-Judaism The mounting hostility between Jews and the Christian state also found expression in many of the early Dormition narratives, where the conflicts and persecutions of the later Roman Empire are frequently retrojected into the Dormition’s first-century setting. Here, the contemporary relations between the empire and its Jewish inhabitants are naturalized by projecting them back into the mythic time of (Christian) origins, where officials of the “pagan” empire foreshadow the actions of their Christian successors. These depictions lend justification to the antiJudaism of the Christian empire, giving it an air of timelessness and implying that it is not rooted in any particularly Christian prejudice. Rather, the early Dormition traditions, among other early Christian narratives, imagine the imperial anti-Judaism of late antiquity as the “natural” response of a just and reasonable state to “troublesome” inhabitants, as shown by the prior actions of both the Roman Empire and its independent clients.

172

Simon, VerusIsrael, 140.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 124

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

125

In the first of these episodes, the legends recall the supposed rage of King Abgar of Edessa upon learning that the Jews had crucified Christ, an episode that draws on an earlier tradition from the Doctrina Addai.173 When he heard the news, “Abgar arose, and rode, and came to the river Euphrates, and wished to go up against Jerusalem and lay it waste. And when Abgar came and reached the river Euphrates, he reflected in his mind, ‘If I cross over, there will be enmity between me and the emperor Tiberius.’”174 Hoping to avoid an international incident, Abgar tempered his fury and decided to pursue a more diplomatic means of satisfying his anger. Instead, he sent a letter to the emperor Tiberius, explaining the gross injustice that the Jews had carried out against Jesus. When the emperor read the letter, he “was very much enraged, and was going to destroy and kill all the Jews.”175 It seems clear that he in fact did not, although there is no explanation why. Rather, we are told that when the “people of Jerusalem” learned of this, they were alarmed, and the priests went to the governor to ask that they be permitted to prevent Mary from praying at her son’s tomb. The permission is granted, but again it is not entirely obvious how this might be related to Jews’ fear of the emperor’s wrath. What is absolutely clear, however, is the portrayal of these first-century rulers as sympathetic to Christianity and, more importantly, as desirous of using their civil authority to punish the Jews for their “crimes.” Although their wishes are ultimately unfulfilled, the decisions of these two rulers, one a proto-Christian and the other a pagan, validate the later actions of the Christian empire against its Jewish inhabitants. The second, rather lengthy episode begins just as the Abgar/ Tiberius episode is “resolved,” when the Jewish priests approach the Roman governor, seeking permission to act against Mary.176 This begins a series of requests in which the Jewish priests seek the assistance of 173

Howard, TeachingofAddai, „-Ïà (Syr) and 75-81 (Eng). Wright, “Departure,” € (Syr) and 134 (Eng); in addition to this version, see also the passages listed in n. 131 above. 175 Wright, “Departure,” ¿Ù-€ (Syr) and 134 (Eng). 176 This episode appears in many of the earliest versions, with some slight variance in certain details. The following summary relates the essence of these accounts, relying primarily on the accounts preserved in the sixth-century witnesses: Wright, “Departure,” ÕÝ-¿Ý (Syr) and 141-46 (Eng); idem, Contributions, Òà-Çà (Syr) and 24-28 (Eng); and Smith Lewis, Apocrypha, Äï-Îæ (Syr) and 33-43 (Eng). 174

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 125

30/10/18 09:53

126

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

the secular authorities in an effort to control Mary, whom they view as posing a special threat to the existence of their faith. Initially, the Jews experience some success in their requests for aid from the state, but eventually the authorities turn against them. As the narratives begin, the Jewish priests persuade the Roman governor to prohibit Mary from visiting her son’s tomb, as well as securing the authority to banish her from Jerusalem to Bethlehem when she refuses to repent of her sins and confess to lying about her virginal status. When Mary relocates to Bethlehem, the apostles join her. She begins to work great miracles, and word of her power spreads among the people of Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and beyond. The Jewish priests are disturbed by this, and again they approach the Roman governor. When the governor expresses reluctance to act against Mary, the Jews threaten to go over the governor’s head to the emperor himself. Persuaded by their threats, the governor sends Roman troops to seize the Virgin and the apostles in Bethlehem. When the soldiers arrive at Mary’s house in Bethlehem, they find no one: while they were in route, Mary and the apostles were miraculously transported through the air from Bethlehem to her house in Jerusalem. After several days, angels are spotted coming and going from Mary’s house, and the Jews again approach the governor, who acquiesces to their desire to burn the Virgin’s house. When they attempt this, their malice is turned against them: the doors of the Virgin’s house burst open and spew forth flames on the Jewish mob, many of whom died. With this, the governor is suddenly persuaded that the Jews are in the wrong. He spontaneously professes his faith in Christianity and orders that all the people of Jerusalem be gathered before him on the next day. When they assemble, he rebukes the Jews and divides the people into two parties, the “believers” and the “unbelievers,” both of which appear to consist of ethnically Jewish people. Then, the emperor initiates a debate between the two parties over whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. When the “believers” confess Jesus as the Messiah, the governor congratulates them, since “it is not necessary that one of the Emperors should come against you, and force you, and that you should confess the Messiah against your will.”177 In the debate that follows, the believers argue for Jesus’ messiahship against the unbelievers who insist that Jesus was not even on par with the patriarchs 177

Smith Lewis, Apocrypha, Îé (Syr) and 40 (Eng).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 126

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

127

and prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. Although the unbelievers concede that they are unable meet the arguments of the believers, they nevertheless refuse to believe. As a result, the governor has the unbelievers flogged, and he venerates the Virgin. From this point, the stories continue with the traditions of the True Cross, discussed above, in which the governor forces the unbelieving Jews to reveal the location of this relic, which they have disguised as a Jewish relic. In spite of their obvious fictionalization, the imagined relations among Jews, Christians, and the Roman Empire in these events clearly reflect the Jews’ place in Christian society and the relations between real Jews and Christians in late antiquity. At the same time, they also perpetuate certain Christian stereotypes that were important for constructing Christian identity, and more specifically its relationship with the Roman Empire. This series of episodes collapses the long history of Christians relations with the empire into a matter of a few weeks: centuries of changing attitudes are represented as well as prefigured in the events leading up to Roman governor’s sudden conversion. As the narratives open, the Jews stand in favor with the imperial officials. When they initially approach the Roman governor, they successfully secure his authority to act against their enemies, in this case, Mary, who represents the nascent Christian movement. In part, this image accurately represents the relationship that Jews and Christians each had with the empire at an earlier time. While the Jews were extended certain imperial favors, including most notably the freedom from participating in the Roman cults, this was not the case for Christians. By the reign of Severus we can speak of a distinct inequality in the empire’s treatment of Jews and Christians, according to which Judaism was tolerated and Christianity was prohibited and occasionally persecuted.178 Nevertheless, here, as in many other early Christian texts, the source of Christian persecution is identified not with imperial concern for the Roman cults, but rather with the Jews. This is particularly the case in the second incident between the governor and the Jewish priests. Here the governor is initially reluctant to act, but eventually yields, fearing Jewish threats to appeal directly to the emperor, threats which again indicate their imperial favor. Such images of the Jews are certainly nothing new here. Beginning with the New Testament, early Christian 178

Simon, VerusIsrael, 98-107.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 127

30/10/18 09:53

128

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

literature frequently sought to place the blame for its victims on the Jews, deflecting it from its real source: Rome. While we cannot completely rule out the possibility that in some instances the Jews may have played a role, as Paul’s early persecution of the Christians reminds us, it is equally clear that early Christian literature has developed and promoted a stereotype of Jewish instigation and Roman reluctance in the persecution of Christians.179 This is seen, for instance, in the passion narratives, where Pilate’s reluctance finally yields to the Jewish mob, and the Roman centurion’s recognition, “Certainly this man was innocent,”180 contrasts with the machinations of the Sanhedrin to have this “innocent” man condemned. This self-representation was important to early Christianity, as it sought to co-exist with the Roman state. It presented Christianity as a friend of the empire, and not as a movement whose founder was a common criminal executed by the state: Christ and the martyrs had been put to death not for crimes against Rome, but simply because the Jews had deluded the civic authorities into doing so.181 Nevertheless, the Christians of late antiquity continued to value this “myth” of Christian origins, as the early Dormition narratives attest. As Christianity became increasingly intertwined with imperial authority, such images served to normalize this relationship. The portrayed Christian sympathies of Abgar, Tiberius, and the Roman governor attempt to gloss over centuries of Roman antagonism and project the late ancient “symbiosis” of Church and empire back onto the moment of origins. Thus the relationship is made to seem “timeless” and consequently, natural. To any thought of the return of a non-Christian empire, the Christian could respond, pointing to these empathetic rulers as harbingers of an inevitably Christianized empire. Moreover, the actions of these rulers prefigure in many ways the roles that the Christian emperors would come to play in the late ancient church, naturalizing their behavior as well. The Roman governor, for instance, calls for a religious debate in which he decides the outcome. This episode foreshadows the direct intervention of the Christian emperors in Church affairs, in the ecumenical councils as well as elsewhere. Justinian was even so bold as to legislate correct Jewish 179 180 181

Ibid., 115-25. See also Gager, OriginsofAnti-Semitism, 253-6. Luke 23.47 (NRSV). Simon, VerusIsrael, 118-9.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 128

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

129

practice,182 in the same way that the Roman governor involves himself in what is presented as basically an intra-Jewish dispute. And like the Roman authorities of late antiquity, the governor dispenses punishment for religious deviance, scourging the Jewish unbelievers for their refusal to recognize Jesus as Messiah. The transformation in the governor’s attitudes toward Jews and Christians following the debate is especially significant, mythically representing real changes in the Roman Empire’s treatment of Jewish and Christian inhabitants. Until this point in the narrative, the governor’s actions favor the Jews and are done against the Christians. But when the governor converts to Christianity, it is the Christians who suddenly find themselves in favor, while the Jews are persecuted by the authorities. This imaginary turn of events symbolizes the real changes in the relations among Jews, Christians, and the Roman state that took place in the wake of Constantine’s “conversion.” The empire’s Christians, who had only recently been the victims of imperial persecution, suddenly found themselves recipients of imperial patronage. The empire’s Jews, on the other hand, who had before this moment enjoyed a special relationship with Rome (despite occasional disruptions), now find themselves in an increasingly antagonistic relationship with the empire. Although the Jews officially continued to enjoy their special status, as noted above, during the sixth and early seventh centuries, the period during which the Dormition traditions first emerged, relations between the empire and its Jewish inhabitants grew increasingly turbulent, often turning violent. The legendary events of the early Dormition traditions reflect their formation in this historical milieu, representing the imperial authorities and their clients both as sympathetic to Christianity and as violent opponents of Judaism. In this way the early Dormition narratives normalize the real social and political relations of their own time by projecting them back onto the timelessness of origins. That Mary should stand at the center of this mythical antiJudaism is in no way surprising. As discussed above, Mary had by this time acquired significant anti-Jewish associations, specifically in 182

In novella 146, issued in 553, Justinian published instructions on synagogue worship, prohibiting the reading of the Mishnah and the Hebrew Torah and instructing that Torah be read in Greek, preferably in the Septuagint version. For further discussion of this, and perhaps other interventions in Jewish life by Justinian, see Wilken, LandCalledHoly, 204-5.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 129

30/10/18 09:53

130

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

the context of Jewish/Christian debates over her virginity. Perhaps more importantly, however, it was also during this age that Mary emerged as a primary focus of imperial Christian identity: a powerful, celestial patroness whose favors fell especially on the empire, its capital, and its rulers.183 The combination of these two characteristics yielded the portrait of Mary found in the contemporary Dormition narratives. In this time of escalating conflict between the empire and its Jewish inhabitants, when Judaism was increasingly deemed synonymous with political and ideological subversion,184 Mary emerged as a symbol of the Christian empire, the end of whose life embodied the increasing identification of the Jews as an internal “other,” against which Christian religious, social, and political identity was constructed. Thus Mary also appears in an important Jewish text of this age, one that we have already mentioned, the SeferZerubbabel, which identifies the Virgin as a symbol of the Christian empire’s anti-Judaism. This intriguing text was probably composed in the wake of the seventhcentury Persian conquest of Palestine, in which a Jewish “betrayal” of the Roman Empire is purported to have played a key role. According to our admittedly biased Christian sources, the Jews, weary of Roman oppression, welcomed the Persians as liberators and seized the opportunity to even the score, destroying churches and massacring Christians.185 Although modern historians have debated the reliability of many lurid details from the biased Christian accounts, most agree that the Jews of Palestine assisted the Persians and participated in violence against Christians and their houses of worship.186 Such limited 183

See V. Limberis, Divine Heiress: The Virgin Mary and the Creation ofChristianConstantinople (New York, 1994); Cameron, “The Theotokos”; eadem, “The Virgin’s Robe: An Episode in the History of Early SeventhCentury Constantinople,” Byz 49 (1979) 42-56; eadem, “Images of Authority,” 22-3; Holum, TheodosianEmpresses, 227-8. 184 Haldon, Byzantium, 347. 185 For discussion of the various accounts, see Dagron and Déroche, “Juifs et Chrétiens,” 22-8; R. Schick, TheChristianCommunitiesofPalestinefrom Byzantine to Islamic Rule (Princeton, 1995) 26-31; Wilken, Land Called Holy, 202-7; Horowitz, “The Vengeance of the Jews”; Wheeler, “Imagining the Sassanian Capture.” 186 “Coming as these statements do from Christian writers who were outraged at Jewish collaboration in the plundering of the holy city, they no doubt exaggerate the role of the Jews in the conquest. Christian feelings were running

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 130

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

131

archeological evidence as we have seems to substantiate the reports of Jewish military activity and destruction of churches in the areas of Acre and Tyre,187 and differences of opinion among modern historians “have often revolved less around what actually happened than around how much should be told and how.”188 The SeferZerubbabel offers a sort of retelling of these events, one which has recast them in the mythological time and language of apocalyptic. The result of this transformation, however, is not, as Brannon Wheeler explains, “a messianic fantasy which leaves behind reality and devotes itself to a suppositious prediction of the future.”189 Rather, the SeferZerubbabel is an attempt to deal with historical reality in terms of the cultural categories that were available for making sense of what had happened. Thus, it presents the events of the Persian conquest as seen through the eyes of a contemporary Jewish apocalypticist, in an account with some striking similarities the Christian texts discussed above.190 On the one hand, it seems to confirm Christian reports of Jewish involvement in Persia’s defeat of the Christian armies, but more importantly, it paints a picture of the Virgin Mary as a focus of imperial identity and anti-Judaism, distinguishing her as a focus of Jewish, as well as Christian, self-definition. Near the beginning of Zerubbabel’s visions, the angel Michael/ Metatron comes to him and reveals to him the events that are to take place at the end of time. First among these are “acts of salvation” performed by the mother of the Messiah, Hephzibah, who we are told will defeat “two kings whose hearts are set on doing evil. The names of the two kings: Nof, king of Yemen, who will wave his hand at high. Yet there is no reason to doubt that Jews took the side of the Persians. What role they played is more difficult to asses;” Wilken, LandCalledHoly, 206-7; see also Dagron and Déroche, “Juifs et Chrétiens,” 22. 187 Schick, ChristianCommunitiesofPalestine, 26-31. 188 Horowitz, “The Vengeance of the Jews.” In this interesting article, Horowitz links 19th century efforts to minimize Jewish military involvement with an “orientalist” feminization of the Jews, and similar late 20th century efforts with sensitivity to depictions of Jewish violence against non-Jews and “a desire on the part of many Israelis to see themselves as enlightened and human occupiers in the present.” 189 Wheeler, “Imagining the Sassanian Capture,” 81-2. 190 On this text, see now the important study by Martha Himmelfarb: Jewish MessiahsinaChristianEmpire:AHistoryoftheBookofZerubbabel (Cambridge, Mass., 2017).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 131

30/10/18 09:53

132

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Jerusalem. The name of the second, Iszinan, king of Antioch.”191 These “prophecies” refer to events of the Persian conquest, here ascribed to a Jewish agent, Hephzibah, which seems to support the claims of Jewish involvement in the Christian sources.192 More intriguing, however, is the prominent role played by Hephzibah, the mother of the Messiah, here and elsewhere in the text. In the passage above she is credited with defeating the evil kings, which probably represents the actual Persian defeat of both an Arab invasion and the Romans at Antioch in 611.193 As Martha Himmelfarb notes in the introduction to her English translation of the text, “nowhere else in Jewish messianic speculation is the mother of the Messiah so important a figure.”194 Himmelfarb explains this figure’s unusual significance in the SeferZerubbabel as an effort to promote Hephzibah as a Jewish counterpart to the Virgin Mary.195 This is an attractive hypothesis, given the strongly negative references to the Virgin also found in the SeferZerubbabel. Having recognized in Mary, the mother of the false Messiah, a powerful symbol of the imperial persecutors, the SeferZerubbabel attempts to focus Jewish identity around the mother of the true Messiah, who will at the end of time deliver the Jewish people from their affliction. Although allusions to Mary are scattered throughout the text, she makes her most dramatic appearance when Michael/Metatron transports Zerubbabel to “the house of disgrace and merrymaking,” i.e., a Christian church. There he beholds “a marble statue in the shape of a virgin. The beauty of her appearance was wonderful to behold.”196 Not entirely understanding what he has seen, the angel who is his guide explains: “This statue is the wife of Belial,” he said, “Satan will come and lie with her, and she will bear a son named Armilos. He will destroy the people. In the Hebrew language … He will rule over all, and his dominion will reach from one end of the earth to the other. There will be ten letters in 191

SeferZerubbabel (Levi, “L’Apocalypse” (1914), 134; Himmelfarb, “Sefer Zerubbabel,” 73). 192 Wheeler, “Imagining the Sassanian Capture,” 73-74. 193 Ibid. 194 Himmelfarb, “Sefer Zerubbabel,” 69. 195 Ibid.; and now Himmelfarb: JewishMessiahs, 35-59. This is echoed in Wilken, TheLandCalledHoly, 210. 196 SeferZerubbabel (Lévi, “L’Apocalypse” (1914), 136; Himmelfarb, “Sefer Zerubbabel,” 75).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 132

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

133

his hand. He will worship strange gods and speak falsehood. No one will be able to stand before him. He will slay by the sword anyone who does not believe in him, and he will slay many of them. He will attack the men of the holy ones of the Most High with the help of ten kings, in might and great strength. He will make war on the holy ones and destroy them. He will kill the Messiah son of Joseph, Nehemiah son of Hushiel and sixteen righteous men with him.”197

Unquestionably, this statue of a beautiful virgin that Zerubbabel beholds in the church is a representation of the Virgin Mary,198 whose “virginity” is at first strangely affirmed in this Jewish text, only then to be compromised by her intercourse with Satan. Despite her “virginity” and beauty, however, she is an entirely negative figure who ultimately bears responsibility for the destruction of the Jewish nation, accomplished by her son, “Armilos.” “Armilos,” however, is not Christ, as one might expect at first glance, but is rather a prominent figure of medieval Jewish apocalyptic who represents the political and spiritual head of the “evil” Roman Empire.199 His descent here from “the virgin” is indicative of the extent to which imperial identity had become joined to the Virgin Mary, in Jewish eyes as much as in Christian. In this vision the Virgin is literally the mother of the Roman Empire, a role she filled symbolically as the empire’s celestial patroness. Other references to this “virgin” in the Sefer Zerubbabel equally suggest a Jewish awareness of the Virgin’s role in imperial Christian identity, such as the angel’s prophecy that “Armilos will then take his mother, the stone from which he was born, out of the house of disgrace of the scoffers. From all over, the nations will come to worship that stone, burn incense, and pour libations to her. No one will be able to look upon her face because of her beauty. Whoever does not bow down to her will die, suffering like an animal.”200 Commentators have often seen this passage as a reference to the early Byzantine practice of carrying images of the Virgin to protect 197

Ibid. See, e.g., Himmelfarb, “Sefer Zerubbabel,” 68-69; I. Lévi, “L’Apocalypse de Zorobabel et le Roi de Perse Siroès (Suiteetfin),” RevuedesÉtudes Juives 71 (1920) 58-61. 199 Ibid. 200 SeferZerubbabel (Lévi, “Sefer Zerubbabel” (1914), 143; Himmelfarb, “Sefer Zerubbabel,” 80). 198

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 133

30/10/18 09:53

134

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

cities under siege or armies in battle.201 Heraclius, who is almost certainly the historical Armilos of this apocalypse, is reported to have carried a statue of the Virgin into battle, at least on one occasion,202 and perhaps this was also done during his reconquest of the Near East, as the SeferZerubbabel’s author seems to report. In any case, this passage seems to reflect an awareness of the Virgin’s particularly anti-Jewish status: the Jewish refusal to bow down before her is identified as a specific cause of their persecution by the empire. In the SeferZerubbabel, however, this anti-Jewish status is inverted, and the Virgin is transformed into an anti-imperial, anti-Christian symbol. In the SeferZerubbabel then the Jewish “attack” on Mary is no longer primarily a back-door attack on Christ aimed at challenging the legitimacy of his birth, as it was in earlier Jewish sources, but has now become instead an attack directed against the Christian empire, presumably in response to its intense persecution of the Jews during the previous century. In this age of forced baptism,203 the Christian state posed a potent threat to the continued existence of the Jewish people, a threat here identified with “Armilos” and the Virgin. Thus, in Zerubbabel’s vision of Jewish resistance and identity, Mary has become for the Jews, as she had recently become for the Christians as well, a symbol of the Christian empire and its military might. Here the Virgin has become for Jews, as she already was for Christians, a potent anti-Jewish symbol who marks a major boundary between Christianity and its Jewish source and symbolizes Christian violence against the Jews. 5. Conclusions The image of the Jews in the ancient Dormition traditions developed against a background of intense Jewish and Christian conflict in late antiquity, in both political and religious spheres. The period in which these traditions emerged saw increasingly hostile relations between the Jews and the Christian empire, beginning with the aggressive legal 201

Himmelfarb, “Sefer Zerubbabel,” 69, 82 n. 11; Lévi, “Sefer Zerubbabel” (1920), 60. See also the discussion of this practice in Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images,” 110-2. 202 Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images,” 111. 203 See above n. 35.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 134

30/10/18 09:53

JEWS IN THE EARLY DORMITION TRADITIONS

135

anti-Judaism of Justinian and concluding in the early seventh century with the Jewish betrayal of Jerusalem into Persian hands, the forced baptism of Heraclius, and the final loss of most of the Near East, with its large Jewish population, to the Arab conquest. Against this political backdrop, we find that from the second century onward, the Jews had, to the Christian mind at least, “slandered” the Virgin’s character with allegations of her sexual impurity. In response to this accusation, defense of the Virgin’s character and her virginity became an important focus of the ideological conflict between ancient Jews and Christians. Nor was this missed by the Jews themselves, who recognized in Mary a violently anti-Jewish figure. Consequently, she figures prominently as a symbol of the empire in the SeferZerubbabel’s reaction to the imperial persecution of the previous century. The overall effect of this representation is to identify the Jews as an internal “other” in an increasingly Christian society. This is perhaps most explicit in those early narratives that retroject imperial sympathies for Christianity and the persecution of Jews into the first century. Here, the Jews are identified as menacing enemies of the Christians, who are to be punished by civil authorities who have embraced the “truth” of the Christian faith. More subtle, however, are the ways in which portrayed Jewish antagonism toward certain aspects of Christian piety has this effect. Each focus of Christian devotion that the Jews are shown to oppose has strong ties with the empire specifically. The tomb of Christ, for instance, to which Mary returns to pray, was in late antiquity very much an “imperial” shrine. Under Constantine’s imperial patronage, it had been excavated and adorned with a church more splendid that all the other buildings of the world. This was to be a “new Temple” that was for Christian identity what the “old” Temple had been for the Jews.204 Likewise, the True Cross was a decidedly imperial relic, whose discovery by the empress Helen, Constantine’s mother, was well known.205 In the early Dormition traditions, the Cross is “prediscovered” by the proto-Christian Roman governor, but then is reburied, presumably to await Helen’s fourth-century “rediscovery.” Once rediscovered, the nails found with the Cross were supposedly included in the emperor’s bridle and helmet, solidifying the Cross’ symbolism “of the heavenly alliance between the emperor and the 204 205

See the discussion in Wilken, TheLandCalledHoly, 83-100. Drijvers, HelenaAugusta, 81-93.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 135

30/10/18 09:53

136

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Christian God.”206 Finally, the Virgin herself was, as we have already noted, a powerful imperial symbol and heavenly patroness, and these images of Jewish animosity for her clearly mark them as enemies of the Christian empire. The Jewish attempt to burn her body suggests this most powerfully: indeed, this episode alone can well summarize the image of the Jews as they appear in the early Dormition traditions. It exemplifies the three major themes that we have traced here. It not only represents a naked hatred by the Jews for the Virgin, but their motivation is identified in their fear of the power of her relics. More importantly, however, this attack on Mary’s body is equally an attack on the social body, on the Christian society that Mary represents. Thus, the early Dormition traditions portray the Jews as dangerous enemies of the Christian state, deserving of diving punishment, which it was the state’s duty to exact. It is an image of the Jews which, unfortunately, was to persist and thrive in the subsequent history of Christianity, particularly in the context of Marian devotion.

206

Ibid., 182.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_05.indd 136

30/10/18 09:53

VI. Rethinking the “Gnostic Mary”: Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala in Early Christian Tradition1

“When women interpret texts, several things happen. The text no longer has a fixed meaning. The text may reveal women as subject; hitherto neglected elements may emerge. The text in turn becomes the subject of self-conscious critical inquiry. This invariably discloses the politics of knowledge – the environment of the text and how that shapes interpretation; the use and control of the text, and so on.”2 Thus Deirdre Good begins her article on PistisSophia in Searchingthe Scriptures, a feminist commentary on various early Christian writings, with contributions from a number of prominent scholars. In the essay that follows, I hope to demonstrate that such modes of reading are not necessarily sex-linked characteristics. I propose that we should reconsider the relatively “fixed identity” that most previous scholarship has given to an early Christian woman known from our texts simply as 1

Previous versions of this article were presented at the AAR Southeast Regional Meeting, Knoxville, 3/98, and the North American Patristics Society Annual Meeting, Chicago, 5/98. I would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions to this article: Melissa M. Aubin, Jorunn Jacobson Buckley, Elizabeth A. Clark, Philip Sellew, Karen King, who kindly fowarded her comments on an earlier version of this argument that appeared in my dissertation. For my most recent thinking on this topic, see S. J. Shoemaker, MaryinEarlyChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016) 73-99. One should also see my closely related articles, S. J. Shoemaker, “A Case of Mistaken Identity?: Naming the Gnostic Mary,” in F. S. Jones (ed.), Which Mary?:TheMarysofEarlyChristianTradition (Atlanta, 2002) 5-30; and S. J. Shoemaker, “Jesus’ Gnostic Mom: Mary of Nazareth and the Gnostic Mary Traditions,” in D. Good (ed.), Mariam,theMagdalen,andtheMother (Bloomington, 2005) 153-83, neither of which appears in this volume. 2 D. Good, “Pistis Sophia,” in E. Schüssler Fiorenza (ed.),Searchingthe Scriptures, 2 vols. (New York, 1993-94) 2:678.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 137

29/10/18 13:02

138

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

“Mary.” This Mary is a prominent character in many early Christian apocrypha, including several so-called “gnostic”3 texts, where she frequently appears as an associate or rival of the apostles, who is filled with knowledge of the “gnostic” mysteries. Only rarely is a specific Mary indicated by these texts, and in such instances, both Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala are present, making uncertain the identification of “Mary,” when she is otherwise unnamed. Nevertheless, students of early Christianity have by now grown quite comfortable with the notion that this figure represents Mary of Magdala and not Mary of Nazareth. So pervasive has this identification become that one might hardly think to question it. In fact, it is somewhat difficult to challenge this interpretation, since it is often assumed or asserted rather than explained,4 making it sometimes 3

On the various problems surrounding the use of the terms “gnostic” and “gnosticism,” one should now see the important contribution by M. A. Williams, RethinkingGnosticism:AnArgumentforDismantlingaDubiousCategory (Princeton, 1996) esp. ch. 2. Despite Williams’ arguments, I am determined to continue using this admittedly problematic term in the absence of any better alternative. Although Williams successfully demonstrates the incredible diversity that often passes under the label gnosticism, Williams’ proposed replacement, “biblical demiurgical traditions,” is, in my opinion, unsatisfactory. Its main problems lie in Williams’ focus on biblical and demiurgical tradition, while excluding the importance of “gnosis” or knowledge in these traditions. Williams’ category is at once to narrow and too broad, since biblical demiurgy would include, in addition to much traditionally “gnostic” material, both Philo and Arius. While Williams’ construct presents an intellectually stimulating perspective on these tradition, it does not succeed as a definition of a particular traditoin, in my opinion. I think that a more useful category would be “esoteric-demiurgic traditions,” since many “gnostic” traditions are not biblical, but nevertheless do place a strong emphasis on salvific knowledge. I have dealt with Williams’ arguments at more length in S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormitionandAssumption (Oxford, 2002) 205-55. There I conclude that while the term “gnosticism” is best avoided, I will continue to use “gnostic,” based largely on the reasoning given in K. Rudolph, “‘Gnosis’ and ‘Gnosticism’ – The Problems of their Definition and their Relation to the Writings of the New Testament,” in GnosisundSpätantikeReligionsgeschichte:GesammelteAufsätze (Leiden, 1996) 34-52. 4 See J. K. Coyle, “Mary Magdalene in Manichaeism?” Mus 104 (1991) 4142, where he notes that despite this figure’s significant ambiguities, “undaunted, virtually all commentators on the Gnostic writings identify their ‘Mary’ (or

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 138

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

139

unclear exactly what one is arguing against.5 But this interpretive dogma is not so unproblematic as its repetition might make it appear; under scrutiny, it is seen to be decidedly less certain than most scholars have heretofore presented it. As this chapter will argue, several aspects of the early Christian tradition make it difficult to rule Mary of Nazareth completely out of consideration. Among these is Mary of Nazareth’s importance in the canonical gospels, where her significance may not surpass, but certainly rivals that of Mary Magdalene.6 Likewise, the frequent confusion of these two figures in early Christian literature should caution against any easy assumption that their identities are carefully distinguished in these particular texts. More significant, however, are a number of overlooked traditions from late antiquity that link Mary of Nazareth with the gnostic Mary traditions, often imagining her in roles similar to those of the gnostic Mary. These witnesses, when combined with a careful reading of the gnostic Mary traditions themselves, make a strong case that the gnostic Mary may quite reasonably be identified with the Virgin rather than the Magdalene, by both modern and ancient interpreters. The uncertainties of the gnostic Mary’s identification with the Magdalene have not gone entirely unnoticed. For instance, Enzo Lucchesi has challenged this interpretive orthodoxy, arguing briefly that scholars have perhaps too hastily removed Mary of Nazareth from consideration in identifying the Mary who is the Gospelaccordingto Mary’s central character.7 In proposing this he has (perhaps unknowingly) essentially revived Ernest Renan’s earlier suggestion that the one of them) as the Magdalene, although this identifaction is explicit only in (The Gospel according to Philip) and Pistis Sophia”; as we will see, however, the identity of “Mary” even in these texts is more complex than Coyle here suggests. 5 The closest thing that I have found to a systematic investigation of the matter would be A. Marjanen, TheWomanJesusLoved:MaryMagdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents (Leiden, 1996). Nevertheless, this work too seems to assume more than it argues on this matter, and, as I have argued elsewhere, it relies too heavily on a supposed distinction between the use of the names “Maria” and “Mariam,” which I have shown to be falsely made in Shoemaker, “A Case of Mistaken Identity?” 6 See also ibid. 7 E. Lucchesi, “Évangile selon Marie ou Évangile selon Marie-Madeleine?” AB 103 (1985) 366.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 139

29/10/18 13:02

140

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

“gnostic Mary” of the PistisSophia is not to be identified with the Magdalene, but rather, with the mother of Jesus,8 a proposal deserving serious reconsideration. In both of these apocrypha, the evidence favoring a possible identification of this “gnostic” Mary with the Virgin is actually quite strong and has unfortunately been long overlooked by students of early Christian apocrypha. Despite Renan’s early suggestion, scholars have persistently followed the lead of Schmidt, who explicitly rejected Renan’s interpretation and identified this figure with the Magdalene.9 In order to justify his conclusion, Schmidt appealed to the form of the name Mary used as determining Mary’s identity as a given point in the text.10 From Schmidt’s early commentaries, the firm notion has developed that the forms of the name Mariam and Mariamme, as opposed to Maria, reliably indicate the Magdalene’s presence, with some scholars even going so far as to assert that Mary of Nazareth is always specifically identified in early Christian literature, making any unspecified Mary a reference to Mary of Magdala. In discussions of the gnostic Mary’s identity, one finds this sort of argumentation everywhere: it is always a primary argument, and with very few exceptions,11 it is usually the 8

E. Renan, HistoiredesoriginesduChristianisme, 6th ed, vol. 7, Marc- Aurèleetlafindumondeantique (Paris, 1891) 145 n. 1. 9 C. Schmidt (ed.), Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus dem CodexBrucianus (Leipzig, 1892) 453-54 at n. 1 and 597, esp. n. 2. 10 Although it is somewhat difficult to trace the development of this hermeneutic principle, it appears to have its origin in Schmidt’s early decisions concerning the different Marys of the PistisSophia. Firstly, Schmidt suggests that the character known simply as Mary in the PistisSophia is always to be identified as Mary of Magdala, whether or not her identity as the Magdalene is specified, while the mother of Jesus is present in the dialogue only when Mary of Nazareth is explicitly indicated. Schmidt’s second contribution was to identify this Mary with a woman (or perhaps women?) named Mariamme, whom Origen (actually, Celsus) and Hippolytus associate with early Christian heterodoxy. Presumably, it was this equation that birthed the notion that the names Mariamme and, by association (?), Mariam were infallible indicators of the Magdalene’s presence in a text. See especially ibid., 452-54, 563-64. 11 This is true espcecially of K. L. King, “The Gospel of Mary Magdalene,” in Searching the Scriptures, 2:618-20, and seemingly also of M. Tardieu, Écritsgnostiques:CodexdeBerlin (Paris, 1984), who for the most part simply assumes this, but at one point he does suggest that her identity is related to her status as the first witness to the resurrection (225).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 140

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

141

only evidence of this woman’s identity that is offered.12 These principles (and the first especially) figure prominently, for instance, in Antti Marjanen’s study, TheWomanJesusLoved:MaryMagdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents (see n. 5 above). Here Marjanen relies heavily on a supposedly firm distinction in the usage of these different nominal variants, identifying Mariam, Mariamme, and any unspecified Mary in general as failsafe indicators of the Magdalene.13 12

Schmidt’s conclusions are often cited in this context (see n. 9 above), and while he is not as clear on the Mariam/Mariamme/Maria distinction, he does seemingly generate the notion that an otherwise unidentified Mary is to be equated with the Magdalene. See also S. Petersen, ‘ZerstörtdieWerke derWeiblichkeit’:MariaMagdalena,SalomeundandereJüngerinnenJesu in christlich-gnostischen Schriften (Leiden, 1999) 94; A. Pasquier, L’ÉvangileselonMarie (Quebec, 1983) 23, n. 75; Coyle, “Mary Magdalene in Manichaeism”; S. Haskins, MaryMagdalene:MythandMetaphor (New York, 1993) 37; R. Atwood, MaryMagdaleneintheNewTestamentGospelsand Early Tradition (Bern, 1993) 186-96, largely assumes the identity of this figure with the Magdalene, but the repeated emphasis on the form of the name seems to suggest that Atwood has this principle in mind; E. de Boer, Mary Magdalene: Beyond the Myth (Harrisburg, 1997) 81; R. Schmid, MariaMagdalenaingnostischenSchriften (Munich, 1990) 93, n. 9 and 101, n. 29, addresses the question of Mary’s identity in light of the variant names, further explaining “Daß dabei jedoch immer M[aria] M[agdalena] gemeint ist zeigt die Tatsache, daß es keine Stelle gibt, an der die Charakterisierung der Frau eher auf die Mutter als auf M[aria] M[agdalena] zutreffen würde, diese aber nicht als solche bezeichnet wird. Die Mutter Maria ist immer als solche genau bestimmt”; F. Bovon, “Le privilège pascal de MarieMadeleine,” NTS 30 (1984) 50-62, repeatedly emphasizes the significance of the form of the name, assuming its importance, without ever really explaining why. 13 This argument is most prominently featured in Marjanen’s discussion of TheSophiaofJesusChrist, where he explains the importance of the different variants (Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 62-63), a passage that is often cross-referenced in discussion of subsequent texts. Other texts for which this is the primary or only argument given for Mary’s identity with the Magdalene include: TheGospelaccordingtoThomas (ibid., 39);TheGospelAccording toMary (94-95); TheFirstApocalypseofJames (131); PistisSophia(173-74 and 184, n. 43); TheManicheanPsalmBook (206-7; see especially n. 11 here, where the importance of name spelling is emphasized). Although Marjanen sometimes gives the appearance of relying on other criteria, such as conflict with the Apostles (GospelaccordingtoThomas), the “Philip group,” (Sophia

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 141

29/10/18 13:02

142

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

As I have demonstrated elsewhere, however, these names absolutely do not provide a reliable means of distinguishing between these two women.14 Likewise, in this same article I have also treated the representation of these two women in the canonical gospels, evidence that is often adduced as somehow favoring of the gnostic Mary’s identity with the Magdalene. This article argues that, on the contrary, the gospel traditions are in fact inconclusive, offering evidence able to support equally either woman’s claim to this role.15 Leaving these two important issues behind us, the present article will consider both the gnostic Mary traditions themselves and various other late ancient traditions suggesting Mary of Nazareth’s possible identity with the gnostic Mary. The case that I will present, however, is not meant so much to depose the Magdalene from this position and replace her with Mary of Nazareth as it is to raise the hermeneutic question of whether this figure might reasonably be (or might have been) identified with Mary of Nazareth. Although I will at times argue vigorously for the gnostic Mary’s identification with Mary of Nazareth, my arguments are intended to be probative, rather than definitive, suggesting a new direction of thought, instead of closing off completely a more traditional interpretation. As will become apparent in the ensuing discussion, there is much to suggest that the gnostic Mary is in fact a composite figure, and that she has absorbed elements of both the Magdalene’s and the Virgin’s identities. Her simple identification with one or the other figure simply cannot accomodate all of the evidence. 1. Mary of Nazareth as Apostola Apostolorum in Early Syrian Christianity In spite of the relatively equal importance shared by these two Marys in the New Testament, certain scholars have appealed to the risen Christ’s appearance to the Magdalene at the close of the fourth gospel ofJesusChrist) etc., many of these will be seen to rest ultimately on decisions about Mary’s identity in other texts, where the decision is based primarily on this criterion. 14 On this point, see Shoemaker, “Case of Mistaken Identity?” In response to a paper delivered at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the SBL (on which this article is largely based), Marjanen freely conceded this point, although he maintained reservations in regards to other points of my argumentation. 15 Ibid.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 142

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

143

as something of a trump card, outweighing any other biblical evidence to establish Mary Magdalene’s identification with the gnostic Mary.16 Here Christ instructs Mary Magdalene to announce his resurrection to the apostles, effectively making her an “apostola apostolorum,” an event that does indeed suggest an important role for the Magdalene in the early community. When this is combined with the apostles’ skepticism at her report (in Luke and the longer ending of Mark), the Magdalene’s composite begins to look something like the gnostic Mary, who is often in conflict with certain of the apostles (especially Peter). Moreover, at least one scholar, Antti Marjanen, has added to this a claim that the risen Savior’s appearance to his mother is unprecedented in early Christian literature, arguing that this makes unlikely Mary of Nazareth’s identification with the gnostic Mary. The gnostic Mary frequently appears in conversation with the risen Christ, and while the fourth gospel offers precedent for Christ’s appearance to the Magdalene, Marjanen maintains that there is no similar evidence for an early Christian tradition of Christ’s appearance to his mother following the resurrection.17 Marjanen’s conclusions are somewhat overstated, however, and they depend very much on how one views the importance of certain data that suggest the contrary. Attesting to the contrary, there is a well-attested Patristic tradition of Christ’s postresurrection appearance to this mother, a tradition that begins with Tatian’s Diatessaron and comes to engulf early Syrian Christianity. One can add to this tradition a number of apocrypha (especially in Coptic), including the PistisSophia for instance, where the Mary of Nazareth is, together with the apostles, a privileged interlocutor in dialogues with her risen son.18 Marjanen’s argument is far too dismissive of this body of evidence, which can be seen as strongly supporting Mary of Nazareth’s identification with the gnostic Mary. The most important component of this tradition is the early and influential tradition in the Syrian church that after his resurrection Christ appeared first to his mother, Mary of Nazareth, and not the Magdalene.19 Although some uncertainty surrounds the origins of this tradition, it almost certainly dates back at least as far as Tatian’s Diatessaron, 16

See, e.g., King, “Gospel of Mary Magdalene,” 618. Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 94-5 n. 2. 18 Lucchesi, “Évangile selon Marie.” 19 This is well discussed in R. Murray, SymbolsofChurchandKingdom: AStudyinEarlySyriacTradition (London, 1975) 329-35. 17

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 143

29/10/18 13:02

144

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

composed sometime between 150-180.20 Although often considered a “harmony” of the four canonical gospels, the Diatessaron is better understood as a gospel in its own right rather than a derivative synthesis.21 In any case, it is clear that the Diatessaron quickly became the primary gospel text of Syrian church and remained so during the third and fourth centuries, after which time it was itself gradually supplanted by the four canonical gospels.22 As a result of its displacement, no complete copy of the Diatessaron has survived,23 and consequently its contents have to be determined indirectly, based largely on the testimony of several second and third-hand witnesses. Only when a number of these converge can we obtain a high degree of certainty that a particular tradition was present in the Diatessaron, and in the case of the risen Christ’s appearance to his mother, we are fortunate that the assemblage of witnesses to this tradition is extraordinarily reliable. An important witnesses to this tradition is Ephrem’s commentary on the Diatessaron, one of our primary sources for knowledge of its contents. In his commentary, Ephrem frequently quotes the text of the Diatessaron, and we are fortunate that he does so particularly in the case of the empty tomb’s discovery and the appearance of the risen Lord to “Mary.” In contrast to John’s gospel, however, Tatian’s 20

When one dates the Diatessaron depends a great deal on where and in what language one supposes it to have been composed. See the discussions in A. Vööbus, EarlyVersionsoftheNewTestament:ManuscriptStudies (Stockholm, 1954) 1-6; B. M. Metzger, TheEarlyVersionsoftheNewTestament, 30-32; W. L. Petersen, “The Diatessaron of Tatian,” in in B. D. Ehrman and M. W. Holmes (eds), TheTextoftheNewTestamentinContemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, 1995) 77-96; and C. McCarthy (trans.), SaintEphrem’sCommentaryontheDiatessaron (Oxford, 1993) 3-7. 21 F. Watson, “Towards a Redaction-Critical Reading of the Diatessaron Gospel,” EarlyChristianity 7 (2016) 95-112. 22 Vööbus, EarlyVersionsoftheNewTestament, 22-7; L. Leloir, Éphrem de Nisibe: Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant ou Diatessaron (Paris, 1966) 20; McCarthy, SaintEphrem’sCommentary, 7-8. 23 According to a famous passage from Theodoret of Cyrrhus (d. 458), 200 of the 800 churches in his North-Syrian diocese were still using the Diatessaron instead of the separate gospels. Theodoret put an end to this by rounding up and destroying these copies of the Diatessaron and replacing them with the four gospels, cf.. Theodoret, haer. 1.20 (PG 83, 372A).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 144

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

145

second-century harmony (as Ephrem cites it), fails to identify this woman with Mary of Magdala, naming her only as “Mary,” without further clarification. Moreover, when he comes to comment on Christ’s appearance to “Mary,” Ephrem considers Christ’s command that Mary not touch him, for which he offers the following explanation: “Why, therefore, did he prevent Mary from touching him? Perhaps it was because he had confided her to John in his place, Woman, behold your son.”24 With this interpretation, Ephrem unambiguously identifies the woman to whom Christ first appeared, this apostola apostolorum, not with the Magdalene, but clearly with Mary of Nazareth, whom Christ had entrusted to the care of his beloved disciple. Initially, several scholars expressed reservations about this tradition, maintaining that it was probably Ephrem’s own invention. Nevertheless, some of these very doubters have since been persuaded to accept the tradition as dependent on the Diatessaron, a point that is now generally conceded, thanks in large part to the work of Robert Murray.25 Murray and others scholars have identified a substantial body of collateral evidence that has put this objection to rest, demonstrating with near certainty that this variant was present in Tatian’s harmony and was not invented by Ephrem.26 The most important confirmation of this variant’s antiquity comes from the assorted other witnesses on which scholars rely to determine the content of the Diatessaron. Each of the most important witnesses to Tatian’s gospel harmony agrees with Ephrem’s commentary > > ÍäáýsxâÔãüÃÝÍàuüù¿ćàxåÙüäà ÍáÝâÚÝz¿çäà ÛÝü Àz åà ÀĀæs zĀÝ{Ë èçÐÎÚà Ephrem, Commentaryon theDiatessaron 21.27 (L. Leloir, O.S.B. (ed.), SaintÉphrem,Commentaire de l’Évangile concordat: Texte syriaque (MS Chester Beatty 709) (Dublin, 1963) 228. Translation: McCarthy, SaintEphrem’sCommentary, 331). 25 Louis Leloir initially considered this to be Ephrem’s invention, but later changed his mind, at the influence of Robert Murray, and came to recognize the antiquity of this variant: Leloir, Éphrem de Nisibe, 75, n. 3. William L. Petersen notes the possibility that this variant is the work of Ephrem, yet without going so far as to dispute its authenticity in his TheDiatessaron andEphremSyrusasSourcesofRomanostheMelodist (Louvain, 1985) 191, n. 97. 26 In addition to what follows, see also T. Baarda, TheGospelQuotations ofAphrahatthePersianSage (Amsterdam, 1975) 1:254-57, where this is quite thoroughly argued. 24

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 145

29/10/18 13:02

146

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

in identifying this apostola apostolorum simply as Mary, as well as implying her distinction from the Magdalene. The medieval Arabic translations of the Diatessaron, for instance, fail to specify this “Mary’s” identity in their reproduction of John 20.1-17. Then, following their report of Christ’s appearance to “Mary” from John, the Arabic translations suddenly switch to Mark 16.9b, with which they introduce Mary Magdalene as if she were a completely different person from the woman to whom Christ first appeared.27 This creates a very strong impression for the reader that the Mary who beheld the risen Christ was someone other than Mary of Magdala, possibly suggesting she is Mary of Nazareth, who was also involved in the events of the crucifixion. Such very well may have been the text that stood before Ephrem, prompting him to conclude that Christ’s mother, rather than the Magdalene, was the recipient of this Christophany. The Old Syriac version of the gospels is a second crucial witness to the text of the Diatessaron that offers similar confirmation of this variant. These translations were probably realized during the second century, at approximately the same time that Tatian was composing his gospel harmony, a text with which they have a close, if complicated, relationship.28 No doubt because of the early dominance of the Diatessaron, which was later diplaced by the establishment of the Peshitta version, the Old Syriac version is preserved by just two codices, both of which contain extensive fragments of the gospels. Only one of these preserves sections of the gospel of John, and we are fortunate that the conclusion has survived. This late fourth or early fifth-century palimpsest from Sinai (one of the earliest manuscripts of the gospels in any language),29 agrees with Ephrem in naming the 27

A. S. Marmardji, O.P. (ed.), DiatessarondeTatien:Textearabeétabli, traduitenfrançais,collationnéaveclesanciennesversionssyriaques,suivi d’unévangéliairediatessariquesyriaqueetaccompagnédequatreplanches hors texte (Beirut, 1935) 508-10; see also A. Ciasca (ed.), ‫دتاطاسارون الذي‬ ‫ جمعه طظيانوس من المبشرين الاربعة‬Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae Arabice (Rome, 1888) 200-201. 28 The date of this translation is also uncertain, and depends primarily on how one understands the relation of the Old Syriac version to the Diatessaron, with which it is somehow linked. See the discussions in Vööbus, Early VersionsoftheNewTestament, 73-88; and Metzger, EarlyVersionsofthe NewTestament, 36-48 at 45-47. 29 For the date, see Vööbus, EarlyVersionsoftheNewTestament, 74; and Metzger, EarlyVersionsoftheNewTestament, 38.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 146

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

147

woman of John 20.11-18 simply as Mary and failing to identify her with the Magdalene.30 The relationships among Tatian’s Diatessaron, the different Arabic versions of the Diatessaron, and the Old Syriac version are admittedly complex, but this assortment of witnesses is sufficient to assure us that this tradition almost certainly reaches back to Tatian. As Bruce Metzger explains: When one or more of these witnesses [MSS B E O of the Arabic Diatessaron] implies a Syriac text different from the Peshitta, particularly when such readings agree with the Old Syriac and/or with other Diatessaric witnesses, we may with some measure of confidence regard such readings as genuine Tatianic remnants.31

Metzger later adds that “such a possibility becomes a probability with overwhelming compulsion when Ephraem and other witnesses…add their support.”32 Such is the case with Christ’s appearance to “Mary”: it is attested by the best Arabic manuscripts of the Diatessaron, the Old Syriac, and Ephrem’s commentary, making its presence in Tatian’s harmony extremely probable. This reading is further corroborated by a number of early Syrian witnesses, as studies by Robert Murray and Tjitze Baarda have shown, including the following: the Syriac Didascalia, the second Ps.-Clementine EpistleonVirginity, John Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Jacob of Serug, Severus of Antioch, 30

A. Smith Lewis, TheOldSyriacGospelsorEvangelionda-Mepharreshe (London, 1910) 264; F. C. Burkitt, Evangelionda-Mepharreshe, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1904) 1:528. 31 Metzger, EarlyVersionsoftheNewTestament, 17. Similar principles are espoused by A. J. B. Higgins, “The Persian and Arabic Gospel Harmonies,” in K. Alandetal. (eds), StudiaEvangelica:PaperspresentedtotheInternational Congress on “The Four Gospels in 1957” held at Christ Church, Oxford,1957 (Berlin, 1959) 793-810 at 799; idem, “Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Arabic and Persian Harmonies,” in J. K. Elliott (ed.), StudiesinNewTestamentLanguageandText:EssaysinHonourofGeorgeD.Kilpatrickonthe Occasionofhissixty-fifthBirthday (Leiden, 1976) 246-61 at 255; A. Baumstark, review of A. M. Marmardji, DiatessarondeTatien.Textearabeétabli, traduit en français, collationné avec les anciennes versions syriaques, suivi d’unévangéliairediatessariquesyriaqueetaccompagnédequatreplanches hors texte, OrChr 33 (1936) 241-42; P. E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (New York, 19602) 313. 32 Metzger, EarlyVersionsoftheNewTestament, 27.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 147

29/10/18 13:02

148

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

and the illuminations of the Syriac Gospel Codex of Rabbula.33 With this the authenticity of this tradition draws near to certainty, and even in the slight chance that Tatian is not himself its “originator,” the impact of this reading on early Syrian Christianity is undeniable. Somewhat later evidence indicates that this tradition eventually made an impact elsewhere, including Egypt in particular.34 In Egypt as elsewhere, the Magdalene’s identity was frequently merged with that of Mary of Nazareth, to whom the risen Christ is also reported to have appeared. Many of these witnesses are admittedly more recent, including several “pseudo-patristic” texts,35 but several third-century apocrypha also describe Christ’s appearance to his mother; these include the different apocryphal traditions associated with the apostle Bartholomew and, most importantly, the PistisSophia.36 These texts not only describe the risen Christ’s appearance to his mother, but as will be seen in a moment, they also describe her involvement in discussions of the cosmic mysteries. 33

See Murray’s discussion of these in Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 330-32; T. Baarda, “Jesus and Mary (John 20:16f) in the Second Epistle on Virginity Ascribed to Clement,” in EssaysontheDiatessaron (Kampen, 1994) 87-110; R. H. Connolly, “Jacob of Serug and the Diatessaron,” JTS8 (1907) 581-90. 34 See e.g., C. Giannelli, “Témoignages patristiques grecs en faveur d’une apparition du Christ ressuscité à la Vierge Marie,” in Mélanges M. Jugie, REB11 (1953) 106-19. 35 See, P. Devos, “L’apparition du Resuscité à sa Mère. Un nouveau témoin copte,” AB 96 (1978) 388; idem, “De Jean Chrysostom à Jean de Lycopolis. Chrysostom et Chalkèdon,” AB 96 (1978) 389-403; E. Revillout, Évangiledes douzeapôtres (Paris, 1907) 182. See also Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, Homilyon thePassionI 29 (A. Campagnano (ed.), Ps.CirillodiGerusalemme:Omelie coptesullaPassione,sullaCroceesullaVergine (Milan, 1980) 44). 36 See PistisSophia, passim (V. MacDermot and C. Schmidt (eds), Pistis Sophia (Leiden, 1978) e.g., 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25); Ev.Barth. 2.1-22 (A. Vassiliev (ed.), AnecdotaGraeco-Byzantina, Pars Prior (Moscow, 1893) 11-14); A. Wilmart and E. Tisserant, “Fragments grecs et latins de l’Évangile de Barthélemy,” RB 10 (1913) 161-90, 321-68, 321-23, 325, 329; The Coptic GospelofBartholemew: E. A. W. Budge, CopticApocryphaintheDialect ofUpperEgypt (London, 1913) 12, 31-32, 42; P. Lacau, Fragmentsd’apocryphescoptes (Cairo, 1904) 51. For the date of these Coptic fragments, see W. Schneemelcher (ed.), NewTestamentApocrypha, trans. R. McL. Wilson, rev. ed., 2 vols. (Louisville, 1991) 1:537 and J. K. Elliot, TheApocryphalNew Testament (Oxford, 1993) 652.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 148

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

149

In light of this assemblage of evidence, Alfred Loisy went so far as to propose the possibility that John’s gospel originally placed Christ’s mother, rather than the Magdalene, at the tomb, and that this tradition was only later harmonized to agree with the Synoptics.37 If this less than popular suggestion is somewhat unlikely, as Loisy himself was quick to concede,38 it nonetheless seems quite likely that the earliest form of the gospel to reach the Syrian East failed to identify the woman to whom Christ first appeared with Mary of Magdala, possibly suggesting in addition that she was a different Mary. It should be noted, however, that these witnesses do not indicate that Tatian’s text explicitly identified Mary of Nazareth as the first to behold the risen Christ. They can only confirm that the earliest Syrian gospel traditions did not specify this Mary’s identity and perhaps gave the impression that she was not to be identified with the Magdalene. Nevertheless, I strongly agree with Tjitze Baarda’s conclusion that the lack of specificity in the early Syrian gospel traditions would more likely lead readers (and hearers) to identify this Mary with Christ’s mother. This is because the gospel traditions almost always specify Mary of Magdala’s town of origin, in order to distinguish her from Mary (of Nazareth), who usually passes simply as “Mary,” without any reference to her town of origin.39 This conclusion is borne out by studies of Baarda and Murray that make clear the early Syrian church’s identification of this unspecified Mary with Mary of Nazareth.40 Consequently, there can no longer be any question of Ephrem having invented this tradition. Its diffusion among various late ancient sources confirms that it was undoubtedly well in place before Ephrem wrote his commentary on the Diatessaron. Exactly how long before, we cannot be certain, but the confluence of witnesses speaks strongly of its antiquity in the Syrian region.

37

A. Loisy, Lequatrièmeévangile (Paris, 1903) 908, n. 1. Ibid. Nevertheless, M. Albertz, “Über die Christophanie der Mutter Jesu,” TSK 86 (1913) 483-516, argues in favor of this position at some length. 39 Baarda, GospelQuotationsofAphrahat, 486 n. 27, where he concludes that this is the correct interpretation of Tatian’s text. 40 Murray, SymbolsofChurchandKingdom, 329-35 is the best discussion of this issue, but see also: Baarda, “Jesus and Mary”; idem, GospelQuotationsofAphrahat, 254-57; and W. Bauer, DasLebenJesuimZeitalterder NeutestamentlichenApokryphen (Tübingen, 1909) 263. 38

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 149

29/10/18 13:02

150

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

The fact that this early tradition of Christ’s appearance to his mother took hold in Syria is particularly significant for determining the gnostic Mary’s identity. Scholars have frequently associated Syria with the development of early gnostic Christianity, Helmut Koester even going so far as to proclaim Syria “the Country of Origin of Christian Gnosticism.”41 This epithet is admittedly both speculative and overstated, since one could also make a strong case for Egypt’s involvement in the beginnings of this phenomenon, and much is (and will no doubt remain) unknown regarding the “origins” of “gnosticism.” Somewhat less speculative, however, and certainly more relevant to the present matter, is the likelihood that all but one of the relevant “gnostic Mary” texts had their origin in Syria.42 Since the texts themselves specify this Mary’s identity only rarely and inconsistently, and likewise since the writings of the New Testament are indecisive, perhaps we should look to the early Christian traditions of Syria in order to understand better the gnostic Mary’s identity. As described above, the gospel traditions of early Syrian Christianity were altered in a way that favors Mary of Nazareth’s identification with the gnostic Mary. Tatian’s Diatessaron, the dominant biblical text of early Syrian Christianity, had effaced the Magdalene’s importance in the resurrection accounts, to the effect that the early Syrian tradition was prone to identify Mary of Nazareth as the one to whom the risen Christ first appeared. Moreover, not only was Mary of Nazareth represented as the first witness to the resurrection, but the Old Syriac version of John reports that when Christ appeared to his mother, he revealed things to her that she in turn delivered to the disciples.43 41

H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, History and LiteratureofEarlyChristianity (New York, 1982) 207-18. 42 Excepting only the Pistis Sophia, whose Egyptian origin seems likely, Marjanen identifies a probable origin for each of the gnostic Mary texts in Syria: GospelaccordingtoThomas: Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 37; SophiaofJesusChrist: 74; DialogueoftheSavior: 77-78; Gospelaccording to Mary: 99; First Apocalypse of James: 127-28; Gospel according to Philip: 147-48. 43 “And Mary came and said to the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord.’ And she told them the things that he revealed to her.” åÙü㠏s{ ? .…{ÍàüãsÍà¿ćáÅxèçàs{…üäàzĀÙÏÐxÁËÚäàĀàüãs (John 20.18); A. Smith Lewis, The Old Syriac Gospels or Evangelion da-Mepharreshe (London, 1910) 264; cf. F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion da- Mepharreshe, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1904) 1:528. This is similar in the Greek

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 150

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

151

Given then the early Syrian emphasis on Mary of Nazareth’s importance in the events of the resurrection (at the Magdalene’s expense), together with the early gospel tradition identifying her as the bearer of revelation to the apostles, Mary of Nazareth suddenly emerges as a likely candidate for the gnostic Mary. This is particularly so if the gnostic Mary traditions first developed in early Syrian Christianity, as is generally supposed. In light of this, we must consider the strong possibility that these Syrian gospel traditions influenced the interpretation, if not the composition, of these apocrypha. These traditions make for a rather likely prospect that Mary of Nazareth may have been, in the eyes of at least some early Christians, identified with the gnostic Mary. Robert Murray is the only scholar, to my knowledge, who has so far attempted to connect these two traditions. While Murray has proposed influence running in the opposite direction, that the gnostic traditions birthed changes in the canonical gospels, this too is admittedly a possibility, and one that likewise indicates Mary of Nazareth’s significance for understanding the gnostic Mary. Murray suggests that these early Syrian traditions depend on earlier gnostic traditions that feature a certain “mysterious figure called Mariam (in Greek, Mariamme or Mariamne; in Coptic, Mariham), of uncertain identity.”44 Listing several of this character’s main appearances in early Christian literature, he comes rather quickly to the GospelaccordingtoPhilip, where he initially notes the importance of Mary the Magdalene, but then also that of the other Marys (“his mother and her sister”). He then dwells for a moment on the GospelaccordingtoPhilip 59.6-11, a crucial passage in gnostic Mary tradition, which reads: “There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother and her sister and the Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. For Mary was his sister, his mother, and his companion.”45 On the basis and other versions, but the Old Syriac particularly emphasizes the notion of a “revelation.” 44 Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 332; note especially the emphasis on the form of the name! 45 GospelaccordingtoPhilip 59.6-11 (B. Layton (ed.), Gospelaccording to Thomas, Gospel according to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons, and Indices (Leiden, 1989) 158-59). The translation is my own. The second sentence reads in Coptic: ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉϥⲱⲛⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉϥϩⲱⲧⲣⲉ ⲧⲉ. For more on the translation of this passage, see H.-J. Klauck,

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 151

29/10/18 13:02

152

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

of this passage, Murray makes an important conclusion regarding “Mary’s” identity that only a few others seem to have reached. While many interpreters appeal to this passage in support of the gnostic Mary’s identity with Mary of Magdala, Murray correctly notes its blurring of the three Marys into a single shared identity. Reading this passage in light of other early evidence, he concludes that “in the eyes of some Gnostics, especially the Valentinians, [Mary Magdalene] seems partially identical with, or inadequately distinct from, Mary the Mother of Jesus.”46 In this ambiguous “Mariam” Murray identifies the source of the early Syrian traditions identifying Mary of Nazareth as the witness to Christ’s resurrection. This tradition was fueled especially by Tatian’s Diatessaron and then subsequently embraced by the later Syrian church fathers, who out of reverence for the Virgin were delighted to attribute the risen Christ’s first appearance to her.47 If Murray is in fact correct, that the influence moved in this direction and not the other, then the fact still remains that the gnostic Mary was understood to have been Mary of Nazareth, prompting the changes that occurred in the early Syrian gospel traditions. Therefore, however, one choses to relate these two traditions, their combination suggests the possibility of the gnostic Mary’s identity with Mary of Nazareth in early Christianity. 2. MaryofNazarethandtheGnosticMaryTraditions Murray’s discussion of these two traditions is particularly revealing, not just because it suggests the gnostic Mary’s ambiguous identity, but because he uses the GospelaccordingtoPhilip specifically to make this point. Scholars favoring the gnostic Mary’s simple identity with Mary of Magdala have long looked to the GospelaccordingtoPhilip as unassailable evidence that these two women are identical.48 Admittedly, on the surface there is much that could suggest this. For instance, “Die dreifache Maria: Zur Rezeption von Joh 19.25 in EvPhil 32,” in F. van Segbroeck etal. (eds), TheFourGospels1992.FestschriftFransNeirynck, 3 vols. (Leuven, 1992) 3:2356-58. 46 Murray, SymbolsofChurchandKingdom, 333. 47 Ibid., 333-34. 48 E.g., Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 95; Haskins, MaryMagdalene, 3439; de Boer, MaryMagdalene, 81.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 152

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

153

on several occasions, the GospelaccordingtoPhilip identifies Mary Magdalene as having been an especially close companion of the Savior.49 But as Murray and a handful of other scholars have recognized, the GospelaccordingtoPhilip is not so decisive, since under more careful examination, this gospel is clearly seen to conflate the different Marys into a single figure.50 Jorunn Jacobson Buckley articulates this conflation rather well in her insightful article “‘The Holy Spirit’ Is a Double Name,” noting at the outset that “the three Marys comprise Jesus’ mother, Mary Magdalene, and Jesus’ mother’s sister, but the three sometimes blur into interchangeable personalities.”51 So apparent is the merging of these women’s identities that even Marjanen concedes this point in his discussion of the Gospelaccordingto Philip 59.6-11. He concludes: [I]t is evident that here the author of the text does not merely list all the Maries [sic] who belonged to Jesus’ most immediate company. Rather, he discloses that there is a Mary who plays three different roles in the life of the Savior. She is his sister, his mother, and his companion. Who, then, is this Mary and how can she assume all these roles? The triple function of Mary shows that no historical person is meant. She is to be seen as a mythical figure who actually belongs to the transcendent realm but who manifests herself in the women accompanying the earthly Jesus.52

In a solution very similar to one adopted by Elaine Pagels,53 Marjanen explains this Marian trinity as three distinct manifestations of a single spiritual reality, Christ’s spiritual syzygos, thus accounting for the language of unity here. 49

GospelaccordingtoPhilip 59.6-11 and 63.33-64.9 (Layton, NagHammadiCodexII,2-7, 158-59, 166-68). 50 C. Trautman similarly asserts that this Mary is a single figure, but for her it is the Magdalene, who is (somehow?) mother, sister, and companion of the Lord: C. Trautman, “La parenté dans l’ÉvangileselonPhilippe,” in B. Barc (ed.), ColloqueinternationalsurlesTextesdeNagHammadi(Québec, 22-25août1978) (Louvain, 1981) 279. 51 J. J. Buckley, “‘The Holy Spirit’ Is a Double Name,” in FemaleFault andFulfilmentinGnosticism (Chapel Hill, 1986) 105. 52 Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 160-61. 53 Elaine Pagels identifies the three Marys as different manifestations of “Christ’s spiritual syzygos,” thereby unifying the three separate historical figures in one spiritual reality: E. Pagels, “Pursuing the Spiritual Eve: Imagery and Hermeneutics in the Hypostasis of the Archons and the Gospel of Philip,” in K. King (ed.), ImagesoftheFeminineinGnosticism (Philadephia, 1988) 202.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 153

29/10/18 13:02

154

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

While it may in fact be true that these three women bear some relation to Christ’s syzygos, I propose that the text also is important for identifying the “historical” gnostic Mary: that is, which historical figure, or figures, might early Christians or modern interpreters see in this woman. The clear indication of this passage is that we are likely to be mistaken if we look for only one. The collapse of Mary Magdalene and Mary of Nazareth into a single identity here strongly suggests that the gnostic Mary represents in fact not a single historical figure; rather, as Marvin Meyer writes of Mariam in the GospelaccordingtoThomas, “the safest conclusion is that a ‘universal Mary’ is in mind, and that specific historical Marys are no longer clearly distinguished.”54 A few other scholars have also begun to move in this direction. Anne Pasquier, for instance, in her edition of the GospelaccordingtoMary identified the gnostic Mary with the Magdalene, but now she has apparently determined that this Mary represents a “corporate personality.”55 Likewise, Deirdre Good, with whose voice this chapter began, has expressed a willingness to recognize Mary’s “composite identity” in the PistisSophia. Nevertheless, for some unspecified reason Good does not extend this “composite identity” to include Mary of Nazareth, despite the fact that she is a very prominent and important character in this text; Good focuses instead on Mary of Bethany and “other women in the Gospels.”56 Such a composite identity is undoubtedly also present in the GospelaccordingtoPhilip, where conflation of the various historical Marys suggests that the ancient Christians who produced these texts did not always distinguish as carefully between the different historical Marys as have modern scholars. The GospelaccordingtoPhilip then not only fails to offer the sort of decisive resolution in favor of the gnostic Mary’s identification with the Magdalene that some have sought, but instead it undermines this identification by demonstrating that the identities of the historical Marys have been collapsed into a composite figure. Moreover, this very 54

M. W. Meyer, “Making Mary Male: The Categories ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in the Gospel of Thomas,” NTS 31 (1985) 554-70 at 562. The passage in question in Gos.Thom. 114 (B. Layton (ed.), GospelaccordingtoThomas, GospelaccordingtoPhilip,HypostasisoftheArchons,andIndices (Leiden, 1989) 92-93), where Jesus speaks of “making Mary male.” 55 Coyle, “Mary Magdalene in Manichaeism,” 42 n. 20. 56 Good, “Pistis Sophia,” 696, 703-4.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 154

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

155

passage (59.6-11), by identifying Mary of Nazareth as a prominent participant in Christ’s public ministry, further opens the door to see Christ’s mother in the gnostic Mary. This possibility is strengthened by another passage from the Gospel according to Philip (55.24-36), which discusses Mary of Nazareth’s conception and describes the Virgin Mary as “a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men.”57 Although the exact meaning of this passage is somewhat elliptic, it clearly refers to some sort of strife between Mary of Nazareth and the apostles, an image that resonates with depictions elsewhere of the gnostic Mary’s conflict with Peter and the other apostles. Thus this representation contradicts Marjanen’s (among others) allegation that Mary of Nazareth is never represented as being in tension with the disciples:58 to the contrary, this passage provides positive evidence that Mary of Nazareth was at least occasionally imagined in this role, a portrait that is elsewhere confirmed by the Pistis Sophia. The PistisSophia twice describes such hostility between the disciples, represented in Peter, and a “Mary,” whose identity is otherwise unspecified. Following Schmidt’s lead, scholars have repeatedly identified this Mary as the Magdalene. But if one’s interpretation is not controlled by Schmidt’s baseless assumption that all unspecified Marys are to be identified with the Magdalene, a more careful reading reveals that the Mary who speaks in these passages is in fact Mary of Nazareth, whom the text elsewhere explicitly identifies as a participant in the dialogue. “Mary’s” first appearance in the Pistis Sophia comes after a lengthy revelation by Christ, when she explains for the others the meaning of the hidden mysteries that have just been revealed. Following her interpretation, Jesus congratulates her, saying, “Well said, Maria. You are blessed among all women on earth.”59 Previous interpreters have inexplicably ignored this Lukan epithet, 57

GospelaccordingtoPhilip, 55.24-36 (Layton, NagHammadiCodexII, 2-7, 150-51). 58 “[T]he mother of Jesus does not turn up in situations where some kind of tension between the disciples and her is presented.” Marjanen, Woman JesusLoved, 95. 59 ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲉⲩⲅⲉ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ· ϫⲉ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲛⲧⲟ ⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧϩⲓϪ⳰Ⲙ ⲡⲕⲁϩ· PistisSophia 19 (MacDermot and Schmit, PistisSophia, 28); my translation.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 155

29/10/18 13:02

156

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

which clearly brings to mind Mary of Nazareth, whom the Holy Spirit inspired Elizabeth to name “blessed among women.”60 This same Mary continues to converse with the Savior, asking him several questions, with nothing to suggest that the Mary who speaks anyone other than she who is “blessed among women,” namely, Mary of Nazareth. After answering these questions, the Savior reveals “the song of praise which the Pistis Sophia spoke in the first repentance, as she repented her sin,” which Mary then interprets. When she has finished, the Savior addresses her, “Well said, Mariam, thou blessed one, thou pleroma or thou all-blessed pleroma, who will be called blessed by all generations.”61 Here again, reference to Mary of Nazareth’s words in Luke, “all generations will call me blessed,”62 cannot fail to suggest to the reader (or hearer) that the Mary who has just spoken is to be identified with the mother of Jesus, and not the Magdalene. Such language indisputably aligns this gnostic Mary’s identity at least partially, if not completely, with Mary of Nazareth. Jesus continues the revelation dialogue, explaining “the second repentance” of Pistis Sophia, and when he is finished, he asks his disciples if they have understood. In lieu of an answer, “Peter leapt forward and said to Jesus: ‘My Lord, we are not able to suffer this woman who takes the opportunity from us and does not allow anyone of us to speak, but she speaks many times.’”63 Undoubtedly this “insufferable” woman is the Mary who has only recently completed her explanation of the “first repentance of Pistis Sophia.” As we have seen, references to this Mary as being “blessed among women” and “called blessed by all generations,” the only indications of her identity, signal that she is Mary of Nazareth. The text presents no evidence to the contrary: no other woman has yet appeared in the dialogue, and while nothing in the preceding dialogue indicates the presence of the Magdalene, the repeated Lukan epithets strongly suggest the Virgin’s presence.

60

Luke 1.42. ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲥ ϫⲉ ⲉⲩⲅⲉ ⲙⲁⲣⲓϩⲁⲙ ⲧⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲁ· ⲧⲉⲡⲗⲏⲣⲱⲙⲁ ⲏ ⲧⲡⲁⲛⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲗⲏⲣⲱⲙⲁ· ⲧⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲛⲁⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϩⲛ ⲅⲉⲛⲉⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ· (MacDermot and Schmit, PistisSophia, 56); my translation. 62 Luke 1.48. 63 PistisSophia 36 (MacDermot and Schmit, PistisSophia, 58), translation slightly modified. 61

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 156

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

157

This same Mary continues to speak throughout the remainder of the first book, being the Savior’s primary interlocutor. Nothing in their conversations contradicts her identification with Mary of Nazareth, nor are ther any hints that she might be the Magdalene. Eventually, toward the end of the PistisSophia’s first book, this Mary’s identity with Mary of Nazareth is made unmistakable. Here, as Mary offers yet another interpretation of “the words which the Pistis Sophia said,” she is at last unambiguously identified as “the mother of Jesus.”64 One might rightly ask why Mary’s identity is specified only at this point in the narrative: it would seem that this is done to prepare reader for the subsequent introduction of another Mary in the dialogue, whom the text names “the other Mary,” without further clarification.65 Since Mary of Nazareth has just been explicitly identified, this must be a different Mary, and among the various possibilities, the most likely is Mary of Magdala, whom the dialogue later names specifically. Nevertheless, her introduction here as the “other” Mary confirms that the Mary who has spoken thus far in the dialogue is to be identified with the mother of Jesus. Despite the prominence of both Marys at the close of book one, they are strangely absent from the conversations in the first part of book two. Eventually “Mary” explains this silence, complaining to Christ, “my mind is understanding at all times that I should come forward at any time and give the interpretation of the words which she [Pistis Sophia] spoke, but I am afraid of Peter, for he threatens me and he hates our race.”66 Although this Mary is not further identified, it is logical to assume that this is the same Mary who figured prominently throughout the conversations of the first book and consequently drew Peter’s ire. As already noted, the Savior’s references to this Mary in the first book as “blessed among women” and the one who “will be called blessed by all generations” strongly indicate that the Mary who came into conflict with the disciples, and notably with Peter, is the mother of Christ, and not the Magdalene. Thus it seems probable that the Mary who here fears Peter is the same one whom he attacked in the first book, namely, Mary of Nazareth.

64 65 66

Ibid. 59 (ibid., 116). Ibid. 59; 62 (ibid., 117, 123). Ibid. 72 (ibid., 162).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 157

29/10/18 13:02

158

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

In the second half of book two “Mary” reappears, and here she is explicitly named the Magdalene.67 This Mary is the Savior’s primary interlocutor for the remainder of book two, and her identity as Mary of Magdala is repeatedly asserted. A “Mary” also appears in books three and four, and while book three twice specifies the presence of the Magdalene,68 the remainder of the text otherwise fails to indicate which of the two Marys is speaking. Given Mary of Nazareth’s prominence in book one and the simultaneous appearance of both Marys at the end of this book, it does not seem wise to follow Schmidt (and others) in identifying every unspecified Mary with the Magdalene. It is far more plausible to attribute the confused state of the text to the variety of different sources that it embodies, some of which understood “Mary” predominantly as the Virgin (book one especially) and others that saw in her the Magdalene (the second part of book two especially).69 Such a view of the text strongly supports the understanding of the gnostic Mary as a “composite figure,” who combines the identities of both the Magdalene and the mother of Jesus. In any case, the PistisSophia offers indisputable evidence that Christians of the third century did on occasion imagine Christ’s mother discussing the hidden secrets of the universe and showing herself a learned student of the gnostic mysteries in the presence of the apostles. Similar portrayals of Mary of Nazareth exist elsewhere in early Christian literature. An example contemporary with the PistisSophia appears in the third-century Gospel(Questions)ofBartholomew. Although perhaps not a properly “gnostic” text, scholars have long recognized certain “gnosticizing” tendencies in this revelation dialogue, including many gnostic ideas and parallels to more decidedly gnostic gospels.70 Moreover, its relevance to the present matter despite its only “quasi-gnostic” character is affirmed by the GospelaccordingtoThomas 67

Ibid. 83 (ibid., 184). Book 2 explicitly names her Magdalene on the following pages: 185, 189, 199, 201, 203, 218, 233, 237, 244. 68 Ibid. 127, 132 (ibid., 319, 338). 69 The difficulties posed by the different Marys is one of the main reasons given by the text’s most recent translator for viewing the different books as compiliations from various earlier sources: ibid., xiv. 70 Schneemelcher, NewTestamentApocrypha, 1:538. Nevertheless, D. M. Parrott, “Gnostic and Orthodox Disciples in the Second and Third Centuries,” in C. W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson, Jr. (eds), NagHammadi,Gnosticism,and

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 158

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

159

and theGospelaccordingtoMary, both of which preserve “gnostic” Mary traditions but fall somewhere outside the traditional boundaries of “gnosticism.”71 In the course of the Gospel(Questions)ofBartholomew’s discourse, Mary begins to expound certain cosmic mysteries to the apostles, only to be interrupted suddenly by her son, who forces her to stop, lest “today my whole creation will come to an end.”72 Thus despite some theological distance between the Gospel(Questions)of Bartholomew and “gnosticism proper” this depiction of the Virgin Mary as an expert in the cosmic mysteries who instructs the apostles compares favorably with the gnostic Mary. Other, more complicated but equally revealing parallels are found in certain of the earliest narratives of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition. These traditions are first attested only by several Syriac fragments of the late fifth century, although they are clearly more ancient, even if we cannot be exactly certain how much more. Some of the strongest evidence for their earlier existence comes in the form of certain “gnosticizing” themes which link these narratives more with the various heterodox groups of the second and third centuries than with the emergent orthodoxies of the late fifth century. Among these parallels, which I have discussed elsewhere,73 is the portrayal of the Virgin Mary as one learned in the cosmic mysteries, who communicates these secrets to the apostles. For instance, in many of the earliest texts, just before her death, Mary presents the apostles with a book, given to her by her son, telling John, “Father John, take this book in which is the mystery. For when he was five years old the teacher revealed all the things of creation, and he also put you, the twelve in it.”74 Along with EarlyChristianity (Peabody, 1986) 221. Admittedly, the text’s identification of the Father as creator situates the text squarely outside of “gnosticism.” 71 For instance, both lack any reference to such standard features as the Demiurge and the Sophia myth. For further discussion, see especially Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 33-37 (Gospel according to Thomas) and 94 n. 1 (Gospel according to Mary). 72 Ev. Barth. 2.1-22 (Vassiliev, Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, 11-14; Wilmart and Tisserant, “Fragments grecs et latins,” 321-25). See also ibid., 4.1-6 (Vassiliev, AnecdotaGraeco-Byzantina, 14-15; Wilmart and Tisserant, “Fragments grecs et latins,” 327-28). 73 See Shoemaker, DormitionandAssumption, 209-55. 74 καὶ ἐξενέκασα γλωσσόκομον ἐν ᾧ ἦν χαρτίον εἶπεν· Πάτερ Ἰωάννη, λαβὲ τοῦτο τὸ βιβλίον ἐν ᾧ ἦν τὸ μυστήριον. Ὀτε γὰρ ἦν πενταετὴς ὁ

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 159

29/10/18 13:02

160

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

the book, she reveals certain cosmic mysteries,75 the primary content of which is a secret prayer.76 This prayer is to be recited as one goes forth from her body,77 since “it is not possible ascend without this prayer,”78 and “you must observe it with every world...for it is not possible to pass by the monsters, so as to pass through every world.”79 This secret prayer is akin to the various passwords of late ancient gnostic literature, which allow the soul to pass through various “worlds” guarded by the Demiurge and his minions on its ascent to the Pleroma.80 Thus, despite διδάσκαλος ἐγνώρισεν πάντα τὰ τῆς κτίσεως καὶ ἔθετο καὶ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δώδεκα ἐν τούτο. A. Wenger, A.A., L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedansla traditionbyzantineduVIeauXesiècle (Paris, 1955) 220-1; trans. Shoemaker, DormitionandAssumption, 360. The same is also expressed in the Ethiopic LiberRequiei, which likely preserves the earliest and most complete version of the early Dormition traditions: LiberRequiei 44 (V. Arras (ed.), DeTransituMariaeAethiopice, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1973) 1:27 (Eth) and 17-18 (Lat); trans. Shoemaker, DormitionandAssumption, 316). 75 Most clearly expressed in the Georgian fragments: და ძოვივლინე შენდა გულისხძისყოფად რაჲთა უთხრა შენ ძოციქულთა საიდუძლოჲ (“I have been sent to reveal to you, so that you will tell the mystery to the apostles.”) M. van Esbroeck, “Apocryphes géorgiens de la Dormition,” AB 92 (1973) 73 (Geor) and 75 (Lat), but also similarly in the Ethiopic: Liber Requiei 11 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:6-7 (Eth) and 1:4 (Lat)) and the Greek: καὶ ἅπερ σοι λέγω μετάδος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔρχονται, Wenger, L’Assomption, 214-15. 76 Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὴν προσευχὴν τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου, Wenger, L’Assomption, 220-21. Also found in the early Ethiopic version: LiberRequiei, 44 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:27 (Eth) and 1:17 (Lat)). 77 προσευχὴν ἐδεξάμην παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐρχόμενος πρὸς σὲ καί νῦν λέγω σοι αὐτὴν ἵνα εἴπῃς ἐξερζομένη ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἀνατέλλοντος τοῦ ἡλίου, οὕτως γὰρ ἀναπέμπεται. Wenger, L’Assomption, 214-15. The Ethiopic parallel is rather nonsensical, but seems to center around the same idea: LiberRequiei 13 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:7 (Eth) and 1:5 (Lat)); see also the commentary on this passage in “Appendix II de LibroRequiei,” Arras, De transitu, 1:79-81 (Lat). 78 LiberRequiei 14 (Arras, Detransitu, 1:7-8 (Eth) and 1:5 (Lat)). 79 Ibid. 15 (ibid., 1:8 (Eth) and 1:5 (Lat)). 80 This interpretation is also suggested by ibid., 1:81 (Lat). For other examples of such passwords, see, e.g., The(First)ApocalypseofJames, 32.28-35.9 (D. Parrott (ed.), NagHammadiCodicesV,2-5andVIwithPapyrusBerolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 (Leiden, 1979) 84-9); The Books of Jeu, 33-8, 4952 (C. Schmidt (ed.) and V. MacDermot (trans.), TheBooksofJeûandthe UntitledTextintheBruceCodex (Leiden, 1978) 83-8, 116-38). For a general

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 160

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

161

the problems posed by their dating, one can see that the Dormition traditions of late antiquity describe an image of Mary of Nazareth that resembles that of the gnostic Mary. One final witness remains to be considered, and its voice is particularly authoritative, since it is the only ancient gnostic tradition to have survived until the present day: the Mandean tradition. The Mandeans also revere a certain “Mary,” as did the other ancient gnostics; known as Miriai in the Mandean tradition, this figure has been strangely ignored by many scholars in their studies of the gnostic Mary traditions. Perhaps this is the case, however, because this modern gnostic tradition weighs in very strongly in favor of identifying the gnostic Mary with Mary of Nazareth, rather than with the Magdalene. In the Mandean tradition, Miriai stands as “the ideal Gnostic,” much as Mary functions in the Christian gnostic texts.81 The fullest account of Miriai’s life is recorded in the Mandean BookofJohn,82 an eighth-century collection of much earlier sources,83 although portions of her story are also preserved elsewhere in Mandean literature, including the third or fourth-century CanonicalPrayerbook84 as well discussion, see K. Rudolph, Gnosis:TheNatureandHistoryofGnosticism, trans. ed. R. McL. Wilson (San Francisco, 1987) 172-80, 244. Cf. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 1.21.5 (A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau (eds), Irénée de Lyon:Contreleshérésies, 9 vols. (Paris, 1969-82) 1:2:304-8). 81 An excellent study of Miriai’s role in the Mandean tradition has been made by J. J. Buckley, “The Mandean Appropriation of Jesus’ Mother, Miriai,” NT 35 (1993) 181-96; regarding the gnostic Mary function in this role, see Good, “Pistis Sophia,” 704. 82 TheMandeanBookofJohn (M. Lidzbarski (ed.), DasJohannesbuchder Mandäer (Giessen, 1915) 127-43 (Mandean) and 126-38 (Germ)). 83 Rudolph, Gnosis, 345-46; K. Rudolph, “Der Mandäismus in der neueren Gnosisforschung,” in B. Aland (ed.), Gnosis: Festschrift für Hans Jonas (Göttingen, 1978) 244-77 at 272. On the problems of dating specific traditions from the BookofJohn, see E. S. Drower, TheMandeansofIraqand Iran:TheirCustoms,Magic,Legends,andFolklore (Leiden, 1962) 21. 84 The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandeans (M. Lidzbarski. (ed.), MandäischeLiturgien (Berlin, 1920) 210-11; E. S. Drower (ed.),TheCanonicalPrayerbookoftheMandeans (Leiden, 1959) 173; Drower’s translation is on 130). The text and a translation are also found in Lidzbarski, DasJohannesbuchderMandäer, 123-25. Concerning the date, see Rudolph, Gnosis, 346; S. Gündüz, The KnowledgeofLife:TheOriginsandtheEarlyHistoryoftheMandeansandTheir

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 161

29/10/18 13:02

162

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

as in contemporary Mandean lore.85 These traditions identify Miriai as the Jewish daughter of king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (himself also Jewish),86 who dwelt in Jerusalem at the time when the Mandeans were still living in Palestine.87 The outline of her story is as follows: One day while walking through the city, Miriai stumbled upon a Mandean house of worship, and entering, she converted to the Mandean faith.88 When her father learned of this and confronted her, he accused her of being a whore and demanded that she return to the Judaism, but she refused to renounce her new faith and bitterly rejected Judaism.89 She fled, and the Jews pursued her, hoping to force her to return to the Jewish faith. When they eventually found her, an eagle appeared and punished the Jews for harassing Mary, burying them beneath the “stinking mud” of the Euphrates and destroying both their temple and the city of Jerusalem.90 These and other similar traditions portray Miriai as a “founding mother” of the Mandean faith, who represents its moment of origin, when it separated itself from its Jewish source.91 Although in some later traditions Miriai is identified as having been a follower of John the Baptist, it is clear that this was not a part of her original story,92 but was added sometime after the Mandeans identified John the Baptist

RelationtotheSabiansoftheQur’anandtotheHarranians (Oxford, 1994) 55-62; R. Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic (Berlin, 1965) LXV. Key to this determination has been Torgny Säve-Söderbergh’s demonstration that a number of the Coptic Manichean Psalms are actually translations of earlier Mandean liturgical texts: T. Säve-Söderbergh, Studies in the Coptic Manichaean Psalm-Book: Prosody and Mandaean Parallels (Uppsala, 1949) 156-66. 85 Recorded in the early 20th century by Drower, TheMandeans, 282-86. 86 See ibid., 287 n. 1, where she explains the Mandean tradition that the Jews and “Chaldeans” (i.e., Babylonians) were believed to be one people. 87 The Mandean Book of John 34 (Lidzbarski, Das Johannesbuch, 127 (Mandean) and 126 (Germ)). On the origin of Mandeism in late ancient Palestinian Judaism, see Rudolph, Gnosis, 363-64. 88 The MandeanBookofJohn (Lidzbarski, DasJohannesbuch,128 (Mandean) and 127 (Germ)). 89 Ibid. (ibid., 29-31 (Mandean) and 127-29 (Germ)). 90 Ibid., (ibid., 141-42 (Mandean) and 137-38 (Germ)). 91 Buckley, “Mandean Appropriation,” 189. 92 Ibid., 194.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 162

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

163

as their founder during the early Islamic period.93 Thus Miriai functions in the role of a “proto-convert” to the Mandeism, a position in which the Mandean tradition never, strangely enough, portrays John the Baptist.94 Moreover, the BookofJohn explicitly joins Miriai’s identity with certain female beings of the Lightworld and, even more remarkably, depicts Miriai as a priest, in what is, according to Jorunn Jacobson Buckley, “the only mythological story that raises the issue of female priests.”95 The parallels between this figure and the gnostic Mary are considerable. The gnostic Mary is, like Miriai, a “proto-convert” to a new religion, who can rightly be viewed as one of its “founding mothers.” She also must defend the truth of her newfound faith in the face of opposition from important male leaders. Moreover, many modern interpreters have proposed that the gnostic Mary’s depiction in early Christian literature is either an historical or mythological representation of women’s leadership roles in the early Christian communities,96 a leadership role paralleled in Miriai’s depiction as a priest. The gnostic Mary is even occasionally identified with female beings of the “Lightworld,” particularly with the “Virgin of Light” in the PistisSophia.97 Consequently, it seems rather likely that the Mandean 93

According to Mandean tradition, John the Baptist was the prophet who founded their religion. This is, however, probably a fiction created under Islamic rule in order to insure toleration by the ruling authorities. Only those religious traditions founded by a prophet of God were permitted to exist alonside of Islam, and John was a conveniently unclaimed Qur’anic prophet who was then written into the Mandean tradition to insure their protection. Alternatively, however, it is possible that John was incorporated at a slightly earlier point in order to justify their baptismal practices in Christian eyes. In any case, it is clear from the Mandean sources that John the Baptist was not originally linked with their movement, but was added as a later development. See K. Rudolph, DieMandäer, 2 vols. (Göttingen, 1960) 1:66-80 at 70-71. 94 Buckley, “Mandean Appropriation,” 194. 95 Ibid., 187-89, esp. 187; emphasis in the original. 96 Among others see E. Schüssler Fiorenza, InMemoryofHer:AFeminist TheologicalReconstructionofChristianOrigins (New York, 1985) 304-7; 323-33; and King, “The Gospel of Mary Magdalene,” 618-20. 97 PistisSophia 59 (MacDermot and Schmidt,PistisSophia, 116-17). See also below, where a similar identification occurs in the Manichean Psalmbook.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 163

29/10/18 13:02

164

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Miriai bears some historical relation to the Mary of the Christian gnostic tradition, as Kurt Rudolph has suggested.98 What then can be said of Miriai’s relation to the different Marys of the early Christian tradition? Although the Mandeans clearly distinguish Miriai from the mother of Jesus, whom they name “Miriam,” scholars of Mandeism are unanimously agreed that this Mandean “Mary” in fact emanates from the Christian tradition and finds her origin in the mother of Jesus.99 This is particularly clear from Miriai’s close association in the Mandean texts with Elizabeth,100 who, in addition to being the mother of John the Baptist, the traditional “founder” of Mandeism, was a close kinswoman of the Virgin Mary.101 This, together with other features of Miriai’s depiction, suggests the origin of this Mandean figure in certain early Christian traditions concerning the Virgin Mary.102 Thus, this living gnostic tradition also attests to late ancient Christian traditions that understood Mary of Nazareth as both a model gnostic initiate and as a “founding mother” in conflict with male religious leaders, roles that favor her identification with the gnostic Mary of early Christian literature. In the remaining gnostic Mary traditions, this character is known only as “Mary,” and the texts themselves provide nothing that would enable us to distinguish which particular Mary is view. Appeals are often made to the form of the name “Mary” that is used (i.e., Maria or Mariam), but as demonstrated elsewhere,103 this is in no way a reliable means of distinguishing between Mary of Magdala and Mary of Nazareth. Other scholars have instead (or in addition) argued that this Mary is to be identified with the Magdalene on the basis of Mary Magdalene’s prominence in the canonical gospels, the Gospelaccordingto 98

Rudolph, DieMandäer, 1:97. E.g., Buckley, “Mandean Appropriation”; Lidzbarski, Das Johannesbuch, 71-72; E. Lupieri, IMandei:Gliultimignostici (Brescia, 1993) 248; W. Bousset, “Die Religion der Mandäer,” TheologischeRundschau 20 (1917) 188-203; G. Widengren, “Die Mandäer,” in HandbuchderOrientalistikVIII.2 (Leiden, 1961) 93-101. 100 Lidzbarski in TheMandeanBookofJohn (Lidzbarski, DasJohannesbuch, 71-72). 101 See Lk 1.36. 102 Particularly her role as an anti-Jewish figure: see S. J. Shoemaker, “‘Let Us Go and Burn Her Body’: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions,”CH 68 (1999) 775-823 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 5). 103 Shoemaker, “Case of Mistaken Identity?” 99

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 164

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

165

Philip, and the PistisSophia. These interpreters maintain that since Mary of Magdala is an important figure in each of these writings, we may assume (following Schmidt) that this otherwise unidentified Mary is the Magdalene and not the Virgin. These writings then establish precedent for identifying this woman elsewhere with the Magdalene, they allege, while similar precedent is absent for Mary of Nazareth, making it highly improbable that she is related to the gnostic Mary. These arguments, however, are not very persuasive. There are, despite claims to the contrary, significant traditions attesting that early Christians also imagined Mary of Nazareth in roles that scholarship has long reserved for the Magdalene exclusively. Moreover, the frequent appeal to onomastic evidence is baseless, and Mary of Nazareth can easily rival the Magdalene’s prominence in the New Testament writings. Even the Magdalene’s significant role as apostola apostolorum104 cannot decide the matter, since, if we accept the proposed origin of these traditions in Syria, we find that early Syrian Christianity largely identified Mary of Nazareth, and not the Magdalene, as the first witness to Christ’s resurrection. Furthermore, in each of the gnostic Mary traditions where the Magdalene is specifically named, we have seen that Mary of Nazareth also appears in similar roles, suggesting the blurred identity of these two figures. Finally, in both the GospelaccordingtoPhilip and the PistisSophia, we find evidence of Mary of Nazareth’s conflict with “the apostles,” and the latter text, along with various other early Christian traditions, unambiguously identifies Mary of Nazareth as a privileged interlocutor of the risen Christ, who interprets the cosmic mysteries for the apostles. When all of this is taken together with the Mandean Miriai traditions, a strong argument emerges for identifying Mary of Nazareth with the gnostic Mary, in light of which we may now begin to reconsider the remaining gnostic Mary traditions of late antiquity.

104

According to Ann Brock, this title was first given to Mary of Magdala by Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235/6): see A. G. Brock, MaryMagdalene,theFirst Apostle:TheStruggleforAuthority (Cambridge, Mass., 2003) 1-2, 161. Nevertheless, the passage in question refers to the Myrrhbearing Women collectively as “apostolaeapostolorum”: A. M. Ernst, MarthafromtheMargins: The Authority of Martha in Early Christian Tradition (Leiden, 2009) 95118.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 165

29/10/18 13:02

166

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

The most important of these traditions is undoubtedly the secondcentury GospelaccordingtoMary,105 in which Mary, who is otherwise unidentified, is the central character. As the extant fragments begin, the risen Christ is in the midst of concluding a dialogue with Mary and the apostles. After his departure, Peter says to Mary, “Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember – which you know but we do not, nor have we heard them.”106 Mary consents to reveal “what is hidden,” and in a lengthy monologue, she reports all that the Savior had told her. The strangeness of what she reveals, however, disturbs several of the apostles. Andrew is the first to object, saying, “I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.”107 Likewise Peter asks, “Did he [the Savior] really speak with a woman without our knowledge (and) not openly? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?”108 In her own defense, Mary responds, “Do you think that I thought this up myself in my own heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?”109 At this, some of the apostles take her side, notably Levi, who reminds Peter of his “hot-temper” and urges the disciples to believe what Mary has revealed.110 In their efforts to identify this Mary with the Magdalene, scholars have often appealed to many of the criteria mentioned above. For instance, many have sought refuge in the forms of the name “Mary” used in the extant fragments:111 ⲙⲁⲣⲓϩⲁⲙ in Coptic fragments and Μαριάμμη in the third-century Greek papyrus fragments.112 As I have demonstrated elsewhere,113 however, the particular form of the name is in no way decisive, and if anything, the use of the name Μαριάμμη in 105

Concerning the date and the different manuscript witnesses, see the discussion in Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 96-98. 106 TheGospelaccordingtoMary 10 (Parrott, NagHammadiCodicesV,2-5, 460-61). 107 TheGospelaccordingtoMary 17 (ibid., 466-67). 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid. (ibid., 468-69). 110 Ibid. 111 See the examples listed in n. 12 above. 112 On the date of the papyrus, see Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 96-98; and Schneemelcher, NewTestamentApocrypha, 1:392. 113 Shoemaker, “Case of Mistaken Identity?”

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 166

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

167

the Greek would seem to indicate Mary of Nazareth, rather than the Magdalene. Such is the suggestion, at least, of the earliest witness to the the ProtevangeliumofJames, a papyrus copied around 300 CE, which, like the fragments of the GospelaccordingtoMary, was found in Egypt. The fact that this apocryphal narrative, of similar age and provenance, repeatedly uses the name Mariamme in reference to the Virgin Mary is a fair indication that in the Greek apocryphal literature of second and third-century Egypt, which would include both the Gospel according to Mary and the Pistis Sophia, Mary of Nazareth was occasionally known as Mariamme.114 Other scholars have relied more on Mary Magdalene’s importance in the New Testament and her explicit appearances in the PistisSophia and the GospelaccordingtoPhilip to confirm that the Magdalene is the central figure of the GospelaccordingtoMary.115 But as already argued, in each of these instances there is equal evidence to support this Mary’s identification with Mary of Nazareth. Occasionally appeal is also made to the writings of the church fathers, who supposedly offer second-hand evidence of Mary Magdalene’s importance in the writings of the early Christian gnostics.116 Nevertheless, explicit references to the Magdalene in the early Christian period are very rare, and she is mentioned just six times in the writings of only three second and third-century fathers.117 Consequently, much is made of several references to a woman named Mariamme, who is otherwise unidentified. The most important of these are Celsus’ mention of a Christian group named after an unidentified Mariamme118 and Hippolytus’ reference to the “Nassenes,” whose teachings were supposedly passed down from James the brother of the Lord through a woman named Mariamne.119 To these would some add the Actsof 114

M. Testuz (ed.), PapyrusBodmerV:NativitédeMarie (Geneva, 1958) 23-26. 115 Notably Karen King: see n. 11 above. 116 King, “Gospel of Mary Magdalene,” 619. 117 Origen (three times); Tertullian (twice); and Irenaeus (once). Ibid., 632, n. 52, citing an unpublished manuscript by Kathleen Corley, entitled “‘Noli me tangere’: Mary Magdalene in the Patristic Literature.” 118 Origen, Constra Celsum 5.62 (Marcel Borret (ed.), Origène: Contre Celse, 5 vols. (Paris, 1967-76) 2:168-69). 119 Hippolytus, Refutatio 5.7.1 and 10.9.3 (M. Marcovich, Hippolytus: Refutatioomniumhaeresium (Berlin, 1986) 142 and 384).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 167

29/10/18 13:02

168

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Philip and Epiphanius’ claim to knowledge of a gnostic work entitled the Great Questions of Mary.120 None of these witnesses, however, can bear the weight that is placed on them. Epiphanius’ testimony is particularly problematic, since many scholars dispute the general accuracy of his report, judging it the unreliable slander of a prejudiced opponent.121 But even if we were to grant that at the very least Epiphanius witnesses to a tradition of a woman named Mary whom the gnostics esteemed, the attribution of this work to “Mary” cannot be said to indicate the Magdalene, since it is equally possible that the Mary in question may have been Mary of Nazareth. The same holds true for the “evidence” of Celsus/Origen: since this figure is known only as “Mariamme,” it is quite possible that these Christians took their name from Mary of Nazareth, rather than from the Magdalene. We are slightly more informed concerning Mariamne in the ActsofPhilip and Hippolytus’ Refutatio. The ActsofPhilip, for instance, informs us that Mariamne is Philip’s sister, which does not seem to identify her with either of our Marys.122 Nevertheless, soon 120 Epiphanius, Panarion 26.8.1-9.5 (K. Holl and J. Dummer, Epiphanius, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1915; Berlin, 19802, 19852) 1:284-86). This work is especially prominent in Schmidt’s discussion of the PistisSophia: Schmidt,GnostischeSchriften, 563-98. King, “Gospel of Mary Magdalene,” 619, and Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 189-202 also treat it as a part of the gnostic Mary tradition. 121 Williams, RethinkingGnosticism, 164-88 presents an even-handed and sympathetic survey of the problems surrounding existence of the so-called “libertine” gnostics. More negative assessments of Epiphanius’ report and such charges of immorality in general can be found in R. M. Grant, “Charges of ‘Immorality’ against Various Groups in Antiquity,” in R. van der Broek and M. J. Vermaseren (eds), StudiesinGnosticismandHellenisticReligions (Leiden, 1981) 161-70; K. Korschorke, DiePolemikderGnostikergegendas kirchlicheChristentum (Leiden, 1978) esp. 123-24; B. L. Visotzky, “Overturning the Lamp,” JJS38 (1987) 72-80. 122 ActaPhilippi, F. Bovon etal. (eds), ActaPhilippi, 2 vols. (Turnhout, 1999) esp. 1:240-47. Scholars have generally assumed that this woman should be connected with the gnostic Mary, with which I am in agreement. On this basis, it is further assumed that this Mariamne is Mary of Magdala, with which I do not agree. The only arguments for the second assumption are references to the various texts of the gnostic Mary traditions, all of which I have shown to be problematic in themselves, and thus do not resolve this Mary’s identity. See ibid., 2:312-17; and Bovon, “Le privilège pascal,” 5758.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 168

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

169

after she appears, the Savior identifies this Mariamne as “blessed among women,” again a Lukan epithet that seems to identify her with Mary of Nazareth, as does reference to Mariamne’s having “escaped the poverty of Eve, so as to enrich herself.” The later point resonates especially with Mary’s identity in late antiquity as the “new Eve,” whose actions remove the curse of the “old” Eve. This Mariamne’s identity is obviously much more complex than this might suggest, however, since she is also Philip’s sister, and there also seems to be an attempt to connect her with the Mary of “Mary and Martha” fame. The ActsofPhilip then do not support the gnostic Mary’s identity with the Magdalene, but they do instead suggest that this Mary is a complex figure, whose identity cannot simply be reduced to a single historical figure. Hippolytus also includes some details that would suggest Mariamne’s identity, reporting a Nassene claim that their teachings were passed down from James the brother of the Lord through this Mariamne. Again, the name in itself tells us nothing, referring potentially to either Mary of Nazareth or the Magdalene. Mariamne’s relationship with James the brother of the Lord, however, offers some tantalizing clues for interpretation, particularly if we assume with most scholars that James was in fact Jesus’ biological brother and, consequently, the son of Mary of Nazareth.123 This possible relationship lends a certain logic to this Mariamne’s identification with Mary of Nazareth, since James’ relationship with his mother would form the basis for her transmission of his teachings. There is, however, no similar association between the Magdalene and the brothers of Jesus that would support the identification of this Mariamne with Mary of Magdala.124 Moreover, the Mandean Miriai traditions also suggest this Mariamne’s identification with Mary of Nazareth, since, as Jorunn Jacobson Buckley notes, the Mandean traditions explicitly connect Miriai with both James the brother of Jesus and a certain “Benjamin,” whose name also appears in Hippolytus’ account of the Nassenes.125 Since the Mandean Miriai had her historical origin in the Christian Mary of Nazareth, this 123

See the joint Roman Catholic/Lutheran discussion of this issue in R. E. Brown, etal., MaryintheNewTestament:ACollaborativeAssessment byProtestantandRomanCatholicScholars (New York, 1978) 65-72. 124 See Albertz, “Über die Christophanie der Mutter Jesu,” 505, where he states this in his interpretation of John 20. 125 Buckley, “Mandean Appropriation,” 190-91.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 169

29/10/18 13:02

170

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Mandean tradition would favor identifying Hippolytus’ Mariamne with the mother of Christ, rather than the Magdalene. Thus, not only do the patristic witnesses fail to confirm Mary Magdalene as the central character of the GospelaccordingtoMary, but on the contrary, if anything they seem to suggest, in the case of Hippolytus’ Refutatio, the gnostic Mary’s identification with Mary of Nazareth. The remaining gnostic Mary traditions also fail to identify this character with Mary of Magdala. The GospelaccordingtoThomas, as we have already noted, names this woman only as “Mariam,” and in light of the preceding discussions,126 arguments that both the form of the name and her conflict with Peter suggest the Magdalene are not persuasive.127 Similarly, a character known only as “Mariam” or “Mariamme” also appears in the Dialogue of the Savior,128 the First ApocalypseofJames,129 and the SophiaofJesusChrist,130 but again, in each of these instances the arguments favoring this character’s identity with the Magdalene rest only on the form of the name or a comparison with other texts that have already been discussed.131 Finally, we must briefly consider some possible evidence afforded by the Manichean tradition. The Manichean tradition also reveres a woman named “Maria,” whom the Manichean psalms praise almost 126

See n. 54 above. The are the arguments advanced by Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 39. 128 DialogueoftheSavior, passim (S. Emmel (ed.), NagHammadiCodexIII, 5:TheDialogueoftheSavior (Leiden, 1984)). 129 FirstApocalypseofJames, 40.25 (Parrott, NagHammadiCodicesV,25, 98). 130 Sophia of Jesus Christ 98.9-11/89.20-90.1 and 114.8-12/117.12-16 (D. M. Parrott (ed.), NagHammadiCodicesIII,3-4andV,1 (Leiden, 1991) 69 and 169). 131 See the discussions in Marjanen, Woman Jesus Loved, 63-64 (Sophia ofJesusChrist); 78-80 (DialogueoftheSavior); 131-32 (FirstApocalypseof James). Note, however, that in the case of SophiaofJesusChrist, Marjanen additionally discusses the importance of the “Philip group,” as identified by Parrott, “Gnostic and Orthodox Disciples.” As Marjanen rightly notes (Marjanen, WomanJesusLoved, 65-70), Parrott’s thesis is problematic. More importantly, however, whether right or wrong, Parrott’s observation that “Mariam” often appears in the company of certain disciples in no way decides her identity: Parrott simply presumes that this Mariam is the Magdalene, without offering any reason why (Parrott, “Gnostic and Orthodox Disciples,” 197). 127

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 170

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

171

unfailingly in their doxologies.132 Although some scholars have speculated that this Mary was probably an early martyr of the Manichean mission to Egypt,133 this figure’s close association with Mani and the other early leaders of the community suggests that perhaps this Mary was revered as a “founding mother” of the Manichean religion.134 If this were true, it would not necessarily exclude the possibility that Mary of Nazareth might lurk behind this figure. Manicheism embraced both Christ and a variety of Christian traditions in formulating its teaching: indeed, Mani was believed to be the “Paraclete” whom Christ had prophesied.135 Thus it is conceivable that the Manicheans imported a Christian figure named Mary, along with certain other Christian traditions, such as “the Twelve” and “the Seventy-two,” traditions with which this figure is occasionally associated.136 If this Mary were to have some relation to the gnostic Mary of the Christian tradition, her identification with Mary of Nazareth would be just as likely as the Magdalene. A certain “Mariamme” also appears in several of the fourthcentury Manichean Psalms, one of which describes her participation in the events of John 20.137 In light of this fact, many have identified this Mariamme with Mary Magdalene, as John’s gospel would seem to demand. Yet given the origin of Manicheism in the Syrian East, where Tatian’s Diatessaron held sway, perhaps we should not be so quick to adopt this resolution. In fact, it is increasingly apparent that, like the Christians of this region, the Manicheans relied on Tatian’s Diatessaron as their primary source for the gospel traditions.138 Therefore, it seems likely that the Manichean tradition would have been influenced by the Diatessaron and other early Syrian Christian traditions to understand the mother of Christ, rather than the Magdalene, in this 132

ManicheanPsalm-Book (C. R. C. Allberry (ed.), AManichaeanPsalmBook,PartII (Stuttgart, 1938) passim). 133 Discussed by Coyle, “Mary Magdalene in Manichaeism,” 51. 134 See, for instance, the doxology of Psalm 227: Manichean Psalm-Book (Allberry, AManichaeanPsalm-Book,PartII, 22). 135 Rudolph, Gnosis, 334-35. 136 ManicheanPsalm-Book (Allberry, AManichaeanPsalm-Book,PartII, 22). 137 ManicheanPsalm-Book (ibid., 187-88, 192, 194). See also Coyle, “Mary Magdalene in Manichaeism.” 138 See the brief discussion by Petersen, “The Diatessaron of Tatian,” 8889, along with the extensive bibliography signaled in the footnotes.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 171

29/10/18 13:02

172

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

role. Admittedly, we cannot be certain that the Manichean tradition made such an interpretive move, but given the origin of Manicheism in the context of early Syriac Christianity,139 this seems a likely possibility. This is further suggested by the appearance of material from the earliest Mandean liturgical traditions among the Manichean Psalms. These Mandean liturgies form the earliest witness to the “gnostic Miriai” traditions, and it is possible that through the medium of Mandeism, Mary of Nazareth, in the guise of Miriai, entered into the Manichean traditions together with other Mandean traditions.140 Moreover, one of these Psalms links this Mariamme with the “Spirit of Wisdom,”141 a celestial figure whom Manicheism frequently identifies with the “Virgin of Light.”142 This too could seem to suggest that this Mary is the mother of Christ, since the PistisSophia explicitly associates the heavenly Virgin of Light with the earthly Virgin Mary.143 Nevertheless, this same passage from the Pistis Sophia also links the “other Mary,” the Magdalene, with the Virgin of Light, noting that she, like the mother of Christ, has received the likeness of the Virgin of Light. Yet again, the two Marys are merged, reminding us that in light of the gnostic Mary’s composite identity, we may never be too sure just who she “really” was. In summary then, the gnostic Mary’s identity is by no means a simple matter, nor is her identification with Mary of Magdala as certain as it is frequently asserted in modern scholarship. The particular spelling of the name Mary is in no way a reliable criterion distinguishing the two women, even though this is the most frequently advanced argument in favor of the gnostic Mary’s identity with Mary of Magdala. If anything, the spellings Mariam and Mariamme appear to favor an identification with Mary of Nazareth, as I have demonstrated elsewhere.144 139

Rudolph, Gnosis, 326-30; for further detail, see also A. Henrichs, “Mani and the Babylonian Baptists: A Historical Confrontation,” HSCP 77 (1973) 23-59. 140 See Säve-Söderbergh’s demonstration that a number of the Coptic Manichean Psalms are actually translations of earlier Mandean liturgical texts: SäveSöderbergh, StudiesintheCopticManichaeanPsalm-Book, 156-55. 141 ManicheanPsalm-Book (Allberry, AManichaeanPsalm-Book,PartII, 194.19). 142 Coyle, “Mary Magdalene in Manichaeism,” 47. 143 See n. 97 above. 144 See Shoemaker, “A Case of Mistaken Identity?”

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 172

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

173

Likewise, the writings of the New Testament fail to resolve this problem, since they show both Marys to have equally been important figures in early Christian memory. Even the Magdalene’s role as apostolaapostolorum in the fourth gospel does not tip the balance in her favor, since in early Christian Syria, where it seems most likely that the gnostic Mary traditions first developed, it was believed that Christ first appeared to his mother, Mary of Nazareth, commissioning her with a revelation to deliver to his followers. Moreover, despite frequent assertions to the contrary, there is significant evidence that early Christians occasionally imagined Mary of Nazareth in situations similar to those in which the gnostic Mary is found: she converses with her risen son, expounds on the cosmic mysteries, and reveals her son’s secret teachings to the apostles, with whom she is occasionally seen to be in strife. Such is especially evident in the PistisSophia, a text whose interpretation has been tightly controlled by the last century’s interpretive dogmas. Both this text and the Gospel accordingtoPhilip make clear that the gnostic Mary traditions do not have only a single Mary in view. Although many will no doubt continue to take refuge in Philip’s description of Mary Magdalene as the Savior’s favorite, we should not forget that the New Testament identifies Mary of Nazareth as the “favored one,” who has “found favor with God.”145 Finally, the only ancient “gnostic” tradition to have survived into the present, the Mandean faith, adds its voice in favor of Mary of Nazareth, who survives in the Mandean traditions as the “gnostic Miriai.” The force of this evidence makes for a very distinct possibility of seeing Mary of Nazareth in the figure of the gnostic Mary, both for ancient and modern interpreters alike. It does not, to be sure, exclude the possibility of seeing the Magdalene in this figure as well, nor is it intended to do so. Rather, it is my hope that future scholarship will be more attentive to the ambiguities of this intriguing figure, and willing to further explore aspects of her relation to Mary of Nazareth. 3. Conclusions:MarianPoliticsandtheGnosticMary Returning to Deirdre Good’s quotation, with which this article began, we recall that once the polysemy of textual material is recognized, the “politics of knowledge,” or of interpretation, immediately comes 145

Luke 1.28, 30.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 173

29/10/18 13:02

174

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

to the fore. Once one acknowledges the lack of fixed meaning, the decision to supply one meaning rather than another itself becomes an object of scrutiny, open to interpretation. We can then question the set of cultural and political assumptions that predisposes a given interpreter to formulate his or her explanation, and likewise we must question our own. I have argued here that the gnostic Mary is an ambiguous symbol, whose identity is not fixed, despite the claims of the interpretive tradition. Her identity must be supplied from one or a combination of at least two possibilities, Mary of Nazareth or Mary of Magdala. In conclusion, I will briefly consider some possible reasons why scholarship has for so long chosen to identify the gnostic Mary exclusively with the Magdalene, and I will additionally identify some of the motivations that lie behind my own efforts to argue for a possible connection between the gnostic Mary and Mary of Nazareth. One of the main cultural forces inclining many modern interpreters to identify the gnostic Mary with the Magdalene is no doubt the influence of Protestantism and its historic “resistance to talk about Mary [of Nazareth].”146 This influence, however, is not so much the result of confessed faith as it is symptomatic of the lasting impact that Protestant ideas have had on New Testament and early Christian studies. Indeed, the early decision to identify this figure with the Magdalene rather than the Virgin was made in the context of 19th century German biblical scholarship, whose Protestant leanings, voiced and unvoiced, are well known.147 Such Protestant-oriented scholarship and its lingering influence have impacted the study of early Christianity with a tendency to minimize the strong devotion to Mary of Nazareth evident 146

B. Roberts Gaventa, Mary:GlimpsesoftheMotherofJesus (Columbia, S.C., 1995) 19. Although one runs the risk of generalizing here, Gaventa, herself a Protestant, notes, “Although diversity of viewpoints among Protestants is virtually axiomatic, Protestant reflection on Mary (or the lack of Protestant reflection) does have certain regular features,” including, she continues, “a reluctance to affirm more about Mary than can be found in the New Testament.” Ibid., 16. For more on the differences in Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic views of Mary, see ibid., 11-19; H. Räisänen, DieMutterJesuim NeuenTestament (Helsinki, 19892) 9-16; and J. Pelikan, Marythroughthe Centuries:HerPlaceintheHistoryofCulture (New Haven, 1996) 7-21, 15363, 201-13. 147 See, for instance, the extensive discussion of this influence in J. Z. Smith, DrudgeryDivine:OntheComparisonofEarlyChristianitiesandtheReligionsofLateAntiquity (Chicago, 1990).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 174

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

175

in the ancient church.148 This is true, for instance, of Hans von Campenhausen’s study of TheVirginBirthintheTheologyoftheAncient Church, a work which, despite its many strengths, “is marked by a tendency to minimize and trivialize any early mention of [Mary] so as to reduce its import for mariology.”149 This is in fact the work’s stated purpose, as von Campenhausen explains in his Introduction: The aim of the present work is to open up a path through this scholastic wilderness, the so-called ‘Mariology’ of the early Church. It cannot be seriously disputed that the early Church, at any rate during its first few centuries, knew no real Marian doctrine, that is, no thematic theological concern with Mary’s person and her significance in the scheme of Salvation. Nevertheless the flood of publications relating to the subject is now beyond computation, and under the pressure of present Catholic dogmatic interest it is still rising.150

The prejudice of this passage hardly needs comment. Nor is this tendency completely a thing of the past: in the preface to her book on Mary in early Christianity, Beverly Roberts Gaventa identifies different understandings of Mary (of Nazareth) as one of the few remaining distinctions between Protestant and Roman Catholic biblical scholarship.151 The lingering (if often unvoiced) imprint of Protestantism has perhaps engendered a reluctance to imagine Mary of Nazareth in the position of leadership and authority that gnostic Mary is shown to possess. Interestingly enough, much of the dissent to the dominant hermeneutic has come from Roman Catholic scholarship. Ernest Renan, 148

See, e.g., W. S. Vorster, “The Annunciation of the Birth of Jesus in the Protevangelium of James,” in J. H. Petzer and P. J. Hartin (eds), A South AfricanPerspectiveontheNewTestament (Leiden, 1986) 34-53 at 39-40. See also Gaventa, Mary, 16. 149 Citing an unpublished paper by P. Sellew, “Heroic Biography, Continent Mariage, and the ProtevangeliumJacobi,” where he discusses this point with reference to the modern interpretation of the Protevangelium. Sellew also cites as an example Oscar Cullmann’s curious judgment that “Tertullian and Origen have ‘more unbiased views’ of the virgin birth and its implications for mariological dogma” than did the author of the Protevangelium. Schneemelcher, NewTestamentApocrypha, 1:425. 150 H. von Campenhausen, TheVirginBirthintheTheologyoftheAncient Church (London, 1964) 7. 151 Gaventa, Mary, ix.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 175

29/10/18 13:02

176

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

whose Roman Catholic pedigree is well known,152 initiated discussion of the gnostic Mary by identifying her with the mother of Jesus, and not the Magdalene. Robert Murray, a Jesuit, has not gone so far as Renan, but has presented a thoughtful consideration of the gnostic Mary’s ambiguity, particularly in light of the early Syrian tradition of Mary of Nazareth’s Christophany. Although Murray is somewhat cautiously agnostic, his doubts are sobering in comparison with the certainties of much scholarship. Enzo Lucchesi, on the other hand, has in his recent objections raised an argument for identifying Mary of Nazareth with the gnostic Mary that is even more forceful than Renan’s initial proposal. Although Lucchesi’s religious background is unknown to me, it is no doubt telling that the venue for his dissent was Analecta Bollandiana, the journal of the Société des Bollandistes, a select group of Jesuits dedicated to the study of Christian hagiography for over 350 years. What might account for this tendency, especially given a heightened Roman Catholic concern for the Virgin’s purity, dogmatic as well as physical? Perhaps the answer may lie in a greater willingness by some Roman Catholic scholars to ascribe to Mary of Nazareth a more significant role in early Christianity. We have already noted a Protestant reluctance to ascribe much importance to the mother of Jesus in formative Christianity, while Roman Catholic scholars as diverse as Loisy153 and, more recently, Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza154 have taken steps that emphasize Mary of Nazareth’s importance in earliest Christianity. Thus, whereas Mary of Nazareth is somewhat removed from view for many Protestant interpreters, when Roman Catholic commentators have encountered this “Mary” who figures so prominently in the early Christian movement, there is perhaps a certain “naturalness” in looking toward Mary of Nazareth, who stands very much at the center of their tradition. In addition to such “confessional” concerns, we may identify additional cultural forces that have likely influenced the gnostic Mary’s identification with the Magdalene, among which stand the efforts of 152

See, e.g., A. Schweitzer, TheQuestoftheHistoricalJesus (London, 19312) 180-81. 153 At least in his commentary on John, as discussed above: see n. 37. 154 See, e.g., Schüssler Fiorenza, InMemoryofHer, 307-9; and E. Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus:Miriam’sChild,Sophia’sProphet:CriticalIssuesinFeministChristology (New York, 1994) 163-90.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 176

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

177

feminist scholars to disrupt the oppressive, patriarchal formation of normative Christianity. These have successfully focused on the gnostic Mary’s portrayal as a powerful, intelligent leader who opposes the restrictive voices of “orthodoxy” within the early Christian tradition. Nevertheless, this emphasis is not the source of the gnostic Mary’s identification with the Magdalene; the origin seems to lie instead in Mary Magdalene’s traditional identification as a victim of patriarchy, on the one hand, and Mary of Nazareth’s use as an instrument of patriarchal victimization of women, on the other. The Christian tradition identifies Mary of Magdala as having been a prostitute, and despite this tradition’s well-known inaccuracy, it continues to hold sway over the Magdalene’s image in Christian culture. Upon her acceptance of the Christian faith, she was delivered from the patriarchal oppression that she endured as a prostitute, making her an ideal figure for reinventing the Christian tradition as a faith of liberation. Mary of Nazareth, however, is frequently reviled as an oppressive instrument of Christian patriarchy (which she undeniably has been). For Mary of Nazareth, Christianity only brought patriarchal control over her archetypal body (at the Annunciation), and, consequently, over the bodies and lives of countless Christian women across the ages, for whom Mary was identified as a role model. The inversion of the traditional Madonna/whore dichotomy, while sometimes left implicit, is on occasion explicitly identified as a hermeneutic principle: the patriarchal binary is inverted so that Mary of Magdala is identified as a feminist anti-type of Mary of Nazareth, the former representing the essence of feminist liberation and the latter the essence of patriarchal oppression.155 On occasion, one also senses a concern to recover the history of formative Christianity “wie es eigentlich gewesen,” another strong legacy of the 19th century German intellectual milieu in which early Christian studies, and the figure of the gnostic Mary, developed.156 It must be admitted that from an “historical-critical” vantage, Mary of Nazareth is unlikely to have actually been the gnostic Mary. That 155

See, e.g., Haskins, MaryMagdalen, 386-94; M. R. Thompson, Maryof Magdala:ApostleandLeader (New York, 1995) 126-27. 156 The famous quote is from Leopold von Ranke, the 19th century founder of modern, “critical” history. For more on Ranke and his significance for modern history, see H. V. White, Metahistory:TheHistoricalImagination inNineteenth-CenturyEurope (Baltimore, 1973) 163-90, esp. 163-64.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 177

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

178

is, if we accept the historical existence of a real gnostic Mary, who was a leader in the earliest Christian community, then it is somewhat improbable that this woman would have been Mary of Nazareth. The conflict between Christ and his family in Mark 3.20-35 suggests that Mary of Nazareth was not involved in Christ’s public ministry, and was in some sense against it. One could conceivably argue Mary of Nazareth somehow eventually “came around,” as implied by her presence at Cana, at the foot of the Cross, and in the “upper room.” Nevertheless, this seems somewhat unlikely: it is hard to imagine that the earliest community would have preserved the episode in Mark 3.20-35 if Christ’s mother had in fact been a driving force in the earliest community. It seems more likely that traditions of Mary of Nazareth’s involvement in her son’s ministry and the early church reflect a growing esteem for her, which was clearly gathering strength by the second century.157 This point is not, however, especially important for the matter at hand. The aim here is not so much to determine who this woman really was, if in fact she actually existed, which is by no means any more certain than Mary of Nazareth’s presence at Cana or Pentecost. Indeed, if there once was a memory of Mary of Nazareth’s opposition to her son’s ministry, by the second century it was certainly ignored, if not effectively forgotten. The present goal is instead to understand how this gnostic Mary might have been understood by Christians of the second and later centuries, the time when the gnostic Mary traditions are first evident. In this sense the approach of this study is perhaps quite different from that of many previous interpreters. One often senses among these an almost Protestant-like will to recover the “truth” of origins, with the intention of using this knowledge to advance reform: if one can show that Christianity was, at its genesis, a movement of liberation for women as well as others who are oppressed, then one can perhaps compel the “deviant” modern traditions to return to the truth of origins. Although this effort to remythologize the origins of Christianity is admirable, its orientation is different from my own, which is focused not on origins but on tradition. Also at work, I suspect, are different approaches to the historical study of women or “gender.” Such attempts to identify the “historical gnostic Mary” are undoubtedly tied to efforts to restore the faces and 157

See Brown, etal., MaryintheNewTestament, 241-82, esp. 242.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 178

29/10/18 13:02

RETHINKING THE

“GNOSTIC MARY”

179

voices of real women to history, identifying in the cracks of history various “great women” who can rival and challenge the “great men” of the canonical histories.158 My approach is not so much opposed to this worthy cause as it is decidedly different in its aims. It is a less “object-oriented” and more “reader-oriented” approach to the question of the gnostic Mary, seeking not so much to know who she “really” was, but how she may have been understood by those early Christians who came into contact with and preserved these traditions. In this sense it is more aligned with the cultural study of gender, that is, the investigation of how men and women are historically represented in culture, rather than with efforts to recover the “facts” of women’s historical existence and experience.159 It is nevertheless hoped that this point of view will contribute to the challenge that such scholarship has posed to Christianity’s patriarchal formation by exploring a new alternative and enlarging the potential that is present in the symbol of the gnostic Mary. Consequently, the argument presented here is not at all intended to challenge or disrupt the gnostic Mary’s anti-patriarchal, anti-normative force: this feature clearly remains a part of the figure no matter whom we should choose to see in her. Rather than deploying the gnostic Mary to invert the Christian tradition’s Madonna/whore dualism, or to reinvent the myth of origins (both worthwhile endeavors), I propose the use of this symbol to subvert directly Mary of Nazareth’s repressive representation in the Christian tradition. It is, on the one hand, admittedly useful to identify a point of resistance in the “gnostic” Mary Magdalene, seeing in her a woman who can represent a gender-inclusive Christian “origin,” and yet who stands outside of the repressive patriarchy that ensued and openly challenges it. Nevertheless, compared to the Virgin Mary, the Magdalene is a rather minor figure in the Christian tradition, in light of which it might make sense to develop the gnostic Mary as an instrument capable of directly subverting Mary of Nazareth’s oppressive representation in the Christian tradition, and forming a new, 158

See J. W. Scott, “Women in History: The Modern Period,” Past and Present 101 (1983) 141-57; and (with regard to early Christian studies in particular) E. A. Clark, “The Lady Vanishes: Dilemmas of a Feminist Historian after the ‘Linguistic Turn,’” CH 67 (1998) 1-31. 159 See J. W. Scott, “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” in GenderandthePoliticsofHistory (New York, 1988) 28-50; Clark, “The Lady Vanishes.”

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 179

29/10/18 13:02

180

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

more empowering image of Mary of Nazareth. Although many feminist theologians consider Mary’s representation so completely repressive as to be unsalvageable, I sympathize with the numerous others who are, in the words of Dorothee Sölle, “not ready to surrender Mary to our opponents.”160 In non-Protestant traditions, Mary is a symbol too potent simply to be let go: even if we do not run to embrace her, her repressive representation still must be somehow subverted, or it will continue to function. Therefore, while the reclamation of the Magdalene as an important leader of the early Christian movement is perhaps effective in a Protestant context, in which the Virgin Mary is a somewhat marginal figure, I propose that a different strategy may prove useful in non-Protestant contexts. In these traditions, the gnostic Mary could be employed to challenge and transform traditional representations of the Virgin Mary. Rather than simply inverting the Christian tradition’s essentialism by embracing the Magdalene and demonizing the Virgin, one might nurture a new image of Mary of Nazareth as a prominent and respected leader of the early church, who resisted the limitations placed on her by the male leaders of the church. Imagining Mary of Nazareth, rather than the Magdalene, in this way may be more effective in non-Protestant contexts for challenging the repression that these traditions have heaped on women for centuries, calling these traditions to recognize that, “it is the women disciples, as well as Mary [of Nazareth], who are among those filled with the Spirit at Pentecost, designated as sharing in the renewed prophetic spirit.”161

160 See the discussion in M. Hamington, HailMary?:TheStruggleforUltimateWomanhoodinCatholicism (New York, 1995) 157-79, where the author argues against such withdrawl and in favor of an attempt to recast Marian imagery. The quotation occurs at p. 164, and is from D. Soelle, TheStrength oftheWeak:TowardaChristianFeministIdentity (Philadelphia, 1984) 47. 161 R. Radford Ruether, “Is Feminism the End of Christianity? A Critique of Daphne Hampson’s TheologyandFeminism,” ScottishJournalofTheology 43 (1990) 390-400 at 391, cited in Hamington, HailMary?, 179.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_06.indd 180

29/10/18 13:02

VII.

Apocrypha and Liturgy: The Case of the “Six Books” Dormition Apocryphon

Early Christian apocrypha have frequently been defined in terms of the writings of the New Testament: they are conceived as rival texts in the same genres, whose pretensions to canonical status were denied by their exclusion from the Bible. One finds such thinking reflected in the titles of popular books, for instance, running from William Hone’s early collection of TheLostBooksoftheBible to Bart Ehrman’s recent collection of apocrypha, LostScriptures:BooksthatDidNotMakeIt intotheNewTestament, companion volume to his LostChristianities: TheBattlesforScriptureandtheFaithsWeNeverKnew.1 No doubt, this rather commonly held view owes itself to some degree to the dramatic discoveries at Qumran and Nag Hammadi, which continue to enthrall both scholars of ancient religion and the broader public with their hints at the now effaced diversity of early Judaism and Christianity. Nevertheless, the theoretical underpinnings of this mindset were laid primarily by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, who in the introduction to his widely influential collection of apocrypha defined the “New Testament Apocrypha” essentially as failed scriptures. According to Schneemelcher, the apocrypha are writings in the same genres as the New Testament writings “that lay claim to be of equal status (gleichwertig) to the writings of the canon.”2 The effects 1

W. Honeetal., TheLostBooksoftheBible,BeingAlltheGospels,Epistles, andOtherPiecesNowExtantAttributedintheFirstFourCenturiestoJesus Christ,HisApostlesandTheirCompanions,NotIncluded,byItsCompilers,in theAuthorizedNewTestament (New York, 1926); B. D. Ehrman, LostScriptures:BooksthatDidNotMakeItintotheNewTestament (New York, 2003); B. D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths thatWeNeverKnew (New York, 2003). 2 W. Schneemelcher, NeutestamentlicheApokryphenindeutscherÜbersetzung, 2 vols. (Tübingen, 1959-643) 1:6; Eng. trans., W. Schneemelcher (ed.),

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 181

29/10/18 13:02

182

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

of this definition are readily apparent in the makeup of Schneemelcher’s collection, as well as in much twentieth-century scholarship on early Christian apocrypha, particularly in their chronological limitations: no apocrypha were written after the beginning of the fourth century (the approximate date of the canon’s closure). To be sure, the twentieth century did not invent this idea, which reaches back to certain early Church Fathers, including for instance Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, and later Eusebius, Athanasius, and Augustine, who accused their opponents of inventing false scriptures.3 Nevertheless, it is primarily Schneemelcher and others under his influence who bear the responsibility for establishing this mentality essentially as a doctrine of early Christian studies.4 Despite its Patristic roots, this view of the apocrypha reflects a largely Protestant calculus, in which the Scriptures are the norm. Any writing purporting to convey apostolic traditions with authority must have aimed at membership in the canon: there is no other space within which to locate such material. According to such solascriptura logic, following the canon’s closure, Christianity essentially “closed the book” (so to speak) on the first century, and once the New Testament’s snapshot of Christian origins had developed, it was inconceivable that further traditions about the primitive church could have been advanced claiming a rival or parallel authority to speak about this period. After 300, any such writings are mere “hagiographies.”

NewTestamentApocrypha, trans. R. M. Wilson, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1963-5) 1.27, trans. slightly modified. 3 See, e.g., W. Schneemelcher (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R. M. Wilson, rev. ed., 2 vols. (Louisville, Ky., 1991-2) 1:14; S. C. Mimouni, “Le concept d’apocryphité dans le christianisme ancien et médiéval. Réflexions en guise d’introduction,” in S. C. Mimouni (ed.), Apocryphité: Histoire d’uneconcepttransversalauxreligionsdulivre (Turnhout, 2002) 1-21, 15-17; D. A. Bertrand, “La notion d’apocryphe dans l’argumentation de la Réfutation detoutesleshérésies,” in ibid., 131-40; A. Le Boulluec, “Écrits ‘contestés,’ ‘inauthentiques,’ ou ‘impies’? (Eusèbe de Césarée, HistoireEcclésiastique, III, 25),” in ibid., 153-65. 4 Schneemelcher’s definition is adopted, for instance, in M. Erbetta, Gli ApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 3 vols. (Torino, 1966-81); L. Moraldi, ApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 2 vols. (Torino, 1971); R. McL. Wilson, “Christian Apocrypha,” in H. R. Balz et al., Theologische Realenzyklopädie (Berlin; New York, 1977) 316-62.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 182

29/10/18 13:02

APOCRYPHA AND LITURGY

183

Nevertheless, this conception of Christian apocrypha fails to do justice to the both diversity of the Christian apocryphal traditions and their varied usage within the Christian faith. In many cases, for instance, some Christian apocrypha are better understood as a vital component of ecclesiastical tradition rather than as failed scriptures. Schneemelcher’s approach is incapable of elucidating the widespread production and consumption of apocryphal material in early and medieval Christianity, and only by recovering the category of tradition and exploring its relation to certain apocryphal materials can we fully comprehend their historical significance within the Christian faith. Marian apocrypha fare particularly badly given the terms of Schneemelcher’s scheme, and his collection is consequently a virtual Marian wasteland. Aside from the ProtevangeliumofJames, whose early composition more or less mandates its inclusion, Schneemelcher devotes a mere four pages to apocryphal traditions about Mary, where, rather astonishingly, he reflects almost exclusively on her appearances in the canonical gospels, dispensing with the early Dormition and Assumption traditions in a mere eleven lines.5 Yet given the terms of his definition, the category of Marian apocrypha essentially does not exist: such writings are in fact, according to Schneemelcher, hagiographies. Fortunately, Éric Junod offers an alternative definition of Christian apocrypha that improves greatly on Schneemelcher’s conception by eliminating both his arbitrary chronological boundary and the insistence on a biblical standard, and the fruits of this reconfiguration of the category “apocrypha” can be seen particularly in the collective work issuing from the Association pour l’étude de la littérature apocryphe chrétienne over the past quarter of a century.6 5

Schneemelcher, NewTestamentApocrypha, rev. ed., 1:479-83. For comparison, the HistoryofJosephtheCarpenter fares much better, receiving close to thirty lines. 6 É. Junod, “Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament ou apocryphes chrétiens anciens? Remarques sur la désignation d’un corpus et indications bibliographiques sur instruments de travail récents,” Étudesthéologiquesetreligieuses 59 (1983) 409-21, 409-14. Here Junod defines Christian apocrypha as follows: “Anonymous or pseudepigraphical texts of Christian origin which maintain a connection with the books of the New Testament as well as the Old Testament because they are devoted to events described or mentioned in these books, or because they are devoted to events that take place in the expansion of events described or mentioned in these books, because they focus on persons appearing in these books, or because their literary genre is

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 183

29/10/18 13:02

184

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Among its many advantages, this new paradigm allows for appreciation of the peculiar and influential position that many Marian apocrypha have occupied somewhere in the gap between Scripture and Tradition. For the most part, these expansions on the biblical traditions seem to lack the frustrated canonical pretensions presumed by Schneemelcher’s definition, and yet their influence on the subsequent Christian tradition can hardly be overestimated, as Hans-Josef Klauck observes of the ProtevangeliumofJames, for instance.7 Moreover, the attitudes of certain Church Fathers toward these apocrypha affirm their status as something quite different from failed scriptures. In addition to attacking apocryphal writings as the false scriptures of heretics, the Fathers would also recommend the selective reading of some apocrypha as beneficial, and among these licit apocrypha one often encounters writings about Mary.8 Along with the Protevangelium (and its related to those of the biblical writings.” Schneemelcher attempts a response in W. Schneemelcher (ed.), NeutestamentlicheApokryphenindeutscherÜbersetzung, 2 vols. (Tübingen, 1989-906) 1:40-52; Eng. trans., Schneemelcher, NewTestamentApocrypha, rev. ed., 1:50-61. See, however, the replies in É. Junod, “‘Apocryphes du Nouveau Testament’: un appellation erronée et une collection artificielle,” Apocrypha 3 (1992) 17-46, esp. 35-9; see also J.-D. Kaestli, “Les écrits apocryphes chrétiens. Pour une approche qui valorise leur diversité et leurs attaches bibliques,” in J.-D. Kaestli and D. Marguerat (eds), Lemystèreapocryphe:introductionàunelittérature méconnue (Geneva, 1996) 27-41; J.-C. Picard, “Le continent apocryphe,” Lecontinentapocryphe:essaisurleslittératuresapocryphesjuiveetchrétienne (Turnhout, 1999) 3-6. 7 H.-J. Klauck, ApokrypheEvangelien:EineEinführung (Stuttgart, 2002) 98. Note that the English translation mistranslates überschätzen as “underestimate”, yielding a very different meaning: H.-J. Klauck, ApocryphalGospels:AnIntroduction, trans. B. McNeil (New York, 2003) 72. 8 For more on this phenomenon, esp. as it pertains to Marian apocrypha, see S. J. Shoemaker, “Early Christian Apocrypha,” in S. A. Harvey and D. G. Hunter (eds), Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2008) 521-48; and S. J. Shoemaker, “Between Scripture and Tradition: The Marian Apocrypha of Early Christianity,” in L. DiTommaso and L. Turcescu (eds), TheReceptionandInterpretationoftheBibleinLateAntiquity.ProceedingsoftheMontréalColloquiuminHonourofCharlesKannengiesser, 11-13October2006 (Leiden, 2008) 491-510. See also A. Jacobs, “The Disorder of Books: Priscillian’s Canonical Defense of Apocrypha,” HTR 93 (2000) 135-59, 140-1; D. Brakke, “Canon Formation and Social Conflict

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 184

29/10/18 13:02

APOCRYPHA AND LITURGY

185

Latin derivative, the GospelofPs.-Matthew), one frequently finds a number of the Dormition apocrypha within this approved category, and not coincidentally, their influence on the subsequent Christian tradition very nearly rivals that of the Protevangelium.9 Indeed, so strong was the influence of these Marian narratives on subsequent Christian tradition as it recalled the era of its origins, not to mention their influence on the development of Mariology, liturgy, asceticism, and iconography, that it almost makes sense to speak of these apocrypha as having a quasi-canonical status. The liturgical presence of these apocrypha in the life of the church afforded their primary avenue of influence. The early and medieval church frequently turned to apocrypha for readings for the feast days of saints from the biblical tradition, including Mary in particular.10 In many cases this process involved the revision and adaptation of an existing apocryphon, although a number of Christian apocrypha appear to have been designed for liturgical usage from the beginning. The Protevangelium and the Ps.-John TransitusMariae, for instance, were among the most widely circulated apocrypha in the Christian East, and in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter,” HTR 87 (1994) 395-419, 397. The case of Priscillian, however, illustrates how difficult it could be to strike the appropriate balance in acceptance of certain apocrypha: this could easily be turned against one by one’s opponents. 9 E.g., John of Thessalonica, dorm. BMV A (G3) 1 (M. Jugie, Homélies marialesbyzantines(II) (Paris, 1926) 376-7); Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 2 (M. van Esbroeck (ed.), Maxime le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge, 2 vols. (Lovanii, 1986) 4 (Geor) and 3 (Fr); English trans. S. J. Shoemaker, MaximustheConfessor,TheLifeoftheVirgin:Translated,withan IntroductionandNotes (New Haven, 2012) 38). Even an arch-conservative such as Epiphanius cites apocryphal materials as an authoritative part of Christian Tradition, when in Panarion 79 he refers to traditions about Joakim and Anna from the ProtevangeliumofJames, albeit without acknowledging his reliance on apocryphal material: Epiphanius, Panarion 79.5.4-5, 79.7.1 (K. Holl and J. Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3 vols. (Leipzig; Berlin, 1915, 19802, 19852) 3:480-1). 10 F. Bovon and P. Geoltrain (eds), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. 1 (Paris, 1997) xxviii; F. Bovon, “Editing the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in F. Bovon, et al. (eds), The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge, 1999) 1-35; F. Bovon, “Byzantine Witnesses for the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in ibid., 87-98, 3-15; Picard, “Le continent apocryphe.”

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 185

29/10/18 13:02

186

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

each survives in hundreds of Greek and Church Slavonic manuscripts, the overwhelming majority of which are liturgical collections.11 While the former clearly presents an example of reuse, the Ps.-John Transitus appears to have been composed specifically for liturgical usage, as a précis of older apocryphal traditions. Clearly these apocrypha cannot simply be written off as failed rivals to the Scriptures: despite their literary connections to the world of the New Testament, these apocrypha function a vital and authoritative element of ecclesiastical Tradition. Yet if such liturgical usage of apocrypha was widespread in the medieval church, what can be said of such practices during late antiquity? In the sixth and seventh centuries, when our knowledge of specific liturgical practices begins to increase, it is not difficult to find evidence for the liturgical use of apocrypha. In earlier periods, however, when liturgical evidence is scarcer, the role of apocrypha in the liturgy is somewhat harder to discern. Presumably, those heterodox groups that looked to various apocrypha as canonical Scriptures used these writings in their liturgies. But can we find early evidence for liturgical usage of apocrypha in an “orthodox” setting, where they are distinguished from and used alongside of the canonical scriptures? For this we must look to the primary source behind the Transitus of Ps.John, the so-called “Six Books” apocryphon, which already by the fourth century was in use as a reading for liturgical commemorations of the Virgin Mary in conjunction with canonical materials. The Six Books apocryphon of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption has long been known, since its initial publication by William Wright in 1865, but this remarkable text has been persistently overlooked by scholars of early Christianity, a circumstance that may owe more than a little to anti-Catholic sentiment.12 Although originally 11

See É. de Strycker, “Die griechischen Handschriften des Protevangeliums Iacobi,” in D. Harlfinger (ed.), GriechischeKodikologieundTextüberlieferung (Darmstadt, 1980) 577-612, 585-8; A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Vierge danslatraditionbyzantineduVIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 17; M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’assomption avant le Xe siècle,” in F. Bovon (ed.), Les actes apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva, 1981) 265-85, 266-9; A. de Santos Otero, DiehandschriftlicheÜberlieferung deraltslavischenApokryphen, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1978-81) 2:161-95. 12 See S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition andAssumption (Oxford, 2002) 280-1.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 186

29/10/18 13:02

APOCRYPHA AND LITURGY

187

composed in Greek, this narrative survives only in Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic, where it is abundantly attested in an as yet unknown number of manuscripts. The oldest complete versions are found in two sixth-century Syriac manuscripts, where the Six Books is transmitted together with the Protevangelium and the InfancyGospelofThomas, in what appears to be a sort of proto-Life of the Virgin. Significant fragments of another early Syriac version exist in a late fifth-century palimpsest codex that also includes the Protevangelium, and additional versions are witnessed by fifth-century palimpsest fragments bound together with the Old Syriac gospels and in the Schøyen collection.13 The Greek original lying behind these translations is of course considerably older, and a number of features locate its composition and initial usage most likely during the fourth century.14 13

More information on the manuscripts can be found in ibid., 46-9. I am presently working toward a republication of all these texts with new translations, together with a new edition of Wright’s version on the basis of an unpublished sixth-century manuscript in the Göttingen collection to be published in the Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum. I published the Schøyen fragments in S. J. Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library: Presentation, Edition and Translation,” Mus 124 (2011) 259-78 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 11). This project has been long delayed due to difficulties in obtaining images of palimpsest manuscripts at Sinai. Happily, photographs have now been made of the manuscripts in question, and one of these two manuscripts has recently been published: S. P. Brock and G. Kessel, “The ‘Departure of Mary’ in Two Palimpsests at the Monastery of St. Catherine (Sinai Syr. 30 & Sinai Arabic 514),” KhristianskiĭVostok 8 (2017) 115-52. It now only remains for Sinai Arabic 588 to be edited before an edition can be completed. 14 See S. J. Shoemaker, MaryinEarlyChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016) 130-65. See also S. J. Shoemaker, “Death and the Maiden: The Early History of the Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha,” StVladimir’s Theological Quarterly 50 (2006) 59-97 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 1); S. J. Shoemaker, “A Peculiar Version of the Inventio crucis in the Early Syriac Dormition Traditions,” SP 41 (2006) 75-81 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 4); S. J. Shoemaker, “Marian Liturgies and Devotion in Early Christianity,” in S. J. Boss (ed.), Mary:TheCompleteResource (London, 2007) 130-45, 132-8; S. J. Shoemaker, “The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century: A Fresh Look at Some Old and New Sources,” in C. Maunder (ed.), TheOriginsoftheCultoftheVirginMary (London, 2008) 71-87; S. J. Shoemaker, “Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 187

29/10/18 13:02

188

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

From its outset the Six Books apocryphon repeatedly invokes a liturgical context: the narrative begins with an elaborate invocation that concludes with a prayer for the Lord’s blessing on “our congre“  of your mother, gation, which exalts the commemoration [¿æ“ üÝ{x] my Lady Mary, O Lord God.”15 After an account of the narrative’s miraculous discovery, the story of Mary’s departure from this world ensues, larded with numerous passing references to commemorations in Mary’s honor. Then, following her burial by the apostles, who were flown in on clouds from the ends of the earth, Christ appears to receive his mother’s soul and transfer her body to Paradise. Before quitting this life, however, Mary intercedes with her son on behalf of those who offer regular commemorations on her behalf at the appointed times of the year, and only after he accedes, does she quit the body. The apostles bear her inanimate body to Paradise, and after their return, a remarkable liturgical manual ensues, given here on apostolic authority. This handbook provides specific instructions for commemorating the three annual feasts in Mary’s honor that the Six Books apocryphon so emphatically enjoins on its audience. Although the specific dates holding these celebrations varies slightly in the different early manuscripts, their approximate times and significance remain constant. The first feast is to be commemorated two days after the Nativity (which itself falls on 24 December or 6 January according to the different manuscripts), and the second and third are on 15 May and 13 August respectively. As they are described by the Six Books, each feast has strong connections with agriculture and is meant to insure protection of the crops, a sign that by this time Mary had already inherited a role as protectress of the earth and harvest from the various Mediterranean goddesses.16 Immediately Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Later Fourth Century,” JECS 16 (2008) 369-99 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 8); Bauckham, “Four Apocalypses of the Virgin,” 358-60; Michel van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features,” 297-308. 15 ibid., x (Syr) and 130 (Eng), trans. slightly modified; cf. A. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca, ÍÝ-ËÝ (Syr) and 14 (Eng). 16 W. Wright, “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World,” The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 6-7 (1865) 417-48 and 108-60, „-Õà(Syr) and 152-3 (Eng), trans. slightly modified; MS Göttingen Syr. 10, fol. 30b-31a; cf. A. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca (London, 1902) Œ-}‹ (Syr) and 59-61 (Eng); the fifth-century palimpsest fragments from

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 188

29/10/18 13:02

APOCRYPHA AND LITURGY

189

after this brief calendar the Six Books apocryphon describes in some detail the ceremonies that are to be performed in Mary’s honor on each of these occasions: at the center is an offering of bread in the Virgin’s name, which is accompanied by readings from the Bible and the Six Books apocryphon itself. And the apostles also ordered that any offering offered in the name of my Lady Mary should not remain overnight, but that at midnight of the night immediately preceding her commemoration, it should be kneaded and baked; and in the morning let it go up on the altar while the people stand before the altar with psalms of David, and let the New and Old Testaments be read, and the volume of the decease of the blessed one [i.e., the Six Books apocryphon]; and let everyone be before the altar in the church, and let the priests make the offering and set forth the censer of incense and kindle the lights, and let the whole service be concerning these offerings; and when the whole service is finished, let everyone take his offerings to his house. And let the priest speak thus: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we celebrate the commemoration of my Lady Mary.” Thus let the priest speak three times; and (simultaneously) with the word of the priest who speaks, the Holy Spirit shall come and bless these offerings; and when everyone takes away his offering, and goes to his house, great help and the blessing of the blessed one shall enter his dwelling and establish it forever.17

Through this act of apparent self-promotion, the Six Books apocryphon mandates its own presence at these ceremonies in Mary’s honor. There is certainly no sense here that the apocryphon has aspirations to canonicity, as Schneemelcher would require: to the contrary, it clearly differentiates itself from the Old and New Testaments and does not challenge their authority. Nevertheless, the Six Books insists on its position alongside these sacred texts in the context of Christian worship, disclosing that by the fourth century the functions of apocryphal writings in early Christianity had begun to include liturgical usage. While this perhaps would not seem particularly surprising Sinai also refer to the three feasts, although this particular section is lacking: see Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca, Ëçù-¿çù; trans. Shoemaker, Ancient TraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 371-72. See also S. C. Mimouni, “La fête de la dormition de Marie en Syrie à l’époque byzantine,” TheHarp 5 (1992) 157-74. 17 Wright, “Departure of my Lady Mary,” ¿ćã-„ (Syr) and 153 (Eng), trans. slightly modified.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 189

29/10/18 13:02

190

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

in the context of one of early Christianity’s many “heterodox” movements, the liturgical use of an apocryphon is here mandated within a solidly proto-orthodox theological framework that is monotheistic, Trinitarian, and incarnational. Moreover, the apocryphon’s status with regard to the Scriptures is clearly supplementary rather than supplanting, and we witness in this text what is presumably the record of an early community that accepted apocryphal material as authoritative and worthy of being read alongside the Scriptures. The canon’s closure thus did not herald the end of “New Testament Apocrypha,” as in Schneemelcher’s model, occasioning instead, at least in some cases, an authorization of their supplemental purpose and their value as a component of ecclesiastical Tradition. The existence of an early Christian group that actually observed the practices outlined by the Six Books narrative is rather strongly suggested by Epiphanius of Salamis, who in his Panarion assails the so-called Kollyridians for engaging in practices nearly identical to the ceremonies prescribed in this apocryphon. According to Epiphanius, this group of early Christians observed annual commemorations of the Virgin at which bread offerings were made in her honor. “On a certain day of the year,” he writes, “they put forth bread and offer it in the name of Mary, and they all partake of the bread.”18 Epiphanius’ ensuing denunciation of the Kollyridians has led many scholars to the conclusion that these Christians were worshipping Mary either as a part of the Godhead or as some sort of “pagan” goddess cloaked in Christian garb. Yet these interpretations of the Kollyridians’ actions owe themselves primarily to Epiphanius’ overheated rhetoric and should not be taken as accurately reflecting the liturgical intentions of the early Christians whose practices he describes. Indeed, a careful reading of Epiphanius’ invective reveals his opposition to the Kollyridian practices within the context of a broader condemnation of the emergent veneration of saints.19 According to Epiphanius, the Kollyridian idolatry was in theory not unique, and any devotees of a holy person who dared to cross the threshold of veneration and begin offering some sort of cult to a saint would be guilty of the same blasphemy. As Epiphanius here makes clear, the role of the saints in the church should 18

Epiphanius, Panarion 79.1.7 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:476). See Shoemaker, Mary, 130-65; Shoemaker, “Epiphanius of Salamis”; see also Shoemaker, “Marian Liturgies and Devotion”; Shoemaker, “Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century.” 19

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 190

29/10/18 13:02

APOCRYPHA AND LITURGY

191

be limited to serving as examples of Christian excellence, and they are not to become themselves objects of devotion. All such devotion, not only when directed to Mary, constitutes idolatry in his estimation. Epiphanius’ repeated references to the Virgin’s Dormition and Assumption in the context of his rebuttal of the Kollyridians establishes a clear connection between their bread offerings and a tradition of Mary’s Dormition. Indeed, the implied logic of Epiphanius’ argument is that his opponents may have appealed to a tradition about Mary’s Assumption to defend their veneration of her, although this possibility is far from certain. Nevertheless, this ritual and doctrinal configuration can only point to the Six Books apocryphon, whose traditions Epiphanius must have known in either written or oral form. The Six Books is the sole source from the ancient church to mandate regular liturgical offerings of bread to the Virgin, which it enjoins within the context of an account of Mary’s Dormition, a subject that Epiphanius apparently saw as being closely intertwined with his opponents’ bread offerings. While Epiphanius unfortunately offers no evidence regarding the liturgical use of apocrypha by his opponents, his attack on bread offerings to the Virgin against the backdrop of questions about her Dormition and Assumption appears to confirm the existence of Christian communities in the fourth century whose beliefs and practices were influenced by the traditions of the Six Books apocryphon. The Six Books apocryphon thus presents an important early witness against the notion of apocrypha as failed Scriptures. While Schneemelcher would no doubt simply dismiss this text as hagiography, scholarship on Christian apocrypha has increasingly embraced the idea that apocryphal literature cannot be defined by the process of canon formation. To be sure, some early Christian apocrypha were likely written with the intent of either joining or displacing those writings that ultimately came to be canonical, but this impulse fails to explain the full extent of the phenomenon: many Christian apocrypha have little or nothing to do with genres of the New Testament and do not appear to have been composed with canonical aspirations. Moreover, the notion of Christian apocrypha as rejected scriptures fails to justice to the tremendous influence that many of these narratives have exerted on the development of the Christian faith and their ultimate embrace within Christianity as an esteemed part of the Tradition. The Marian apocrypha of the ancient church in particular exemplify this aspect of Christian apocryphal literature. In addition to

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 191

29/10/18 13:02

192

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

the Protevangelium and the Dormition apocrypha, one could also point to the ApocalypseoftheVirgin, an apocryphal tradition that had apparently begun to circulate together with the early Dormition traditions by the fourth century and perhaps even as early as the third century. The likely dependence of the ApocalypseofPaul on an early version of this Marian apocryphon seems to ensure its circulation by the end of the fourth century at the latest. So popular was this apocryphon in the Christian East that Richard Bauckham names it “one of the two most influential of the extra-canonical Christian apocalypses,” an honor it shares with the ApocalypseofPaul, whose circulation was limited primarily to the Christian West.20 Likewise, certain apocryphal traditions from the ancient church about the Virgin’s experiences at the foot of the cross found their way through various intermediaries into the Orthodox liturgy for Holy Friday, where they remain a living part of the Christian Tradition.21 Further testimony to 20

R. Bauckham, “Virgin, Apocalypses of the,” in D. N. Freedman (ed.), AnchorBibleDictionary, 6 vols. (New York, 1992) 6:854-6; R. Bauckham, “The Four Apocalypses of the Virgin Mary,” TheFateoftheDead, 332-62, 332-8; S. C. Mimouni, “Les Apocalypses de la Vierge: État de la question,” Apocrypha 4 (1993) 101-12. Mimouni tries to establish an early date for this apocryphon, but he does so by merging the textual histories of the Greek ApocalypseoftheVirgin with the Dormition Apocalypses. These traditions are best considered separately from one another, as Bauckham also concludes: Bauckham, “Four Apocalypses of the Virgin,” 337. See also J. Baun, Tales from Another Byzantium: Celestial Journey and Local Community in the MedievalGreekApocrypha (Cambridge, 2006), which includes study of the Greek ApocalypseoftheVirgin. 21 These are first recorded in the oldest Life of the Virgin, a seventhcentury composition: Maximus the Confessor, LifeoftheVirgin, 77-86 (van Esbroeck (ed.), MaximeleConfesseur:ViedelaVierge, 98-110 (Geor) & 66-74 (Fr)); English trans. Shoemaker, Maximus, 104-13. See also S. J. Shoemaker, “The Georgian LifeoftheVirginattributed to Maximus the Confessor: Its Authenticity(?) and Importance,” in A. Muraviev and B. Lourié (eds), Mémorial R.P. Michel van Esbroeck, S.J. (St. Petersburg, 2006) 307-28; S. J. Shoemaker, “The Virgin Mary in the Ministry of Jesus and the Early Church according to the Earliest LifeoftheVirgin,” HTR 98 (2005) 441-67; S. J. Shoemaker, “A Mother’s Passion: Mary’s Role in the Crucifixion and Resurrection in the Earliest Life of the Virgin and its Influence on George of Nicomedia’s Passion Homilies,” in L. Brubaker and M. Cunningham (eds), The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium (Aldershot, 2011) 53-67. See also M. Vassilaki and N. Tsironis, “Representations of the Virgin and

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 192

29/10/18 13:02

APOCRYPHA AND LITURGY

193

the abiding influence of Marian apocrypha is the LifeoftheVirgin Mary,theTheotokos compiled by the Orthodox nuns of the Holy Apostles Convent in Colorado. This contemporary biography of Mary acknowledges from the outset its considerable dependence on “apocryphal” sources, narratives which, as the compilers explain, the Church – the Church Fathers, hymnographers, and iconographers – have made “part of the ancient Tradition.”22 Yet while this paper has focused primarily on Marian apocrypha, other early Christian apocrypha were similarly retained as part of ecclesiastical Tradition rather than rejected as a result of the canon’s formation. As an illustration, I can think of no better example than François Bovon’s observation that even as the great apocrypha scholars of the nineteenth century, Tischendorf, Lipsius, and Bonnet, labored over their critical editions of apocryphal gospels and acts, “a Greek monk from Palestine was retelling in his own style the same stories” that they sought to recover.23 These apocryphal traditions similarly became part of Christianity’s living Tradition, having an authority parallel to, and not negated by, the canonical Scriptures. Thus, as the study of Christian apocrypha continues to move away from Schneemelcher’s fixation on the process of canonization, it will become increasingly possible to appreciate this literature as much more than just remnants of the failed scriptures of “lost Christianities.” To be sure, the value of apocryphal literature for investigating the repressed theological and scriptural diversity of earliest Christian should not be diminished in the least. But it is equally important to recognize also the broader significance of apocryphal literature within the history of Christianity: despite their exclusion from the canon, many apocryphal traditions ultimately found acceptance under a different guise. Inclusion within the liturgy was one of the primary means by which apocryphal Their Association with the Passion of Christ,” in M. Vassilaki (ed.), Mother ofGod:RepresentationsoftheVirgininByzantineArt (Milan, 2000) 453-63, 457; N. Tsironis, “The Lament of the Virgin Mary from Romanos the Melode to George of Nicomedia” (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1998) 279, 292. 22 Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete, TheLifeoftheVirginMary, theTheotokos (Buena Vista, Colo., 1989) vii-x. 23 F. Bovon, “The Synoptic Gospels and the Non-canonical Acts of the Apostles,” HTR 81 (1988) 19-36, 19-20. The monk in question was Joasaph of Mar Saba, who ended his life on Mt. Athos, where his stories are preserved in the library of the Megali Lavra.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 193

29/10/18 13:02

194

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

traditions were legitimized and given a place alongside the canonical writings, eventually finding their voice within the context of Christian worship. As we have seen, the Six Books apocryphon affords some of the earliest evidence for this process, indicating that already by the fourth century some proto-orthodox communities had begun to incorporate apocryphal materials in their worship, reading them together with the canonical texts. As this practice expanded, the liturgy opened the way for a wide variety of these extra-biblical traditions to shape the ways in which Christianity remembered and commemorated the period of its origins.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_07.indd 194

29/10/18 13:02

VIII. Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century

Epiphanius’ Panarion, his “medicine chest” against the heresies, is a surprisingly important Marian text. In the midst of this massive and often vicious anti-heretical treatise, Epiphanius considers several important Mariological topics, including the issue of Mary’s postpartum Virginity, the mystery of her departure from this world, and the rather distinctive ritual practices of a group that he names the “Kollyridians.” After knocking out the first seventy-seven of his opponents, some of whom may indeed be “straw men,” Epiphanius turns toward the end of his treatise to consider two Marian “heresies,” both of which he refutes at some length. The first, the so-called “Antidicomarianties,” had dared to suggest that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Christ’s birth, inspiring an aggressive defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity from Epiphanius. Perhaps by this point Epiphanius has begun to grow a little weary of his promise to deliver eighty heresies, reflecting the eighty concubines of Song of Songs 6.8, inasmuch as he dispenses with this seventy-eighth opponent by citing in full an earlier work, a LettertoArabia that rebukes the group and its blasphemies against the ever-virgin Mary. Although one may doubt whether there really was such a sect of Christians in Arabia, it is clear from other contemporary sources, including both Ambrose and Jerome, that this was a topic of considerable debate in the later fourth century.1 In this very same letter, Epiphanius also introduces a second group, the Kollyridians, whom he subsequently identifies as his seventy-ninth and penultimate heresy. In contrast to the Antidicomarianites, these devotees of Mary are found guilty of having gone too far in the opposite 1

See, e.g., D. G. Hunter, “Helvidius, Jovinian, and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome,” JECS 1 (1993) 47-71.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 195

29/10/18 13:02

196

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

direction with their excessive honor for the Virgin, and immediately after the LettertoArabia’s conclusion, Epiphanius turns to fuller consideration of this group and its practices. The Kollyridians, as Epiphanius describes them, were a group of women first in Thrace and Scythia and then in Arabia who observed a distinctive and early form of Marian veneration and allowed women to serve as priests, both practices that he vigorously condemns. While Epiphanius’ rejection of women priests is stridently clear from his account, the precise nature of the Kollyridians’ alleged ritual practices is somewhat less obvious, and their admittedly unusual veneration of the Virgin has frequently been taken for the worship of Mary as some sort of goddess. While Epiphanius certainly intends for his readers to come away with this impression, such interpretations essentially fall prey to his rhetoric. The primary study of the Kollyridians remains a German article from 1929 by Franz Dölger, in which he identifies numerous parallels from Greco-Roman goddess worship and postulates a connection with the Montanists based on a report from the east Syrian bishop Marutha of Maipherkat (ca. 400) and an assortment of much later testimonies from Syriac and Arabic sources.2 In the intervening years, understanding of the Kollyridians and their practices has progressed very little. The only significant study since Dölger’s article is a chapter on the Kollyridians in Stephen Benko’s TheVirgin Goddess, which reiterates Dölger’s questionable thesis about a connection to the Montanists and focuses largely on identifying additional parallels from Greco-Roman goddess worship.3 As a result, many scholars have all too readily accepted the connections between goddess worship and the Kollyridian ritual practices as evidence that these Christians were indeed worshipping Mary as a deity.4 2

F. J. Dölger, “Die eigenartige Marienverehrung der Philomarianiten oder Kollyridianer in Arabia,” AntikeundChristentum 1 (1929) 1-46. On the questionable value of these reports, see C. Trevett, Montanism:Gender,Authority, andtheNewProphecy (Cambridge, 1996) 222. These reports do not seem sufficient to connect the Montanists with Epiphanius’ Kollyridians. 3 S. Benko, TheVirginGoddess:StudiesinthePaganandChristianRoots ofMariology (Leiden, 1993) 170-95. 4 E.g., M. Jugie, Lamortetl’assomptiondelaSainteVierge,étudehistorico- doctrinale (Vatican City, 1944) 79-80; R. S. Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women’s Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in theGreco-RomanWorld (Oxford, 1992) 201; Benko, VirginGoddess, 173,

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 196

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

197

Nevertheless, it is worth reevaluating this received view of the Kollyridians and their rituals, particularly in light of more recent developments in the study of late ancient Christianity. For instance, in the first chapter of his groundbreaking work CultoftheSaints, Peter Brown describes a tendency of much previous scholarship on this topic to view the veneration of saints (including Mary) as a sort of “popular” survival of Greco-Roman religion, an alien intrusion into Christian faith and practice. Yet as Brown explains, such an approach, while identifying numerous illuminating parallels between these religious phenomena, fails to understand the basis of the cult of the saints in a logic native to the Christian tradition itself.5 Inasmuch as almost all previous scholarship on the Kollyridians has been undertaken from the viewpoint of this older “History of Religions” perspective, it may be fruitful to consider Epiphanius’ report on the Kollyridians from a vantage that does not identify explanation with the identification of “pagan” parallels. Furthermore, recent years have seen a rising skepticism about the accuracy of Epiphanius’ descriptions of his opponents in the Panarion, and it will be useful to reconsider his account of the Kollyridians with such issues in mind.6 Finally, new developments in the early history of Marian piety have identified cultic veneration of the Virgin much earlier than many scholars had previously thought, bringing to light long overlooked Marian texts that offer potential clarification of the ritual practices ascribed to the Kollyridians.7 Reading Epiphanius’ account of the Kollyridians in light of these new perspectives suggests that his representation of their practices 190; V. Limberis, Divine Heiress: The Virgin Mary and the Creation of ChristianConstantinople (London, 1994) 118; L. Gambero, Maryandthe FathersoftheChurch, trans. T. Buffer (San Francisco, 1999) 122. 5 P. Brown, TheCultoftheSaints:ItsRiseandFunctioninLatinChristianity (Chicago, 1981). See also J. Howard-Johntson and P. A. Hayward (eds), TheCultoftheSaintsinLateAntiquityandtheEarlyMiddleAges:Essays ontheContributionofPeterBrown (Oxford, 1999). 6 See, e.g., A. Cameron, “How to Read Heresiology,” in D. B. Martin and P. C. Miller (eds), Gender, Asceticism, and Historiography (Durham, 2005) 193-212. See now also Y. R. Kim, EpiphaniusofCyprus:ImagininganOrthodoxWorld (Ann Arbor, 2015); and A. Jacobs, EpiphaniusofCyprus:ACulturalBiographyofLateAntiquity (Berkeley, 2016). 7 See esp. S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormitionandAssumption (Oxford, 2002). See now also S. J. Shoemaker, Maryin EarlyChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 197

29/10/18 13:02

198

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

often engages in polemical rhetoric that may in fact distort and disguise their actual practices. While Epiphanius’ report certainly works to create the impression that the Kollyridians worshipped Mary in the place of God, this representation by no means guarantees that these opponents, whoever they may have been, understood their ritual practices in this way. Indeed, it is an altogether different question whether others within the broader context of fourth-century “orthodoxy” would have considered the Kollyridians’ actions idolatrous, as the Panarion makes them appear, let alone whether such practices can be identified with some sort of “goddess worship,” as some modern interpreters have maintained. Comparing Epiphanius’ description of the Kollyridians with the contemporary witness of the early Dormition apocrypha suggests alternatively that these ancient Christians, rather than worshipping a divine Mary, were simply offering to Mary a kind of veneration that was routinely offered to other saints and martyrs beginning at this time, albeit in a somewhat more elaborate fashion. 1. TheKollyridians’RitualPractices:VestigialGoddessWorshipor PrimitiveMarianPiety? According to Epiphanius’ LettertoArabia, the Kollyridians “bake a loaf in the name of the Ever-virgin and gather together, and they attempt an excess and undertake a forbidden and blasphemous act in the holy Virgin’s name, making offerings [ἱερουργεῖν] in her name with women officiants.”8 Epiphanius offers a little more detail when he subsequently considers the Kollyridians as his seventy-ninth heresy, explaining that “these women prepare a certain carriage with a square seat and spread out fine linens over it on a special day of the year, and they put forth bread and offer it in the name of Mary, and they all partake of the bread.”9 After first assailing the Kollyridian practice of allowing women to serve as priests, Epiphanius eventually turns to address their ritual practices. Yet his lengthy denunciation of their devotion to the Virgin by no means simply reveals a worship of Mary 8

Epiphanius, Panarion 78.23.4 (K. Holl and J. Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1915; Berlin, 19802, 19852) 3:473; trans. F. Williams, The PanarionofEpiphaniusofSalamis, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1987, 1994) 2:618, slightly modified). 9 Epiphanius, Panarion 79.1.7 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:476).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 198

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

199

as a goddess, as some would have it, but instead suggests a far more ordinary veneration of Mary situated within the broader context of the veneration of saints. Careful attention to Epiphanius’ rhetoric and what is often left unsaid not only reveals a very different portrait of his opponents but also suggests rather strongly that Epiphanius had encountered one of the early Dormition narratives, the so-called Six Books apocryphon. In view of Epiphanius’ highly rhetorical presentation of both this “heresy” and so many others, it is certainly right to question of whether such a group of “Kollyridians” ever even existed as Epiphanius here describes them. It is well known that Epiphanius had an active imagination, and the fact that he determined at the outset of his treatise to come up with exactly eighty heresies does not exactly inspire great confidence. While it is always wise to approach Epiphanius inoculated with a strong dose of skepticism, I think Averil Cameron goes too far in advising that “we should probably leave aside” his account of Kollyridians, as she suggests in a recent article on the early cult of the Virgin.10 Admittedly, Epiphanius may very well have invented a group with the name “Kollyridians,” but the primary issues that he addresses in their refutation were real religious phenomena of the late fourth century, as can be determined from other sources. Consequently, while it may be that he has fabricated the existence of such a group named the “Kollyridians” in order to address certain issues from the fourth-century church that were troubling to him, the beliefs and practices that he attacks seem to have been real. That is, while there may never have been an actual early Christian group named the “Kollyridians” that believed and did all the things that Epiphanius reports, the practices that he attacks under their name, female liturgical leadership and the veneration of Mary, were quite clearly a part of his late fourth century religious milieu. Certainly something like this is true, too, in regard to his seventyeighth heresy, the “Antidicomarianites”: I think it highly doubtful that there was an actual sect by this name that had organized around the principle of denying Mary’s postpartum virginity. The issue itself, however, was at the time widely debated, as a number of other sources 10

A. Cameron, “The Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity: Religious Development and Myth-Making,” in R. N. Swanson (ed.), TheChurchandMary (Suffolk, 2004) 1-21, 6-7.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 199

29/10/18 13:02

200

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

reveal, and quite probably Epiphanius has invented the “Antidicomarianites” in order to address those opposed to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, first in the Letter to Arabia and then again in the Panarion. Thus, if Epiphanius has similarly invented the sect of the Kollyridians, which is admittedly a possibility, in all probability he has created them for the purpose of addressing what were real issues of fourth-century Christianity. I will for the most part leave aside the question of women serving in positions of liturgical leadership, an issue that certainly is not Epiphanius’ invention. As with Mary’s virginity, other contemporary sources confirm that female clergy remained a controversial subject in the eastern churches of the later fourth century, including the ApostolicConstitutions and the canons of the Council of Laodicea.11 The alleged Kollyridian “worship” of the Virgin, however, has much to offer for understanding the origins of Marian veneration, since, as we will see, Epiphanius’ account opposes not so much worship of Mary as divine goddess or a part of the Christian Godhead but rather devotion to her within the broader context of the emerging veneration of saints. There is little question that the veneration of Mary was an increasingly prominent feature of Christianity in the later fourth century, and Epiphanius’ account of the Kollyridians forms an important early witness to the phenomenon. Marian veneration does not appear, as some would have it, only rather suddenly in the fifth century.12 Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa bear witness to the emerging cult of the Virgin in both Constantinople and Cappadocia, attesting to belief in Marian apparitions as well as the practice of intercessory prayer to

11

See for instance the excellent survey in F. Cardman, “Women, Ministry, and Church Order in Early Christianity,” in R. S. Kraemer and M. R. D’Angelo (eds), Women and Christian Origins (New York, 1999) 300-29 at 314-19. See also Kraemer, HerShareoftheBlessings, 183-7. 12 E.g., H. von Campenhausen, The Virgin Birth in the Theology of the AncientChurch, trans. F. Clarke (London, 1964) 7-9; M. P. Carroll, TheCult oftheVirginMary:PsychologicalOrigins (Princeton, 1986) XII; A. Cameron, “The Early Cult of the Virgin,” in M. Vassilaki (ed.), MotherofGod:RepresentationsoftheVirgininByzantineArt (Milan, 2000) 3-15, 5; R. M. Price, “Marian Piety and the Nestorian Controversy,” in R. N. Swanson (ed.), The Church and Mary (Suffolk, 2004) 31-8. In a more recent article, however, Cameron identifies the late fourth and fifth centuries as the formative period of Marian piety, while still pointing to the determinative influence of Ephesus: Cameron, “Cult of the Virgin,” 1-10.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 200

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

201

the Virgin at this time.13 Marian intercession is also evidenced by a papyrus fragment from fourth-century Egypt (or perhaps even the third century) that preserves an early prayer addressed to the Virgin.14 Likewise, the earliest narratives of the Virgin’s Dormition date to the later fourth century at the latest, bearing witness to a fully developed Marian piety by this time.15 Thus while the Kollyridians might serve as useful “straw women” for Epiphanius to employ in addressing the issue of Marian cult, it is highly improbable that he has fabricated the veneration of Mary here merely to condemn something that no one actually did. Even if we cannot be entirely certain that Epiphanius’ Kollyridians actually existed as he describes them, it is clear that the issues he addresses in refuting them, including veneration of the Virgin, were threateningly real in his milieu. Consequently, his account of this “heresy” sheds intriguing light on the developing cult of Mary from the vantage of an ardent opponent. It would be a mistake to simply identify the practices that Epiphanius here attacks with worshipping Mary “as a goddess” in some sort of “revival of paganism in Christian garb” or to understanding them as reflecting belief in “the divinity of Mary,” as scholars have often concluded.16 To a large extent such assessments fall prey to Epiphanius’ 13

See Shoemaker, Mary, 166-204. See A. S. Huntetal., CatalogueoftheGreekPapyriintheJohnRylands Library,Manchester, 4 vols. (Manchester, 1911-52) 3:47; O. Stegmüller, “Sub tuum praesidium: Bemerkungen zur ältesten Überlieferung,” Zeitschrift für katholischeTheologie 74 (1952) 76-82, 78. See also G. Giamberardini, Ilculto marianoinEggito, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 19752) 1:95-7, but see the dissenting opinion of H. Förster, “Zur ältesten Überlieferung der marianischen Antiphon ‘Sub tuum praesidium’,” Biblos: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Buch- und Bibliothekwesen,Dokumentation,Bibliographie,undBibliophilie 44 (1995) 183-92; G. Giamberardini, “Il ‘Sub tuum praesidium’ e il titolo ‘Theotokos’ nella traditzione egiziana,” Marianum 31 (1969) 324-62; A. M. Triacca, “‘Sub tuum praesidium’: nella ‘lex orandi’ un’anticipata presenza della ‘lex credendi.’ La ‘teotocologia’ precede la ‘mariologia’?,” in S. Felici (ed.), La mariologianellacatechesideipadri(etàprenicena)(Rome, 1989) 183-205. 15 See Shoemaker, Mary, 100-65; Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 32-46; 54-7; 205-56; M. van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features in the Life of the Virgin,” Marianum 63 (2001) 297-308; R. Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Leiden, 1998) 346-60. 16 E.g., Jugie, Lamortetl’assomption, 79-80; Kraemer, HerShareofthe Blessings, 201; Benko, VirginGoddess, 173, 190; Limberis, DivineHeiress, 118; Gambero, MaryandtheFathersoftheChurch, 122. 14

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 201

29/10/18 13:02

202

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

rhetoric, perhaps with encouragement from the older view of the cult of Mary and the saints as a vulgar intrusion of Greco-Roman “paganism” into the Christian faith that Brown has identified.17 Admittedly, Epiphanius at one point accuses the Kollyridians of being “eager to substitute her for God,”18 and when read in isolation, this passage certainly could seem to suggest a belief in Mary’s divinity. Yet one cannot just take Epiphanius at his word here; to properly understand this accusation, it must be considered within the broader context of his entire attack on the Kollyridians’ practices. Indeed, Epiphanius immediately situates this charge within the context of a general critique of veneration of the saints: “The words, ‘Some shall depart from sound doctrine, giving heed to fables and doctrines of devils,’ apply to these people as well. For as the scriptures say, they will be ‘worshipping the dead’ as the dead were given honors in Israel. And the timely glory of the saints, which redounds to God in their lifetimes, has become an error for others, who do not see the truth.”19 Here Epiphanius equates the Kollyridian veneration of Mary with the more generic practice of “worshipping the dead,” the saints as he clarifies, whose glory “redounds to God in their lifetimes,” and accordingly they are not to be “worshipped” after their death. The veneration of saints was yet another burning issue of the late fourth century church, and in rebutting the Kollyridians, Epiphanius enters into the fray. There was, as Peter Brown explains, “a debate around the grave in these years.”20 Augustine, for instance, was often lukewarm toward the veneration of saints and martyrs, expressing concern early in his career that feasts of the martyrs and celebrations at their graves were occasions for pagan practices to creep back into the church.21 In preaching on their feast days, his tendency was instead to emphasize the “example of faith and endurance they offered to other Christians,” which no doubt would have met with Epiphanius’ 17

E.g., Benko, VirginGoddess, 1-5; see the excellent critique of this view in Brown, CultoftheSaints, 4-22. 18 Epiphanius, Panarion 78.23.3 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:473). 19 Epiphanius, Panarion 78.23.5 (ibid.; trans. Williams, Panarion, 2:61819). 20 Brown, Cult of the Saints, 27; see also D. G. Hunter, “Vigilantius of Calagurris and Victricius of Rouen: Ascetics, Relics, and Clerics in Late Roman Gaul,” JECS 7 (1999) 401-30. 21 Brown, CultoftheSaints, 26-7.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 202

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

203

approval.22 Later in life, however, it would seem that Augustine came to embrace more fully the veneration of saints and belief in their miracles, as witnessed in the last book of the CityofGod.23 Yet even there he finds it necessary to underscore that Christians do not worship the saints as gods: the sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered only to God, who alone is adored.24 Others were less ambivalent: one of Jerome’s nastiest letters is written against a certain Vigilantius, who criticized the growing reverence for saints and their relics as “the ceremonial of pagan worship introduced into the churches under the pretext of religious observance.”25 In defending the cult of the saints, Jerome insists on a difference in the kind of worship offered to the saints and to God, introducing a distinction that is fairly typical of the late fourth century Fathers. Adoration (adorare) is reserved for God alone, while the saints are given honor (honorare) in a manner that avoids idolatry, “so that their honor may be reflected on the Lord.”26 Yet it is clear that already by this time there were others, even among the “orthodox,” who did not hesitate to offer more than mere honor to Mary and the saints. Ambrose, for instance, advocates not only Mary’s honor but also her veneration (venerare) while distinguishing this from the adoration due to the Holy Trinity alone.27 Jerome 22

G. Clark, “Victricius of Rouen: Praising the Saints,” JECS 7 (1999) 365-99, 371. 23 Augustine, City of God 22.8 (B. Dombart et al. (eds), Sancti Aurelii AugustiniepiscopiDecivitateDeilibriXXII, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 19815) 2:56681). See also Brown, Cult of the Saints, 27-8; Clark, “Victricius of Rouen: Praising the Saints,” 371; B. Bitton-Ashkelony, Encountering the Sacred: TheDebateonChristianPilgrimageinLateAntiquity (Berkeley, 2005) 132-9. 24 Augustine, City of God 22.10 (Dombart et al. (eds), De civitate Dei, 2:583-4). 25 Jerome, AgainstVigilantius 4 (PL 23, 357B; trans. from Brown, Cultof theSaints, 26). 26 Jerome, AgainstVigilantius 4-5 (PL 23, 357B-359A); Letter109, 1 (I. Hilberg, SanctiEusebiiHieronymiEpistulae, 3 vols. (Vienna and Leipzig, 1910) 2:352). See also Bitton-Ashkelony, EncounteringtheSacred, 97-105. 27 Ambrose, Exhortation to Virginity 27 (F. Gori, Verginità e vedovanza, 2 vols. (Milan, 1989) 2:218): Quis non honorabit tot uirginum matrem? Quis non uenerabitur aulam pudoris?; cf. Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit 3.79f (O. Faller (ed.), De spiritu sancto libri tres; De incarnationis dominicae sacramento (Vienna, 1964) 182-3). See also H. C. Graef, Mary:AHistory of Doctrine and Devotion, 2 vols. (New York, 1964) 1:88. For more on

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 203

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

204

himself wrote to Marcella in 386, urging her to join him in Bethlehem, where together they could “adore (adorare) the ashes of John the Baptist, Elisha, and Obadiah.”28 Likewise, already in the later fourth century, Augustine had begun to focus on the Greek λατρεία as the proper term designating the worship reserved for God alone, arguing that Latin lacked an equivalent word.29 Presumably there were many other fourthcentury Christians who found it entirely appropriate to offer veneration (προσκύνησις) to Mary and the saints, including, it would seem, the Kollyridians.30 As Epiphanius turns his focus directly to the Kollyridians, in section seventy-nine, his attack on their worship of the Virgin remains constantly anchored within a broader critique of veneration offered to saints and angels. Which scripture has spoken of it? Which prophet permitted the veneration [προσκυνεῖσθαι] of a man, let alone a woman? The vessel is choice but a woman, and by nature no different [from others]. Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor [τιμῇ] for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was a virgin from his mother’s womb, he remained so perpetually, and was assumed [ἀναλαμβανόμενος] and has not seen death. She is like John who leaned on the Lord’s breast, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” She is like St. Thecla; and Mary is still more honored than she, because of the providence vouchsafed her. But Elijah is not to be venerated [προσκυνητός], even though he is alive. And John is not to be venerated, even if through his own prayer (or rather, by receiving grace from God) he made of his falling asleep [κοίμησιν] an

Ambrose’s Mariology, see C. W. Neumann, TheVirginMaryintheWorksof Saint Ambrose (Fribourg, 1962), which focuses heavily on issues related to Mary’s virginity. 28 Jerome, Letter46, 13 (Hilberg, SanctiEusebiiHieronymiEpistulae, 1:343). 29 Augustine’s earliest discussion of this comes in response to Faustus the Manichean, AgainstFaustus, 20.21 (J. Zycha (ed.), SanctiAureliAugustiniDe utilitate credendi (Vienna, 1891) 561-5); see also Questions on the Heptateuch 2.94 (J. Zycha (ed.), SanctiAureliAugustiniQuaestionuminHeptateuchumlibriVII;AdnotationuminJobliberunus (Vienna, 1895) 156) and City ofGod 10.1 (Dombartetal. (eds), DecivitateDei, 1:400-4) 30 P. Maraval, Lieuxsaintsetpèlerinagesd’orient:Histoireetgéographie desoriginesàlaconquêtearabe (Paris, 20042) 145-7 discusses the shift in vocabulary that occurs around this time, whereby προσκύνησις becomes an accepted term for describing the veneration of saints.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 204

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

205

amazing thing. But neither is Thecla venerated, nor any of the saints. For the age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshipping his creatures will not get the better of me. “They worshipped and venerated the creature more than the creator,” and “were made fools.” If it is not his will that angels be venerated, how much more the woman born of Ann?31

Like Jerome, Epiphanius insists that such holy persons, among whom he includes the Virgin Mary, may not receive veneration but should only be held in honor: “Let Mary be held in honor [τιμῇ], but let the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be venerated [προσκυνείσθω]: let no one venerate Mary.”32 Even this comparatively weaker honor shown to Mary and the saints must be carefully limited, and he warns his readers, “we must not honor the saints to excess; we must honor their master.”33 Yet the general tone of this section of the Panarion suggests that Epiphanius’ idea of honoring a saint involved significantly less than many of his contemporaries. Here and elsewhere when discussing the Kollyridians, he seems to conceive of honoring the saints as following their examples, rather than offering them any kind of prayers or cultic ceremonies in their honor. They are, he writes, to be “held in honor for [their] character and understanding.” As an alternative to the Kollyridian’s cultic veneration of the Virgin, Epiphanius instead emphasizes the purity of Mary’s physical body and identifies her virginity as a cause for Christians to hold her in honor.34 His remark that the “timely glory of the saints…redounds to God in their lifetimes” in opposition to the “worship of the dead” certainly suggests that the primary value of the saints lies in the example of their lives rather than any intercessory or other powers from beyond the grave. At no point does Epiphanius allow that honoring the saints should include seeking their intercession or observing a ceremony to commemorate their “birthdays,” that is, the day of their death, both of which Jerome, Augustine, and others reveal to be common elements of the nascent 31 Epiphanius, Panarion 79.5.1-4 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:479-80; trans. Williams, Panarion, 2:624-5, slightly modified). 32 Epiphanius, Panarion 79.7.5 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:482). 33 Epiphanius, Panarion 78.23.9 (ibid., 3:473.; trans. Williams, Panarion, 2:619). 34 Epiphanius, Panarion 79.4.6 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:479).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 205

29/10/18 13:02

206

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

cult of the saints. Although he does not explicitly condemn such practices, it appears that Epiphanius envisions the role of Mary and the saints as limited to serving as examples of Christian excellence who should honored through imitation, not cult. This conservatism comports with his early opposition to the cultic use of images: in fact, Epiphanius explicitly joins the issue of images to his refutation of the Kollyridians’ practices, and the fragments from his iconoclastic writings also censure the veneration of angels and the apostles themselves in addition to their images.35 In the Panarion Epiphanius seems to disapprove of any cultic veneration offered Mary or the saints, and consequently, he reacts strongly against the incipient Marian piety of the Kollyridians. Yet nowhere in this account does Epiphanius indicate that the Kollyridians actually went so far as to identify Mary with the deity in the way that Trinitarian Christians had come to understand her son as divine, for instance. He does not attack them for advancing a theological belief in Mary’s divinity or for reverting to a kind of goddess worship but rather for their practice of offering cult to the Virgin and venerating her in a manner that he considers utterly inappropriate for a human being. Such ritual activities in his view are tantamount to “substituting her for God,” involving worship of a creature in the place of God, regardless of what their intentions may have been. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that the Kollyridians (or whoever’s practices Epiphanius is attacking) understood their actions in this way. To the contrary, it appears from Epiphanius’ rhetoric that the Kollyridians were simply offering to Mary a somewhat more elaborate version of the veneration that Christians increasingly offered to the saints during the late fourth century. Reading between the lines suggests that the Kollyridians were no more interested in replacing God with Mary or elevating her to a divine status than were the early devotees of St Thecla or St John intent on divinizing the subjects of their devotion. Epiphanius even concedes as much toward the conclusion of his attack on the Kollyridians, when he allows for the possibility that their 35

Epiphanius, Panarion 79.4.4-5 (ibid.); Fragments 7-10 (K. Holl, GesammelteAufsätzezurKirchengeschichte, 3 vols. (Tübingen, 1928-32) 3:358). On Epiphanius’ iconoclastic writings, see J. Quasten, Patrology, 3 vols. (Westminister, Md., 1950) 3:390-3; and E. A. Clark, TheOrigenistControversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton, 1992) 103-4.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 206

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

207

offerings to the Virgin may reflect something quite different from worship of Mary as divine. “And how much is there to say? Whether these worthless women offer Mary the loaf as though in worship of her, or whether they mean to offer this rotten fruit on her behalf, it is altogether silly and heretical, and demon-inspired insolence and imposture.”36 Here Epiphanius is reduced to mere rhetorical bluster: while presumably there would be nothing inherently wrong with presenting such bread offerings on Mary’s behalf, instead of to her as an act of worship, Epiphanius nonetheless insists that such practices amount to demonic foolishness and thus are best avoided. Although Epiphanius makes his best effort to trump up the charges against the Kollyridians as idolatrous worship of Mary as a goddess, in this passage he himself leaves an important clue that the Kollyridians likely understood their actions very differently. To be sure, the actions ascribed to the Kollyridians are in many ways strongly reminiscent of Greco-Roman goddess worship, but such parallels do not necessarily amount to worship of Mary as a goddess.37 Innumerable elements of the early Christian faith and particularly the cult of the saints have their roots in GrecoRoman religions and yet do not entail the rejection of monotheistic worship. These Christians do not appear to have worshipped a goddess or the divine feminine, but instead they offered to Mary a kind of veneration that Epiphanius condemns through a wholesale denunciation of any “worship” directed toward saints or angels. Accordingly, Epiphanius’ account of the Kollyridians bears witness to the existence of Marian cult situated within the broader context of the veneration of the saints already by 370, the approximate date of the LettertoArabia, and certainly by 377, when he most likely completed the Panarion.38 Even if, as some would suggest, the Kollyridians never actually existed as a clearly defined group in the way that Epiphanius presents them, his attack on the veneration of Mary as a particular variant of the emergent cult of the saints reveals that by this time such practices were already sufficiently well established to arouse 36 Epiphanius, Panarion 79.9.3 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:484; trans. Williams, Panarion, 2:628). 37 See the extensive catalog of parallels in Dölger, “Die eigenartige Marienverehrung,” and Benko, VirginGoddess, 173-91. 38 G. Jouassard, “Deux chefs de file en théologie mariale dans la seconde moitié du IVème siècle: saint Epiphane et saint Ambroise,” Greg 42 (1961) 6-36, 6; Quasten, Patrology, 3:388.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 207

29/10/18 13:02

208

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

opposition from a “watchdog” such as Epiphanius. These early Christians were simply ahead of the curve: only half a century later their veneration of the Virgin would have placed them squarely within the mainstream of Christian piety. 2. The“Kollyridians”andtheSixBooksApocryphon This reinterpretation of the Kollyridians as early devotees of St. Mary rather than crypto-pagan goddess worshippers is made all the more compelling by the fact that we are now able to identify a likely source of Epiphanius’ outrage, not in a sect of Arabian women, but in a long overlooked early Marian text, the Six Books narrative of the Virgin’s Dormition. This apocryphon, which had its roots in Roman Palestine, bears no obvious signs of any connection with a group named the Kollyridians or with the practice of female liturgical leadership, although it is not in the least incompatible with either. Moreover, Ally Kateusz has recently argued, with some persuasion, that issues of women’s liturgical leadership are indeed prominent in some of the earliest versions of this text. Although some of her proposals are, in my opinion, a bit far-fetched (such as, a second-century dating for this apocryphon) and rely on dubious readings of the text (such as, claims that Mary actually serves as a priest or bishop), at the same time in some cases she does identify certain important passages that show Mary as a liturgically active figure.39 Still, it may well be that the “Kollyridians” as a group are Epiphanius’ invention, and perhaps he has joined together in an imaginary sect the two separate issues of Marian veneration and women’s liturgical leadership in order to squeeze in both topics while saving heresy number eighty for the Messalians. Yet the Six Books apocryphon provides crucial evidence that even if Epiphanius has completely fabricated the sect of the Kollyridians, the issues and practices that he uses them to address were quite real within his religious milieu. Moreover, his apparent knowledge of this text, or at least its traditions and its rituals, provides invaluable evidence for its likely circulation in the eastern Mediterranean by the middle of the fourth century. 39

A. Kateusz, “Collyridian Déjà Vu: The Trajectory of Redaction of the Markers of Mary’s Liturgical Leadership,” JFSR 29 (2013) 75-92. See also my comments on this article in Shoemaker, Mary, 157-63.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 208

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

209

The Six Books narrative of the Virgin’s Dormition and Assumption is one of the oldest accounts of the end of Mary’s life, and it is the earliest exemplar of the Bethlehem tradition, one of the two main literary traditions of her death. This ancient Christian apocryphon survives in a variety of versions and languages, but the earliest are several Syriac accounts known from at least five different manuscripts copied during the fifth and sixth centuries.40 The Greek originals behind these translations are of course considerably earlier, although it is somewhat difficult to be certain just how much older the narrative is. The age of the manuscripts secures a date of the early fifth century at the absolute latest, but a number of features indicate a likely origin in the later fourth century if not even earlier.41 Epiphanius’ attacks on the Kollyridians not only appear to confirm the existence of the Six Books apocryphon by the late fourth century, but his LettertoArabia suggests it had begun to circulate within Palestine already by the middle of the fourth century. It would appear that Epiphanius was acquainted with the text, either directly or through a group that used it, although he tries to conceal his knowledge of it; nonetheless, his discussion of the Kollyridians bears traces, some more subtle than others, of his encounter with this text. 40

Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 46-9. In addition to the manuscripts and editions described therein, there is also an unpublished sixth-century manuscript in the Göttingen collection that I have edited, as well as fragments from the Schøyen collection that I have published in S. J. Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library: Presentation, Edition and Translation,” Mus 124 (2011) 259-78 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 11). I am presently working on a new critical edition of this apocryphon with new translations to be published in the Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum. This project has been long delayed due to difficulties in obtaining images of palimpsest manuscripts at Sinai. These photographs have now been made, and one of the two remaining palimpsest manuscripts has recently been published: S. P. Brock and G. Kessel, “The ‘Departure of Mary’ in Two Palimpsests at the Monastery of St. Catherine (Sinai Syr. 30 & Sinai Arabic 514),” Khristianskiĭ Vostok 8 (2017) 115-52. It now only remains for Sinai Arabic 588 to be edited before an edition can be completed. 41 Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 54-7; van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features”; Bauckham, FateoftheDead, 34660 at 358-60.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 209

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

210

The most obvious link between the Six Books and Epiphanius’ Kollyridians occurs in the ritual practices that he ascribes to the sect. The Six Books mandates that an almost identical ceremony should be performed three times during the year in the Virgin’s honor. Although the precise dates vary somewhat among the different early versions, their approximate times and significance are quite uniform: first there is a feast of Mary two or three days after the Nativity (which is celebrated 24 December or 6 January in the different manuscripts), followed by a second on 15 May and a third on 13 August.42 Each feast has strong agricultural associations, but none is connected with Mary’s death or any other event from her life, suggesting a primitive stage in the development of Marian cult, before any of the specific occasions in her life came to be memorialized liturgically. Yet the most extraordinary aspect of this brief liturgical handbook from the early Dormition apocrypha is the rather explicit set of instructions for how each of these feasts is to be celebrated: And the apostles also ordered that any offering offered in the name of my Lady Mary should not remain overnight, but that at midnight of the night immediately preceding her commemoration, it should be kneaded and baked; and in the morning let it go up on the altar whilst the people stand before the altar with psalms of David, and let the New and Old Testaments be read, and the volume of the decease of the blessed one [i.e., the Six Books apocryphon]; and let everyone be before the altar in the church, and let the priests make the offering and set forth the censer of incense and kindle the lights, and let the whole service be concerning these offerings; and when the whole service is finished, let everyone take his offerings to his house. And let the priest speak thus: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we celebrate the commemoration of my Lady Mary.” Thus let the priest speak three times; and (simultaneously) with the word of the priest who speaks, the Holy Spirit shall come and bless these offerings; and when 42 A. Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca (London, 1902) Œ-}‹ (Syr) and 59-61 (Eng); W. Wright, “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World,” The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 6-7 (1865) 417-48 and 108-60, „-Õà (Syr) and 152-3 (Eng); the fifth-century palimpsest fragments from Sinai also refer to the three feasts, although this particular section is lacking: see Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca, Ëçù-¿çù; trans. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 371-2. See also S. C. Mimouni, “La fête de la dormition de Marie en Syrie à l’époque byzantine,” TheHarp 5 (1992) 157-74.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 210

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

211

everyone takes away his offering, and goes to his house, great help and the blessing of the blessed one shall enter his dwelling and establish it for ever.43

The similarities of this ritual to Epiphanius’ account of the Kollyridians are fairly obvious: a special bread is prepared and offered to the Virgin, and after a ceremony in her honor (during which the Six Books apocryphon is read), the participants take home the blessed bread and “all partake of the bread.” These liturgical instructions combined with the narrative’s constant reference to “veneration” (ÀËÆé) offered to the Virgin Mary add considerable credibility to Epiphanius’ complaints against such practices. While there is no indication of women serving as priests, nor any direct link with the “Kollyridians,” the Six Books apocrypha confirm that by the late fourth century certain groups were regularly venerating (or “worshipping”) the Virgin Mary using a ritual that looks very much like the one Epiphanius attributes to the Kollyridians. Yet perhaps this is a mere coincidence. We should look for other signs that Epiphanius knows either this text or at least a group that followed its teachings.

43

Wright, “Departure of my Lady Mary,” ¿ćã-„ (Syr) and 153 (Eng), translation slightly modified). An almost identical version appears in the sixth-century MS Göttingen Syr. 10, fol. 31. The corresponding section is missing from the two fifth-century palimpsests, both of which are fragmentary, and so we do not know what liturgical instructions may have been present in these manuscripts. The comparable passage from the Göttingen MS is as follows: “And the apostles ordered that there will be a commemoration of the blessed one in these three months, so that people will be delivered from hard afflictions and a plague of wrath will not come upon the earth and its inhabitants. And the apostles ordered that offerings that have been made to the blessed one should not remain overnight, but in the evening let flour of the finest wheat flour come to the church and be placed before the altar. And the priests will make the offering and set up censors of incense and light the lights. And the entire evening service [vespers] will concern these offerings. And when the service is finished, let everyone take his offering to his house. Because as soon as the priests pray and say the prayer of my master Mary, the Theotokos, “Come to us and help the people who call upon you,” and with the priest’s word of blessing, my master Mary comes and blesses these offerings. And as soon as everyone takes his offering and goes to his house, great aid and the blessing of my master Mary will enter his dwelling and sustain it forever.”

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 211

29/10/18 13:02

212

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

As noted already above, Epiphanius first introduces the Kollyridians and their ritual practices while attacking the “Antidicomarianites” in his LettertoArabia. Interestingly enough, in this very same letter Epiphanius rather famously raises the question of the end of Mary’s life for the first time in Patristic literature. Is his introduction of this topic within the same letter simply another coincidence or does it point to a connection between the “Kollyridians” and the end of Mary’s life that Epiphanius does not wish, for whatever reason, to acknowledge openly? Although Epiphanius first addresses the matter of Mary’s passing from this life while refuting the doctrines of the Antidicomarianites, careful attention to the texts, both the LettertoArabia and the Panarion, reveals an easily overlooked association between the Kollyridians and Mary’s departure from the world. It is hard to imagine that the Antidicomarianites were the cause for his digression on this theme, inasmuch as they held little regard for the Virgin, but the Kollyridians, with their “exaggerated” Marian piety, present a rather likely stimulus for Epiphanius’ reflections on the end of Mary’s life. According to Epiphanius, this topic remained largely unexplored in his day, and there was no definitive tradition of Mary’s death that had been handed down from the Scriptures or otherwise. Consequently, his consideration of Mary’s ultimate fate repeatedly invokes a position of agnosticism, pointing only to possible hints about the end of her life from the Scriptures. Symeon’s prophecy “a sword shall pierce your own soul too” (Lk 2.35) may hold the answer, he suggests. Or perhaps the woman clothed with the sun of the Apocalypse holds the key: the serpent chases after her, but she is given the wings of a great eagle and escapes into the desert (Apoc 12.13-14). Epiphanius teases his readers with a guarded confession that he harbors suspicions about how Mary’s life actually ended, but he insists that he dares not disclose his thoughts. Instead, he concludes this first discussion of the subject with deliberate equivocation: “I am not saying that she remained immortal; but neither am I affirming that she died.”44 By his own admission, Epiphanius knows more about this topic than he wants to reveal, and the context for this intriguing deliberation on the end of Mary’s life suggests that Epiphanius must have had a reason beyond refutation of the Antidicomarianites for introducing 44

Epiphanius, Panarion 78.11.2-4 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:462).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 212

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

213

the subject. These initial reflections on Mary’s final lot come toward the middle of his attack on the Antidicomarianites, as he argues that Christ’s entrusting of his mother to John at the crucifixion is proof of her postpartum virginity: if she had other children to care for her, why would Christ entrust her to John? Not content merely to have made a point about Mary’s virginity, Epiphanius further insists that John’s care for Mary should in no way be taken as precedent for the troubling practice of subintroductae or “spiritual marriage,” that is, cohabitation of unmarried ascetic men and women.45 As Epiphanius explains, the case of John and Mary was a divinely ordained exception. One might imagine that this would have settled the matter. Yet Epiphanius continues, adding that “when this happened and he took her to himself, she remained with him no longer.”46 This passage is admittedly a little peculiar, but it appears to indicate Epiphanius’ belief that, despite this divine dispensation, Mary and John did not continue living together for any length of time after the crucifixion. At this point Epiphanius launches into his initial discussion of Mary’s ultimate fate, apparently to confirm that the two virgins did not abide long in such questionable living arrangements. As he explains, “If any think < I > am mistaken, moreover, let him search through the scriptures and neither find Mary’s death, nor whether or not she died, or whether or not she was buried – even though John surely traveled throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him.”47 The end of Mary’s life remains a mystery, and surely if she had in fact remained with John, he argues, her fate would be well known. Epiphanius’ musings on Symeon’s prophecy and the 45

For more on this phenomenon, see E. A. Clark, “John Chrysostom and the Subintroductae,” CH 46 (1977) 171-85; E. A. Clark, Jerome,Chrysostom, andFriends (New York, 1979) 158-248. 46 Epiphanius, Panarion 78.11.1 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:461-2). Williams translates the second part of this peculiar passage, οὐκέτι παρέμεινε παρ᾽ αὐτῷ, as “she did not yet live with him”: Williams, Panarion, 2:609. This translation seems to reflect a very different understanding of its meaning: that prior to this special dispensation the two virgins had not dared to live together. Yet in light of what follows in the letter, I think the above translation makes much more sense. Walter Burghardt understands the passage as I have: W. J. Burghardt, TheTestimonyofthePatristicAgeConcerningMary’sDeath (Westminster, MD, 1957) 5. 47 Epiphanius, Panarion 78.11.2 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:462; trans. Williams, Panarion, 2:609).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 213

29/10/18 13:02

214

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

woman clothed with the sun follow, together with his insistent agnosticism. Then, in a bit of questionable logic, Epiphanius brings the discussion of Mary’s departure from this world to a close and returns to the topic of her virginity by explaining that the scriptures are silent on this subject precisely so that “no one would suspect her of carnal behavior.”48 This sudden excursus on the end of Mary’s life stands out abruptly amidst Epiphanius’ broader argument for her Perpetual Virginity, and the topic does not fit well at all with its immediate context. It is puzzling why Epiphanius has chosen to engage in this digression: it adds very little to the discussion of Mary’s virginity and does not contribute much to his attack on “spiritual marriage.” Epiphanius’ rather peculiar argument from silence does not especially strengthen his unusual view that Mary and John quickly “broke up” after being united at the foot of the cross. It would appear then that Epiphanius must have had some ulterior motive for so deliberately bringing focus to the end of Mary’s life in the midst of his defense of her virginity. The reappearance of this theme at the end of the letter, when Epiphanius turns to address the Kollyridians, may hold the key to understanding his keen interest in this topic. It would appear that Epiphanius had in fact encountered specific traditions about Mary’s Dormition, and his insistence on an absolute “silence” regarding Mary’s end serves to cloak this knowledge primarily for rhetorical effect, to support his position about Mary and John’s separation. Just before concluding his Letter to Arabia, Epiphanius briefly mentions another Marian heresy, the Kollyridians, who erred in the opposite extreme from the Antidicomarianites by glorifying Mary to excess. Much of this initial report on the Kollyridians has already been discussed above. Here Epiphanius first introduces the group’s ritual practices and accuses them of offering to the Virgin a veneration that belongs to God alone, opposing such practices within a broader critique of the veneration of saints. Epiphanius then gives two examples of what he regards as similar errors, neither of which is especially comparable to the Kollyridian veneration of Mary. According to Epiphanius, the inhabitants of Shechem (Neapolis) offer sacrifices in the name of Kore (Persephone), because of Jephthah’s sacrifice of his 48

Epiphanius, Panarion 78.11.5 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:462).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 214

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

215

daughter to God. Likewise, Epiphanius says that the Egyptians worship in the place of God Thermutis, the legendary daughter of Pharaoh who rescued Moses and raised him as her son.49 Obviously, the worship of these two goddesses has nothing to do with these Biblical parallels, despite the identification of Moses’ adoptive mother with the name of this Egyptian harvest goddess in certain early Jewish sources.50 Yet regardless, Epiphanius achieves his purpose here by associating the Kollyridian veneration of Mary with pagan goddess worship. Much more surprising than such innuendo is what follows next in Epiphanius’ discussion of the Kollyridians: suddenly and without any explanation he returns again to the question of Mary’s ultimate fate. The holy virgin may have died and been buried – her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death – as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” – her fame is among the martyrs and her body, by which light rose in the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end.51

This passage is especially puzzling, inasmuch as Epiphanius gives no reason whatsoever for reintroducing the topic of Mary’s Dormition, and he makes no direct connections between the Kollyridians and the end of Mary’s life. Yet it is clear that he is still discussing this group, since the following section continues to repudiate their excessive honor for the Virgin and their ritual offerings. The reader is thus left wondering why Epiphanius feels compelled to bring this issue up yet again in this particular context: there is no logical connection with his arguments against the Kollyridian ritual practices. It would seem that there is something that he is not telling us, at least not directly. The clear implication is that some unvoiced connection exists between the Kollyridians and traditions about the end of Mary’s life; otherwise, it is very difficult to understand why he chooses to reintroduce this topic. 49

Epiphanius, Panarion 78.23.6-7 (ibid., 3:473-4). Her name according to Jubilees 41.5 and Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 2.224-5; other sources name her differently: e.g., 1 Chr 4.18 (Bithiah); and Eusebius, PreparationfortheGospel 9.27.3 (Merris). 51 Epiphanius, Panarion 78.23.9 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:473; trans. Williams, Panarion, 2:619). 50

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 215

29/10/18 13:02

216

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Presumably, the “Kollyridians,” or whomever Epiphanius is opposing here, had a specific tradition about the end of Mary’s life, and he responds by insisting once again that her ultimate fate is a great mystery, about which both Scripture and Tradition are oddly silent. Yet in fact, each of the three possibilities that Epiphanius identifies here, an ordinary death, martyrdom, or that she somehow “remained alive,” had already begun to circulate by this time.52 Perhaps his recapitulation of the various options was intended to “de-center” for his readers a tradition about the end of Mary’s life connected with Kollyridian ritual practices by calling attention to the unsettled nature of this question. In any case, Epiphanius’ claims of agnosticism seem quite disingenuous: even if he could find no clear witness from the Scriptures concerning the end of Mary’s life, his discussion of the topic reveals that he had become aware of certain extra-biblical traditions about her departure from this world that were already in circulation. More specifically, Epiphanius’ rather awkward introduction of the Virgin’s “death” at this point in his letter signals that he must have encountered some sort of connection between the ritual practices ascribed to the Kollyridians and a tradition about the end of Mary’s life that necessitated a return to this topic. In fact, his linkage of these two topics very strongly suggests a knowledge of the Six Books apocryphon, either directly or through a group that followed its traditions and practices. Epiphanius’ awareness of this apocryphon would certainly explain his peculiar decision to raise the seemingly unrelated question of Mary’s Dormition while addressing the relationship between John and Mary in his refutation of the Antidicomarianites. Yet before exploring the possible connection between Epiphanius, the Kollyridians, and Six Books any further, we should consider his extended discussion of this group in the following section of the Panarion, where he focuses more intently on refuting their alleged beliefs and practices. As Epiphanius turns to address the Kollyridians directly in this penultimate section, he attacks first their practice of women’s liturgical leadership before concluding with a scathing condemnation of their offerings of bread and veneration to the Virgin. Unfortunately, in this section he does not raise the question of Mary’s Dormition in the same direct manner as the Letter to Arabia. Yet his arguments 52

See Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 11-

14.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 216

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

217

against the veneration of Mary and the saints in general show symptoms of a repressed knowledge about the end of the Virgin’s life, and these traces are perhaps all the more telling for the manner in which Epiphanius seems to have deliberately obscured the issue. Reading the gaps in his rhetoric and paying attention what remains unspoken in this account once again reveals a connection between his opponents’ veneration of the Virgin and traditions about the end of her life. Indeed, there are hints in this section of the Panarion that the Kollyridians adduced the Virgin’s miraculous departure from life as justification for their ritual offerings and prayers to Mary. As he abandons the issue of women’s liturgical leadership to rebut the Kollyridian veneration of Mary, Epiphanius begins, as already noted, by placing his objections to their practices within the broader context of an attack on the veneration of saints more generally.53 In a key passage quoted above, he compares Mary first with Elijah and then with John and Thecla, explaining that Mary, like these revered figures from sacred history, should not be venerated but only held in honor by orthodox Christians. Epiphanius likens Mary to each of these saints in very specific ways, seemingly to demonstrate that her most remarkable characteristics are shared by these other mortals, and just as they do not merit veneration because of their excellence, neither does Mary. Thecla’s inclusion here is a rather obvious choice, since, as Stephen Davis demonstrates in his monograph on the early cult of Saint Thecla, Thecla was “a female saint whose popularity rivaled that of Mary in the early church.”54 Indeed, prior to the fourth century, it was generally Thecla who served as the main role model for female virgins, a role that Mary began to usurp only at this time.55 Thus, Thecla was a perfect example for Epiphanius, enabling him to underscore that Mary’s virginity and bodily purity afforded no grounds for her “worship” any more than they could justify the veneration of Thecla. The reasons behind Epiphanius’ other two choices, however, are a little less obvious: comparison of Mary to an Old Testament 53

Epiphanius, Panarion 79.5.1-3 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:479-80). 54 S. J. Davis, TheCultofSaintThecla:ATraditionofWomen’sPietyin LateAntiquity (Oxford, 2001) 4. 55 Ibid., 21; P. Brown, TheBodyandSociety (New York, 1988) 157-9. See also now: J. W. Barrier etal. (eds), Thecla:Paul’sDiscipleandSaintinthe EastandWest (Leuven, 2017).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 217

29/10/18 13:02

218

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

prophet and one of the apostles is perhaps a little unexpected in the wake of a diatribe against women’s liturgical leadership and prophecy. Yet Epiphanius stresses these two comparisons the most, particularly emphasizing Mary’s similarities with Elijah, whom he introduces first. Moreover, through comparison with these two figures, the issue of Mary’s miraculous departure from this world suddenly leaps to the fore again, in indirect yet unmistakable fashion. John presumably appears to rival the virgin mother’s intimacy with her son; John, also a virgin, was “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” who leaned upon his breast at the Last Supper.56 While Epiphanius does not make the point explicit, surely his implication is that Mary’s close relationship with her son does not warrant veneration any more than John’s status as Christ’s beloved disciple could justify his veneration. The comparison with Elijah is perhaps the most surprising, and perhaps for this reason, it occasions the most explanation. Mary is like Elijah, Epiphanius explains, because he was “a virgin from his mother’s womb, he remained so perpetually, and was assumed [ἀναλαμβανόμενος] and has not seen death.”57 The last point of course deserves particular emphasis and attention. While Epiphanius does not formally reintroduce the theme of Mary’s Dormition after its reappearance at the LettertoArabia’s conclusion, its sudden, unheralded intrusion here is surely telling. Epiphanius does not prepare his readers for the reappearance of this topic with any renewed consideration of the end of Mary’s life, perhaps expecting the reader to understand its continuity with his previous discussion of the Kollyridians in the LettertoArabia. In any case, this return to Mary’s Dormition signals once again a connection between the Kollyridians and this subject. Even if Epiphanius does not address the end of Mary’s life with the same detail as in the Letter to Arabia, he nonetheless finds it necessary to return to the topic again in his arguments against the Kollyridian ritual practices. More importantly, however, Epiphanius here tacitly departs from the agnosticism of his LettertoArabia in stating quite unambiguously that Mary, like Elijah, was assumed in the body and did not die. Approximately seven years after the LettertoArabia, Epiphanius no longer 56

Epiphanius, Panarion 79.5.2 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:479-

80). 57

Epiphanius, Panarion 79.5.2 (ibid., 3:479).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 218

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

219

insists that Mary’s ultimate fate is a great mystery but informs his readers in an unguarded moment that she was miraculously removed from this world and still remains alive. The significance of this new position is not entirely clear. Did Epiphanius simply change his mind by the time he came to write the final sections of the Panarion? Perhaps in the intervening years traditions about the end of Mary’s life had begun to circulate more widely, making it increasingly difficult to insist on a position of ignorance. Or perhaps the insistent agnosticism of the LettertoArabia is feigned, designed to suit his rhetoric against spiritual marriage, as suggested above. It may be that lacking any controversy with regard to Mary’s virginity in his conflict with the Kollyridians, he is able to address the question more openly. Yet regardless of his inspiration, there can be no mistake that Epiphanius here takes a different position regarding the end of Mary’s life than in the Letter to Arabia. Without equivocation he reports that Mary, like Elijah, escaped death and was assumed into heaven, and his sudden clarity on this point certainly calls further into question his earlier protests of ignorance in the LettertoArabia. As Epiphanius continues to press this argument against the veneration of Mary and the saints, he turns his focus specifically to the miraculous endings of both Elijah’s and John’s lives, again calling attention to the importance of Mary’s Dormition in his confrontation with the Kollyridians. Elijah, he notes, “is not to be venerated, even though he is alive,”58 referring again to his marvelous removal from the world. For good measure, Epiphanius also makes note of John’s miraculous dormition, adding that “John is not to be venerated, even if through his own prayer (or rather, by receiving grace from God) he made of his falling asleep [κοίμησιν] an amazing thing.”59 Here Epiphanius makes reference to a variety of traditions about the marvelous conclusion of John’s life that had begun to circulate by this time. Drawing inspiration from John 21.22-3, the second-century Acts ofJohn describes John’s departure from this world as having occurred in dramatic fashion, seemingly at his own will.60 Yet by the late fourth century, a separate but related literary tradition of his “metastasis,” including the miraculous removal of his body, had begun to 58 59 60

Epiphanius, Panarion 79.5.3 (ibid., 3:480). Epiphanius, Panarion 79.5.3 (ibid.). TheActsofJohn 106-15.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 219

29/10/18 13:02

220

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

circulate widely and in numerous versions.61 Clearly, John’s intimacy with Christ was not the only reason that Epiphanius chose to compare him with Mary: John’s miraculous death could be used to counter the traditions of Mary’s Dormition and diminish any claims that the Virgin was somehow uniquely to be venerated on account of her miraculous departure from this world. Epiphanius’ deployment of such an argument in opposition to the Kollyridian ritual practices again reveals a strong connection between their liturgical ceremonies and traditions about the Virgin’s Dormition. There is no conceivable reason for Epiphanius to again raise this issue so prominently through explicit comparison with Elijah and John unless the issue of Mary’s Dormition was already central to his confrontation with the Kollyridian ritual practices. In fact, Epiphanius’ rhetoric here suggests that his opponents defended their veneration of Mary through an appeal to her marvelous departure from the world, although it is also possible that he merely anticipates such an argument. But his decision to focus one more time on the end of Mary’s life in rebutting the Kollyridians presents further evidence of a link between their ritual practices and traditions of Mary’s Dormition. Epiphanius’ rhetorical connection of these two themes is invaluable for understanding the early history of the early Dormition traditions. Firstly, the Panarion reveals that traditions about the Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin were already in existence and had begun to circulate by the middle of the fourth century, when Epiphainus seems to have encountered them. Moreover, Epiphanius’ unexplained focus on the end of Mary’s life in attacking the Kollyridians suggests that he encountered a liturgical tradition of bread offerings to the Virgin that was intimately linked with a tradition about her miraculous Dormition. Of course, this connection points overwhelmingly toward the Six Books apocryphon as Epiphanius’ source, whose traditions he seems to have known, either directly from the text itself or through encountering a group that followed its traditions and practices. As noted above, this ancient Dormition narrative provides liturgical instructions for regular performance of a ritual almost identical to the 61

J.-D. Kaestli, “Le rôle des textes bibliques dans la genèse et le développement des légendes apocryphes. Le cas du sort final de l’apôtre Jean,” Aug 23 (1983) 319-36, esp. 329-30. See also W. Schneemelcher (ed.), New TestamentApocrypha, trans. R. M. Wilson, 2 vols. (Louisville, Ky., 1991-22) 2:161-3, 204-5.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 220

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

221

Kollyridian offerings to the Virgin, embedding these practices within an extensive account of Mary’s miraculous departure from this life. The Six Books apocryphon is the only known source from the ancient church to actually prescribe regular, ritual offerings of bread on Mary’s behalf, and this feature alone invites suspicion that Epiphanius’ attack on the “Kollyridians” responds to this text, either directly or indirectly. Yet the fact that these rituals appear in one of the earliest Dormition narratives fits remarkably well with the rhetoric of Epiphanius’ anti-Kollyridian polemic, suggesting that his awareness of this text and its traditions may be more than just a mere possibility. The Six Books apocryphon is the sole document from the early church combining the end of Mary’s life with such ritual practices, and Epiphanius’ awareness of this narrative and its traditions makes perfect sense of his otherwise puzzling concern with the end of Mary’s life in the midst of his attacks on the Kollyridians’ ritual offerings to the Virgin. The striking parallels between the Six Books and Epiphanius’ account of the Kollyridians are surely more than just mere coincidences. Either Epiphanius must have known an early Christian group whose beliefs and practices were inspired by (or perhaps inspired) the Six Books apocryphon, or after encountering an early version of this text, he invented a group named the Kollyridians in order to refute its ideas, first in the LettertoArabia and then as the seventy-ninth heresy of his Panarion. In either case, the significance for understanding the earliest history of the ancient Dormition traditions is both enormous and surprisingly overlooked. Epiphanius’ apparent knowledge of the Six Books apocryphon ensures that an early version of this important Dormition narrative must have been in circulation by the middle of the fourth century. The connection between the Kollyridians’ ritual practices and the subject of Mary’s Dormition in the LettertoArabia suggests that by the time of this letter (ca. 370) Epiphanius had already encountered the traditions of the Six Books apocryphon either in written or oral form. This circumstance certainly comports well with what is otherwise known about the early history of this ancient Dormition narrative. As noted above, the oldest versions of the Six Books narrative survive in several Syriac manuscripts from the late fifth and sixth centuries, each of which preserves a slightly different version translated from a Greek original. Consequently, their collective source must be considerably earlier, probably reaching back into the fourth century, in order to allow time for both translation and the emergence of different versions.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 221

29/10/18 13:02

222

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Epiphanius’ apparent knowledge of this early Dormition narrative and its liturgical practices offers important confirmation of this dating, indicating that the apocryphon was already in existence by the middle of the fourth century. Presumably, Epiphanius encountered the Six Books traditions in Palestine, where he lived prior to becoming metropolitan of Cyprus in 367; this would be consonant with the likely origin of these Dormition traditions in Roman Palestine, where the narrative’s events take place and where the Virgin’s tomb came to be venerated. The Six Books apocryphon is replete with examples of prayer to the Virgin, instances of Marian intercession, numerous miracles ascribed to her authority, and even Marian apparitions, all of which can easily account for Epiphanius’ broad attack on Marian piety in response. The only thing lacking from the Six Books is explicit support for women’s liturgical leadership, a practice for which Epiphanius excoriates his opponents. Of course, there is nothing in the Six Books that would contradict female religious leadership. Perhaps any such traditions were edited out during the century between Epiphanius’ Panarion and the earliest Syriac versions, as devotion to the Virgin entered into Christianity’s patriarchal “mainstream.” Or, as noted above, it may be that Epiphanius invented the Kollyridians to suit his own rhetorical purposes, using an imaginary sect to address simultaneously the issues of emergent Marian piety and women’s liturgical leadership. Yet the fact that he attacked the Kollyridians several years earlier in the LettertoArabia assures that he has not fabricated this group merely to fill out the eighty heresies of the Panarion. A brief remark by Leontius of Byzantium in the early sixth century concerning the “Philomarianites” who offered bread in the name of Mary seems to confirm that this group and its practices were not all Epiphanius’ fantastic invention.62 More important, however, is the appearance of an identical group with the name the “Marianites” in the HypomnestikonofJoseph, a work compiled around the turn of the fifth century.63 In any case, whether such a sect named the Kollyridians actually existed or not is again largely immaterial. The issues that Epiphanius addresses in refuting the group certainly were real phenomena of his 62

Leontius of Byzantium, AgainsttheNestoriansandtheEutychians 3.6 (PG 86, 1346B). 63 See Shoemaker, Mary, 152-7.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 222

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

223

broader religious milieu, and the rhetoric of his attack on the Kollyridians’ ritual offerings to the Virgin strongly suggests knowledge of the Six Books Dormition narrative, establishing its circulation in the Christian East by the middle of the fourth century. Likewise, the Six Books narrative helps to clarify the nature of the ritual practices ascribed to the Kollyridians in the Panarion and the LettertoArabia, raising further questions about Epiphanius’ rhetorical representation of his opponents. The Six Books’ description of annual bread offerings to the Virgin Mary can illuminate the nearly identical rituals attributed the Kollyridians, giving at least some sense of how actual practitioners may have understood them. For instance, Epiphanius repeatedly insinuates that the Kollyridians offered the bread to Mary as a Eucharist, on one occasion arguing that since there is no commandment to offer the Eucharist (τὸ μυστήριον) to a man, let alone to a woman, the Kollyridians’ practices constitute blasphemous mockery of the Eucharist.64 While modern scholars have occasionally fallen for Epiphanius’ rhetoric here, identifying the Kollyridians’ rituals as a commemoration of the Eucharist offered to Mary instead of God, it seems quite unlikely that those observing these rituals understood them in this way.65 Such is the indication of the Six Books narrative at least, which implies no linkage between the annual bread offerings to Mary and the Eucharist; in fact, one sixth-century manuscript of the Six Books specifically identifies the vesper service, rather than the liturgy, as the proper context for the ceremony.66 Consequently, it would appear that those who practiced these liturgical offerings understood them as something quite separate from the Eucharist. Once again Epiphanius has misrepresented his opponents, but thankfully comparison with the Six Books offers a glimpse at how these rituals were understood by those who once performed them. Most importantly, however, the Six Books apocryphon reveals a contemporary Marian piety that does not identify Mary as a goddess or a part of the Christian Godhead, affording instead evidence of Marian veneration that, in contrast to the black and white terms of Epiphanius’ polemic, does not inevitably devolve into some form of “pagan” idolatry.

64

Epiphanius, Panarion 79.7.5 (Holl and Dummer (eds), Epiphanius, 3:482). See also Dölger, “Die eigenartige Marienverehrung,” 124. 65 E.g., Gambero, MaryandtheFathersoftheChurch, 122. 66 Göttingen syr. 10, fol. 31b.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 223

29/10/18 13:02

224

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

3. Conclusions Clearly the cultic veneration of Mary had already begun in the eastern Mediterranean by the middle of the fourth century, and Epiphanius’ Panarion forms an important, if hostile, early witness to this phenomenon. Despite Epiphanius’ best efforts to limit our information and prejudice our understanding, careful reading of his attacks against the Kollyridians finds hidden beneath his rhetoric and in its gaps evidence of a nascent Marian piety embedded within the emergent veneration of saints. Epiphanius opposes both equally and, it would seem, absolutely. While much previous scholarship has regarded Epiphanius’ invective as an apparently justified reaction to what was excessive worship of Mary as divine, this is an overly generous interpretation which no doubt seeks to reconcile Epiphanius with what was to become Christian orthodoxy. This understanding in turn led many scholars to rest content with the idea that the Kollyridians represent some sort of Christian goddess worshippers.67 While Epiphanius would doubtless be delighted to know that he had achieved such a result, closer examination of his rhetoric reveals that the Kollyridians, or whomever he is opposing, were not actually worshipping Mary as some sort of deity. His condemnation of their ritual practices within a broader critique of the veneration of saints suggests instead that these opponents were merely offering to Mary the kind of prayer and veneration that many Christians at this time had begun to offer to holy men and women of the Christian past and present. For Epiphanius, any act of worship or veneration offered to another human being was idolatrous, a theological position that seems to reflect his general conservatism in matters of piety, evidenced also in his early opposition to images. One can be certain that many other Christians in Epiphanius’ milieu would not have found such veneration of Mary so objectionable. Thus, Epiphanius’ evaluation of these ritual practices as reflecting an eagerness “to substitute her for God” is by no means the only possible interpretation, and this almost certainly was not the self understanding of those communities that observed this liturgical practice. The Six Books apocryphon, for instance, reveals an entirely different understanding of an almost identical ritual that involves no goddess 67

Thus Benko, for instance, describes the Kollyridians as “an extremist fringe” within late ancient Christianity: Benko, VirginGoddess, 194.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 224

29/10/18 13:02

EPIPHANIUS AND THE KOLLYRIDIANS

225

worship or offerings to a divine Virgin. Nonetheless, the Six Books presents a highly exalted view of the Virgin that could easily be misinterpreted by an unsympathetic opponent, such as Epiphanius. And while there is no shortage of parallels between Greco-Roman worship and the rituals of the Kollyridians and the Six Books, this is equally true of the veneration of many other saints, not to mention many other liturgical ceremonies, including the Eucharistic liturgy and the celebration of Christmas. Such parallels, while important and illuminating, in no way exhaust the interpretation of these phenomena.68 Historically, however, opponents of Marian piety have shown an eagerness to seize on Mary’s elevated status and such pagan parallels in attacking her veneration,69 and it is certainly no surprise to find such objections voiced from the very beginning by a zealot like Epiphanius, who, as one scholar puts it, was given to an “intolerant fanaticism” that trafficked in “shouting formulae rather than careful argument.”70 Yet hidden behind his highly agitated rhetoric, we can now discern, with the help of the Six Books apocryphon, an emergent Marian piety quite distinct from the Christian goddess worshippers of much modern scholarship. Thus, while it will do no harm to “leave aside” this traditional view of the Kollyridians, it would appear that their place as pioneers in the veneration of Mary deserves newfound recognition.

68

See Brown, CultoftheSaints, 1-22; P. F. Bradshaw, TheSearchforthe OriginsofChristianWorship:SourcesandMethodsfortheStudyofEarly Liturgy (Oxford, 20022) 21-3, 213-21, 229-30. 69 See, e.g., Graef, Mary, 2:2-12. 70 F. M. Young, FromNiceatoChalcedon:AGuidetotheLiteratureand itsBackground (London, 1983) 133.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_08.indd 225

29/10/18 13:02

IX. The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Attributed to Evodius of Rome (Morgan MSS 596 & 598): An Edition and Translation1

The homily here edited and translated has long been known from two ninth-century Sahidic codices discovered in 1910 at the monastery of St. Michael in the Fayyum and now preserved in the Pierpont Morgan Library.2 Until the present moment, however, only a few fragments of this text have been edited, in Wilhelm Spiegelberg’s 1903 transcription of a Sahidic text from two badly damaged folios in the Strasbourg papyrus collection, dated to the 12th or 13th century.3 Perhaps the reason for this neglect has been an impression that publication of 1

I would like to thank Janet Timbie, David Johnson, Monica Blanchard, David Levenson, Ugo Zanetti, Enzo Lucchesi, and especially Orval Wintermute for their assistance with specific matters in preparing this edition and translation. I also wish to thank the Pierpont Morgan Library for permission to publish the text. 2 Note that the Coptic Bibliography (2 (1995): 32; item # 2286) lists the following item under the heading “Evodius of Rome”: K. Urbaniak, “‘Zaśnięcie’ najświętszej Maryi Panny – wersja saidzka. Wstęp, tłumaczenie, komentarz (The ‘Dormition’ of Our Lady Mary, Sahidic Version: Introduction, Translation, Commentary),” StudiaTheologicaVarsaviensia 24 (1986) 205-18. This is in fact a Polish translation of a lengthy fragment of Cyril of Jerusalem’s homily on the Dormition, from several folios preserved in the Borgia collection (G. Zoega, CataloguscodicumCopticorummanuscriptorumquiinMuseoBorgianoVelitrisadservantur(Paris, 1811; repr. Hildesheim, 1973) no. 120). 3 W. Spiegelberg, “Eine sahidische Version der Dormitio Mariae,” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 25 (1903) 1-4. Note, however, that a Spanish translation (without edition) of MS 596 has been made by G. A. Pérez, DormicióndelaVirgen: Relatosdelatradicióncopta (Madrid, 1995) 105-26.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 226

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

227

these manuscripts would add little to our knowledge of either Coptic literature or the early Dormition traditions, since a Bohairic homily attributed to Evodius of Rome has long been known, edited in 1883 by Paul de Lagarde from a tenth-century manuscript preserved at the monastery of St. Macarius in the Wadi ’n Natrûn.4 This text was translated into English in 1896 by Forbes Robinson,5 who also published several Sahidic fragments of the same version, all from the White Monastery and dated to around the tenth century.6 To this we may now add several additional Bohairic and Sahidic fragments that have since been identified, a number of which remain unpublished.7 4 P. de Lagarde, Aegyptiaca (Göttingen, 1883; repr. Osnabruck, 1972) 3863. One could get this impression from Spiegelberg’s fragments, since they preserve only the opening section of the Sahidic homily, which closely parallels the Bohairic homily. See also n. 9 below. 5 F. Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels (Cambridge, 1896) 44-67. 6 Ibid., 66-89; descriptions of de Lagarde’s and Robinson’s manuscripts are to be found ibid., xxiv-xxvii. For dates and provenance, see A. van Lantschoot, “L’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge chez les Coptes,” Greg 27 (1946) 502. 7 Very badly damaged Bohairic fragments from the 10th century were discovered at the monastery of St. Macarius in the Wadi ’n Natrûn and published in 1926 by H. G. E. White: TheMonasteriesoftheWadi’nNatrûn, 3 vols. (New York, 1926) 59-60. There are several additional Sahidic fragments, all from the White Monastery and dated to around the 10th century (van Lantschoot, “L’Assomption,” 502). These include a Sahidic fragment from the Vienna collection (K 9400, p. 35-36) that has been published by C. Wessely, Griechische und koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts, vol. 4 (Leipzig, 1914; repr. Amsterdam, 1967) 123-24, No. 240. The text of this fragment corresponds to sections 7.12-8.5 of the version published by de Lagarde and Robinson. According to Enzo Lucchesi, there is also an unpublished Sahidic fragment of this version from the same manuscript in the Michigan collection: U. L. 15835 a-d, p. ?-? et 29-30. See E. Lucchesi, “Une évangile apocryphe imaginaire,” OrientaliaLovaniensiaPeriodica 28 (1997) 176, n. 12. A. van Lantschoot also indicates the following unpublished Sahidic fragments: Paris copte 1318, f. 152; Vienna K 9401; and Vienna K 9783 (“L’Assomption,” 502). In the same article (Lucchesi, “Une évangile,” 174 n. 9) Lucchesi identifies Paris 12917, ff. 28-29 as a Sahidic fragment of one of the homilies on the Dormition attributed to Evodius, but this does not seem to be the case. Eugene Revillout has published a French translation of this fragment (“Lettre à M. le Rédacteur du Journal Asiatique sur de nouveaux Évangiles apocryphes relatifs à la Vierge,” JournalAsiatique X 2 (1903) 164-66). Comparison of Revillout’s translation with the different

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 227

29/10/18 13:02

228

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

As is clear from the text published below, however, the homily preserved in the Morgan codices and Spiegelberg’s fragments differs markedly from the homily published by de Lagarde and Robinson. Although the two homilies share a number of close literary relations, as signaled below, they are nonetheless strongly divergent in major sections as well as in their organization. These differences are sufficient to distinguish two separate homilies, which despite their occasional similarities cannot be identified as versions of the same text preserved in two different dialects.8 From the various manuscript witnesses then, we can identify two distinct homilies for the Dormition that have been attributed to Evodius of Rome. One of these is preserved by the Morgan manuscripts, while the other exists in two rather different versions: a complete Bohairic version, edited by de Lagarde, and a Sahidic version evident in the various Sahidic fragments. Furthermore, we can identify each of these three texts with a particular monastic community that has preserved them. The homily from the Morgan collection, published below, is known only from manuscripts of St. Michael’s monastery.9 The other Dormition homily attributed homilies attributed to Evodius, along with the other traditions of the Virgin’s Dormition preserved in Coptic, reveals that this is a distinct text that has certain elements in common with a number of the Coptic Dormition traditions but cannot be identified with any other presently extant text. Lucchesi further identifies Paris 12913, 63 (83?) as a fragment of this homily (published by E. Amélineau, Monumentspourserviràl’histoiredel’Égyptechrétienne auxIVe,Ve,VIe,etVIIesiècles (Paris, 1895) 830-31). Comparison of this fragment with the text published below reveals that it does not preserve any portion of this homily, nor can it be identified with any of the other extant Coptic Dormition traditions, although the Dormition may in fact be the subject of these fragments. 8 Both A. van Lantschoot, “L’Assomption,” 502-4 and T. Orlandi, Elementi dilinguaeletteraturacopta (Milan, 1970) 118-19 give the impression that there is basically one text preserved in two different dialects, although they are both aware of significant differences between the two homilies. On the other hand, both S. Mimouni, DormitionetassomptiondeMarie:Histoire destraditionsanciennes (Paris, 1995) 196 and M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’assomption avant le Xe siècle,” in F. Bovon (ed.), Lesactes apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva, 1981) 272 recognize that these are two different texts, but I disagree with van Esbroeck’s suggestion that the Sahidic homily is “only a résumé” of the Bohairic homily. 9 Note, however, that the provenance of Spiegelberg’s fragments is unknown: Mimouni, Dormition, 195 n. 84. Pérez considers Spiegelberg’s fragments to

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 228

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

229

to Evodius is preserved both in the complete Bohairic version from the monastery of St. Macarius and in the somewhat different Sahidic version witnessed by the fragments from the White Monastery.10 In the brief discussion that follows, I will distinguish these three texts according to the monastic communities that preserved them, referring to the homily of the Morgan codices and Spiegelberg’s fragments as the “St. Michael homily (St. Mich.),” de Lagarde’s Bohairic homily as the “St. Macarius homily (St. Mac.),” and the version preserved by the Sahidic fragments as the “White Monastery homily (W. Mon.).”11 It must be emphasized, however, that the St. Macarius homily and the White Monastery homily are versions of what is essentially the same homily, despite some very important differences between these two recensions.12 The two versions of this homily are to be distinguished be closer to de Lagarde’s text than to the Morgan homily, without corresponding exactly to either (Dormición, 94 n. 2). Nevertheless, I continue to agree with both van Esbroeck, “Les textes,” 272 and Mimouni, Dormition, 195 that Spiegelberg’s fragments preserve a version of the same text as the Morgan codices, although both the Morgan homily and de Lagarde’s text are often close at this point. Consequently, I have reproduced Spiegelberg’s fragments in their entirety in the notes accompanying this edition. 10 Including both the fragments published by Robinson and those mentioned in n. 7 above. Unfortunately, I have not seen the unpublished fragments, but both Pérez, Dormición, 94 n. 2 and Mimouni, Dormition, 198-99 n. 99 attest that they preserve the same version as the other Sahidic fragments from the White Monastery. Note that in some passages the White Monastery version is extant in more than one fragment, and these bear witness to some slight variation within this version. 11 Such terminology seems preferable to a number of other alternatives which could incorrectly suggest sequence or a particular dogmatic position: e.g., “first homily” and “second homily,” or the terminology adopted by Mimouni, Dormition, 195-201: “homily on the Dormition” (St. Mich.) and “homily on the Assumption” (St. Mac. & W. Mon.). The latter is particularly misleading since, as shown below, the White Monastery homily does not appear to have included the Virgin’s Assumption, concluding simply with her death. 12 Here I disagree again with Pérez, who distinguishes among these witnesses three distinct works (Dormición, 93). The similarities between the St. Macarius and White Monastery versions are sufficient to identify them as separate recensions of the same text that differ primarily on the issue of the Virgin’s Assumption (see below). The White Monastery recension thus probably represents an earlier version of this homily, composed before the

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 229

29/10/18 13:02

230

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

from the distinct St. Michael homily, which is here published for the first time. The attribution of the St. Michael homily (as well as the others) to Evodius of Rome is of course fictitious. According to the work’s title, Evodius was the second bishop of Rome after Peter, an honor he similarly holds in both the St. Macarius homily and the Sahidic homily On thePassionandtheResurrection that is also falsely attributed to him.13 Other early sources, however, name Linus as the second bishop of Rome,14 and according to Eusebius, Evodius instead preceded Ignatius as the first bishop of Antioch.15 Evodius’ homilies for the Dormition further indicate that he was one of the 72 disciples16 and was thus an eyewitness to the events that he describes. Whatever his actual status may have been, it seems rather certain that none of these homilies were composed during the first century, and likewise that Evodius was not their author. We can, however, establish a reasonably certain terminus ante quem of about 550 for the composition of the St. Michael homily. This can be determined primarily on the basis of a major change in the Coptic celebration of the end of the Virgin’s life that was effected sometime before Theodosius of Alexandria composed his Homily ontheAssumption in the final year of his life, 566 or 567.17 It seems that the earliest Coptic celebration of the end of the Virgin’s life took introduction of the feast of the Assumption to the Egyptian church sometime before 567 (see below). The St. Macarius version is then best understood as a more recent version of the White Monastery homily that has been reworked to include this liturgical and theological change. The St. Michael homily, on the other hand, clearly stands apart as a different homily, and not just another recension. This opinion is also shared by van Esbroeck, “Les textes,” 272 and Mimouni, Dormition, 198-99. 13 See de Lagarde, Aegyptiaca, 38 and the homily OnthePassionandthe Resurrection, edited and translated by P. Chapman in L. Depuydt (ed.), HomileticafromthePierpontMorganLibrary, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1991) 1:79. 14 Irenaeus, Adversushaereses, 3.3.3; Eusebius, HE 3.2, among others. 15 Eusebius, HE 3.22; see also Constitutionesapostolorum 7.46. 16 Luke 10.1, 7. The number 72 (as opposed to 70) is a textual variant preserved in the Sahidic version, among other early witnesses. 17 Theodosius of Alexandria, HomilyontheAssumption, prologue (F. Robinson (ed.), CopticApocryphalGospels (Cambridge, 1896) 90-91); see M. Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose, Patriarche d’Alexandrie, sur la Dormition et l’Assomption de la Vierge.” ROC 29 (1933-34) 273-76.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 230

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

231

place on 21 Tobe (16 January), in a feast commemorating only her Dormition (that is, the separation of her body and soul), without any reference to her resurrection and Assumption. This is the pattern exemplified in both the homily edited below and in Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem’s HomilyontheDormition. Both of these texts locate the separation of Mary’s body and soul on 21 Tobe, relating shortly thereafter the removal of her body from this world, precluding her resurrection and Assumption.18 By the mid-sixth century, however, the Coptic commemoration of the end of the Virgin’s life had expanded to include separate feasts for the Virgin’s Dormition and for her resurrection and Assumption, the first of which continued to be celebrated on 21 Tobe, while the second was observed on 16 Mesore (9 August). This latter feast was the occasion for Theodosius’ homily, assuring us that this liturgical change was in place by the middle of the sixth century. From this point forward, there is a solid Coptic tradition that the Virgin died on 21 Tobe, but her body was not removed from the earth. Rather, in a tradition unique to the Coptic (and Ethiopian) church, her lifeless body remained on the earth for another 206 days, until 16 Mesore, when Christ returned with her soul and resurrected her in the presence of the Apostles, after which she was assumed bodily into heaven.19 Since the St. Michael homily is ignorant of this liturgical change, we can be relatively certain that it (along with Ps.-Cyril’s homily) was composed sometime before the middle of the sixth century. As the St. Michael homily draws to a close, the Apostles are carrying the Virgin’s body to her tomb, when a multitude of angels descends and seizes the Virgin’s body, carrying it into the heavens (22), where it is placed beneath the tree of life (23), events that seem to preclude a resurrection 18

Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, HomilyontheDormition (E. A. W. Budge (ed.), MiscellaneousCopticTextsintheDialectofUpperEgypt (London, 1915) 7072 (Copt) and 648-49 (Eng); A. Campagnano (ed.), Ps.CirillodiGerusalemme: OmeliecoptesullaPassione,sullaCroceesullaVergine (Milan, 1980) 18893). 19 For more on the early liturgical traditions of the Dormition, Coptic and otherwise, see S. J. Shoemaker, “The (Re?)Discovery of the Kathisma Church and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antique Palestine,” Maria:AJournalof MarianStudies 2 (2001) 21-72; and idem, AncientTraditionsoftheVirgin Mary’sDormitionandAssumption (Oxford, 2002) ch. 2. A detailed consideration of the Coptic liturgical tradition may be found in S. Mimouni, “Genèse et évolution des traditions anciennes sur le sort final de Marie: Étude de la tradition littéraire copte,” Marianum 42 (1991) 123-33.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 231

29/10/18 13:02

232

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

and Assumption 206 days later. In the St. Macarius homily, however, these liturgical changes are evident, and the apostles successfully reach the Virgin’s tomb with her body, where it remains for 206 days, until they return on 16 Mesore to witness her resurrection and Assumption.20 Such liturgical changes might lead one to suspect that the substantial literary differences between the two homilies may have been effected as an earlier version, preserved in the St. Michael homily, was revised to agree with more recent liturgical practice, resulting in the St. Macarius homily. Unfortunately, however, the matter is not easily resolved. The White Monastery homily, which is a distinct recension of the same homily preserved at St. Macarius, clearly agrees with the St. Michael homily that Mary’s body was removed from the earth on the same day in which she died, shortly after its separation from her soul.21 In the White Monastery homily, Christ promises his mother that on that very day he will have her brought in “body and soul” to the heavenly places.22 This promise is fulfilled later in these fragments when, as in the St. Michael homily, a choir of angels seizes the Virgin’s body before her funeral precession can reach her tomb. Following this, as the White Monastery homily draws to a close, Christ appears on the eighth day after Mary’s death to inform the grieving apostles that the Virgin’s body has been placed under the tree of life,23 again in agreement with the St. Michael homily (and Ps-Cyril’s homily). Therefore we must also date the initial composition of the homily preserved in the White Monastery fragments to sometime before the middle of 20

Ps-Evodius of Rome, HomilyontheDormition(St.Mac.) 15.8-18.16 (de Lagarde, Aegyptiaca, 59-62). 21 Pérez also notes this agreement between the St. Michael and White Monastery homilies against the St. Macarius version (Dormición, 98-100). But see Mimouni, Dormition, 201, where he mistakenly concludes of the White Monastery homily, that “bien que présentant de nombreuses variantes, ne paraissent pas très éloignées de la recension complète bohaïrique, en tout cas sur le plan de la doctrine.” As one will find if the passages listed in n. 21 above are consulted, the White Monastery version of this homily differs from the St. Macarius version precisely on the matter of doctrine, which for Mimouni means especially the Assumption of the Virgin. 22 Ps-Evodius of Rome, HomilyontheDormition(W.Mon.), 7.17 (Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels, 66-99; and Wessely, GriechischeundKoptische Texte, 124). This promise is absent from the St. Macarius version. 23 Ibid., 16.5-18.5 (Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels, 80-9). The White Monastery version is extant here in three distinct fragments.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 232

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

233

the sixth century, while the St. Macarius version of this same homily represents a later recension that has been revised to accommodate the liturgical and theological changes of the sixth century. Thus we may conclude that both of the homilies on the Dormition attributed to Evodius were almost certainly in existence and distinct from one another before the changes of the mid-sixth century. Likewise we may not conclude that the St. Michael homily is any older than the White Monastery homily, as some have suggested,24 at least not on the basis of any liturgical and dogmatic distinctions, since both versions predate the liturgical changes that become apparent in the midsixth century. The St. Michael homily on the Dormition attributed to Evodius is preserved in its entirety only by Pierpont Morgan MS 596 (19v-26r), copied in 871/72 by a certain Deacon Papostolos. A second manuscript, Pierpont Morgan MS 598 (1r-8v), also copied sometime in the ninth century, has also preserved this homily, but it is badly damaged with significant loss of text.25 Consequently, the edition that follows is based on MS 596, collated with those sections of MS 598 that are extant and legible, both of which were studied in the photographic reproductions published in 1922.26 I have identified those portions of the text attested only in MS 596 by enclosing them within the symbols: ⸂…⸃. Spiegelberg’s fragments correspond roughly to MS 596 folio 19v and the first column of 20r, and these fragments have also been consulted in preparing the edition of these folios. The text as Spiegelberg has published it, however, is very fragmentary and corrupt, and so I have reproduced its readings in the footnotes, rather than attempting to collate them. In my edition I have reproduced the text as found in MS 596, except when MS 598 clearly offers a better reading, recording all variants of one letter or more from both manuscripts in the notes. In the few instances where I have ventured to correct the text against both witness, the original readings of both manuscripts are given in the footnotes. I have not reproduced the punctuation and supralinear markings from the manuscripts, since they are both difficult 24

For instance, Mimouni, Dormition, 201. For further detail, see L. Depuydt, CatalogueofCopticManuscriptsinthe PierpontMorganLibrary (Leuven, 1993) 305-11, where both manuscripts are described extensively. 26 H. Hyvernat, CodicesCoptici:Photographiceexpressi (Rome, 1922) 34:40-53 (MS 596, 19v-26r) and 35:1-18 (MS 598, 1r-8v). 25

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 233

29/10/18 13:02

234

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

to determine from the photographs and are not always accurate.27 Instead, I have standardized the supralinear strokes according to the forms given by Thomas Lambdin in his IntroductiontoSahidicCoptic,28 and I have divided words according to the principles outlined by Walter Till.29 The dialect of these manuscripts is Sahidic, with a few peculiarities. The most frequently encountered orthographical variant in MS 596 is the use of ⲛⲛ (or ⲛⲙ) where only a single ⲛ (or ⲙ) is necessary, a phenomenon sometimes known as the “epenthetic ⲛ.”30 This nonstandard feature is also evident in MS 598, and it is frequently met in the Sahidic texts of the Morgan codices, especially, for instance, in the use of ⲛⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ for ⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ.31 Both manuscripts also exhibit the occasional use of ⲱ instead of ⲟ for the qualitative of ⲉⲓⲣⲉ (both forms present), a variant sometimes present in other manuscripts of the Morgan collection.32 Many of the Greek and Latin loan-words are misspelled (some quite badly) in both manuscripts. In such instances 27 As Depuydt notes more generally of the Coptic manuscripts of this period: “In Coptic manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries, superlinear strokes are often just calligraphic debris copied from earlier manuscripts with limited or no knowledge on the part of the copyist of the rules governing the placement of the strokes.” Depuydt, Homiletica, vol. 1, XVIII. 28 T. Lambdin, IntroductiontoSahidicCoptic (Macon, 1988). 29 W. Till, “La séparation des mots en copte,” Bulletindel’IFAO 60 (1960) 151-70; idem, “Zur Worttrennung im Koptischen,” Zeitschrift für ägyptischeSpracheundAltertumskunde 77 (1967) 48-52. Note, however, that in reproducing the fragments edited by Spiegelberg I have preserved the divisions, supralinear strokes, etc. as they are given in his edition. 30 This phenomenon and its underlying phonology are well explained in L. Depuydt, EncomiasticafromthePierpontMorganLibrary, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1993) XV-XVII, where several examples are also provided. See also L. Stern, KoptischeGrammatik (1880; reprint, Osnabrück, 1971) §§ 72, 373 and W. E. Crum, ACopticDictionary (Oxford, 1990) 215a. 31 See Depuydt, Encomiastica, XV-XVI ; K. H. Kuhn, A Panegyric on JohntheBaptistattributedtoTheodosius,ArchbishopofAlexandria, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1966) 1:XIV; idem, APanegyriconApollo,Archimandriteofthe Monastery of Isaac, by Stephen, Bishop of Heracleopolis Magna, 2 vols. (Leuven, 1978) 1:XIII; idem, “Pseudo-Shenoute: On Christian Behaviour,” Mus 71 (1958) 359-80 at 361; H. Quecke, Untersuchungenzumkoptischen Stundengebet (Louvain, 1970) 373. 32 See Quecke, Untersuchungen, 374, esp. n. 108.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 234

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

235

I have corrected their forms to reflect “standard” Sahidic spelling,33 recording all variants and providing the correct Greek and Latin forms parenthetically in the English translation. No doubt the Coptic tradition’s association of Evodius with Rome accounts in part for the frequency of Latin loan words, both in this homily and in the homily OnthePassionandtheResurrection.34 Before presenting the text itself and its translation, it is perhaps worthwhile to summarize its contents, also noting those sections of the St. Macarius and White Monastery homilies having close affinities with the St. Michael homily. These passages are signaled in the parentheses (identified as “St. Mac.” and “W. Mon.”), following the section number from the St. Michael homily. In those instances where the White Monastery version is both extant and closer to the St. Michael homily than is the St. Macarius version, I have indicated this as well. Note, however, that in many instances the parallels are only to very specific passages, and not to the entire section. Following the introductory title (1), the homily undertakes an elaborate description of the joyful celebrations that accompany a royal wedding (2; cf. St. Mac. 1). The homilist then remarks at how much more joy there must be today in heaven on account of the wedding of the King’s Son to his bride, the Virgin Mary (3; cf. St. Mac. 2). Next the ancient fathers of the Hebrew Scriptures are summoned to glorify the Virgin, and several of their prophecies relating to the Virgin are recalled (4). After these, Evodius laments, wishing that he had been able to witness the birth of Christ and behold him with his mother during the early years of his life, even though he followed Christ during his earthly ministry and knew him as an adult (5). He then praises Mary as the most exalted part of God’s creation and identifies her with a number of sacred objects from the Hebrew Scriptures (6; cf. St. Mac. 3; 7.10-11). The middle section of the homily consists of a lengthy antiJewish polemic, in which Evodius rebukes the Jews for their failure to believe, adducing prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures (7). He reminds the Jews that their own eyes and hands bear witness to the 33

According to the forms identified by L.-Th. Lefort, ConcordanceduNouveauTestamentsahidique, 4 vols. (Louvain, 1950-59) and W. Till, Koptische Grammatik(SaïdischerDialekt) (Leipzig, 19704). 34 See Depuydt, Homiletica, 1:121, where many of the same Latin loan words appear.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 235

29/10/18 13:02

236

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

many wonders that Christ worked, drawing particular attention to the raising of Lazarus (8) and the miracle at Cana (9), and he berates them for their ignorance and their perfidy (10). Finally, Evodius asks the Jews why they could not be like the Magi, who saw these things and believed (11), and he concludes by reminding them of the punishments that await them at the final judgment (12). Then he proposes a return to his primary subject, insisting on his first-hand knowledge of the events that he will relate (13). Thus begins the final section, which narrates the end of the Virgin’s earthly life. The Apostles are gathered together and casting lots to determine where each will travel to preach the Gospel (14), and when they gather on the following day to celebrate the Eucharist, Christ suddenly appears in their midst (15). Christ praises his mother and promises to care for her as she had cared for him when he was still a child (16; cf. St. Mac. 7.15-17), and he informs the Apostles that Mary is about to go forth from the body (17). The Savior orders Peter to prepare the heavenly funeral garments that he has brought for his mother (18; cf. St. Mac. 9.11). Peter does this, and Christ instructs his mother to lie down in the garments. Christ walks outside with his disciples, “since it is not possible for Death to come to a place where there is Life,” leaving only women to witness the final moments of Mary’s life. Outside, as he instructs his disciples in the mysteries, the women rush out to announce the Virgin’s passing (19; cf. St. Mac. 9.12, 14; St. Mac. & W. Mon. 10.3-6; 13.3, 7, 9; W. Mon. 12.4-12 (St. Mac.= diff.)). The Apostles are full of grief, and ask if it were not possible that she would not die. While he finishes preparing her body, Christ reminds them that even he had to die (20; cf. St. Mac. & W. Mon. 8.3-4, 9-12). Then, a multitude of angels suddenly appears, with Mary seated on a throne, raised up on a chariot. She blesses the disciples (21; cf. St. Mac. 18.6-7). Christ commands his disciples to carry Mary’s body to a place that he will show them. After watching Christ disappear into the heavens on the chariot with his mother, the disciples do as he instructed. When they reach the Valley of Josaphat, a multitude of angels descends and seizes the Virgin’s body (22; cf. W. Mon. 16.5 (St. Mac.=diff.)). Again the disciples are stricken with grief, and Christ appears. He tells them that the Virgin’s body has been placed under the tree of life and orders them to go forth into the world to preach the Gospel (23; cf. St. Mac. & W. Mon. 18.2; W. Mon. 18.4 (St. Mac.=diff.)). Evodius concludes the homily, once again reminding us that he witnessed these events himself (24).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 236

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

237

VI. EDITORIAL SIGNS [---] Lacuna of unspecified length [..] Lacuna containing 2 letters ⲁⲱ Letters that are visually uncertain in the MS, even when context may make the reading certain < > Indicates editorial correction of a scribal omission or error; in the latter case, footnote records the MS reading { } Indicates letters or words unnecessarily included by a scribe ⸂⸃ Indicates text attested only by MS 596; MS 598 damaged or wanting

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 237

29/10/18 13:02

238

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

SahidicText 1. (19v) ⸂ⲟⲩⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲉⲁϥⲧⲁⲩⲟϥ Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲁⲡⲁ ⲉⲩϩⲱⲇⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲣⲭⲓⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ Ⲛⲧⲛⲟⳓ Ⲙⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ϩⲣⲱⲙⲏ, ⲉⲡⲙⲉϩⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲙⲚ⸃Ⲛⲥⲁ ⸂ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ. Ⲛⲧⲁϥⲧⲁⲩ⸃ⲟϥ ⲇ⸂ⲉ ϩⲚ ⲧϣⲟⲣⲠ {ⲉ}Ⲛ⸃ⲛⲉⲕⲕ⸂ⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲚⲧⲁⲩⲕⲟⲧⲤ ⲚⲃⲢⲣⲉ ϩⲘ ⲡⲣⲁⲛ Ⲛⲧⲉⲑⲉⲟⲕⲟⲥ35 ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲁⲩⲱ⸃ ⲧⲣⲉϥ⸂ϫⲡⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲙⲉ. ⲁϥⲧⲁⲩⲉ ϩⲚⲕⲟⲩ⸃ⲓ ⲇⲉ ⸂ⲟⲛ Ⲛⲉⲡⲁⲓⲛⲟⲥ⸃ ⲉⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟ ⸂ Ⲛⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑ⸃ⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁ⸂ⲁⲃ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ, ⲉ⸃ϥⲧⲁⲙⲟ Ⲙ⸂ⲙⲟⲛ ⲉ⸃ⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲉ⸂ⲥϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃ⸃ⲟⲗ, ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⸂ⲡⲉⲥⲟⲩ⸃ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉ⸂ⲃⲟⲧ ⲧ⸃ⲱⲃⲉ. ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏ⸂ⲛⲏ Ⲛ⸃ⲧⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩ⸂ⲁⲙⲏⲛ.36 2. ⲟ⸃ⲩⲡⲣⲉⲡⲛ37 ⲡⲉ ⸂ⲁⲩ⸃ⲱ ⲟⲩⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲛ ⲡⲉ ⸂ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲛϯ⸃ ⲧⲁⲓⲟ38 ⲛⲓⲙ ⸂ϩⲓ ⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲛ⸃ⲓⲙ Ⲛⲧⲛ⸂ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ⸃ ⲧⲏⲣⲚ ⲧⲉⲑⲉⲟ⸃ⲕⲟⲥ39 ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⸂ⲙⲁⲣⲓ⸃ⲁ, ⲧⲉⲛⲡⲣⲉⲥ⸂ⲃⲉⲩ⸃ⲧⲏⲥ40 ⲧⲉⲧⲡⲣⲉⲥ⸂ⲃⲉⲩⲉ ϩⲁⲣ⸃ⲟⲛ Ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⸂ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛ⸃ⲛⲁϩⲣⲘ ⲡⲛⲟⲩ⸂ⲧⲉ, ⲧⲢⲣⲱ⸃ Ⲙⲡⲅⲉ⸂ⲛⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϤ Ⲛ⸃ⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ ⸂ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲘⲡⲢⲣⲟ ⲚⲚⲢⲱⲟⲩ, ⲡⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ Ⲓ⳰Ⲥ ⲡⲉ Ⲭ⳱Ⲥ.41 ⲟⲩⲢⲣⲟ⸃ ⲅⲁ⸂ⲣ Ⲛ⸃ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ42 ⲉϥϣⲁⲛⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲉⲉⲓⲣⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ ⲉⲡⲉϥϣⲏⲣⲉ, ϣⲁⲣⲉⲛⲉϥⲥⲧⲣⲁⲧⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲉⲣⲟϥ. Ⲛⲥⲉⲗⲉⲩⲕⲫⲣⲉⲓ43 ⲁⲩⲱ ⸂Ⲛⲥ⸃ⲉⲫⲣⲉⲓ44 Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲚ ϩⲚⲫⲟⲣⲙⲁ45 Ⲛⲃⲁⲥⲓⲗⲓⲕⲟⲛ: ⲛⲁⲝⲓⲱⲙⲁⲧⲓⲕⲟⲥ 47 ⲛⲉⲉⲡⲁⲣⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲥⲧⲣⲁⲧⲗⲁⲧⲏⲥ 46 MS 596: Ⲛⲧⲉⲑⲉⲱⲇⲟⲕⲟⲥ; MS 598 illegible. Spiegelberg: {ⲟⲑ}ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ: ⲉⲁⲫⲧⲁⲑ{ⲟ}ⲫ: ⲛⲄⲓ ⲁⲡⲁ ⲉⲩϩⲟ[ⲇⲓⲟⲥ] ⲡⲁⲣⲭⲏ[ⲉ]ⲡⲓⲥⲕ[ⲟⲡⲟⲥ] ⲛⲧⲛⲟⳓ ⲙⲡⲟⲗ[ⲗⲓⲥ ϩ]ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲡⲙ[ⲁϩ Ⲃ ⲡ]ⲉ ⲙⲛⲥⲁ ⲡϩ[ⲁⲅⲓⲟⲥ] ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ [ⲡⲁⲡⲟ]ⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ [ⲉⲁϥ]ⲧⲁⲩⲟϥ […] ⲛⲛⲉⲓⲥⲕ […]ⲟⲧⲥ ⲛⲃ[…]ⲧⲉⲑⲉⲟⲇ[ⲟⲕⲟⲥ ⲙ] ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ […]ⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲛ […] ⲉϩⲛⲕ. [two lines missing] [---]ⲉⲧⲉⲥ [---]ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ [….ϩⲛ ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣ]ⲏⲛⲏ 37 MS 596: ⲟⲩⲡⲣⲉⲡⲱⲛ; MS 598: [---]ⲩⲡⲣⲁⲓⲡⲱⲛ. 38 MS 598: ⲧⲁⲉⲓⲟ. 39 MS 596: ⲧⲉⲑⲉⲱⲇⲟⲕⲟⲥ; MS 598: ⲧⲉⲑⲉⲱ[..]ⲕⲟⲥ. 40 MS 596: ⲧⲚⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲉⲩⲧⲏⲥ. 41 ⲧⲉⲑⲉⲱⲇⲟⲕⲟⲥ… Ⲭ⳰Ⲥ·: Spiegelberg: Ⲣⲛⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲧⲉⲧⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲉⲩⲉ …ⲉ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲙⲡⲉⲙⲧⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲧⲉⲣⲱⲱ ⲙⲡⲅⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲛⲁⲇⲁⲙ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲙⲡⲣⲣⲟ ⲛⲛⲉⲣⲣⲱⲟⲩ ⲡⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲒ⳰Ⲥ ⲡ Ⲓ⳰Ⲥ ⲡⲉⲬⲤ. 42 MS 598: ⲡⲉⲓ[ⲕ]ⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ. 43 Both MSS: Ⲛⲥⲉⲗⲉⲩⲕⲱⲫⲱⲣⲉⲓ. 44 MS 596: Ⲛⲥⲉⲫⲱⲣⲉⲓ; MS 598: [..]ⲉⲫⲱⲣⲉⲓ. 45 MS 596: ϩⲚⲫⲱⲣⲓⲥⲙⲁ; MS 598: ϩⲚⲫⲟⲣⲓⲥⲙⲁ. 46 Both MSS: ⲛⲉⲥⲧⲣⲁⲧⲩⲗⲁⲧⲏⲥ. 47 MS 596: ⲛⲁⲝⲓⲱⲙⲁⲇⲓⲕⲟⲥ. 35

36

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 238

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

239

ⲛⲉⲥⲭⲗⲁⲥⲧⲓⲕⲟⲥ 48 Ⲛⲧⲟⲡⲁⲣⲭⲏⲥ 49 Ⲛⲕⲟⲙⲥ 50 ϩⲁⲡⲁⲝϩⲁⲡⲗⲱⲥ, ϣⲁϩⲣⲁⲓ Ⲛⲕⲟⲩⲓ Ⲛⲥⲓⲕⲗⲟⲫⲟⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲑⲩⲡⲏⲣⲧⲉⲓ ⲛⲉ ϩⲁ ⲛⲉⲑⲩⲡⲏⲣⲉⲧⲉⲓ.51 ϣⲁⲣⲉⲛⲉⲓⲕⲉⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉ ϩⲱⲟⲩ Ⲛⲧⲉⲓⲙⲓⲛⲉ ⲗⲉⲩⲕⲫⲣⲉⲓ52 ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲝⲓⲱⲙⲁ Ⲛⲥⲉⲉⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲧϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ Ⲙⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲘⲡⲢⲣⲟ.53 ϣⲁⲩⲧⲁϩⲟ ⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲚⲚⲥⲓⲅⲛⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲉ Ⲛⲥⲓⲅⲛⲟⲫⲟⲣⲟⲥ54 ⲛⲉ Ⲙⲡⲙⲁ Ⲙⲡⲉⲡⲣⲁⲓⲧⲱⲣⲓⲟⲛ.55 ϣⲁⲣⲉⲚⲇⲙⲣⲥⲧⲏⲥ56 ϯⲙⲁ Ⲙⲡⲛⲩⲙⲫⲓⲟⲥ57 ⲙⲚ ⲧⲉϥⲛⲩⲙⲫⲏ. ⸂ϣⲁⲣⲉⲛⲉⲥⲕⲉⲡⲧⲱⲣ58 ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ Ⲛⲥⲉⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲱⲣⲇⲓⲟⲛ.⸃ ϣⲁⲣⲉ ⸂Ⲛⲕⲟⲩⲣⲥⲱ⸃59 ⲥⲂⲧⲱⲧⲟⲩ60 Ⲛ ⸂ⲥⲉ⸃ ⲧⲱϩⲘ

Both MSS: ⲛⲉⲥⲭⲱⲗⲁⲥⲧⲓⲕⲟⲥ. MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲟⲡⲁⲣⲕⲟⲥ. 50 MS 596: Ⲛⲕⲱⲙⲓⲥ; MS 598: Ⲛⲕⲟⲙⲓⲥ . 51 MS 596: Ⲛⲥⲓⲕⲗⲟⲫⲟⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲑⲩⲡⲏⲧⲉⲓ ⲛⲉ ϩⲁ {ⲛ}ⲛⲉⲑⲩⲡⲏⲣⲉⲧⲉⲓ; MS 598: Ⲛⲥⲓⲕⲗⲟⲫⲟⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲧϩⲩⲡⲁⲓⲣⲏⲧⲉⲓ ⲛⲉ ϩⲁ ⲛⲉⲧϩⲩⲡⲏⲣⲏⲧⲉⲓ; Spiegelberg: ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲫⲟⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲧϩⲩⲡⲉⲣⲉϯ· ⲛⲉ ϩⲁ ⲧⲟⲩⲛⲓ·ϩⲩⲓⲁ. 52 Both MSS: ⲗⲉⲩⲕⲱⲫⲱⲣⲉⲓ. 53 ⲟⲩⲢⲣⲟ ⲅⲁⲣ…ⲘⲡⲢⲣⲟ.: Spiegelberg: ⲟⲩⲣⲢⲟ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲉϥϣⲁⲛ ⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲟⲩϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ ⲙⲡⲉϥϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣⲁⲣⲉ ⲡⲉϥⲥⲧⲣⲁⲧⲉ[ⲩⲙⲁ] ⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲥⲟⲟⲩϩ […]ⲩⲗⲉⲩⲕⲟⲫⲟⲣⲉⲓ[…]ⲉⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ[…]ϩⲓ ⲙⲙ [2 lines missing] […]ⲟⲩⲫⲟⲣⲟⲥ ⲛⲃⲁⲥⲓⲗⲉⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲛⲉⲡⲁⲣⲭⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲥⲭⲟⲗⲁⲥϯⲕⲟⲥ ⲙⲛⲧⲟⲡⲁⲣⲭⲏⲥ ⲙⲛⲛⲛⲕⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲙⲛⲛⲉⲥⲧⲣⲁⲧⲏⲗⲁⲧⲏⲥ ϩⲁⲡⲁⲝ ϩⲁⲡⲗⲱⲥ ϣⲁϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲚⲥⲓⲛⲟⲫⲟⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲧϩⲩⲡⲉⲣⲉϯ. ⲛⲉ ϩⲁⲧⲟⲩⲛⲓ.ϩⲓⲁ ϣⲁⲣⲉⲛⲓⲕⲟⲩⲓ ϩⲱⲱⲟⲩ ⲗⲉⲩⲕⲟⲫⲟⲣⲏ· ⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲉⲩⲁ….ⲱⲙⲁ ⲛⲥⲉⲉⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲧϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ ⲙⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲣⲢⲟ. 54 MS 596: Ⲛⲥⲓⲅⲛⲟⲫⲱⲣⲟⲥ. 55 MS 596: Ⲙⲡⲉⲡⲣⲁⲓⲧⲱⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲛⲉ. 56 MS 596: ϣⲁⲣⲉⲚⲇⲓⲙⲱⲣⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ; MS 598: ϣⲁⲣⲉⲚϯⲙⲱⲣⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ; Spiegelberg: ϣⲁⲣⲉ ⲡⲧⲏⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϤ ϯⲙⲁ. 57 MS 598: Ⲙⲡⲛⲩⲙⲫⲟⲛ. 58 One finds a similar (mis)spelling of exceptor as (ⲉ)ⲥⲕⲉⲡⲧⲱⲣ in the homilyOnthePassionandtheResurrection attributed to Evodius of Rome: Depuydt, Homiletica, 1:93,6; 99,38; 100,1. As Paul Chapman notes in this volume (ibid., 2:98, n. 67), the spelling sceptor for exceptor is recorded in C. du Cange, etal., Glossariummediaeetinfimaelatinitatis, ed. nova, 10 vols. (Niort, 1883-87) 7:345b. See also H. C. Teitler, NotariiandExceptores (Amsterdam, 1985) 244 n. 34 and G. Goetz, CorpusGlossariorumLatinorum, 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1888-1924) 5:389.3. 59 MS 596: ϣⲁⲣⲉⲚⲕⲟⲩⲣⲥⲱⲛ; MS 598: ϣⲁⲣⲉ[Ⲛⲕⲟⲩⲣⲥⲱ]ⲛ. One finds a similar spelling in Ps.-Evodius, HomilyonthePassionandtheResurrection: Depuydt, Homiletica, 93. 60 Both MSS: ⲥⲉⲃⲧⲱⲧⲟⲩ. 48 49

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 239

29/10/18 13:02

240

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

ⲚⲛⲉⲧⲘⲡϣⲁ Ⲛⲉⲓ61 ⲉⲡⲙⲁ Ⲛϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ.62 ϣⲁⲩⲧⲁϩⲟ ⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲚϩⲚⲑⲉⲁⲣⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲉ ϩⲚⲑⲉⲁⲣⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ Ⲛⲥⲉ(20 r)ⲑⲉⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ.63 ϣⲁⲩⲥⲟϥⲧⲉ ⲚϩⲚⲙⲓⲙⲙⲁⲣⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲉ ϩⲘⲙⲓⲙⲙⲟⲥ64 ⲛⲉ ⲉⲩⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲚϩⲚⲑⲉⲱⲣⲓⲁ.65 ϣⲁⲩⲧⲁϩⲟ ⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲚϩⲚⲛⲏⲅⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲉ {ⲛⲉ}Ⲛⲛⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ66 Ⲛⲥⲉⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛⲛⲉⲑⲣⲓⲟⲛ,67 ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲑⲁⲣⲉⲓ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ϫⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲙⲓϣⲉ ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ.68 ϣⲁⲣⲉⲚⲕⲓ{ⲛ}ⲑⲁⲣⲁⲧⲟⲥ ⲕⲓⲑⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ69 ϩⲚ ϩⲚⲟⲩⲉⲗⲗⲏ ⲉⲩⲛⲟⲧⲘ ⲉⲩⲡⲣⲉⲡⲉⲓ70 ⲚⲛⲉⲧⲥⲱⲧⲘ. ϣⲁⲣⲉⲚⲁⲛⲟⲩⲣⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ71 ϫⲱ ⲚϩⲚⲟⲣⲅⲁⲛⲟⲛ. ϣⲁⲩⲡⲉ ⲚϩⲚⲁⲕⲟⲩⲃⲓⲧⲟⲛ ϩⲚ ⲛⲁⲅⲣⲁ.72 ϣⲁⲣⲉⲛⲁⲅⲣⲁⲓⲟⲥ73 ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲧϯ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲉ ϣⲁⲩⲥⲧⲉⲫⲁⲛⲟⲩ Ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ Ⲛϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲚ ϩⲚⲃⲁ74 ⲙⲚ ϩⲚⲕⲗⲁⲟⲥ75 Ⲛⲥϯ⸂ⲛⲟⲩϥⲉ.

MS 598: omit Ⲛⲉⲓ. ϣⲁⲩⲧⲁϩⲟ…Ⲛϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ.: Spiegelberg: ϣⲁⲩⲧⲁϩⲟ ⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲥⲓⲙⲓⲟⲛ· ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲥⲓⲅⲛⲟⲫⲟⲣⲟⲥ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲥⲉ ⲙⲡⲙⲁ ⲙⲡⲉⲡⲣⲱⲧⲱⲣⲓⲟⲛ ϣⲁⲣⲉ ⲡⲧⲏⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϤ ϯⲙⲁ ⲙⲡⲣⲢⲟ ⲡⲛⲩⲙⲫⲓⲟⲥ· ⲙⲛⲧⲉϥϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲉϥⲛϥⲫⲏⲧⲉ· ϣⲁⲣⲉ ⲛⲉⲥⲕⲉⲙⲡⲧⲱⲣ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲛⲥⲉⲁⲉϩⲉⲧⲟⲩ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲧⲛⲉⲩⲟⲩⲉⲣϯⲛⲟⲛ· ϣⲁⲣⲉ ⲓ[---]ⲉⲥⲏⲃⲓ ϣⲧⲟ[---]ⲱϩ Ⲙⲛⲛⲉ[---] ⲛⲥⲉ. The following line is missing. 63 Both MSS: ⲚϩⲚⲑⲉⲁⲇⲣⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲉ ϩⲚⲑⲉⲁⲇⲣⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ Ⲛⲥⲉⲑⲉⲁⲇⲣⲓⲍⲉ. 64 MS 596: ⲛⲉ{ⲙ}ⲙⲓⲙⲙⲟⲥ. 65 MS 596: ⲚϩⲚⲑⲉⲱⲣⲉⲓ. 66 The words κυνήγιον and κυνηγός are badly misspelled in all three MSS: MS 596: ⲚϩⲚⲅⲏⲛⲏⲅⲓⲟⲛ· ⲉⲧⲉ {ⲛⲉ}Ⲛⲅⲏⲛⲏⲛⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ; MS 598: ⲚϩⲚⲅⲉⲛⲏⲕⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲉ {ⲛⲉ}Ⲛⲅⲏⲛⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ; Spiegelberg: ⲛϩⲉⲛⲕⲟⲩⲓⲉⲛⲏⲅⲓⲟⲛ· ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲏⲕⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ. 67 Both MSS: Ⲛⲛⲉⲑⲩⲣⲓⲟⲛ. 68 ϣⲁⲩⲧⲁϩⲟ… ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ: Spiegelberg: ⲗⲟⲓⲡⲟⲛ ϣⲁ[---]ⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲑⲉⲣⲁⲧⲓ[ⲟⲛ] ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲑⲉⲁⲧⲣⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲑⲩⲁⲇⲣⲓⲍⲉ ϣⲁⲩⲥⲱϥⲧⲉ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲙⲓⲙⲁⲣⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲉⲑⲉⲱⲱⲣⲓⲁ ϣⲁⲩⲧⲁϩⲟ ⲉⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲕⲟⲩⲓⲉⲛⲏⲅⲓⲟⲛ· ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲏⲕⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ· ⲛⲥⲉⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲛⲉⲑⲉⲱⲱⲣⲓ· ⲛⲁⲓ ⲧⲟⲩⲑⲁⲣⲓⲟⲩ ⲙⲙⲟⲩ ϫⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲙⲓϣⲉ ⲛⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ·. 69 MS 598: ⲕⲓⲛⲑⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ. 70 MS 598: ⲉⲩⲡⲣⲁⲓⲡⲉⲓ. 71 Both MSS: ϣⲁⲣⲉⲚⲃⲁⲛⲧⲟⲩⲣⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ. 72 MS 596: ϣⲁⲩⲡⲩⲥⲍⲉ ⲚϩⲚⲕⲟⲩⲃⲓⲧⲟⲛ ϩⲚ ⲛⲁⲕⲱⲣⲁ; MS 598: ϣⲁⲩⲡⲩⲍⲉ ⲚϩⲚⲁⲕⲟⲩⲃⲓⲧⲱⲛ ϩⲚ ⲛⲁⲅⲱⲣⲁ; Spiegelberg, ϣ[ⲁⲩ ⲡⲇⲁ]ⲥⲥⲉ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲁⲕ[ⲟⲣⲉⲟⲥ] ⲛϩⲛⲛⲁⲕⲱⲣ[ⲁ---]. 73 Both MSS: ϣⲁⲣⲉⲛⲁⲅⲱⲣⲁⲓⲟⲥ. 74 MS 598: Ⲛⲃⲁ. 75 Both MSS: ϩⲚⲕⲗⲁⲧⲟⲥ. 61

62

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 240

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

241

ϣⲁⲩⲉⲓϣⲉ ⲚϩⲚⲟⲩⲉⲗⲗⲏ76 ⲙⲚ ϩⲚⲥⲓⲛⲛⲓⲟⲛ77 ϩⲚ Ⲛϩⲓⲣ Ⲛⲧⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ, ⲉⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ⸃ ϩⲚ ⲧϣ⸂ⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ Ⲙ⸃ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲙ ⸂ⲡⲢⲣⲟ.⸃ ⲚⲣⲘⲙⲁⲟ ⸂ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲩ⸃ ⲁⲛ ⲙⲚ {ϩⲚ}ⲛⲁⲝⲓⲱ{ⲱ}ⲙⲁ78 ⲛⲉⲧ ⸂ⲛⲁⲣⲁϣⲉ⸃ 79 ⲉϫⲚ ⲧⲉⲓϣ ⸂ⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ⸃ Ⲛⲧⲉⲓⲙⲓⲛⲉ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ Ⲛϩⲏⲕⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲣ ⳓⲣⲱϩ80 ⲙⲚ ⲚϣⲘⲙⲟ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉⲡⲣⲟⲥⲗⲩⲧ ⸂ⲟⲥ.⸃ 81 ϣⲁⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲣⲁϣⲉ Ⲛⲧϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ Ⲙⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲘⲡⲢⲣⲟ. Ⲛⲕⲟⲟⲩⲉ ϩ⸂ⲱⲟⲩ⸃ ⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩⲘ ⲡⲉϣ⸂ⲧⲉ⸃ⲕⲟ ϣⲁⲩⲢ ⲡⲱⲃϢ ⲚⲚϩⲓⲥⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲧⲟ ⲉⲃ⸂ⲟⲗ⸃ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ, Ⲛⲥⲉⲣⲁϣⲉ ⸂ⲉⲡⲉ⸃ϩⲟⲩⲟ ϫⲉ ⲁⲡⲢⲣⲟ ⸂ⲛⲁ⸃ ⲛⲁⲩ ϩⲚ Ⲛϩⲓⲥⲉ ⲉⲧ ⸂ⲟⲩ⸃ϣⲟⲟⲡ Ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⸂ⲉⲧ⸃ⲃⲉ ⲡⲣⲁϣⲉ Ⲛ⸂ⲧϣⲉ⸃ⲗⲉⲉⲧ Ⲙⲡϣⲏⲣ⸂ⲉ Ⲙ⸃ⲡⲢⲣⲟ. ⲡⲢⲣⲟ ⲇ⸂ⲉ⸃ ϩⲱⲱϥ ϩⲘ ⲡⲧⲣ ⸂ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ⸃ ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲛⲟⳓ Ⲛⲣⲁ⸂ϣⲉ ⲉⲧ⸃ⲡⲟⲣϢ ⲛ⸂ⲁϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ,⸃ ϣⲁϥϣⲱ ⸂ⲡⲉ ϩⲱⲱϥ⸃ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲛⲟ ⸂ⳓ Ⲛⲛⲁⲩⲑⲉⲛ⸃ ⲧⲓⲁ Ⲛ⸂ⲃⲁⲥⲓⲗⲓⲕⲟⲛ. ⲗⲟⲓⲡⲟⲛ ϣⲁϥⲥⲟⲃ⸃ ⲧⲉ ⸂ⲚϩⲘⲙⲁ Ⲛⲥⲱ ⲛϤϯ ⲚϩⲚⲛⲟⳓ ⲚⲚⲁⲩⲑⲉⲛⲧⲓⲁ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛϤⲥⲱⲣ ⲚϩⲚⲟⳓ Ⲛⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ Ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲉⲣ ⳓⲣⲱϩ.⸃ 3. ⲁⲩⲱ ⸂ⲛⲁⲓ ⲧⲏⲣⲟ⸃ⲩ ϣⲁⲩϣⲱ⸂ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ⸃ ⲟⲩϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ ⸂Ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ – ⸂ⲕⲁⲓ ⲅ⸃ⲁⲣ ϣⲁⲣⲉⲡⲉⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ ⸂ⲕⲟⲧ ⸃ Ϥ ⲉⲩϩⲏⲃⲉ ⲙⲚⲚⲥⲁ ⲟⲩⲕⲟⲩⲓ ϩⲓⲧⲘ ⲡⲙⲟⲩ. ⲉⲓⲉ ⲟⲩⲁϣ Ⲛⳓⲟⲧ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲉⲧⲡⲟⲣϢ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ82 Ⲙⲡⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲚ ⲧⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲚⲚⲧⲁⲅⲙⲁ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲚⲘⲡⲏⲩⲉ: ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲙⲚ83 ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲭⲉⲣⲟⲩⲃⲓⲛ ⲙⲚ {ⲛ}ⲛⲉⲉⲣⲁⲫⲓⲛ84 ⲛⲉⲑⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ ⲙⲚ ⲘⲙⲚⲧϫⲟⲓⲉⲥ85 ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉⲉⲝⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ: ⲉⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲉⲩⲥⲧⲟⲗⲓⲍⲉ ⲉⲩⲭⲣⲉⲩⲉ86 ϩⲚ ⲧϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ Ⲙⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲘⲡⲢⲣⲟ. ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲉ ⸂Ⲛ⸃ ⲧⲟ ⲱ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ, ⲧⲢⲣⲱ On the use of ⲟⲩⲉⲗⲗⲉ to represent βῆλον/velum in Coptic, see Crum, ACopticDictionary, 477b. 77 MS 596: ϩⲚⲥⲓⲛⲧⲱⲛⲓⲟⲛ; MS 598 illegible. 78 MS 596: {ϩⲚ}ⲛⲁⲝⲓⲱ{ⲱ}ⲙⲁ (ἀξίωμα); MS 598: ⲛⲁⲝ[---]ⲧⲓⲕⲟⲥ (suggesting ἀξιωματικός). 79 ϣⲁⲣⲉⲛⲕⲓⲛⲑⲁⲣⲁⲧⲟⲥ…ⲛⲉⲧⲛⲁⲣⲁϣⲉ: Spiegelberg: ϣⲁⲣⲉⲕⲓⲑⲁⲣⲟⲩⲧⲟⲥ ⲕⲁⲑⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ ⲛ[---] . . ⲩⲏⲗⲁⲥ ⲉⲩⲛⲟⲧⲙ[ⲉⲩ]ⲡⲣⲉⲡⲉⲓ ⲛⲛⲉⲧ[---]ⲧⲙⲉⲉⲣⲟⲩ· ϣⲁⲣⲉ[---]ⲧⲟⲩⲣ . . ⲏ . ϫⲱ[---]ⲉⲩⲟⲣⲅⲁⲛⲟⲛ· ϣ[ⲁⲩ ⲡⲇⲁ]ⲥⲥⲉ ⲛϩⲉⲛⲁⲕ[ⲟⲣⲉⲟⲥ] ⲛϩⲛⲛⲁⲕⲱⲣ[ⲁ---]ⲛⲁⲕⲟⲩⲣⲉ . . [---] ϩⲛⲛⲁⲕ[---]ⲟⲩⲛ ⲛⲉ[---] ϩⲛ ϩⲉ[ⲛ---] ⲛⲕⲗⲁⲧⲟⲥ[ⲟⲥ---] ϣⲁⲩⲉ[---ⲑⲏ] ⲣⲓⲞⲛ· [---]ⲛⲓⲟⲛ[---] ⲉⲣⲁϣ[ⲉ] [1 line missing] ⲝⲓ[---]ⲣⲁϣⲉ [---]. 80 MS 598: ⲛⲉⲧⲢ ⳓⲣⲱϩ. 81 MS 596: ⲛⲉⲡⲣⲟⲥⲩⲗⲏⲧⲟⲥ; MS 598: ⲛⲉⲡⲣⲟⲥⲩⲗⲩⲧ[ⲟⲥ]. 82 MS 598: ⲉⲧⲡⲟⲣϢ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ. 83 MS 596: omit ⲙⲚ. 84 Both MSS: {ⲛ}ⲛⲉⲍⲉⲣⲁⲫⲓⲛ. 85 MS 596: {ⲛ}ⲘⲙⲚⲧⲞ⳱Ⲥ. 86 MS 596: ⲉⲩⲭⲱⲣⲉⲩⲉ; MS 598: omit. 76

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 241

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

242

Ⲛ⸃ Ⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧ(20v) ⸂ⲙ⸃ ⲁⲁⲩ ⲘⲡⲢⲣⲟ ⲘⲡⲱⲛϨ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲢⲣⲟ ⲚⲛⲉⲢⲣⲱ ⸂ⲟⲩ,⸃ ⲧⲉⲚⲧⲁⲥⲟⲗⲟⲙⲱⲛ ⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲉⲩⲉ87 ϩⲁⲣⲟⲥ ⸂ϩⲘ ⲡ⸃ ϫⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲉⲓϫⲱ ⸂ⲉϥϫⲱ⸃ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲧⲱ ⸂ⲟⲩⲛ, ⲁⲙ⸃ⲏ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲩⲱⲓ, ⸂ ⲧⲁϣⲗⲉⲉ⸃ ⲧ ⲧⲁⳓⲣⲟⲙ⸂ⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲛⲉⲥⲟⲥ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ. ⲛⲁ Ⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲩ ⲁⲗ⸃ⲗⲁ ⲛⲁ ⸂ⲡⲕⲁ⸃ ϩ ⲟ⸂ⲛ ⲥⲉ⸃ⲣⲟⲟⲩⲧ ⲉⲡⲉϩⲟⲩⲟ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲥⲉⲣⲁϣⲉ ϩⲘ ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ. ⲛⲉⲧϩⲓ ⲧⲡⲉ ⲚⲘⲡⲏⲩⲉ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉⲧϩⲓϫⲘ ⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲘⲙⲉ ⲱ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ.88 Ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩⲧ ⲁⲛ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲉⲧⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ Ⲛⲕⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲥⲉⲣⲁϣⲉ ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ϫⲡⲟ Ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲛⲟⳓ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϥϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲙⲡⲉϥⲃⲗⲁⲡⲧⲉⲓ Ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲓⲁ. ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲁϥⲡⲉⲉⲛⲉ ⲡⲥⲱϣ Ⲛⲧⲉⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲉⲩϯⲙⲏ ϩⲓⲧⲚ ϯⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ Ⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲡⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. 4. ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛⲉⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ89 ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ Ⲛⲥⲉⲉⲓ ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲙⲁ Ⲙⲡⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲥⲉϯ ⲉⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛϯⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ, ⲧϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ Ⲙⲙⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲥⲙⲓⲥⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲩⲙⲫⲓⲟⲥ90 Ⲙⲙⲉ ⲚⲁⲧⲧⲱⲗⲘ. ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲤ Ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲃⲱⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲘⲙⲢⲣⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲓⲁ.91 ⲁⲙⲟⲩ ϣⲁⲣⲟⲛ Ⲙⲡⲟⲟⲩ ⲱ ⲏⲥⲁⲓⲁⲥ ⲡⲁ ⲡⲉⲓⲛⲟⳓ Ⲛϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲡ ⸂ⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ Ⲛⲅⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ Ⲛⲧⲁⲕⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲉⲩⲉ ϩⲁⲣ⸃ ⲟⲥ ϩ ⸂ⲁ ⲑⲏ Ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟⳓ Ⲛ⸃ ⲭⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ, ⲉⲁⲕϫⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲘ ⲡⲉⲡⲚ⳱Ⲁ Ⲙⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲚϩⲏⲧⲔ ϫⲉ ⲉⲓⲥ ⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ92 ⲛⲁⲱ Ⲛⲥϫⲡⲟ Ⲛⲟⲩϣⲏⲣⲉ93 Ⲛⲥⲉⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲡⲉϥⲣⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲉⲙⲙⲁⲛⲟⲩⲏⲗ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲘⲙⲁⲛ. ⲁⲙⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ Ⲛⲅⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲙⲙⲁⲛⲟⲩⲏⲗ94 ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉϥⲧⲁⲗⲏⲩ ⲉϫⲚ ⲛⲉⲥⲡⲁⲧ ⲉϥⲟⲩⲉⲙ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲉ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲓⲕⲟⲛ. ⲱ ⲇⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ ⲁⲙⲟⲩ Ⲛⲅⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲢⲣⲱ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ95 ⲉⲥⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧⲤ Ⲛⲥⲁ ⲟⲩⲛⲁⲙ Ⲙⲡⲣⲣⲟ, ⲉⲥⳓⲟⲟⲗⲉ ⲚⲑⲂⲥⲱ ⲉⲥⲟ Ⲛⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲁⲩⲁⲛ.96 ⲱ ⲥⲟⲗⲟⲙⲱⲛ ⲡⲢⲣⲟ Ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲉ ⲁⲙⲟⲩ Ⲛⲅⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ Ⲙⲙⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲕⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲉⲩⲉ ϩⲁⲣⲟⲥ ϩⲘ ⲡϫⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϫⲱ97 ⲉⲕϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲧⲁϣⲗⲉⲉⲧ ⸂

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

596: 598: 598: 598: 596: 596: 598: 598: 598: 598: 598:

ⲡⲣⲱⲫⲏⲧⲉⲩⲉ. ⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ. ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛⲉⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ. Ⲛⲧⲁⲥⲙⲓⲥⲉ ⲛⲁⲛ Ⲙⲡⲛⲩⲙⲫⲓⲟⲥ. Ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲡⲁⲣⲑⲩⲛⲓⲁ. ⲡⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ. {ⲛ}Ⲛⲟⲩϣⲏⲣⲉ. ⲉⲙⲁⲛⲟⲩⲏⲗ. ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏⲩ. ⲉⲥⲟ Ⲛⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲁⲛⲟⲩ. ⲛⲉⲓϫⲱ.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 242

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

243

ⲧⲁⳓⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲛⲉⲥⲱⲥ98 ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ99 ⲁⲙⲏ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ Ⲛϣⲏⲛ Ⲙⲡⲗⲓⲃⲁⲛⲟⲥ. ⲱ ⲉⲍⲉⲕⲓⲏⲗ ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲙⲏⲧⲉ100 Ⲙⲡⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲅⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲡⲩⲗⲏ101 ⲉⲧϣⲟⲧⲘ· Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲁⲣⲭⲱⲛ ⸂ⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲤ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ⲁϥⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲤ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲧⲘ Ⲛⲧⲉⲥϩⲉ ⲧⲉⲥ(21r)ϩⲉ, ⲉⲧⲉ ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ⸃ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⸂ ⲧⲚⲧⲁⲡⲢⲣⲟ⸃ Ⲛⲛ ⸂ⲉⲢⲣⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛ⸃ ϩ ⸂ⲏⲧⲤ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲘⲙⲢⲣⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲓⲁ ⳓⲱ⸃ ⲉⲩⲧⲟⲟⲃ ⸂ⲉ Ⲛ⸃ⲧ⸂ⲉⲩϩⲉ ⲧⲉⲩ⸃ ϩⲉ· 5. ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲉ ⸂Ⲛⲧⲟ ⲱ ⲙⲁ⸃ ⲣⲓⲁ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲡ ⸂ⲱⲛⲦ⸃102 ⲧⲏⲣϤ Ⲛⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⸂ⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟϥ.⸃ ⲉⲓⲟⲩⲱϣ ⸂ⲉⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟ ⲱ ⲙ⸃ ⲁⲣ ⸂ⲓⲁ Ⲙⲡⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛⲧⲁⲣⲙⲓⲥⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲭⲱ ⸂ⲣⲓⲥ⸃ ϣⲓⲃⲉ ϩⲓ ⲫⲁⲛⲧⲁⲥⲓⲁ, ⲕⲁⲛ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲛⲁⲩ ⸂ⲉⲣⲟϥ⸃ ⲉⲁϥⲁⲓⲁⲓ ϩⲚ ⲑ⸂ⲗⲕⲓⲁ⸃103 Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲛϣⲱⲡⲉ ⸂ⲛⲁ⸃ ⲝⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲛⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ⸂Ⲙ⸃ⲙⲁϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲚⲧⲚⲛⲁ⸂ⲩ⸃104 ⲉⲛⲉϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ ⲧ ⸂ⲏⲣⲟⲩ⸃ Ⲛⲧⲁϥⲁⲁⲩ. ⲁⲓⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⸂ϩⲚ ⲛⲁⲃⲁⲗ⸃ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲉⲩϩⲇⲓ⸂ⲟⲥ105 ⲡⲓ⸃ⲉⲗⲁⲭⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲉⲧϣ ⸂ⲁϫⲉ⸃ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ϩⲚ ⲧⲉ ⸂ⲓⲉⲝⲏⲅⲏ⸃ ⲥⲓⲥ, ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲁ⸂ⲉⲓⲟ⸃ ⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⸂ⲙⲚ⸃ ⲡⲉϣⲃⲉⲥⲛ ⸂ⲟⲟⲩⲥ106 Ⲙⲙⲁ⸃ⲑⲏⲧⲏ⸂ⲥ. ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ϩⲚ⸃ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲛ ⸂ⲉⲓⲟⲩⲱϣ⸃ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲁⲓⲢ ⲡ⸂ⲉⲘⲡϣⲁ Ⲛ⸃ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟ ⸂ϥ Ⲙⲡⲛⲁⲩ ⲉϥⲧⲁⲗⲏⲩ⸃ ⲉϫⲚ ⸂ⲛⲟⲩⲡⲁⲧ, ⲉϥⳓⲱϣⲦ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲘ ⲡⲟⲩϩⲟ ⲉϥⲥⲱⲉ107 ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ϩⲘ ⲡⲥⲱⲃⲉ ⲚⲧⲉϥⲙⲚⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. ⲉⲓⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲉⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟ ⲱ ⲧⲉϩⲓⲁⲓⲃⲉ Ⲛ⸃ⲁⲧ ⸂ⲧⲱⲗⲘ ⲉⲣⲁ⸃ⲙⲁϩⲧⲉ Ⲛⲧ⸂ⳓⲓϫ Ⲛⲙ⸃ⲙⲁⲛⲟⲩⲏⲗ ⸂ ⲡⲟⲩ⸃ϣⲏⲣⲉ, ⲉⲣϣⲁϫⲉ ⸂ⲛⲘ⸃ⲙⲁϥ ⲉⲣϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⸂ϫ⸃ⲉ ⲙⲟ ⸂ⲟ⸃ϣⲉ ⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲡⲁϣⲏ⸂ⲣⲉ⸃, Ⲛⲑⲉ ⲚⲚϣⲏⲣⲉ ϣⲏⲙ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲧ ⸂ⲥ⸃ⲁⲃⲟ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ.108 Ⲛⲧⲟϥ ϩⲱⲱϥ Ⲓ⳰Ⲥ ⲡⲁϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ109 Ⲛⲛⲉϥϥⲉⲓ ⲟⲩⲱϩ ⲟⲩⲱϩ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϥⲕⲟⲩⲓ110 Ⲛⳓⲟⲡ ⲉϥⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲉϥϫⲓ ⲧⲁⳓⲥⲉ Ⲛ ⸂ⲑⲉ⸃ ⲚⲚϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲕⲟⲩⲓ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ. ⲉⲓⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲉⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟ ⲱ ⲡⲁϩⲟ MS 598: ⲛⲉⲥⲟⲥ. MS 596: ⲧⲱⲟⲩ. 100 MS 598: ⲉⲧⲚⲙⲏⲧⲉ. 101 MS 598: omit ⲉⲧⲡⲩⲗⲏ. 102 MS 596: ⲡⲍⲱⲛⲦ; MS 598 is wanting here, but elsewhere spells this word correctly. 103 MS 596: ⲑⲩⲗⲩⲕⲓⲁ; MS 598: ⲑⲩ[---]. 104 MS 596: Ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲛⲁⲩ. 105 MS 596: ⲉⲩϩⲟⲇⲓⲟⲥ; MS598: ⲉⲩϩⲟⲇⲓ[ⲟⲥ]. 106 MS 598: ⲡⲉϣϥⲉⲥⲛ[---]. 107 MS 596 reads ⲉϥⲥⲱϥⲉ. MS 598 is wanting here. 108 MS 596: ⲉ{ⲙ}ⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ. 109 MS 598: ⲡⲁⲞ⳱Ⲥ. 110 MS 598: ⲟⲩⲱϩ ⲟⲩⲱϩ Ⲛⲛⲉϥⲕⲟⲩⲓ. 98 99

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 243

29/10/18 13:02

244

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

ⲉⲧⲛⲉⲥⲱϥ Ⲙⲡⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧϤⳓⲱϣⲦ ⲉϩ ⸂ⲣ⸃ ⲁⲓ ϩⲁ ⲡⲟⲩϩⲟ ϩⲱⲥ111 ⲉϥϫⲱ Ⲙ⸂ⲙⲟ⸃ⲥ ⲛⲉ ϫⲉ ⲧⲁⲗⲟⲓ ⲉϫⲱ, ⸂ⲱ⸃ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ ϫⲉ ⲁⲓϩⲓⲥⲉ ⸂ ⸃ ⲉ ⲓⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ. ⲉⲓⲟⲩⲱϣ ⸂ⲉ⸃ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟ ⲱ ⲧⲉⳓⲣⲟⲟⲙⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲛⲉⲥⲟⲥ ⲉϥⲥⲟⲟⲩⲧⲚ Ⲛⲧⲉϥⳓⲓϫ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ, ⸂ⲉϥ⸃ ⲁⲙⲁϩⲧⲉ Ⲛⲧⲟⲩⲉ⸂ⲕⲉ⸃ⲓⲃⲉ ⲚⲁⲧⲧⲱⲗⲘ, ⲉϥ ⸂ϯ Ⲙ⸃ⲙⲟⲥ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⸂ⲉⲧⲉ⸃ ϥⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ Ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ.112 6. ⸂ⲁⲗⲏⲑⲥ⸃113 ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲉ: ⲛⲁⲓⲁ ⸂ⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩ⸃ ⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ Ⲛ ⸂ⲥⲟⲡ ⲱ ⲡⲁϩ⸃ ⲟ ⲉⲧⲛⲉ ⸂ⲥⲱϥ Ⲛⲧⲁⲩ⸃ⳓⲛⲧϤ ϩⲚ ⲧⲥⲱϣ ⸂ⲉ ⲉⲧϩⲏ⸃ ⲡ. ⲉⲓⲛⲁⲧⲚⲧⲱⲛ ⲉⲛⲓⲙ114 ⸂ⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉⲧ⸃ϣⲏϣ ⸂ⲛⲘ⸃ⲙⲉ ϩⲘ ⲡⲥⲱⲛⲦ115 ⲧⲏⲣϤ Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟϥ? ⲉⲓϣⲁⲛⲧⲚⲧⲱⲛ ⲉⲧⲡⲉ116 ⲛⲁⲙⲉ ⲧⲉϫⲟⲥⲉ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ, ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲡⲚⲧⲁϥⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟ Ⲛⲧⲡⲉ·117 ⲙⲚ ⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲁⲩⲱ118 ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϩ Ⲛϩⲏⲧⲉ Ⲙⲯⲓⲥ Ⲛⲉⲃⲟⲧ. ⲧⲉϫⲟⲥⲉ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲡⲣⲏ. ⲧⲉϫⲟⲥⲉ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲡⲟⲟϩ. ⲧⲉϫⲟⲥⲉ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ. (21v) ⲧⲉⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ119 Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲛⲁⲣⲭⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ.120 ⲧⲉϫⲟⲥⲉ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲛⲉⲭⲉⲣⲟⲩⲃⲓⲛ. ⲧⲉⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ121 Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲛⲉⲉⲣⲁⲫⲓⲛ.122 ⲱ ⲧⲉⲕⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ ⲉⲧⲁⲥⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲧⲁⲗⲏⲩ ⲉϫⲱⲥ· ⲱ ⲡⳓⲉⲗⲙⲁⲉⲓⲛ Ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲃ ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉⲡⲙⲁⲛⲛⲁ123 ϩⲏⲡ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ· ⲱ ⲧϩⲇⲣⲓⲁ124 ⲚⲃⲢⲣⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲉϩⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲤ ϫⲱⲕⲢ Ⲛⲛⲉⲙⲯⲩⲭⲏ Ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲃⲁⲃⲉ ϩⲓⲧⲘ ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ·125 ⲱ ⲧⲕⲓⲃⲱⲧⲟⲥ126 ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉⲛⲉⲡⲗⲁⲝ Ⲛⲧⲇⲓⲁⲑⲏⲕⲏ ϩⲓ ϩⲟⲩⲛ ⸂ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ:⸃ ⲱ ⲧⲗⲩⲭⲛⲓⲁ Ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲃ ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲧⲠ Ⲛⲧ ⸂ⲁⲡⲉ⸃ ⲥϩⲏⲃⲤ Ⲣ127 ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲉⲛⲉⲧϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲘ ⲡⲕⲁⲕⲉ ⲙⲚ ⲑⲁⲓⲃⲉⲥ Ⲙⲡⲙⲟⲩ· ⲱ MS 598: omit ϩⲱⲥ. MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲟⲩⲉ[ⲕⲉ]ⲓⲃⲉ ⲚⲁⲧⲧⲱⲗⲘ ⲉϥ[ϯ Ⲙ]ⲙⲟⲥ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ[ⲕⲉⲓ]ⲃⲉ ⲚⲁⲧⲧⲱⲗⲘ [ⲉⲧⲉ]ϥⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ Ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. 113 MS 596: ⲁⲗⲏⲑⲟⲥ; MS598 illegible. 114 MS 596: ⲉⲓⲛⲁⲧⲚⲧⲱⲛⲉ ⲉⲛⲓⲙ. 115 MS 596: ⲡⲍⲱⲛⲦ. 116 MS 598: ⲉⲓϣⲁⲛⲧⲉⲛⲧⲱⲛⲉ ⲉⲧⲡⲉ. 117 MS 598: ⲡⲚⲧⲁϥⲧⲁⲙⲓⲟ ⲧⲡⲉ. 118 MS 598: omit ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲁⲩⲱ. 119 MS 598: ⲧⲉϫⲟⲥⲉ. 120 MS 596: Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁⲭⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ. 121 MS 598: ⲧⲉⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏⲩ. 122 Both MSS: ⲛⲉⲍⲉⲣⲁⲫⲓⲛ. 123 MS 598: ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲙⲁⲛⲛⲁ. 124 MS 596: ⲧϩⲉⲇⲣⲓⲁ; MS 598: ⲧϩⲉⲑⲣⲓⲁ. 125 MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲉϩⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲚϩⲏⲧⲚ ϫⲱⲕⲉⲣ ⲚⲘⲯⲩⲭⲏ Ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲃⲁⲃⲉ ϩⲓⲧⲚ ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ. 126 MS 598: ⲧⲕⲟⲓⲃⲱϫⲟⲥ. 127 MS 598: ⲉⲣ. 111

112

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 244

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

245

ⲡⲃⲁⲧⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲡⲕⲱϩⲦ Ⲛⲛⲟⲏⲧⲟⲛ ⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲚϩⲏⲧⲤ ⲣⲱⲕϨ ⲚⲘⲙⲢⲣⲉ128 Ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲓⲁ· ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲉ Ⲛⲧⲟ ⲱ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲉⲥⲟⲥ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ. ⲱ ⲧⳓⲉⲣⲉⲡϣⲁⲛ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏⲩ ⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲛⲉ129 ⲛⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲁⲡϣⲱⲙ ϩⲱⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲕⲁⲓⲣⲟⲥ Ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ130 7. ⲉⲕⲧⲱⲛ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲱ ⲡⲉⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ Ⲛⲁⲅⲛⲱⲙⲱⲛ ⲡⲣⲉϥϩⲱⲧⲂ Ⲙⲡⲉϥϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ? ⲡⲉⲓⲣⲉϥⲢ {ⲡ}ⲡⲉⲑⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲉⲣ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ131 ⲛⲁϥ, ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥⲉⲓ ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲙⲁ Ⲙⲡⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛϥϫⲓ ϣⲓⲡⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⲉⲛⲉⲓⲙⲚⲧⲙⲚⲧⲣⲉ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ, Ⲛⲧⲁⲛⲏ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲘ ⲡⲉϥⲅⲉⲛⲟⲥ ϣⲢⲡⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲉⲩⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲁ ⲧⲉⲓⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲙⲚ ⲡⲉⲥϫⲡⲟ ⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲙⲁⲁⲧ. ⸂ⲟⲩⲁ ⲙⲉⲛ ϫⲉ ⲉⲓⲥ ⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲱ Ⲛⲥϫⲡⲟ ⲛⲟⲩϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲛⲥⲉⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲡⲉϥⲣⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲉⲙ⸃ⲙⲁ⸂ⲛ⸃ⲟⲩⲏ⸂ⲗ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ⸃ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩ ⸂ⲧⲉ ⲛⲘⲙⲁⲛ.⸃ ⲕⲉⲟⲩⲁ ϫⲉ ⲁⲧ ⸂Ⲣⲣⲱ ⲁϩⲉ⸃ⲣⲁⲧⲤ ϩⲓ ⲟⲩⲛⲁ⸂ⲙ Ⲙ⸃ⲙⲟⲕ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩϩⲉⲃⲥ ⸂ⲱ ⲉ⸃ⲥⲟ132 Ⲛⲉⲓⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲃ ⸂ⲉⲥ⸃ⳓⲟⲟⲗⲉ ⲉⲥⲟ Ⲛⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲁⲩ ⸂ⲁⲛ.⸃ ⲕⲉⲟⲩⲁ ϫⲉ ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲉⲥⲟⲥ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉ⸂ϩⲓⲟ⸃ⲙⲉ ϫⲉ ⲁⲡⲢⲣⲟ ⲉⲡ ⸂ⲓ⸃ⲑⲩⲙⲉⲓ ⲉⲡⲟⲩⲥⲁ ϫⲉ ⸂Ⲛ⸃ⲧⲟϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ, ⲁⲩⲱ ϫⲉ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲉϣ ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲕⲓⲃⲉ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲡⲏⲣⲠ.133 ⲕⲉⲟⲩⲁ ⲟⲛ ϫⲉ ⲁⲓⲛⲁ⸂ⲩ⸃ ⲉⲩϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ ⲉϥⲧ ⸂ⲟ⸃ⲟⲃⲉ ϩⲚ ⲧⳓⲓϫ Ⲙⲡⲁ ⸂ⲅ⸃ ⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ, ⲡⲁⲓ Ⲙⲡⲉⲗ⸂ⲁ⸃ ⲁⲩ ⲉϣⲟⲩⲱⲛ Ⲙⲙ⸂ⲟϥ,⸃ 134 ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲉⲓ ⲡⲙⲟⲩⲓ ⸂ⲡⲚ⸃ ⲧⲁϥϫⲣⲟ ϩⲚ ⲧⲉⲫ ⸂ⲩ⸃ ⲗⲏ {ⲛ}Ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁ. 8. ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲚ⸂ϫⲓ⸃ ⲁⲛ ⲚⲛⲉⲓⲙⲚⲧⲙⲚⲧⲣⲉ135 ⲱ ⲡⲉⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲥ ⸂ⲟⲟϥ, ⸃ – ϫⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲕⲥⲱ ⸂ⲧⲘ ⲉ ⸃ⲣⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲙⲁⲧⲉ 136 ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲕⲙ⸂ⲁⲁϫⲉ,⸃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲕⳓⲘⳓⲱ⸂ⲙ⸃137 ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲕⳓⲓϫ ⸂ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ⸃ ⲛⲉ Ⲛⲃⲗⲗⲉ138 ⸂Ⲛⲧⲁⲡϣⲏ⸃ⲣⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲑ⸂ⲉⲟⲕⲟⲥ⸃139 ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁ⸂ⲁⲃ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲧ⸃ⲣⲉⲩ⸂ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ, (22r) Ⲛⳓⲁⲗⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁϥⲧⲣⲉⲩⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ, ⲙⲚ 128

MS 596: {ⲛ}ⲚⲘⲙⲢⲣⲉ. MS 596: ⲉⲧⲥⲩⲛⲙⲁⲛⲉ; MS 598: ⲉⲧⲥⲩⲙⲙⲁⲛⲉ. 130 MS 596: ⲘⲡⲚⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ. 131 MS 598: ⲚⲛⲉⲧⲢ {ⲡ}ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ. 132 MS 598: ϩⲚ ⲟⲩϩⲂⲥ[ⲱ ⲉ]ⲥⲱ. 133 MS 598: ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉ ⲡⲏⲣⲠ. 134 MS 596: Ⲙⲡⲉⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲉϣⲟⲩⲱⲛ. 135 MS 598: ⲁⲛ ⲛⲉⲓⲙⲚⲧⲙⲚⲧⲣⲉ. 136 MS 598: omit Ⲙⲙⲁⲧⲉ. 137 MS 596 reads ⳓⲘⳓⲱⲙ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲕⳓⲓϫ and MS 598 ⳓⲙⳓⲱ[…] ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲕⳓⲓϫ. It seems necessary to supply then ending ⲟⲩ here, since the form ⳓⲘⳓⲱⲙ is the prepronominal form of ⳓⲟⲙⳓⲘ, and the grammar of the sentence seems to require it. 138 MS 596: ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲚⲃⲗⲗⲉ. 139 MS 596: Ⲛⲧⲉⲑⲉⲱⲇⲟⲕⲟⲥ; MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲉⲑ[---]. 129

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 245

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

246

ⲛⲉⲧⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧ Ⲛⲧⲁ⸃ϥⲧⲟⲩ ⸂ⲛⲟⲥⲟⲩ,⸃ ⲚⲚⲧⲁ⸂ⲛⲉⲕⳓⲓϫ⸃140 Ⲙⲙⲓⲛ Ⲙⲙⲟⲕ ⸂Ⲣ ⲙⲚⲧⲣⲉ⸃ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲉ⸂ⲁⲕϥⲉⲓ⸃ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ141 Ⲙⲡⲱ⸂ⲛⲉ ϩⲓⲣⲘ ⲡ⸃ⲣⲟ Ⲙⲡⲧⲁ⸂ⲫⲟⲥ ϣ⸃ⲁⲛⲧⲉϥⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⸂ⲉ⸃ϥⲟⲛϨ Ⲛⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ – ⸂ⲙ⸃ⲏ Ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲱ ⲡⲁⲅⲛⲱⲙⲛ142 ⲡⲚ ⸂ⲧⲁ⸃ⲕⲃⲉⲗ Ⲛⲕⲣⲉⲁ143 ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⸂ⲉ⸃ ⲩⳓⲗⲘⲗⲱⲙ144 ⲉⲡⲉϥⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲙⲚ ⲡⲥⲁⲣⲓⲟⲛ145 ⲉϥⲙⲏⲣ ⲉⲧⲉϥⲁⲡⲉ – ⲉⲓϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲗⲁⲍⲁⲣⲟⲥ – ⸂ⲁⲧ⸃ⲉⲧⲚⲕⲁⲁϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁϥⲃⲱⲕ Ⲛⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ, ⲙⲚⲚⲥⲁ ϥⲧⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩⲘ ⲡⲧⲁⲡⲫⲟⲥ146 – ⸂ⲙ⸃ⲏ Ⲛⲛⲉⲕϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲢ147 ⲙⲚⲧⲣⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲁⲛ Ⲙⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡϩⲁⲡ ⲱ ⲡⲁⲅⲛⲱⲙⲱⲛ148 Ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ,149 ϩⲘ ⲡⲧⲣⲉⲩϫⲓ ⲚϩⲚⲃⲁ ϩⲚ ϩⲚⲃⲚⲛⲉ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲧⲱ⸂ⲙ⸃Ⲧ150 ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲉⲩϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲱⲥⲁⲛⲛⲁ ϥⲥⲙⲁ ⸂ⲙⲁ⸃ ⲁⲧ Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲏⲩ ⸂ϩⲘ⸃ ⲡⲣⲁⲛ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ? ⸂ⲁⲛⲉⲧ⸃Ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ϩⲟ⸂ⲙⲟⲗⲟⲅ⸃ⲉⲓ ⲚⲧⲉϥⲙⲚⲧ⸂ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ,⸃ ⲚⲧⲱⲧⲚ ⸂ⲇⲉ ⲁⲧⲉⲧ⸃Ⲛⲁⲣⲛⲁ Ⲙ⸂ⲙⲟϥ. 9. ⲙⲏ⸃ ⲛⲉⲓⲘⲙⲁⲩ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⸂ⲉ⸃ⲩϩⲱⲇⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲓⲉⲗⲁⲭⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ151 Ⲙⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲚⲧⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲧⲱϩⲘ ⲚⲒ⳰Ⲥ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲛⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲧϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ? ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ϩⲱⲱⲛ Ⲙⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲙⲚ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲉⲛⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲛⲘⲙⲁϥ ⲡⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲉϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ152 Ⲛⲧⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲉ. Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩϣⲱⲱⲧ ⲚⲏⲣⲠ ⲁⲧⲉϥⲙⲁⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲉⲓ ⲁⲥϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲁⲧⲚ ⲛⲉⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉⲥϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲙⲁⲁⲧ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲥ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲁϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲁϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲁⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙⲚⲧⲟⲩ ⲏⲣⲠ Ⲙⲙⲁⲩ. Ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲇⲉ ⲁϥⲕⲧⲟ Ⲙⲡⲉϥϩⲟ ⲉⲧϣⲟⲩⲉ ⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϫⲱⲥ ⲉϥϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲥ ϫⲉ ⲧⲉⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲩ ⸂ⲉϣ ⲟⲩ⸃ ⲛⲘⲙⲁⲓ? Ⲙⲡⲁⲧⲉⲧⲁⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩ153 ⲉⲓ. ⲡⲉϫⲁⲥ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲁϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲡⲁⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ ⲡⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲓ ⲉⲟⲟⲩ.154

140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154

MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

598: 598: 596: 596: 598: 596: 598: 598: 596: 598: 598: 596: 596: 596: 598:

ⲛⲉⲚⲧⲁ[---]. Ⲙⲙⲁⲩ. ⲡⲁⲅⲛⲱⲙⲟⲛ; MS 598: ⲡⲁⲕⲛⲱⲙⲱⲛ. {Ⲛ}Ⲛⲕⲁⲓⲣⲉⲁ; MS 598: Ⲛⲕⲉⲣⲁⲓⲁ. [ⲉ]ⲩⳓⲗⲉⲙⲗⲱⲙ. ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲁⲣⲓⲟⲛ; MS 598: ⲡⲥⲟⲧⲁⲣⲓⲟⲛ. ⲉϥϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲧⲁⲫⲟⲥ. {ⲛ}ⲛⲁⲢ. ⲡⲁⲅⲛⲱⲙⲟⲛ. {ⲛ}Ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ. ⲉⲧⲱ[ⲙ]Ⲛⲧ. ⲉⲩϩⲟⲇⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲓⲉⲗⲁⲭⲓⲥ. ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲛⲁⲩ {ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲚⲛⲁⲩ} ⲉⲧⲉϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ. Ⲙⲡⲁⲧⲉⲧⲁⲟⲩ{ⲟⲩ}ⲛⲟⲩ. ⲡⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ Ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ ϫⲓ ⲉⲟⲟⲩ.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 246

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

247

ⲁⲩⲧⲁϩⲙⲔ155 ϩⲱⲥ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲱ ⲡⲁϣⲏⲣⲉ;156 ⲟⲩⲱⲛϨ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲚⲧⲉⲕⲙⲚⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲡⲙⲁ Ⲛϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ, ϣⲁⲣⲉⲡ⸂ⲟ⸃ⲩⲁ ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲉⲓⲛⲉ Ⲛ⸂ϩⲚⲇ⸃ⲱⲣⲟⲛ157 Ⲛⲑⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲩⲚⲧⲁⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲧⲁⲉⲓⲟ Ⲙⲡⲙⲁ Ⲛϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ. Ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲱ ⲡⲁϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲙⲁⲁⲧ ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ ⲛⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟ Ⲛⲧⲡⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲓⲟ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟ ⲚⲧⲉⲕⲙⲚⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ.158 ⲟⲩⲱⲚϩ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲧⲉⲕ(22v)ⲙⲚⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲓ ⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲚⲧⲉⲛⲉⲧϩⲚ Ⲙⲙⲁ159 Ⲛϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ160 ϫⲉ Ⲛⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲙⲉ, ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉⲕⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲙⲁⲁⲧ. ⲡⲉⲓⲑⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟⲓ, ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉⲕⲙⲁⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ, Ⲛⲅⲭⲁⲣⲓⲍⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ Ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲇⲱⲣⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲚⲧⲡⲉ Ⲛⲇⲱⲣⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲧⲁⲓⲟ ⲚⲧⲉⲕⲙⲚⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. ⲛⲁⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲘ161 ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉⲛⲁϩⲱⲱⲣ ⲚⲧⲙⲚⲧϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ ⸂ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲩⲙⲉϩ Ⲛϩⲩⲇⲣⲓⲁ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩⲙⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲣⲱⲟⲩ ⲁϥⲧⲣⲉⲘ ⸃ⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲱ⸂ⲱⲛⲉ ϩⲚ⸃ ⲧⲉⲩⲫ ⸂ⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲁⲩϣⲱ⸃ ⲡⲉ ⲚⲏⲣⲠ ⸂ⲉϥⲥⲟⲧⲠ.⸃ 10. ⲙⲏ Ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲛⲁ⸂ⲩ ⲉⲛⲁⲓ⸃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟ⸂ⲩ ⲉⲩ⸃ϣ⸂ⲟⲟⲡ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧϤ⸃ Ⲙⲡⲉⲓϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲛⲛ ⸂ⲟⲩⲧⲉ⸃ Ⲛⲧⲁ⸂ⲧⲉⲓⲡ⸃ⲁⲣⲑ ⸂ⲉⲛⲟⲥ⸃ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲡⲟϥ? ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲕ ⸂ⲱ⸃ Ⲛⲁⲅⲛⲱⲙⲱⲛ162 ⸂ⲉⲧⲘ⸃ ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩϫⲡ ⸂ⲟ ⲇⲉ⸃ 163 ⲉϥⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲡⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ϫⲡⲟϥ? ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲉⲡ⸂ⲉⲕ⸃ⲗⲁⲥ ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲧⲉ ϩⲚ ⸂ⲧⲉⲕ⸃ⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ ⲱ ⲡⲉⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟϥ Ⲙⲡⲛ ⸂ⲁⲩ,⸃ Ⲛⲧⲁⲕϫⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲘ ⲡ ⸂ⲉⲕ⸃ⲗⲁⲥ Ⲛϣⲟⲩϣⲁⲁ⸂ⲧϤ⸃ Ⲙⲡⲓⲗⲁⲧⲟⲥ ϫⲉ Ⲛⲧ ⸂ⲁ⸃ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ϫⲡⲟ ⲘⲡⲉⲬ ⸂Ⲥ⸃ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲡⲟⲣⲛⲓⲁ? ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲉⲣ ⸂ⲡ⸃ ⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲫⲱ ⸂ⲛⲏ⸃ Ⲛⲅⲁⲃⲣⲓⲏⲗ ⲡ ⸂ⲁⲣ⸃ ⲭⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉϥϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⸂ϫⲉ ⲟⲩ⸃ ⲡⲚ⳱Ⲁ ⲉϥⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ164 ⸂ⲡⲉⲧ⸃ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫ ⸂ⲱ⸃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⳓⲟⲙ ⸂Ⲙⲡⲉⲧϫⲟ⸃ ⲥⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁ ⸂Ⲣ ϩⲁⲓⲃⲉⲥ⸃ ⲉⲣⲟ. ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⸂ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲉⲧⲣ⸃ⲛⲁϫⲡⲟ⸂ϥ ϥⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲥⲉ⸃ⲛⲁⲙ ⸂ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϫⲉ Both MSS: ⲁⲩⲧⲁϩⲙⲉⲕ. MS 598: omit ⲱ ⲡⲁϣⲏⲣⲉ. 157 MS 598: Ⲛ[Ⲛⲇ]ⲱⲣⲟⲛ. 158 MS 598: Ⲙⲡⲧⲁⲉⲓⲟ Ⲛⲧⲡⲉ Ⲛⲧⲁⲉⲓⲟ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲧⲁⲉⲓⲟ Ⲛⲧⲁⲉⲓⲟ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲚⲧⲉⲕⲙⲚⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. 159 MS 596: ⲚⲧⲉⲛⲉⲧϩⲚ {ⲛ}Ⲙⲙⲁ. 160 MS 598: ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲥⲉⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ. 161 MS 598: ⲚⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲘ. 162 MS 596: Ⲛⲁⲅⲛⲱⲙⲏ. 163 Although MS 598 is damaged at this point, there does not appear to have been space in the missing portion for ⲇⲉ. 164 MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲉⲫⲱ[ⲛⲏ] Ⲛⲧⲁⲅⲁⲃⲣⲓⲏⲗ ⲡ[ⲁⲣ]ⲭⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ϫⲟⲟⲥ [ϫⲉ ⲡ]Ⲛ⳱Ⲁ ⲉϥⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. 155 156

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 247

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

248

ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉⲧϫⲟⲥⲉ. ⲱ ⲛⲉⲚⲧⲁⲩϯ ⲛⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲁⲣⲛⲁ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲑⲩⲧⲏⲥ· ⲱ ⲛⲉⲧϫⲱ⸃ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲧⲚ⸂ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ165 Ⲙ⸃ⲡⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲕⲁ⸂ⲗⲱⲥ ⲉⲩ⸃ⲁⲣⲛⲁ ⲇⲉ Ⲙ⸂ⲡⲚⲧ⸃ⲁϥϯ ⲛⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡ ⸂ⲛ⸃ⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉϥⲛ⸂ⲧ⸃ⲟⲗⲏ· ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ Ⲙ⸂ⲡⲉ⸃ ⲧⲚⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ166 ⲉⲚϣⲟⲟⲥ, ⸂ ⸃ ⲛ ⲁⲓ Ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡ⸂ⲥⲓ⸃ⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲉϫⲡⲟ Ⲙⲡ ⸂ϣ⸃ⲏⲣⲉ Ⲛⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉ⸂ⲛ⸃ⲟⲥ ⸂ Ⲙⲡ⸃ⲛ⸂ⲁ⸃ⲩ Ⲛⲧⲁⲥ⸂ϫⲡⲟ Ⲙ⸃ⲡϩⲟⲙⲟⲟⲩⲥⲓⲟⲛ ⸂Ⲙ⸃ⲡⲓⲱⲧ?167 ⲙⲏ ⲚϩⲚⲃⲁⲗ ⸂ⲣⲱ⸃ ⲁⲛ ⲛⲉ168 Ⲛⲧⲉ ϩⲟⲓⲛⲉ ⲉⲃ ⸂ⲟⲗ ϩ⸃Ⲙ ⲡⲉⲧⲚⲅⲉⲛⲟⲥ? ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ Ⲙ⸂ⲡⲉ⸃ ⲧⲚϣⲓⲛⲉ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧⲟⲩ? ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲧⲘⲙⲁⲩ ⲛⲁⲧⲁⲩⲉ ⲧⲙⲉ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ ⲉⲧⲃ⸂ⲉ⸃ ⲛⲉⲫⲟⲛⲏ Ⲛ⸂ⲛ⸃ⲁⲅ ⸂ⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲩ⸃ϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ169 ⲉⲡⲉϫⲡⲟ Ⲙⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, ⸂ⲉ⸃ ⲩⲱϣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲩϫⲱ Ⲙ⸂ⲙⲟ⸃ⲥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲚ ⲛ⸂ⲉ⸃ ⲧϫⲟⲥⲉ ⲧⲉϥ⸂ⲉⲓ⸃ⲣⲏⲛⲏ ϩⲓϫⲘ ⲡⲕⲁϩ ⸂ϩ⸃Ⲛ Ⲛ{ⲉ}ⲣⲱⲙⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉϥ⸂ⲟⲩ⸃ⲱϣ. 11. ⲱ ⲡⲡⲁⲣⲁ⸂ⲛⲟⲙ⸃ⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟϥ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲥ⸂ϩⲓⲙⲉ⸃ ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛϣⲣⲱ, ⸂ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ⸃ ⲘⲡⲉⲧⲚⲧⲚ⸂ⲧⲚ170 ⲧⲏⲩ⸃ ⲧⲚ (23r) ⲉⲛⲉⲓⲙⲁ⸂ⲅⲟⲥ⸃ Ⲛϩⲉⲗⲗⲏⲛ171 ⸂ⲁⲩⲱ⸃ ⲚⲣⲉϥⲢ ⲛⲟ⸂ⲃⲉ Ⲙ⸃ⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲧⲏⲣϤ, ⲛⲁⲓ Ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲥⲓⲟⲩ ϩⲚ Ⲙⲙⲁ172 Ⲛϣⲁ? ⲁⲩⲕⲁⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛϫⲓⲛ ⲧⲉⲩⲭⲱⲣⲁ, ⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϯⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓⲁ, ⲁⲩⲡⲣⲟⲥⲕⲩⲛⲉⲓ ⲘⲡⲢⲣⲟ: ⲱ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲡⲁⲛⲧⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ173 ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲛⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲑⲁⲅⲓⲁ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ. ⲁⲩⲉⲓⲙⲉ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲙⲉ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲚⲧⲁⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ174 ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ175 ϫⲡⲟϥ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩⲡⲣⲟⲥⲕⲩⲛⲉⲓ176 ⲛⲁϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩϯ ⲛⲁϥ Ⲛⲟⲩⲗⲓⲃⲁⲛⲟⲥ ϩⲱⲥ Ⲣⲣⲟ. ⲁⲩⲉⲓⲙⲉ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉϥⲙⲚⲧⲣⲱⲙⲉ ϩⲟⲧⲢ ⲙⲚ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲚⲧⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲡⲣⲟⲥⲕⲩⲛⲉⲓ ⲛⲁϥ Ⲛⲟⲩϣⲁⲗ ϩⲱⲥ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ. ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲉⲕⲉⲣ177 ⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ Ⲛⲛⲁⲓ ⲱ ⲡⲁⲅⲛⲱⲙⲱⲛ178 Ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲚⲧⲁⲩⲢ ⲙⲚⲧⲣⲉ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲉϫⲡⲟ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ Ⲛⲅⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ? ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲁⲕⲗⲟ ϩⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178

Both MSS: ⲧⲉⲛ⸂ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ⸃. MS 598: Ⲙ[ⲡⲉ]ⲧⲚⲛⲁⲩ. MS 598: [Ⲙⲡ]ⲛ[ⲁ]ⲩ Ⲛⲧⲁⲩ[ϫⲡⲟ Ⲙ]ⲡϩⲟⲙⲟⲟⲩⲥⲓⲟⲛ [Ⲙ]ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ. MS 598: omit ⲛⲉ. MS 598 is damaged here, but appears to read Ⲛ[ⲛ]ⲁⲅ[---]ⲧϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ. MS 598: ⲘⲡⲉⲧⲉⲛⲧⲚ[---]. MS 596: Ⲛϩⲏⲗⲗⲏⲛ. MS 596: ϩⲚ {ⲛ}Ⲙⲙⲁ. Both MSS: ⲡⲡⲁⲛⲧⲱⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ. MS 596: ⲡⲚⲧⲁⲧⲉⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ. MS 598: omit ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ. MS 598: ⲁⲩⲡⲣⲟⲥⲕⲩⲛⲏ. MS 598: ⲘⲡⲉⲕⲢ. MS 596: ⲡⲁⲕⲛⲱⲙⲱⲛ.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 248

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

249

ⲁⲕⲕⲁⲕⲡⲣⲁⲅⲙⲱⲛ179 ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲕⲣⲓⲕⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ Ⲛⲧⲙⲉ. ⲁⲕϫⲓ ϣⲕⲁⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲡⲓⲗⲁⲧⲟⲥ180 ⲉⲕϫⲱ ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲉⲓⲣⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ Ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ181 ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲡⲟⲣⲛⲓⲁ ⲡⲉ. 12. ⲁⲣⲁ ⲁϣ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲟ ⲉⲧⲉⲕⲛⲁϣϫⲓⲧϤ Ⲙⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲘⲙⲁⲩ ⲚϣⲂⲃⲓⲱ ⲚⲚⲧⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲁⲁⲩ182 ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ? ϯϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ ϫⲉ ⲛⲉϫⲡⲓⲟ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲛⲁⲧⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ ⲛⲁⲑⲟ183 ⲛⲏⲧⲚ ⲁⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲚ{ⲉⲛ}ⲕⲟⲗⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲛⲁⲛⲉϫ ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ, ⲙⲚ ⲧⲁⲡⲟⲫⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲉⲧϣⲱⲱⲧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲛⲁϫⲓⲛϫⲉⲉⲩ184 ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲉ Ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲱϣ185 ⲉⲧⲣⲁⲢ Ⲣⲣⲟ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲁⲛⲓⲥⲟⲩ186 ⲕⲟⲛⲥⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲁⲙⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ, ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ϫⲉ ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲚⲣⲉϥⲢ ⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲕⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲁⲙⲚⲧⲉ Ⲛϩⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉ Ⲣ ⲡⲱⲃϢ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. ⲱ Ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟϥ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲧⲏⲣϤ, ⲁϩⲣⲱⲧⲚ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲁⲣⲛⲁ ⲘⲡⲉⲧⲚⲱⲛϨ ⲙⲚ ⲧⲉⲧⲚⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲛⲟⲙⲓⲁ? ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚϫⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲚ ⲧⲉⲧⲚⲁⲡⲉ187 Ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲁϩⲟⲩ Ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲁⲛ.188 ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲁϥϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ Ⲛⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ ϫⲉ ⲟⲩⲛ ⳓⲟⲙ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲛⲉⲥ ϩⲚϣⲏ ⸂ⲣⲉ Ⲛⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲓⲱⲛⲉ. ⲚⲧⲱⲧⲚ ⲇⲉ ⲱ ⲛⲉⲓⲟⲩ⸃ ⲇⲁⲓ ⲉⲧ ⸂ⲥⲟⲟϥ ⲥⲉⲛⲁ⸃ ⲛⲟⲩϫ Ⲙ ⸂ⲙⲱⲧⲚ ⲉⲡ⸃ⲕⲁⲕⲉ ⲉⲧ ⸂ϩⲓⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϥ⸃ⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ⸂Ⲙⲙⲁⲩ Ⲛ ⸃ⳓⲓ ⲡⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⸂ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⳓⲁ⸃ ϩⳒ ⲛⲛⲟⲃϩⲉ. 13. ⲡⲗⲏⲛ ⲙⲁⲣⲚⲕ ⸂ⲱ ⸃189 Ⲛⲥⲱⲛ Ⲛⲛⲁⲓ ⸂Ⲛⲧⲉⲓ ⸃ ⲙⲓⲛⲉ ⲚⲧⲚ⸂ⲕⲧⲟⲛ⸃ 190 ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲘ ⲡⲙⲉ⸂ⲅⲉ⸃ⲑⲟⲥ (23v) Ⲛⲧⲉⲓⲡⲁⲣ ⸂ⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ⸃ Ⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲡⲉ ⲡ ⸂ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ,⸃ ⲚⲧⲚⲧⲁⲙⲟ ⸂ⲧⲚ⸃ 191 ⲉⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲉⲥϫ ⸂ⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ⸃ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏⲩ ⸂ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ⸃ ⲉⲣⲉⲘⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲥ⸂ⲱ⸃ ⲧⲘ Ⲛⲥⲉϯ ⲉⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉ⸂ϯ⸃ⲛⲁϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ Ⲛⲕ⸂ⲉ⸃ⲟⲩⲁ ⲁⲛ Both MSS: ⲁⲕⲕⲁⲕⲱⲅⲡⲣⲁⲅⲙⲱⲛ. MS 596: ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲗⲁⲧⲟⲥ. 181 MS 598 reads Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. 182 MS 598: ⲚⲚⲧⲁⲕⲁⲁⲩ. 183 MS 596: ⲛⲁⲧⲑⲟ. 184 MS 598: ⲛⲁϫⲓϫⲉⲩ. 185 MS 596: ⲉⲧⲘⲡⲟⲩⲱϣ. The form Ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲱϣ is found in both MSS and in the Sahidic version of Luke 19.27. I have corrected the form simply for clarity. The Bohairic versions of both this homily and the NT read Ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲟⲩⲱϣ at this verse. 186 MS 596: ⲁⲛⲉⲓⲥⲟⲩ. 187 MS 596: ⲧⲉⲧⲚⲁⲡⲏⲩⲉ. 188 MS 596: Ⲛⲟⲩⲥⲁϩⲟⲩ ⲚⲚⲟⲩⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲁⲛ. 189 Both MSS: ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛⲕ⸂ⲱ⸃. 190 Both MSS: Ⲛⲧⲉⲛ⸂ⲕⲧⲟⲛ⸃. 191 MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲧⲁⲙⲱ[ⲧⲛ]. 179 180

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 249

29/10/18 13:02

250

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

ⲡⲚⲧⲁϥⲛ⸂ⲁⲩ⸃ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲁϥϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟ⸂ⲓ⸃, ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲚⲧ ⸂ⲁⲓ⸃ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲚ ⲛⲁⲃ⸂ⲁⲗ⸃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲓⳓⲘⳓⲱⲙⲟ⸂ⲩ⸃ ϩⲚ ⲛⲁⳓⲓϫ, ϫⲉ ϣ⸂ⲁⲩ⸃ ⲧⲁⲛϩⲉⲧ ⲡⲛⲁⲩ Ⲛ⸂ϩⲚ⸃ⲃⲁⲗ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲉ ⲉⲡⲥ⸂ⲱⲧⲘ⸃ ⲚϩⲚⲙⲁⲁϫⲉ. 14. ⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲇⲉ ⸂Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉ⸃ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⸂ϫⲱⲕ⸃ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛϩⲱⲃ ⸂ⲛⲓⲙ Ⲛ⸃ ⲧⲁϥⲟⲩⲉϩ ⸂ⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ Ⲙ⸃ⲙⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲩ ⸂Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲡⲛ⸃ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ Ⲓ⳰Ⲥ ⸂ⲡⲉⲬ⳱Ⲥ,⸃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⸂ⲁⲩⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲉⲛⲉⲩⲉⲣⲏⲩ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩϩ⸃ⲱⲡ ⸂ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲟⲩⲁ⸃ ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⸂ⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲧⲉ⸃ ⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⸂Ⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲗⲏ⸃ⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⸂ Ⲛⲥⲉⲧⲁϣⲉ ⲟⲉ⸃ⲓϣ Ⲙⲡⲉⲩ⸂ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟ⸃ⲛ ⲚⲧⲙⲚⲧⲢⲣⲟ ⸂ⲚⲘⲡⲏ⸃ⲩ⸂ⲉ.⸃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⸂ⲟⲛ ⲁⲩⲛⲉ⸃ϫ ⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⸂ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉ⸃ϫⲱⲛ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⸂Ⲛⲕⲟⲩⲓ⸃ Ⲙⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ. ⸂ⲁⲡⲉⲕⲗ⸃ⲏⲣⲟⲥ ⲧⲁϩⲟⲓ ⸂ⲁⲛⲟ⸃ⲕ ⲉⲩϩⲱⲇⲓⲟⲥ192 ⲉⲧ⸂ⲣⲁⳓ⸃ⲱ ⲉⲓⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲁⲛ⸂ⲟⲕ ⲙⲚ ⲡⲁ⸃ⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⸂ⲡⲁⲥⲁϩ⸃ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲛ⸂ϫⲱ⸃ϫ Ⲛⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⸂ⲁⲩ⸃ⲱ ⲡϣⲟⲣⲠ Ⲙⲡⲱ⸂ϣ⸃Ⲛ ϩⲚ Ⲛⳓⲓϫ ⸂Ⲙ⸃ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⸂ⲁ⸃ⲩⲱ ⲡⲇⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ193 ⸂ ⸃ Ⲙ ⲡⲧⲏⲣϤ. Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉⲡⲉⲕ⸂ⲗ⸃ⲏⲣⲟⲥ194 Ⲛⲧⲉⲓⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⸂ⲧⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲉ ϩⲣⲱⲙⲏ ⲧⲉ ⲉⲓ⸃ 195 ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲱϥ ⲁⲛ⸂ⲥ⸃ⲂⲧⲱⲧⲚ196 ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⸂ⲉ⸃ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲉϥⲭⲱⲣⲁ. 15. ⸂ⲡⲁ⸃ⲓⲱⲧ197 ⲇⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ⸂ϫⲁϥ⸃ Ⲛⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⸂ϫⲉ⸃ ⲙⲁⲣⲉⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩϩ ⲧⲏ⸂ⲣⲚ ⲉ⸃ⲩⲙⲁ Ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⸂ Ⲛⲣⲁ⸃ⲥⲧⲉ ⲚⲧⲚⲥⲩ⸂ⲛⲁⲅⲉ198 ϩⲓ ⲟⲩ⸃ⲥⲟⲡ ⲚⲧⲚ⸂ϫⲱⲕ199 ⲉⲃ⸃ⲟⲗ Ⲙⲡⲙⲩⲥ ⸂ⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟ ⸃ⲛ Ⲛⲧⲁⲡ ⸂ⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲧ ⸃ⲥⲁⲃⲟⲛ ⲉⲣⲟϥ. ⸂ ⲧ{ⲉ}ⲓ200ⲇⲉ⸃ ⲉⲛⲥⲟⲟⲩϩ ⲉ⸂ϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡ⸃ⲡⲱϣ Ⲙⲡⲟ⸂ⲉⲓⲕ, ⲁⲛⲟⲛ⸃ ⲧⲏⲣⲚ ⲛⲁ⸂ⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲙⲚ⸃ ⲛⲉⲕⲉⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲉⲣⲉⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲧⲙⲁⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲥⲟⲟⲩϩ ⲛⲘⲙⲁⲛ ⲙⲚ ⲥⲁⲗⲱⲙⲏ ⲙⲚ ⲡⲕⲉⲥⲉⲉⲡⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲏϩ Ⲛⲥⲁ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ Ⲓ⳰Ⲥ ⲡⲉⲬ⳱Ⲥ, ⲉⲛϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲙⲁ Ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲑⲟⲧⲉ ⲚⲚⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ,201 ⲗⲟⲓⲡⲟⲛ ⲉⲛϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ: ⲉⲓⲥ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ Ⲓ⳰Ⲥ ⲡⲉⲛⲱⲛϨ ⲧⲏⲣⲚ ⲁϥⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧϤ ϩⲚ ⲧⲛⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ,202 ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ MS 596: ⲉⲩϩⲟⲇⲓⲟⲥ. Both MSS: ⲡⲇⲓⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ. 194 MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲉⲕ[ⲗ]ⲏⲣⲟⲥ. 195 The lacuna in MS 598 is not sufficient to include ⲧⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲉ ϩⲣⲱⲙⲏ ⲧⲉ. Presumably, the text of MS 598 was Ⲛⲧⲉⲓⲭⲱⲣⲁ [ⲉⲓ] ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫⲱϥ. 196 MS 596: ⲁⲛⲥⲉⲃⲧⲱⲧⲚ; MS 598: ⲁⲛ[---]ⲃⲧⲱⲧⲚ. 197 MS 598: [ⲡⲁ]ⲉⲓⲱⲧ. 198 Both MSS: Ⲛⲧⲉⲛⲥⲩ ⸂ⲛⲁⲅⲉ⸃. 199 MS 596: Ⲛⲧⲉⲛϫⲱⲕ. 200 MS 596: ⲁⲓⲧⲉⲓ; MS 598 illegible. 201 MS 598: Ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ. 202 MS 598: ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏⲧⲚ. 192 193

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 250

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

251

Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ203 ⲧⲁⲁⲥ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲘⲙⲏⲧⲚ. ⲛⲉⲥⲟⲩϫⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲅⲁⲣ Ⲛⲧⲱⲃⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲘⲙⲁⲩ. ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉⲕⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ Ⲙⲙⲁⲑⲏ(24r)ⲧⲏⲥ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲥⲁϩ Ⲓ⳰Ⲥ, ⲁⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲉⲙⲁⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩⲛⲟⳓ ⲛⲉⲩⲫⲣⲟⲥⲩⲛⲏ ⲟⲩⲱϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲛ ⲉⲡⲉϩⲟⲩⲟ. ⲁⲛϯ Ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲟⲩⲟⲓ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲟⲩⲁ: ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲙⲉⲛ Ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ ⲙⲚⲚⲥⲱⲥ Ⲛⲕⲟⲩⲓ Ⲙⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ. ⲙⲚⲚⲥⲱⲥ204 ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ϩⲱⲱⲛ ⲁⲛⲡⲁϩⲧⲚ ⲛⲁϥ ⲁⲩⲱ205 ⲁⲛⲁⲥⲡⲁⲍⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉϥⳓⲓϫ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉϥⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ ⲙⲚ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲉⲥⲧϩⲏⲧ.206 ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲛⲘⲙⲁⲛ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲧⲉⲓϩⲉ. ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲇⲉ ϩⲱⲱⲥ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲁⲥⲉⲓ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⳓⲉⲡⲏ, ⲁⲥϯ Ⲙⲡⲉⲥⲟⲩⲟⲓ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲁⲥⲁⲥⲡⲁⲍⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ ϩⲓ ⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ. 16. Ⲓ⳰Ⲥ ⲇⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲉϥⲙⲁⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ,207 ⲁϥⲥⲱⲃⲉ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲥⲱⲃⲉ ⲘⲡⲚ⳰ⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲥ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲥ208 ϫⲉ ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲉ Ⲛⲧⲟ ⲱ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲡⲥⲱⲛⲦ 209 ⲧⲏⲣϤ Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲧⲁⲙ ⸂ⲓⲟϥ.⸃ ⲧⲉϫⲟⲥⲉ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ210 ⲧⲡⲉ, ⲧⲉⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏⲩ211 Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲁ ⲡⲕⲁϩ, ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲁⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲟⲩⲱϩ ϩⲚ ⲧⲟⲩⲕⲁⲗⲁϩⲏ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲉ Ⲛⲧⲟ ⲱ ⲧⲉⳓⲣⲟⲙⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲛⲉⲥⲱⲥ, ⲧⲁϣⲗⲉⲉⲧ ⲛⲁⲧϫⲃⲓⲛ.212 ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲙⲏ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲩⲱⲓ ϫⲉ ⲁⲡⲁⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ϩⲱⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲧⲣⲁⲟⲩⲱⲙ Ⲙⲡⲁⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲛⲘⲙⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲧⲁⲥⲱ ⲘⲡⲏⲣⲠ Ⲛⲥϯⲛⲟⲩϥⲉ ϩⲘ ⲡⲁⲕⲡⲟⲥ213 ⲡⲁⲡⲁⲣⲁⲇⲓⲥⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ.214 ⲱ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲕⲁⲛ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲁⲣⲉⲣ215 ⲡⲯⲓⲥ ⲛⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲉⲣⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲁⲣⲟⲓ216 ϩⲚ ⲧⲟⲩⲕⲁⲗⲁϩⲏ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ, ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲱ ϯⲛⲁⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲁⲣⲟ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲥⲡⲗⲁⲭⲛⲟⲛ ⲚⲧⲁⲙⲚⲧ ⸂ϣⲚϩⲧⲏϥ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲁⲣϩⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ⸃ ⲙⲙ ⸂ⲟⲓ ϩⲓϫⲚ ⲟⲩⲡⲁⲧ⸃ ⲙⲚ ⲟ⸂ⲩⳓⲃⲟⲓ, ⲁ⸃ⲛⲟⲕ ϩ ⸂ⲱ ϯⲛⲁⲧⲁⲗⲟ ϩⲓ⸃ϫⲚ ⲟⲩ ⸂ⲑⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ ⲉϥϩⲁ⸃ ⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϥϩ ⸂ⲓ ⲟⲩⲛⲁⲙ Ⲙ⸃ⲙⲟⲓ ⸂ⲙⲚ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ Ⲛ{ⲛ}ⲁ⸃ⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ. ⸂ⲉϣϫⲉ 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216

MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲁⲓⲱⲧ. MS 598: ⲙⲚⲚⲥⲟⲥ. MS 598: omit ⲁⲩⲱ. MS 598: ⲁⲛⲁⲥⲡⲁⲍⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉϥⳓⲓϫ ⲙⲚ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲉⲥⲑⲏⲧ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉϥⲟⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ. MS 598: omit Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ. MS 598: omit ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲥ. MS 596: ⲡⲍⲱⲛⲦ. MS 596: Ⲛⲡⲁⲣⲁ. MS 596: ⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏⲩ. MS 596: ⲁⲧϣⲃⲓⲛ. Both MSS: ⲡⲁⲕⲩⲡⲟⲥ. MS 589: omit ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. MS 596: ⲁⲓⲢ. MS 596: ϩⲁⲣⲟ.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 251

29/10/18 13:02

252

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

ⲁⲣⲥⲟⲩ⸃ⲗⲟⲗⲦ 217 ⲚϩⲚ⸂ⲧⲟⲉⲓⲥ Ⲙ⸃ ⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲧ ⸂ⲁⲣϫⲡⲟⲓ⸃ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ, ⸂ ⸃ ⲁ ⲣⲕ⸂ⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲓ⸃ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲟⲙϤ, ⸂ⲁⲩⲉϩⲉ ⲙⲚ⸃ ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲱ Ⲣ218 ϩⲁⲓⲃⲉ ⸂ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ, ⲁ⸃ⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲱ ϯⲛ⸂ⲁⲥⲕⲉⲡⲁⲍⲉ⸃ Ⲙⲙⲟ ϩⲓϫⲚ ⲛⲉⲧⲚ⸂ϩ⸃219 Ⲛⲛⲉⲉⲣⲁⲫⲓⲛ.220 ⸂ⲁ⸃ⲩⲱ ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲁⲣⲁⲥⲡ ⸂ⲁⲍⲉ⸃ Ⲙⲙⲟⲓ ϩⲚ ⲧⲟⲩⲧⲁⲡ⸂ⲣⲟ⸃ ⲁⲥⲁⲛⲟⲩϣⲦ221 ϩⲚ ⲧ ⸂ⲟⲩ⸃ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲉ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛ⸂ⲓ⸃ⲕⲱⲛ, ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲱ ⸂ϯⲛⲁ⸃ⲁⲥⲡⲁⲍⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟ Ⲙ⸂ⲡⲙ⸃ⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱ⸂ⲧ⸃ ⲉⲧϩⲚ Ⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ222 ⸂ⲁⲩⲱ⸃ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲛⲁⲧⲙ⸂ⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ⸃223 ϩⲘ ⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ Ⲙⲙⲉ. ⲱ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⸂ⲁⲡⲉ⸃ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲱⲡⲉ224 ⸂Ⲛⲧⲉ⸃ⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ ⲥⲱⲙ ⸂ⲁ⸃ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲛ⸂ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ,⸃ ⲉⲃⲟ⸂ⲗ⸃ ϫ⸂ⲉ ⲙⲚ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ϩⲓ⸃ϫⲘ ⲡⲕⲁϩ ⲁϫ ⸂Ⲛ ⲧ⸃ⲣⲉϥϫⲓ ϯⲡ ⸂ⲉ Ⲙⲡⲙⲟⲩ,⸃ ⲙⲭⲣⲓ225 ⲁⲛⲟ⸂ⲕ226 ⲡⲚⲧⲁ⸃ⲡⲗⲁⲥⲥⲉ Ⲙ ⸂ⲙⲟϥ ϣⲁⲛ⸃ϯⲥⲱⲧⲉ ⸂Ⲙⲡ(24v){ⲡ}ⲁⲡⲗⲁⲥ⸃ⲙⲁ.227 ⸂ ⲘⲡⲢⲗⲩⲡ⸃ 228 ⲱ ⲙ ⸂ⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ ϫⲉ ⲉⲣⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ ⲥⲱⲙⲁ. ⲉⲣⲛⲁⲕⲱ ⲅⲁⲣ Ⲛⲥⲱ Ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙ⸃ⲟⲥ ⸂Ⲛⲧⲉⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲡ⸃ⲙⲁ Ⲙ⸂ⲡⲟⲩⲛⲟϥ ⲙⲚ⸃ ⲡⲣⲁϣⲉ ⸂Ⲛϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ. 17. ⲁϥⲕⲟⲧϤ ⲇⲉ ⲉ⸃ϫⲘ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ229 ⸂ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ Ⲛⳓⲓ⸃ ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⸂ ⲙⲚ ⲡⲕⲉ⸃ⲥⲉⲉⲡⲉ Ⲛⲛⲁ⸂ⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟ⸃ⲗⲟⲥ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲩ ⸂ϫⲉ ⲱ ⲛ⸃ⲁϣⲃⲏⲣ Ⲙⲙⲉ ⸂ⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲉ⸃ⲓⲏⲩ, ⲛⲁⲓ ⸂Ⲛ⸃ⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲠⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⸂ ⸃ ⲡ ⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϤ, ⸂ⲉⲣ⸃ϣⲁⲛ ⲡⲛⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲟ⸂ⲉⲓ⸃ⲛ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲥⲩ ⸂ⲛⲁⲅⲉ⸃ ⲘⲙⲟⲧⲚ ϩⲘ ⲡⲁⲥⲱ⸂ⲙⲁ⸃ ⲙⲚ ⲡⲁⲥⲛⲟϥ, ⸂Ⲛⲧ⸃ⲁϯ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ Ⲛⲧⲁⲉⲓ⸂ⲣ⸃ⲏⲛⲏ ⲙⲚ ⲧⲁ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ230 ⸂ⲙ⸃Ⲛ ⲧⲁ ⲡⲉⲡⲚ⳱Ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ. ⸂ϩ⸃ⲧⲙⲁⲍⲉ231 ⲘⲙⲱⲧⲚ ϫⲉ ϣⲁⲣⲉⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ

217

MS 598: [---]ⲗⲱⲗⲦ. MS 598: ⲟⲩⲓⲱ ⲉⲣ. 219 MS 598: ϩⲓϫⲚ Ⲛⲧⲏⲛ[ϩ]. 220 Both MSS: Ⲛⲛⲉⲍⲉⲣⲁⲫⲓⲛ. 221 While this is a possible form of the 1st Perfect 2nd person singular feminine in Sahidic (see Lambdin, IntroductiontoSahidicCoptic, 22), MS 598 has preserved the more standard form: ⲁⲣⲥⲁⲛⲟⲩϣⲦ. 222 MS 596: ⲉⲧϩⲚ {ⲛ}Ⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ. 223 The lacuna in MS 598 does not seem sufficient to include ⲉⲃⲟⲗ. 224 Both MSS read ⸂ⲁⲡⲉ⸃ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣⲱⲡⲉ here. 225 Both MSS: ⲙⲏⲭⲣⲓ. 226 MS 596: {ⲁ}ⲁⲛⲟⲕ. 227 The dittography is probably a result of the page break. MS 598 is unfortunately damaged at this point. 228 MS 596: ⲘⲡⲢⲗⲩⲡⲏ; MS 598 illegible. 229 MS 598: ⲡⲁⲓⲱⲧ. 230 MS 598: ⲡⲁⲓⲱⲧ. 231 MS 596: ϩⲁⲓⲧⲩⲙⲁⲍⲉ; MS 598: {---]ⲧⲏⲙⲁⲍⲉ. 218

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 252

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

253

ⲧ Ⲛⲛⲟⲟⲩ232 Ⲛⲟⲩ⸂ⲙ⸃ⲏⲏϣⲉ Ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⸂Ⲛ⸃ⲥⲁ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲁ ⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲧⲚⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲧⲏⲣ⸂ⲧ⸃Ⲛ. ⲚⲥⲉϥⲓⲧⲤ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⸂ⲉ⸃{ⲛ}Ⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ ⲉⲡⲙⲁ Ⲙ⸂ⲡⲉ⸃ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲉⲧϩⲘ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲘⲙⲁⲩ233 Ⲛϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ. 18. ⸂ⲛⲁⲓ⸃ ⲇⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⸂ϫⲟⲟⲩ⸃ ⲛⲁⲛ, ⲁⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⸂ ⲥⲱⲣ⸃ Ⲛⲥⲟⲩϫⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲉ ⸂Ⲙⲡ⸃ⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲧⲱⲃⲉ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⸂ⲁⲡⲥⲱ⸃ⲧⲏⲣ ⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲉ234 Ⲙⲙⲟ⸂ⲛ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉ⸃ϥⳓⲓϫ Ⲙⲙⲓⲛ ⸂Ⲙⲙⲟϥ⸃ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲙⲚ ⸂ ⲛⲉⲕⲉϩⲓ⸃ⲟⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲛⲘ⸂ⲙⲁⲛ.⸃ ⲉⲓⲧⲁ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⸂Ⲙⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ϫⲉ⸃ ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ Ⲛⲅⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉϫⲘ ⲡⲉⲑⲩⲥⲓⲁⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ, Ⲛⲧⲁⲓⲥⲩⲛⲁⲅⲉ ⲘⲙⲱⲧⲚ ϩⲓϫⲱϥ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ, Ⲛⲅⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ Ⲛⲛⲉⲓⲉⲙⲁ235 Ⲛϩⲃⲟⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲓ Ⲛⲧⲁⲓⲛⲧⲟⲩ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲡⲟⲩⲣⲁⲛⲓⲟⲛ, Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ236 ⲧⲚⲛⲟⲟⲩⲥⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ ⲉⲕⲱⲱⲥ Ⲛⲧⲁⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ Ⲙⲙⲁⲁⲩ Ⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ, ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲇⲏ237 ⲙⲚ ⳓⲟⲙ Ⲛⲧⲉϩⲉⲃⲥⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲡⲉⲥⲥⲱⲙⲁ ϫⲉ Ⲛⲧⲟϥ ⲡⲚⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ Ⲙⲙⲁ Ⲛⲟⲩⲱϩ Ⲙⲡⲉϥⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ Ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ. 19. ⲡⲉⲛⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲁϥⲃⲱⲕ ⲁϥⲉⲓⲛⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉϩⲃⲟⲟⲥ. ⲁϥⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲥⲁ ⲛϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁϥⲡⲟⲣϣⲟⲩ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϥⳓⲓϫ Ⲙⲙⲓⲛ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ.238 ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲱ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲚⲧⲉⲉⲛⲕⲟⲧⲔ ϩⲚ ⲧⲙⲏⲧⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉⲓϩⲃⲱⲱⲥ ϫⲉ ⲁⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲉⲓ239 ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ ⲥⲱⲙⲁ Ⲛⲧⲁϫⲓⲧⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉ{ⲛ}Ⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ ϩⲁⲧⲘ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ. ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲁⲛⲁⲥⲡⲁⲍⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣⲚ, ⲁⲥⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲧⲙⲏⲧⲉ Ⲛⲛⲉϩⲃⲟⲟⲥ, ⲛⲁⲓ Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲡⲟⲣϣⲟⲩ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϥⳓⲓϫ Ⲙⲙⲓⲛ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ, ⲁⲥⲕⲱⲧⲉ240 Ⲙⲡⲉⲥϩⲟ ⲉⲡⲥⲁ Ⲛⲧⲁⲛⲁⲧⲟⲗⲏ. ⲁⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ (25r) ⲉⲓ ⲉⲡⲥⲁ Ⲛⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲛⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ241 ⲛⲘⲙⲁϥ ⲧⲏⲣⲚ, ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲇⲏ ⲙⲚ ⳓⲟⲙ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲓ ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉⲡⲱⲛϨ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ. Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉϥϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ Ⲛⲟⲩⲕⲟⲩⲓ, ⲁⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲘⲙⲁⲛ ϩⲚ Ⲙⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ242 Ⲙⲡϫⲓⲥⲉ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧ{ⲉ}ⲓ243 ⲉⲛϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ⲁⲛⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⸂ ⸃

⸂ ⸃

MS 598: [ⲧ]Ⲛⲛⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ. MS 598: omit ⲉⲧϩⲘ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲘⲙⲁⲩ. 234 MS 598: ⲥⲩⲅⲉ. 235 Both MSS: Ⲛⲛⲉⲓⲉⲧⲏⲙⲁ. 236 MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲁⲡⲁⲓⲱⲧ. 237 MS 598: omit ⲉⲡⲉⲓⲇⲏ. 238 ⲁϥⲡⲟⲣϣⲟⲩ…ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ: MS 598: ⲁϥⲡⲉⲣϢ ⲛⲉϥⳓⲓϫ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲙⲓⲛ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲁϥϣⲗⲏⲗ Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲁⲩⲱ Ⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲟⲣϣⲟⲩ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϥⳓⲓϫ Ⲙⲙⲓⲛ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ. 239 MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲉⲉⲓ. 240 MS 598: ⲁϥⲕⲱⲧⲉ. 241 MS 598: ⲉⲙⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ. 242 MS 596: ⲛⲉⲙⲩⲥⲧⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ. 243 MS 596: ⲁⲓⲧⲉⲓ; MS 598: ⲉⲧⲉⲓ. 232 233

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 253

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

254

ⲉⲛⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ ⲉⲛϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲉⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲛⲕⲟⲧⲔ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ ⲉⲩⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲉⲩϫⲓ ϣⲕⲁⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲡⲉϩⲟⲩⲟ. ⲥⲁⲗⲱⲙⲏ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲚ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲁ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ ϣⲁⲣⲟⲛ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ϫⲉ ⲡⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲛⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲥⲙⲟⲩ Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲧⲉⲕⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲛⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲚ. ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲇⲉ ⲁϥⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ Ⲛⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲁϥⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲥⲚⲕⲟⲧⲔ ⲚϩⲏⲧϤ ⲁϥⲡⲱⲣϢ244 ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϫⲱⲥ ⲁϥⲣⲓⲙⲉ. ⲙⲚⲚⲥⲱⲥ ⲁϥⲁⲥⲡⲁⲍⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲉⲓⲏⲩ245 ⲡ ⸂ⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ Ⲛⲥⲟⲡ⸃ ⲱ ⲧ⸂ⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ. ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲟⲩ⸃ Ⲛⲛⲟⲩ ⸂ⲉⲕⲓⲃⲉ· ⲚⲧⲁⲩⲥⲚ⸃ⲕⲟ Ⲙⲙⲟⲓ,246 ⸂ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲤ⸃ Ⲛⲧⲟⲩⲕ ⸂ⲁⲗⲁϩⲏ Ⲛⲧⲁⲥ⸃ϫⲡⲟⲓ, ⸂ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲤ Ⲛⲧ⸃ⲕⲁⲗⲁϩⲏ Ⲛ⸂ⲧⲟⲩⲙⲁⲁⲩ⸃ Ⲛⲧⲁⲥϫⲡⲟ ⸂ϩⲱⲱⲧⲉ.⸃ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉϩ⸂ⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⲧⲁ⸃ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧ ⸂ⲓⲁ Ⲙⲡⲁ⸃ ⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲇⲁⲩⲉⲓⲇ ϫ ⸂ⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲥⲉⲛⲁϫ ⸂ⲓ Ⲛ⸃ ϩⲚⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ Ⲙ⸂ⲡⲢⲣⲟ⸃ ϩⲓ ⲡⲁϩⲟⲩ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⸂ϩⲚ⸃ ⲟⲩϩⲂⲥⲱ ⲉⲥⲟ247 Ⲛⲉⲓ⸂ⲉⲡ⸃ⲛⲟⲩⲃ.248 20. ⲛⲁⲓ ⲇⲉ ⸂Ⲛⲧ⸃ⲣⲉϥϫⲟⲟⲩ Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲡ ⸂ⲥⲱⲣ⸃ ⲁϥⲁⲙⲁϩⲧⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉϥ⸂ⲙⲁ⸃ⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉ⸂ⲧⲟⲩ⸃ⲁⲁⲃ, ⲁϥⲕⲱⲱⲥ Ⲙ⸂ⲙⲟⲥ⸃ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϥⳓⲓϫ Ⲙⲙⲓ⸂ⲛ⸃ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉϩⲂ⸂ⲥⲱ⸃249 Ⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲟⲣϣⲟⲩ. ⸂ ⲁϥ⸃ϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲁⲧⲏⲥ Ⲛⲟ⸂ⲩ⸃ⲛⲟⳓ Ⲛⲛⲁⲩ. ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲣ⸂ⲟⲥ⸃ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⸂ⲧⲏ⸃ⲣⲟⲩ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉⲕⲉϩⲓ⸂ⲟⲙⲉ⸃ ⲉⲧⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲛⲘⲙⲁ⸂ⲛ⸃ ⲁⲩⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲉϫⲘ ⲡϫ⸂ⲱⲕ⸃ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲛⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉ⸂ⲛⲟⲥ⸃ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲉⲑ ⸂ⲉ⸃ⲕⲟⲥ250 ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ. ⸂ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ⸃ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⸂ Ⲛⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥ⸃ⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ϫ ⸂ⲉ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲟⲩ⸃ ⲧⲉⲧⲚⲗ⸂ⲩⲡ251 ⲉⲣⲉⲡ⸃ⲣⲁϣⲉ ⸂ Ⲙⲡⲥ¸ⲛⲦ ⲧⲏⲣϤ ϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲘⲙⲏⲧⲚ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ? ⲡⲉϫ⸃ ⲉ ⲛⲁ⸂ⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ Ⲙⲡⲥ⸃ⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⸂ϫⲉ ⲉⲛⲗⲩⲡⲏ⸃ ⲉϫⲘ ⲡ ⸂ϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ⸃ Ⲛⲧⲉⲛϫⲟ⸂ⲉⲓⲥ252 ⲧⲏⲣⲚ ⲧ⸃ⲉⲑⲉⲟ⸂ⲕⲟⲥ253 ⲉⲧⲟⲩ⸃ⲁⲁⲃ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ, ⸂ ϫⲉ Ⲛⲧⲟ⸃ⲥ ⲉⲧϯ ⲛⲁⲛ Ⲙ⸂ⲡⲥⲟⲗⲥⲉ⸃ⲗ Ⲛϩⲱⲃ254 ⲛⲓⲙ. ⸂ⲙⲏ ⲙⲚ⸃ ⳓⲟⲙ Ⲙⲙⲟⲕ ⲧⲉ⸂ⲛⲟⲩ⸃ ⲉⲧⲘⲧⲣⲉⲥⲙⲟⲩ ϣⲁ⸂ⲛⲧ⸃ Ⲛⲙⲟⲩ255 ⲧⲏⲣⲚ? ⸂ ⲡⲉ⸃ϫⲉ ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ Ⲛⲛⲁ⸂ⲡ⸃ⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲙⲏ ⲙⲚ ⸂ⳓⲟ⸃ⲙ Ⲙⲙⲟⲓ 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255

MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

598: ⲁϥⲡⲟⲣϢ. 598: ⲉⲧⲧⲁⲓⲏⲩ. 598: [---]ⲕⲟⲓ. 596: ⲟⲩϩⲉⲃⲥⲱ ⲉⲥⲱ. 598: Ⲛⲓ[ⲉⲡ]ⲛⲟⲩⲃ. 596: ⲛⲉⲛϩⲂⲥⲱ. 596: ⲧⲉⲑⲉⲱⲇⲱⲕⲟⲥ. 598: ⲧⲉⲧⲚⲗⲩⲡⲏ; MS 598: ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲚⲗ[---]. 596: ⲚⲧⲚϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ. 596: ⲧⲉⲑⲉⲱⲇⲟⲕⲟⲥ; MS 598: [---]ⲉⲑⲉⲱⲇⲟ[---]. 598: ϩⲚϩⲱⲃ. 596: ϣⲁⲛⲧⲉⲛⲙⲟⲩ.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 254

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

255

ⲉϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ? ⸂ⲁⲗ⸃ⲗⲁ ⲙⲚ ⳓⲟⲙ256 ⲉⲧⲣⲉ ⸂ⲣ⸃ⲱⲙⲉ ⳓⲱ ϩⲓϫⲘ ⲡⲕⲁϩ ϣⲁⲃⲟⲗ, ⲉⲧⲘⲧⲣⲉⲥϫⲓ ⸂ϯ⸃ ⲡⲉ Ⲙⲡⲙⲟⲩ. (25v) ⸂ⲁ⸃ⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲱ ⲁⲓϫⲓ ϯⲡⲉ ⸂Ⲙ⸃ⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲓⲧⲱ ⸂ⲟ⸃ ⲩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲧⲙⲟ⸂ⲟ⸃ⲩⲧ, ⲁⲓⲉⲗⲉⲩⲑⲣⲟⲩ257 ⸂Ⲛ⸃Ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲙⲟⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⸂ϩ⸃Ⲛ ⲁⲇⲁⲙ:258 21. ⸂⸃ ⲧ{ⲉ}ⲓ259 ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ260 ϫⲱ Ⲛⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲁⲛ,261 ⲁⲛⲥⲱⲧⲘ ⸂ ⸃ ⲉ ⲡⲉϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲚϩⲚⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ262 ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ Ⲛⲑⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉϩⲣⲟⲟⲩ ⲚⲚⲕⲁⲧⲁϩ⸂ⲣⲁ⸃ⲕⲧⲏⲥ263 ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲛⲉⲣ ⸂ϩⲟ⸃ⲧⲉ. ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲡⲥⲱ⸂ⲧⲏⲣ⸃ ϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲢ⳱Ⲣ ϩⲟⲧⲉ. ⸂ⲙⲁⲣ⸃ⲓⲁ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ ⲧⲉ ⸂Ⲛⲧⲁ⸃ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ264 Ⲛⲁⲅⲁ⸂ⲑⲟⲥ ⲧⲚ⸃ⲛⲟⲟⲩⲥ ϣⲁⲣⲱ⸂ⲧⲚ, ⲉⲧⲣ⸃ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲚⲛⲁⲩ ⸂ⲉⲣⲟⲥ Ⲙⲡⲉ⸃ⲓⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ, Ⲛⲥ ⸂ⲥⲉⲗⲥⲉⲗ ⲧⲏⲩ⸃ ⲧⲚ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲧⲚⲗⲩⲡⲏ.265 ⲉⲛ266 ϩⲟⲥⲟⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲛϫⲱ Ⲛⲛⲁⲓ, ⲉⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⳓ Ⲛϩⲁⲣⲙⲁ Ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲁϥⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲙⲏⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲉⲟⲩⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ Ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲕⲱⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ. ⲉⲣⲉⲟⲩⲑⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ ⲉϥϫⲟⲥⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉϥϩⲁ ⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲁⲗⲏⲩ ⲉϫⲘ ⲡϩⲁⲣⲙⲁ. ⲉⲥϩⲙⲟⲟⲥ ϩⲓϫⲘ ⲡⲉⲑⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲧⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ267 ⲧⲏⲣⲚ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲥⲥⲟⲟⲩⲧⲚ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϫⲱⲛ ⲉⲥϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ Ⲙⲡⲁϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲉⲥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲘⲙⲏⲧⲚ ⲧⲏⲣⲧⲚ. ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲇⲉ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉⲛϯ Ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲟⲩⲟⲓ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ, ⲁⲛⲁⲥⲡⲁⲍⲉ Ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣⲚ ⲙⲚ ⲛⲉⲕⲉϩⲓⲟⲙⲉ ⲉⲧⲛⲘⲙⲁⲛ. ⲡⲉϫⲁⲥ ⲛⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ ϫⲉ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲚⲢ Ⲙⲡϣⲁ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲙⲚ ⲡⲁϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲛϨ ⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ Ⲙⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϤ. 22. ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲁϩ268 ⲇⲉ Ⲓ⳰Ⲥ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲧⲁⲗⲟ Ⲙⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ Ⲛⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ ϩⲓϫⲚ ⲟⲩⳓⲗⲟⳓ· ⲁⲩⲱ 269 ⲚⲧⲉⲧⲚⲥⲧⲉⲫⲁⲛⲟⲩ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲕⲁⲗⲱⲥ ϩⲚ ϩⲚⲃⲁ ⲙⲚ ϩⲚⲕⲗⲁⲟⲥ270 Ⲛⲥϯⲛⲟⲩϥⲉ. ⲚⲧⲉⲧⲚϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ ϩⲁ ⲧⲉϥϩⲏ271 ϩⲘ ⲡϩⲩⲙⲛⲟⲥ272 Ⲛⲧⲁⲓⲧⲥⲁⲃⲟ 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272

MS 598: ϣⳓⲟⲙ. Both MSS: ⲁⲓⲉⲗⲉⲩⲑⲩⲣⲟⲩ. MS 596: ϩⲚ{ⲛ} ⲁⲇⲁⲙ. MS 596: ⲁⲓⲧⲉⲓ; MS 598: [ⲁ]ⲓⲧⲉⲓ. MS 598: ⲇⲉ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲥⲱⲧⲣ. MS 598: ⲁⲛ. MS 598: Ⲛⲟⲩⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ. MS 596: Ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲕⲁⲧⲁϩⲣⲁⲕⲧⲏⲥ; MS 598: ⲚⲚⲕⲁⲧⲁϩ[ⲣⲁ]ⲕⲧⲏⲥ. MS 598: [Ⲛⲧⲁ]ⲡⲁⲓⲱⲧ. MS 598: ⲧⲉⲧⲚⲗⲩⲡⲏ. MS 598 omit ⲉⲛ. MS 598: ⲧⲚϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ. MS 598: ⲡⲚⲥⲁϩ. MS 598: omit ⲁⲩⲱ. Both MSS: ϩⲚⲕⲗⲁⲧⲟⲥ. MS 598: ⲧⲉϥϩⲉ. MS 596: {ⲡ}ⲡϩⲩⲙⲛⲟⲥ.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 255

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

256

ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ273 ⲉⲣⲟϥ Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉⲓⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ ⲛⲉⲧⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧ ϣⲁ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲉϯⲛⲁⲟⲩⲉϩ ⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ274 ⲚⲧⲉⲧⲚⲁϩⲉⲣⲁⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ. ⲛⲁⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲟⲟⲩ, ⲁϥⲧⲁⲗⲉ275 ⲉϫⲘ ⲡϩⲁⲣⲙⲁ ⲙⲚ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲁⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ, ⲁⲩϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ ϩⲁ ⲧⲉϥϩⲏ276 Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϣⲁⲛⲧⲟⲩⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉ{ⲛ}Ⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ ϩⲚ ⲟⲩⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲚ ⲟⲩⲧⲁⲉⲓⲟ, ⲉⲛⳓⲱϣⲦ Ⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩ. ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲁⲛⲧⲁⲗⲟ Ⲙⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ Ⲛⲧⲉϥⲙⲁⲁⲩ Ⲛⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉϫⲚ ⲟⲩⳓⲗⲟⳓ, ⲁⲛⲯⲁⲗⲗⲉⲓ ϩⲁ ⲧⲉⲥϩⲏ,277 ⲉⲣⲉⲕⲉⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ Ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲛⲘⲙⲁⲛ. Ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉⲛⲧⲁϩⲉ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲓⲁ278 Ⲛⲓⲱⲥⲁⲫⲁⲧ ⲡⲃⲟⲗ ⲚⲧⲑⲓⲗⲎ⳱Ⲙ, ⲟⲩⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ Ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲚ ⲧⲡⲉ, ⲁⲩϩⲁⲣⲡⲁⲍⲉ279 Ⲙⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ Ⲛⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ. ⲁⲩϩⲱⲗ ⲛⲘⲙⲁⲥ ⲉⲡϫⲓⲥⲉ ⲉⲩϩⲩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ280 ϩⲁ ⲧⲉⲥϩⲏ Ⲛⳓⲓ ⲛⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ Ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ, ⲉⲛⳓⲱϣⲦ ⲛⲥⲱⲟⲩ281 (26r) ϣⲁⲛⲧⲟⲩϩⲱⲡ ϩⲘ ⲡⲁⲏⲣ. ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲇⲉ ⲁⲛⲕⲟⲧⲚ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲡⲏⲓ ⲉⲛϯ ⲉⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ. 23. ⲛ⸂ⲧⲉⲣⲉⲛⳓⲱ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲛⲙⲟⲕϨ Ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ⸃ ⲡⲉⲥ ⸂ⲥⲱⲙⲁ ϫⲉ ⲁⲩϩⲟⲡϤ⸃ ⲉⲣⲟⲛ, ⸂ⲁⲡⲉⲬ⳱Ⲥ ⲟⲩⲱⲛϨ⸃ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲉⲃ ⸂ⲟⲗ Ⲛⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ.⸃ ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉϥ ⸂ⲙⲁⲁⲩ Ⲙⲡⲁⲣ⸃ⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ϩⲓ ⸂ⲟⲩⲛⲁⲙ Ⲙⲙⲟϥ⸃ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲛ ⸂ ϫⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲚ ⸃ ϣⲁⲛⲃⲱⲕ ⸂ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲘ⸃ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲉⲩ ⸂ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲍⲉ⸃ Ⲛⲧⳓⲓⲛϫⲱⲕ ⸂ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙ ⸃ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲧⲁⲙⲁⲁⲩ. ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲉⲥⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⸂ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ⸃ ⲁⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲕⲉⲗⲉ ⸂ ⲩⲉ ⲉ ⸃ ⲕⲁⲁϥ ϩⲁ ⲡⲉⲥϯ ⸂ⲛⲟⲩϥⲉ⸃ Ⲙⲡϣⲏⲛ ⲉⲡⲱ ⸂ⲛϨ,⸃ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲙⲁ ⸂Ⲛⲙ⸃ⲧⲟⲛ Ⲙⲡⲉϥ ⸂ⲙⲉⲣⲓ⸃ⲧ Ⲛϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲁⲛ⸂ⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ.⸃ 24. ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲩϩⲱⲇⲓ⸂ⲟⲥ282 ⲡ⸃ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ Ⲙⲡⲁ⸂ⲉⲓⲱⲧ⸃ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲛⲟⳓ Ⲛ ⸂ⲁⲡⲟⲥ⸃ ⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ Ⲛⲕⲉⲟⲩⲁ ⲁⲛ ⸂ⲡⲚ⸃ ⲧⲁϥⲧⲁⲩⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ, ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛⲉⲓⲘⲙⲁⲩ ⲡ ⸂ⲉ ⲉⲣⲉ⸃ⲛⲁⲓ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲛⲁϣⲱ ⸂ⲡⲉ.⸃ ⲡⲉϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ Ⲙⲡϫⲱⲕ ⸂ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⸃ Ⲛⲧⲉⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲧⲏⲣ ⸂Ⲛ ⲧⲉ⸃ⲑⲉⲕⲟⲥ283 ⲉⲧ ⸂ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ⸃ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲡⲉⲥⲟⲩ ⸂ϫⲟⲩ⸃ ⲧⲟⲩⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⸂ⲧⲱⲃⲉ.⸃ ⲁⲡⲛϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲕⲉⲗ⸂ⲉⲩⲉ ⲛⲁⲛ⸃ ⲉⲧⲣⲉⲛⲁⲁⲁϥ 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283

MS 598: Ⲛⲧⲁⲓⲧⲥⲁⲃⲉ ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ. ⲉϯⲛⲁⲟⲩⲉϩ ⲥⲁϩⲛⲉ ⲛⲏⲧⲚ: MS 598: ϯⲛⲁⲧⲥⲁⲃⲉ ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲚ ⲉⲣⲟϥ. MS 596: ⲁⲩⲧⲁⲗⲉ. MS 598: ⲧⲉϥϩⲉ. MS 598: ⲧⲉϥϩⲉ. MS 598: ⲡⲉⲓⲁ. MS 596: ⲁⲩϩⲁⲣⲡⲁⲥⲉ. MS 598: ⲉⲩϩⲙⲛⲉⲩⲉ. MS 598: ⲛⲥⲱⲥ. MS 596: ⲉⲩϩⲟⲇⲓⲟⲥ. Both MSS: ⲑⲉⲱⲇⲱⲕⲟⲥ.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 256

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

257

Ⲛ ⸂ϣⲁ ⲕⲁ⸃ ⲧⲁ ⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲉⲡⲣ ⸂ⲁⲛ Ⲛⲧⲡⲁⲣ⸃ⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ, ⸂Ⲛϩⲟⲩⲟ⸃ ⲇⲉ ⲥⲟⲩϫⲟⲩⲧ ⸂ⲟⲩⲉ Ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ⸃ ⲧⲱⲃⲉ. ⲡ⸂ⲉⲟⲟⲩ Ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ⸃ ⲙⲚ ⲡϣ ⸂ⲏⲣⲉ ⲙⲚ ⲡⲉⲡⲚ⳱Ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ⸃ ⲁⲁⲃ ϣ ⸂ⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ Ⲛⲉⲛⲉϩ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ.⸃ EnglishTranslation 1. A homily (λόγος) delivered by Apa Evodius, the Archbishop (ἀρχιεπίσκοπος) of the great city (πόλις) of Rome, the second after the Apostle (ἀπόστολος) Peter. And (δέ) he delivered it the first of the churches (ἐκκλησία) recently built in the name of the holy Theotokos and true Bearer of God, Mary. And (δέ) he proclaimed a few praises (ἔπαινος) in honor of the holy Virgin (παρθένος) Mary, which he told us on the day of her departure, the twenty-first of the month of Tobe. In the peace (εἰρήνη) of God, Amen. 2. It is proper (πρέπον) and right (δίκαιος) that we give every honor and every blessing to the Lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Mary, our intercessor (πρεσβευτής) who continuously intercedes (πρεσβεύω) on our behalf before God, the Queen of the entire race (γένος) of women and the mother of the King of Kings, our Lord Jesus Christ. For (γάρ) if a king of this world (κόσμος) wants to make a marriage for his son, his people (στράτευμα) gather to him. They dress in white (λευκοφορέω) and put on (φορέω) royal (βασιλικός) garments (φόρημα/φορεσία): the governors (ἔπαρχος), the generals (στρατηλάτης), the dignitaries (ἀξιωματικός), the scholars (σχολαστικός), the local governors (τοπάρχης), the government officials (κόμης/comes) in general (ἁπαξαπλῶς), down to the humble earringwearers (σιγλοφόρος),284 who are servants (ὑπηρετέω) to those who 284

This seems to be some sort of a functionary, but its specific nature is not exactly clear. Peréz translates this passage as follows: “incluso los humildes empleados, o sea, los vigilantes y los siervos [even the humble employees, that is, the watchmen and the servants]” (Dormición, 106), but this is clearly a very free translation of the Coptic that avoids the problems posed by this word (Peréz unfortunately does not provide the Greek forms in his translation). In light of Spiegelberg’s text (ⲥⲓⲛⲟⲫⲟⲣⲟⲥ), one might incline toward reading σιγνοφόρος, but the Morgan MSS and the context seem to distinguish clearly the σιγλοφόροι from the σιγνοφόροι. Note also that the letters ⲛⲟ are visually uncertain in Spiegelberg’s fragments. The only occurrence of the word σιγλοφόρος in Greek appears in to be in a fragment from a lost Attic comedy (J. Edmonds (ed. and tr.), TheFragmentsofAtticComedyafter

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 257

29/10/18 13:02

258

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

serve (ὑπηρετέω). The others similarly dress in white (λευκοφορέω) according to (κατά) their honor (ἀξίωμα) and come to the marriage of the king’s son. The standard-bearers (σιγνοφόρος/signifer) set up standards (σίγνον/signum) in the praetorium. The friends of the people (δημεραστής)285 honor (τιμάω)286 the groom (νυμφίος) and his bride (νύμφη). The scribes (exceptor) are gathered, and they stand according to (κατά) order (ὄρδινος/ordo). The couriers (κούρσωρ/ cursor) prepare themselves, and they summon those who are worthy of coming to the wedding. The actors (θεατρικός) prepare theaters (θέατρον) and perform plays (θεατρίζω). The mimes (μῖμος) prepare places for miming (mimarium (μιμάριον?)) and perform shows (θεωρία). The gladiators (κυνηγός) prepare fights with wild beasts (κυνήγιον), and they bring forth wild beasts (θηρίον), which they are bold (θαρσέω) to fight well (καλῶς).287 The cithara players (κιθαριστής) play the cithara (κιθαρίζω) in melodies that are sweet and pleasing (πρέπω) to those who listen. The lute players (πανδουριστής) sing with instruments (ὄργανον). Dining couches (ἀκούβιτον) are set up (πήσσω) in the marketplaces (ἀγορά). The people of the marketplace (ἀγοραῖος), those who sell things, crown (στεφανόω) their seats with palms and fragrant branches (κλάδος). They hang banners (βῆλον/ velum) and fine linen cloths (σινδόνιον) in the streets of the city (πόλις), rejoicing at the marriage of the king’s son. Not only will the rich and the dignitaries (ἀξίωμα/ἀξιωματικός) rejoice so at this Meineke,Bergk,andKock, 3 vols. (Leiden, 1957-) 3:472 (#793)), preserved in Hesychius’ lexicon, where one finds “σιγλοφόρων στάσις εὐνούχων” used to demonstrate the use of σίγλα/σίγλος to mean “earring.” In light of this use of σιγλοφόρος to describe eunuchs, it is tempting to suppose that these “servants of those who serve” are in fact court eunuchs. 285 Spiegelberg’s text has: ϣⲁⲣⲉ ⲡⲧⲏⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϤ ϯⲙⲁ…, “all of the people (δῆμος) honor….” 286 Peréz translates this passage as “Los amigos preperan el sitio al novio y a su novia” (Dormición, 107), presumably reading ϯ ⲙⲁ instead of ϯⲙⲁ (τιμάω), as I have. “To prepare the place for,” however, seems beyond the range of meaning for ϯ ⲙⲁ, which generally means “to give place” or “to allow” (Crum, CopticDictionary, 155a). Furthermore, the St. Macarius homily reads here ⲛⲥⲉⲟϩⲓ ⲉⲩⲧⲁⲓⲟ ⲙⲡϣⲏⲣⲓ ⲙⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲉϥϣⲉⲗⲉⲧ. Although the text is somewhat different, its use of ⲉⲩⲧⲁⲓⲟ supports the reading I have chosen. 287 Note the use here of ϫⲉ with the First Future to denote purpose, where standard Sahidic would call for either the Second or Third Future.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 258

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

259

marriage, but (ἀλλά) also the poor and those who are in need, and the strangers and the sojourners (προσήλυτος). They too rejoice on account of the joy of the marriage of the king’s son. Likewise, those in prison forget the troubles that beset them, and they rejoice greatly that the king had mercy on them in the troubles that had befallen them, on account of the joy of the marriage of the king’s son. But (δέ) when the king beholds this great joy that is spread forth on his behalf, he is in great royal (βασιλικός) authority (αὐθεντία). Then (λοιπόν) he prepares places for drinking, and he gives great sanctions (αὐθεντία) and extends great charities (ἀγάπη) to everyone in need. 3. And all these things are on account of a marriage of this world (κόσμος) – for truly (καὶ γάρ) their joy turns to grief after a little while because of death. How great then is the joy that spreads forth today among the all the orders (τάγμα) of heaven: the angels (ἄγγελος) and archangels (ἀρχάγγελος), the cherubim and seraphim, the thrones (θρόνος) and dominions, the powers (ἀρχή) and authorities (ἐξουσία)! They rejoice, adorn themselves (στολίζω), and dance (χορεύω) at the wedding of the King’s son. Blessed are you, O Mary, the Queen of women and the mother of the King of life and the King of Kings, the one about whom Solomon prophesied (προφητεύω) in the Song of Songs, saying, “Arise and come beside me, my bride, my dove, who is beautiful among women.”288 And not only the inhabitants of heaven, but (ἀλλά) also those on earth are very glad, and they rejoice in your joy. Those who are in the heaven of heavens and those upon the earth rejoice with you, O Virgin (παρθένος) Mary. And not only do the men rejoice, but (ἀλλά) also the women rejoice that a woman has given birth to this great one in these days, and it did not damage (βλάπτω) her virginity (παρθενία). Because of this, he has changed the shame of woman into an honor (τιμή), through that God-bearing Virgin (παρθένος). 4. Let our ancient (ἀρχαῖος) fathers gather and come here today and glorify that holy Virgin (παρθένος), the true bride who gave birth to the true, undefiled bridegroom (νυμφίος). And when he came forth from her, the bonds of her virginity (παρθενία) were not undone. Come to us today, O Isaiah, whose voice is great among the prophets (προφήτης), and see the Virgin (παρθένος) about whom you prophesied (προφητεύω) a long time (χρόνος) ago, when you said through 288

Cf. Cant 2.10, 13, 14.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 259

29/10/18 13:02

260

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

the prophetic (προφητικός) spirit (πνεῦμα) that was in you: “Behold, the virgin (παρθένος) will conceive and bear a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel, that is, God with us.”289 Come now and see Emmanuel, God raised upon her knees, feeding on virgin (παρθενικός) milk. O David, come and see the honored Queen standing at the right hand of the King and clothed in the many colored garment.290 O Solomon, the wise king, come and see the true bride about whom you prophesied (προφητεύω) in the Song of Songs, saying: “My bride, my dove, who is beautiful among women, arise and come from the trees of Lebanon.”291 O Ezekiel, arise and come into our midst today and behold the closed gate (πύλη), through which the ruler (ἄρχων) entered and also came forth, and it was closed as it was before,292 namely, the holy Virgin (παρθένος) Mary, from whom the King of Kings came forth, and the bonds of her virginity (παρθενία) remained sealed as they were before. 5. O Mary, you are more blessed than (παρά) every female creature that God has created.293 I wish that I could have seen you, O Mary, when you gave birth to God, without (χωρίς) change or illusion (φαντασία), even (κἄν) though we saw him as he grew in years (ἡλικία), in the way of every human being, and we were worthy (ἄξιος) to eat with him and see all the wonders that he worked. I saw them with my own eyes, I, Evodius, the least (ἐλάχιστος), who is speaking now in this exposition (ἐξήγησις): I and my fathers the Apostles (ἀπόστολος) and the seventy-two disciples (μαθητής).294 But, (ἀλλά) in all these things, I was wishing that I had been worthy to see him when he was raised up on your knees, gazing at your face and laughing at you with his divine laughter. I wanted to see you, O undefiled lamb, holding the hand of Emmanuel, your son, and talking with him, saying, “Walk, walk, my son,” in the way that all little children are taught to walk. He, Jesus my Lord, would not take295 step on step with his 289

Isa 7.14 (LXX). Cf. Ps 45.13-15. 291 Cf. Cant 2.10, 13, 14; 4.8. 292 Cf. Ezek 44.2-3. 293 Cf. Luke 1.42. 294 Cf. Luke 10.1, 7. 295 Although this form (Ⲛⲛⲉϥϥⲉⲓ) has unmistakable appearance of a Negative Third Future (or “Optative”), we should perhaps not rule out the possibility that it is in fact an Imperfect (“He, Jesus my Lord, was taking step on 290

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 260

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

261

little feet while walking, following like all little children. I wanted to see you, O beautiful treasure, when he was looking at your face, as if (ὡς) saying to you, “Pick me up, O my mother, because I have become weary from walking.” I wanted to see you, O beautiful dove, when he stretched forth his hand, taking hold of your undefiled breast and placing it in his divine mouth. 6. Truly (ἀληθῶς) you are blessed! You are many times blessed, O beautiful treasure that has been found hidden in the field.296 To what shall I compare you, or what is equal to you in all the creation that God has created? If I compare you to heaven, truly, you are exalted above it, because he who created heaven and earth desired and dwelled in you for nine months. You are more exalted than (παρά) the sun. You are more exalted than (παρά) the moon. You are more exalted than (παρά) the angels (ἄγγελος). You are more honored than (παρά) the archangels (ἀρχάγγελος). You are more exalted than (παρά) the cherubim. You are more honored than (παρά) the seraphim. O swift cloud, on which God was mounted!297 O golden jar, in which the manna is hidden!298 O new vessel (ὑδρία), whose salt seasons our souls (ψυχή),299 which are insipid from sin! O holy step...”). Such seems to be how Peréz has understood the form: “tenía que sostenerse sobre sus pequeños pies (he had to stand on his little feet)” (Dormición, 110). One occasionally finds the prefix ⲛⲛⲉ- used in Sahidic instead of the more usual Imperfect form, [ⲉ]ⲛⲉ-. This would be particularly true of Sahidic that has come under Fayyumic influence, as in many of the Morgan codices, and further might be correlate with the pattern in both MSS of unnecessarily doubling the letter ⲛ on occasion, as discussed in the introduction (see especially Stern, KoptischeGrammatik, §§ 72, 373, but also W. Till, KoptischeDialektgrammatik (München, 1931) § 7.i.2, 49.b; Crum, Coptic Dictionary, 215a; Kuhn, PanegyriconJohn, XV). Nevertheless, this form occurs identically in both MSS (the supralinear stroke being clearly visible in both), and nowhere else does either MS use such an irregular form for the Imperfect. The context is not especially helpful, since a Negative Third Future/ Optative seems to fit with the young Jesus’ subsequent hopes of being picked up, while the Imperfect suits the fact that he had become weary from walking. Note that Crum cites this passage from MS 596 (CopticDictionary, 508a) but represents the verb as a Circumstantial: ⲉϥϥⲓ ⲟⲩ[ⲱϩ] ⲟⲩ[ⲱϩ]. This does not, however, seem to me a likely solution. 296 Cf. Matt 13.44. 297 Cf. Isa 19.1. 298 Cf. Heb 9.4. 299 Cf. 2 Kgs 2.19-21.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 261

29/10/18 13:02

262

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

ark (κιβωτός), within which are the tablets (πλάξ) of the covenant (διαθήκη)!300 O chosen lampstand (λυχνία) of gold,301 whose lamp shines for those who dwell in the darkness and shadow of death!302 O honored bush (βάτος) whose intellectual (νοητός) fire did not burn the bonds of her virginity (παρθενία)!303 Blessed are you, who is beautiful among women!304 O honored turtledove, which signals (σημαίνω)305 to us that summer has drawn near,306 which is the season (καιρός) of our salvation! 7. Where are you now, O ignorant (ἀγνώμων) Jew, the murderer of his Lord? This one who does evil to those who do good to him, let him come here today and be ashamed of himself, hearing all of these testimonies, which those of his own people (γένος) have previously prophesied (προφητεύω) concerning this Virgin (παρθένος) and her blessed birthing. For instance (μέν), one is “Behold the virgin (παρθένος) will conceive and bear a son, and they will call his name ‘Emmanuel,’ that is, God with us.”307 Another is “The queen stood at your right hand in a gilded garment, clothed with many colors.”308 Another is “Arise, you who are beautiful among women, because the king desired (ἐπιθυμέω) your beauty, because he is your

300

Cf. Exod 25.16; Deut 10.3-5; 1 Kgs 8.9; Heb 9.4. Cf. Exod 25.31-39; 37.17-24; Rev 1.12-2.1. 302 Cf. Isa 9.2; Matt 4.16 par. 303 Cf. Exod 3.2. 304 Cf. Luke 1.42. 305 Peréz translates as follows here: “Tórtola venerada que permanece con nosotros proque el verano, es decir, el tiempo de nuestra salvación, se acerca (O honored turtledove, which remains with us because summer, that is, the time of our salvation, has drawn near)” (Dormición, 111). It would seem that Peréz has understood ⲥⲩⲛⲙⲁⲛⲉ (MS 598 ⲥⲩⲙⲙⲁⲛⲉ) as συμμένω, which is undoubtedly a possibility. My decision to interpret this word as σημαίνω was based in part on the context (especially comparison with Cant. 2.11-12), but more importantly on the frequent spelling of σημαίνω as ⲥⲩⲙⲁⲛⲉ and ⲥⲩⲙⲁⲛⲏ both in Ps.-Evodius’ HomilyonthePassionandResurrection, as well as elsewhere in the Morgan collection of MSS from St. Michael’s monastery. See, e.g., Depuydt, Homiletica, 13, 15, 48, 51, 96, 98-100, 102-3. Note also that the Sahidic New Testament spells σημαίνω as ⲥⲏⲙⲁⲛⲉ (Lefort, Concordance, 1:272). 306 Cf. Cant 2.11-12. 307 Isa 7.14 LXX. 308 Cf. Ps 45.13-15. 301

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 262

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

263

lord,”309 and “he wanted your breasts more than wine.”310 And another is “I saw a sealed scroll in the hand of the angel (ἄγγελος), and no one could open it, except (εἰ μή τι) the victorious lion from the tribe (φυλή) of Judah.”311 8. Since do you not receive these testimonies, O defiled Jew, – because you heard them often with your ears, and you touched with your hands the blind that the son of the holy Theotokos Mary made to see, the lame that he made to walk, and the dead that he raised, things to which your very own hands bore witness when you took the stone from the mouth of the tomb (τάφος) with them, so that312 he came forth, living again – are you not (μή), O ignorant one (ἀγνώμων), the one who loosened the grave-clothes (κειρία) that were wrapped around his body (σῶμα) and the towel (σουδάριον) that was bound to his head313 – I am speaking of Lazarus – and you released him, and he went forth again, after he had been in the tomb (τάφος) for four days – [then]314 will not (μή) your children testify against you on the day of judgment, O ignorant (ἀγνώμων) Jew, since they took palm-branches and went forth to meet him, saying, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”?315 Indeed (γάρ), your children have confessed (ὁμολογέω) his divinity, but you have denied (ἀρνέομαι) it. 9. Was not (μή) I, Evodius, the least (ἐλάχιστος), there when you invited Jesus, the son of the Virgin (παρθένος), to the wedding? We ourselves, the disciples (μαθητής), and his mother were following him, and you saw the miracle that took place.316 When they were lacking wine, his mother, the holy Virgin (παρθένος), went and sat at the feet of her blessed son, and she said to him, “My son, my Lord,

309

Ps 45.11. Cf. Cant 1.2; 1.4; 7.3-8. 311 Cf. Rev 5.1-5. 312 On the use of ϣⲁⲛⲧⲉ- to denote purpose, see Till, KoptischeGrammatik, § 312; Depuydt, Encomiastica, XVIII. 313 Cf. John 11.38-45. 314 The syntax of this passage is a little complex and difficult to translate. I have understood the entire passage as a lengthy conditional sentence, having a somewhat convoluted protasis and an apodosis that begins only at this point. 315 Matt 21.9 and par. 316 Cf. John 2.1-10. 310

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 263

29/10/18 13:02

264

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

and my God, they have no wine.” And (δέ) he turned his face, which poured forth every joy upon her, and said to her, “Woman, what do you want from me? My hour has not yet come.” She said to him, “My son, my beloved, this is the time for your holy name to be glorified. They have summoned you as (ὡς) a man, O my son: reveal to them the glory of your divinity. For (γάρ) everyone who comes to the marriage, each one brings gifts (δώρον) such as he or she has and also according (κατά) to the honor of the marriage. And (δέ) you, O my blessed son, favor (χαρίζομαι) them with the honor above every honor, that is, the honor of your divinity. Reveal to them the glory of your divinity, so that your holy name will be glorified and all those who are at the marriage will believe (πιστεύω) in you, along with your blessed Apostles (ἀπόστολος), that you are truly the Son of God. Listen to (πείθω) me: I am your virgin (παρθένος) mother. Grant (χαρίζομαι) me this gift (δώρον) which is above every gift (δώρον), that is, the honor of your divinity.” And (δέ) when he heard these things, namely the one in whom are the storehouses of mercy, he said, “Let them fill the water jars (ὑδρία) with water.” And they filled them to the rim. He caused the waters to change their nature (φύσις): they became superior wine. 10. Did you not (μή) see all these things that were done by him, this Son of God, to whom this holy Virgin (παρθένος) gave birth? Why are you317 now ignorant (ἀγνώμων), so as not to believe (πιστεύω) that it is in fact (δέ) a holy birth in which the Virgin (παρθένος) gave him birth? Why did your tongue not dry up in your mouth, O defiled Jew, when you said to Pilate with your tongue, which is worthy of being cut out, “Mary gave birth to Christ through fornication (πορνεία)”?318 Why do you not remember the voice (φονή) of the archangel (ἀρχάγγελος) Gabriel, saying, “The Holy Spirit (πνεύμα) will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Because of this the one to whom you will give birth is holy, and he will be called the son of the Most High.”319 O those who were given the law (νόμος) and have denied (ἀρνέομαι) the lawgiver (νομοθέτης)! O those who say, “We know the law (νόμος) well (καλῶς),” but (δέ) This is probably ⲕⲱ for ⲕⲟ, rather than for ⲕⲕⲱ. In either case, the meaning is quite similar. 318 Cf. Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus 1.2.3-6; also, b. Shabb. 104b and b.Sanh. 67a. 319 Luke 1.35. 317

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 264

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

265

deny (ἀρνέομαι) the one who has given them the law (νόμος) and his commandments (ἐντολή)! Why have you not believed (πιστεύω) these shepherds who saw the birth-star of the son of the Virgin (παρθένος), when she gave birth to the one who is consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father?320 Indeed, are these not (μή) eyes of some from your own people (γένος)? Why have you not asked them? Truly, those who were there will proclaim to you the truth concerning the voices (φονή) of the angels (ἄγγελος) singing hymns (ὑμνέω) for the birth of the Son of God, crying out and saying, “Glory to God in the heights; his peace (εἰρήνη) on earth among people of his will.”321 11. O lawless one (παράνομος), who is more defiled than every menstruous woman, why have you not imitated these Magi (μάγος), pagans (῞Ελλην) and greatest sinners of (παρά) the whole earth, these who saw the star in the east?322 They set out from their country (χώρα) and came to Judea, and they worshipped (προσκυνέω) the King: “O Son of God, the Almighty (παντοκράτωρ) and also the son of the holy Virgin (παρθένος), Saint (ἁγία) Mary!” They knew truly that the one to whom the Virgin (παρθένος) Mary gave birth was divine, and they worshipped (προσκυνέω) him and gave him frankincense (λίβανος) as (ὡς) a king. They knew that he was a human being whose humanity had joined with his divinity, and they worshipped (προσκυνέω) him with myrrh as (ὡς) a human. Why have you not, O ignorant (ἀγνώμων) Jew, remembered these things that were attested to you concerning the birth of God the Word (λόγος) and believed (πιστεύω) in him? But (ἀλλά) you have abandoned all these things and done evil (κακοπραγμονέω), and you have turned from the way of truth. You cried out to Pilate, saying, “He is a man who has fashioned himself God,”323 and also, “He is the product of fornication (πορνεία).”324 12. What is the repayment that you can expect to receive on that day of requital for all the things that you have done? I say to you that the blame that will be put to you will not be worse for you than the punishments (κόλασις) into which you will be cast with the severe sentence (ἀπόφασις): “these enemies of mine, who did not want me

320 321 322 323 324

Cf. Luke 2.8-14. Luke 2.14. Cf. Matt 2.1-12. Cf. John 10.33; 19.7. Cf. ActsofPilate/GospelofNicodemus 1.2.3-6.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 265

29/10/18 13:02

266

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

to rule over them, bring them and slay them in my presence,”325 and also: “let the sinners return to Hell, all the nations (ἔθνος) that forget God.”326 O Jews, who are the most defiled of (παρά) the whole earth, why have you denied (ἀρνέομαι) your life and your inheritance (κληρονομία) and received a curse upon your head, not a blessing.327 But (ἀλλά) rightly (δίκαιος)328 he has spoken to you thus: “God is able to raise up sons to Abraham from these stones.”329 But (δέ) you, O defiled Jews, will be cast into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.330 13. But (πλήν) let us abandon matters of this sort and return to the greatness (μέγεθος) of this Virgin (παρθένος), the Bearer of God, and tell you about the day of her honorable departure, so that the faithful (πιστός) will hear and will praise God. And all the things that I will say, no one else who saw them has told me about them, but (ἀλλά) I saw them with my own eyes, and I touched them with my own hands:331 for the sight of eyes is more trustworthy than the hearing of ears. 14. And (δέ) it happened when the Apostles (ἀπόστολος) had completed everything that the Lord Jesus Christ had commanded them, and they gathered together secretly, so that each one would depart for the region (χώρα) that he was allotted (κληρόω) and preach the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον) of the kingdom of heaven. And they also cast lots (κλῆρος) for us, the lesser disciples (μαθητής). The lot (κλῆρος) fell to me, Evodius, to continue journeying with my father and teacher, Peter, the chief of the Apostles (ἀπόστολος) and the first ordained by the hands of God the Word (λόγος) and the Creator (δημιουγός) of all. When the lot (κλῆρος) of this region (χώρα), that is, Rome, fell to him, we prepared ourselves, each one, for his region (χώρα). 15. But (δέ) my father, Peter the Apostle (ἀπόστολος), said to the Apostles (ἀπόστολος), “Let us all gather in a single place tomorrow and assemble (συνάγω) together and finish the mystery 325

Luke 19.27. Ps 9.17. 327 Cf. Deut 11.26-28. 328 Or perhaps, “a just man has spoken…” – the form δίκαιος without an article is somewhat unusual. 329 Matt 3.9; Luke 3.8. 330 Matt 8.12, 22.13, 25.30. 331 Cf. 1 John 1.1. 326

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 266

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

267

(μυστήριον) which our Lord taught to us.” And (δέ) we were still (ἔτι) gathered for the breaking of bread, all of us, the Apostles (ἀπόστολος) and the other disciples (μαθητής), and Mary the mother of the Lord was gathered with us, and Salome and the other women who followed the Lord Jesus Christ, and we were in a single place out of fear of the Jews. Then (λοιπόν), we were full of joy: behold, the Lord Jesus, the Life of us all stood in our midst and said to us, “Peace (εἰρήνη) to you; let the peace (εἰρήνη) which my Father has given to me be with you.” For (γάρ) that day was the twentieth of Tobe. And (δέ) when the Apostles (ἀπόστολος) and the other lesser disciples (μαθητής) saw the teacher, Jesus, they rejoiced greatly, and such great happiness (εὐφροσύνη) came upon us. We advanced to him, one by one: (μέν) first the Apostles (ἀπόστολος), and then the lesser disciples (μαθητής). Then we ourselves bowed down before him and kissed (ἀσπάζομαι) his hands, his feet, and his breast. And the women who were with us did likewise (κατά). But (δέ) Mary, his mother, came in a rush, and she advanced to him and kissed (ἀσπάζομαι) him, mouth on mouth. 16. And (δέ) when Jesus saw his virgin (παρθένος) mother, he laughed at her with a spiritual (πνευματικός) laugh and said to her, “You are more blessed, O my mother, than (παρά) every creature that my Father has created. You are exalted above (παρά) heaven, more esteemed than (παρά) the earth, because God resided in your holy womb. Blessed are you, O beautiful dove, my bride without blemish. Arise and come beside me, because my time has drawn near, when I will eat my bread with you332 and drink the sweet-smelling wine in my garden (κῆπος),333 my holy Paradise. O my mother, if (κἄν) you spent nine months carrying me in your holy womb, I too will carry you in the bowels (σπλάγχνον) of my mercy. And if you nursed me on knee and arm, I too will raise you upon a glorious throne (θρόνος) to the right of me and my good (ἀγαθός) Father. If you wrapped me in rags on the day that you gave birth to me, and you put me in a manger, and an ox and an ass made shade for me, I too will cover (σκεπάζω) you with the wings of the seraphim. And if you kissed (ἀσπάζομαι) me with your mouth and nourished me with your virgin (παρθενικός) milk, I too will kiss (ἀσπάζομαι) you in the presence of my Father in 332 333

Or perhaps, “will eat my bread of truth.” Cf. Cant 4.16-5.1.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 267

29/10/18 13:02

268

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

heaven, and my Father will feed you with the bread of truth. O Mary, my mother, the time has come for you to come forth from the body (σῶμα) in the way of all humanity, because there is no one upon the earth exempt from tasting death, including (μέχρι) me, the one whom you formed (πλάσσω), so that I redeemed my form (πλάσμα).334 Do not be distressed (λυπέω), O Mary my mother, that you are coming forth from the body (σῶμα). For (γάρ) you will leave this world (κόσμος) behind you and go to the place of eternal gladness and joy.” 17. And (δέ) the Savior (σωτήρ) turned to my father Peter and the rest of the Apostles (ἀπόστολος) and said to them, “O my excellent fellow-members (μέλος),335 these whom I have chosen and not (οὐδέ) the whole world (κόσμος), when it is dawn, I will gather (συνάγω) you together in my body (σῶμα) and my blood, and I will give you my peace (εἰρήνη) and that of my Father and that of the Holy Spirit (πνεύμα). Prepare (ἑτοιμάζω) yourselves, because my Father will send a multitude of angels (ἄγγελος) for Mary, my mother and the mother of you all. And she will be taken up into heaven, to the place of rest that is in that eternal place.” 18. And (δέ) when the Savior (σωτήρ) had said these things to us, the sun rose on the twenty-first of the month of Tobe. And the Savior (σωτήρ) gathered (συνάγω) us together by his own hands, we and the women who were with us. Then (εἶτα) he said to Peter, “Arise and go onto the altar (θυσιαστήριον), beside which I have now gathered (συνάγω) you together, and bring me these linen garments (ἔνδυμα)336 that I have brought from the heavenly things (ἐπουράνιος), which my Father has sent to you to bury my beloved mother in them, since (ἐπειδή) it is not possible for a garment of this world (κόσμος) to befit her body (σῶμα), because it was the dwelling place of his beloved Son, namely, me.” 334

Or perhaps, “until I redeemed my form”; see also n. 312 above. Cf. Rom 12.4-5; 1 Cor 12.27. 336 The text seems to have retained both the Greek (ἔνδυμα) and Coptic (ϩⲃⲟⲟⲥ) words for “garment” here. The White Monastery homily has only ἔνδυμα (Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels, 71), while the St. Macarius homily refers to these garments simply with ϩⲃⲱⲥ (de Lagarde, Aegyptiaca, 51-52). I have translated ϩⲃⲟⲟⲥ here as “linen,” also a possible translation. One additional possibility would be to understand ⲉⲧⲏⲙⲁ as being from ἕτοιμος, in which case one would translate “these prepared garments,” but comparison with the other homilies makes this unlikely. 335

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 268

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

269

19. And (δέ) our father Peter went, and he brought the garments. The Savior (σωτήρ) went inside and spread them out with his own hands. And he said, “O my mother, arise and lie down in the midst of these garments, because the time has come for you to come forth from the body (σῶμα), and I will take you up to heaven, beside my Father.” And then we all kissed (ἀσπάζομαι) her, and she went into the midst of the garments that the Savior (σωτήρ) had spread out with his own hands, and she turned her face to the east (ἀνατολή). The Savior (σωτήρ) went outside, and we all followed him, since (ἐπειδή) it is not possible for Death to come to a place where there is Life. And (δέ) while he sat for a little while, the Savior (σωτήρ) spoke with us of the mysteries (μυστήριον) of the height. And while we were still (ἔτι) sitting, we heard the women inside, where the Virgin (παρθένος) was lying, weeping and crying out greatly. And (δέ) Salome and Joanna came to us and said to the Savior (σωτήρ), “Our Lord and our God, your mother and the mother of us all has died.” Then (δέ) the Savior (σωτήρ) arose immediately and went in to the place where she was lying, and he stretched forth over her and wept. Afterward, he kissed (ἀσπάζομαι) her precious mouth and said, “You are many times blessed, O my mother. Blessed are your breasts, which nursed me, and blessed also is your womb, which bore me, and blessed is the womb of your mother, which also bore you. This is the day that the prophecy (προφητεία) of my father David has been fulfilled: ‘Virgins (παρθένος) will be brought to the king behind her, in a garment that is gilded.’”337 20. And (δέ) when the Savior (σωτήρ) had said these things, he took hold of his mother, the holy Virgin (παρθένος), and with his own hands he prepared her for burial in the garments that he had spread out. He sat beside her for a long time. And (δέ) my father Peter and all the Apostles (ἀπόστολος) and also the women who were in our company all wept over the departure of the holy Virgin (παρθένος) Mary, the Theotokos. And (δέ) the Savior (σωτήρ) said to the Apostles (ἀπόστολος), “Why are you grieving (λυπέω) when I, the joy of all creation, am with you?” The Apostles (ἀπόστολος) said to the Savior (σωτήρ), “We are grieving (λυπέω) because of the departure of the Lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Mary, because she gives us consolation in everything. Do you not (μή) now have the power that 337

Cf. Ps 45.13-14.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 269

29/10/18 13:02

270

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

she would not die, until we all die?” The Savior (σωτήρ) said to the Apostles, (ἀπόστολος) “Is not (μή) everything possible for me? But (ἀλλά) it is not possible that a person remain upon the earth forever, that she would not taste death. Even I tasted death, and I rose from the dead and freed (ἐλευθερόω) all those who have died in Adam.”338 21. While the Savior (σωτήρ) was still (ἔτι) saying these things to us, we heard the sound of great multitudes, like the sound of waterfalls (καταρράκτης), and we were afraid. The Savior (σωτήρ) said, “Do not be afraid. It is Mary my mother, whom my good (ἀγαθός) Father has sent to you, so that you will see her yet once more, and she will comfort you in your grief (λύπη).” And (δέ) while (ἐν ὅσον) we were saying these things, behold, a great chariot (ἅρμα) of light came into our midst, with a multitude of angels (ἄγγελος) surrounding it. A glorious and exalted throne (θρόνος) was raised up on the chariot (ἅρμα). The Lady of us all was sitting on the throne (θρόνος), and she reached out over us, saying, “The peace (εἰρήνη) of my son be with you all.” And (δέ) when we advanced to her, we all kissed (ἀσπάζομαι) her, and also the women who were with us. She said to us, “Blessed are you, because you have become worthy of following my son and the Son of the living God, the Savior (σωτήρ) of the entire world (κόσμος).” 22. But (δέ) our teacher, Jesus, said to us, “Raise my mother’s body (σῶμα) upon a bier and crown (στεφανόω) it well (καλῶς) with palms and fragrant branches (κλάδος). And sing (ὑμνέω) before her the hymn (ὕμνος) that I taught you when I rose from the dead until [you reach] the place where I will order you to stop.” And (δέ) when the Savior (σωτήρ) had said these things, he got on the chariot (ἅρμα) with his virgin (παρθένος) mother, and the angels (ἄγγελος) of God sang hymns (ὑμνέω) before him until they reached heaven gloriously and honorably, while we were watching them. And (δέ) we raised the body (σῶμα) of his virgin (παρθένος) mother upon a bier, and we sang Psalms (ψάλλω) before her, there also being a crowd of Jews with us.339 When we reached the place that is called the Valley of 338

Cf. 1 Cor 15.22. Or perhaps, if one were to divide the text differently, “to incline toward many Jews with us” (ⲉⲣⲉⲕ ⲉⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ Ⲛⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲛⲘⲙⲁⲛ). In either case, the meaning of this phrase is not entirely clear here, and it is my contention that something is wrong with the text at this point. With only one other 339

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 270

29/10/18 13:02

EVODIUS OF ROME

271

Josaphat, outside of Jerusalem, a multitude of angels (ἄγγελος) came forth from heaven, and they seized (ἁρπάζω) the Virgin’s (παρθένος) body (σῶμα). The angels (ἄγγελος) of light flew with her to the heights, singing hymns (ὑμνέω) before her, while we watched until they were hidden in the air (ἀήρ). And (δέ) we returned to the house, glorifying God. 23. And (δέ) when we continued to be troubled in heart concerning her body (σῶμα), because it was hidden from us, Christ appeared to us again. With his virgin (παρθένος) mother to his right, he said to us, “When you go forth into the world (κόσμος), preach the good news (εὐαγγελίζομαι) of the departure of my mother Mary. And regarding her body (σῶμα), my Father has ordered (κελεύω) that it be placed beneath the fragrant tree of life,340 which is the resting place of his beloved Son, namely, me.” 24. And (δέ) as for me, Evodius, the disciple (μαθητής) of my father Peter, the great Apostle (ἀπόστολος), no one else told me exception (the homily on the Dormition attributed to Modestus of Jerusalem), every other ancient narrative of the end of the Virgin’s life includes at this point an episode in which the Jews attack the Virgin’s bier in an attempt to destroy her body. Its absence here is very peculiar, and I am convinced that this phrase once marked the beginning of this scene in an earlier version of this homily. Somehow in the course of transmission, the remainder of this episode must have fallen out. See S. J. Shoemaker, “‘Let Us Go and Burn Her Body’: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions,” CH 68 (1999) 775823 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 5). I strongly disagree with Peréz’s assessment of this passage, in which he concludes: “Además EvSah1 [St. Mich.] transforma radicalmente el episodio de los judíos que atacan el féretro, presente en la gran mayoría de los relatos de la Dormición, convirtiendolo en un dato favorable a los judíos. No refleja por tanto un ambiante antijudío,” Dormición, 103. Given the fact that almost one-third of this homily is devoted to violent anti-Jewish polemic, conclusions that this text “does not reflect an anti-Jewish atmosphere” or that it can be read as somehow favorable to Judaism are not very persuasive. Indeed, for its sheer quantity of anti-Jewish invective, the St. Michael homily stands apart as among the most particularly anti-Jewish of the ancient Dormition traditions. In light of this, I repeat my suggestion that the anti-Jewish episode involving the Virgin’s funeral procession has most likely somehow been lost during the transmission of this homily, and its absence is not indicative of any sort of favoritism on the part of this homily toward Jews. 340 Cf. 4 Ezra 2.12.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 271

29/10/18 13:02

272

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

these things, but (ἀλλά) I was there just as all these things were happening. And (δέ) the day of the departure of the Lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Mary, is the twenty-first of the month of Tobe. Our Lord has commanded (κελεύω) us to celebrate a feast every (κατά) month in the name of the Virgin (παρθένος) Mary, and (δέ) especially on the twenty-first of the month of Tobe. Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα) unto the ages of ages. Amen.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_09.indd 272

29/10/18 13:02

X. A New Dormition Fragment in Coptic: P. Vindob. K 7589 and the Marian Apocryphal Tradition

In the fall of 2006, Hans Förster published three fragmentary Coptic Dormition narratives from ninth-century manuscripts, in a monograph aimed at situating these apocrypha within both the history of the Dormition traditions and early Christian literature more broadly.1 All three narratives are very brief, and although two of the fragments had already been known for over a century, neither had received a proper edition prior to Förster’s study.2 While it is indeed useful to finally have full access to the text of these two fragments, the monograph’s real contribution rests in its presentation of a new and rather distinctive Dormition narrative from a stray folio in the Vienna papyrus collection. Not surprisingly, this new discovery is the monograph’s primary focus, as Förster attempts to establish its significance for understanding the history of traditions about the Virgin Mary in early Christianity. While the two known fragments have long been viewed as relatively late and isolated traditions, of little importance for reconstructing the early history of the Dormition traditions, Förster argues that this new fragment holds the key to unlocking the mysteries of the ancient Dormition traditions, as the earliest extant Dormition narrative and, quite possibly, Christianity’s oldest extra-biblical traditions

1

These fragments are published with translation and commentary in H. Förster, TransitusMariae:BeiträgezurkoptischenÜberlieferungmiteinerEdition vonP.Vindob.K7589,CambridgeAdd18768undParisBNCopte12917ff.28 und29 (Berlin and New York, 2006) 3-66. 2 A partial edition and translation of the Cambridge fragment had previously been published in F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels: Translations togetherwiththeTextsofSomeofThem (Cambridge, 1896) xxvi-xxvii. A translation of the Paris fragment, without edition, had been published in E. Revillout, “Lettre à M. le Rédacteur du Journal Asiatique sur de nouveaux Évangiles apocryphes relatifs à la Vierge,” JournalAsiatique X 2 (1903) 162-74.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 273

29/10/18 13:02

274

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

about the Virgin’s life, rivaling even the Protevangelium in their antiquity. According to Förster, the Vienna fragment’s narrative was composed within a proto-orthodox milieu sometime during the second half of the second century, a rather remarkable claim which, despite some interesting arguments and observations, unfortunately is not justified by the narrative’s contents. Nevertheless, certain traditions related by this fragment about the Virgin Mary’s role within the leadership of the nascent Christian community are quite striking and need to be considered in the context of other similar traditions about the Virgin appearing in a number of late ancient apocrypha. In the early Middle Ages there was, it would appear, a memory of Mary as a central figure in the establishment of the church, and the circumstances giving rise to this tradition remain to be discovered. This new Dormition narrative appears on single parchment folio, dated to the middle of the ninth century according to paleography.3 The leaf originally belonged to a codex, the nature and content of which is presently unknown. Its language is fairly standard Sahidic, and its origin was most likely at the White Monastery, the source of most of the Coptic literary texts in the Vienna collection. Each page contains two columns of text, consisting of approximately 31 lines, although one column on both sides is interrupted by a large tear, resulting in the loss of approximately one-fifth of the complete text. The narrative itself is quite compressed and hurried, beginning with the birth of Christ and devoting most of its first page to a summary of Mary’s life from the Nativity to the onset of her Dormition. Perhaps the most interesting feature of this section is a report that after Christ’s Ascension, Mary initially went forth with the apostles to preach, but was recalled thereafter to Jerusalem by the Holy Spirit. Then just as Mary’s Dormition is announced, a gap of approximately ten lines interrupts the text, which resumes briefly in the transition from the recto to verso, at which point the presence of the apostles is noted, as well as the date, the evening of 20 Tobe (15 January). Following the loss of another twelve lines, the narrative continues, noting prayers by the Virgin and the apostles and culminating in the appearance of Christ with a host of angels. Christ then greets his mother and the apostles, promising Mary that no power of darkness will come upon her, at which point the narrative breaks off. 3

See the description of this fragment in Förster, TransitusMariae, 3-13.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 274

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

275

In his commentary on this new fragment, Förster points to a number of peculiar features that he believes signal the narrative’s antiquity. For instance, the fragment nowhere identifies Mary as “holy,” a title equally denied to the apostles, suggesting a time before their elevation to this status.4 The relative absence of miraculous “wonders” such as are to be found abundantly in later apocrypha and similarities in style and language to the New Testament are also consistent with its early composition, he proposes.5 The core of his monograph, however, consists of a rather hurried analysis of the early Dormition narratives, focused especially on the Coptic traditions, in light of which Förster aims to establish the fragment’s antiquity largely by noting its occasional divergences from a general narrative framework evident in many early Dormition narratives. Nevertheless, Förster’s presentation of the ancient Dormition traditions is problematic on a number of fronts, particularly in its limited scope and selectivity. For instance, his quick survey of the Forschungsstand makes rather piecemeal use of a variety of different studies on the ancient Dormition traditions that are grounded in radically different approaches to the material. Förster selects quotations and conclusions from these works that are suited to his hypothesis, without addressing the problem that many of these positions arise from mutually exclusive assumptions about the nature of these traditions. The views of Mimouni and Jugie are given prominence, with the later being especially problematic in view of the both dated and highly theological nature of Jugie’s research.6 The model advanced by Wenger, van Esbroeck, and the present author, however, is given comparatively less consideration: Wenger’s foundational work, for instance, is cited only for its characterization of the Dormition traditions as “complex,” while van Esbroeck’s voice is largely limited to consideration of his proposals regarding an Armenian homily attributed to Chrysostom.7 4

Ibid., 21-2. Ibid., 41. 6 See, e.g., S. J. Shoemaker, “Death and the Maiden: The Early History of the Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha,” StVladimir’sTheologicalQuarterly 50 (2006) 59-97, 70-7 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 1); S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormitionandAssumption (Oxford, 2002) 15-17, 103-4, 150-1. 7 See esp. A. Wenger, L’Assomption de la T. S. Vierge dans la tradition byzantineduVIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955); M. van Esbroeck, AuxoriginesdelaDormitiondelaVierge:Etudeshistoriquessur 5

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 275

29/10/18 13:02

276

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Förster’s orientation away from this particular tradition of textual analysis has significant consequences for the following section of his study, where he considers the possibility of a connection between the early Dormition traditions and heterodox movements within the early church. Inasmuch as the Vienna fragment is largely proto-orthodox in its theology, it is important for Förster’s hypothesis that the earliest Dormition narratives point toward a possible origin somewhere within the proto-orthodox stream of the early church. The only problem is that several of the earliest narratives explicitly characterize their sources as having been “heretical.” Focusing on the Ps.-Melito Transitus and John of Thessalonica’s homily for the Dormition, both of which introduce themselves as correcting older, heterodox traditions,8 Förster creates a space for his narrative by maintaining that we simply do not know for certain the true nature of the texts that these authors characterize as heretical, nor can we guess their motives for labeling them as such. Nevertheless, even if absolute certainty necessarily eludes us, we can be reasonably assured that John and Ps.-Melito’s descriptions of their sources are largely accurate. For instance, Wenger has published a rather heterodox Greek Dormition narrative that he convincingly demonstrated is a version of the text that was John of Thessalonica’s primary source.9 Furthermore, studies by van Esbroeck, Victor Arras, and myself have shown that the Ethiopic LiberRequiei, a text almost completely absent from Förster’s study, preserves a Dormition narrative that is highly unorthodox by the standards of fifth and sixth century Christianity and whose traditions underlie the narratives of Ps.-Melito and John of Thessalonica.10 While John of Thessalonica lestraditionsorientales (Brookfield, VT, 1995), esp. M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’assomption avant le Xe siècle,” in F. Bovon (ed.), Les actes apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva, 1981) 265-85 (reprinted therein); M. van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features in the Life of the Virgin,” Marianum 63 (2001) 297-308. 8 M. Haibach-Reinisch, Einneuer“TransitusMariae”desPseudo-Melito (Rome, 1962) 64-5; John of Thessalonica, dorm.BMVA (G3) 1 (M. Jugie, Homéliesmarialesbyzantines(II) (Paris, 1926) 376-7). 9 Wenger, L’Assomption, 17-67; the text and trans. are published in ibid., 210-41; for English trans. with extensive annotations, see Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 351-69. 10 V. Arras, De transitu Mariae apocrypha aethiopice, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1973) 1:75-105 (Lat); van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires,” 268-72; M. van Esbroeck, “Bild und Begriff in der Transitus-Literatur, der Palmbaum und

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 276

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

277

admittedly maintains that he has “recovered” what was originally an orthodox narrative that had been corrupted by the heretics, it is difficult to take this at face value, and such rhetoric is presumably designed to justify the introduction of these traditions from a doctrinally questionable source as such a late date. There are of course early Dormition traditions whose doctrinal pedigree appears to be highly orthodox, namely, the Six Books apocryphon and related traditions. Nevertheless, these narratives also are largely excluded from Förster’s study, apparently due to their absence from the Coptic language tradition.11 The exclusion of these important early narratives raises yet another issue with Förster’s analysis of the ancient Dormition traditions, namely, his decision to focus specifically on the Coptic Dormition narratives in building an argument for the Vienna fragment’s antiquity. Ostensibly, this would appear to be an entirely logical context within which to situate the history of this narrative, particularly since many prior studies of the Dormition traditions have adopted the approach of studying the various language traditions individually, including the Coptic tradition in particular.12 Yet while there is unquestionably der Tempel,” in M. Schmidt (ed.), Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichenVäternundihrenParallelenimMittelalter (Regensburg, 1982) 333-51; Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 205-56, 41518. See also F. Manns, LerécitdelaDormitiondeMarie(Vaticangrec1982) (Jerusalem, 1989). For the text, see Arras, Detransitu, 1:1-84 (Eth); English trans. in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 290350. 11 See Förster, Transitus Mariae, 98. Their importance within the Coptic ecclesiastical tradition, however, is attested by an as yet unknown number of manuscripts transmitting the Six Books apocryphon (and the related Ps.-John Transitus) in Arabic and Ethiopic. A number of these manuscripts are identified in S. C. Mimouni, Dormition et Assomption de Marie: Histoire des traditionsanciennes (Paris, 1995) 213-22, 242-5, but it seems there are many more manuscripts in both traditions. 12 This approach is reflected especially in D. Baldi and A. Mosconi, “L’Assunzione di Maria SS. negli apocrifi,” in Attidelcongressonazionale marianodeiFrateiMinorid’Italia(Roma29aprile-3maggio1947) (Rome, 1948) 75-125; É. Cothenet, “Marie dans les Apocryphes,” in H. Du Manoir de Juaye (ed.), Maria:étudessurlaSainteVierge, 7 vols. (Paris, 1952) 6:71-156; and Mimouni, DormitionetAssomption. The approach adopted by Wenger, van Esbroeck, and myself, while attentive to the distinctive nature of certain language traditions, is grounded in comparative literary analysis across language traditions.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 277

29/10/18 13:02

278

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

significant value to be gained from studying the texts of a given language tradition in relation to one another, such analysis leads primarily to knowledge about the reception history of the Dormition narratives within the different cultures of early medieval Christianity, shedding comparatively little light on questions about the origins of these traditions. Comparison of the various Coptic Dormition traditions, for instance, reveals a great deal about what sort of narratives resonated with Christians in Egypt, as well as the sorts of changes that the Coptic Christians introduced as they adapted these legends to suit their needs. It would appear that all of these Coptic narratives were originally composed in Greek, as Förster himself acknowledges, and thus any given narrative’s appearance among the Coptic Dormition traditions owes itself essentially to a decision to translate that particular narrative into Coptic. The narratives that were chosen were not necessarily the oldest, but those that had come to be most valued by the various Christian communities within Egypt.13 While some of these narratives may have had their origin in Egypt, such as homilies attributed to Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem and Ps.-Evodius of Rome,14 which do not appear outside of Egypt, other Coptic narratives appear to be translations of texts that circulated more “internationally” in Greek. These include the various Sahidic and Bohairic fragments of an early narrative from the Palm tradition, as well as Theodosius’ homily, composed in Greek while in exile in Constantinople on the basis of an earlier narrative from the Palm tradition.15 These more “cosmopolitan” narratives have been 13 For a brief overview of the Coptic traditions, see Shoemaker, Ancient TraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 57-63. 14 Cyril of Jerusalem: E. A. W. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in theDialectofUpperEgypt (London, 1915) 49-73 (Copt) and 626-50 (Eng); A. Campagnano (ed.), Ps.CirillodiGerusalemme:OmeliecoptesullaPassione,sullaCroceesullaVergine (Milano, 1980) 151-95; Robinson, Coptic ApocryphalGospels, 24-41. Evodius of Rome: S. J. Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Attributed to Evodius of Rome: An Edition of Morgan MSS 596 & 598 with Translation,” AB 117 (1999) 241-83 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 10); P. de Lagarde, Aegyptiaca (Göttingen, 1883; repr. Osnabrück, 1972) 38-63; Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels, 45-89; H. G. Evelyn-White and W. Hauser, TheMonasteriesoftheWadi ’nNatrûn, 3 vols. (New York, 1926) 1:59-60. 15 Palm fragments: E. Revillout, Évangiledesdouzeapôtres (Paris, 1907) 174-83; Evelyn-White and Hauser, Monasteries of the Wadi ’n Natrûn, 548; P. Sellew, “An Early Coptic Witness to the Dormitio Mariae at Yale:

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 278

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

279

“Copticized” to be sure, through their accommodation to the peculiarities of the Coptic liturgical tradition, but as I have argued elsewhere, liturgical and doctrinal differences do not appear to have inspired the creation of new narratives, so much as the adaptation of already existing ones.16 Thus, an analysis of the Coptic Dormition narratives in isolation from the other traditions certainly makes sense if one is interested primarily in the history of Coptic Christianity. If, however, one aims to discover something about the early history of these traditions, as does Förster, then one must look comparatively across the various language traditions, at a number of early narratives that originally circulated in Greek. This pool of early traditions includes above all the Ethiopic Liber Requiei, the early Greek text published by Wenger, and the Six Books apocryphon: any effort to peer behind the veil that obscures our knowledge of the Dormition traditions’ origins must begin with these narratives. Yet their nearly complete absence from Förster’s investigation undermines his analysis of the Vienna fragment and its place within the history of the early Dormition traditions, leaving his conclusions considerably less persuasive. Looking primarily within this rather restricted sample, Förster identifies several interesting points of variance between the Vienna fragment and many other early Dormition narratives. For instance, the Vienna fragment does not include the story of the apostles’ miraculous journey from the ends of the earth to be present for Mary’s departure from this world. Instead, it seems to presume that they were relatively close by, as one would expect from the account of their early missions in Acts, which Förster takes as a sign of the narrative’s relative proximity to the actual events.17 Likewise Förster remarks that the narrative

P. CtYBR inv. 1788 Revisited,” BulletinoftheAmericanSocietyofPapyrologists 37 (2000) 37-69; L. S. B. MacCoull, “More Coptic Papyri from the Beinecke Collection,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung 35 (1989) 25-35. Theodosius of Alexandria: M. Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose, Patriarche d’Alexandrie, sur la Dormition et l’Assomption de la Vierge,” ROC 29 (1933-34) 272-314; Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels, 90-127; Evelyn-White and Hauser, MonasteriesoftheWadi’nNatrûn, 60-2. Regarding the authenticity and date of Theodosius’ homily, see Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose,” 273-6. 16 Shoemaker, “Death and the Maiden,” 80-1; Shoemaker, “Sahidic Coptic Homily,” 242-7. See also Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’s Dormition, 142-204. 17 Förster, TransitusMariae, 79, 124-9, 134-8, 149-50.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 279

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

280

does not clearly identify a house in Jerusalem belonging to Mary, although the Holy City does provide the setting for her Dormition, as in the other narratives.18 Nor is Mary informed about her impending death by an angel: the Holy Spirit fills this role instead.19 The prayers of Mary and the apostles are only mentioned, in contrast to other early texts that report the content of their prayers.20 These and other differences, Förster maintains, place the Vienna fragment outside of the traditional narrative classifications, which he takes as evidence of its antiquity.21 These alleged variations, however, while not entirely insignificant, unfortunately are not reliable indicators of the narrative’s antiquity. For example, the fragment’s failure to give any indication regarding the content of Mary and the apostles’ prayers can easily be ascribed to the narrative’s brevity. As Förster himself notes on more than one occasion, the Vienna fragment’s account is “knapp und kurz” and characterized by an “austere narrative style” (“nüchterne Erzählweise”),22 which certainly could account for the absence of these prayers: one would hardly expect to find their full contents related in a narrative that moves from the Nativity to the Dormition in just under a page. This characteristic could also account for the fragment’s failure to directly relate the miraculous journey of the apostles or the Virgin’s dwelling in Jerusalem: its hurried style may simply have glossed over these traditions. Yet the answers to these purported differences may in fact lie in the missing portions of this already brief text. As noted above, immediately after the Virgin’s death is announced, there is a gap of approximately eleven lines, and when the text resumes, the apostles are gathered around her awaiting her Dormition. The means of their arrival is not described, and presumably this information once stood in the lost section of text, which on this recto side alone amounts to nearly 10% of the complete fragment. Perhaps the apostles’ miraculous journey on clouds from the ends of the earth was here briefly related. Moreover, several early Coptic narratives do not relate the miraculous reunion of the apostles, making this theme a problematic criterion for dating: its absence may simply reflect an imitation of these narratives by a later 18 19 20 21 22

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

79, 146-7. 79, 123-4. 139-40. 79, 149-50. e.g., 41, 64, 99.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 280

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

281

redactor.23 Likewise, it is possible that this lost section more clearly described Mary’s dwelling in Jerusalem, in a manner similar to many other early Dormition narratives. Given the considerable uncertainties created by this missing passage it is difficult to rely on such differences as a means of dating the text. More importantly, however, the text very clearly mentions a house (ⲡⲏⲓ) in Jerusalem where Christ appears with his angelic host at the fragment’s end. One would assume that this is the house of the Virgin referred to in other Dormition narratives, a point that Förster does not appear to address anywhere in his study. It would seem that Förster understands Mary’s residence in Jerusalem as precluded by the fragment’s notice that after the Ascension she went forth with the apostles to preach. Thereafter Holy Spirit directed her to return to Jerusalem, although the precise timing of this return remains somewhat open to question. According to Förster’s reading, Mary remained away from Jerusalem, wandering through the lands until the moment before her death, at which point the Holy Spirit guided her back to Jerusalem.24 Yet the interpretation of this passage hinges very much on how one understands the conjunction ϭⲉ within the syntax of its tightly compressed narration. In the translation that accompanies his edition, Förster renders the word as “nämlich” (“Es war nämlich die Zeit gekommen…”), roughly the equivalent of the English “you see” (The time, you see, had come…).25 Such 23

Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 57. “Maria lebte nach dem Wiener Bericht auch weder in Bethlehem noch in Jerusalem, sondern zog durch die Lande”: Förster, Transitus Mariae, 214. 25 Ibid., 13-15. The text here reads: ⲙⲚⲛⲥⲁⲧⲁⲛⲁⲗⲩⲙⲯⲓⲥ ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ⲁⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁ ⲃⲱⲕ Ⲙⲛⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲡⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ· Ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉⲣⲉⲡⲈ⳱Ⲡ⳱Ⲛⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ϫⲓ ⲙⲟⲉⲓⲧ ϩⲏⲦⲥ ⲉϩⲣⲁ[ⲓ] ⲉⲐ⳱Ⲓ⳱Ⲗ⳱Ⲏⲙ· ⲁⲡⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ϭⲉ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲣⲉ ⲧⲡ[ⲁ]ⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ [[ⲏ . . . ⲡ]] ⲙⲙⲟⲥ. Note that while Förster does not print a raised point after ⲉⲐ⳱Ⲓ⳱Ⲗ⳱Ⲏⲙ, the photograph of the manuscript published at the end of his monograph appears to indicate this punctuation: ibid., i. Förster translates the passage as follows: “Nach der Himmelfahrt unseres Erlösers ging die Jungfrau Maria mit den Aposteln verkündigen. Danach führte der heilige Geist sie den Weg hinauf nach Jerusalem. Es war nämlich die Zeit gekommen, daß die Jungfrau sterben sollte.” The English equivalent of Förster’s translation would be: “After the Ascension of our Savior, the Virgin Mary went with the apostles to preach. Thereafter the Holy Spirit led her up to Jerusalem. The time had come, you see, for the Virgin to die.” 24

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 281

29/10/18 13:02

282

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

a reading serves to connect the Holy Spirit’s direction that Mary should go to Jerusalem with the onset of her death. Nevertheless, the most common English equivalents for this Coptic word are either “then” (generally in the sense of continuing a chronological sequence), “therefore,” or “but.” Förster’s interpretation seems to extend the sense of “therefore” to suggest that Mary was still in the mission field preaching with the apostles when the Holy Spirit summoned her to return to Jerusalem for her death. Yet one could just as easily understand the word ϭⲉ as marking a chronological separation between the Virgin’s return to Jerusalem and the events of her departure from this world. Indeed, elsewhere Förster translates this word “literally” (“wörtlich”) as “aber” (“Aber die Zeit kam…”), suggesting a disjunction between what follows and Mary’s return to Jerusalem.26 Such an interpretation of the text would suggest the following translation: “After the Ascension of our Savior, the Virgin Mary went with the apostles to preach. Thereafter the Holy Spirit led her up to Jerusalem. Then came the time came for the Virgin to die.” When considered within the context of the fragment’s hurried style in this section, it seems rather plausible that the narrative envisions a significant period of time between the Virgin’s return to Jerusalem and her departure from this world. As will be seen in a moment, an interesting parallel from the earliest Life of the Virgin would seem to confirm such a reading. When understood in this manner, the Holy Spirit’s direction does not replace the angelic annunciation of Mary’s death, as Förster suggests. Yet even if his reading is correct, it is likely that such a variation would signal a more recent, rather than ancient, text. In the earliest Dormition traditions, the angel’s appearance to the Virgin in order to inform her of her impending death is bound up with an Angel Christology that the earliest narratives had already begun to struggle with.27 Replacing the angel with the Holy Spirit may simply have been one of many strategies employed by later redactors to purge the ancient Dormition narratives of a number of theologically suspicious elements. On the whole, the differences identified by Förster do not add up to compelling evidence for this narrative’s antiquity. It is particularly 26

Ibid., 23-4. See Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 215-20. 27

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 282

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

283

difficult, for instance, to look past the fact that the end of Mary’s life transpired in a house in Jerusalem according to this narrative. Moreover, many of these “variants” can otherwise be ascribed to either the narrative’s extreme brevity or its damaged condition. Although Förster appeals to the Vienna narrative’s concision as a sign of its antiquity, it would seem that in fact the opposite is the case. While the maxim breviorlectiopotior remains a basic principle of textual criticism,28 in the case of apocryphal literature, it “must be suspended, for many apocryphal writings were abbreviated and excerpted for liturgical and commemorative purposes and edited to reduce or eliminate material offensive to orthodox editors.”29 This tendency is especially evident in the transmission of the Dormition traditions, which often were heavily revised and drastically condensed particularly for liturgical usage.30 Thus, when considered along this trajectory, the Vienna fragment’s brevity and its omissions are very likely signs of relative youth rather than antiquity. Finally, even in the case that this fragment’s contents should place it outside of the traditional narrative categories, as Förster maintains, it is essential to note that the ancient Dormition traditions include a number of “atypical” narratives, whose divergence from the two major literary traditions does not necessarily guarantee their antiquity, as I have noted elsewhere in some detail.31 In addition to these points of literary comparison, Förster also looks to theological content as a potential means of dating the narrative. To this end he focuses particularly on the Vienna fragment’s opening words, “the Virgin gave birth to Emmanuel, the Living God”: 28 See e.g, L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A GuidetotheTransmissionofGreekandLatinLiterature, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1991) 291. 29 R. N. Slater, “An Inquiry into the Relationship between Community and Text: The Apocryphal ActsofPhilip 1 and the Encratities of Asia Minor,” in F. Bovon, etal. (eds), TheApocryphalActsoftheApostles (Cambridge, 1999) 281-306, 286. See also F. Bovon, “Editing the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in ibid., 1-35; F. Bovon, “Byzantine Witnesses for the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in ibid., 87-98. 30 This was already recognized in the nineteenth century by M. Bonnet, “Die ältesten Schriften von der Himmelfahrt Mariä,” ZWT 23 (1880) 22747, 244-5. See also Wenger, L’Assomption, 125-7; and B. E. Daley, Onthe DormitionofMary:EarlyPatristicHomilies (Crestwood, NY, 1998) 2735. 31 Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 63-7.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 283

29/10/18 13:02

284

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

[ⲧⲡⲁⲣ]ⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ϫⲡⲟ ⲛⲉⲙⲙⲁⲛⲟⲩⲏⲗ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲚϩ,32 which he believes signals a “naïve modalism.” This is a theme that he returns to several times in the course of his monograph, arguing that such a formulation could only derive from the second half of the second century, thus anchoring this narrative to a particularly early moment in Christianity’s history.33 The title “the Living God,” according to Förster, is in orthodox Christian tradition reserved for the Father alone; consequently, naming Christ with this epithet is tantamount to identifying the Son as the Father, which Förster maintains is an “obvious” (“offenkundig”) reference to the early Christian “heresy” known alternatively as modalism or monarchianism. Yet the text’s modalism reflects a “very unreflective form” of this doctrine, in Förster’s estimation, which he elsewhere characterizes as a “primitive modalism.” It is precisely the “naïve” and undeveloped nature of the text’s modalism, according to Förster, that marks it as a product of the second half of the second century, the “Blütezeit des naiven Modalismus.” Förster appears to place great stock in this argument for the fragment’s date, but such reasoning is dubious on a number of fronts. Notwithstanding the complications of distinguishing a “naïve” modalism from more reflective forms of this doctrine or whether one can in fact speak of a “flourishing” of naïve modalism in the second half of the second century, it remains highly questionable as to whether this statement “the Virgin gave birth to Emmanuel, the Living God” ought to be regarded as in any sense reflecting a modalist or monarchian theological position. Förster does not cite any evidence that the title “the Living God” is to be reserved for the Father alone, nor does he provide any examples of Church Fathers or other authorities who rejected Christ’s identification as “the Living God” as theologically transgressive. It is, admittedly, a strange formulation: one generally finds Christ identified as “the son of the Living God,” replicating the words of Peter’s dramatic confession in the gospels (Matt 16.16). Nevertheless, there is nothing doctrinally inappropriate about this expression from the viewpoint of orthodox Trinitarian theology, and it certainly does not amount to modalism. If Christ is both the Lord and the one who says “I am,” it stands to reason that he is also the Living God, 32 33

Förster, TransitusMariae, 13. Ibid., 18-20, 209-15, 222-3.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 284

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

285

and both Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II, for example, have recently used the phrase “Christ, the Living God” in homilies without straying into modalism.34 Indeed, it would seem that to deny the appropriateness of this title for Christ verges somewhat in the direction of Arius, who in his effort to avoid the pitfalls of modalism distinguished the Son quite deliberately from the Living God. It is somewhat interesting that in order to maintain this formula as a statement of modalist belief, Förster must in fact retreat somewhat from the principles of Nicaea. Förster acknowledges that the name Emmanuel played a large role in the Christological debates of the fifth century, where Cyril and the opponents of Nestorius seized on this title to insist that the one whom Mary bore was indeed “God with us.” Yet Förster cites a passage from Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius as evidence that the Vienna fragment does not relate to this context: as Cyril writes here, one must confess that Emmanuel is “God in truth” – θεὸν εἶναι κατὰ ἀλήθειαν. At first glance, one might imagine that this suits the Vienna fragment rather well, with its clear articulation of Emmanuel’s divinity from the outset. Nevertheless, as Förster explains, “the designation God-bearer in [Cyril’s] anathema is derived from the fact that [Mary] gave birth to God in truth, so that she did not give birth to the ‘true God’ according to the flesh but rather to the Word, which is from God. Thus Emmanuel is in fact ‘God in truth,’ yet not the ‘living’ or ‘true’ God.”35 I doubt rather strongly that Cyril would agree with such a statement (particularly inasmuch as the same letter cites the Nicene Creed in full), but it does seem to be a rather clear expression of the position held by Arius and his partisans against Athanasius and the supporters of the First Council. Arius and his followers 34

E.g., Benedict XVI, Homily for the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, 8 January 2006 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/ 2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060108_battesimo_en.html); John Paul II, HomilyforReginaCoeliEasterMonday,13April1998 (http://www.vatican. va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_reg_ 13041998_en.html). 35 Förster, TransitusMariae, 212: “Während der Wiener Text den geborenen Emmanuel als den „lebendigen Gott” bezeichnet, wird the Bezeichnung Gottesgebärerin in dem Anathema von der Tatsache abgeleitet, daß sie in Wahrheit Gott geboren hat, daß sie also gerade nicht den „wahren Gott”, sondern das Wort, das aus Gott ist, dem Fleisch nach geboren hat. Der Emmanuel is somit zwar „in Wahrheit Gott”, jedoch nicht der „lebendige” bzw. „wahre” Gott.”

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 285

29/10/18 13:02

286

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

objected strongly to any identification of the Son with “the True God” (citing John 17.3 in particular), and consequently, the Nicene Creed adopted specific language to combat this view: Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ.36 A similar sort of logic seems to be operative when Förster elsewhere ponders whether the title “Lord” (ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ) should be understood as referring either to God or to Christ in light of the text’s equation of Christ with the Living God: yet surely both are intended, whether the text is in fact modalist or not.37 Nevertheless, if as Förster here suggests, “Living God” is essentially equivalent to “True God,” then to name Emmanuel “the Living God,” as the Vienna fragment does, would be a perfectly natural expression of Nicene, Trinitarian theology. Indeed, it would seem that this opening statement is in fact a rather mundane, if somewhat unusually worded, declaration of Mary’s role as Theotokos. As such, the fragment’s declaration that “the Virgin gave birth to Emmanuel, the Living God” is not so much indicative of a “primitive modalism” as it is reflective of the Third Council’s theology. Consequently, in contrast to Förster’s suggestion that the fragment originated within a late second-century milieu characterized by a “naïve modalism,” the Virgin’s identification as the one who gave birth to the Living God rather strongly suggests instead a post-Ephesian context for this fragment. A somewhat more plausible argument for the fragment’s antiquity is to be found in its remarkable, although extremely terse, description of Mary as having gone forth to preach alongside of the apostles after her son’s Ascension. Förster notes quite correctly that such an image of the Virgin stands directly at odds with mounting prohibitions against women’s leadership in early Christianity.38 Yet in contrast to the increasingly restrictive measures of the late ancient church, many Christian communities of the first two centuries appear to have allowed women to serve in positions of authority, as preachers and 36

See, e.g., A. Grillmeier, ChristinChristianTradition, trans. J. Bowden, vol. 1, FromtheApostolicAgetoChalcedon(451) (Atlanta, 19752) 268; R. Williams, Arius:HeresyandTradition, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich., 2002) 96-101; M. F. Wiles, ArchetypalHeresy:ArianismthroughtheCenturies (Oxford, 1996) 10-14; R. C. Gregg and D. Groh, EarlyArianism:AView of salvation (Philadelphia, 1981) 66, 89, 101-5. N.B., Cyril cites this exact phrase from the Creed in his third letter to Nestorius. 37 Förster, TransitusMariae, 36-7. 38 Ibid., 129-31, 170-86.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 286

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

287

teachers and even as liturgical leaders.39 In light of this fact, Förster suggests quite reasonably that this image of the Virgin as sharing in the work of the apostles must have arisen at a relatively early stage in the history of Christianity’s development, before positions of leadership began to be closed off to women. Otherwise, he argues, it is difficult to imagine the invention of such a tradition at a time when (protoorthodox) church leaders actively sought to exclude women from the priesthood and positions of authority. Instead, the Church Fathers increasingly held Mary forth as a model for female virginity, exemplifying the values of passivity and withdrawal from the world that they enjoined on devout Christian women.40 Accordingly, Förster suggests that the second century provides a more likely context for the origin of this tradition than any subsequent period in the history of the early church, indicating the Vienna fragment’s composition at this time.41 On the surface, this would appear to be a very compelling argument for the antiquity at least of the tradition that Mary joined in the initial preaching of the apostles, if not for the Vienna fragment itself. Nevertheless, as Förster himself occasionally notes, there is a number of late ancient and early medieval traditions about the Virgin’s leadership of

39

An excellent overview of the evidence for women’s leadership in early Christian communities can be found in the various essays collected in R. S. Kraemer and M. R. D’Angelo (eds), Women&ChristianOrigins (New York, 1999). Förster also provides a quick survey of some of the more important evidence from the first two centuries: Förster, TransitusMariae, 186-207. Regarding the progressive effort to eventually exclude women from positions of ecclesiastical and liturgical leadership, see especially F. Cardman, “Women, Ministry, and Church Order in Early Christianity,” in R. S. Kraemer and M. R. D’Angelo (eds), Women and Christian Origins (New York, 1999) 300-29. 40 L. T. Lefort (ed.), S.Athanase:Lettresfestalesetpastoralesencopte, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1955) 1:73-99; Ambrose, De virginibus 2 (PL 16, 2202); Jerome, AdversusHelvidium (PL 23, 183-206); Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses 12.34 (PG 33, 768A-769A); Gregory of Nazianzus, Carminum 1.2.2, 189-208 (PG 37, 537A-538A). See also D. Brakke, Athanasius and thePoliticsofAsceticism (Oxford, 1995) 52-4, 70-3, 276-9; J. Pelikan, Mary throughtheCenturies (New Haven, 1996) 113-22; P. Brown, TheBodyand Society (New York, 1988) 353-6. Pace H. von Campenhausen, TheVirgin BirthintheTheologyoftheAncientChurch, trans. F. Clarke (London, 1964) 63-7. 41 Förster, TransitusMariae, 208, 222-3.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 287

29/10/18 13:02

288

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

the apostles in the nascent church, particularly in the Coptic Dormition traditions, it so happens. Although none of these texts suggests the Virgin’s active preaching alongside the apostles in exactly the same way as the Vienna fragment, as Förster is keen to note,42 their similar representation of Mary as an authority figure within the earliest community, who is reputed to have held authority over even the apostles themselves, certainly calls into question the value of this statement for assigning the fragment’s narrative to the second century. For instance, in the QuestionsofBartholomew, an apocryphon of the third century most likely, the apostles insist that Mary, rather than any one of their company, should lead them in prayer. When she attempts to beg off their request by citing 1 Corinthians 11.13, that “the head of the women is the man,” the apostles effectively abrogate the verse, responding: “In you the Lord set his tabernacle and was pleased to [be] contained by you. Therefore you now have more right than we to lead in prayer.” Mary ultimately accedes to their request and is portrayed leading the apostles in prayer, serving in essence as their liturgical leader.43 The HomilyontheDormition attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem portrays Mary as the leader of the apostles in even more dramatic fashion. This Dormition narrative, written sometime before the middle of the sixth century, says of Mary that “the apostles were following her always, being taught by her the preaching of the gospel.”44 According to a slightly different recension of the same homily, “The apostles were constantly bound to her, learning from her the preaching of the gospel.”45 42

Ibid., 108, 114-15, 130, 136-7. TheQuestionsofBartholomew II.6-14 (A. Vassiliev (ed.), AnecdotaGraeco- Byzantina,ParsPrior (Moscow, 1893) 12; trans. W. Schneemelcher (ed.), New TestamentApocrypha, trans. R. M. Wilson, rev. ed., 2 vols. (Louisville, Ky., 1991-2) 1:543-4). Regarding the date, see ibid., 1:538-40. 44 Ps-Cyril of Jerusalem, HomilyontheDormition(B) (Robinson, Coptic ApocryphalGospels, 28-9). The text from Pierpont-Morgan MS 597, f. 65r is identical here to that of the Borgia MS published by Robinson: ⲛⲉⲩⲟⲩⲏϩ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲥⲱⲥ ⲛϭⲓ ⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲩϫⲓⲥⲃⲱ ⲉⲡⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲙⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧⲥ. Regarding the date, see Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 57-60. 45 Ps-Cyril of Jerusalem, HomilyontheDormition(A) (Campagnano (ed.), Ps. Cirillo di Gerusalemme, 180): ⲛⲉⲣⲉ ⲛⲛⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲙⲏⲣ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲛⲛⲁⲩ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲩⲥⲱⲧⲙ ⲉⲡⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲙⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲟⲟⲧⲥ. The text published by Budge preserves what is clearly a garbled version of this passage, quite likely adulterated on account of the shocking 43

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 288

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

289

Despite some minor differences in wording (perhaps reflecting independent efforts at translating the Greek), the idea expressed in both versions is identical: the apostles derived their unity and received direction from the Virgin Mary, who taught them how and what they should preach. A similar portrait of the Virgin appears in Theodosius of Alexandria’s HomilyontheDormition, composed in the final year of his life, 566-7. According to Theodosius, the apostles “remained with her, fulfilling her command and her evangelic laws, because she was a guide to us all, like a wise captain,” again representing Mary as the authority who directed the apostles and guided their preaching.46 Nevertheless, perhaps the most remarkable example of Mary’s authority over the apostles and the early Christian community occurs in the earliest complete Life of the Virgin, a text unanimously ascribed to Maximus the Confessor by the manuscript tradition, although his authorship remains uncertain. This primitive vita Virginis survives only in a Georgian translation, although the Greek original was composed sometime during the seventh century, either in Constantinople or its immediate vicinity.47 Among the most striking features of this eloquent and influential Marian biography is the manner in which it persistently pushes Mary to the fore, presenting her as both a central figure in her son’s ministry and a leader of the apostles and the nascent church.48 For instance, during the Passion Mary remains with her son constantly, from his trial through the resurrection. She is at the foot of the cross, where she voices a series of laments that would form the basis for this tradition in Byzantium, ultimately influencing the submission of the apostles to a woman’s authority: Budge, Miscellaneous CopticTexts, 65. 46 Theodosius of Alexandria, Homily on the Dormition 2.2 (Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose,” 284; Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels, 92): ⲛⲁⲛⲙⲏⲛ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲛϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲡⲉⲥⲟⲩⲁϩⲥⲁϩⲛⲓ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ Ⲛⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲉⲥϣⲟⲡ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ Ⲛⲣⲉϥⲉⲣϩⲉⲙⲓ Ⲙⲫⲣⲏϯ Ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲁⲩⲕⲗⲏⲣⲟⲥ Ⲛⲥⲁⲃⲉ. 47 S. J. Shoemaker, “The Georgian LifeoftheVirginattributed to Maximus the Confessor: Its Authenticity(?) and Importance,” in A. Muraviev and B. Lourié (eds), Mémorial R.P. Michel van Esbroeck, S.J. (St. Petersburg, 2006) 307-28; S. J. Shoemaker, “The Cult of Fashion: The Earliest Lifeofthe Virginand Constantinople’s Marian Relics,” DOP 62 (2008) 53-74. 48 See esp. S. J. Shoemaker, “The Virgin Mary in the Ministry of Jesus and the Early Church according to the Earliest LifeoftheVirgin,” HTR 98 (2005) 441-67.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 289

29/10/18 13:02

290

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Orthodoxy liturgy for Holy Friday.49 Mary must also see to her son’s burial, and as a result of her constant vigil at the tomb, she was the first to behold the resurrection, “scooping” Mary Magdalene to replace her as the apostolaapostolorum. Consequently, according to the Lifeofthe Virgin’s author, “the majority of the words spoken at that time and the things that happened before the crucifixion and after, these the beloved and most blessed one told to the evangelists and to the other disciples.”50 Here the Life effectively elevates Mary to the status of an evangelist, identifying her as the primary source of the gospel writers’ knowledge about the final day of Jesus’ life: as the sole witness to all that transpired between Christ’s arrest and his resurrection, the testimony of the apostles and evangelists to these events depends largely on her report. Mary’s status as an authority for the apostles continues after her son’s Ascension, at which point she assumes a role similar to that described in these other texts. “The holy Theotokos was always a participant and a leader in every good thing,” the Life explains, and “she directed the fasting and prayer of the holy apostles.”51 In this period between her son’s Ascension and her own Assumption, Mary is portrayed as the primary spiritual authority of the early Christian community, who directed the missionary activities of the apostles. Moreover, not only did Mary “send out the other disciples to preach to those near and far,”52 but, in an important parallel to the Vienna fragment, she initially set out herself together with John, with the 49

See S. J. Shoemaker, “A Mother’s Passion: Mary’s Role in the Crucifixion and Resurrection in the Earliest Life of the Virgin and its Influence on George of Nicomedia’s Passion Homilies,” in L. Brubaker and M. Cunningham (eds), The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium (Aldershot, 2011) 53-67. See now also S. J. Shoemaker, “Mary at the Cross, East and West: Maternal Compassion and Affective Piety in the Earliest Life of the Virgin and the High Middle Ages,” JTS 62 (2011) 570-606. 50 Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 76 (M. van Esbroeck (ed.), MaximeleConfesseur:ViedelaVierge, 2 vols. (Leuven, 1986) 97 (Geor) and 65 (Fr)). For some reason, van Esbroeck translates ძახარებელთა as “apôtres,” but this is unmistakably the word for “evangelist,” making Mary’s central role as the primarily source of this gospel material even clearer. See now also the translation of this text: S. J. Shoemaker, trans. MaximustheConfessor,TheLife oftheVirgin:Translated,withanIntroductionandNotes (New Haven, 2012). 51 Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 94 (ibid., 122 (Geor) and 82 (Fr)). 52 Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 96 (ibid., 124 (Geor) and 84 (Fr)).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 290

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

291

intention of serving in mission field alongside the other apostles, taking Mary Magdalene and the other myrrh-bearing women along with her. Nevertheless, before she had travelled very far, her son appeared to her and instructed her to return to Jerusalem, directing that Mary Magdalene and the other women should continue on with John, and they “worked with him and were apostles with him.”53 Mary the Virgin, however, returned to Jerusalem, where she assumed a position even more exalted than that of the apostles themselves, having been charged “to lead the people of faith and to direct the church of Jerusalem with James the brother of the Lord, who had been appointed as bishop there.”54 The account of Mary’s leadership over the apostles and the early church that follows is nothing short of extraordinary: She was a leader and a teacher to the holy apostles, and when anything was needed, they would tell her. And they received direction and good counsel from her, to the extent that those who were near the environs of Jerusalem would return. One after the other they went before her and reported everything that they were doing and how they were preaching, and they accomplished everything according to her direction. But once they went forth to distant lands, they were sure from year to year to go to Jerusalem for Easter and to celebrate the feast of Christ’s resurrection with the holy Theotokos. And each one of them reported the success of their preaching55 and sufferings that befell them from the Jews and pagans. And again they went forth to the work of their preaching, armed with her prayers and teachings.56

53 Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 97-8 (ibid., 126-7 (Geor) and 85-6 (Fr)). This comports with traditions about Mary Magdalene reported by Gregory of Tours, IngloriaMartyrum 29 (B. Krusch (ed.), GregoriiEpiscopiTuronensismiraculaetoperaminora, 2nd ed. (Hannover, 1969) 55). Nevertheless, in an earlier section, the Life mentions Mary Magdalene’s death as a martyr in Rome: Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 71 (van Esbroeck (ed.), MaximeleConfesseur:ViedelaVierge, 91-2 (Geor) and 61 (Fr)). 54 Maximus the Confessor, LifeoftheVirgin 98 (van Esbroeck (ed.), Maxime leConfesseur:ViedelaVierge, 127 (Geor) and 86 (Fr)). 55 Instead of “the success of their preaching,” van Esbroeck translates “sa prédication auprès des païens,” but this would necessitate reading წარძართობაჲ instead of წარძართებაჲ; furthermore, in this case the grammar would be a little awkward as well. 56 Maximus the Confessor, LifeoftheVirgin 99 (van Esbroeck (ed.), Maxime leConfesseur:ViedelaVierge, 129 (Geor) and 87 (Fr)).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 291

29/10/18 13:02

292

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Thus in even more dramatic fashion than these other early Christian texts, the LifeoftheVirgin presents Mary essentially as the leader of the early Christian community, who maintains its unity, order, and doctrine. She sends the apostles forth to preach, they report back to her regularly regarding the content and success of their preaching, and she then sends them forth again “armed with her teachings.” Perhaps most importantly, however, this seventh-century Life of the Virgin describes Mary as having initially gone forth to preach with the apostles, only to be turned back by a divine command to assume even greater duties. This episode affords an important parallel to the Vienna fragment, with its report that Mary “went with the apostles to preach.” Nevertheless, Förster maintains that the Life’s tradition is quite different from that of the fragment, inasmuch as Mary is turned back after only a short time and, according to his reading, Mary merely accompanies (begleitet) John without the intent to participate herself in any missionary activities.57 Both points are rather disputable, however. As for Mary’s purpose for going forth with John and the other women, according to the Life, “she went forth with him to go and preach” (და წარებარდა ძის თანა სლვად და ქადაგებად).58 The expression in fact offers a close parallel to the equivalent passage from the Vienna fragment, seeming to signal clearly that the Life does not envision Mary as simply John’s companion but that she went with him in order “to go and preach” herself. Moreover, while the Virgin is indeed turned back to Jerusalem by her son according to the Life, it is not at all clear that the Vienna fragment describes Mary as remaining in the mission field for years until the moment of her Dormition, as Förster suggests. As noted already above, the ϭⲉ introducing the fragment’s annunciation of Mary’s departure from this world rather plausibly signals a chronological separation between this event and her return from the mission field. While Förster’s interpretation is certainly viable, it is equally possible to read the Vienna text in a way that more resembles the LifeoftheVirgin, as I have suggested: “After the Ascension of our Savior, the Virgin Mary went with the apostles to preach. Thereafter the Holy Spirit led her up to Jerusalem. Then came the time came for the Virgin to die.” In light of these similarities between the 57

Förster, TransitusMariae, 136-7. Maximus the Confessor, LifeoftheVirgin 97 (van Esbroeck (ed.), Maxime leConfesseur:ViedelaVierge, 127 (Geor) and 85 (Fr)). 58

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 292

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

293

earliest LifeoftheVirgin and the Vienna fragment, it does not seem possible to date this fragment to the second century on the basis of this passage alone, and its origin in the early Middle Ages seems comparatively more likely. The Vienna fragment’s portrayal of the Virgin as going forth to preach with the apostles thus cannot locate the narrative’s composition before the third century, nor does it secure a claim to be the oldest extant Dormition tradition, as Förster has argued. Despite the dissonance of this tradition with the widespread exclusion of women from positions of ecclesiastical and liturgical leadership in late ancient Christianity, this feature offers no guarantee of an early origin. As just seen, a number of Marian texts from the early middle ages describe Mary as having authority over the apostles and their missions, and one even relates that she initially went forth with one of the apostles to preach. Yet there is no sense that all or any of these texts must have originated in the second century on account of their representation of Mary as teaching and directing the male leaders of the early church, and the relatively late composition of these narratives is more or less widely acknowledged. While it may of course be that all of these documents collectively preserve some memory of what was originally an ancient tradition about Mary’s leadership within the primitive Christian community, the mere presence of this idea itself does not suffice to assign any of these texts to the second century. Moreover, the sudden appearance of such traditions about Mary’s leadership elsewhere in the early medieval church certainly raises questions about the viability of this theme as an instrument for dating: given this trend it is quite possible that the Vienna fragment’s report about Mary’s preaching with the apostles merely reflects a tendency of later Marian literature rather than actual women’s leadership in first and second century Christianity. Admittedly, it is somewhat difficult to reconcile this image of Mary’s authority over the apostles with the male dominance of the medieval church, yet as I have suggested elsewhere, perhaps it was only after this pattern of leadership had been achieved and women’s exclusion could be taken for granted that such images of the Virgin’s leadership could be allowed to circulate.59 In any case, the Vienna fragment’s brief reference to Mary’s going forth to preach with the apostles unfortunately does not warrant its origin in the second century. It is comparatively 59

Shoemaker, “The Virgin Mary in the Ministry of Jesus,” 455-7, 466-7.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 293

29/10/18 13:02

294

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

more likely that the presence of this idea simply reflects a trend evident elsewhere in late ancient and early medieval Marian literature, and while this tradition of Mary’s apostolic leadership may itself have ancient roots, its presence in a Dormition fragment of the ninthcentury cannot secure its composition in the later second century. The question, however, of whether this text and other Marian narratives from late antiquity and the early middle ages collectively recall traces of an older Christian tradition about the Virgin Mary’s leadership in the primitive community is certainly a matter worthy of further investigation. In his concluding section, Förster speculates rather freely that the Vienna fragment was originally part of a second-century “apocalypse of Mary” of Egyptian provenance, from which the other Dormition traditions collectively take their origin. Although produced within a proto-orthodox milieu, this text was later rejected in favor of other Dormition narratives on account of its modalism and the active role that it ascribes to Mary, thus accounting for its survival only on this stray Coptic folio.60 Nevertheless, these conclusions prove largely unfounded, and there is no compelling evidence for this narrative’s composition at such an early date, let alone for its inclusion within a larger “apocalypse of Mary.” As for the fragment’s various divergences from other early traditions, these are readily explained by the narrative’s extreme brevity and the damaged condition of the manuscript itself. Moreover, a number of similarly anomalous and often terse narrative fragments survive in Georgian and Armenian, for instance, and yet their literary differences do not justify such aggressively early dating.61 Instead, the 60

Förster, TransitusMariae, 216-23. E.g., E. Tayets’i, “Երանելոյն Նիկոդիմոսի ասացեալ յաղագս ննջման ՄարիանուԱստուածածնիեւՄիշտԿուսին (A Narration Concerning the Dormition of the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary by the Blessed Nicodemus),” in ԱնկանոնգիրքՆորԿտակարանաց(Ankanongirk’NorKtakaranats’(ApocryphalBooksoftheNewTestament)) (Venice, 1898) 451-78; “Պատասխանի թղթոյնՍահակայ (Reply to the Letter of Sahak),” in M. Chorenatsi, Սրբոյ հօրն ﬔրոյ Մովսէսի Խորենացւոյ մատենագրութիւնք (Srboy horn meroy MovsesiKhorenats’woymatenagrut’iwnk’(TheWritingsofourHolyFather MosesKhorenatsi)) (Venice, 18652) 283-96; M. van Esbroeck, “Une homélie arménienne sur la dormition attribuée à Chrysostome,” OrChr 74 (1990) 199233; M. van Esbroeck, “La structure du répertoire de l’homéliaire de Mush,” Միջազգայինհայերենագիտականգիտաժողով.Ջեկուցուﬓէրը(Mijazgayinhayerenagitakangitazhoghov:zekuts’umner(InternationalSymposiumonArmenian 61

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 294

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

295

omissions of these fragments are generally ascribed to their pithiness, which in many cases probably reflects their liturgical purpose. Moreover, the existence of numerous “atypical” narratives among the earliest traditions frustrates any effort to assign such an early date to a text based largely on the absence of major themes from the Palm of the Tree of Life and Bethlehem literary traditions. As for the fragment’s alleged “naïve modalism,” this doctrine simply is not present, and the phrase “the Virgin gave birth to Emmanuel, the Living God” seems to link this text with the Third Council’s doctrine that Mary as Theotokos gave birth to “True God from True God.” Finally, Mary’s representation as actively preaching alongside of the apostles does not secure an early origin for this narrative. As dissonant as this image of the Virgin is with the actual status of women within the late ancient and early medieval church, this fact does not necessarily indicate the text’s composition before the third century. The theme of Mary’s leadership within the nascent church appears in a number of late ancient texts, ranging in age from the third through the seventh centuries, and consequently this motif does not warrant such an early dating. Instead, it seems quite probable that this particular tradition about the Virgin’s preaching arose within the same context that gave rise to similar images of Mary in other texts of the sixth and seventh century: in fact, there may be some sort of connection between this fragment and a tradition about the Virgin’s going forth to preach in the earliest LifeoftheVirgin. Although the true nature of this fragment remains something of a mystery, particularly given its isolated state, one would suspect that it originally belonged to a liturgical codex, where it served as a reading for the feast of either the

Linguistics: Proceedings)) (Yerevan, 1984) 282-306; M. van Esbroeck and U. Zanetti, “Le manuscrit Erévan 993, Inventaire des pièces,” Revue des Études Arméniennes 12 (1977) 123-67; M. van Esbroeck, “Description du répertoire de l’homiliaire de Mus (Matenadaran 7729),” Revue des Études Arméniennes 18 (1984) 237-80; M. van Esbroeck, “Apocryphes géorgiens de la Dormition,” AB 92 (1973) 55-75; M. van Esbroeck, “Nouveaux apocryphes de la Dormition conservés en Géorgien,” AB 90 (1972) 363-69 ; M. van Esbroeck, “Etude comparée des notices byzantine et caucasiennes pour la fête de la Dormition,” AuxoriginesdelaDormitiondelaVierge:Etudeshistoriquessurlestraditionsorientales (Brookfield, VT, 1995) 6-18; S. C. Mimouni, “La lecture liturgique et les apocryphes du Nouveau Testament: Le cas de la Dormitio grecque du Pseudo-Jean,” OCP 59 (1993) 403-25.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 295

29/10/18 13:02

296

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Virgin’s Dormition or Assumption, or was part of a homily.62 The abbreviated nature of its narrative, running hurriedly from the Nativity to what appears to be a rather quick narration of the Dormition itself, suggests this SitzimLeben. In any case, the only secure date for this text is afforded by the folio’s paleographic dating, the middle of the ninth century. TranslationofP.Vindob.K7589 … The Virgin gave birth to Emmanuel, the Living God. And when she gave birth to him, she was approaching thirteen years of age. Christ lived thirty-three years before he was crucified. When the Lord Jesus was crucified, the Virgin was in her forty-eighth year. And she lived eleven and one half years after the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now all together these amount to sixty years. Thus the complete amount of time that the Virgin lived on the earth was sixty years. So then, after the Ascension of our Savior, the Virgin Mary went forth with the apostles to preach. Thereafter the Holy Spirit led her to Jerusalem. Then came the time came for the Virgin to die, as is allotted to every human being. Because she had finished the course [of her life] and had kept the faith… [11 lines missing] …appointed… And the apostles were waiting, seated before her and watching the day expectantly, and they were grieving, because they did not want her to depart and leave them. And it happened on the evening of the twentieth of Tobe as the sun was setting. The Virgin said, “My father Peter, stand before me … you and … apostles …

62

The latter hypothesis would appear, for the moment, to have been confirmed by Alin Suciu, who discovered additional fragments from the same manuscript and has shown them to be from a still unidentified medieval homily on the Dormition. A. Suciu, “About Some Coptic Fragments on the Dormition of the Virgin,” http://alinsuciu.com/2011/09/15/coptic-fragments-on-thedormition-of-the-virgin/ (posted on September 15, 2011; accessed 3 August 2017).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 296

29/10/18 13:02

A NEW DORMITION FRAGMENT IN COPTIC

297

[11 lines missing] … And the apostles spent the entire night in prayer and sang Psalms. And at the midnight hour, Mary arose, and she gave a great prayer to the Lord, while the apostles stood behind her. And when she gave the Amen, she laid herself on the bed. And behold, immediately a great perfume spread throughout the entire place, and a great light was in the house. Christ came to her with a great throng of angels, and he said to us, “Peace to you. Hail, Mary, my mother. Peace to your departure from this world into another marvelous light. Peace to you, my blessed apostles.” Afterward he turned to Mary his mother and said, “O Mary, my mother, no power of darkness will come upon you: I am the life of the whole world …”

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_10.indd 297

29/10/18 13:02

XI. New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library

The fragments here published for the first time present important witnesses to the earliest history of traditions concerning the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. On the basis of paleography, both manuscripts date to the fifth or, in the case of the British Library fragment, perhaps to the sixth century, and accordingly they provide further evidence for the circulation of these early Marian apocrypha within the Christian communities of the late ancient Near East. Although the texts to which they bear witness have long been known from other sources, these manuscripts reveal significant redactional diversity already by the fifth century and also add to the remarkable number of early Syriac manuscripts transmitting these writings. Both of the apocrypha in question were originally composed in Greek, and thus their survival in multiple Syriac manuscripts of the fifth and sixth century, often in different versions, presents significant evidence of their composition sometime even earlier. The first of these, ObsequiesoftheVirgin, witnessed by the British Library fragment, dates to the fourth century at the very latest, although the bulk of its traditions belong much more probably to the third century and are possibly even older.1 The greatest 1

See S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition andAssumption (Oxford, 2002) 42-6, 253-6, 278-9, 284-6; S. J. Shoemaker, “Death and the Maiden: The Early History of the Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha,” StVladimir’sTheologicalQuarterly 50 (2006) 59-97 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 1); S. J. Shoemaker, “Asceticism in the Early Dormition Narratives,” SP 44 (2010) 509-13 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 3). See now also S. J. Shoemaker, MaryinEarlyChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016) 100-29. A variety of approaches have led numerous other scholars to this same conclusion: see also M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’assomption avant le Xe siècle,” in F. Bovon (ed.), Lesactesapocryphes desapôtres (Geneva, 1981) 265-85; M. van Esbroeck, “Bild und Begriff in der Transitus-Literatur, der Palmbaum und der Tempel,” in M. Schmidt (ed.),

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 298

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

299

significance of this new palimpsest is its confirmation that a pivotal scene previously evidenced only by certain later texts, namely, the pleas of the damned for Mary’s intercession, was also present in the earliest version of this apocryphon. This episode additionally would appear to provide some of the earliest evidence for belief in Marian intercession. The Schøyen fragments, on the other hand, present a new early witness to the “Six Books” Dormition narrative, an apocryphon dating most likely to the middle of the fourth century, if not perhaps a little earlier,2 Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter (Regensburg, 1982) 333-51, 341-4, 347; M. van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features in the Life of the Virgin,” Marianum 63 (2001) 297-308; D. Baldi and A. Mosconi, “L’Assunzione di Maria SS. negli apocrifi,” Attidel congresso nazionale mariano dei Fratei Minori d’Italia (Roma 29 aprile- 3maggio1947) (Rome, 1948) 75-125, esp. 121-5; É. Cothenet, “Marie dans les Apocryphes,” in H. Du Manoir de Juaye (ed.), Maria.ÉtudessurlaSainte Vierge, 7 vols. (Paris, 1952) 6:71-156, esp. 118-30, 143; R. Bauckham, “The Four Apocalypses of the Virgin Mary,” TheFateoftheDead(Leiden, 1998) 332-62; M. Bonnet, “Die ältesten Schriften von der Himmelfahrt Mariä,” ZWT 23 (1880) 227-47; J. Rivière, “Le plus vieux ‘Transitus’ latin et son dérivé grec,” RecerchesdeThéologieancienneetmédiévale 8 (1936) 5-23; J. Gribomont, “Le plus ancien Transitus Marial et l’encratisme,” Aug 23 (1983) 23747 ; B. Bagatti, “La verginità di Maria negli apocrifi del II-III secolo,” Marianum 33 (1971) 281-92; B. Bagatti, “Ricerche sulle tradizioni della morte della Vergine,” SacraDoctrina 69-70 (1973) 185-214; B. Bagatti, “La morte della Vergine nel Testo di Leucio,” TerraSancta 50 (1974) 44-48; B. Bagattietal., New Discoveries at the Tomb of Virgin Mary in Gethsemane (Jerusalem, 1975) 11-18; E. Testa, “Lo sviluppo della ‘Dormitio Mariae’ nella letteratura, nella teología e nella archeología,” Marianum 44 (1982) 316-89; E. Testa, “L’origine e lo sviluppo della Dormitio Mariae,” Aug 23 (1983) 249-62; L. Cignelli, “Il prototipo giudeo-cristiano degli apocrifi assunzionisti,” in B. Bagatti, etal. (eds), StudiaHierosolymitanainonorediP.Bellarmino Bagatti, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1976) 2:259-77; M. Vallecillo, “El ‘Transitus Mariae’ según el manuscrito Vaticano G. R. 1982,” Verdad y vida 30 (1972) 187-260; F. Manns, “La mort de Marie dans les textes de la Dormition de Marie,” Aug 19 (1979) 507-15; F. Manns, LerécitdelaDormitiondeMarie(Vaticangrec1982) (Jerusalem, 1989). 2 S. J. Shoemaker, “Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Later Fourth Century,” JECS 16 (2008) 369-99 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 8). Concerning the date, see also S. J. Shoemaker, “A Peculiar Version of the Inventiocrucisin the Early Syriac Dormition Traditions,” SP 41 (2006) 75-81 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 4), which updates and corrects Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirgin

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 299

29/10/18 13:02

300

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

making now for a fifth version of this text attested in Syriac manuscripts of the fifth and sixth centuries. The British Library fragment occurs among several palimpsest folios bound together in MS Add. 17,137, only one of which is legible on just a single side, folio 9a. Although Wright fails to signal this manuscript in his edition of the ObsequiesoftheHolyVirgin (as the text seems to have been named in Syriac), his later catalogue of the British Museum’s Syriac manuscripts identifies several of its folios as belonging to this ancient Marian apocryphon.3 The manuscript itself consists of twenty-four diverse vellum leaves, taken from three different manuscripts, all of which are palimpsests and most of which are in very bad condition. Folios 6-11 of this manuscript were taken from an ancient manuscript of the ObsequiesoftheHolyVirgin, “written in a fine Esṭrangělā of the vth or vith cent.,” whose content Wright determined based on what is legible on folio 9a.4 The remaining folios are indeed largely illegible, and while it is possible to identify their content with this Dormition apocryphon, they are not sufficiently legible for any meaningful edition and translation. Additional Syriac fragments of this apocryphon survive in manuscripts of a similar age, all of which were previously edited by Wright. The complete text, however, survives only in an Ethiopic translation, where it is known as TheBookofMary’sRepose (LiberRequiei Mariae), and Georgian and Coptic fragments of the apocryphon also exist.5 Other later narratives, particularly in Greek, Latin, and Irish, Mary’sDormition, 286-7. See now also Shoemaker, Mary, 130-65. See also R. Bauckham, TheFateoftheDead(Leiden, 1998) 358-60; van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features.” 3 W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum AcquiredsincetheYear1838, 3 vols. (London, 1870-2) 1:369-70. For the discussion of the manuscripts in the edition, see W. Wright, Contributionstothe ApocryphalLiteratureoftheNewTestament (London, 1865) 10-16. 4 Wright, CatalogueofSyriacManuscripts, 1:369. 5 V. Arras, De transitu Mariae apocrypha aethiopice, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1973) vol. 1; M. van Esbroeck, “Apocryphes géorgiens de la Dormition,” AB 92 (1973) 55-75; L. S. B. MacCoull, “More Coptic Papyri from the Beinecke Collection,” ArchivfürPapyrusforschung 35 (1989) 25-35; P. Sellew, “An Early Coptic Witness to the DormitioMariae at Yale: P. CtYBR inv. 1788 Revisited,” BulletinoftheAmericanSocietyofPapyrologists 37 (2000) 3769. For an English translation of all of these witnesses, see Shoemaker, Ancient TraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 290-350.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 300

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

301

derive from this ancient apocryphon and bear witness to its contents, but the Syriac fragments are particularly valuable for their antiquity.6 Although the complete Ethiopic version survives only in more recent manuscripts from the fourteenth century, by all indications it transmits an especially early and faithful translation of this ancient Christian apocryphon.7 The translation itself seems to have been made directly from the Greek, most likely during the sixth or seventh century: indeed, as Tedros Abrahà has recently argued, the Ethiopic translation of this apocryphon is “un magnifico esemplare di un etiopico classico ‘primitivo’ dal quale, insieme ad opera della medesima specie sarebbe auspicabile ricavare una grammatica del gǝ’ǝz arcaico.”8 Comparison with other early versions of this apocryphon, as well as more recent adaptations, also indicates its fidelity. For most of its contents, this Ethiopic translation is closely paralleled by other early witnesses, including in addition to the Syriac fragments, Greek texts from the sixth and seventh century, which offer important confirmation of the translation’s antiquity and fidelity. Notably absent from the early Greek texts, however, is the apocryphon’s apocalyptic conclusion, and for this portion the Syriac fragments are thus a particularly valuable witness. At the apostles’ request, Christ leads them with his mother on an otherworldly tour of the cosmos, coming first to the places of the damned.9 Yet before long the Syriac fragments published by Wright break off, and the 6

E.g., A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantine duVIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 210-41, 245-59; John of Thessalonica, Homily on the Dormition (M. Jugie, Homélies mariales byzantines(II) (Paris, 1926) 344-438); M. Haibach-Reinisch, Einneuer“TransitusMariae”desPseudo-Melito (Rome, 1962); A. Wilmart, Analectareginensia(Città del Vaticano, 1933) 323-62; C. Donahue, TheTestamentofMary: TheGaelicVersionoftheDormitioMariaetogetherwithanIrishLatinVersion (New York, 1942); M. Herbert and M. McNamara, IrishBiblicalApocrypha:SelectedTextsinTranslation (Edinburgh, 1989) 119-31. 7 Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 142-67. 8 T. Abrahà, “La DormitioMariae in Etiopia,” in E. M. Toniolo (ed.), Il dogmadell’assunzionedeMaria:problemiattualietentatividericomprensione.AttidelXVIISimposioInternazionaleMariologico(Roma,6-9ottobre 2009) (Rome, 2010) 167-200, esp. 187. I thank Enrico Norelli for drawing my attention to this article and for providing me with a copy. 9 Wright, ContributionstoApocryphalLiterature, ¿é-†(Syr) and 47-8 (Eng); cf. Arras, De transitu, 1:53-4 (Eth) and 35-6 (Lat); Eng. trans. in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 341-3.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 301

29/10/18 13:02

302

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

remainder of the journey as related by the Ethiopic version is paralleled only by the Irish Dormition apocrypha and a single Latin manuscript, both of which have greatly condensed their ancient source.10 Among of the most striking features of this concluding episode are the appeals from the damned for intercession, first to Michael, then the Virgin Mary, and finally the apostles. Wright’s published Syriac fragments cease just as Michael begins to answer by noting not only his own frequent intercessions on behalf of the damned, but also those of other angels. As the Ethiopic version continues, Jesus admonishes Michael and rejects his pleas for the damned. The specific punishments inflicted on certain individuals are then explained, after which Jesus leaves. The damned next entreat Mary and then the apostles. In the Ethiopic, Mary remains silent, but the apostles chastise the damned for failing to keep what they had taught them. Christ suddenly returns and follows up on the apostles, asking the damned again why they abandoned their teachings. Then, following a fairly garbled passage, Christ relents and promises to give the damned nine hours of respite every Sunday, on account of “the tears of Michael, my holy Apostles, and my mother Mary.”11 The British Library fragment, which also relates the pleas of the damned to Mary and the apostles, confirms that this episode was in fact a part of this ancient Christian apocryphon, as indicated by the Ethiopic and Irish versions especially. Although Mary does not actually intervene on behalf of the damned here, the concept of the Virgin’s intercession with her son is clearly in view. Its presence in this apocryphon thus offers some of the earliest evidence for belief in Marian intercession, as early as the fourth century or perhaps even earlier. The significance of this new fragment from the British Library is thus twofold. On the one hand it confirms that this ancient Dormition narrative did in fact continue to describe a “tour of Hell” and also Mary’s (and the apostles’) intercessory encounter with the damned as related by the Ethiopic translation, despite the general absence of 10

Arras, Detransitu, 1:55-9 (Eth) and 36-8 (Lat); Eng. trans. in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 343-6; Donahue, TestamentofMary, 50-5; Herbert and McNamara, IrishBiblicalApocrypha, 12930; Wenger, L’Assomption, 258-9. 11 Arras, Detransitu, 1:59 (Eth) and 38 (Lat); Eng. trans. in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 346.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 302

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

303

this material from the early Greek versions. Although there are some significant textual differences between the Syriac and the Ethiopic versions, this new fragment nonetheless again reveals the Ethiopic translation as relatively faithful to the original text. On the other hand, this fragment verifies more specifically that the idea of Marian intercession was almost certainly present in this early Dormition apocryphon, and the age of the manuscript itself, the fifth or sixth century, makes it an important early witness to the emergence of this concept. Thus, this new fragment of the ObsequiesoftheVirgin reveals that the earliest Dormition narratives emerged within a context where incipient devotion to Mary and the concept of her intercession had already taken hold. By way of comparison, the fragments from the Schøyen collection, while certainly significant in their own right, do somewhat less to advance our knowledge of the early Dormition traditions than the British Library fragment.12 These four vellum folios originally belonged to the famous “Codex Arabicus” of Mount Sinai, a trilingual quintuple palimpsest that is among the monastery’s most remarkable manuscripts.13 Their lower text is written in a “sehr alte ᾿Esṭrangelā,” according to Julius Assfalg, seemingly from the fifth century.14 These fragments preserve several passages from the “Six Books” Dormition narrative, an ancient apocryphon that, as noted above, is already well known from other Syriac manuscripts of similar age. Nevertheless, the Schøyen fragments add further evidence of the text’s circulation in late antiquity, as well as indicating its existence already by the fifth century in 12

My thanks to Bernard Outtier and Alain Desreumaux for first drawing my attention to these fragments, and especially to Martin Schøyen for allowing me the opportunity to study and publish these fragments, and to the Schøyen Collection’s librarian, Elizabeth Gano Sørenssen, for her assistance with my research visit to the Collection. 13 A. S. Atiya, TheArabicManuscriptsofMountSinai (Baltimore, 1955) xxvi-xxviii, 19; A. S. Atiya, “The Codex Arabicus of Mt. Sinai,” TheIndian Archives 7, no. 1 (1953) 1-2. 14 J. Assfalg, SyrischeHandschriften (Wiesbaden, 1963) no. 114, pp. 21520; ChecklistofManuscripts:17.ApocryphalLiterature, The Schøyen Collection (cited 8 Sept 2010); available from http://www.schoyencollection.com/ apocrypha.html, MS 579. See also A. Desreumaux, “Les apocryphes syriaques sur Jésus et sa famille,” in M. Debié, etal. (eds), Lesapocryphessyriaques (Paris, 2005) 51-69, 57-8.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 303

29/10/18 13:02

304

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

several different recensions, which would appear to indicate the narrative’s considerable antiquity. Furthermore, the fragments preserving the beginning of this apocryphon on folio 2 offer additional testimony for the commemoration of an early liturgical feast in honor of the Virgin that is associated with this early Dormition narrative.15 One should also note that a significant number of additional palimpsest fragments from the same manuscript, Sinai Arabic 514, have recently been published by Sebastian Brock and Grigory Kessel.16 In his catalogue of Syriac manuscripts in Germany, Assfalg offers a detailed description of these folios and correlates their various fragments with passages from the fifth-century palimpsest manuscript published by Agnes Smith Lewis or, in some instances, with the nineteenthcentury manuscript that she used to fill in lacunae. Nevertheless, the fragments often show more affinity with the version of the Six Books apocryphon that was published by Wright as well as the version witnessed by the sixth-century Göttingen manuscript (MS syr. 10).17 In many respects the Schøyen fragments reflect a blend of these different versions, although in certain passages its phrasing is unique. Moreover, some of the most significant divergence from Smith Lewis’ edition occurs in the second column of folio 1b, where, significantly, the text in her edition comes not from her fifth-century palimpsest but rather from the nineteenth-century manuscript that she has used to fill in the gaps. Such difference certainly raises questions about her editorial method, particularly in as much as the text in this nineteenth-century manuscript, while often close to that of her palimpsest, is occasionally significantly different.18 15

See Shoemaker, “Epiphanius of Salamis”; S. J. Shoemaker, “Apocrypha and Liturgy in the Fourth Century: The Case of the “Six Books” Dormition Apocryphon,” in J. H. Charlesworth and L. M. McDonald (eds), Jewishand ChristianScriptures:TheFunctionof‘Canonical’and‘Non-canonical’ReligiousTexts (London, 2010) 153-63 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 7). 16 S. P. Brock and G. Kessel. “The “Departure of Mary” in Two Palimpsests at the Monastery of St. Catherine (Sinai Syr. 30 & Sinai Arabic 514),” KhristianskiĭVostok 8 (2017) 115-52. 17 A. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca (London, 1902); W. Wright, “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World,” TheJournalofSacredLiteratureandBiblicalRecord 6-7 (1865) 417-48 and 108-60. 18 Indeed, Smith Lewis herself notes the existence of these variants, which she elected not to provide in her edition, since they are “certainly later” than

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 304

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

305

Both of these manuscripts bear witness to the importance of traditions concerning the end of Mary’s life for the Christians of late antiquity, particularly in Syriac cultural settings. Moreover, the now lost Greek originals of these two apocryphal narratives reflect, it would seem, particularly early interest in Mary as a figure in her own right. These stories of the Virgin’s miraculous departure from this world evidence a fairly advanced stage of devotion to Mary in the fourth or perhaps even the third century, significantly earlier than many historians of early Christianity would have expected.19 In this regard especially the new fragment from the British Library is important, inasmuch as it reveals the ObsequiesoftheVirgin (or the BookofMary’sRepose) to have been a particularly early witness to ideas of Mary’s intercession with her son. Indeed, only the famous “Sub tuum praesidium” papyrus from third-century Egypt would potentially afford earlier evidence for this phenomenon, although it may well be the case that the traditions of this Dormition narrative are even earlier than this papyrus, perhaps dating as early as the second century.20

her palimpsest: Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca, xii. Cf., e.g., ibid., ÄÝ and ‹. with Harvard MS Houghton Syriac 39 ff. 163a and 213a. Alain Desreumaux has recently questioned the identity of the Harvard MS with the “Harris” MS used by Smith Lewis. Although their identity seems likely, Desreumaux raises some important and troubling questions concerning this edition in general and the Harvard MS in particular. See Desreumaux, “Les apocryphes syriaques,” 54-5. 19 See also S. J. Shoemaker, “Marian Liturgies and Devotion in Early Christianity,” in S. J. Boss (ed.), Mary: The Complete Resource (London, 2007) 130-45; S. J. Shoemaker, “The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century: A Fresh Look at Some Old and New Sources,” in C. Maunder (ed.), TheOrigins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary (London, 2008) 71-87. See now also Shoemaker, Mary, esp. 100-65. 20 Enrico Norelli, for instance, has recently argued that the traditions of the Obsequies of the Virgin/Liber Requiei show a strong affinity with certainly theological currents of the second century: see E. Norelli, “La letteratura apocrifa sul Transito di Maria e il problema delle sue origini,” in E. M. Toniolo (ed.), Ildogmadell’assunzionedeMaria:problemiattualietentativide ricomprensione. Atti del XVII Simposio Internazionale Mariologico (Roma, 6-9ottobre2009) (Rome, 2010) 121-65, esp. 142-63.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 305

29/10/18 13:02

306

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

BLsyr.Add.17,137, f. 9a, second column21 …{z[çã]ƒ . . .s âÙ¾ÞÚã{ˆÎþÙ{ > åÙüäàÍúÃý{ ? .¿ïsâï¿ÑÚáþà{ …{Íþ[Ðâï]…ÎïËæxâÔã ¿úÚçýĀÂxèÚàz . . . .{ À{ . . . . . . . . .èÙüãs{„ . . .ã Íãs{ÁzÎæåÙüã ¿ÚÐåÙüãÁzÎæx åÙüã¿ÚÐxÍãs{ ĀçðÓx¿ÂzxxÀüçã åÙüã . . .èÚðÔà ÁüãxÍãs{Àüã ÀĀÞáãåÙüãèàÎÂ[] .…Íàs{èÞáãxÍãs{ ÛÝüÃàèÚáïëÚòs ¿ý¾óæèàƒĀæx [èÚ]àzâÔã{ .âÚáù †{üÔóàüãss èçÐÎÚà{†sËæ¾ćà{ > èã¿ÑÚáý… {ÍáÞà{ èÚàzâï…{üãs [€]ÎЏsÁËÑã{ Às{èù{üò . . .ƒ … from them and Jesus and Michael. And he left Mary and the apostles on the earth so that they would understand about their suffering. And … those in torment … … and saying, 21

Cf. Arras, Detransitu, 1:58 (Eth) and 38 (Lat); Eng. trans. In Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, p. 345.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 306

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

307

“Mary light and mother of the light, Mary life and mother of life, Mary lamp-stand of gold that bears the one bearing … Mary master and mother of the master our Lord, Mary, our queen and the mother of our king and God, intercede on our behalf with your son that he give us a little rest.” And on account of these things they spoke to Peter and Andrew and John and all of the apostles. “What have you said concerning these things?” And immediately our Savior appeared to [them], and he came to … the place of torment… SchøyenMS579, f. 1a, col. 122 ÀĀÚçÂÎÓxÍãüÚòåï ƒ|sx„ËãâÝÛçùs{ èÚæz{åÑàĀÚÃàÍäï [èÙ]ÍÙĀÙsÀĀà{ĀÂèÚàz ? ? ÁüÙĀï¿þæsĀç€{ z > åáý{sx ÍÚæüÂËã ÀĀà{ĀÂxèÙxèÙÍÙÍäý ÀĀáÝ…{ÍÙĀÙsèÚàz ÀĀáÝÀĀÃÓ{Áüþæ{ [z]ü{zÍÙĀÙs ¿ÑÚþãxÍäЍëãËúÚæx ¿ćäÚýÀĀáÝxÍäþÂx züÚÞãÀĀÑÃþãÀËï ÀüÐs{ .ÀÍàsxÁüÂx > [. . . . . . . . . . .] ÍÙĀÙs 22

Cf. A. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca,Äã-¿ćã(Syr) and 24-5 (Eng); Wright, Departure, ÄÙ(Syr) and 135 (Eng).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 307

29/10/18 13:02

308

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

…with the censer of the blessed one and everything was gathered to go with her to Bethlehem. And these virgins were the daughters of wealthy men and leaders of Jerusalem. And the names of the virgins were Calletha, Neshra, and Tabetha. Calletha was the daughter of Nicodemus, the friend of Christ, for in the name Calletha [the bride] is symbolized the glorious church, the betrothed of the Son of God. And the next one was… 1a, col. 223 ¿Þáã…{¾æxÀĀÂüý [¿þÙ]…ÎðäþàÍóù|x{z ¿úýÎò€z{ĀÙsx [ÁËÚ]äàx ? ¿çÝzÀÍäýèÚàzx ¿úÚà{ĀùÀËïÀĀáÝ > åáýsx ÍÙĀÙsx€z ÀËïÁxz{ .¿ÚäþÂx zÎãx¿ï¾ÂèàĀÙsx ¿ÚäþÂĀÙsx€zx€z ÍÚéÎÝèùĀãÍÂ{ Áüþæ{¿ÑÃþãÀÍàsx èãx¿ÑÚþã€z{ĀÙs âïuĀÙ€zÎÂsèÚäÙ ÀĀÃÓ{¿òĄéxÀĀÃÝüã …family of the emperor Nero, he who crucified Simon, the chief of the disciples. And the interpretation 23

Cf. Wright, Departure, ÇÙ(Syr) and 135-6 (Eng); Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca,Äã(Syr) and 25 (Eng).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 308

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

309

of these names is thus: Calletha is the catholic church which is in the heavenly Jerusalem. And this church that we have on the earth is the image of the one that is in heaven, and on it is established the throne of the glorious God. And Neshra is the Christ, who sits at the right hand of his Father on the chariot of the Seraphim. And Tabetha… 1b, col. 124 ¿ÑÚþãÛàÎÂüà¿ćà‹s ee¿ÚäþÂÛàĀÙsx ? ÀĀà{ĀÂèÚàzÍàuüù{ ? ĀÚà‹{¿äêÂx¿ćãüÚò Ûà΍üãs¿çÝz ¿ÚäþÂÛàĀÙsx¿ÑÚþ㠍Ëý{‚ËáÙxÍáúÂñäý ÁÎï|èçÐÎÙ€üäàÛà ÁËÐs{ÀÏÐsxÍÂÎÓÛÆéx €z{üÃпÑÚáþàÛàËý{ Áx{s{…ÎæsÀÏÐsx > ñäý{ .ÛàÁËðãx‚ÎÃÚÔà ¿ÚðÂx¿ćãâÞÂÛàĀæs ĀÚà‹ËÝ{ .ßà¿æs ¿çÝz [. . . . . . . . . .] …to pray to my master Christ whom I have in heaven. And the virgins brought her a censer of incense and she prayed 24

Cf. Wright, Departure, ÇÙ (Syr) and 136 (Eng). Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca, Çã-Äã (Syr) and 25 (Eng) begins similarly, but Smith Lewis’ edition soon turns to her nineteenth-century manuscript, which is notably different from both the Schøyen fragment and Wright’s edition.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 309

29/10/18 13:02

310

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

thus and said: “My master Christ whom I have in heaven, hear the voice of the one who bore you and send to me Mar John the younger, whose blessing is great, so that I may see [him] and rejoice. And send to me the apostles, his companions so that I may see them and praise your grace which helps me. And you hear me in everything that I pray to you.” And when she prayed ……….. thus… 1b, col. 225 ¿ÔãߍxÍãsxÍà èãüÔòx¿çÂ|Íà Áüòøà¿ćàs .¿æz¿ćäáï [Œ]ÎòÀĀÃý€z{ĀÙsx¿æz åÑàĀÚÃàÍÙxs‹ƒ| > ßÙÏЏx Íà¿ÅÛÆéxâÔã ¿æs¿ïxÎãu{Àz{ …{¾æxßÙüÃпÑÚáþà À{ăsèãÍÙxs‹ èÚàzèÙÍÂèÙĀÙsx ? .èÚÃÞýxèÚáÙs{èÚÚÐx èãèÙĀÚãxèÚáÙsxâÔã …ÎäÑæĀæ…{ÍÙüÃùÎÅ > ÀĀÚçÂÎÓx Íäáþà… Îà|¾æ{ …to him, “The time has come for the mother of your master to go forth from this world. But this morning, which is the Sabbath, go out and 25

Cf. Wright, Departure, ËÙ-ÇÙ (Syr) and 136 (Eng), although the text of the Schøyen fragment is rather different here. Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca,Çã (Syr) and 25-6 (Eng) is taken from her nineteenth-century manuscript, and the text differs significantly from both the Schøyen fragment and Wright’s edition.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 310

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

311

go to her in Bethlehem, because she has a great desire to see you. And behold I will also make known to the apostles your companions so that they will come to her from the places where they are, those that are living and those who have fallen asleep.26 Because those who are dead will be risen from within their graves, and they will come to greet the blessed one.” 2a, col. 127 züÃàËýxÀÍàsxÍäáý Íäáý{¿ćäáðàÀs{ ¿Úäýèã}|xÁüÂx Íäáý{åÙüäÂÁüý{ ¿ýxÎùx¿Ð{x ¿Ôáùüò{üã|xÁxÎÅüÓ {zxÍäáýÒÃþãx èÑÞþã¿ćàxÀĀÙüÂÁüã ¿ÑÂÎýèÞÚêæxÀĀÙü ÀĀÃÝüãûÃýxz{Íàsx ? ¿Úáï¿ćã{ĄäÂÀĀÂøãx ÍÂÎðÂÁüýÀs{ À{ÍæÀĀà{ĀÂåÙüãx èþçÝÍáÝ [åï{èäï] The peace of God who sent his son and came to earth; and the peace of the son who migrated from heaven and dwelt in Mary; and the peace of the Holy Spirit, the singer who sings and the Paraclete 26

Literally, “those who are sleeping.” Cf. Wright, Departure, v(Syr) and 129 (Eng); Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca ,ÄÝ(Syr) and 12 (Eng).

27

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 311

29/10/18 13:02

312

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

who is praised. And the peace of the Lord of created beings, the glory of whose divinity the created beings are unable to comprehend.28 And who left the adorned chariot in the highest heights and came and dwelt in the womb of the Virgin Mary, be with us and with all of our assembly. 2a, col. 229 [„Ëù]¿ÚäþÂÀĀÐÎÃý […Îã]Îúæ{¿ÑÚþã¿Þáã ¿ćäŏâ[ÃùÎ]à [¿ćä]ŏ ¿êÞÓ [åï]¿êÞÓ{ ÀĀÙüþãâÃùÎàÀĀÙüþã{ ¿ćäÚêÂÁĄLÔï{ÀĀÐÎÃý{ ÀËÆé{ÀĀÙx{{ [ÀÍ]à¾ćà åï¿êàÎù{ .¿ÑÚþäà ¿ýxÎùx¿Ð{üà¿ćáà{z €üãÀĀ[Úç]ÂÎÓxÍçúóã ¿æz¿ćäáïèãåÙüã ? .èçÙxÍðã…ÎÞÚãËùèÚÐs ÀĀݍ΀üãxÎúò … praise in heaven before Christ the king. And let the soldiers stand before the soldiers, ranks with ranks, armies before armies; and let there be praise and sweet incense unto God, and thanksgiving and worship unto Christ, and praise with 28

The form èÞÚêæxhere is a bit problematic, seeming to have the meaning “incapable of being infused with,” but we have followed both Wright and Smith Lewis who render the identical phrase as above in their translations. 29 Cf. Wright, Departure, x-v(Syr) and 129 (Eng); Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca ,ÇÝ-ÄÝ(Syr) and 13 (Eng).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 312

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

313

halleluiahs to the Holy Spirit. The departure of the blessed one, my master Mary, from this world we call to memory before you, our brothers. Command, my Lord, a blessing… 2b, col. 130 „ËùèãÀÍàsÍÃÅx Ëáُs{¿ćäáï…{ÍáÝ Ÿ ÀĀÐÎÃýxzüãÍçã ¿ÑÃþãÀÍàsxzü …{¾æ¿æËïâÚÝz¿æÍ ? ? ¿ÚÃæ{… {ÍÚãĄÚò{¿úÙx| ? […{]z{|{üÝ{¿ÑÚáý{…{ÍÙăÎóÚý{ …{ÍÚáÚáÝåïÁxÍé{ èÙüÚÐËÝ¿Úçïăs…ÎãÎúæ{ ÀĄÚã|èÙzĀþæ{¿çÚäþ ? ? ¿çÝz{¿Úáïxåï¿ÙĀ Џx ÀÍàs{zßÙüÂ…{üã¾æ > [ÍðÂü] äÂÁüý{züÃàËýx å[Ùü]ãx [¿þÙü]ù{¿[Ú]Ýx u{sx¿ÑÚþã{z [ßÙüÂ{] …whom God chose from before all the worlds and from her was born the Lord of glory, the Son of the exalted God. Therefore at this time let there come the righteous with their censers and the prophets with their trumpets and the apostles with their proclamation and the martyrs with their crowns. And let the earthly beings stand while gazing on the heavenly beings, and let the songs of those below be overcome by those above, and thus 30

Cf. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca,ËÝ-ÇÝ(Syr) and 13 (Eng). The version published in Wright, Departure, x(Syr) and 129-30 (Eng) includes only the first four lines of this column.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 313

29/10/18 13:02

314

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

let them say, “Blessed be God who sent his Son, and he dwelt in the pure and holy womb of Mary. [And blessed] be Christ, who exalts… 2b, col. 231 ? ÁËÆçà¿ÚÂ{èã{¿ÚÂ{üà ? èã{¿ÑòÎúàÁËÆæèã{ ¿óÚù|èã{¿óÚùÏà¿ÑòÎù ÁüÃúàÀÎãèã{ÀÎäà èã{¿ćäÐÎçàÁüÃùèã{ uĀÙÀz{¿Úäþà¿ćäÐÎæ ¿çÔàÎýx¿çÚäÙèãĀæs èãßçÚäÙ€üã~Îþò ‚üúÙsx¿ÑÃþã†Î捏 €üã‚üÂ{¿æz¿æËð ÍæüÝ{ËàÒÃþãxèþçÞà ? €üãx¿þçÂĀÞÙüÂßãsx ¿ćäáïèãxÍçúóäà{åÙü㠈ÎþÙ…üãèÙs .¿æz èÚãsèÚäáïåáðà¿ÑÚþã …to the growing up, and from the growing up to the flagellation, and from the flagellation to the humiliation, and from the humiliation to the cross, and from the cross to death, and from death to the grave, and from the grave to the resurrection, and from the resurrection to heaven. And behold, you sit at the right hand of power. Stretch forth your right hand, O Lord, from the exalted throne of your honor at this time, and bless, O Lord, our assembly, which glorifies the commemoration of your mother who is blessed among women, my master 31

Cf. Wright, Departure, x(Syr) and 130 (Eng); Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca, ËÝ (Syr) and 14 (Eng). Nevertheless, Smith Lewis reconstructs ? translating accordingly “carpenter” instead of here ÁüÆæinstead of ÁËÆæ, “flagellation” (or “stripes” as Wright translates).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 314

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

315

Mary, and her departure from this world. Yea, Lord Jesus Christ, to the ages of ages, amen. 3a, col. 132 ? ¿ò¾ÞÂèãĀà¿Ùsx zĀÚçÐÏÃã€ÍàzÎäÅ{ ÁăÎÔæèÙüãsâÙsüêÙsx „ËãÍàèçÐèÙüãs¿ćàèçÐ ¿ćà‹x¿Ùsx¿ćã¿ćàs …ÎÞàèçÚïxÎã{èçُsè㏠èÚ‹x„Ëã…{Āæs{ Íà{ËÃï…{Āæs €üãĀÃÚӏsÀĀÂ{üðÂ{ züÃùËًƒ|sxåÙüã ¿ćäê{z¿çÚðÓ{…üãx Āäٍs{¿Úàøã€z{ÁÎæ{ Ÿ ÚçÚï ? ¿ÚäþüÐ{Í ¿Úäýx¿ïăzĀðýüÂ{ ÁüÔïûáé{ÎÐĀòs …[she] comes there, stone her with stones, the despiser of Israel.” The guards say, “We say nothing to her, but when she comes to pray there, we will come and make it known to you. And whatever you want, you do to her.” And on Friday, my master Mary prepared herself to go to the tomb of the Lord, and she was carrying incense and fire. And she was praying and raised up her eyes and looked toward heaven, and at once the doors of heaven were opened and perfume ascended … 32

Cf. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca,Íà(Syr) and 20 (Eng). This passage is absent from the version edited by Wright.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 315

29/10/18 13:02

316

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

3a, col. 233 ¿ï¾ÂĀæs¿Úàøãx []æs [¿Úç]ïĀãzĀðýü ĀÚðÂx„ËãâÝ{¿Úäþ ÛÞàĀÙsxÁü¿ÑÚþãèã ÀÍàsx¿çÚäÙèã¿Úäþ À{z{¿ï¾Â{¿ÚäþÂ{ âáã¿ćáãèÚàzÛÞçÚ‹ Ÿ u{{âÙsüÃÅÍäï ĀÚà‹{åÙü』üãĀÝü ¿Ý¾ćáãÀsxÏÐx Ÿ .„ËäáÝÍïx{s{ÍÙxs‹ {üãsÁÎÔæÎáïèÙËÙz ? Àz{åÙü㏏sx¿æÍÞà ÀĀáÆÅ{ÁüÃùËً¿Úàøã

Ÿ zĀÚÃàs{ËÆéĀäù{ … when you prayed on earth, immediately you were heard in heaven, and everything that you seek from Christ, your son whom you have in heaven at the right hand of God, both in heaven and on earth your will will be done.” These words Gabriel spoke with her. And again my master Mary kneeled and prayed, as she saw that the angel had come to her and made everything known to her. Then the guards entered and said to the priests, “Mary came and, behold, is praying at the tomb and Golgotha.” And she arose and worshipped and came to her house…

33 Cf. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca,Îà-Íà (Syr) and 21 (Eng). The version published in Wright, Departure, ~(Syr) and 134 (Eng) has a rough parallel to lines 12-14 only.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 316

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

317

3b, col. 134 âÔã{ [¿ò{üÔòs¿çÚÃéx] ¿[ÑÚá]ý [€x]sÀ{zĀÑæx è[ٍ]{èÚðÃýèãËÐ €z{¾Âs[Ë]ï¿[çÂ]{ À{zĀÙsx¿Â¾Ý [Ûé]À{ €z{sx¿ÞáãüÆÂsÍà üÆÂsüÚÅÍàÀ{zÄÑã ¿ÑÚþãˆÎþÚà¿Þáã èÂÏáÞÂÀ{zƒ¾þã{ ßàÍãËÝ[{z]ĀàÎÔã ¿ćàËï [¿ćáÚ]áÆ¿[ÑÚ]þã [Ò]áý¿[Ùx]{ÍÙ [€]Í[Î]óùÏæ ßàÀxüÆÂsÍàÀ{z ? ¿Ùx{ÍÙxĀðäýxâÔã€xs‹ …[of Sabinus the procurator.] And because the apostle Addai, one of the seventy-two, had gone down and built a church in Edessa and healed the disease which Abgar the king of Edessa had, King Abgar truly loved Jesus Christ and was constantly asking about him. And when Christ was walking in Galilee, before the Jews crucified him, Abgar sent a message to him, “Come to me, because I have heard that the Jews…

34

Cf. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca,Îà (Syr) and 21 (Eng); Wright, Departure, €(Syr) and 134 (Eng). Nevertheless, the last five lines, concerning Abgar’s letter to Christ, do not occur in Wright’s edition.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 317

29/10/18 13:02

318

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

3b, col. 235 À{zÄþÐĀã .üò ¿æsüÃï…sxÍçÚïü Ÿ ÀÎÃÂËáðÂÍà¿Ù{z üêù†ÎÙüÃÚÔàÛàĀÚ ÀüÅsüÆÂsÀ{zuĀÝ{ ¿çÚÃêàÍàÀ{zËý{ [¿çÚÃé]{z{¿ò{üÔòs ? †ÎÙüÃÚÔàèÚæsËý èã¿çÝzüÚÅÍàuĀÝ Îçðãü¿ÞáãüÆÂs ĀÚÂxÀĀçÙËã€z{sx À¾ÚÆé¿ćäáýèٍÍæ †ÎÙüÃÓ …üわÎÞáäà [€]xs‹ûÐĀý¿ćàxâÔã [s]ÍæüÃï¿ćà [‚ÎÞáã] …Euphrates, he was thinking to himself, “If I cross over, there will be enmity between Tiberius Caesar and me. And Abgar wrote letters and sent them to Sabinus the procurator. And Sabinus sent them to Tiberius. For he wrote thus: “From Abgar, son of Ma’anu, king of the city Edessa in Mesopotamia, much peace to your majesty, our master Tiberius. In order that your majesty would not be angry with me, I did not cross over the river…

35

Cf. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca,Ïà(Syr) and 21-2 (Eng); Wright, Departure, €(Syr) and 134 (Eng).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 318

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

319

4a, col. 136 [ĀÚãËÝ{] .ßæÎáÔúæxèÚð [ü]ÆÂsñäý{¿[ÑÚ]þ㠀zÎáÔù¿óÚùÏÂx¿Þáã ? üÆÂsÀ{z€üÝs¿Ùx{ÍÙ À{zËýxâïĀÙsüÙĀÙ ËЀx¾ćà€z{xs‹…üã ÍÚés{èٍ{èÚðÃýèã À{zĀÙsx¿Â¾Ýèã ÍáÝ{{zÄݍ{åù{ .Íà ¿ćãËïÀs{ .ÍáÚÐ À{z¿ðÂ{ÁÍæüóà åáý{sâïûêæx ĀáÔùxâïÍÚÂüÑæx{ ÀsËÝ{züã¿ÑÚþã [s]Íçà¿ÞáãüÆÂs … are wanting to kill you. [And when] Christ [had died,] and king Abgar heard that the Jews had killed him on a cross, Abgar was even more upset, because the Lord had sent to him Addai, one of the seventy-two, and he had healed him from the disease that he had. And he arose and rode, he and all of his army. And he came as far as the Euphrates river, and he wanted to go up against Jerusalem and destroy it, because it had murdered Christ his Lord. And when King Abgar came to the river,…

36

Cf. Smith Lewish, ApocryphaSyriaca,Îà(Syr) and 21 (Eng); Wright, Departure, € (Syr) and 134 (Eng). Nevertheless, a few elements are absent from Wright’s version.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 319

29/10/18 13:02

320

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

4a, col. 237 ûésxĀÙ{z¿ðÂxüò > âï ÍÚÂüÐs{åáý{¾ćà ¿Úés¿ÑÚþäàĀáÔùx ßÙsĀæs¿ćàs¿ćäÚÞÐ ĀæsÕÚáýx¿Â¿Þáã > ËÃïËý¿ïs ÍáÝâï ? åáý{sÛçÂèã¿çÙxÛà „Ëãx¿ÑÚþäàĀáÔùx Îàsx…{ÍÂâÞés¿ćà ĀÙ{zËýÛÐËݿ‹ ÍàÀ¾æxzĀêÚòs ËÝ{z{ .€z{¾ćà€xs‹ ËÃï¿ćàÿÚÂx„Ëã ¿Úþù¿çÙË€zÎáÔù ...Euphrates, because I was wanting to go up to Jerusalem and destroy it, because it murdered Christ, the wise physician. But you, as a great king who rules over the entire earth, send and give me a judgment against the people of Jerusalem, because it murdered Christ, who caused them no offense. For if he had wished it while he was living, I would have sent and persuaded him to come to me in Edessa. And although he did nothing wrong, they murdered him with a harsh judgment… 4b, col. 138 €üãĀäٍsx¿ćã{zx Ûçò{¿ćãüÚóÂåÙüã 37

Cf. Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca, Ïà (Syr) and 22 (Eng); Wright, Departure, €(Syr) and 134 (Eng). 38 Cf. Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca, Íà (Syr) and 20-1 (Eng). This passage is absent from the version edited by Wright.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 320

29/10/18 13:02

NEW SYRIAC DORMITION FRAGMENTS

321

À{s…{ÍáÞÂÍÑٍ ÀsÀĀðþÂÍÂ{¿[Úä]ýx èã¿Ý¾ćáãâ[Ùs]üÃÅ > ËÆé‚üÂ{ zÎà¿Úäý Ÿ ÛÞàåáýÍàüãs{Íà ÛݏÎà‹ÀÍàsËáÙ „Ëù¿ÚäþÂĀáÃùs ¿ÑÚþãˆÎþÙ…üãÛÝü èãÛÞà€ĀúóæâÚÞã{ åáðàx¿ÚÑà¿æz¿ćäáï [x]ĀýsüÚÅ¿çÝz .èÚäáï [¿æËðÂxÛ]Þïx{s{ÛÞàüãsx had raised up in the censor, and its scent spread throughout all the regions of heaven. And at that moment the angel Gabriel came from heaven unto her, and he knelt to worship her. And he said to her, “Hail to you, Theotokos, your prayer Has been received in heaven before your son, the Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore you will go forth from this world to life eternal. For thus have I been sent to tell you and make known to you [that at the moment]… 4b, col. 239 [¿Úý]ÎÆýÀ{z{åáý{¾ćà €üã [â]Ô[ã]åáý{¾Â ? æÍÝ Íà [èٍ]ãs [åÙ]üã ¿ > [ÍÙ]ËúòËý¿æÎäÅÍà ¿ćà‹ƒ|s¿ćàxåÙüäà eeÀĀàÎÆÅ{ÁüÃùËً èÚà[z]èÚÃþÐĀã…ÎæzËÝ{ üÆÂsèã [€]sÀüÅs 39 Cf. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca,Îà (Syr) and 21 (Eng); Wright, Departure, ~(Syr) and 134 (Eng).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 321

29/10/18 13:02

322

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

€z{sx¿ćäÝ{s¿Þáã ¿ò{üÔòs¿çÚÃêàÀĀçÙËã üêù†ÎÙüÚÃÚÔàÀ{zËÚÃïx ÁÍæüóà¿ćãËï{ ÍçÔàÎýÀ{z [€]z{ĀÙs …, to Jerusalem. And there was a great tumult in Jerusalem on account of my master Mary. And the priests said to the governor, “Send and command Mary not to go and pray at the tomb and Golgotha. And while they were plotting, letters came from Abgar, the black king of the city of Edessa, to Sabinus the procurator, who had been appointed by Tiberius Caesar, and his jurisdiction extended to the Euphrates river…

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_11.indd 322

29/10/18 13:02

XII.

Apocalyptic Traditions in the Armenian Dormition Narratives

The early traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption are a particularly rich, if frequently overlooked, repository of early Christian apocalyptic traditions. These diverse narratives of the end of Mary’s life, which survive in a wide range of languages, generally conclude with Mary’s transfer to the other world, often offering a detailed vision of both heaven and hell and the fates awaiting humankind. Either in or out of her body, according to different versions, Mary is brought to the eschatological Garden of Paradise, where she receives a foretaste of the reward awaiting all the Just at the end of time. While many interpreters have sought to relate this early tradition to modern dogmatic debates, it seems that the theological significance of Mary’s precocious return to the Garden in these ancient apocrypha has more to do with the eschatological role of Paradise as envisioned within a given text rather than the Mariological disputes of later centuries. The fluid and interstitial nature of Paradise in the early Christian imagination is on full display in these texts: it is a place at once both terrestrial and celestial that serves either as a kind of first-class waiting room for the final judgment or as the ultimate destination of the righteous where they will receive their eternal reward – or sometimes as both. Whatever its precise status, Paradise always lies at the center of the eschatological drama envisioned by these early Christian apocrypha.1 The apocalyptic atmosphere of Mary’s departure from this world – as well as the shifting role of Paradise – appears most vividly in the cosmic tours that complete the earliest narratives of her passing. These long ignored early Christian apocalypses, dating to the third and fourth centuries, if not perhaps even earlier, follow the Virgin on a journey through the other world, guided by her son and sometimes in the company of the apostles. After the miraculous transfer of her 1

See S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition andAssumption (Oxford, 2002) 179-203.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 323

29/10/18 13:02

324

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

body to the Garden of Paradise, she is resurrected there just prior to her celestial excursion, which brings her not only to visit the dwelling places of the righteous and the damned but into the very presence of God the Father. Two distinct versions of this early apocalypse of the Virgin survive, one at the end of the earliest narratives from the so-called “Palm of the Tree of Life” tradition, and another that concludes the oldest “Bethlehem” narratives.2 Despite a handful of common features linking these ancient Marian apocalypses, their manifold differences reveal two distinct literary traditions that developed independently of one another from a fairly early stage.3 The apocalypse from the Palm tradition survives most completely in the Ethiopic Liber Requiei Mariae, although significant portions of Mary’s heavenly journey appear in several Syriac fragments from late fifth century manuscripts, as well as in other early witnesses.4 This cosmic tour begins with a visit to the place of the damned, where Mary beholds their torments, and the sufferings of a few individuals are explained to her in light of their transgressions, a feature common to many other “tours of Hell.” When the damned cry out for mercy, Mary successfully intercedes on their behalf, securing for them nine hours of respite every Sunday in what is seemingly one of the earliest examples of a belief in Marian intercession. Then Mary proceeds to the land of the blessed, and many of the Biblical Patriarchs come to greet her, including Enoch, who is singled out for particular emphasis. Finally, Mary enters “the seventh heaven,” where she and the apostles behold God, who is “entirely fire” and suspended by two seraphim so that God’s feet do not touch the earth, an event that will occasion the world’s final destruction. This apocalypse from the Palm tradition

2

For a description of these two literary traditions, the “Palm” and “Bethlehem” traditions, and the most important narratives in each tradition, see ibid., 32-57. 3 See the discussion in R. Bauckham, “The Four Apocalypses of the Virgin Mary,” TheFateoftheDead:StudiesonJewishandChristianApocalypses (Leiden, 1998) 332-62. 4 Liber Requiei 89-136 (V. Arras (ed.), De transitu Mariae apocrypha aethiopice, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1973) 1:53-84 (Eth) and 34-54 (Lat)); W. Wright, ContributionstotheApocryphalLiteratureoftheNewTestament (London, 1865) ¿é-Õæ(Syr) and 46-8 (Eng); English trans. in Shoemaker, Ancient TraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 340-50. Regarding the manuscripts and their dates, see ibid., 33-4, 153-61.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 324

29/10/18 13:02

APOCALYPTIC IN ARMENIAN DORMITION NARRATIVES

325

appears to belong to the third century, although a dating to the late second or early fourth century cannot be ruled out entirely.5 Its contents are in many ways quite similar to the ApocalypseofPaul, and it would appear that there is some sort of a literary connection between the two texts. As Richard Bauckham has noted, comparison of the tours of Hell described by these two texts seems to suggest the influence of this Marian apocalypse on the ApocalypseofPaul, rather than vice versa, and, as I have noted elsewhere, several additional features are indicative of the Palm apocalypse’s priority.6 An alternative account of Mary’s Himmelreise completes the socalled Six Books apocryphon, the earliest narrative of Mary’s Dormition from the Bethlehem traditions.7 Preserved by several Syriac manuscripts of the late fifth and sixth centuries,8 this Dormition narrative and its concluding apocalypse date to the middle of the fourth century, if not slightly earlier.9 In this version, Mary’s sightseeing begins in the 5

Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, 32-46, 205-78. See also M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’assomption avant le Xe siècle,” in F. Bovon (ed.), Lesactesapocryphesdesapôtres (Geneva, 1981) 265-85; M. van Esbroeck, “Bild und Begriff in der Transitus-Literatur, der Palmbaum und der Tempel,” in M. Schmidt (ed.), Typus, Symbol,AllegoriebeidenöstlichenVäternundihrenParallelenimMittelalter (Regensburg, 1982) 333-51; M. van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features in the Life of the Virgin,” Marianum 63 (2001) 297-308; Bauckham, “Four Apocalypses of the Virgin,” 344-46. 6 Bauckham, “Four Apocalypses of the Virgin,” 344-46; Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 42-46. Cf. Apocalypseof Paul 34-6, 43-4 (M. R. James (ed.), Apocrypha Anecdota: A Collection of Thirteen Apocryphal Books and Fragments Now First Edited from Manuscripts, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1893-7) 29-30, 34-6). 7 The best published witness to this tradition is W. Wright, “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World,” TheJournalofSacredLiteratureand Biblical Record 6-7 (1865) 417-48 and 108-60, ¿æ-Ëã (Syr) and 156-60 (Eng). 8 Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 46-9. 9 See S. J. Shoemaker, MaryinEarlyChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016) 130-65. See also S. J. Shoemaker, “Death and the Maiden: The Early History of the Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha,” StVladimir’s Theological Quarterly 50 (2006) 59-97 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 1); S. J. Shoemaker, “A Peculiar Version of the Inventio crucis in the Early Syriac Dormition Traditions,” SP 41 (2006) 75-81 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 4); S. J. Shoemaker, “Marian Liturgies and Devotion in Early Christianity,”

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 325

29/10/18 13:02

326

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

lowest heaven, where she beholds the storehouses of the wind and the rain, the snow and the clouds, the heat and the dew. She then ascends into the “heaven of heaven” and reaches the heavenly Jerusalem. After passing through each of its twelve gates and being worshipped by the celestial guardians of each gate, Mary eventually comes into the presence of God the Father and worships before God in the heavenly Jerusalem. Next, Mary visits the dwelling places of the righteous and the damned, where she first beholds the Just gazing with anticipation on the final reward that awaits them at the end of time. Likewise, the Damned stand beholding the roaring fires of Gehenna, the site of their future punishment. When Mary hears their cries, she intercedes with her son on their behalf, although, in contrast to the Palm apocalypse, we do not learn if she was successful. The tour then ends with Mary’s return to the Paradise of Eden, where she foretells the world’s coming destruction and promises to intercede on behalf of those who call upon her name. While the earliest Dormition narratives reach their climax with Mary’s visions of the heavenly mysteries and the secrets of the Last Day, later accounts of her passing are more modest in their conclusions, often being content to note merely the miraculous removal of Mary’s body from the world without further explanation.10 The resulting narratives no longer fit the apocalyptic “genre” reflected in the oldest Dormition apocrypha, but numerous apocalyptic elements nevertheless remain embedded in more recent accounts, as vestiges of their earlier history.11 This tendency largely governs the Armenian traditions in S. J. Boss (ed.), Mary:TheCompleteResource (London, 2007) 130-45, 132-8; S. J. Shoemaker, “The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century: A Fresh Look at Some Old and New Sources,” in C. Maunder (ed.), TheOriginsoftheCultoftheVirginMary (London, 2008) 71-87; S. J. Shoemaker, “Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Later Fourth Century,” JECS 16 (2008) 369-99 (reprinted in this volume, Ch. 8); Bauckham, “Four Apocalypses of the Virgin,” 358-60; Michel van Esbroeck, “Some Earlier Features,” 297308. 10 See B. E. Daley, On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies (Crestwood, NY, 1998) 27-35; Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirgin Mary’sDormition, 26. 11 On the distinction between apocalypse or apocalyptic as a specific literary genre in contrast the notion of apocalyptic as set of related religious phenomena present in a variety of texts, see, e.g., the discussions by Collins

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 326

29/10/18 13:02

APOCALYPTIC IN ARMENIAN DORMITION NARRATIVES

327

of Mary’s Dormition, which preserve almost no trace of her apocalyptic voyage through the heavenly realms. On the whole, these narratives appear to be relatively late and derivative of the earlier accounts that survive in various other languages. The elimination of Mary’s cosmic tour and the moderation of the apocalyptic tenor evident in earlier narratives in particular signal their production at a more recent date. In fact, their accounts of the events of Mary’s departure from this life are often highly compressed, eliminating narrative detail to allow way for hymnic prayers to the triune God and encomia on the Virgin and on virginity. In this respect, the Armenian traditions mirror the Greek homilies of the Middle Byzantine period, which have similarly pared the tale of Mary’s Dormition in order to provide openings for extended praises of the Virgin as well as theological reflections on her status as the bearer of God. In Armenian, the apocalyptic elements of the Virgin’s quietus are best preserved in those narratives that have been translated from Greek. Of these, the epitome of John of Thessalonica’s HomilyontheDormition shows the most continuity with the apocalyptically charged atmosphere of the earliest narratives.12 Although the Greek original survives in only four manuscripts, this compressed version of John’s homily appears in well over a dozen Armenian manuscripts, where it appears primarily as a liturgical reading for the feast of Mary’s Dormition.13 Despite the lack of a critical edition, Tamar Dasnabedian has published the Armenian text with French translation from a seventeenth-century manuscript from the library of the Catholicosate of Cilicia in Antelias.14 and others in J. J. Collins (ed.) Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Missoula, Mont., 1979) esp. p. 9, where the genre of apocalypse is defined. See also the helpful discussion of this problem in M. E. Stone, JewishWritings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, SectarianWritings,Philo,Josephus (Philadelphia, 1984) 392-5. 12 John’s seventh-century HomilyontheDormition itself was published in M. Jugie (ed.), Homélies mariales byzantines (II) (Paris, 1926) 344-438; English trans. in Daley, OntheDormitionofMary, 47-70. 13 Regarding the Greek and Armenian manuscripts, see S. C. Mimouni, DormitionetAssomptiondeMarie:Histoiredestraditionsanciennes (Paris, 1995) 148-9 and 329-30. 14 T. Dasnabedian, “Un récit arménien du Pseudo-Jean l’Évangeliste sur la Dormition,” Armach 1 (1992) 27-38. I have cited from the reprint of this article in T. Dasnabedian, LaMèredeDieu:Étudessurl’Assomptionetsur l’imagedelatrès-sainteMèredeDieu (Antelias, 1995) 51-72.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 327

29/10/18 13:02

328

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

In comparison with the Greek text published by Halkin,15 this Armenian version preserves slightly more of its source, but clearly this recension stands within the same broader textual tradition as the Greek précis. This epitome is in fact a direct descendent of the earliest Palm narratives, albeit one that has been subject to at least three major efforts at redaction, each of which seems to have had an impact on the transmission of apocalyptic traditions. John of Thessalonica, at the beginning of his early seventh-century homily on the Dormition, informs his audience that he is presenting them with a highly expurgated version of Mary’s Dormition.16 In his search for literary traditions relevant to the newly established feast of the Virgin’s Dormition, it seems that John could only find a rather heterodox account of her passing, which he then undertook to revise according to the orthodoxies of the seventh century for use in his congregation. Antoine Wenger identified a version of John’s “heretical” Greek source in a single manuscript from the Vatican, and this early Greek narrative had already begun to condense the much more lengthy account evident in the LiberRequiei, in particular by eliminating its dramatic apocalyptic conclusion.17 The third layer of redaction came with the production of the epitome, which presumably aimed at making John’s homily, itself already a popular liturgical reading, more suited for shorter services. Nevertheless, of all the Armenian Dormition narratives, this précis of John’s homily best conveys the apocalyptic elements of the earliest traditions. The story opens with a sort of mini-apocalypse, in which the angel Gabriel appears to Mary in Jerusalem to announce her impending death.18 After venerating the Virgin, Gabriel presents her with a palm from the garden of Paradise, woven in the form of a crown, and places

15

F. Halkin, “Une légende byzantine de la Dormition: L’Epitomé du récit de Jean de Thessalonique,” REB 11 (1953) 156-64. 16 John of Thessalonica, HomilyontheDormition1 (Jugie, Homéliesmarialesbyzantines(II), 376-7). 17 The text was published in A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Vierge danslatraditionbyzantineduVIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 210-47; English trans. in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirgin Mary’sDormition, 351-69. In the same volume, Wenger establishes its relation to John of Thessalonica’s source: Wenger, L’Assomption, 31-67. See also the edition and study by F. Manns, LerécitdelaDormitiondeMarie(Vatican grec1982)(Jerusalem, 1989). 18 Dasnabedian, LaMèredeDieu, 53-4 (Arm) and 62-3 (Fr).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 328

29/10/18 13:02

APOCALYPTIC IN ARMENIAN DORMITION NARRATIVES

329

it on her head. This is of course the eponymous palm from the Tree of Life, for which this literary tradition is named, appearing here in a slightly different guise. Although the oldest traditions seem to describe the object given to Mary by the angel as a book containing the mysteries of heaven and earth, other early traditions, including John’s homily, refer merely to the angel’s presentation of a βραβεῖον, a “prize” literally, from the Garden of Eden.19 This summary of John’s homily likewise describes the object as a βραβεῖον, borrowing the word from the Greek (բրաբիոն), but a later redactor clarifies the nature of the prize by identifying it as the victor’s crown of palms (զպսակնբրաբոնեանման ոստոց արմաւենեաց). According to the earliest narratives, Mary then ascends the Mount of Olives at the angel’s instruction, so that he can reveal to her secrets of such great magnitude that uttering them in Jerusalem would bring about the city’s destruction. In this précis, however, Mary instead climbs the mountain merely to pray there, and on her way up the trees of the mountain bow down before the Edenic palm that she carries. In her prayer Mary recalls a promise by her son that he would come himself at her death to escort her soul personally into the next world, and this is confirmed by a voice from heaven reassuring her that the promise will be kept. In the earliest narratives, however, Mary explains that she is afraid to confront the fearsome powers that come upon the souls of the departed after they leave the body, recalling her son’s vow that he would come to her himself.20 Although this point is elided here from the Armenian epitome, the tradition of the soul’s frightful encounter with two angels as it exits the body is given full voice as Mary subsequently discloses the news of her imminent death to a group of friends and family.21 Recounting a well-known apocalyptic tradition that is echoed by the ApocalypseofPaul, Mary explains that two angels come to meet each human soul, an angel of righteousness and an angel of wickedness.22 The two angels struggle over the individual soul, grabbing on to it at the moment when it leaves the body, and the measure 19 See the discussion of this object in Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsofthe VirginMary’sDormition, 40-3, 351-3 n. 2. 20 See, e.g., the discussion in J. Rivière, “Rôle du démon au jugement particulier: Contribution à l’histoire des ‘Transitus Mariae,’” BLE 48 (1947) 49-56, 98-126. 21 Dasnabedian, LaMèredeDieu, 54-5 (Arm) and 64 (Fr). 22 Apoc.Paul. 11-18 (James, ApocryphaAnecdota, 14-21).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 329

29/10/18 13:02

330

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

of righteousness or sin that the soul has accumulated decides the outcome: if it is righteous, the good angel will guide the soul to place of the just, while if it is full of sin, the wicked angel leads it down into the pit of Hell. Immediately thereafter, the apostle John arrives at Mary’s house: unlike the earliest narratives, in which John arrives on a flying cloud, the précis follows John of Thessalonica’s homily by merely noting the Beloved Disciple’s arrival, clarifying further that he had been preaching the gospel in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Once Mary shares with him the news of her impending death, the other apostles also suddenly appear, snatched away from the various lands where they were preaching by the Holy Spirit, and here again the primitive tradition of their conveyance on flying clouds has been removed from the text.23 The next morning, Christ descends with a host of angels to collect his mother’s soul; receiving it into his hands, he then gives it over to the archangel Michael. When the apostles are amazed at how brilliantly white the Virgin’s soul appears, Christ explains for them that such is the original state of all human souls, which only become darkened through their sins.24 At Christ’s instructions, the apostles bury the Virgin’s body in a tomb in the valley of Gethsemane, and for three days they guard the tomb, while choirs of angels sing continuously. Then, on the morning of the fourth day, Christ returns with his army of celestial powers, descending on a luminous cloud. The angels lift Mary’s body onto the cloud, by which means it is conveyed to heaven and placed at the right hand of the Son, fulfilling the words of the Psalmist, “The Queen will stand at the right hand” (Ps. 44.10 [LXX]).25 Nevertheless, we learn little else of the Virgin’s ultimate fate. The narrative concludes as one of the apostles, Bartholomew, arrives late from the region of “Khorasan,” well after the events of the Virgin’s Dormition. In order to console him, the other apostles decide to open the Virgin’s tomb, allowing him to at least behold her holy, God-bearing body one final time. When they discover the tomb is in fact empty, a heavenly voice orders that a miraculous icon produced by the apostle John should be given to Bartholomew to take back with him to Khorasan as a sort of 23 24 25

Dasnabedian, LaMèredeDieu, 55 (Arm) and 64-5 (Fr). Ibid., 58-9 (Arm) and 67-9 (Fr). Ibid., 60-1 (Arm) and 70-1 (Fr).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 330

29/10/18 13:02

APOCALYPTIC IN ARMENIAN DORMITION NARRATIVES

331

consolation prize. Since he could not behold the Virgin herself one last time, this pristine icon would allow an alternate means of seeing and venerating Mary after her departure from this world.26 In this way, the uniquely Armenian traditions of the revered icon of the Virgin at Hogeac῾ Vank῾ are woven into these imported traditions of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, adapting this ecumenical narrative to the distinct contours of Armenian piety.27 A homily on the Dormition ascribed to John Chrysostom is also transmitted in Armenian; the Greek original, however, has not survived, and the Armenian version is preserved by only a single manuscript.28 Although Michel van Esbroeck has argued that the homily’s true author may be identified as John II of Jerusalem, bishop of the Holy City at the end of the fourth century,29 this proposal seems very unlikely. The homily is in fact quite difficult to date, and while its tradition that Mary was living with the apostle John in his parents’ house at the time of her death is certainly anomalous, it is not possible to rule out the homily’s composition sometime in the early Middle Ages.30 The literary tendencies of the Middle Byzantine homiletic tradition are clearly evident in this narrative, which certainly could suggest its production sometime after the seventh century. Roughly the first half of this homily consists of praises to the Virgin and theological reflections on her role in the economy of salvation; the remainder narrates her life from birth to death in just over seven printed pages, covering the events of her Dormition in about two and a half pages, and even this relatively short Dormition narrative contains a lengthy theological discourse delivered by Peter.31 The apocalyptic traditions of the earlier narratives are thus predictably minimized by this homily. The angel’s initial revelation is replaced by a generic vision, and there is no description of the angelic struggle over the souls of the deceased, although the apostles do arrive at Mary’s house on their miraculous flying clouds. Christ arrives with 26

Ibid., 61 (Arm) and 71 (Fr). For more on this famous icon, see ibid., 9-26. 28 M. van Esbroeck, “Une homélie arménienne sur la dormition attribuée à Chrysostome,” OrChr 74 (1990) 199-233. 29 Ibid., 205-8. 30 Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 69-70. 31 The homily’s Dormition narrative can be found at van Esbroeck, “Une homélie arménienne,” 218-20 (Arm) and 231-3 (Fr). 27

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 331

29/10/18 13:02

332

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

his army of angels to receive his mother’s soul and carry it to heaven. The apostles then bury her, and three days later an apostle’s late arrival, this time Thomas, occasions their discovery of her empty tomb. The narrative concludes then with a description of the Virgin’s current presence in Paradise, where she lives near the “wood of life,” enjoying the many fruits of the Eden. There is no cosmic tour, but the rich vegetation of the celestial garden is vividly described, as are the four “sanctifying rivers”: in this garden of heavenly delights the Virgin already enjoys her eternal reward, interceding constantly on behalf of the whole world. The earliest Dormition narrative actually composed in Armenian appears to be the so-called “Armenian Transitus,” a rather unique account that survives only in Armenian, where it is widely attested in a number of manuscripts, primarily in liturgical collections. While there is still no critical edition of this text, Tayec῾i published a version in his collection of New Testament apocrypha from a manuscript belonging to the Venice Mechitarists, which he collated with four other manuscripts from the same library.32 A few years later, Paul Vetter published a German translation of the same text following a manuscript in Paris, together with variants from three additional manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale, although unfortunately he did not publish the Armenian text.33 Two redactions of the text are known, one longer and one shorter, yet in the absence of a critical edition it is not clear which of these may be earlier. Judging from the versions published by Tayec῾i and Vetter, this Armenian Transitus appears to be a very heavily revised version of the early Palm of the Tree of Life traditions, which, as Vetter rightly notes, is best understood as an original composition in Armenian that draws on earlier sources, rather than a translation from Greek or Syriac, as others have proposed.34 Like the translations from Greek, the Armenian Transitus similarly downgrades the apocalyptic qualities of the earliest traditions. Here, the narrative has been considerably compressed to allow for expositions 32 E. Tayets῾i, “ԵրանելոյնՆիկոդիմոսիասացեալյաղագսննջմանՄարիանու Աստուածածնի եւ Միշտ Կուսին (A Narration Concerning the Dormition of the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary by the Blessed Nicodemus),” Անկանոն գիրքՆորԿտակարանաց(Ankanongirk῾NorKtakaranats῾(ApocryphalBooks oftheNewTestament)) (Venice, 1898) 451-78. 33 P. Vetter, “Die armenische dormitio Mariae,” TQ 84 (1902) 321-49. 34 Ibid., 324-6.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 332

29/10/18 13:02

APOCALYPTIC IN ARMENIAN DORMITION NARRATIVES

333

on the Trinity and the Incarnation, as well as for praises to the Virgin and exhortations to virginity. The characteristic palm from the Tree of Life has even vanished from the story, but the angel’s opening revelation is well preserved: at the angel’s command Mary ascends the Mount of Olives where he announces her death, promising her a peaceful departure from this world. The Lord himself will come to receive her soul, sparing her the agonies and terrors that other humans must face when leaving the body.35 When Mary announces her impending departure to John, she asks him to pray that upon her death she will “pass by the evil powers and demons that are on the earth.”36 Presumably, this passage echoes the older tradition of the two angels and their dreadful struggle for the fate of the newly departed soul. The apostles are miraculously assembled for the Virgin’s death and burial, but here again their means of transport is not specified. Most peculiar, however, is the absence of Christ at the moment of his mother’s expiration: despite the angel’s promise, he does not appear with his heavenly host to receive Mary’s soul. Rather, after praying for part of the day and through the night, Mary finally says “Amen” early in the morning and then gives up her spirit.37 Following her burial, Mary’s body is miraculously removed from the tomb in an account with strong similarities to the epitome of John of Thessalonica’s homily, although lacking the device of the late apostle. As for the Virgin’s final state, this text remains cautiously agnostic. While her body has indeed been transferred to Paradise (or Heaven), the question of whether her soul has rejoined her body in a resurrection is raised but not answered. Instead, the narrative deliberately urges reverent silence concerning what is a tremendous mystery.38

35

Tayets῾i, “ԵրանելոյնՆիկոդիմոսիասացեալ,” 451-3; trans. Vetter, “Die armenische dormitio Mariae,” 327-9. 36. զիանցիցընդիչխւնութիւնսեւընդայսսչարութէանորքընդերկրաւս: Tayets῾i, “ԵրանելոյնՆիկոդիմոսիասացեալ,” 460; trans. Vetter, “Die armenische dormitio Mariae,” 335. 37 Tayets῾i, “ԵրանելոյնՆիկոդիմոսիասացեալ,” 471; trans. Vetter, “Die armenische dormitio Mariae,” 344. 38 3ափշտակեցաւաﬔնասուրբմարﬕննամպովքյերկինս,եթէհոգւովﬕաւորեալ իցէ ընդ մարﬕնն եւ եթէ ոչ գիւեմ, Աստուած գիտէ....Եւ ﬔզ լռութեամբ պատուեսցիանհասութեամբիգովութիւնեւիփառսԿուսին.: Tayets῾i, “ԵրանելոյնՆիկոդիմոսիասացեալ,” 473; trans. Vetter, “Die armenische dormitio Mariae,” 345.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 333

29/10/18 13:02

334

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Certain other Armenian narratives, such as the pseudepigraphical “Reply to the Letter of Sahak” ascribed to Movsēs Xorenac῾i39 or the homily “The Creator of Creatures” by Catholicos Zachariah (855877),40 relate traditions of Mary’s Dormition, although both appear to be considerably more recent compositions and their narrations of the Dormition are rather meager. The former text serves primarily to promote veneration of the miraculous icon of Hogeac῾ Vank῾, offering a brief summary of the Dormition merely provide the occasion for the icon’s transfer to Armenia by means of a tardy Bartholomew. As for Zachariah’s homily, it bears close literary relations to the homily ascribed to John Chrysostom discussed above, yet with even less to say regarding the Virgin’s Dormition.41 In each case, the apocalyptic ambiance of the early traditions is further diminished in these accounts, confirming the broader trend in this direction. The steady elimination of apocalyptic from these narratives certainly raises the question of why the Armenian tradition, as well as the Greek, developed in this fashion. There are perhaps many explanations, but two in particular leap to the fore. Firstly, this tendency possibly reflects Mary’s increasing importance within Orthodox theological discourse, as well as the development and promotion of her veneration by church authorities. The earliest Dormition narratives, and perhaps Marian piety itself, first emerged somewhere along the margins of ancient Christianity, outside the purview of the ecclesiastical authorities and theologians, who were increasingly suspicious of apocalyptic traditions.42 As these narratives became widely adopted for use in official church liturgies, the apocalyptic imagination of Mary’s early

In M. Khorenatsi, ՍրբոյհօրնﬔրոյՄովսէսիԽորենացւոյմատենագրութիւնք (Srboy horn meroy Movsesi Khorenats῾woy matenagrut῾iwnk῾ (The Writings of our Holy Father Moses Khorenatsi)) (Venice, 18652) 283-96; French trans. Dasnabedian, LaMèredeDieu, 26-45. 40 M. van Esbroeck, “L’homélie Արարիչարարածոց, ses attributs et sa métamorphose,” Hask (n.s.) (1994) 47-66. 41 The two homilies also have significant parallels with the “Letter to Sahak.” See also the study of a fourth closely related text in Dasnabedian, LaMèredeDieu, 73-102. 42 Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition, 205-89; S. J. Shoemaker, “Jesus’ Gnostic Mom: Mary of Nazareth and the Gnostic Mary Traditions,” in D. Good (ed.), Mariam,theMagdalen,andtheMother (Bloomington, 2005) 153-83; Shoemaker, “Epiphanius of Salamis”. 39

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 334

29/10/18 13:02

APOCALYPTIC IN ARMENIAN DORMITION NARRATIVES

335

devotees may have become less welcome in congregational worship.43 Perhaps more decisive, however, was the eventual emergence of the ApocalypseoftheVirgin as a separate literary tradition.44 Once these Marian apocalyptic traditions came to have a vibrant life of their own, the story of Mary’s otherworldly excursion became less important to the story of her Dormition, which itself was repeatedly condensed during its transmission in the early Middle Ages, presumably with an eye toward greater liturgical efficiency.45 Although this apocryphon has been almost completely ignored in academic study,46 this tale of Mary’s journey to the underworld was the most popular non-canonical apocalypse in the eastern churches.47 Tayec῾i, for example, prints five separate versions in his collection of Armenian apocrypha,48 and one 43

Shoemaker, “Epiphanius of Salamis”; Shoemaker, “Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century”; Shoemaker, “Marian Liturgies and Devotion”; S. J. Shoemaker, “Between Scripture and Tradition: The Marian Apocrypha of Early Christianity,” in L. DiTommaso and L. Turcescu (eds), TheReception and Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity (Leiden, 2008) 491510. 44 Versions of the Greek Apocalypse of the Virgin have been published in A. Vasiliev (ed.), Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, Pars Prior (Moscow, 1893) 125-34; and James, ApocryphaAnecdota, 109-26. Nevertheless, this highly influential apocalypse stands desperately in need of a critical edition. 45 M. Bonnet, “Die ältesten Schriften von der Himmelfahrt Mariä,” ZWT 23 (1880) 227-47, 244-5; Wenger, L’Assomption, 125-7. 46 A happy exception is Jane Baun’s monograph, which studies the ApocalypseoftheVirgin, along with the ApocalypseofAnastasia, in the context of the Middle Byzantine period: J. Baun, TalesfromAnotherByzantium:CelestialJourneyandLocalCommunityintheMedievalGreekApocrypha (Cambridge, 2006). 47 R. Bauckham, “Virgin, Apocalypses of the,” in D. N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York, 1992) 6:854-6; Bauckham, “Four Apocalypses of the Virgin,” 332-8; S. C. Mimouni, “Les Apocalypses de la Vierge: État de la question,” Apocrypha 4 (1993) 101-12. Mimouni tries to establish an early date for this apocryphon, but he does so by merging the textual histories of the Greek Apocalypse of the Virgin with the Dormition Apocalypses. These traditions are best considered separately from one another, as Bauckham also concludes: Bauckham, “Four Apocalypses of the Virgin,” 337. 48 E. Tayets῾i, ԱնկանոնգիրքՆորԿտակարանաց, 383-401; 402-17; 41839; 440-45; 445-50.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 335

29/10/18 13:02

336

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

expects that further study of these texts would reveal a great deal about the Armenian apocalyptic tradition during the middle ages. Indeed, while the Virgin’s central role in Christianity’s apocalyptic imagination was firmly established by the ancient Dormition narratives, the real florescence of this tradition of Marian apocalyptic is to be found in the medieval versions of the ApocalypseoftheVirgin, in Armenian as well as in Greek.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_12.indd 336

29/10/18 13:02

Bibliography of the Ancient Narratives of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption

General Bibliography G. Aranda Pérez, Dormición de la Virgen: Relatos de la tradición copta (Madrid, 1995). B. Bagatti, “La verginità di Maria negli apocrifi del II-III secolo,” Marianum 33 (1971) 281-92. —, “Ricerche sulle tradizioni della morte della Vergine,” Sacra Doctrina 69-70 (1973) 185-214. —, “La morte della Vergine nel Testo di Leucio,” TerraSancta 50 (1974) 44-48. D. Baldi and A. Mosconi, “L’Assunzione di Maria SS. negli apocrifi,” Attidel congressonazionalemarianodeiFrateiMinorid’Italia(Roma29aprile- 3maggio1947) (Rome, 1948) 75-125. R. Bauckham, “The Four Apocalypses of the Virgin Mary,” TheFateofthe Dead, 332-62, 332-8. M. Bonnet, “Die ältesten Schriften von der Himmelfahrt Mariä,” ZWT 23 (1880) 227-47. L. Cignelli, “Il prototipo giudeo-cristiano degli apocrifi assunzionisti,” in B. Bagatti, etal. (eds), StudiaHierosolymitanainonorediP.Bellarmino Bagatti, 3 vols. (Jerusalem, 1976) 2:259-77. M. Clayton, “The Transitus Mariae: The Tradition and Its Origins,” Apocrypha 10 (1999) 74-98. É. Cothenet, “Marie dans les Apocryphes,” in H. Du Manoir de Juaye (ed.), Maria:étudessurlaSainteVierge, 7 vols. (Paris, 1952) 6:117-56. —, “Traditions bibliques et apocalyptiques dans les récits anciens de la dormition,” in J. Longère (ed.), Mariedanslesrécitsapocrypheschrétiens (Paris, 2004) 155-75. B. E. Daley, OntheDormitionofMary:EarlyPatristicHomilies (Crestwood, NY, 1998) 1-45. —, “‘At the Hour of Our Death’: Mary’s Dormition and Christian Dying in Late Patristic and Early Byzantine Literature,” DOP 55 (2001) 71-89. F. de la Chaise, “A l’origine des recits apocryphes du ‘Transitus Mariae,’” EphemeridesMariologicae 29 (1979) 77-90.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 337

29/10/18 13:02

338

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’assomption avant le Xe siècle,” in F. Bovon (ed.), Les actes apocryphes des apôtres (Geneva, 1981) 265-85. —, “Bild und Begriff in der Transitus-Literatur, der Palmbaum und der Tempel,” in M. Schmidt (ed.), Typus,Symbol,Allegoriebeidenöstlichen VäternundihrenParallelenimMittelalter (Regensburg, 1982) 333-51. —, Aux origines de la Dormition de la Vierge: Etudes historique sur les traditionsorientales (Brookfield, VT, 1995). H. Förster, Transitus Mariae: Beiträge zur koptischen Überlieferung mit einerEditionvonP.Vindob.K7589,CambridgeAdd18768undParis BNCopte12917ff.28und29 (Berlin and New York, 2006). P. González Casado, “Los relatos árabes apócrifos de la dormición de la virgen: narrativa popular religiosa cristiana,” Ilu 3 (1998) 91-108. —, “Textos árabes cristianos sobre la dormición de la Virgen,” Ilu:Revista deCienciasdelasReligiones 4 (2001) 75-95. —, LadormicióndelaVirgen:Cincorelatosárabes (Madrid, 2002) 15-78. M. Jugie, Lamortetl’assomptiondelaSainteVierge,étudehistorico-doctrinale (Vatican City, 1944). A. van Lantschoot, “L’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge chez les Coptes,” Gregorianum 27 (1946) 493-526. S. C. Mimouni, “La lecture liturgique et les apocryphes du Nouveau Testament: Le cas de la Dormitio grecque du Pseudo-Jean,” OCP 59 (1993) 403-25. —, Dormition et Assomption de Marie: Histoire des traditions anciennes (Paris, 1995). —, Les traditions anciennes sur la Dormition et l’Assomption de Marie: étudeslittéraires,historiquesetdoctrinales (Leiden, 2011). —, “Traditions sur le sort final de Marie. Remarques et réflexions fragmentaires sur une question en débat,” in F. P. Barone, etal. (eds), Philologie, herméneutiqueethistoiredestextesentreOrientetOccident:Mélanges enhommageàSeverJ.Voicu (Turnhout, 2017) 641-70. E. Norelli, Marie des apocryphes: enquête sur la mère de Jésus dans le christianismeantique (Geneva, 2009) 103-47. —, “La letteratura apocrifa sul Transito di Maria e il problema delle sue origini,” in E. M. Toniolo (ed.), Ildogmadell’assunzionedeMaria:problemiattualietentatividericomprensione.AttidelXVIISimposioInternazionaleMariologico(Roma,6-9ottobre2009) (Rome, 2010) 121-65. —, “Les premières traditions sur la Dormition de Marie comme catalyseurs de formes très anciennes de réflexion théologique et sotériologique. Le cas du Paradis terrestre,” in J. Schröter (ed.), TheApocryphalGospels within the Context of Early Christian Theology (Leuven, 2013) 403446. J. Rivière, “Rôle du démon au jugement particulier: Contribution à l’histoire des ‘Transitus Mariae,’” BLE 48 (1947) 49-56, 98-126.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 338

29/10/18 13:02

BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

S. J. Shoemaker, “‘Let Us Go and Burn Her Body’: The Image of the Jews in the Early Dormition Traditions,” CH 68.4 (1999) 775-823. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 5) —, “Gender at the Virgin’s Funeral: Men and Women as Witnesses to the Dormition,” SP 34 (2001) 552-58. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 2) —, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormitionandAssumption (Oxford, 2002). —, “Death and the Maiden: The Early History of the Dormition and Assumption Apocrypha,” Saint Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 50 (2006) 59-97. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 1) —, “Marian Liturgies and Devotion in Early Christianity,” in S. J. Boss (ed.), Mary:TheCompleteResource(London, 2007) 130-45. —, “The Virgin Mary’s Hidden Past: From Ancient Marian Apocrypha to the Medieval vitaeVirginis,” MarianStudies 60 (2009) 1-30. —, “From Mother of Mysteries to Mother of the Church: The Institutionalization of the Dormition Apocrypha,” Apocrypha 22 (2011) 11-47. —, “A New Dormition Fragment in Coptic: P. Vindob. K 7589 and the Marian Apocryphal Tradition,” in D. Bumazhnov, etal. (eds), Bibel,Byzanz undChristlicherOrient.FestschriftfürStephenGerözum65.Geburtstag (Louvain, 2011) 203-29. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 10) —, “Mary in Early Christian Apocrypha: Virgin Territory,” in P. Piovanelli, etal. (eds), RediscoveringtheApocryphalContinent:NewPerspectives onEarlyChristianandLateAntiqueApocryphalTextsandTraditions (Tübingen, 2015) 175-90. —, “The Ancient Dormition Apocrypha and the Origins of Marian Piety: Early Evidence of Marian Intercession from Late Ancient Palestine,” in L. M. Peltomaa, etal. (eds), PresbeiaTheotokou,TheIntercessoryRole of Mary across Times and Places in Byzantium (4th – 9th century) (Vienna, 2015) 23-39. —, MaryinEarlyChristianFaithandDevotion (New Haven, 2016). E. Testa, “Lo sviluppo della ‘Dormitio Mariae’ nella letteratura, nella teología e nella archeología,” Marianum 44 (1982) 316-89. —, “L’origine e lo sviluppo della Dormitio Mariae,” Aug 23 (1983) 249-62. A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.ViergedanslatraditionbyzantineduVIe auXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955). Palm of the Tree of Life Traditions TheBookofMary’sRepose/ObsequiesoftheVirgin Texts V. Arras, DetransituMariaeapocryphaaethiopice, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1973) vol. 1.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 339

29/10/18 13:02

340

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

M. van Esbroeck, “Apocryphes géorgiens de la Dormition,” AB 92 (1973) 55-75, 64-5, 69-73. L. S. B. MacCoull, “More Coptic Papyri from the Beinecke Collection,” ArchivfürPapyrusforschung 35 (1989) 25-35. T. Mgaloblishvili, კლარჯული ძრავალთავი (Klarjuli mravaltʻavi [The HomilaryofKlarjeti]) (Tbilisi, 1991) 420-21, 423-25. E. Revillout, Évangiledesdouzeapôtres (Paris, 1907) 173-84. P. Sellew, “An Early Coptic Witness to the DormitioMariae at Yale: P. CtYBR inv. 1788 Revisited,” BulletinoftheAmericanSocietyofPapyrologists 37 (2000) 37-69. S. J. Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library: Presentation, Edition and Translation,” Mus 124 (2011) 259-78. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 11) W. Wright, ContributionstotheApocryphalLiteratureoftheNewTestament (London, 1865) 11-16 and Íé-Íæ. ModernTranslations M. Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli: InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 421-64. L. Moraldi, ApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 2 vols. (Torino, 1971) 1:896-900. S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition (Oxford, 2002) 290-350. W. Wright, ContributionstotheApocryphalLiteratureoftheNewTestament (London, 1865) 42-51. SelectedStudies T. Abrahà, “La DormitioMariae in Etiopia,” in E. M. Toniolo (ed.), Ildogma dell’assunzionedeMaria:problemiattualietentatividericomprensione. Atti del XVII Simposio Internazionale Mariologico (Roma, 6-9 ottobre 2009) (Rome, 2010) 167-200. —, “Some Philological Notes on the Mäṣǝḥafä ‘Ǝräfǝtä läMaryam «Liber Requiei» (LR),” Apocrypha 23 (2012) 223-45. V. Arras, DetransituMariaeapocryphaaethiopice, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1973) 1:75-105 (Latin). R. van den Broek, “Manichaean Elements in an Early Version of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption,” in A. Houtman, etal. (eds), EmpsychoiLogoi– ReligiousInnovationsinAntiquity (Leiden, 2008) 293-316. J. Gribomont, “Le plus ancien Transitus Marial et l’encratisme,” Aug 23 (1983) 237-47. S. J. Shoemaker, “Rethinking the ‘Gnostic Mary’: Mary of Nazareth and Mary of Magdala in Early Christian Tradition,” JECS 9 (2001) 555-595. (Reprinted in this volume ch. 6)

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 340

29/10/18 13:02

BIBLIOGRAPHY

341

—, “A Case of Mistaken Identity?: Naming the ‘Gnostic Mary,’” in F. S. Jones (ed.), Which Mary? Marys in Early Christian Tradition (Atlanta, 2002) 5-30. —, “Jesus’ Gnostic Mom: Mary of Nazareth and the Gnostic Mary Traditions,” in D. Good (ed.), Mariam,theMagdalen,andtheMother (Bloomington, 2005) 153-83. —, “Asceticism in the Early Dormition Narratives,” SP 44 (2010) 509-13. (Reprinted in this volume, ch. 3) The Earliest Greek DormitionoftheVirgin (G1) Texts F. Manns, LerécitdelaDormitiondeMarie(Vaticangrec1982)(Jerusalem, 1989), “Synopse des textes.” A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantinedu VIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 201-41. ModernTranslations M. Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli: InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 46574. P. Geoltrain and J.-D. Kaestli (eds), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens II (Paris, 2005) 207-39. F. Manns, LerécitdelaDormitiondeMarie(Vaticangrec1982)(Jerusalem, 1989) 240-9. S. C. Mimouni and S. J. Voicu. LatraditiongrecquedelaDormitionetde l’AssomptiondeMarie:Textesintroduits,traduitsetannotés (Paris, 2003) 63-98. L. Moraldi, ApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 2 vols. (Torino, 1971) 1:825-40. S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition (Oxford, 2002) 351-69. M. Starowieyski, ApokryfyNowegoTestamentu, vol. 1.2, Ewangelieapokryficzne (Lublin, 1986) 552-64. M. Vallecillo, “El ‘Transitus Mariae’ según el manuscrito Vaticano G. R. 1982,” Verdadyvida 30 (1972) 240-52. A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantinedu VIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 201-41. SelectedStudies F. Manns, LerécitdelaDormitiondeMarie(Vaticangrec1982)(Jerusalem, 1989).

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 341

29/10/18 13:02

342

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

M. Vallecillo, “El ‘Transitus Mariae’ según el manuscrito Vaticano G. R. 1982,” Verdadyvida 30 (1972) 187-260. A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantinedu VIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 17-67. Early Anonymous Latin TransitusMariae Texts B. Capelle, “Vestiges grecs et latins d’un antique “Transitus” de la Vierge,” AB 67 (1949) 21-48. G. Marocco, “Nuovi documenti sull’Assunzione del Medio Evo latino: due transitus dai codici latini 59 e 105 di Ivrea,” Marianum 12 (1950) 449-52. A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.ViergedanslatraditionbyzantineduVIe auXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 258-9 (“Type N”) 24556 (“The Archaic Transitus”). A. Wilmart, AnalectaReginensia:ExtraitsdesmanuscritsLatinsdelaReine christineconservésauVatican (Vatican, 1933) 323-62. F. Manns, LerécitdelaDormitiondeMarie(Vaticangrec1982)(Jerusalem, 1989), “Synopse des textes.” ModernTranslations M. Erbetta, GliApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli:InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 475-82. L. Moraldi, ApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 2 vols. (Torino, 1971) 1:879-84. SelectedStudies B. Capelle, “Les plus anciens récits de l’Assomption et Jean de Thessalonique,” Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 12 (1940) 209-35. J. Rivière, “Le plus vieux ‘Transitus’ latin et son dérivé grec,” Recherches deThéologieancienneetmédiévale 8 (1936) 5-23. A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantinedu VIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 68-95. Ps.-Melito of Sardis, DormitionoftheVirgin Texts M. Haibach-Reinisch, Ein neuer „Transitus Mariae“ des Pseudo-Melito (Rome, 1962). C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae Mosis, Esdrae, Pauli, Johannis, itemMariaedormito(Leipzig, 1866) 124-36.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 342

29/10/18 13:02

BIBLIOGRAPHY

343

ModernTranslations F. Amiot, Évangilesapocryphes (Paris, 1952) 112-34. M. Erbetta, GliApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli:InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 492-510. M. R. James, TheApocryphalNewTestament (Oxford, 1924) 209-16. A. Walker, Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations (Edinburgh, 1873) 522-30. SelectedStudies B. Bagatti, “Le due redazioni del ‘Transitus Mariae,’” Marianum 32 (1970) 279-87. —, “La morte della Vergine nel Testo di Leucio,” TerraSancta 50 (1974) 44-48. C. Balic, “Considerationes circa ‘Transitus B. V. Mariae’ Pseudo-Melitonis,” in DeprimordiiscultusMariani;ActaCongressusMariologici-Mariani InternationalisinLusitaniaanno1967celebrati, 6 vols. (Rome, 1970) 6:341-52. The Irish Testamentof Mary Texts C. Donahue, The Testament of Mary: The Gaelic Version of the Dormitio MariaetogetherwithanIrishLatinVersion (New York, 1942). ModernTranslations C. Donahue, The Testament of Mary: The Gaelic Version of the Dormitio MariaetogetherwithanIrishLatinVersion (New York, 1942). SelectedStudies J. D. Seymour, “Irish Versions of the Transitus Mariae,” JTS 23 (1921) 36-43. R. Willard, “The Testament of Mary: The Irish Account of the Death of the Virgin,” RecherchesdeThéologieancienneetmédiévale 9 (1937) 341-64. The Irish DormitionoftheVirgin Texts Unpublished. Liber Flavus Fergusiorum. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, MS 23 O 48.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 343

29/10/18 13:02

344

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

ModernTranslations M. Herbert and M. McNamara, IrishBiblicalApocrypha:SelectedTextsin Translation (Edinburgh, 1989) 119-31. SelectedStudies J. D. Seymour, “Irish Versions of the Transitus Mariae,” JTS 23 (1921) 36-43. R. Willard, “The Testament of Mary: The Irish Account of the Death of the Virgin,” RecherchesdeThéologieancienneetmédiévale 9 (1937) 341-64. John of Thessalonica, HomilyontheDormition Texts M. Jugie, Homéliesmarialesbyzantines(II) (Paris, 1926) 344-438. ModernTranslations B. E. Daley, OntheDormitionofMary:EarlyPatristicHomilies (Crestwood, NY, 1998) 109-78. M. Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli: InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 511-23. M. Jugie, Homéliesmarialesbyzantines(II) (Paris, 1926) 344-438. S. C. Mimouni and S. J. Voicu. LatraditiongrecquedelaDormitionetde l’AssomptiondeMarie:Textesintroduits,traduitsetannotés (Paris, 2003) 37-60. L. Moraldi, ApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 2 vols. (Torino, 1971) 1:841-62. A. Santos-Otero, LosEvangeliosApocrifos (Madrid, 1956) 611-45. M. Starowieyski, ApokryfyNowegoTestamentu, vol. 1.2, Ewangelieapokryficzne (Lublin, 1986) 565-72. SelectedStudies J. M. Bover, “La Asuncion de Maria en el Transitus « W » y en Juan de Tesalonica,” Estudioseclesiásticos 20 (1946) 415-36. B. Capelle, “Les anciens récits de l’Assomption et Jean de Thessalonique,” RecherchesdeThéologieancienneetmédiévale 12 (1940) 209-35. —, “Vestiges grecs et latins d’un antique ‘Transitus de la Vierge,’” AB 67 (1949) 21-48. L. Carli, “Le fonti del racconto della Dormizione di Maria di Giovanni Tessalonicese,” Marianum 2 (1940) 308-13. M. Jugie, “La vie et les œuvres de Jean Thessalonique. Son témoignage sur les origines de la fête de l’Assomption et sur la primauté de saint Pierre,” Echosd’Orient 21 (1922) 293-307.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 344

29/10/18 13:02

BIBLIOGRAPHY

345

J. Rivière, “Le plus vieux ‘Transitus’ latin et son dérivé grec,” Recherches deThéologieancienneetmédiévale 8 (1936) 5-23. A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantinedu VIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 17-67. The Armenian DormitionoftheVirgin (AM1) Texts E. Tayets῾i, ԱնկանոնգիրքՆորԿտակարանաց (Ankanon girk῾ Nor Ktakaranats῾ [ApocryphalBooksoftheNewTestament]) (Venice, 1898) 451-77. ModernTranslations P. Vetter, “Die armenische dormitio Mariae,” TQ 84 (1902) 321-49. SelectedStudies S. J. Shoemaker “Apocalyptic Traditions in the Armenian Dormition Narratives,” in K. D. Bardakjian and S. LaPorta (eds),TheArmenianApocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective (Leiden, 2014) 538-50. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 12) Ps.-Joseph of Arimathea, DormitionoftheVirgin Texts C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae Mosis, Esdrae, Pauli, Johannis, itemMariaedormito(Leipzig, 1866) 113-23. ModernTranslations M. Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, 3 vols, vol. I/2, Vangeli: InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 52933. A. Santos-Otero, LosEvangeliosApocrifos (Madrid, 1956) 686-700. A. Walker, Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations (Edinburgh, 1873) 515-21. Gregory of Tours, IngloriaMartyrum Texts B. Krusch, GregoriiEpiscopiTuronensismiraculaetoperaminora, 2nd ed. (Hannover, 1969) 39 and 43.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 345

29/10/18 13:02

346

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

SelectedStudies M. Jugie, “Le témoignage de saint Grégoire de Tours sur la doctrine de l’Assomption et sur la fête mariale primitve,” AlmaSociaChristi 10 (1953) 8-13. Cosmas Vestitor, FourHomiliesontheDormition Texts A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantinedu VIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 315-44. SelectedStudies A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantinedu VIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 140-72. —, “Les homélies inédites de Cosmas Vestitor sur la Dormition,” REB (1953) 286-300. Bethlehem Traditions TheSixBookApocryphon Texts S. P. Brock and G. Kessel, “The ‘Departure of Mary’ in Two Palimpsests at the Monastery of St. Catherine (Sinai Syr. 30 & Sinai Arabic 514),” KhristianskiĭVostok 8 (2017) 115-52. M. Chaîne, ApocryphadeBeataMariaVirgine, 2 vols. (Rome, 1909) 1:2149. M. Enger, ‫( اخبار يوح ّنا السليح في نقلة ا ّم المسيح‬Akhbâr Yûhannâ as-salîh fi naqlatummal-masîh)idestJoannisapostolidetransituBeataeMariae Virginisliber(Elberfeld, 1854). S. J. Shoemaker, “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library: Presentation, Edition and Translation,” Mus 124 (2011) 259-78. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 11) —, TheSixBooksDormitionApocryphoninSyriac:CriticalEdition,Translation,andCommentary (in preparation; delayed due to manuscript access). A. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca (London, 1902) Ûçù-èù ,ëÚù-u. W. Wright, “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World,” TheJournal ofSacredLiteratureandBiblicalRecord 6-7 (1865) 417-48 and 108-28. —, ContributionstotheApocryphalLiteratureoftheNewTestament (London, 1865) À|-ÏÝ.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 346

29/10/18 13:02

BIBLIOGRAPHY

347

ModernTranslations M. Erbetta, GliApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli: InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 534-73. P. González Casado, LadormicióndelaVirgen:Cincorelatosárabes (Madrid, 2002) 169-210. J. P. Migne, Dictionnairedesapocryphes, 2 vols. (Paris, 1856-8) 2:509-32. S. J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford, 2002) 370-96. —, “New Syriac Dormition Fragments from Palimpsests in the Schøyen Collection and the British Library: Presentation, Edition and Translation,” Mus 124 (2011) 259-78. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 11) A. Smith Lewis, ApocryphaSyriaca (London, 1902) 12-69. W. Wright, “The Departure of My Lady Mary from This World,” TheJournalofSacredLiteratureandBiblicalRecord 6-7 (1865) 129-60. —, ContributionstotheApocryphalLiteratureoftheNewTestament (London, 1865) 18-41. SelectedStudies S. Ashbrook Harvey, “Incense Offerings in the Syriac Transitus Mariae: Ritual and Knowledge in Ancient Christianity,” in A. Malherbe, etal. (eds), TheEarlyChurchinItsContext (Leiden, 1998) 175-91. E. Grypeou and J. P. Monferrer-Sala “‘A Tour of the Other World’: A Contribution to the Textual and Literary Criticism of the ‘Six Books Apocalypse of the Virgin,’” CollectaneaChristianaOrientalia 6 (2009) 115-66. A. Kateusz, “Collyridian Déjà Vu: The Trajectory of Redaction of the Markers of Mary’s Liturgical Leadership,” JournalofFeministStudies inReligion 29 (2013) 75-92. S. J. Shoemaker, “A Peculiar Version of the Inventio crucis in the Early Syriac Dormition Traditions,” SP 41 (2006) 75-81. (Reprinted in this volume, ch. 4) —, “Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Later Fourth Century,” JECS 16 (2008) 369-99. (Reprinted in this volume, ch. 8) —, “The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century: A Fresh Look at Some Old and New Sources,” in C. Maunder (ed.), TheOriginsoftheCultofthe VirginMary (London, 2008) 71-87. —, “Apocrypha and Liturgy in the Fourth Century: The Case of the “Six Books” Dormition Apocryphon,” in J. H. Charlesworth and L. M. McDonald (eds), JewishandChristianScriptures:TheFunctionof‘Canonical’ and‘Non-canonical’ReligiousTexts (London, 2010) 153-63. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 7)

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 347

29/10/18 13:02

348

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Ps.-John the Evangelist, DormitionoftheVirgin Texts C. Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae Mosis, Esdrae, Pauli, Johannis, itemMariaedormito(Leipzig, 1866) 95-112. A. Wilmart, AnalectaReginensia:ExtraitsdesmanuscritsLatinsdelaReine christineconservésauVatican (Vatican, 1933) 357-62. ModernTranslations F. Bovon and P. Geoltrain (eds), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens (Paris, 1997) 171-88. J. K. Elliott, TheApocryphalNewTestament (Oxford, 1993) 701-8. M. Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli: InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 483-91. M. R. James, TheApocryphalNewTestament (Oxford, 1924) 201-9. L. Leroy, “La dormition de la vierge (tradition du manuscrit arabe de Paris no. 150, fol. 157),” ROC 15 (1910) 162-72. C. Markschies, et al. (eds), Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. I (Tübingen, 2012) 302-7. S. C. Mimouni and S. J. Voicu. LatraditiongrecquedelaDormitionetde l’Assomption de Marie: Textes introduits, traduits et annotés (Paris, 2003) 37-60. L. Moraldi, ApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 2 vols. (Torino, 1971) 1:885-95. A. Santos-Otero, LosEvangeliosApocrifos (Madrid, 1956) 619-45. M. Starowieyski, ApokryfyNowegoTestamentu, vol. 1.2, Ewangelieapokryficzne (Lublin, 1986) 564-72. A. Walker, Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations (Edinburgh, 1873) 587-91. SelectedStudies S. C. Mimouni, “La lecture liturgique et les apocryphes du Nouveau Testament: Le cas de la Dormitio grecque du Pseudo-Jean,” OCP 59 (1993) 403-25. Coptic Traditions Ps.-Cyril of Jerusalem, HomilyontheDormition Texts S. Bombeck, “Pseudo-Kyrillos InMariamvirginem: Text und Übersetzung von Pierpont Morgan M 597 fols. 46–74,” Orientalia 70 (2001) 40-88.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 348

29/10/18 13:02

BIBLIOGRAPHY

349

E. A. W. Budge, MiscellaneousCopticTextsintheDialectofUpperEgypt (London, 1915) 49-73. A. Campagnano, Ps.CirillodiGerusalemme:OmeliecoptesullaPassione, sullaCroceesullaVergine (Milano, 1980) 151-95. F. Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels:TranslationstogetherwiththeTexts ofSomeofThem (Cambridge, 1896) 24-41. ModernTranslations G. Aranda Pérez, Dormición de la Virgen: Relatos de la tradición copta (Madrid, 1995) 243-83. S. Bombeck, “Pseudo-Kyrillos InMariamvirginem: Text und Übersetzung von Pierpont Morgan M 597 fols. 46–74,” Orientalia 70 (2001) 4088. E. A. W. Budge, MiscellaneousCopticTextsintheDialectofUpperEgypt (London, 1915) 626-50. A. Campagnano, Ps.CirillodiGerusalemme:OmeliecoptesullaPassione, sullaCroceesullaVergine (Milano, 1980) 151-95. M. Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli: InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 60415. P. González Casado, La dormición de la Virgen: Cinco relatos árabes (Madrid, 2002) 104-29. F. Robinson, CopticApocryphalGospels:TranslationstogetherwiththeTexts ofSomeofThem (Cambridge, 1896) 24-41. SelectedStudies R. van den Broek, “Der Bericht des koptischen Kyrillos von Jerusalem über das Hebräerevanglium,” in Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrian Christianity (Leiden, 1996) 142–56. S. J. Shoemaker, “The Coptic HomilyontheTheotokos attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem: An Aberrant and Apologetic ‘Life’ of the Virgin from Late Antiquity,” in T. Arentzen and M. Cunningham (eds), TheReceptionof theMotherofGod:MarianNarrativesinTextsandImages (Cambridge, UK, forthcoming). Ps.-Evodius,HomilyontheDormition(St Michael) Texts S. J. Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Attributed to Evodius of Rome: An Edition of Morgan MSS 596 & 598 with Translation,” AB 117 (1999) 241-83. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 9)

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 349

29/10/18 13:02

350

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

ModernTranslations G. Aranda Pérez, Dormición de la Virgen: Relatos de la tradición copta (Madrid, 1995) 105-26. S. J. Shoemaker, “The Sahidic Coptic Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Attributed to Evodius of Rome: An Edition of Morgan MSS 596 & 598 with Translation,” AB 117 (1999) 241-83. (Reprinted in this volume as ch. 9) —, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition (Oxford, 2002) 397-407. SelectedStudies M. Sheridan, “A Homily on the Death of the Virgin Mary attributed to Evodius of Rome,” in M. Immerzeel and J. van der Vliet (eds), CopticStudieson theTresholdofaNewMillenium1 (Leuven, 2004) 393-405. Ps.-Evodius, HomilyontheDormition (St Macarius) Texts P. de Lagarde, Aegyptiaca (Göttingen, 1883; repr. Osnabruck, 1972) 38-63. F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels: Translations together with the TextsofSomeofThem (Cambridge, 1896) 67-89. H. G. E. White, TheMonasteriesoftheWadi’nNatrun, vol. 1 NewCoptic TextsfromtheMonasteryofSaintMacarius(New York, 1926) 54-8. ModernTranslations G. Aranda Pérez, Dormición de la Virgen: Relatos de la tradición copta (Madrid, 1995) 127-76. M. Erbetta, GliApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli:InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 593-603. F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels: Translations together with the TextsofSomeofThem (Cambridge, 1896) 45-67, 67-89. SelectedStudies M. Sheridan, “A Homily on the Death of the Virgin Mary attributed to Evodius of Rome,” in M. Immerzeel and J. van der Vliet (eds), Coptic StudiesontheTresholdofaNewMillenium1 (Leuven, 2004) 393-405. Theodosius of Alexandria, HomilyontheDormition Texts P. M. Bellet, “Theodosio de Alejandria y su homilia copta sobre la Asuncion de la Virgen,” EphemeridesMariologicae 1 (1951) 243-66.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 350

29/10/18 13:02

BIBLIOGRAPHY

351

M. Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose, Patriarche d’Alexandrie, sur la Dormition et l’Assomption de la Vierge,” ROC 29 (1933-34) 272-314. F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels: Translations together with the TextsofSomeofThem (Cambridge, 1896) 90-127. H. G. E. White, TheMonasteriesoftheWadi’nNatrun, vol. 1 NewCoptic TextsfromtheMonasteryofSaintMacarius(New York, 1926) 60-62. ModernTranslations G. Aranda Pérez, Dormición de la Virgen: Relatos de la tradición copta (Madrid, 1995) 189-228. P. M. Bellet, “Theodosio de Alejandria y su homilia copta sobre la Asuncion de la Virgen,” EphemeridesMariologicae 1 (1951) 243-66. M. Chaîne, “Sermon de Théodose, Patriarche d’Alexandrie, sur la Dormition et l’Assomption de la Vierge,” ROC 29 (1933-34) 272-314. M. Erbetta, GliApocrifidelNuovoTestamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli:InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 582-92. P. González Casado, LadormicióndelaVirgen:Cincorelatosárabes (Madrid, 2002) 79-101. F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels: Translations together with the TextsofSomeofThem (Cambridge, 1896) 90-127. Atypical Traditions Jacob of Serug, HomilyontheDormition Texts P. Bedjan, S.Martyrii,quietSahdona,quaesupersuntomnia (Leipzig, 1902) 709-19. ModernTranslations M. Hansbury, JacobofSerug:OntheMotherofGod (Crestwood, N.Y., 1998) 89-100. S. J. Shoemaker, AncientTraditionsoftheVirginMary’sDormition (Oxford, 2002) 408-14. C. Vona, OmeliemariologichedeS.GiacomodiSarug:Introduzione,traduzionedalsiriacoecomment (Rome, 1953) 187-94. SelectedStudies T. R. Hurst, “The ‘Transitus’ of Mary in a Homily of Jacob of Sarug,” Marianum 52 (1990) 86-100. A. van Roey, “La saintité de Marie d’après Jacques de Saroug,” EphemeridesTheologicaeLovanienses 36 (1955) 46-62.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 351

29/10/18 13:02

352

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Theoteknos of Livias, HomilyontheDormition Texts A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.Viergedanslatraditionbyzantinedu VIeauXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 272-91. ModernTranslations B. E. Daley, OntheDormitionofMary:EarlyPatristicHomilies (Crestwood, NY, 1998) 71-81. S. C. Mimouni and S. J. Voicu. LatraditiongrecquedelaDormitionetde l’AssomptiondeMarie:Textesintroduits,traduitsetannotés (Paris, 2003) 201-16. A. Wenger, L’AssomptiondelaT.S.ViergedanslatraditionbyzantineduVIe auXesiècle;étudesetdocuments (Paris, 1955) 272-91. Georgian Fragment of an Early Dormition Narrative Texts M. van Esbroeck, “Apocryphes géorgiens de la Dormition,” AB 92 (1973) 55-75, 62-64. T. Mgaloblishvili, კლარჯული ძრავალთავი (Klarjuli mravaltʻavi [The HomilaryofKlarjeti]) (Tbilisi, 1991) 421-23. Modestus of Jerusalem, HomilyontheDormition Texts PG 86, 3277-312. ModernTranslations B. E. Daley, OntheDormitionofMary:EarlyPatristicHomilies (Crestwood, NY, 1998) 83-102. Late Apostle Traditions The Euthymiac History Texts M. van Esbroeck, “Un témoin indirect de l’Histoire Euthymiaque dans une lecture arabe pour l’Assomption,” Paroledel’Orient 6-7 (1975-6) 479-91.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 352

29/10/18 13:02

BIBLIOGRAPHY

353

B. Kotter, DieSchriftendesJohannesvonDamaskos, 5 vols. (Berlin, 196988) 5:536-39. ModernTranslations B. E. Daley, On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies (Crestwood, NY, 1998) 224-26. M. Erbetta, Gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, 3 vols., vol. I/2, Vangeli: InfanziaepassionediCristo,AssunzionediMaria (Torino, 1966) 52628. SelectedStudies S. J. Shoemaker, “The Cult of Fashion: The EarliestLifeoftheVirgin and Constantinople’s Marian Relics,” DOP 62 (2008) 53-74. (Ps.-?)Maximus the Confessor,LifeoftheVirgin Texts M. van Esbroeck, MaximeleConfesseur:ViedelaVierge, 2 vols. (Leuven, 1986). ModernTranslations S. J. Shoemaker, MaximustheConfessor,TheLifeoftheVirgin:Translated, withanIntroductionandNotes (New Haven, 2012). SelectedStudies P. Booth, “On the LifeoftheVirgin Attributed to Maximus the Confessor,” JTS 66 (2015) 149-203. S. J. Shoemaker, “The Virgin Mary in the Ministry of Jesus and the Early Church according to the Earliest LifeoftheVirgin,” HTR 98 (2005) 44167. —, “The Georgian Life of the Virgin attributed to Maximus the Confessor: Its Authenticity(?) and Importance,” in A. Muraviev and B. Lourié (eds), Mémorial R.P. Michel van Esbroeck, S.J. (St. Petersburg, 2006) 30728. —, “The Cult of Fashion: The EarliestLifeoftheVirgin and Constantinople’s Marian Relics,” DOP 62 (2008) 53-74. —, “The (Ps?-)Maximus Life of the Virgin and the Marian Literature of Middle Byzantium,”JTS 67 (2016) 115-42.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 353

29/10/18 13:02

354

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Ps.-Chrysostom,HomilyontheDormition Texts M. van Esbroeck, “Une homélie arménienne sur la dormition attribuée à Chrysostome,” OrChr74 (1990) 199-233. ModernTranslations M. van Esbroeck, “Une homélie arménienne sur la dormition attribuée à Chrysostome,” OrChr74 (1990) 199-233. Ps.-Basil, DormitionoftheVirgin Texts M. van Esbroeck, “Un court traité pseudo-basilien de mouvance aaronite conservé en arménien,” Mus 100 (1987) 385-95. Letter of Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite to Titus Texts G. Sruandzteants’,ՀնոցեւնորոցպատմութիւնվասնԴաւթիեւՄովսէսի Խորենացւոյ(Hnots’ewnorots’patmut’iwnvasnDawt’iewMovsesi Khorenats’woy[HistoryoftheOldandNewconcerningDavidandMoses Khorenatsi]) (Constantinople, 1874) 110-15. P. Vetter, “Անվաւերական Թուղթ Դիոնեսիուի Արիսպագացւոյ առ Տիտոս վասն ննջման Մարեմայ (The Apocryphal Letter of Dionysius the Areopagite to Titus concerning the Dormition of Mary),” in J. Dashian (ed.), Հայկականաշխատսիրութիւնք(Haykakanashkhatsirut’iwnk’[Armenian Studies]) (Vienna, 1895) 11-17. ModernTranslations P. Vetter, “Das apocryphe Schreiben Dionysius des Areopagiten an Titus über die Aufnahme Mariä,” TQ 69 (1887) 133-38.

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_13_Bibliography.indd 354

29/10/18 13:02

Index

A Aaron, staff of 76, 112 Abgar 52, 114, 125, 128, 317-319, 322 Abraha, Tedros 5, 301 Abraham 118, 266 ActsofPhilip 169 Adam 270; Testamentof 80 Addai, apostle 317, 319 Adoration 203, 204 Alexakis, Alexander 83, 116, 117 Ambrose of Milan 64, 195, 203 Andrew, the apostle 11, 67-69, 166, 307 angel(s) 99, 133, 126, 231, 232, 236, 259, 261, 265, 268, 270, 271, 274, 280-282, 297, 302, 316, 321, 328-333; Christ as great angel 13, 50, 131, 132, 263; Christology 51, 72, 282; veneration of 204-207 Antidicomarianites 195, 199, 200, 212-214, 216 anti-judaism 12, 13, 75, 79, 81, 84, 85, 90, 92, 96-100, 105-108, 112-114, 118, 124, 129, 131, 134, 135, 164, 235, 271 Antioch 88, 89, 123, 132, 230 apocalypse/apocalypticism 13, 17, 18, 44, 46, 33, 122, 123, 133, 134, 294; of the Dormition traditions 46, 301, 323-329, 331, 332, 334-336 Apocalypse of John 212 ApocalypseofPaul 192, 325, 329 ApocalypseoftheVirgin 192, 335, 336 apparitions, Marian 200, 222 Arabia 196 Arabian 208 Arabic 22, 33, 74, 79, 89, 146, 147, 187, 196, 209, 277, 303, 304 Aramaic 102 Archangel(s) 259, 261, 264, 330

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 355

29/10/18 13:02

356

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Arius 138, 285 Armenia 334 Armenian 17, 80, 105, 275, 294, 323, 326-329, 331, 332, 334-336 Armilos 132-134 Arras, Victor 276 Ascension 274, 281, 282, 286, 290, 292, 296 asceticism 11, 64-66, 68-71, 104, 185, 197, 202, 213 Asherah 123 Asia 70, 213 Assfalg, Julius 303, 304 Assumptoion dogma 26-28, 30, 35, 36, 39, 40, 46, 47 Athanasius of Alexandria 64, 112, 182, 185, 285 Athos, Mount 23 August, feast of Mary in 107, 188, 210, 231 Augustine 182, 202-205 B Babylon 162 baptism 90, 134, 135 Bartholomew, the apostle 148, 158, 159, 288, 330, 334 Bauckham, Richard 45, 192, 325 Bauer, Walter 34, 41 Belial 132 Benedict XVI, pope 285 Benko, Stephen 196 Bethany 154 Bethlehem 2, 4, 9, 28, 29, 31-34, 48, 50, 51, 75, 111, 126, 204, 209, 281, 295, 308, 311, 324, 325 Bohairic Coptic 16, 57-59, 62, 227-229, 278 BookofMary’sRepose, see LiberRequiei Bovon, François 193 Bradshaw, Paul 21 bread, offerings to Mary 15, 189-191, 198, 207, 211, 216, 220-223 Brock, Sebastian 5, 304 Brown, Peter 42, 69, 197, 202 C Calletha, handmaid of the Virgin Cameron, Averil 199

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 356

308, 309

29/10/18 13:02

INDEX

357

Campenhausen, Hans von 54, 175 Cana 178, 236 canon 19, 20, 22-25, 98, 139, 142, 144, 151, 164, 179, 181-186, 189, 191, 193, 194 Cappadocia 200 catholic 10, 26, 34, 35, 45, 175, 176 celibacy 65, 69 Celsus 100, 101, 168 centurion, Roman 128 Chalcedon, council of 9, 34, 49 cherubim 259, 261 Christology 9, 51, 72, 282 Church Slavonic 22, 23, 186 circumcision 117 Clement of Alexandria 72 conquest, Persian 91, 130-132; Islamic 47, 49, 135 Constantine 12, 77, 87, 129, 135 Constantinople 200, 278, 289 corpse 120-122 corpse impurity 110, 119-122 cosmic, mysteries 13, 148, 159, 160, 165, 173; tours 18, 301, 323, 324, 327, 332 Cothenet, Edouard 29, 31, 32, 35-37 Coyle, J. Kevin 139 cross 12, 52, 53, 74-82, 108, 112-114, 116, 117, 125, 127, 135, 178, 190, 192, 214, 289, 290, 314, 318, 319 crucifixion 12, 76, 82, 112, 114, 146, 213, 290 Cyril of Jerusalem 38, 64, 109; Ps.- 231, 232, 278, 285 D Dagron, Gilbert 96 Dasnabedian, Tamar 327 Davis, Stephen 217 debate between believers and unbelievers 12, 68, 75, 79, 126, 128, 129 demons 66, 333 Deroche, Vincent 96 Diatessaron 143-147, 150, 152, 171 Disciple, Beloved 62, 145, 204, 218, 330

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 357

29/10/18 13:02

358

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

disciples (of Jesus) 57, 58, 69, 71, 150, 155-157, 166, 180, 236, 260, 263, 266, 267, 290, 308 DoctrinaAddai 52, 53, 80, 81, 114, 125 doctrinal/dogmatic approaches to the Dormition traditions 2, 8-10, 26-28, 30, 32, 34-36, 39-44, 46, 47, 54, 71, 191, 229, 233, 279, 323 Drijvers, Jan Willem 77 E eagle 162, 212 Eden 326, 329, 332 Edessa 52, 125, 317, 318, 320, 322 Egypt 16, 85, 115, 119, 148, 150, 167, 171, 185, 201, 215, 230, 277, 278, 294, 305 Ehrman, Bart 41, 181 Elijah 115, 204, 217-220 Elisha 119, 204 emperor, Roman 77, 90, 123, 125-128, 135, 308 empire, Roman 12, 42, 79, 82, 86, 87, 89-93, 97, 103, 124, 125, 127136; Persian 103 empress, Roman 80, 82, 135 encratic 11, 68-72 Enoch 324 Ephesus, council of 286 Ephrem 44, 107, 144-147, 149 Epiphanius of Salamis 97, 199, 201, 218, 211, 214, 220-222; Letter to Arabia 195, 196, 198, 200, 207, 209, 212, 214, 216, 218, 219, 221-223; Panarion 190, 195, 206, 207, 217, 219, 220, 222 Erbetta, Mario 53 Esbroeck, Michel van 1, 35, 43, 47, 48, 228, 275, 276, 331 eschatology 10, 41, 44-47, 323 esoteric, Christianity 4, 12; knowledge 13, 72 Ethiopia 48, 73, 231 Ethiopic 5, 24, 25, 33, 37, 48, 60, 65, 66, 74, 79, 160, 187, 276, 279, 300-303, 324 Eucharist 84, 116, 117, 203, 223, 225, 236 Euphrates 88, 125, 162, 318-320, 322 Eusebius of Caesare 72, 182, 230

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 358

29/10/18 13:02

INDEX

359

F Fayyum 226 Fayyumic Coptic 261 feasts, of the Virgin Mary 15, 39, 107, 185, 188, 210, 230, 231, 272, 304, 327, 328 Förster, Hans 16, 273-288, 292-294 fragrance 59, 60, 258, 270, 271 frankincense 265 G Galilee 71, 103, 317 garden 10, 33, 44, 46, 47, 267, 323, 324, 328, 329, 332 Gehenna 326 Gelasian Decree 19 Georgian 2, 22, 24, 32, 65, 85, 289, 294, 300 gnostic 3, 4, 10, 12-14, 50, 51, 72, 137-140, 142, 143, 150-152, 154156, 158-161, 163-180 goddess(es) 15, 16, 188, 190, 196, 198-201, 206-208, 215, 223-225 Golgotha 316, 322 GospelofPs.-Matthew 185 governor, Roman 12, 75-77, 91, 111-113, 125-129, 135, 322 Grabar, Andre 120 Greek 6, 17, 22, 23, 25, 27, 37, 38, 50, 52, 59-61, 78-80, 129, 166, 167, 186, 187, 192, 193, 204, 209, 221, 234, 235, 276, 278, 279, 289, 298, 300, 301, 303, 305, 327-329, 331, 332, 334, 336 Gregory of Nazianzus 64, 200 Gregory of Nyssa 106, 200 H hagiography 14, 21, 62, 99, 176, 182, 183, 191 Harnack, Adolf von 92-95 healing, miraculous 76, 77, 99, 110, 112, 317, 319 Hebrew, 235; Scriptures 100, 106, 107, 127, 129, 132 Helen 12, 77, 114, 135 hell 266, 302, 323-325, 330 Hephzibah 131, 132

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 359

29/10/18 13:02

360

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Heraclius 134, 135 heresies 63, 195, 199, 222 heresy/heterodoxy 3, 24, 34, 42, 63, 86, 92, 100, 117, 140, 159, 186, 190, 195, 198, 199, 201, 207, 208, 214, 221, 222, 276, 277, 284, 328 Hippolytus of Rome 140, 167-170, 182 Hunter, David 69 Hushiel 133 HypomnestikonofJoseph 7, 222 I icons 98, 108, 116, 117, 330, 331, 334 iconoclasm 109, 206 idols/idolatry 15, 117, 123, 190, 191, 198, 203, 207, 223, 224 Ignatius of Antioch 230 immortality, of Mary 30, 32, 212 incense 111, 133, 189, 210, 211, 309, 312, 315 intercession 17, 111, 118, 112, 188, 200, 201, 205, 222, 257, 299, 302, 303, 305, 307, 324, 326, 332 Ireland 73 Irenaeus of Lyon 72, 182 Isaiah 100, 106, 259 Islam 47, 49, 108, 163 Israel 77, 109, 202, 315 J Jacob, biblical patriarch 119 Jacob of Serug 39, 48, 106 James, the brother of the Lord 169, 291 James,FirstApocalypseof 170 Jephonias 98, 99, 109, 110, 119 Jephthah 214 Jeremias, Joachim 118 Jerome 64, 195, 203, 205 Jerusalem 2, 9, 26, 28-30, 33, 34, 37, 38, 40, 44, 64, 70, 71, 75-77, 79, 81, 98, 107, 109, 111, 114, 116, 125, 126, 132, 135, 162, 231, 271, 274, 278, 280-283, 288, 291, 292, 296, 308, 309, 319, 320, 322, 326, 328-331 Jesuits 176

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 360

29/10/18 13:02

INDEX

361

Jews/Judaism 12, 13, 26, 41, 62, 75-77, 79, 82, 84-136, 162, 181, 235, 236, 263-267, 270, 271, 291, 317, 319 Joanna, wife of Chuza 58, 269 John, the apostle 11, 23-25, 48, 67-69, 145-147, 159, 185, 186, 206, 213, 214, 216-220, 290-292, 307, 310, 330, 331, 333; metastasis of 219 John II, patriarch of Jerusalem 331 John the Baptist 115, 162-164, 204 John Chrysostom 89, 275, 331, 334 John, gospel of 150, 171 John Moschus 117, 122 John Paul II, pope 285 John of Thessalonica 22, 23, 25, 48, 276, 327, 328, 330, 333 Josaphat 34, 236, 271 Joseph, the father of Jesus 72, 103, 104, 195; as carpenter 101, 183 Joseph, the father of the Jewish messiah 133 Joseph, biblical patriarch 119 Jovinian 69 Judaizers 87-89, 96, 103, 116, 117, 122 Judas Kyriakos 81, 113, 114 Jugie, Martin 23, 30, 32, 35, 43, 275 Julian, emperor 115, 116 Junod, Eric 183 Justinian 90, 116, 128, 129, 135 Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem 34 K Kateusz, Ally 208 Kathisma 29, 33, 34 Kessel, Grigory 5 Khorasan 330 Khorenatsi, Moses 334 Koester, Helmut 41, 150 Kollyridians 15, 53, 190, 191, 195-202, 204-212, 214-225 L Lagarde, Paul de 229 Lange, N. R. M. de 86 Laodicea 200

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 361

29/10/18 13:02

362

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Latin 6, 22, 25, 60, 61, 185, 204, 234, 235, 300, 302 Law, Jewish 70, 110, 117, 264, 265 Lazarus 236, 263 Leontius of Neapolis 118, 119 Leontius of Byzantium 222 Leviticus Rabbah 122 LiberRequiei 3-5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27, 32, 37-39, 48, 60, 65, 66, 69-73, 160, 276, 279, 300, 305, 324, 328 Linus, pope 230 liturgy 9, 14-16, 20, 22, 29, 30, 33, 39, 40, 44, 48, 117, 162, 172, 181, 185, 186, 188, 190-192, 194, 199, 200, 208, 210, 211, 216218, 220, 222-225, 230-233, 279, 283, 287, 288, 290, 293, 295, 304, 327, 328, 332, 335 Lucchesi, Enzo 176, 228 Lukyn Williams, Arthur 94, 95 M Magi 107, 236, 265 Mandeans 108, 161-165, 169, 170, 172, 173 Manicheans 170-172 Mariam 139-141, 151, 152, 154, 156, 158, 164, 170, 172 Mariamme 140, 141, 151, 167-172 Marianites 222 Marjanen, Antti 141, 143, 153, 155 marriage 11, 65, 69, 213, 214, 219, 257-259, 264 martyrdom 171, 216, 291 Marutha of Maipherkat 117, 196 Mary of Magdala 13, 14, 62, 137-143, 145-158, 161, 164-174, 176, 177, 179, 180, 290, 291 matins 15 Maximus the Confessor 289 Mechitarists 332 (Ps.-)Melito of Sardis 23-25, 48, 276 Messalians 208 Messiah 89, 97, 101, 103-105, 107, 126, 129, 131-133 Metatron 131, 132 Michael, the Archangel 68, 131, 132, 302, 306, 330 Mimouni, Simon 5-10, 23, 28, 31-35, 37, 229, 232, 275 miracles, performed by Mary 75, 110, 118, 126, 222

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 362

29/10/18 13:02

INDEX

363

Miriai 161-165, 169, 172, 173 Miriam 102, 164 Mishnah 129 Modestus of Jerusalem 98 monasticism 70 monotheism 190, 207 Montanists 196 Murray, Robert 145, 149, 151-153, 176 myrrh-bearing women 291 mysteries 11, 13, 58, 66, 69-71, 138, 148, 155, 158-160, 165, 173, 236, 269, 273, 326, 329 N Nassenes 167, 169 Nativity 29, 107, 188, 210, 274, 280, 296 Neapolis 214 Nebuchadnezzar 162 Nehemiah 133 Nero 308 Neshra, handmaid of the Virgin 308, 309 Nestorius 285 Nicaea, council of 285, 286 Nicodemus 308 Nisibis 39 Norelli, Enrico 3-5, 8 Novatians 116, 117 O Obadiah 204 ObsequiesoftheVirgin 32, 36, 38, 65, 298, 300, 303, 305 Origen of Alexandria 72, 101, 168 orthodoxy 11, 20, 34, 50, 63, 100, 139, 159, 177, 190, 194, 198, 224, 274, 276, 287, 290, 294 ossuaries 120 P pagans/paganism 85-87, 92-94, 100, 104, 116, 123-125, 190, 197, 201-203, 208, 215, 223, 225, 265, 291

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 363

29/10/18 13:02

364

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Pagels, Elaine 153 paleography 38, 274, 298 Palestine 12, 15, 29, 85, 90, 112, 113, 121, 122, 130, 162, 193, 208, 209, 222 palimpsests 5, 17, 28, 38, 65, 78, 146, 187, 211, 299, 300, 303, 304 Palm of the Tree of Life 4, 40, 48, 50, 51, 59, 60, 110, 111, 278, 295, 324-326, 328, 329, 332, 333 Pandera/Pantera, father of Jesus 101-103 papyrus 166, 167, 201, 226, 273, 305 Paraclete 171, 311 Paradise 2, 9-11, 23, 26, 27, 32, 33, 37, 41, 43-47, 60, 69, 188, 267, 323, 324, 326, 328, 332, 333 Passover 116, 117 Pastoral Epistles 71 Paul, the apostle 11, 66-72, 128, 192, 325, 329 perfume 297, 315 persecution 13, 87, 116, 124, 127-129, 132, 134, 135 Persephone, goddess 214 Persia/Persians 91, 103, 115, 123, 130-132, 135 Peshitta 146, 147 Peter, the apostle 11, 56, 62, 66-68, 71, 143, 155-157, 166, 170, 230, 236, 257, 266, 268, 269, 271, 284, 296, 307, 331 Philip, the apostle 70, 139, 151-155, 165, 167-169, 173 Philomarianites 222 Pierpont Morgan Library 58, 226, 228, 229, 233 Pilate 105, 128, 264, 265 pilgrimage 33, 44, 118 Piovanelli, Pierluigi 3 PistisSophia 137, 139, 140, 143, 148, 154-158, 163, 165, 167, 172, 173 Pleroma 156 postpartum 199 prophecy 106, 123, 132, 133, 171, 212, 213, 218, 259, 260, 262, 269 proselytism, Jewish 87-89, 96, 103 Protestant 174-176, 180, 182 Protestantism 54, 174, 175, 178 ProtevangeliumofJames 7, 167, 183-185, 187, 192, 274 Protonike, empress 77, 80, 81, 113, 114 Pumbeditha 102

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 364

29/10/18 13:02

INDEX

365

Q Queen, Mary as Qur’an 163

257, 259, 260, 262, 307, 330

R rabbis/rabbinic Judaism 13, 100-103, 118-122 Rabbula 148 relics 12, 13, 75, 77, 79, 82, 86, 108-124, 127, 135, 136, 203 reliquaries 120 Renan, Ernest 139, 140, 176 resurrection 11, 27, 28, 31-33, 37, 39, 40, 45, 63, 119, 143, 150152, 165, 230-232, 235, 289-291, 314, 324, 333; unresurrection, Mary’s 32 revelation, of hidden mysteries by Jesus to apostles 11, 13, 63, 66, 69, 150, 151, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 166, 173, 264, 329, 331, 333 revolt 91 revolts, Jewish and Samaritan 90, 91 Robinson, Forbes 57, 227-229 Robinson’s 57 Romans 12, 13, 42, 75, 79, 86, 87, 90, 97, 101, 111-114, 123-130, 132, 133, 135 Rome 16, 38, 57, 123, 128, 129, 226-228, 230, 235, 257, 266, 278, 291 S Sabbath 117, 310 Sabbatian 116, 117, 122 Sabbatius 116, 117 Sabinus, procurator 317, 318, 322 Sahak, Reply to the Letter of 334 Sahidic Coptic 16, 57, 58, 226-230, 234, 235, 238, 274, 278 saints 16, 79, 86, 99, 108, 109, 111, 116, 119, 121-124, 185, 190, 191, 197-200, 202-207, 214, 217, 219, 224, 225 Saint Macarius, monastery of 227, 229, 230, 232, 233, 235 Saint Michael, monastery of 226, 229-233, 235, 271 Salome, disciple of Jesus 58, 59, 267, 269 Samaria/Samaritans 91, 91

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 365

29/10/18 13:02

366

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

Satan 124, 132, 133 Schmidt, Carl 140, 155, 158, 165 Schneemelcher, Wilhelm 181-184, 189-191, 193 Scythia 196 Sebaste 116 secret knowledge 11, 18, 50, 66, 70, 71, 158-160, 173, 326, 329 secret prayer 13, 160 SeferZerubbabel 13, 122, 123, 130-135 Septuagint 100, 129 seraphim 259, 261, 267, 309, 324 Shabtaye 117 Shechem 214 Simon, Marcel 96, 124 Sinai, Mount 5, 78, 113, 303 Six Books Apocryphon 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 32, 38, 48, 52, 53, 64, 74, 75, 78-81, 181, 186-191, 194, 199, 208-211, 216, 220225, 277, 279, 299, 303, 304, 325 Smith Lewis, Agnes 28, 36, 38, 304 Socrates 117 Solomon 66, 259, 260 soul 45, 160, 330, 333; of Mary 2, 10, 26-28, 37, 39, 44, 58, 59, 61, 188, 212, 215, 231, 232, 329, 330, 332, 333 Spiegelberg, Wilhelm 226, 228, 229, 233 Stada 101, 102 staff, given to Mary by the angel 110, 111 staff of Aaron 76, 112 Stromateis 72 Suciu, Alin 16, 17, 296 Symeon, prophet 212, 213 Synoptic Gospels 149 Syria 85, 142-144, 147-152, 165, 171, 173, 176, 196 Syriac 17, 24, 25, 28, 36-38, 48, 50, 52, 65, 66, 74, 78-80, 104, 110, 112, 117, 146-148, 150, 151, 159, 172, 187, 196, 209, 221, 222, 298, 300-305, 324, 325, 332 syzygos 153, 154 T Talmud 101 Tatian 69, 143-150, 152, 171

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 366

29/10/18 13:02

INDEX

367

Tertullian of Carthage 72, 182 Thecla 71, 204-206, 217 Theodosius II 90 Theodosius of Alexandria 110, 230, 231, 278, 289 Thermutis, daughter of pharaoh 215 Thomas 56, 154, 159, 170, 187, 332 thunder 59, 60 Tiberius, emperor 125, 128, 318, 322 Tischendorf , Konstantin 24, 193 ToledothYeshu 102 tomb, of Jesus 62, 75, 111, 125, 126, 135, 149, 263, 290, 315, 316, 322; of Elijah 115; of John the Baptist 115; of Mary 30, 33, 66, 68, 71, 98, 109-111, 222, 231, 232, 330, 332, 333 tomb’s 62, 144 tombs 108, 111, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121 Torah 129 tours, cosmic 18, 323; of Hell 324, 325 Tree of Life 4, 40, 48, 51, 59, 110, 231, 232, 271, 295, 324, 329, 332, 333 Trinity 190, 203, 206, 284, 286, 333 V Vatican 26, 27, 32, 328 veneration 15, 16, 29, 30, 33, 35, 79, 86, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 116-124, 127, 190, 191, 196-206, 208, 211, 214-220, 222-225, 328, 331, 334 Venice 332 vespers 15, 211, 223 Vienna fragment 16, 273, 274, 276, 277, 279, 280, 283, 285-288, 290, 292-294 virginity 70, 327, 333; Mary as model of 11, 64, 65, 287; of John 67; of Mary 13, 69, 85, 100-108, 126, 130, 133, 135, 195, 199, 200, 205, 213-215, 217, 219, 259, 260, 262 Voicu, Sever 7 W Wadi ’n Natrun 227 waters of trial 76, 104, 112, 289

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 367

29/10/18 13:02

STEPHEN J. SHOEMAKER

368

Wenger, Antoine 1, 22, 27, 32, 43, 47, 48, 59, 60, 275, 276, 279, 328, 335 White Monastery 227, 229, 230, 232, 233, 235, 274 Wright, William 36, 78, 186, 300-302, 304 Y Yemen

131

Z Zachariah, Catholicos

100214_Shoemaker_SECA 15_14_Index.indd 368

334

29/10/18 13:02